It's time to stop Mr Bay.
Director: Michael Bay
Writers: Art Marcum (Story and Screenplay)
Matt Holloway (Story and Screenplay)
Ken Nolan (Story and Screenplay)
Akiva Goldsman (Story)
Runtime: Too long for a late night screening - 2hr 29minutes
Plot: Shit was there even one? I'll just take the IMDb one because I really remember nothing about a plot in this film, something about Optimus Prime being evil to save his home planet for this mermaid robot or something but that's just a tool. - Autobots and Decepticons are at war, with humans on the sidelines. Optimus Prime is gone. The key to saving our future lies buried in the secrets of the past, in the hidden history of the Transformers on Earth.
Full disclaimer, I've only seen the Transformers films that have Shia in them and I thought they were alright. They got gradually worse but you see I was never paying attention to any of them, I knew they were terrible so I didn't care about them. This one, however, I did care about, because of Mark Wahlberg. Not for his acting, but his face and body. Don't get me wrong he's a good actor, just...not in this film, he's pretty bland so I think just having him in the film is good enough to get women in the seats. Didn't work in the screening I was in but whatever. Also, I'm aware that what I said was a bit sexist but after the comments made in this film about women, I think I've been given a free pass this once.
Let's get into it then, outside of Wahlberg's body, what else was good? Uh...well it's got a Dr Claw Decepticon and John Goodman is somewhere in there too. That's pretty cool. After looking up who was who I saw that Dr Claw Decepticon was Megatron and I know for a fact that that Decepticon didn't have Dr Claw's voice, so unless he was uncredited for another Transformer for a couple of lines I don't know. I just picked up on it and...I dunno man, I'm just kinda rambling to make this a paragraph.
Moving on from one little ramble to another, it looks like someone wants to connect this universe to the Once Upon A Time series. If you've not seen it and you have some time I suggest you look at it, it's pretty good. All seasons on Netflix. So how's that work out? What evidence do I have? Admittedly, it's not a lot of evidence, but I'm not saying this is gonna be a real theory or whatever but this film involves King Arthur played by Liam Garrigan, who does Garrigan play in Once Upon A Time? King Arthur. that's all the evidence I have so that means one of two things, this guy either looks like the ideal King Arthur or someone watched the show and thought "bruh, we gotta get this guy".
Right, getting down to it now, the film has all of those Michael Bay things such as not holding a shot in a fight scene for longer than a fifth of a millisecond, the misogyny, the explosions. But with all that, comes some relatively new things. Such as adding characters, that I think you're meant to care about because they have some sort of connection with other characters which is dumb because to care about characters you have to have more than a couple scenes and have something for these characters to relate to the audience with.
The lack of being able to hold a shot literally gave me a headache and I felt pretty sick and dizzy when the climax finally ended. Throughout all the fighting and shaking camera I couldn't see what the hell was even going on I mean, I get the thing where having the camera move more than humanly possible is to give off the feeling of...panic and such, but whenever I've been in a panic I've been aware of what's going on around me. Maybe I've just not been in a situation where this much panic has taken over my body that I can't fucking see shit but...
The misogyny in this was just...weird, and I mean just outright odd. Of course, there's the complete disregard of the woman's education with a Doctorate, a Philosophy degree and some other stuff and yet her family is written as these women who don't seem to care nor are proud of her for getting all these things, rather they want her to find a man. They look for a man in the personal ads in the paper which...who does that anymore? For real, there are so many online sites they could sign her up for but whatever. This family's weird though like they're excited to find someone who has a dungeon, when she brings back Wahlberg they trash her dead father's office, probably trashing valuable artefacts and papers and such which is bad enough but then shouting practically, out of your mouth, phrases that are obviously meant to sound somewhat sexual like...who shouts that? Then her family get excited that she's brought Mark Wahlberg home (who wouldn't be amirite?) they gather at the bottom of the stairs and listen in, then one of them says she's gonna go up and check on them like...honey no, don't do that. There's a scene where she gets kidnapped by Anthony Hopkins Transformer car which she has apparently been driving for a while, but that's whatever. She's smart enough to try and free herself and she's wearing a cute and professional pants suit. Why is the pants suit relevant? Because when she gets to Hopkins castle, she fights the Transformer and in the next scene she enters in a dress which literally shows off half of her bra. Where did Hopkins get that dress from? How did he know her size? Why is half of her bra showing??? Gross.
The explosions are...overused at best, nothing all that great. Spoiler!! There is an explosion in which it hits the ground right next to where Hopkins is stood, I'm not sure if it actually hits him or not but he gets thrown a few feet in the air and dies quietly and seemingly painlessly. I reject that. He died when that explosion hit. He died on impact when he hit the floor. He was dead long before his death scene. If the explosion hit him he was dead then, blown to pieces. He was not thrown a few feet in the air. Fuck that.
Another insult to basic science is in one little moment that I just...I can't let it go. The planet Cybertron is getting closer to Earth and in the process, practically destroys the moon. No big deal right? NO that's a big deal. The Earth would be fucked. Do you know what the moon does for us? It affects the tides, it lights up the night via reflection of the sun, I think it affects the rotation of the Earth but I'm literally going off GCSE Science here but I know that if we didn't have the moon, if it was destroyed by another planet getting closer and closer to us, Earth is fucked. They say something about destroying something on this other planet but they don't seem to get rid of the actual planet in our atmosphere, in our gravitational pull. Those scientists shouldn't be celebrating. But like I said, I'm going off GCSE Science and I'm probably ignorant to the true effects, I only vaguely know the basics.
Overall, I think it was trash, but that's because this wasn't directed at me. This was directed at the 3 13-year-old boys sat in front of me and they seemed to enjoy it enough. It's not harmful or anything, it's not...the worst thing I've ever seen and trust me, I've seen some really terrible films. Apprently there are 14 more Transformers films already written, one of them tempting Bay to stick around and direct it, but as of writing this is Bay's last time directing a Transformer film. Maybe the next 14 will pick up...
That's it for today, Peace Out.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film please go and support its creators by buying tickets to go see it in cinemas / buying the DVD or Bluray when the time comes.
Thursday 29 June 2017
13 Reasons Why - Episode 11
Clay's tape...
13 Reasons Why
Episode 11: Tape 10, Side A
Ya girl's back, I took an extended break from the series because I knew this episode was next and I didn't want to see this character hurt and I didn't want to know of Hannah's reason for it even though I kind of already knew what it was. Either way, I avoided it because I wasn't looking forward to it but you can't keep running from your commitments.
Episode Plot: Clay finds out how "he killed Hannah" and...it's equal parts stupid and heartbreaking.
Opening credits: These are still some ugly, headache inducing opening credits. The music, however, does seem to fit with the tone of the show. The music is a little uncomfortable and the topics of suicide/teen suicide/blaming everyone around you for your choice to end your life are uncomfortable and in the case of this show, controversial. I stand by what I said in an earlier review that Th1rteen R3asons Why is still fuck ugly and shouldn't be a thing that they continue into the second series.
Go away: What did Clay do to Hannah to kill her then? He did as she asked. They were alone together, getting ready to do the do but then she gets flashbacks to everything that's happened to her before and she freaks out and gets upset. Fair enough, Clay asks her what's up and she just tells him to leave her alone and that she doesn't wanna see him. So he does as he's told, he respects her wishes and leaves her to it. How does Hannah manipulate the situation for her to be the victim? She says Quote: "But you walked out the door like I told you to. Why did you have to leave?" ...??????
Excuse me, honey, no man is psychic in fact a lot of them are idiots but half of the time I think that's down to us not explaining ourselves. If you wanted to be left alone but not then just ask him to sit with you for a bit, maybe he would have sat and calmed you down, told you he loved you maybe. This is such a problem with people, mostly girls but some guys do it too where they say one thing but mean another, there are memes about it and it's not a healthy thing to do. Do not expect anybody to read your mind when you say one thing but mean another. If you want someone to leave you alone but stay with you then say that and lay out the boundaries, if you're hungry and know what to eat don't say "I don't know" then shoot down every option you're given unless your option is given. Don't do that, what do you achieve in doing that? It seems pretty manipulative the more you think about it, doesn't it? You're controlling whoever you're doing this to and it makes them feel bad when you call them out on it when...you're the one being an ass. Just my opinion tho, if you wanna be that kind of person then you go for it, nothing I say is gonna stop you.
I love you: This episode made me cry, I won't deny it, I'm human. I cry at everything lately I mean...the other day I said I'd fight someone or something, Ben said no you're too soft so I was like nah, I'm not soft I'll fuckin fight and he said, out of his mouth, to my face "no, you're more like a liquid". Man, that set me right off, I was in tears from being called a fucking liquid. Point being, my boyfriend gave me the weakest insult and I cry over the smallest things.
The scene that made me cry in this episode wasn't a small thing, it was a scene in which Clay was thinking about how things could have gone differently, how he should have pressed Hannah for an answer to see if she was ok and what was up, how he should have told her he loved her, how she said "why couldn't you say that when I was alive" and...fuck man it's just heavy. Like it's heavy because if you've gone through any kind of loss, whether it be falling out with a friend, to ripping a plastic bag to death, you can spend a hell of a lot of time just dwelling on what you could have done differently, what you could have said differently to ensure things go down a different path. It's heartbreaking to just watch this scene, even worse to see Clay stand on the edge of a cliff wanting to jump off because he was too scared to tell Hannah he loved her and because he believes he was the one who killed her.
Texting the victim: Moving on from sadness we get some anger. Justin gets into an argument with his step-dad/mothers boyfriend and leaves, heads over to Bryce's house where he finds Jessica, a little drunk and playing cards with her rapist. In an attempt to upset Justin further she sits on Bryce's lap and Justin reacts by dragging her the hell out of there, she's like "go on, say it bitch, tell me what my drunk ass knows" and he does, he tells her Bryce raped her and she fucking slaps him. I understand that but like...shouldn't you have done that to Bryce too???? Then, later in the night, Jessica is crying on her bed, obviously trying to come to terms with what's happened and you know what happens? Fucking Bryce. Bryce has the balls to text her saying something like "hey you ok?" Like, no, that's gross and inappropriate and I hope you get what's coming to you butthead. Fuck off.
Those were the big points for this episode. It's a heavy one but an important one and it made me cry. Peace out, see you tomorrow.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this episode/series. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this series then go and support its creators by watching it again on its platform.
13 Reasons Why
Episode 11: Tape 10, Side A
Ya girl's back, I took an extended break from the series because I knew this episode was next and I didn't want to see this character hurt and I didn't want to know of Hannah's reason for it even though I kind of already knew what it was. Either way, I avoided it because I wasn't looking forward to it but you can't keep running from your commitments.
Episode Plot: Clay finds out how "he killed Hannah" and...it's equal parts stupid and heartbreaking.
Opening credits: These are still some ugly, headache inducing opening credits. The music, however, does seem to fit with the tone of the show. The music is a little uncomfortable and the topics of suicide/teen suicide/blaming everyone around you for your choice to end your life are uncomfortable and in the case of this show, controversial. I stand by what I said in an earlier review that Th1rteen R3asons Why is still fuck ugly and shouldn't be a thing that they continue into the second series.
Go away: What did Clay do to Hannah to kill her then? He did as she asked. They were alone together, getting ready to do the do but then she gets flashbacks to everything that's happened to her before and she freaks out and gets upset. Fair enough, Clay asks her what's up and she just tells him to leave her alone and that she doesn't wanna see him. So he does as he's told, he respects her wishes and leaves her to it. How does Hannah manipulate the situation for her to be the victim? She says Quote: "But you walked out the door like I told you to. Why did you have to leave?" ...??????
Excuse me, honey, no man is psychic in fact a lot of them are idiots but half of the time I think that's down to us not explaining ourselves. If you wanted to be left alone but not then just ask him to sit with you for a bit, maybe he would have sat and calmed you down, told you he loved you maybe. This is such a problem with people, mostly girls but some guys do it too where they say one thing but mean another, there are memes about it and it's not a healthy thing to do. Do not expect anybody to read your mind when you say one thing but mean another. If you want someone to leave you alone but stay with you then say that and lay out the boundaries, if you're hungry and know what to eat don't say "I don't know" then shoot down every option you're given unless your option is given. Don't do that, what do you achieve in doing that? It seems pretty manipulative the more you think about it, doesn't it? You're controlling whoever you're doing this to and it makes them feel bad when you call them out on it when...you're the one being an ass. Just my opinion tho, if you wanna be that kind of person then you go for it, nothing I say is gonna stop you.
I love you: This episode made me cry, I won't deny it, I'm human. I cry at everything lately I mean...the other day I said I'd fight someone or something, Ben said no you're too soft so I was like nah, I'm not soft I'll fuckin fight and he said, out of his mouth, to my face "no, you're more like a liquid". Man, that set me right off, I was in tears from being called a fucking liquid. Point being, my boyfriend gave me the weakest insult and I cry over the smallest things.
The scene that made me cry in this episode wasn't a small thing, it was a scene in which Clay was thinking about how things could have gone differently, how he should have pressed Hannah for an answer to see if she was ok and what was up, how he should have told her he loved her, how she said "why couldn't you say that when I was alive" and...fuck man it's just heavy. Like it's heavy because if you've gone through any kind of loss, whether it be falling out with a friend, to ripping a plastic bag to death, you can spend a hell of a lot of time just dwelling on what you could have done differently, what you could have said differently to ensure things go down a different path. It's heartbreaking to just watch this scene, even worse to see Clay stand on the edge of a cliff wanting to jump off because he was too scared to tell Hannah he loved her and because he believes he was the one who killed her.
Texting the victim: Moving on from sadness we get some anger. Justin gets into an argument with his step-dad/mothers boyfriend and leaves, heads over to Bryce's house where he finds Jessica, a little drunk and playing cards with her rapist. In an attempt to upset Justin further she sits on Bryce's lap and Justin reacts by dragging her the hell out of there, she's like "go on, say it bitch, tell me what my drunk ass knows" and he does, he tells her Bryce raped her and she fucking slaps him. I understand that but like...shouldn't you have done that to Bryce too???? Then, later in the night, Jessica is crying on her bed, obviously trying to come to terms with what's happened and you know what happens? Fucking Bryce. Bryce has the balls to text her saying something like "hey you ok?" Like, no, that's gross and inappropriate and I hope you get what's coming to you butthead. Fuck off.
Those were the big points for this episode. It's a heavy one but an important one and it made me cry. Peace out, see you tomorrow.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this episode/series. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this series then go and support its creators by watching it again on its platform.
Tuesday 27 June 2017
Lucy
It is definitely not 100% acc-u-rat.
Director: Luc Besson
Writer: Luc Besson
Runtime: 1hr 30 minutes
Plot: A woman in China / Japan / Taiwan (never specified) gets pushed into being a drug mule for a mob boss. After a series of events happen she is able to unlock 100% of her brain.
What do I even say about this? It's such a half and half film. It's a good idea but just falls on its face, it's got a pretty good couple of leads but it does nearly nothing with them, it acts like it like it has something important to say but then...doesn't. There's a difference between leaving something open ended and just tagging on a "philosophical" ending.
Let's just get into it, positively speaking this was a short film, only 90 minutes meaning it didn't drain as much of my life as some other films, I felt blessed to have gotten to watch a film that's short but then while I was paying attention, the shorter run time meant that character development and building a connection between characters was sacrificed. All we know about Johansson's character Lucy, is that she dated the guy who got her into this mess for a week or something, she has exams coming up, doesn't speak the language of the land she's on and has a roommate who is an actor who also can't read the language of the land she's on. What do we know about Morgan Freeman's Professor character? That he's a professor who's written a fuck load of pages on the human brain and that he's Morgan Freeman. What do we know about the antagonist? Fuck all. That's a huge fucking problem, in order for us to root for the protagonist we have to make some sort of connection rather than just have exposition thrown at us. We need to relate to them and feel threatened by the villain but that's not what we're given here. We're given dull fuck characters with no connection to the audience, just exposition. Fuck character development right?
The plot? As I said before, it's a good idea, what could we achieve if we unlocked the full capacity of our brains? Problem is, this film explains it in a way that makes the audience feel like they're in a lecture rather than wanting to learn more about this myth. The science in this film is definitely not correct and in fact, the whole idea this film is based on has been debunked. Honestly, the biggest problem this plot has is wasted potential. It's rushed, giving us no time to fully understand what's going on, we just see Lucy go through this stuff and because her brain capacity has increased she knows what's going on with herself and yet...the audience doesn't really get an explanation. Actually no, I say that she knows what's going on but she both does and doesn't know what's happening, one minute she's all over her own case, she knows what's up and can deal with it, then at other points, she has no fucking idea what's occurring.
Lucy is such a problem as a character, as I said before we can't connect with her because we know nothing about her, yet what we do know is a problem. She doesn't know the language of the land she's on, we don't even know the land she's on. It looks like Tokyo, her roommate says she can't read Chinese and later in the film the French police guy gets a call from Lucy in Taiwan? Like??? Did I miss a scene telling me where I'm at or something? Did I have to read the script to know where I am? It's like playing a game of Where's Wally except I'm in the dark...and blindfolded...and I wasn't given the book. Another problem is just the way she deals with what's happening to her, anybody would be freaking out with no bounds. Nobody would be this calm, even with their brain capacity enhanced. She's just not a real person and that stresses me the fuck out. Lucy also says she has exams coming up, exams for what? What are your interests girl? What are you studying? What are you sacrificing? What do you have to lose? How did you go to your classes without knowing the language of the land you're on? Fuck.
I also have many many issues with Lucy's roommate, despite the fact that she's only on screen for like 5 minutes or so. She's an actor, apparently looking to make it...wherever she is, saying she can't read Chinese which...as an actor, script reading is a pretty important thing to have to do. No wonder she wasn't getting any callbacks, she's riding on her looks to get parts but honey, if you got the part then you'd have to read a damn script. Unless it was a silent film, but then wouldn't you have to be able to speak the language to be able to communicate with those on set? Bitch you gotta learn shit to get places, especially if you're living in a foreign country and can't read/speak the most common language there. I know I keep going on about that but it's important. Communication is important. Damn.
I'm aware I've just gone on and on about what a naff film it is due to the characters being bland and not knowing shit, but overall it's a well put together film with a good idea behind it, it's just too flawed for me to be able to enjoy it. If you can just switch off your brain and just look at this film and enjoy it for what it is then great! I'm a minority of people who apparently didn't like this according to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which speaks something for my opinion but whatever.
Hope you enjoyed reading this, I know I went on and on about a couple of specific points but like, there's more stupid shit in this film that I couldn't get into or I'd lose a brain cell. I'm gonna leave you with this quote from the film's main character when she thinks she's about to die and speaking to her mother on the phone, peace out guys. Quote: "I remember the taste of your milk in my mouth."
This was also a requested film and if you wanna request something for me to look at then drop a comment here or hit me up on any contact method listed on my Contact info page and I'll put whatever it is on my list for next month, unless it's already on my list for this month but y'know.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Luc Besson
Writer: Luc Besson
Runtime: 1hr 30 minutes
Plot: A woman in China / Japan / Taiwan (never specified) gets pushed into being a drug mule for a mob boss. After a series of events happen she is able to unlock 100% of her brain.
What do I even say about this? It's such a half and half film. It's a good idea but just falls on its face, it's got a pretty good couple of leads but it does nearly nothing with them, it acts like it like it has something important to say but then...doesn't. There's a difference between leaving something open ended and just tagging on a "philosophical" ending.
Let's just get into it, positively speaking this was a short film, only 90 minutes meaning it didn't drain as much of my life as some other films, I felt blessed to have gotten to watch a film that's short but then while I was paying attention, the shorter run time meant that character development and building a connection between characters was sacrificed. All we know about Johansson's character Lucy, is that she dated the guy who got her into this mess for a week or something, she has exams coming up, doesn't speak the language of the land she's on and has a roommate who is an actor who also can't read the language of the land she's on. What do we know about Morgan Freeman's Professor character? That he's a professor who's written a fuck load of pages on the human brain and that he's Morgan Freeman. What do we know about the antagonist? Fuck all. That's a huge fucking problem, in order for us to root for the protagonist we have to make some sort of connection rather than just have exposition thrown at us. We need to relate to them and feel threatened by the villain but that's not what we're given here. We're given dull fuck characters with no connection to the audience, just exposition. Fuck character development right?
The plot? As I said before, it's a good idea, what could we achieve if we unlocked the full capacity of our brains? Problem is, this film explains it in a way that makes the audience feel like they're in a lecture rather than wanting to learn more about this myth. The science in this film is definitely not correct and in fact, the whole idea this film is based on has been debunked. Honestly, the biggest problem this plot has is wasted potential. It's rushed, giving us no time to fully understand what's going on, we just see Lucy go through this stuff and because her brain capacity has increased she knows what's going on with herself and yet...the audience doesn't really get an explanation. Actually no, I say that she knows what's going on but she both does and doesn't know what's happening, one minute she's all over her own case, she knows what's up and can deal with it, then at other points, she has no fucking idea what's occurring.
Lucy is such a problem as a character, as I said before we can't connect with her because we know nothing about her, yet what we do know is a problem. She doesn't know the language of the land she's on, we don't even know the land she's on. It looks like Tokyo, her roommate says she can't read Chinese and later in the film the French police guy gets a call from Lucy in Taiwan? Like??? Did I miss a scene telling me where I'm at or something? Did I have to read the script to know where I am? It's like playing a game of Where's Wally except I'm in the dark...and blindfolded...and I wasn't given the book. Another problem is just the way she deals with what's happening to her, anybody would be freaking out with no bounds. Nobody would be this calm, even with their brain capacity enhanced. She's just not a real person and that stresses me the fuck out. Lucy also says she has exams coming up, exams for what? What are your interests girl? What are you studying? What are you sacrificing? What do you have to lose? How did you go to your classes without knowing the language of the land you're on? Fuck.
I also have many many issues with Lucy's roommate, despite the fact that she's only on screen for like 5 minutes or so. She's an actor, apparently looking to make it...wherever she is, saying she can't read Chinese which...as an actor, script reading is a pretty important thing to have to do. No wonder she wasn't getting any callbacks, she's riding on her looks to get parts but honey, if you got the part then you'd have to read a damn script. Unless it was a silent film, but then wouldn't you have to be able to speak the language to be able to communicate with those on set? Bitch you gotta learn shit to get places, especially if you're living in a foreign country and can't read/speak the most common language there. I know I keep going on about that but it's important. Communication is important. Damn.
I'm aware I've just gone on and on about what a naff film it is due to the characters being bland and not knowing shit, but overall it's a well put together film with a good idea behind it, it's just too flawed for me to be able to enjoy it. If you can just switch off your brain and just look at this film and enjoy it for what it is then great! I'm a minority of people who apparently didn't like this according to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic which speaks something for my opinion but whatever.
Hope you enjoyed reading this, I know I went on and on about a couple of specific points but like, there's more stupid shit in this film that I couldn't get into or I'd lose a brain cell. I'm gonna leave you with this quote from the film's main character when she thinks she's about to die and speaking to her mother on the phone, peace out guys. Quote: "I remember the taste of your milk in my mouth."
This was also a requested film and if you wanna request something for me to look at then drop a comment here or hit me up on any contact method listed on my Contact info page and I'll put whatever it is on my list for next month, unless it's already on my list for this month but y'know.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Sunday 25 June 2017
Stop the sequels. I mean it. Stop...And stop remaking & rebooting stuff too.
I'm bored and wanted to write something so...this is that something.
So I was having a look at horror films coming up this year because that's my shit, I love horror because since I was traumatised as a child, I was desensitised to fear to come from an onscreen villain. I wouldn't advise all children do this, hell even any children. Back to the point, I love horror films and I always get excited when I see one advertised, ones that looked insanely good that more than lived up to expectations were Split (yes it is classed as a horror, I double checked it) and Get Out. However, while looking online at films that are coming...there's more sequels and reboots than there is originality which personally, I think defeats the point of true horror. If we keep seeing the same thing and don't get introduced to new concepts we're going to laugh rather than be scared. Look at the Paranormal Activity series, everyone thought that shit was scary when the first one came out, now look at it, 6 fucking films in and nobody cares about it anymore because it's lost its fear factor. Hell, it's even taken some of the life from the found footage genre because it all just looks and does the same thing now.
While on my search, do you wanna know how many sequels and reboots I saw? Well, you've read this far so I'm gonna tell you whether you wanna know or not: 25! Twenty fucking five. and I went through every list on the first page of google search, I looked at every single thing. Some are reboots, fair enough whatever, but most are sequels and a good chunk of them aren't even fucking warranted. Who's the shit who keeps begging for more Wrong Turn films? Who?! Show yourself. I can't get too angry, everyone has that one stupid thing they enjoy and judging by the stupidity of the human race lately I suppose it's not that far-fetched that people want more Wrong Turn films. But fuck me, why? If anyone reading this actually likes those films hit me up and let me know why ok? I just want to know the appeal.
So while I'm here, I'm gonna share with you what I found and what I think about it summed up in a short sentence or two. It's also not gonna be in any specific order, just the order that I found them in.
Already released
So I was having a look at horror films coming up this year because that's my shit, I love horror because since I was traumatised as a child, I was desensitised to fear to come from an onscreen villain. I wouldn't advise all children do this, hell even any children. Back to the point, I love horror films and I always get excited when I see one advertised, ones that looked insanely good that more than lived up to expectations were Split (yes it is classed as a horror, I double checked it) and Get Out. However, while looking online at films that are coming...there's more sequels and reboots than there is originality which personally, I think defeats the point of true horror. If we keep seeing the same thing and don't get introduced to new concepts we're going to laugh rather than be scared. Look at the Paranormal Activity series, everyone thought that shit was scary when the first one came out, now look at it, 6 fucking films in and nobody cares about it anymore because it's lost its fear factor. Hell, it's even taken some of the life from the found footage genre because it all just looks and does the same thing now.
While on my search, do you wanna know how many sequels and reboots I saw? Well, you've read this far so I'm gonna tell you whether you wanna know or not: 25! Twenty fucking five. and I went through every list on the first page of google search, I looked at every single thing. Some are reboots, fair enough whatever, but most are sequels and a good chunk of them aren't even fucking warranted. Who's the shit who keeps begging for more Wrong Turn films? Who?! Show yourself. I can't get too angry, everyone has that one stupid thing they enjoy and judging by the stupidity of the human race lately I suppose it's not that far-fetched that people want more Wrong Turn films. But fuck me, why? If anyone reading this actually likes those films hit me up and let me know why ok? I just want to know the appeal.
So while I'm here, I'm gonna share with you what I found and what I think about it summed up in a short sentence or two. It's also not gonna be in any specific order, just the order that I found them in.
Already released
- Rings. I didn't see it, I had no interest in it, I barely have any interest in the original. It's on this list because it's a reboot.
- Alien: Covenant. This sucked, like...really sucked. It was boring, barely followed through on its ideas, had a criminal underuse of James Franco, pulled the dumbest twist right out of its arse. The "twist" wasn't even good, you could see it coming. It would have been better if they just didn't bother and let us think that's where it was going but...not go there if you get what I mean. It was just a pretty wank film in all honesty.
- Kong: Skull Island. I think Ben and I were gonna see this but we went for something else....Not sure. It did look pretty good though.
- Resident Evil: Vendetta. How many of these are there? Hold on. 6 or 7 I think. Why? Wasn't the last one called The Final Chapter? Shouldn't that mean it's the last one? Damn, ya'll are money hungry.
Sequels
- Halloween: The Night Evil Died. While looking this up, it seems as though it's not a corporate thing, more a fan film. I looked up a trailer and there wasn't one. Just gonna have to take this with a grain of salt, but there is a Twitter page for it, an IMDb page and an Indiegogo fundraising page describing this as a film "By fans, for fans." So hopefully it's good. If you want more info then go and look it up.
- Children of the Corn: Runaway. If you haven't seen the first one, go look it up, it's a Stephen King short story and it's such a strange choice yet...it's just golden. It's not good by any means but it's golden. So looking at this title I have mixed feelings, they could modern horror all over it (jumpscares, complicated plot, no Issac, gore) and that won't be good but you never know. It could be campy and fun and all that, so I'm holding out hope.
- Jeepers Creepers 3: Cathedral. According to the Wikipedia article, this film takes place between the first and second film. I fucking hate "midquels" There's no point. You can't have a sequel then have an idea for before the sequel but after the original. Focus on your future, not your past. That's all I've got to say on the matter.
- Wrong Turn 7. Nobody asked for this. Why is it happening? Upon further investigation, it seems like this is a hoax, yet some other articles are saying it's already started filming and is due for a release this year. I don't know and I don't care about it. If you wanna know more look it for yourself. This series is shit and gets worse with every instalment.
- Jigsaw. Previously titled Saw Legacy. I don't know what's going to happen with this, this could be a prequel considering it looks like Tobin Bell (John Kramer aka Jigsaw) might be a part of it, but then again they could just bring the very long dead (technically not) killer back to life and fuck with it. Maybe he had a sperm sample somewhere and one of his followers impregnated herself and it's his kid that's doing this. That'd be a cool angle to come from. Looking at the plot synopsis on IMDb it seems as though it's someone mimicking the murders, or Kramer is back and on the kill again. With a series seemingly grounded in a reality similar to ours ie: dead people don't come back to life, it seems a bit silly to bring the dead back to life. We'll just have to see.
- Insidious: Chapter 4. While looking this up properly, it seems as though the internet doesn't know when this is happening, only that it is. an IMDb article says 2018 but when you type into the search bar "Insidious 4 release date" you get 3 November 2017. After looking at a couple of articles it seems as though Google is wrong. This is being released in January of 2018. Sorry to have wasted your time but it was originally scheduled for 2017 so it's staying on the list.
- Chucky 7: Cult of Chucky. Can we just leave this doll be? Didn't the series get so stupid it started parodying itself like the Elm Street series? I hope this stays silly though because an attempt to "toughen up" this series seems a little redundant at this point.
- Annabelle 2: Creation. Didn't we get this dolls origin story in the last one? Why add on yet another origin story onto it? There's no point but you know my dumb ass is gonna see this because I already saw the first one.
- Underworld: Blood Wars. I have literally no idea about this series except that this will be the 6th. Is it not time to stop?
- Deathgasm 2: Goremageddon. I don't know a single thing about the original film, but fuck, when this is out I'm gonna find it and watch the hell out of it just because of the title.
- Sharknado 5: Global Swarming. I only know about this because Ben loves this series, and I can't blame him really because I kind of love the first Sharknado film. It's so weird how this has become a thing considering it's so shit but maybe that's why it's a thing. Either way, it's set for a summer release this year.
Reboots / Remakes.
- Puppet Master: The littlest Reich. This is apparently a big series, yet it's not talked about like all the other big series. That means one of two things, it's low budget underrated brilliance, or it's crap. I don't know, I've never seen any of them so I can't comment.
- Hellraiser: Judgement. This is a pretty interesting one, personally, I've only ever been interested in Hellraiser because of the makeup. I've never seen any of the films but I've watched documentaries talking about the making of these films and it looks pretty good, maybe I'll actually watch the series before this comes out.
- IT. I'm both glad and exhausted by this one. It's going to be a two-part thing which...if you've seen the mini-series/film or even looked at a copy of the book then you'll know that splitting this into two parts is a good idea. However, this isn't going to have my beloved Tim Curry in it and I just pray that Bill Skarsgård doesn't try to copy Curry's version of Pennywise and instead does his own thing and makes this version of the character his own. I'm already down for this to at least see what they do with it.
- Day of the dead. A remake of George A Romero's zombie film probably update for a 2017 audience rather than a timeless purpose? No thanks, but we'll see how it goes.
There are a few other reboots such as Flatliners, Manic Cop, Tower of Terror, Suspiria and Re-animator: evolution but I've neither seen nor heard of those films and didn't feel like repeating myself.
The true horror seems to be a fear of something new, but with new content that's out like Split, Get Out, The Belko Experiment and the few others we've been treated to, maybe audiences will be more open to putting money into something new rather than something they're comfortable with. Hell, didn't our parents always tell us we're not gonna get anywhere if we stay in our comfort zones? Why aren't we listening to that? Because we've gotten way too comfortable in our comfort zones and we need something to kick us out of that mindset.
I also understand that filmmaking is a business and a new idea is always a risk but...isn't it worth the risk to challenge your audience with new and possibly uncomfortable ideas rather than just spoon feeding us the same thing over and over again because you know it's gonna bring in the big money? You'd get tired of chicken for every meal of the day, at some point you'd start to feel sick from it, maybe even start to hate it, forcing you to withdraw from chicken altogether meaning the chicken industry will lose out. You don't want that do you Hollywood? Do you guys even care? Probably not because you're getting paid to make these things which is sad because big companies can afford to take risks, in fact, it's healthy to take risks and possibly fail. You can grow past it, I promise. If you can't do that then please, at least for every reboot or sequel or prequel or fucking midquel, can we have something new just so that we have a choice to expand our minds?
Anyway, that's it, I'm gonna watch Death Becomes Her because it's damn good, peace out and I'll see you on Tuesday.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the idea of the films listed then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the films in cinemas or the DVD or Bluray when they're available for home release.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the idea of the films listed then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the films in cinemas or the DVD or Bluray when they're available for home release.
Thursday 22 June 2017
13 Reasons Why - Episode 10
I'm so super extra mad about this.
13 Reasons Why
Episode 10: Tape 9, Side B
At the time of writing, it is 4:02 am and I have barely slept this whole week, however, through my sleep deprived enlightenment I have worked out the formula to this episode. This episode has a specific formula to it. It's filler, then a bombshell then rinse and repeat. It's not a good formula, it's not even an ok formula. The bombshells were kind of hit and miss and one of them was just plain horrible. Let's enjoy this...whatever the hell I type out about it.
Episode plot: It's Sheri's turn on the tapes, I think, the episode is more about Jeff (Brandon Larracuuente)'s death...I think. Honestly, I don't know what the hell happened to this one.
Murder...kinda: After witnessing Jessica get raped Hannah stays at the party and is kind of zoned out of reality, to the point where Sheri offers to take her home. Hannah accepts as long as Sheri isn't drunk and to prove that, Sheri does a cartwheel. Fair enough. Hannah says she can't go home drunk because she'll get lynched by her parents so Sheri says she can stay at her dad's with her. Hannah goes to either call or text her parents but sees her phone is dead so asks Sheri if she can use hers, Sheri says go for it and starts looking for her phone, takes her eyes off the wheel for a second and knocks a stop sign over. This is probably responsible for the car collision which kills Jeff.
Neither girl reports the incident at the time, mostly because Sheri is driving her father's car and is scared she fucked it up and wants to just get home whereas Hannah's guilt from not doing anything about Jessica's rape and feels a sudden urge to do the right thing here and when she does get a chance to call in the incident, someone has already beaten her to it. Of course, she thinks it's just about the stop sign but, big shock, Jeff is dead.
Bombshell No.1: So remember when I said that someone had beaten Hannah to calling in the incident? Of course you do, you read about it like 10 seconds ago. Turns out, it wasn't the stop sign being knocked over, it was the car accident which killed Jeff. This is nowhere near as impactful as it should have been and let me tell you why. Hannah is, at first, devastated and understandably so. She couldn't stop a rape and then she indirectly caused the death of one of her schoolmates, hell if I went through that I probably wouldn't be able to drag myself out of bed. She tearfully goes to Clay, I'm guessing to try and tell him what went down, and he just tells her outright that she has no right to be this upset because she hardly knew him and she always has to make it a melodrama about her.
I kind of see where he's coming from with this I mean, one of his close friends died and a girl who seems to make a drama out of everything comes up to him in tears. He's clearly feeling a fair amount of grief and doesn't need another drama on top of what he's going through so from his perspective at the time, it's understandable. He wants to deal with the death of his friend before having to deal with what he think's is petty melodrama from Hannah.
Who called it in?: Clay. Clay was the one who called in the death of his friend which is probably one of the most panic-filled moments of this kids entire life. He's seen death and he's known that person. That shit stays with you for a long time, and it makes Clay's reaction to Hannah approaching him a little more understandable.
Jeff's death: What I don't understand about this is that...I should care, even with my own experience with death, I should care that Clay found his close friend dead in such horrible circumstances. I don't. Why? Becuase there was only a basic connection established between the Jeff and Clay and there was also nothing that gave me any sort of connection to Jeff as a character. This guy's death literally felt like it was just shoved into the story just to serve Hannah and her journey to her death. This should have been a scene where you can feel something with Clay rather than for him and it just doesn't come across that way.
Bombshell No2.: Breaking news. Clay killed Hannah!!! Now let me tell you why I'm mad about this. If Clay did kill Hannah, why wouldn't she just make him one tape, just for him to tell what a scumbag he is? No. She made all of us waste our damn time on these tapes. Add to that, if she really wanted to be the ultimate sadist (which she has proven herself to be so far) wouldn't she have made him the very last tape? I dunno, fishy as hell.
Padding: This episode's biggest problem is that it's nothing especially important aside from the end, it's just padding, and nobody likes padding. I've heard that the series is based on a book where the events take place in just one day so transferring it to a series with 13 episodes is gonna need some padding but still, it's like they took all the padding from every episode in this series and the upcoming second series and just threw it into this episode. That might be an exaggeration but I don't care.
Fun story: It took me over a month to finish this and I genuinely thought I only had about one or two paragraphs written but I was farther than I thought. Thinking about it, this may not have been a "fun story" more, a stupid anecdote but I'm exhausted and slightly dehydrated and I don't wanna take a bath or shower because I'm a girl and love my showers/baths scalding hot. Don't feel like landing myself in a metaphorical hell rather than a real life one.
That's it folks, see you in the next one. Peace out and stay hydrated x
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this episode/series. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this series then go and support its creators by watching it again on its platform.
13 Reasons Why
Episode 10: Tape 9, Side B
At the time of writing, it is 4:02 am and I have barely slept this whole week, however, through my sleep deprived enlightenment I have worked out the formula to this episode. This episode has a specific formula to it. It's filler, then a bombshell then rinse and repeat. It's not a good formula, it's not even an ok formula. The bombshells were kind of hit and miss and one of them was just plain horrible. Let's enjoy this...whatever the hell I type out about it.
Episode plot: It's Sheri's turn on the tapes, I think, the episode is more about Jeff (Brandon Larracuuente)'s death...I think. Honestly, I don't know what the hell happened to this one.
Murder...kinda: After witnessing Jessica get raped Hannah stays at the party and is kind of zoned out of reality, to the point where Sheri offers to take her home. Hannah accepts as long as Sheri isn't drunk and to prove that, Sheri does a cartwheel. Fair enough. Hannah says she can't go home drunk because she'll get lynched by her parents so Sheri says she can stay at her dad's with her. Hannah goes to either call or text her parents but sees her phone is dead so asks Sheri if she can use hers, Sheri says go for it and starts looking for her phone, takes her eyes off the wheel for a second and knocks a stop sign over. This is probably responsible for the car collision which kills Jeff.
Neither girl reports the incident at the time, mostly because Sheri is driving her father's car and is scared she fucked it up and wants to just get home whereas Hannah's guilt from not doing anything about Jessica's rape and feels a sudden urge to do the right thing here and when she does get a chance to call in the incident, someone has already beaten her to it. Of course, she thinks it's just about the stop sign but, big shock, Jeff is dead.
Bombshell No.1: So remember when I said that someone had beaten Hannah to calling in the incident? Of course you do, you read about it like 10 seconds ago. Turns out, it wasn't the stop sign being knocked over, it was the car accident which killed Jeff. This is nowhere near as impactful as it should have been and let me tell you why. Hannah is, at first, devastated and understandably so. She couldn't stop a rape and then she indirectly caused the death of one of her schoolmates, hell if I went through that I probably wouldn't be able to drag myself out of bed. She tearfully goes to Clay, I'm guessing to try and tell him what went down, and he just tells her outright that she has no right to be this upset because she hardly knew him and she always has to make it a melodrama about her.
I kind of see where he's coming from with this I mean, one of his close friends died and a girl who seems to make a drama out of everything comes up to him in tears. He's clearly feeling a fair amount of grief and doesn't need another drama on top of what he's going through so from his perspective at the time, it's understandable. He wants to deal with the death of his friend before having to deal with what he think's is petty melodrama from Hannah.
Who called it in?: Clay. Clay was the one who called in the death of his friend which is probably one of the most panic-filled moments of this kids entire life. He's seen death and he's known that person. That shit stays with you for a long time, and it makes Clay's reaction to Hannah approaching him a little more understandable.
Jeff's death: What I don't understand about this is that...I should care, even with my own experience with death, I should care that Clay found his close friend dead in such horrible circumstances. I don't. Why? Becuase there was only a basic connection established between the Jeff and Clay and there was also nothing that gave me any sort of connection to Jeff as a character. This guy's death literally felt like it was just shoved into the story just to serve Hannah and her journey to her death. This should have been a scene where you can feel something with Clay rather than for him and it just doesn't come across that way.
Bombshell No2.: Breaking news. Clay killed Hannah!!! Now let me tell you why I'm mad about this. If Clay did kill Hannah, why wouldn't she just make him one tape, just for him to tell what a scumbag he is? No. She made all of us waste our damn time on these tapes. Add to that, if she really wanted to be the ultimate sadist (which she has proven herself to be so far) wouldn't she have made him the very last tape? I dunno, fishy as hell.
Padding: This episode's biggest problem is that it's nothing especially important aside from the end, it's just padding, and nobody likes padding. I've heard that the series is based on a book where the events take place in just one day so transferring it to a series with 13 episodes is gonna need some padding but still, it's like they took all the padding from every episode in this series and the upcoming second series and just threw it into this episode. That might be an exaggeration but I don't care.
Fun story: It took me over a month to finish this and I genuinely thought I only had about one or two paragraphs written but I was farther than I thought. Thinking about it, this may not have been a "fun story" more, a stupid anecdote but I'm exhausted and slightly dehydrated and I don't wanna take a bath or shower because I'm a girl and love my showers/baths scalding hot. Don't feel like landing myself in a metaphorical hell rather than a real life one.
That's it folks, see you in the next one. Peace out and stay hydrated x
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this episode/series. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this series then go and support its creators by watching it again on its platform.
Wednesday 21 June 2017
Psycho (1998)
The amount of times I've tried to watch this and been unable to get through it is amazing.
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writers: Joseph Stefano (Screenplay)
Robert Bloch (Novel)
Runtime: 1hr 45 minutes
Plot: A young woman steals from her boss and ends up at a hotel, meeting the strange Norman Bates, a man who runs the hotel with a strange love for both stuffed birds and his mother.
This is something that did not have to happen, and I mean that with every fibre of my soul. The original was about as close to perfect as you can get a film to be. I'm not 100% sure as to why this was remade, maybe it was to see how audiences would react to the exact same film, but in colour and with (obviously) younger actors. For the most part, the reaction was what you'd think it'd be; "Don't touch that classic" However, while reading what people thought about it on Rotten Tomatoes it seems like a lot more people enjoyed it, including the fact that Vince Vaughn was a good replacement for Anthony Perkins as the deranged Norman Bates. I will strongly object to that til the day I die.
Time for the good because I have to start this off nicely and the good thing about this is the idea of doing the shot-for-shot remake of a classic like this. It's a pretty good idea...in a sense. The idea of taking something that already exists, and making it all over again for a new generation, but the exact same thing. I love the concept of seeing how audiences would react if this was put out in the modern day. I love the unoriginality of it, I see what the people involved were trying to do, but this just felt like the kid at school who asks to copy your homework but doesn't try hard enough to change it to be their own thing. I'm always down for unoriginality if something new can come from it, that's a weird thing to say but I hope I got it across clearly.
Now for the bad, Vaughn as Norman Bates is creepy in all the wrong ways. You'd think having a creepy Norman Bates would be great, genius even but you see the thing is, Anthony Perkins was creepy but in that "I have no social boundaries because I wasn't allowed out of the house as a kid but I'm working on it" kind of way whereas Vaughn just...kinda...gives off that "I'm going to either molest, rape or murder you, or all of the above, you have no choice." And that's not something you want for a suspenseful thriller with a twist, you want someone who's strange but not blatantly a serial killer, you want to be able to kinda guess there's something off about him not think he's an escaped convict or something. Fuck. Can we just agree to never put Vaughn in a serious film again? Leave him to his below average comedies, he does well enough in those.
Looking through my notes, I noticed one good thing about Vaughn's performance. When he bursts in toward the end with that dress on and the knife, man...fucked if that's not one of the funniest scenes in all of history. He looks way too pleased to be in that dress, not deranged, more like he'd found his calling as a cross-dresser rather than an actor. Not that you can't be a cross-dresser and an entertainer but y'know.
Back to the bad, this film was made in colour and while I understand why, y'know, modifying it for a modern audience, it doesn't seem to carry the same impact. We know what colour blood is, yet it seems so much scarier in black and white, I don't know exactly what it is but it just brings some sort of tension that colour blood doesn't bring.
I think that's about it, it's taken me about 16 or so hours to write this because today has been disgustingly hot and it got cool around 11 at night and I'm just flat out exhausted. I hope this film isn't someone's first introduction to the Hitchcock thriller because....obvious reasons, this film doesn't work as it's own thing. I'd advise this be watched after watching the original to compare and see which you like better. That's it for today, peace out guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writers: Joseph Stefano (Screenplay)
Robert Bloch (Novel)
Runtime: 1hr 45 minutes
Plot: A young woman steals from her boss and ends up at a hotel, meeting the strange Norman Bates, a man who runs the hotel with a strange love for both stuffed birds and his mother.
This is something that did not have to happen, and I mean that with every fibre of my soul. The original was about as close to perfect as you can get a film to be. I'm not 100% sure as to why this was remade, maybe it was to see how audiences would react to the exact same film, but in colour and with (obviously) younger actors. For the most part, the reaction was what you'd think it'd be; "Don't touch that classic" However, while reading what people thought about it on Rotten Tomatoes it seems like a lot more people enjoyed it, including the fact that Vince Vaughn was a good replacement for Anthony Perkins as the deranged Norman Bates. I will strongly object to that til the day I die.
Time for the good because I have to start this off nicely and the good thing about this is the idea of doing the shot-for-shot remake of a classic like this. It's a pretty good idea...in a sense. The idea of taking something that already exists, and making it all over again for a new generation, but the exact same thing. I love the concept of seeing how audiences would react if this was put out in the modern day. I love the unoriginality of it, I see what the people involved were trying to do, but this just felt like the kid at school who asks to copy your homework but doesn't try hard enough to change it to be their own thing. I'm always down for unoriginality if something new can come from it, that's a weird thing to say but I hope I got it across clearly.
Now for the bad, Vaughn as Norman Bates is creepy in all the wrong ways. You'd think having a creepy Norman Bates would be great, genius even but you see the thing is, Anthony Perkins was creepy but in that "I have no social boundaries because I wasn't allowed out of the house as a kid but I'm working on it" kind of way whereas Vaughn just...kinda...gives off that "I'm going to either molest, rape or murder you, or all of the above, you have no choice." And that's not something you want for a suspenseful thriller with a twist, you want someone who's strange but not blatantly a serial killer, you want to be able to kinda guess there's something off about him not think he's an escaped convict or something. Fuck. Can we just agree to never put Vaughn in a serious film again? Leave him to his below average comedies, he does well enough in those.
Looking through my notes, I noticed one good thing about Vaughn's performance. When he bursts in toward the end with that dress on and the knife, man...fucked if that's not one of the funniest scenes in all of history. He looks way too pleased to be in that dress, not deranged, more like he'd found his calling as a cross-dresser rather than an actor. Not that you can't be a cross-dresser and an entertainer but y'know.
Back to the bad, this film was made in colour and while I understand why, y'know, modifying it for a modern audience, it doesn't seem to carry the same impact. We know what colour blood is, yet it seems so much scarier in black and white, I don't know exactly what it is but it just brings some sort of tension that colour blood doesn't bring.
I think that's about it, it's taken me about 16 or so hours to write this because today has been disgustingly hot and it got cool around 11 at night and I'm just flat out exhausted. I hope this film isn't someone's first introduction to the Hitchcock thriller because....obvious reasons, this film doesn't work as it's own thing. I'd advise this be watched after watching the original to compare and see which you like better. That's it for today, peace out guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Tuesday 20 June 2017
Orca
Another animal revenge film...
Director: Michael Anderson
Writers: Luciano Vincenozi
Sergio Donati
A film similar to Jaws but...it's not at the same time. You can almost certainly tell that this film was at least inspired by Jaws but at least the animal has a motivation and follows through on its revenge plan.
So before I get into the story and the weird shit in it, I would like to praise the film for the way it depicts Orcas, Orcas are very intelligent, emotional and absolutely beautiful animals, hell I think at one point they even say that these animals want to be your friend rather than your enemy. Then again I could have gotten that line from Blackfish which is a documentary that I have a lot of admiration for. I'm also pretty certain that those who say "oh it's not accurate because Seaworld didn't get to have a say in it" haven't seen the documentary or they would have seen the part where they say the creators reached out to Seaworld for comment and declined the opportunity to do so. So there. I went way off topic there but for the time this came out, it's pretty well informed about these stunning creatures and doesn't misrepresent them (as much) as Jaws does to sharks.
Another thing I have to praise this film for is not going for the cheap happy ending. It would have been so easy for these characters to follow this thing to the icy land of...I don't remember but this place was full of ice...land. Yes, that's a good sentence from my brain. Yeah, it would have been a people pleaser to kill off the creature and have the town saved but, honestly, I'm glad it didn't. This Orca was on a mission and didn't stop until the job was done, a true inspiration to us all, albeit that mission was revenge murder but...he followed through at least, and that's something to be admired.
There are a couple of stupid moments in this, such as the town not allowing the main characters to leave town because they want this animal gone and are adamant that these guys get rid rather than...oh I don't know, grouping together and doing it as a group rather than sending out a couple of people on a boat that was nowhere near stable enough to get through everything it did but that's the power of film. Another stupid moment was just this line. Quote: "You'll never catch a killer whale." Like....honey, I'm sure a lot of places not dissimilar to Seaworld have done this and (in their eyes) successfully. Don't lie to yourself or anyone about not being able to catch a killer whale, I mean it's probably a bitch to do but...it's possible.
Now this part, I had to look up. After the male Orca watches his pregnant mate be captured, I think miscarry and then die, he obviously screams in agony for her death and then pushes her to the beach front that our main characters have docked at. According to a few articles that I looked at these animals do mourn their dead, which...thinking about it is understandable given they have a higher emotional capacity than humans do and are able to form strong bonds like humans do, nothing I read, however, says that they display the sort of power move that this one does in the film. There are records of Orcas and other marine life carrying their dead, similar to how the Orca in the film does so...points to the carrying of the dead and mourning and...Know what I'm not gonna say points deducted because this was a power move. This Orca knows what it's about. I admire this one, my all new role model in life.
I didn't really pay much attention to the human characters because, like in Jaws, they were just flat out boring and there wasn't really all that much to say about them. I think there were two white guys, a Native American guy and a woman. I'm not sure what order these people got killed in but I know the woman comes out of it unscathed as once the Orca has gotten his revenge on the guy he perceived as killing his mate (I'm pretty sure there were other people on that mission, not 100%) he just kind of nods at her and goes away. It's a nice and quiet moment to let the death of this man sink in and the power of this intelligent animal. I'm sure the actors were at least trying their best but...I don't know they were just a bit boring.
This is a good film, I mean, I liked it enough to probably put it on again if I can't think of anything else to watch and I suggest you watch it too, if for nothing else than to look at all the similarities to Jaws.
Before I leave, I'll leave you with this. The only reason I actually remembered I wanted to watch this film is that Jaws was on the other night and I saw the name of the boat which happens to be Orca because of the fact that they're the natural enemy of the shark which...cool little bit of trivia that you're probably either never going to use, or use too much when you don't know what to say to someone new.
Thank's for reading this one, I'm sorry it's a bit crap but I've had a bitch of a headache all day, but I had the motivation to write this up after I did notes the other night. Thank you for bearing with me and I promise my next one will be better because I'm not gonna write while I have a headache again. Anyway, I've gone on long enough, check this film out if you've not seen it, check Jaws out if you've not seen it (how tho?) and also check out Blackfish too because even though it's really old it's an eye opener. Peace out guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Sergio Donati
A film similar to Jaws but...it's not at the same time. You can almost certainly tell that this film was at least inspired by Jaws but at least the animal has a motivation and follows through on its revenge plan.
So before I get into the story and the weird shit in it, I would like to praise the film for the way it depicts Orcas, Orcas are very intelligent, emotional and absolutely beautiful animals, hell I think at one point they even say that these animals want to be your friend rather than your enemy. Then again I could have gotten that line from Blackfish which is a documentary that I have a lot of admiration for. I'm also pretty certain that those who say "oh it's not accurate because Seaworld didn't get to have a say in it" haven't seen the documentary or they would have seen the part where they say the creators reached out to Seaworld for comment and declined the opportunity to do so. So there. I went way off topic there but for the time this came out, it's pretty well informed about these stunning creatures and doesn't misrepresent them (as much) as Jaws does to sharks.
Another thing I have to praise this film for is not going for the cheap happy ending. It would have been so easy for these characters to follow this thing to the icy land of...I don't remember but this place was full of ice...land. Yes, that's a good sentence from my brain. Yeah, it would have been a people pleaser to kill off the creature and have the town saved but, honestly, I'm glad it didn't. This Orca was on a mission and didn't stop until the job was done, a true inspiration to us all, albeit that mission was revenge murder but...he followed through at least, and that's something to be admired.
There are a couple of stupid moments in this, such as the town not allowing the main characters to leave town because they want this animal gone and are adamant that these guys get rid rather than...oh I don't know, grouping together and doing it as a group rather than sending out a couple of people on a boat that was nowhere near stable enough to get through everything it did but that's the power of film. Another stupid moment was just this line. Quote: "You'll never catch a killer whale." Like....honey, I'm sure a lot of places not dissimilar to Seaworld have done this and (in their eyes) successfully. Don't lie to yourself or anyone about not being able to catch a killer whale, I mean it's probably a bitch to do but...it's possible.
Now this part, I had to look up. After the male Orca watches his pregnant mate be captured, I think miscarry and then die, he obviously screams in agony for her death and then pushes her to the beach front that our main characters have docked at. According to a few articles that I looked at these animals do mourn their dead, which...thinking about it is understandable given they have a higher emotional capacity than humans do and are able to form strong bonds like humans do, nothing I read, however, says that they display the sort of power move that this one does in the film. There are records of Orcas and other marine life carrying their dead, similar to how the Orca in the film does so...points to the carrying of the dead and mourning and...Know what I'm not gonna say points deducted because this was a power move. This Orca knows what it's about. I admire this one, my all new role model in life.
I didn't really pay much attention to the human characters because, like in Jaws, they were just flat out boring and there wasn't really all that much to say about them. I think there were two white guys, a Native American guy and a woman. I'm not sure what order these people got killed in but I know the woman comes out of it unscathed as once the Orca has gotten his revenge on the guy he perceived as killing his mate (I'm pretty sure there were other people on that mission, not 100%) he just kind of nods at her and goes away. It's a nice and quiet moment to let the death of this man sink in and the power of this intelligent animal. I'm sure the actors were at least trying their best but...I don't know they were just a bit boring.
This is a good film, I mean, I liked it enough to probably put it on again if I can't think of anything else to watch and I suggest you watch it too, if for nothing else than to look at all the similarities to Jaws.
Before I leave, I'll leave you with this. The only reason I actually remembered I wanted to watch this film is that Jaws was on the other night and I saw the name of the boat which happens to be Orca because of the fact that they're the natural enemy of the shark which...cool little bit of trivia that you're probably either never going to use, or use too much when you don't know what to say to someone new.
Thank's for reading this one, I'm sorry it's a bit crap but I've had a bitch of a headache all day, but I had the motivation to write this up after I did notes the other night. Thank you for bearing with me and I promise my next one will be better because I'm not gonna write while I have a headache again. Anyway, I've gone on long enough, check this film out if you've not seen it, check Jaws out if you've not seen it (how tho?) and also check out Blackfish too because even though it's really old it's an eye opener. Peace out guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Saturday 17 June 2017
The Mummy (2017)
This is...interesting to say the least.
Director: Alex Kurtzman
Writers: David Koepp (Screenplay)
Christopher McQuarrie (Screenplay)
Dylan Kussman (Screenplay)
Jon Spaihts (Screen Story)
Alex Kurtzman (Screen Story)
Jenny Lumet (Screen Story)
Runtime: 1hr 50minutes
Plot: I don't know, can't even really call it a reboot or anything because it's such a state.
This was such a mess of a film, I really don't know what I can say about it other than it shouldn't have been called The Mummy, more like Tom Cruise gets into situations where he definitely should have died but didn't...with Ancient Egyptian Gods and zombies that look like they're from The Walking Dead. I know that's a mouthful but it's definitely a better title. I'm not sure what I can compliment about this film but I'm gonna try my best.
Easily the best thing in this film is the mummy herself, Sofia Boutella. I was watching Kingsmen (underrated film, might talk about it sometime) and she's fab in that and she's just as great if not better here. It's a shame that she was given a lead role in this because even though she's great, I don't feel like her talent was fully utilised and it's a shame because more people need to be aware of her. The design of her character is pretty cool too like the split eye thing is one of the coolest things I've seen in ages, the "tattoo's" covering her body are alright but the way they're put onto her looks cool as hell, even if it is CGI. She also has a very interesting backstory that feels rushed as hell, if they'd spent a little extra time on it, it could have been so much better than what it was.
Now on to the bad. Fuck me there's so much...
There seems to be a sort of competition as to who can give off the best British accent, Tom Cruise slips in and out of an English accent, Russel Crowe does it, Annabelle Wallis (Jenny) does it, and I think that Jenny is from England but...God, you really can't tell half the time.
There are zombies in this. Fuck knows why they went with the classic zombie design for some of some of Ahmanet's followers? Is that what they were? Shit, I don't know, all I know is that they're there, and they're really Walking Dead inspired, I'm nowhere near up to date on that show but I've kept up with the memes and I know who's dead, but I'm definitely aware of what the zombies on that show look like and someone in the design team must like that show because damn baby, that's too similar. When we were on our way home, Ben mentioned that some of the skeletons in an underwater scene had air bubbles coming from their mouths, signifying that they're breathing and during that scene I think I was more focused on this spot I'm getting on the bridge of my nose so I wasn't paying too much attention to it, but I think I saw something like that. If anyone's seen this and wants to confirm it then let me know ok?
"What were you talking about when you said Tom Cruise gets into situations where he should have died but didn't?" Sweet child, I'm getting there. Tom Cruise in this film gets flung about in near enough every direction and at almost every single thing imaginable. At one point during the climax, Ahmanet picks him up and throws him against this cement coffin thing, I don't think Tomb is the right word but we're gonna roll with what we got. As I said, she fully launches him towards this thing, and he hits it neck first and gets up ready to continue to the fight like...excuse me? Sweetie? You're dead after that. I don't care, you're dead. Another point in the climax she launches him and he hits it stomach first and goes limp, that alone should have at least busted his inner organs. Good fuck I mean...she puts some power into it and he hits this solid, cement block thing at no less than 50mph. He's dead or fatally injured. There's a lot more than that but those are the ones that stood out. There is a thin excuse for this, that being that Ahmanet has chosen Nick (Cruise) to be her "chosen one" to be the vessel for an Ancient Egyptian God of death...I think? And that protects him but...there's only so much power you can have before you think "time to put the boy out of his misery."
Russel Crowe. Russel Crowe plays Dr Henry Jekyll and Eddie Hyde. Yes. That Jekyll and Hyde. I'm not 100% certain how subtle they wanted to be when pushing this "evil vs humanity" thing that I think they were trying to push but...it's close to jumping the shark. Like...they almost jumped the shark but they kinda jumped, misjudged it and landed on the shark. What the hell does Jekyll & Hyde have to do with The Mummy? This is a reboot of the Brendan Frasier film right? Why is this character (characters if you wanna pick at hairs) even in a film that's supposed to deal with a nasty ass Ancient Egyptian? I just don't get it. Also, I've not read the book in a while and I'm sure the only thing I've ever seen to do with this character (characters) was in Extraordinary League of Gentlemen so...not much in film, but I'm sure that Jekyll "created" Hyde by fucking about and creates a potion allowing him to act on his nasty desires without the guilt? But the thing is, Jekyll here has a kind of injection to stop himself becoming the monster. Also, by giving his nasty side the name Hyde he can also escape the consequences of acting on said desires, yet here, both Jekyll and Hyde are fairly horrible people except Jekyll tries to justify it and Hyde tries to create an alliance. I just don't get the point in having this character in this film, it just raises so many questions that we're never gonna get answered.
Finally, there's a gross amount of sequel baiting at the end of this, I think it's Crowe who delivers the closing speech of the film about death and power and humanity vs evil and it's a jumbled mess, however, the way it's done, they're clearly sequel baiting but you see...this film (at the time of writing this) is at a solid 16% on Rotten Tomatoes so nobody is getting a sequel unless it becomes a cult classic years down the line and a sequel will be talked about when all these actors are eligible to claim their pensions. Don't sequel bait unless you have a genuinely solid film...actually no, just don't sequel bait, never sequel bait, you look greedy as hell.
There's also a moment in which an English man calls Tom Cruise a "wanker" after stepping out in front of his car or something, but like...having been English and living in England for the whole of my 19 years on Earth, the only time I've ever heard anyone call anyone else a wanker was when I was in school. Nobody calls anybody wanker anymore, we just call each other cunt. At least up North we do...down South they probably don't butttttttttttt we don't know exactly where in England they were when this happened so, we don't know what language that area uses. Plus I don't think censors would allow that word in film, which is sad, it's my favourite word outside bint and chourfleur, which is French for cauliflower. Why is that one of my favourite words? Because it's literally the only thing I've taken out of GCSE French, a class I didn't want to take but because of the options that we were given when choosing classes, I was stuck with it. Half the class probably didn't wanna do it but I wanted to do Drama and Spanish but couldn't because of a timetable clash and obviously, Drama won out. I might just write about my annoying experiences at school because I think it could be fun to write about and hopefully you'll enjoy it. It'd be different but I would be talking about my Drama classes too so it'll fit with the theme of the blog. Ramble over. Nobody calls anybody wanker anymore. Moving on.
While we were on our way home, I was thinking that this could have been better perceived if it wasn't attached to The Mummy franchise. It'd still be terrible but maybe not as bad as it is with this franchise attached to it. I dunno, maybe I'll go and see it again and try to disconnect the older films from this one, but just from this first viewing, I'd say that overall, this film was just a mess of different things that are either barely explained or not at all explained. It's just a state and really rushed, if you wanna see this because of the rating, the memes, the reviews or just because you believe in giving things a shot before judging it then go ahead and see it. I've done my job by talking about it, all you have to do is decide whether you want to see it or not. Peace out guys, love ya.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film please go and support its creators by buying tickets to go see it in cinemas / buying the DVD or Bluray when the time comes.
Director: Alex Kurtzman
Writers: David Koepp (Screenplay)
Christopher McQuarrie (Screenplay)
Dylan Kussman (Screenplay)
Jon Spaihts (Screen Story)
Alex Kurtzman (Screen Story)
Jenny Lumet (Screen Story)
Runtime: 1hr 50minutes
Plot: I don't know, can't even really call it a reboot or anything because it's such a state.
This was such a mess of a film, I really don't know what I can say about it other than it shouldn't have been called The Mummy, more like Tom Cruise gets into situations where he definitely should have died but didn't...with Ancient Egyptian Gods and zombies that look like they're from The Walking Dead. I know that's a mouthful but it's definitely a better title. I'm not sure what I can compliment about this film but I'm gonna try my best.
Easily the best thing in this film is the mummy herself, Sofia Boutella. I was watching Kingsmen (underrated film, might talk about it sometime) and she's fab in that and she's just as great if not better here. It's a shame that she was given a lead role in this because even though she's great, I don't feel like her talent was fully utilised and it's a shame because more people need to be aware of her. The design of her character is pretty cool too like the split eye thing is one of the coolest things I've seen in ages, the "tattoo's" covering her body are alright but the way they're put onto her looks cool as hell, even if it is CGI. She also has a very interesting backstory that feels rushed as hell, if they'd spent a little extra time on it, it could have been so much better than what it was.
Now on to the bad. Fuck me there's so much...
There seems to be a sort of competition as to who can give off the best British accent, Tom Cruise slips in and out of an English accent, Russel Crowe does it, Annabelle Wallis (Jenny) does it, and I think that Jenny is from England but...God, you really can't tell half the time.
There are zombies in this. Fuck knows why they went with the classic zombie design for some of some of Ahmanet's followers? Is that what they were? Shit, I don't know, all I know is that they're there, and they're really Walking Dead inspired, I'm nowhere near up to date on that show but I've kept up with the memes and I know who's dead, but I'm definitely aware of what the zombies on that show look like and someone in the design team must like that show because damn baby, that's too similar. When we were on our way home, Ben mentioned that some of the skeletons in an underwater scene had air bubbles coming from their mouths, signifying that they're breathing and during that scene I think I was more focused on this spot I'm getting on the bridge of my nose so I wasn't paying too much attention to it, but I think I saw something like that. If anyone's seen this and wants to confirm it then let me know ok?
"What were you talking about when you said Tom Cruise gets into situations where he should have died but didn't?" Sweet child, I'm getting there. Tom Cruise in this film gets flung about in near enough every direction and at almost every single thing imaginable. At one point during the climax, Ahmanet picks him up and throws him against this cement coffin thing, I don't think Tomb is the right word but we're gonna roll with what we got. As I said, she fully launches him towards this thing, and he hits it neck first and gets up ready to continue to the fight like...excuse me? Sweetie? You're dead after that. I don't care, you're dead. Another point in the climax she launches him and he hits it stomach first and goes limp, that alone should have at least busted his inner organs. Good fuck I mean...she puts some power into it and he hits this solid, cement block thing at no less than 50mph. He's dead or fatally injured. There's a lot more than that but those are the ones that stood out. There is a thin excuse for this, that being that Ahmanet has chosen Nick (Cruise) to be her "chosen one" to be the vessel for an Ancient Egyptian God of death...I think? And that protects him but...there's only so much power you can have before you think "time to put the boy out of his misery."
Russel Crowe. Russel Crowe plays Dr Henry Jekyll and Eddie Hyde. Yes. That Jekyll and Hyde. I'm not 100% certain how subtle they wanted to be when pushing this "evil vs humanity" thing that I think they were trying to push but...it's close to jumping the shark. Like...they almost jumped the shark but they kinda jumped, misjudged it and landed on the shark. What the hell does Jekyll & Hyde have to do with The Mummy? This is a reboot of the Brendan Frasier film right? Why is this character (characters if you wanna pick at hairs) even in a film that's supposed to deal with a nasty ass Ancient Egyptian? I just don't get it. Also, I've not read the book in a while and I'm sure the only thing I've ever seen to do with this character (characters) was in Extraordinary League of Gentlemen so...not much in film, but I'm sure that Jekyll "created" Hyde by fucking about and creates a potion allowing him to act on his nasty desires without the guilt? But the thing is, Jekyll here has a kind of injection to stop himself becoming the monster. Also, by giving his nasty side the name Hyde he can also escape the consequences of acting on said desires, yet here, both Jekyll and Hyde are fairly horrible people except Jekyll tries to justify it and Hyde tries to create an alliance. I just don't get the point in having this character in this film, it just raises so many questions that we're never gonna get answered.
Finally, there's a gross amount of sequel baiting at the end of this, I think it's Crowe who delivers the closing speech of the film about death and power and humanity vs evil and it's a jumbled mess, however, the way it's done, they're clearly sequel baiting but you see...this film (at the time of writing this) is at a solid 16% on Rotten Tomatoes so nobody is getting a sequel unless it becomes a cult classic years down the line and a sequel will be talked about when all these actors are eligible to claim their pensions. Don't sequel bait unless you have a genuinely solid film...actually no, just don't sequel bait, never sequel bait, you look greedy as hell.
There's also a moment in which an English man calls Tom Cruise a "wanker" after stepping out in front of his car or something, but like...having been English and living in England for the whole of my 19 years on Earth, the only time I've ever heard anyone call anyone else a wanker was when I was in school. Nobody calls anybody wanker anymore, we just call each other cunt. At least up North we do...down South they probably don't butttttttttttt we don't know exactly where in England they were when this happened so, we don't know what language that area uses. Plus I don't think censors would allow that word in film, which is sad, it's my favourite word outside bint and chourfleur, which is French for cauliflower. Why is that one of my favourite words? Because it's literally the only thing I've taken out of GCSE French, a class I didn't want to take but because of the options that we were given when choosing classes, I was stuck with it. Half the class probably didn't wanna do it but I wanted to do Drama and Spanish but couldn't because of a timetable clash and obviously, Drama won out. I might just write about my annoying experiences at school because I think it could be fun to write about and hopefully you'll enjoy it. It'd be different but I would be talking about my Drama classes too so it'll fit with the theme of the blog. Ramble over. Nobody calls anybody wanker anymore. Moving on.
While we were on our way home, I was thinking that this could have been better perceived if it wasn't attached to The Mummy franchise. It'd still be terrible but maybe not as bad as it is with this franchise attached to it. I dunno, maybe I'll go and see it again and try to disconnect the older films from this one, but just from this first viewing, I'd say that overall, this film was just a mess of different things that are either barely explained or not at all explained. It's just a state and really rushed, if you wanna see this because of the rating, the memes, the reviews or just because you believe in giving things a shot before judging it then go ahead and see it. I've done my job by talking about it, all you have to do is decide whether you want to see it or not. Peace out guys, love ya.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film please go and support its creators by buying tickets to go see it in cinemas / buying the DVD or Bluray when the time comes.
Thursday 15 June 2017
Wallace & Gromit - A Matter Of Loaf And Death
I have issues with this one.
Director: Nick Park
Writers: Bob Baker
Nick Park
Runtime: 30 minutes
Plot: After what you can assume was a devastating rejection/break up with Lady Tottington, Wallace's love interest from Curse of the Were-Rabbit, Wallace moves on to his new job as a baker and finds new love in the Bake O Lite girl. However, it seems as though Wallace has bitten off more than he can chew.
I vividly remember when this came out. It was Christmas day about a million years ago when Christmas day was actually fun rather than a disappointing end to a perfect build-up. I remember seeing that this was a new Wallace & Gromit film and was fairly excited to see it, I think it was on when it was dark so probably anytime after 4 pm but it was after dinner too so it was on after 6. I remember watching it and loving it.
Oh, how the tides have turned.
Christmas day is just a boring end to a fabulous month of love, coming together as a planet, giving without expecting anything in return (unless you're giving money in exchange for goods...that's a different story) and anything Wallace & Gromit related that isn't The Wrong Trousers is just cute as best and just interesting enough at worst. This one falls into the former category, just cute. You know there's no mystery, as soon as Piella (Sally Lindsay) hits the screen you know it was her. There is no mystery at all but it's fun to see Wallace just go along with it.
Aside from it being cute what else is good about it? Well, we have an update on Feathers, he has escaped custody from the zoo. How do I know this? There's a moment where I paused the film to go and make a brew and when I got back I noticed a poster on the wall of the zoo saying something along the lines of "have you seen this penguin". It's nice we're being kept updated on this little guy. Gromit finally has a girlfriend too, a dog named fluffles voiced by Melissa Collier, it's a cute little romance and it's nice to see Gromit get somewhere with a lady for once. I also made a note about something being beautifully psychotic but I don't remember what it was about so...there's that. There was something beautifully psychotic in this film.
The bad things? What the hell happened to Lady Tottington? Wallace gets engaged to a woman without a single mention of the Lady, I mean...they were definitely a thing right? She even said she had feelings for him? Was it a class difference? Because if so then she's way too far up herself for a bird from Yorkshire, royalty and...whatever Lords and Ladies are classed as have married common folk before. Most notably (and recently and what I can think of off the top of my head) Kate Middleton, she was a "commoner" and married into royalty. So whatever it was that Tottington had against Wallace but she missed out, like she was the best thing that happened to him but at the same time he's probably the best thing that happened to her so you know.
Another kinda bad thing was that there weren't many of the little things you usually get with Wallace & Gromit, and that's kinda sad too, don't get me wrong there were some but...just not as many little in-jokes or puns or anything like that.
I also felt like this was just a bland entry, I know everyone's heart and soul goes into making one of these and I really do appreciate it, the dedication, the effort and everything else. I mean the idea was alright, having a woman going on a murderous rampage in the style of a black widow spider...except I'm not sure she ever married them but...basically the same thing, right? Either way, this was just a cute little short with a decent idea and a beautifully psychotic moment mixed in.
And that's it for all my Wallace & Gromit reviews, hope you enjoyed them as much as I did and I hope you enjoyed reading these as much as I did writing them, and let's not forget Peter Salis, without him I don't think this series would have been the same (alongside all the people working on the films but...the reason I did these was to honour Salis' memory). Have a good night/day whatever and whenever you're reading this. Peace out.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Nick Park
Writers: Bob Baker
Nick Park
Runtime: 30 minutes
Plot: After what you can assume was a devastating rejection/break up with Lady Tottington, Wallace's love interest from Curse of the Were-Rabbit, Wallace moves on to his new job as a baker and finds new love in the Bake O Lite girl. However, it seems as though Wallace has bitten off more than he can chew.
I vividly remember when this came out. It was Christmas day about a million years ago when Christmas day was actually fun rather than a disappointing end to a perfect build-up. I remember seeing that this was a new Wallace & Gromit film and was fairly excited to see it, I think it was on when it was dark so probably anytime after 4 pm but it was after dinner too so it was on after 6. I remember watching it and loving it.
Oh, how the tides have turned.
Christmas day is just a boring end to a fabulous month of love, coming together as a planet, giving without expecting anything in return (unless you're giving money in exchange for goods...that's a different story) and anything Wallace & Gromit related that isn't The Wrong Trousers is just cute as best and just interesting enough at worst. This one falls into the former category, just cute. You know there's no mystery, as soon as Piella (Sally Lindsay) hits the screen you know it was her. There is no mystery at all but it's fun to see Wallace just go along with it.
Aside from it being cute what else is good about it? Well, we have an update on Feathers, he has escaped custody from the zoo. How do I know this? There's a moment where I paused the film to go and make a brew and when I got back I noticed a poster on the wall of the zoo saying something along the lines of "have you seen this penguin". It's nice we're being kept updated on this little guy. Gromit finally has a girlfriend too, a dog named fluffles voiced by Melissa Collier, it's a cute little romance and it's nice to see Gromit get somewhere with a lady for once. I also made a note about something being beautifully psychotic but I don't remember what it was about so...there's that. There was something beautifully psychotic in this film.
The bad things? What the hell happened to Lady Tottington? Wallace gets engaged to a woman without a single mention of the Lady, I mean...they were definitely a thing right? She even said she had feelings for him? Was it a class difference? Because if so then she's way too far up herself for a bird from Yorkshire, royalty and...whatever Lords and Ladies are classed as have married common folk before. Most notably (and recently and what I can think of off the top of my head) Kate Middleton, she was a "commoner" and married into royalty. So whatever it was that Tottington had against Wallace but she missed out, like she was the best thing that happened to him but at the same time he's probably the best thing that happened to her so you know.
Another kinda bad thing was that there weren't many of the little things you usually get with Wallace & Gromit, and that's kinda sad too, don't get me wrong there were some but...just not as many little in-jokes or puns or anything like that.
I also felt like this was just a bland entry, I know everyone's heart and soul goes into making one of these and I really do appreciate it, the dedication, the effort and everything else. I mean the idea was alright, having a woman going on a murderous rampage in the style of a black widow spider...except I'm not sure she ever married them but...basically the same thing, right? Either way, this was just a cute little short with a decent idea and a beautifully psychotic moment mixed in.
And that's it for all my Wallace & Gromit reviews, hope you enjoyed them as much as I did and I hope you enjoyed reading these as much as I did writing them, and let's not forget Peter Salis, without him I don't think this series would have been the same (alongside all the people working on the films but...the reason I did these was to honour Salis' memory). Have a good night/day whatever and whenever you're reading this. Peace out.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
13 Reasons Why - Episode 8
Why did the last one bring on such anger and this one bring on such pain?
13 Reasons Why
Episode 8: Tape 4, Side B
Mate, I don't know where to start. I like that Clay had the balls to think of himself for once but he just backtracked on it so...what was the point?
Plot: Clay gave up the tapes to Tony who proceeds to take him climbing. Hannah joins a poetry club where there is a plate of cookies. Hannah is (obviously) ultimately, horrifically betrayed.
Clay: Remember when I said that someone should give him medical attention or at least a plaster to cover his head gash because I just know something will happen and he's gonna get hurt again? Well, surprise surprise I was right. I'm getting sick of that feeling, to be honest...As I was saying, Clay is climbing this cliff face (I think) with Tony at Tony's request without any protective gear aside from some rope that Tony brings with them. At one point, some stones come loose and hit Clay in the face, hitting both the huge open wound on his head and in the eye, almost causing him to fall from his height. Can this boy just have someone looking after him at all times? I want him to be safe, stop hurting him. For real this is the only character I'm really latching onto so far aside from Hannah's mother (Kate Walsh). Bless him and keep him safe.
Tony: Bless this boy too. He was almost directly linked to Hannah's death in the sense that he didn't have the energy to deal with another human being's problems (which is a very ok thing to do if you've got your own shit to deal with, your own health is more important), the tapes show up at his door and he runs over to Hannah's where she's already dead. This is obviously a heartbreaking thing to see and is something I actually wanted to see from this series. People actually dealing with the suicide of a girl they knew, not the vengeance of the dead girl.
Pre-recorded: How far in advance did Hannah record these tapes? She couldn't have done it within the few hours between Tony saying he can't hear her shit right now and the tapes showing up at his door? I don't think so, especially considering she recorded two sets of them. I mean...I don't know what to even say, this girl clearly planned this out, it wasn't a spur of the moment, this was a very thoroughly thought out plan.
The betrayal: Hannah joins a poetry club and makes friends with Ryan (Tommy Dorfman) who she asks to help her be a better writer. She writes a lovely poem which Ryan asks if he can publish it in the school paper. I think she says no but I'm not sure. Anyway, he publishes it anonymously and the school reads it and a few people make fun of it. Like high schoolers would do. A couple of people work out that she wrote it but they don't call her out on it. They just giggle a tiny bit but they don't really seem to care. This obviously means that Hannah gives up her passion for writing and brings her that little bit closer to suicide.
Gay: Big shock, Tony is gay. I don't necessarily care about that but what I do care about is Tony's attitude. He and Ryan were once a thing apparently, but you see, they weren't friends. Quote: "You think I would be friends with a guy like Ryan?" I feel like you'd have to at least like him a tiny bit if you're gonna put your dick in him. Then again I don't know what the hate fucking community is like with gay guys so I can't really comment on it.
Hannah: Hannah's a dick but she writes beautifully, she should have listened to her teacher when she said it was good, she got the whole school talking about her writing. I understand that she would have been upset over this, she pours her soul out into her writing and people are laughing. If she'd left it a couple months and looked back on it maybe she would have seen the good it did. There was no reason for her to call Ryan self-serving when he published this poem anonymously for her, to get her voice heard. It just sucks that she's so bitter.
Anyway, that's what I thought of that. Peace out guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this episode/series. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this series then go and support its creators by watching it again on its platform.
13 Reasons Why
Episode 8: Tape 4, Side B
Mate, I don't know where to start. I like that Clay had the balls to think of himself for once but he just backtracked on it so...what was the point?
Plot: Clay gave up the tapes to Tony who proceeds to take him climbing. Hannah joins a poetry club where there is a plate of cookies. Hannah is (obviously) ultimately, horrifically betrayed.
Clay: Remember when I said that someone should give him medical attention or at least a plaster to cover his head gash because I just know something will happen and he's gonna get hurt again? Well, surprise surprise I was right. I'm getting sick of that feeling, to be honest...As I was saying, Clay is climbing this cliff face (I think) with Tony at Tony's request without any protective gear aside from some rope that Tony brings with them. At one point, some stones come loose and hit Clay in the face, hitting both the huge open wound on his head and in the eye, almost causing him to fall from his height. Can this boy just have someone looking after him at all times? I want him to be safe, stop hurting him. For real this is the only character I'm really latching onto so far aside from Hannah's mother (Kate Walsh). Bless him and keep him safe.
Tony: Bless this boy too. He was almost directly linked to Hannah's death in the sense that he didn't have the energy to deal with another human being's problems (which is a very ok thing to do if you've got your own shit to deal with, your own health is more important), the tapes show up at his door and he runs over to Hannah's where she's already dead. This is obviously a heartbreaking thing to see and is something I actually wanted to see from this series. People actually dealing with the suicide of a girl they knew, not the vengeance of the dead girl.
Pre-recorded: How far in advance did Hannah record these tapes? She couldn't have done it within the few hours between Tony saying he can't hear her shit right now and the tapes showing up at his door? I don't think so, especially considering she recorded two sets of them. I mean...I don't know what to even say, this girl clearly planned this out, it wasn't a spur of the moment, this was a very thoroughly thought out plan.
The betrayal: Hannah joins a poetry club and makes friends with Ryan (Tommy Dorfman) who she asks to help her be a better writer. She writes a lovely poem which Ryan asks if he can publish it in the school paper. I think she says no but I'm not sure. Anyway, he publishes it anonymously and the school reads it and a few people make fun of it. Like high schoolers would do. A couple of people work out that she wrote it but they don't call her out on it. They just giggle a tiny bit but they don't really seem to care. This obviously means that Hannah gives up her passion for writing and brings her that little bit closer to suicide.
Gay: Big shock, Tony is gay. I don't necessarily care about that but what I do care about is Tony's attitude. He and Ryan were once a thing apparently, but you see, they weren't friends. Quote: "You think I would be friends with a guy like Ryan?" I feel like you'd have to at least like him a tiny bit if you're gonna put your dick in him. Then again I don't know what the hate fucking community is like with gay guys so I can't really comment on it.
Hannah: Hannah's a dick but she writes beautifully, she should have listened to her teacher when she said it was good, she got the whole school talking about her writing. I understand that she would have been upset over this, she pours her soul out into her writing and people are laughing. If she'd left it a couple months and looked back on it maybe she would have seen the good it did. There was no reason for her to call Ryan self-serving when he published this poem anonymously for her, to get her voice heard. It just sucks that she's so bitter.
Anyway, that's what I thought of that. Peace out guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this episode/series. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this series then go and support its creators by watching it again on its platform.
Wallace & Gromit - Curse Of The Were-Rabbit
It's alright...
Director: Nick Park
Steve Box
Writers: Nick Park (Screenplay)
Steve Box (Screenplay)
Mark Burton (Screenplay)
Bob Baker ( Screenplay)
Runtime: 1hr 25 minutes
Plot: Wallace's cheese addiction seems to be taking control and he's gaining weight because of it, due to this he decides that brainwashing is the best way to go about it. Wallace & Gromit have founded a new company Anti-Pesto, who deal in humanely taking care of rabbit's that attack the local veggies. When Wallace decides to combine the idea of brainwashing and rabbits a monster is created.
The first and only feature length film from the duo and it's a busy place to be. I get why it's busy but I always felt like Wallace & Gromit work better as just the two of them (or with an optional Penguin added into the mix) but y'know, longer running time means you gotta add a bigger cast. A bigger cast can bring in quite a few perks and a fair amount of shit to a film and...sometimes the good can outweigh the bad like here, regardless of the fact that I don't like that there's a bigger cast, it works in this film's favour, unlike with some DC film where a cast of popular villains was just thrown together...I'm not here for another kick off about that piece of trash.
The good thing about this is it's strange yet plausible plot. Wallace hates vegetables and decides to brainwash himself into liking them. They run a company called Anti-Pesto which is a humane pest control company. They're running out of space so Wallace decides to kill two birds with one stone and brainwash the bunnies into hating veggies while testing out his brainwashing machine. Shit goes south pretty quickly and Wallace becomes a were-rabbit. What's a were-rabbit? From my gathering, it's like a werewolf but instead of the transformation happening on a full moon, it happens every night. Weird logic yes but...it works so we're not gonna question it. The only thing that can kill this creature is a 24 Carat Gold bullet...or a fall from a high building, whichever is more convenient for the plot really.
Another great thing is Wallace's cheese hiding places. That already sounds weird so I'll elaborate, Wallace has hidden cheese in his home in almost spy-like levels of secrecy and protection like this guy has his cheese hidden behind something which is opened by pulling out a cheese related book pun. Here are the books that were turned into puns.
- Brighton Roquefort
- How Green Was My Cheese
- Brie Encounter
- Swiss Cheese Family Robinson
- East of Edam
- Grated Expectations
- Fromage to Eternity
- Waiting for Gouda
I don't even care, all of those are the best.
The romance between Wallace and Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham-Carter) is lovely, she seems to really like Wallace and towards the end of the film, it seems like they're gonna get together if they weren't already there. However, I don't think it was really all that necessary, I mean...it really didn't do anything to plot aside from him being a dick during his transformation, her taking it the wrong way and then finding out he was just trying to hide his horrible secret from her. It's a cute little side plot but aside from taking elements of King Kong, I don't really think they did much with it and they could have done y'know? I don't really know what they could have done with it because all these romance stories are the same but...c'mon this is Wallace & Gromit, you guys made a penguin a chicken and turned him into a diamond thief! Do something crazy with it. It was still a cute little side plot, even if it wasn't all that necessary.
Gromit went to Dogwarts University which is probably my favourite dog related pun to come out of these, like you know someone read/saw Harry Potter and thought damn, let's get a joke with that in there and I'm glad they did, I wonder what house he was sorted into...hold on I'm gonna google it.
*25 minutes later*
After a fair amount of searching I have discovered that Gromit did not have a house, however, he did graduate with a double first in Engineering for Dogs and I'm both amazed and mad that a plasticine dog got a higher grade in uni than I ever could.
Moving onto the negatives, there are only two big ones that managed to bug me so much that they needed to be mentioned. I've already briefly talked about one of them, that being the fact that it's said only a gold bullet can kill the beast and yet...a fall from a great height manages it? Or was it Wallace as the were-rabbit sacrificing himself to save Gromit after he saved him? I don't know but that bull is not explained at all and I feel like it should have been. I know that not all questions in films should be answered...like how did that weird loop in Predestination start? But when you state in your film that the only way to do something is with this thing and then you do another thing you can't just throw a shrug in there like "Oh well, I guess the answer was love after all". No. I won't accept it. I'll accept literally any explanation that's not that, or at least explain how the love did it. This isn't Frozen, it's Wallace & Gromit. I won't deny that there is obviously a love between these characters but...fuck just explain it and I'll be happy pal.
The other thing that bothered me was the name change. Apparently this wasn't originally intended to be called Curse of the Were-Rabbit, it was meant to be The Great Vegetable Plot but apparently, that didn't resonate very well with American audiences and that sucks because that's a funny name. How is it funny? Because plot refers to a mystery and where veggies grow so now you know and now you know what you missed out on. That's fucking funny dude.
The whole film is just...ok overall. The villain is...predictable, the romance is cute and unnecessary, the plot has potential but thinking about it, I feel like they could have done something different with it. If you wanna check it out I'm not gonna stop you but don't get your hopes up too high with it, it's just cute and kinda bland. That's it for today, peace out and don't try to brainwash yourself...it's probably not gonna work.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Tuesday 13 June 2017
Wallace & Gromit - A Close Shave
This kind of disturbs me the more I think about it.
Director: Nick Park
Writers: Nick Park
Bob Baker
Runtime: 30 minutes
Plot: Wallace falls for a woman who looks almost exactly like him while Gromit is framed for sheep rustling.
This is the first one where Peter Salis wasn't the only one in the recording booth, he finally has other human beings to work off of and...it just doesn't work as well as the previous two. It's still good don't get me wrong, but there's just something about having more voices makes it more crowded I suppose. Not sure if that's even the right wording I should have used but it's the only one I can think of.
The good things in this are all the little things that are not exactly hidden but you wouldn't really notice them unless you knew to look for these kinds of things. Such as when Gromit is in prison, the words Feathers was 'ere is written on the wall which is a call back to the last film but then we see that this is a regular prison and last time we saw Feathers he was in a zoo. How many times has this penguin been in and out of jail? Another cool little thing was the book Gromit was reading, we're used to seeing dog puns here and I just love them, this one is no different. Gromit is reading a copy of Crime and Punishment by Fido Dogstoyevsky. Once again, that shit is hilarious. Finally, and arguably the best thing about this film, it's the very first appearance of Shaun the Sheep.
The bad things? Well...there's one but honestly, it's just a theory of mine that's barely got any evidence but the evidence that's there is enough for me to draw this conclusion. I have come to the conclusion, that Wallace and Wendolene (Anne Reid) are related somehow.
...I'm aware of what a stretch that is but bear with me.
So there's the fact that these two look...eerily similar right? She's just a female version of Wallace without the love of cheese...or tinkering with inventions, but her father was. Maybe the "inventive" gene or whatever is only in the men of the family. Like the smart gene only being in the Simpson women in The Simpsons. Maybe their mother loved cheese so much (just like Wallace does) that it impacted their marriage that she scooped up little Wallace and took off into the night, leaving her cheese hating husband/boyfriend and daughter behind. Wouldn't be such a far fetched idea considering Wallace has a bit of a crisis over the fact that Wendolene is allergic to it. I understand how fragmented this might seem with all this evidence but watch this again with this in mind and tell me I'm not onto something. Dare you.
That's it from me today, sorry I've not done this every day as I said I would but I was writing Thursday night until the election results got involved and I was pinned to that the whole night, then I was away and barely had good internet to update so...it's here now, can't complain about that. Peace out tho guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Nick Park
Writers: Nick Park
Bob Baker
Runtime: 30 minutes
Plot: Wallace falls for a woman who looks almost exactly like him while Gromit is framed for sheep rustling.
This is the first one where Peter Salis wasn't the only one in the recording booth, he finally has other human beings to work off of and...it just doesn't work as well as the previous two. It's still good don't get me wrong, but there's just something about having more voices makes it more crowded I suppose. Not sure if that's even the right wording I should have used but it's the only one I can think of.
The good things in this are all the little things that are not exactly hidden but you wouldn't really notice them unless you knew to look for these kinds of things. Such as when Gromit is in prison, the words Feathers was 'ere is written on the wall which is a call back to the last film but then we see that this is a regular prison and last time we saw Feathers he was in a zoo. How many times has this penguin been in and out of jail? Another cool little thing was the book Gromit was reading, we're used to seeing dog puns here and I just love them, this one is no different. Gromit is reading a copy of Crime and Punishment by Fido Dogstoyevsky. Once again, that shit is hilarious. Finally, and arguably the best thing about this film, it's the very first appearance of Shaun the Sheep.
The bad things? Well...there's one but honestly, it's just a theory of mine that's barely got any evidence but the evidence that's there is enough for me to draw this conclusion. I have come to the conclusion, that Wallace and Wendolene (Anne Reid) are related somehow.
...I'm aware of what a stretch that is but bear with me.
So there's the fact that these two look...eerily similar right? She's just a female version of Wallace without the love of cheese...or tinkering with inventions, but her father was. Maybe the "inventive" gene or whatever is only in the men of the family. Like the smart gene only being in the Simpson women in The Simpsons. Maybe their mother loved cheese so much (just like Wallace does) that it impacted their marriage that she scooped up little Wallace and took off into the night, leaving her cheese hating husband/boyfriend and daughter behind. Wouldn't be such a far fetched idea considering Wallace has a bit of a crisis over the fact that Wendolene is allergic to it. I understand how fragmented this might seem with all this evidence but watch this again with this in mind and tell me I'm not onto something. Dare you.
That's it from me today, sorry I've not done this every day as I said I would but I was writing Thursday night until the election results got involved and I was pinned to that the whole night, then I was away and barely had good internet to update so...it's here now, can't complain about that. Peace out tho guys.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Wednesday 7 June 2017
Wallace & Gromit - The Wrong Trousers
The best of the bunch.
Director: Nick Park
Writer: Nick Park
Bob Baker
Brian Sibley
Runtime: 30 minutes
Plot: After draining their savings on gifts for Gromit's birthday, Wallace has to bring in a lodger, a seemingly innocent penguin who turns out to be a criminal mastermind who plans on using Wallace and his inventions to get what he needs.
I don't think I have a single bad thing to say about this, it's by far the best Wallace & Gromit film I've ever seen, and I've seen all five of them. Everything about this is equal parts ridiculous and smart, I've probably seen things like this done before and maybe even better but I don't care if they did it better, this one is my favourite.
So why is it my favourite? Feathers McGraw. Who is Feathers McGraw? The penguin villain who sticks a rubber glove on his tiny head and boom, he's a chicken. That alone is both the strangest and best concept for a villain ever, add to that that he too is silent (hell I don't even know if it is a he) and relies solely on the music queues to be as dramatic as possible to show the audience that yes, the villain is a penguin, and you're gonna have to be ok with that. The fact that nobody really sees behind the glove on his head and only sees the chicken is amazing too, very similar to a superhero who's alter ego has a vision impairment that nobody can see through. It's just...fuck I love this penguin. He's such a dramatic villain, even without saying a word or really emoting considering he doesn't have eyebrows or any other facial features, he just has a beak and two black, blinking dots for eyes...as a kid I never understood that but I got a sense of how menacing he was, now I see that it actually makes him an even better villain, he doesn't have to make grand speeches or anything he's just badass enough that he doesn't even have to say anything and you know he's a badass that you don't fuck with. It's so stupid to be looking at a plasticine penguin and thinking "this is one of the best animated villains I've seen in my whole damn life". The fact that he doesn't even go to normal prison and that he ends up in a zoo is great too like, it could be seen as commentary on how some animals may feel imprisoned against their will and I don't really know the intent but I just think it's pretty funny. I've gushed too much about Feathers, I'm gonna move on.
Another reason that this is my favourite is that really cool train chase scene which, for stop-motion animation and the time this came out would have been a bitch to make, and make it work as well as it does. I think it's just such a cool, high energy way to catching this penguin and after doing a little bit of research (I know I'm amazed too, barely did any for uni but I'm doing it loads for my reviews) and I found a quote from Nick Park with The Guardian on how they did the train scene.
Quote: "The train chase is something I'd never seen done before in stopframe animation. None of us knew how to do it - or even if it could work. In Tom and Jerry chases, you get used to the background whizzing by and repeating itself, so we tried the same. We built a 20ft long living room wall, 2ft high, and fixed the camera to the train, and filmed on a long shutter speed so the background looked blurry. It was quite a feat."
I imagine it was quite a feat to do that, but it came out so well and one of the best scenes I've ever seen in animation. I also heard that the car chase scene at the end of Toy Story was inspired by this but...I've got no credible sources for that so if anyone finds one hit me up with it.
Finally, one of the best things about this is all the tiny little jokes that go unnoticed unless you've watched it a million times because you have no life and you have a crippling appreciation for stop-motion animation. There's a nod to the previous film A Grand Day Out in the beginning where Gromit is reading the paper and the headline says Moon Cheese Shares Soar, another headline later in the film says Dog Reads Paper. Gromit listens to Bach which...I think is both a great joke depending on how you pronounce the composers name and a decent bit of trivia about the character. And finally, when Feathers is trying to make Gromit feel like an outsider and get him to leave, he plays How much is that doggie in the window and it's taken me years to realise that.
Peter Salis once again does such a great job of playing Wallace, and with the character design being better than it was in A Grand Day Out it fits so much more perfectly, the character is definitely more rounded out here and more of his naivety is shown making the fact that, even being so close to Feathers and not realising it's him with a rubber glove on his head is made so much more believable by Salis' voice.
I'm sorry this is such a short one but before editing it, this was just a crazy long waffle on how great Feathers McGraw is and just what a great film this is. I repeated myself so much to the point I had to cut a fair amount from this but if you've seen this and love it as much as I do, you'll know what I mean, if you've not seen it then...watch it, nothing's stopping you. Anyway, that's it for today, peace out baby.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Nick Park
Writer: Nick Park
Bob Baker
Brian Sibley
Runtime: 30 minutes
Plot: After draining their savings on gifts for Gromit's birthday, Wallace has to bring in a lodger, a seemingly innocent penguin who turns out to be a criminal mastermind who plans on using Wallace and his inventions to get what he needs.
I don't think I have a single bad thing to say about this, it's by far the best Wallace & Gromit film I've ever seen, and I've seen all five of them. Everything about this is equal parts ridiculous and smart, I've probably seen things like this done before and maybe even better but I don't care if they did it better, this one is my favourite.
So why is it my favourite? Feathers McGraw. Who is Feathers McGraw? The penguin villain who sticks a rubber glove on his tiny head and boom, he's a chicken. That alone is both the strangest and best concept for a villain ever, add to that that he too is silent (hell I don't even know if it is a he) and relies solely on the music queues to be as dramatic as possible to show the audience that yes, the villain is a penguin, and you're gonna have to be ok with that. The fact that nobody really sees behind the glove on his head and only sees the chicken is amazing too, very similar to a superhero who's alter ego has a vision impairment that nobody can see through. It's just...fuck I love this penguin. He's such a dramatic villain, even without saying a word or really emoting considering he doesn't have eyebrows or any other facial features, he just has a beak and two black, blinking dots for eyes...as a kid I never understood that but I got a sense of how menacing he was, now I see that it actually makes him an even better villain, he doesn't have to make grand speeches or anything he's just badass enough that he doesn't even have to say anything and you know he's a badass that you don't fuck with. It's so stupid to be looking at a plasticine penguin and thinking "this is one of the best animated villains I've seen in my whole damn life". The fact that he doesn't even go to normal prison and that he ends up in a zoo is great too like, it could be seen as commentary on how some animals may feel imprisoned against their will and I don't really know the intent but I just think it's pretty funny. I've gushed too much about Feathers, I'm gonna move on.
Another reason that this is my favourite is that really cool train chase scene which, for stop-motion animation and the time this came out would have been a bitch to make, and make it work as well as it does. I think it's just such a cool, high energy way to catching this penguin and after doing a little bit of research (I know I'm amazed too, barely did any for uni but I'm doing it loads for my reviews) and I found a quote from Nick Park with The Guardian on how they did the train scene.
Quote: "The train chase is something I'd never seen done before in stopframe animation. None of us knew how to do it - or even if it could work. In Tom and Jerry chases, you get used to the background whizzing by and repeating itself, so we tried the same. We built a 20ft long living room wall, 2ft high, and fixed the camera to the train, and filmed on a long shutter speed so the background looked blurry. It was quite a feat."
I imagine it was quite a feat to do that, but it came out so well and one of the best scenes I've ever seen in animation. I also heard that the car chase scene at the end of Toy Story was inspired by this but...I've got no credible sources for that so if anyone finds one hit me up with it.
Finally, one of the best things about this is all the tiny little jokes that go unnoticed unless you've watched it a million times because you have no life and you have a crippling appreciation for stop-motion animation. There's a nod to the previous film A Grand Day Out in the beginning where Gromit is reading the paper and the headline says Moon Cheese Shares Soar, another headline later in the film says Dog Reads Paper. Gromit listens to Bach which...I think is both a great joke depending on how you pronounce the composers name and a decent bit of trivia about the character. And finally, when Feathers is trying to make Gromit feel like an outsider and get him to leave, he plays How much is that doggie in the window and it's taken me years to realise that.
Peter Salis once again does such a great job of playing Wallace, and with the character design being better than it was in A Grand Day Out it fits so much more perfectly, the character is definitely more rounded out here and more of his naivety is shown making the fact that, even being so close to Feathers and not realising it's him with a rubber glove on his head is made so much more believable by Salis' voice.
I'm sorry this is such a short one but before editing it, this was just a crazy long waffle on how great Feathers McGraw is and just what a great film this is. I repeated myself so much to the point I had to cut a fair amount from this but if you've seen this and love it as much as I do, you'll know what I mean, if you've not seen it then...watch it, nothing's stopping you. Anyway, that's it for today, peace out baby.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Tuesday 6 June 2017
Wallace & Gromit - A Grand Day Out
Bit of a change for this week.
This week I was going to go back to my old schedule of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and I had everything written out but then I saw the sad news that Peter Salis had died. Peter Salis was an English actor most known for playing Cleggy in Last Of The Summer Wine and Wallace, from the stop-motion shorts Wallace & Gromit. So in respect of his passing, this week I'll be looking at all of his work as Wallace in chronological order, from A Grand Day Out to A Matter Of Loaf & Death.
Director: Nick Park
Writer: Nick Park
Runtime: 23 Minutes
Plot: It's bank holiday and Wallace and Gromit are looking to find somewhere to do based around cheese. Of course, they end up on the moon and have a strange encounter with a moon robot.
When I first saw this short, it scared the hell out of me as a kid. I don't know why particularly, it was probably that space oven robot thing, but watching it as an adult and after finding a bigger appreciation of stop-motion animation I've found that it's actually funnier than I thought it was as a kid. So let's have a grand...time reading this then going back to watching the short in your bedroom...I've really gotta work on being funny.
The best thing about this short is the weird comedy. There's a joke when they reach the moon where they get out of their rocket without any space suit or anything to help them breathe, gravity is all fine. It's basically like they're on Earth but...they're on the moon made of cheese. Wallace decides to bounce a ball and it flies away into space. As a kid, I didn't get the joke and even when I watched it last night I got it a bit more but laughed anyway because it was a stupid joke. The rest of the comedy comes from Wallace being an idiot and Gromit reacting to him, unable to actually say something because...he's a dog, something that would later become a formula for these characters.
There are two things I definitely want in real life from this short. The magazines Cheese Holidays and more money for that robot. I'll explain a little more. There is a robot on the moon that wants to go skiing but in order to be able to...have a consciousness I guess, it needs to have money in the meter. Towards the end of the short, this little robot goes crazy, trying to get into the rocket with Wallace and Gromit trying to be able to go to Earth to go and ski, however, Wallace thinks this thing is coming to attack him for taking home some moon cheese. It's a pretty funny bit. Unfortunately, the rocket blasts off and the robot gets blasted out of the rocket, but not after taking a couple of pieces of it with it. That's fine, it even makes little ski's out of the pieces of metal it pulled off. It goes skiing and the short ends happily ever after....but my question is, that thing needs money to stay alive...how is gonna continue when it's 20p runs out? This isn't a happy ending it's a damn tragedy.
To wrap this up, I'll talk about how Salis did in the role of Wallace and really the only voice in the short. In my opinion, Salis was a perfect fit for this character, genuinely perfect casting. Hearing his voice separate from this character messes with my head so much. He plays the character like a lovable fool, like the harmless elderly person at the bus stop who's just so nice but deep down you know they've had a crazy life. I always got the sense that Wallace was some crazy scientist in his younger years and Salis definitely brings that out in the character. I cannot imagine this character having any other voice.
Overall, I did love this short and watching it again after, admittedly, a fairly long time and after the passing of Peter Salis, I found it both sad and lovely. It's nothing spectacular by all means I mean, it's a fairly quiet short of a man and his dog going to the moon to eat cheese. I think what made it kick off was how both surreal and relatable it was. This was a nice start to the week, despite the sad circumstances it's come under.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this short. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this short then please go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)