Can we just...not?
Director: Johannes Roberts
Writers: Johannes Roberts
Ernest Riera
Runtime: 1hr 30minutes
Plot: A girl is on holiday with her sister instead of her boyfriend because "he's working" when in reality they broke up because she's boring. When her sister finds out she takes her out and they meet a couple of guys who offer to take them cage diving with sharks. The chain breaks when they're inside and they end up 47 metres down in the ocean, trapped with vicious, evil, monstrous killing machines (sharks) and low oxygen.
First off, Sorry I've not posted in a while, I'm trying to build up a backlog for when I'm back at uni and I'm not very good with time management to be able to write my ass off for posting and backlog, regular posting will be back soon I promise. Second, don't waste your money, your energy or your time on this film. It's not worth it, I promise. It's worse than Amy Schumer's latest film and boy is that some feat. Third, I blame Spielberg for this film being a possibility. Let's just get into it because I just wanna forget this thing.
So the other day, I was at Ben's and we were just having a fun day really, we were in Tesco's car park discussing what we were gonna do that night and considering we always go to the cinema, we decided to not break a habit and go to the cinema. He looked up what was being shown and he mentioned that, read out the plot and it sounded pretty good. I don't think it had great things written about it but what was written was just general trashy reviews for a bad film and...that's fine, we've seen enough crap and didn't think it was gonna be the worst thing ever. We went into Tesco, got food and a DVD which was incredible trash and I will write about it because it's just perfectly bad. We thought that was gonna be the worst of the two films. We were wrong. I genuinely cannot remember anything good except for this film ending so...this isn't really a review, more a "what's wrong with this" piece.
The first problem with the film, shark hating. I don't know if it's because I love sharks and think they're just great and stuff but...people seem to think that sharks, especially Great Whites are the most vicious and evil animals in the ocean that will just attack for no reason. They don't. Sharks are precious and beautiful and while they are great predators, they can't tell the difference between a human and it's natural prey. I'm not sure if there has been any record of a shark intentionally attacking a human out in open water.
Personally, I do blame Steven Spielberg for this, if it wasn't for Jaws instilling a true fear of sharks into people and creating this thing where people think sharks are the evil bosses of the ocean. There a way scarier things in the ocean, like Angler Fish. I thought one of them would have shown up at one point because there was this light not doing anything and it would have been cool to see one. There's the Giant Squid, a Sarcastic Fringehead (which is already a great title for a film) the list goes on. Can we do something different other than demonising sharks? Please?
The second problem with the film, the main character of the film doesn't follow her instincts when she sees the very small and ratty looking "business" of this shark cage diving thing. She doesn't trust her instincts when the little boat drives all the way out to nowhere, she doesn't trust her instincts when she sees the rusty ass boat. She doesn't trust her instincts when she sees these people chum (cut and ground fish) the water which is a dangerous thing to do as it can make the sharks associate food with humans, and she doesn't trust her instincts when she sees the size of the sharks (20ft) or the rusty ass cable. She doesn't trust her instincts which could have saved lives all for the sake of getting a few pictures to prove her (ex)boyfriend wrong about her being boring. I suppose being petty is worth the two lives that were taken.
The third problem, underwater physics don't apply in the world of cinema apparently.
Fourth problem, the main character in this is an idiot. If you know that you're trapped underwater with sharks and your leg is trapped under a rusty cage after having this cage land heavily on you and you're in excruciating pain, 1, don't try and get your leg out, it could be bleeding which will attract the attention of the sharks. 2, don't try and get your leg out, it could be bleeding and you might bleed out. 3, If you do try and get your leg out and it is bleeding and possibly broken, don't get out of the cage and swim. You may leave a blood trail and your injury will leave you moving slower and easy prey for a shark to come get you. 4, don't shoot yourself with a fucking spear gun. 5, if you're asked if you have any scuba experience and you lie about it then give off evidence that you don't know anything about scuba diving and the business owner still allows you to take part in the activity, don't do it. And finally, 6, don't go against every single piece of advice you're given in this situation, you're not gonna get anywhere acting like you know what you're doing in a life or death situation.
The fifth problem, there's a "fake out" when the main characters are given a second tank of oxygen and are told to keep an eye on each other in case they start to hallucinate. A shark takes the head off the main characters sisters body (sorry, spoiler there) and as soon as the main character takes her first hit off the new tank, her sister starts speaking to her, acting like the shark only got her leg. It looks like the sisters manage to make it out of the ocean and danger after a few sharks attempt to murder the both of them and when they're on the boat, bleeding, the main character looks at her hand which looks to be still bleeding but underwater. Normally, I'm not bothered about a fake out if it offers something about the story or characters but....this one doesn't. This is just there to pad out the runtime and make its audience angrier that it has to sit an extra five minutes to the end of the film. I think I heard a few groans from the people surrounding us and I completely understand them.
The sixth problem, this was a wasted potential of a film. It could have been really scary with its darkness and the fact it's 47 metres down in the ocean. This could have been extremely creative and very scary but it just relied on jump scares in the darkness and "ooooohhh no, sharks are evil bad guys, oooohhhh" which is dumb and make this extremely boring. Turns out, the film we watched earlier that day Zombiesaurus, hell we watched Cars 3 last week and even that was scarier than this.
Now I know this sounds extremely bias against the film and it is just my opinion here which...is great if you just want one person's opinion but because 1, I'd like to be backed up on this and 2, I saw how eager this guy was to get out of the cinema, I think it's fair that Ben gets a say in this one too. So I asked him to write a short paragraph basically giving his opinion on the film.
"47 Metres Down was a sickening waste of $5000000, although there are a few moments within the film which was tense and arguably entertaining, it does not overrule the sheer disappointment this film is. After watching this movie all the way through the only thing I came out with was the feeling of disappointment and an extensive knowledge of the bends. A few things which made no sense was the way that a Great White shark is able to rip through a metal diving cage like it was made of marshmallows but was unable to tear a single limb from the main character over the multiple times the shark attacks her."
Look at how professional my boy wrote that, gonna put me out of business.
Anyway, that's it from me peace out, stay hydrated and don't waste your money going to see this film, spend it wiser and buy yourself some water or something to eat. Treat yo' self.
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.
Monday 31 July 2017
Sunday 16 July 2017
A female Doctor is a huge step forward in equality for the sexes
Why has this become about gender politics rather than just...entertainment?
I used to be a big fan of Doctor Who, my dad used to watch all the old episodes on Yesterday (if the channel is still called that) and sometimes, I'd watch with him and just enjoy it. They were fun and dark and light and emotional and just...good from what I remember. Then I remember watching the Christopher Eccleston Doctor on BBC3 and they were pretty cool too until he regenerated into David Tennant who honestly I loved so much, he was a perfect Doctor in my opinion. When Tennant became Smith, I gave it a chance but by that point, I wasn't really into it and didn't really like Matt Smith as the Doctor so I just left it, if it was on and there was nothing else to watch I'd sit through it. When it became Peter Capaldi, I sat down and gave him a chance too, I thought he was better than Smith but again, I wasn't too into it and just got on with my life.
Fast forward to today, July 16th, 2017 and the 13th incarnation of the last Timelord has been announced. Jodie Whittaker will be taking the Tardis from Peter Capaldi. Jodie got a fair amount of notoriety from playing Beth Latimer in Broadchurch and from what I saw of her on that show, she's a good actor.
What do I think about a female Doctor? I don't care, I'll give her a chance like I gave Smith and Capaldi a chance but I'm not raising my hopes up too much considering how female characters have been written before in this show and it's spinoffs. (Hint: they've not been very good.)
How does the rest of the internet feel about a female Doctor? It looks as though the extreme feminists have taken it and just ran with it, saying that it's a big step forward to gender equality, it's giving little girls hope that they too might be able to become a Doctor and it's not just the men that can do it. I have people on my Facebook feed, threatening to delete people if they don't like the fact that the new Doctor is a woman. Problem being, these people have gotta be hunting for negativity in the comment section of The Daily Mail because personally, I've not seen any negative comments about this. The worst thing I've seen is caution, which is reasonable because we don't know how it's gonna go down do we?
Being cautious is not unreasonable, they're not being sexist, or misogynistic or anything against her. Change is always a risky thing when it comes to a long running show with a changing lead actor because you don't know how the audience is going to react and you definitely don't know how the show is going to do as a result of it. The fact that The Doctor is an alien who can regenerate into whatever it wanted is cool as hell and I remember being a kid and watching David Tennant and thinking "shit yeah, I wanna be a Doctor in this show". I remember discussing who would be a cool female Doctor at school.
I and a lot of fans of the show have wanted this for a long time and I'm glad that they're going to do it, but everyone seems to be making such a huge deal out of it when there are many other things that could be considered a real step in gender equality. The only real issue I have with this is that it seems more like a move in gender politics rather than have it be beneficial to the story. As I said, I've not been keeping up with it all that much since Tennant left the role and so I don't know if there was a plot thread that was leading up to this or not but with it being 2017 and pretty much at the peak of a new wave of Feminism that seems to just complain that everything is sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic and every other ist and phobic you can think of, it seems as though it's more a gender politics move to appease the masses rather than have it be plot driven. That's just my opinion though.
Things to deal with to make the sexes equal rather than complaining about the gender of a character:
I used to be a big fan of Doctor Who, my dad used to watch all the old episodes on Yesterday (if the channel is still called that) and sometimes, I'd watch with him and just enjoy it. They were fun and dark and light and emotional and just...good from what I remember. Then I remember watching the Christopher Eccleston Doctor on BBC3 and they were pretty cool too until he regenerated into David Tennant who honestly I loved so much, he was a perfect Doctor in my opinion. When Tennant became Smith, I gave it a chance but by that point, I wasn't really into it and didn't really like Matt Smith as the Doctor so I just left it, if it was on and there was nothing else to watch I'd sit through it. When it became Peter Capaldi, I sat down and gave him a chance too, I thought he was better than Smith but again, I wasn't too into it and just got on with my life.
Fast forward to today, July 16th, 2017 and the 13th incarnation of the last Timelord has been announced. Jodie Whittaker will be taking the Tardis from Peter Capaldi. Jodie got a fair amount of notoriety from playing Beth Latimer in Broadchurch and from what I saw of her on that show, she's a good actor.
What do I think about a female Doctor? I don't care, I'll give her a chance like I gave Smith and Capaldi a chance but I'm not raising my hopes up too much considering how female characters have been written before in this show and it's spinoffs. (Hint: they've not been very good.)
How does the rest of the internet feel about a female Doctor? It looks as though the extreme feminists have taken it and just ran with it, saying that it's a big step forward to gender equality, it's giving little girls hope that they too might be able to become a Doctor and it's not just the men that can do it. I have people on my Facebook feed, threatening to delete people if they don't like the fact that the new Doctor is a woman. Problem being, these people have gotta be hunting for negativity in the comment section of The Daily Mail because personally, I've not seen any negative comments about this. The worst thing I've seen is caution, which is reasonable because we don't know how it's gonna go down do we?
Being cautious is not unreasonable, they're not being sexist, or misogynistic or anything against her. Change is always a risky thing when it comes to a long running show with a changing lead actor because you don't know how the audience is going to react and you definitely don't know how the show is going to do as a result of it. The fact that The Doctor is an alien who can regenerate into whatever it wanted is cool as hell and I remember being a kid and watching David Tennant and thinking "shit yeah, I wanna be a Doctor in this show". I remember discussing who would be a cool female Doctor at school.
I and a lot of fans of the show have wanted this for a long time and I'm glad that they're going to do it, but everyone seems to be making such a huge deal out of it when there are many other things that could be considered a real step in gender equality. The only real issue I have with this is that it seems more like a move in gender politics rather than have it be beneficial to the story. As I said, I've not been keeping up with it all that much since Tennant left the role and so I don't know if there was a plot thread that was leading up to this or not but with it being 2017 and pretty much at the peak of a new wave of Feminism that seems to just complain that everything is sexist, racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic and every other ist and phobic you can think of, it seems as though it's more a gender politics move to appease the masses rather than have it be plot driven. That's just my opinion though.
Things to deal with to make the sexes equal rather than complaining about the gender of a character:
- Equal sentences for crimes committed
- More domestic violence centres for male victims
- Circumcision to be stopped in both genders, not just girls
- Encourage women to take up the work that men do to close the "wage gap"
- Equal rights in the East considering we've essentially done all we can in the West unless every country decides that we're just gonna send ourselves back to the 50's
- Stop bitching about Trump saying to a woman that she has a nice figure and focus on his politics
- Focus on literally anything more important than a fictional character in a TV Show about an alien who can regenerate into whatever form it chooses.
Like I said before when Capaldi becomes Whittaker I'll give it a chance and see what's going on with it. If anything I'll get a good experience watching the regeneration because that's always interesting to see. Anyway, that's it, I'm gonna go back to writing everything else I was writing before feeling compelled to do this. Peace out, stay hydrated.
Saturday 15 July 2017
Spider-man: Homecoming
Singularly the scariest Marvel film I've ever experienced.
Director: Jon Watts
Writers: Jonathan Goldstein (Screenplay and Screen Story)
John Francis Daly (Screenplay and Screen Story)
Jon Watts (Screenplay)
Christopher Ford (Screenplay)
Chris McKenna (Screenplay)
Erik Sommers (Screenplay)
Stan Lee (Based on the comic)
Steve Ditko (Based on the comic)
Runtime: 2hrs 13minutes
Plot: Peter Parker does his best to become an Avenger by going against Tony Stark's advice...
I'm gonna get this point out first. I'm sorry I didn't post the rest of my stuff this week. I didn't do that because I literally couldn't, I wrote everything up in a day and a night, I exhausted myself, I worked my fingers to the absolute bone and you wanna know what I did? My dumb ass didn't save shit so when it came time to post stuff, I had nothing to post. I suck. To make it up, I'm gonna write about the new Spiderman film even though I was planning on holding off on writing any Marvel film up because I wanted to wait for the series to end and then marathon it and just get it all out in one go. But oh well, here we go.
I'd also like to get this out of the way too, this is the scariest Marvel film I've seen. My heart fell right out of my arse about three times throughout the course of the film. It managed to find out what two of my biggest fears are, and threw them onto the screen for my dumb ass to sit through, I'm only glad I didn't see this in 3D or else it wouldn't have just been my heart that fell out of my arse. Do I wanna do spoilers? Nah, it'll be fine if I just talk about two scenes. The first scene that scared me: there's a scene where something happens an elevator and it falls, the cables break and this thing just starts to fall. Obviously, Spiderman (Tom Holland) saves the day, and I knew that was coming, but I did not breathe at all through that scene until everybody in that scene was safe. The second scene that scared the hell out of me was where this ferry gets split in half, I breathed a lot better during that scene but I swear that's scary as hell too if you're terrified of a Titanic disaster scenario. Finally, the reveal of the connection of Michael Keaton's Vulture villain to Peter Parker is very well done in terms of engaging the audience in a tense kind of fear. That fear where you think you heard a noise downstairs while you're in the shower but you're too scared to move because you don't wanna die but at the same time, you know there isn't shit to be scared of, it's probably the cat knocking something over. That kinda fear.
Speaking of Keaton, he is so damn good in this, I mean he is a great actor anyway and to have him go from a hero where he was hella perfect, to being a villain for the "rival" comic series is even better. He can be threatening, he can be kind, he can be relatable, his motivations are understandable and of course, he's fucking funny. I'm so happy he's getting work still, he's so good and I'm so glad his character doesn't get killed off, in fact, he even gets the after credits scene which is...not what I expected really. After credits scene is a different post altogether.
Putting praise on hold for a moment, I wanna complain about the Marvel opening credit which shouldn't be classed as a credit at this point, it should be just a scene all of its own. Seriously, Marvel, you take half an hour of my soul away with that long ass credit, your old one was fine, you know it's gonna get longer with the more films and characters you're adding. Quit while you're ahead. Please.
Back to praise, there are these weird short video thing where Captain America is doing these kinda PSA things which...are/were those a real thing? Like...they're very weird, borderline uncomfortable but the coach's reaction to them being "state required" to watch them and just not caring is great. Speaking of the coach, he's played by Hannibal Buress who...honestly if you put him in the right thing he's pretty funny. He's got a deadpan sort of comedy where it's almost like he doesn't care if you find him funny or not, which is cool but can come off wrong with the wrong script.
Uncle Ben doesn't make an appearance, you'd think he would considering his death is a big thing for Peter Parker's character development but...in this film, it's just kind of glossed over in a line said by Aunt May. Hell his name isn't even said, all May says is something along the lines of "you're going through a lot" which could possibly be in reference to him? I dunno. I didn't see Civil War so if it's brought up there then I guess it's covered for this film but y'know. I don't know whether I like that Uncle Ben isn't really...a thing in this, I guess Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr....took me 10 minutes of thinking "Bruce Willis" before I looked it up) takes on the "Uncle Ben" role...kinda...but he doesn't die and just issues some tough love for this kid just dicking about in an expensive and highly technical suit which is fair enough like.
What else is there? Oh right yeah Deadpool. So, if there's one thing I would like for Disney and Fox to sort out, is a Deadpool / Spider-man / Iron Man film. Think about it, Tom Holland as Spider-man is precious, he's just a precious little naive kid who's just getting used to his shit and is a geek in a school for geeks. Ryan Reynolds Deadpool is the cockiest thing living outside of the fourth wall. The story could be Peter Parker has a fall out with Stark and the rest of the Avengers and falls into the hands of Wade Wilson, shit happens, it's all fun and games, they fight villains and shit and then Stark comes in and just balls them both out for all the wanton destruction they've caused while Wade is just cracking jokes about the Iron Man suit and the rest of the Avengers and oh man. I know that this probably doesn't happen in the comics and may never come to light due to the fact that two different companies have rights to different characters but you know what, I can dream. It'd be kind of like a Cat In The Hat sort of thing except...not. I'm gonna end up rambling and I could do an entire post about it and my whole idea that would never get picked up, which I might do...hmm.
Anyway, that's it from me for today, this is a really fun film to watch even if it does kind of expect you to know about the character of Spiderman and stuff, but y'know what, I don't think it matters really for those who haven't read the comics or seen the previous films. It still does well and is fun to watch, even if it is scary as hell. Ok, I'm done, go see this movie peace out.
Also if you're wondering why it's called Homecoming, it's because there's a Homecoming dance in it which has no relevance to the rest of the story other than containing a moment that's semi crucial to the plot but it still kinda doesn't matter.
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.
Tuesday 11 July 2017
Birdman (Or the unexpected virtue of ignorance)
What has to happen in a person's life for them to become a critic anyway?
Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writers: Raymond Carver (Play)
Alejandro Gonzláez Iñárritu
Armando Bo
Alexander Dinerlaris Jr
Nicolás Giacobone
Runtime: 2hrs
Plot: An old comic book actor tries to make his mark on the stage but his past seems to bother him more and more.
A special request from May 21st that I just...did not get around to until the other week and then I had to do a buttload of research on too because this is just such an interesting and cool film. I'm sorry it's taken almost 2 months to get around to this Lewis, but...here it is.
First off, I wanna talk about the parallels between Michael Keaton's career as Batman and Riggan Thompson as Birdman. That sounds weird but as we know, Michael Keaton was Batman from 1989 to 1992 in the two Burton films. This film makes a lot of comparisons to the man and the character, for example at one point Riggan (Michael Keaton) is doing a press thing for his adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story What we talk about when we talk about love he mentions he hasn't played Birdman since 1992, just as when Keaton stopped being Batman. There's another moment where Riggan is talking to...I don't know whether to call it a mental health issue or just an over obsession with the character or maybe just an emotional connection based on nostalgia that he can't get rid of. But there's a scene where Riggan is talking to...whatever that is but in Birdman form and it's telling him he should do the third Birdman movie, which Riggan had rejected doing, just like Keaton had done in the past. There's a fair amount of other little things such as the design of the Birdman costume looks a hell of a lot like Batman's costume but...looks more like a bird with feathers than a leather outfit with a headpiece that restricts head movement. Both look hella cool tho.
Also, I love how much of an exaggeration of the reports that Edward Norton is a dick to work with had contributed to the character of Mike being such a pretentious dick of a method actor. Disclaimer: I have nothing against method actors, just this character being a dick with it.
I have a problem with how I went into this film being told and thinking that this was a "one-shot" film. Obviously, there would have been cuts and stuff for time and editing purposes and stuff but you see...it's not. There's a moment towards the end where the "one shot" thing just gets completely abandoned and it just kinda took me out of the whole film, I know that sounds stupid and I know that what I'm talking about is a "dream sequence" I guess, and it's near the end of the film but like...I dunno, you wanna advertise your film as a "one take" thing and then have a scene where you have multiple cuts? Seems a bit off to me. There were a few other obvious cuts such as a day to night thing but they at least made that look like time was passing and stuff.
There's a fair bit of critic bashing in this too, which I get because most of the time artists and their respective critics aren't always the best of friends, for example, Adam Sandler gets absolutely slammed for near enough every project he takes part in. Hotel Transylvania is and was a very funny comedy based on classic horror movie monsters with a message about love and letting go and stuff. Go look at the reviews for it, the poor guy got absolutely rinsed for it. The point is, this film took a look at critics, saw that some are just dicks who don't like anything and when they do they're probably bribed to write something good and it shows here. Quote: What has to happen in someone's life for them to become a critic anyway? Is a phrase said in this film and...I see where they're coming from when you see the mindset of the woman playing the critic. She thinks film actors aren't artists and for them to try and do stage work is an insult to theatre. In my wonderfully young, naive and unprofessional opinion, she's wrong as hell. Yes, theatre is an art form and to get a performance perfect and do it better night after night after night, one after the other is hard as hell. But once that play is done, it's done, the only record of it happening is playbills and reviews. Film is also an art form, and with film actors, there might not be pressure to get it perfect the first time but once that film is out in the public there's a hell of a lot of pressure to get that film seen to at least get the studio their money back. There's pressure on their public image, their career and so many other things. They do have to give a good performance but if that film doesn't do well then their career can take a hit and studio's may not want to give them a chance again. I don't think it's fair that some people don't think about this sort of thing because they should at least take it into consideration when comparing the two. For as much as I don't like some actors, it's nice to see they still get work and I'll always appreciate the work these people put in. (Unless you're Rob Schnieder, please find some other work to do, as long we don't see your face or hear your voice on screen again I'm happy, hell be a director or producer or something just...fuck man.)
I think that's all I've got to say about it, it's a good film, very good in fact. I don't know how I'd never seen it before, but I guess it's just a case of it being out there just waiting for people to watch it and if they're not gonna watch it they're not gonna watch it and that's fine, it really is, it's what freedom of choice is all about. Speaking of freedom of choice, go watch it if you liked what I said about it and have a good ass day guys.
(I'm very sorry to Lewis because this was so late) 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: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Writers: Raymond Carver (Play)
Alejandro Gonzláez Iñárritu
Armando Bo
Alexander Dinerlaris Jr
Nicolás Giacobone
Runtime: 2hrs
Plot: An old comic book actor tries to make his mark on the stage but his past seems to bother him more and more.
A special request from May 21st that I just...did not get around to until the other week and then I had to do a buttload of research on too because this is just such an interesting and cool film. I'm sorry it's taken almost 2 months to get around to this Lewis, but...here it is.
First off, I wanna talk about the parallels between Michael Keaton's career as Batman and Riggan Thompson as Birdman. That sounds weird but as we know, Michael Keaton was Batman from 1989 to 1992 in the two Burton films. This film makes a lot of comparisons to the man and the character, for example at one point Riggan (Michael Keaton) is doing a press thing for his adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story What we talk about when we talk about love he mentions he hasn't played Birdman since 1992, just as when Keaton stopped being Batman. There's another moment where Riggan is talking to...I don't know whether to call it a mental health issue or just an over obsession with the character or maybe just an emotional connection based on nostalgia that he can't get rid of. But there's a scene where Riggan is talking to...whatever that is but in Birdman form and it's telling him he should do the third Birdman movie, which Riggan had rejected doing, just like Keaton had done in the past. There's a fair amount of other little things such as the design of the Birdman costume looks a hell of a lot like Batman's costume but...looks more like a bird with feathers than a leather outfit with a headpiece that restricts head movement. Both look hella cool tho.
Also, I love how much of an exaggeration of the reports that Edward Norton is a dick to work with had contributed to the character of Mike being such a pretentious dick of a method actor. Disclaimer: I have nothing against method actors, just this character being a dick with it.
I have a problem with how I went into this film being told and thinking that this was a "one-shot" film. Obviously, there would have been cuts and stuff for time and editing purposes and stuff but you see...it's not. There's a moment towards the end where the "one shot" thing just gets completely abandoned and it just kinda took me out of the whole film, I know that sounds stupid and I know that what I'm talking about is a "dream sequence" I guess, and it's near the end of the film but like...I dunno, you wanna advertise your film as a "one take" thing and then have a scene where you have multiple cuts? Seems a bit off to me. There were a few other obvious cuts such as a day to night thing but they at least made that look like time was passing and stuff.
There's a fair bit of critic bashing in this too, which I get because most of the time artists and their respective critics aren't always the best of friends, for example, Adam Sandler gets absolutely slammed for near enough every project he takes part in. Hotel Transylvania is and was a very funny comedy based on classic horror movie monsters with a message about love and letting go and stuff. Go look at the reviews for it, the poor guy got absolutely rinsed for it. The point is, this film took a look at critics, saw that some are just dicks who don't like anything and when they do they're probably bribed to write something good and it shows here. Quote: What has to happen in someone's life for them to become a critic anyway? Is a phrase said in this film and...I see where they're coming from when you see the mindset of the woman playing the critic. She thinks film actors aren't artists and for them to try and do stage work is an insult to theatre. In my wonderfully young, naive and unprofessional opinion, she's wrong as hell. Yes, theatre is an art form and to get a performance perfect and do it better night after night after night, one after the other is hard as hell. But once that play is done, it's done, the only record of it happening is playbills and reviews. Film is also an art form, and with film actors, there might not be pressure to get it perfect the first time but once that film is out in the public there's a hell of a lot of pressure to get that film seen to at least get the studio their money back. There's pressure on their public image, their career and so many other things. They do have to give a good performance but if that film doesn't do well then their career can take a hit and studio's may not want to give them a chance again. I don't think it's fair that some people don't think about this sort of thing because they should at least take it into consideration when comparing the two. For as much as I don't like some actors, it's nice to see they still get work and I'll always appreciate the work these people put in. (Unless you're Rob Schnieder, please find some other work to do, as long we don't see your face or hear your voice on screen again I'm happy, hell be a director or producer or something just...fuck man.)
I think that's all I've got to say about it, it's a good film, very good in fact. I don't know how I'd never seen it before, but I guess it's just a case of it being out there just waiting for people to watch it and if they're not gonna watch it they're not gonna watch it and that's fine, it really is, it's what freedom of choice is all about. Speaking of freedom of choice, go watch it if you liked what I said about it and have a good ass day guys.
(I'm very sorry to Lewis because this was so late) 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.
Monday 3 July 2017
All Eyez On Me
1 of the 4 good films I've seen this year.
Director: Benny Boom
Writers: Jeremy Haft
Eddie Gonzalez
Steven Bagatourian
Runtime: 2hrs 19minutes
Plot: A biographical film about the life of rapper Tupac Shakur.
Finally, I got to see a good film, after the stream of shit I've gotten to see something good which is such a breath of fresh air. It's not a great film, I mean there are a few things that are a bit off and I don't mean in the "story", I know nothing of Tupac's life and the only thing I knew of his death (before seeing this) was that he was at a boxing fight that night and got shot in a car a few streets away. That was all I knew, so going into this I wanted to be a bit educated and just watch something about another human being who had a huge impact on the world. But like I said, the film itself has a few issues. I'll discuss those then I'll get back to talking about the good in this because there is a lot of good.
So the first thing that, almost took me out of the second half of the film was the framing in the first half. In the first half, Tupac is in prison due to the wrongful incarceration on charges of (I think) indecent touching and sexual assault? Correct me if I'm wrong, the film said he wasn't guilty of rape but he was guilty of something else which he got locked up for 18 months in a maximum security prison. Back to the point, he's in prison and is taking part in filming what seems to be a documentary and throughout the film, it keeps cutting from his past to talking to the guy filming and so when it gets to the point that the past catches up to the present, it makes you think that the film is almost over because, in my experience whenever a film's had a framing device like that, that's where the film ends. This felt like two films sort of sewn together, one was the filming of a documentary and looking back on Tupac's life, and the other was...a regular biopic with that important text at the end of it. Just a little confusing.
The next thing I want to talk about is just this one moment near the end of the film. Tupac got in a fight at the casino, went back up to his room, got changed, told his girlfriend he was going to the club and would be back in an hour and left. Once he left the room he stands outside the door, brooding, like a warrior who was going to war, knowing he was about to lose his life. I can 100% guarantee that is not how that moment went down, he obviously didn't know he was going to be the victim of another gun attack, he didn't know he was about to die. At the very most he was probably thinking "ah shit, might get in another scrap tonight" but he wouldn't fucking stand there like that. He'd have just left. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong if he did stand there contemplating life and death and all meaning on Earth for about 5 minutes and you back that up with some sort of evidence I'll gladly retract what I said but for now, I'm gonna say that inspirational bs didn't happen.
Finally, I want to talk about Snoop Dogg. Snoop was in the film, I know some of you who know all about Tupac and the people he was friends with are probably saying "duh you idiot, they collaborated and were friends how did you not know this you idiot" so like...one, I genuinely didn't know, I thought they would have just been separate entities in the music industry, two; I don't mean that someone was just playing Snoop Dogg in the film, I mean the guy did voice over work for the actor playing him. That's what I got the issue with. When the actor first opened his mouth, and Snoops voice came out I was blown away. This guy's the BEST impersonator, how did they swing that? Then as the film went on I just didn't feel it you know? I knew something was up and I wasn't sure. It was only on the way home that Ben said he'd noticed that at some points, the voice didn't match up with the actor's mouth so I googled it and it's dubbed. Why? Did the actor just look like a young Snoop but had such a horrid voice that he had to be dubbed? I dunno, there's just something about that that just kinda presses the wrong buttons with me.
So, onto the good. Learned a fair amount, like Shakur dated Madonna. Brave guy. He was in the Baltimore School For The Arts, I dunno why it surprised me but it did. Pretty much everything in this that wasn't the events leading up to his death was something cool that I learned.
I also loved the choice of actors, every single person cast in this looks like their real life counterparts, how do I know? I looked at side by side shots of the actors and real people. But for real, this was just so weird to look at yet you can definitely tell that whoever was in charge of casting was definitely not wanting to miscast anyone and in doing that, offend anyone.
Finally, there was no talk of conspiracy theories. No "Biggie killed Tupac" or anything like that. When Tupac was first attacked and shot, he believed Biggie to have been a part of it, and so we saw that through his eyes. There's no definite thing on who did that mentioned in the film and I think that's good, at least it portray's that in an unbiased and honest light. They could have gone down the route of showing the gunman's face for a very split second to be discovered on DVD when people look at it to overanalyse it. Hell for all I know that could be it but I don't think so.
So that's what I thought of that, everyone did a great job in making the film, except whoever decided on the framing device, that was dumb. Anyway, that's it for today. It'll be my birthday when this goes out so like, the best present would be shares and stuff on any of my posts. Up to you like. Anyway, peace out, love you's, 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 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: Benny Boom
Writers: Jeremy Haft
Eddie Gonzalez
Steven Bagatourian
Runtime: 2hrs 19minutes
Plot: A biographical film about the life of rapper Tupac Shakur.
Finally, I got to see a good film, after the stream of shit I've gotten to see something good which is such a breath of fresh air. It's not a great film, I mean there are a few things that are a bit off and I don't mean in the "story", I know nothing of Tupac's life and the only thing I knew of his death (before seeing this) was that he was at a boxing fight that night and got shot in a car a few streets away. That was all I knew, so going into this I wanted to be a bit educated and just watch something about another human being who had a huge impact on the world. But like I said, the film itself has a few issues. I'll discuss those then I'll get back to talking about the good in this because there is a lot of good.
So the first thing that, almost took me out of the second half of the film was the framing in the first half. In the first half, Tupac is in prison due to the wrongful incarceration on charges of (I think) indecent touching and sexual assault? Correct me if I'm wrong, the film said he wasn't guilty of rape but he was guilty of something else which he got locked up for 18 months in a maximum security prison. Back to the point, he's in prison and is taking part in filming what seems to be a documentary and throughout the film, it keeps cutting from his past to talking to the guy filming and so when it gets to the point that the past catches up to the present, it makes you think that the film is almost over because, in my experience whenever a film's had a framing device like that, that's where the film ends. This felt like two films sort of sewn together, one was the filming of a documentary and looking back on Tupac's life, and the other was...a regular biopic with that important text at the end of it. Just a little confusing.
The next thing I want to talk about is just this one moment near the end of the film. Tupac got in a fight at the casino, went back up to his room, got changed, told his girlfriend he was going to the club and would be back in an hour and left. Once he left the room he stands outside the door, brooding, like a warrior who was going to war, knowing he was about to lose his life. I can 100% guarantee that is not how that moment went down, he obviously didn't know he was going to be the victim of another gun attack, he didn't know he was about to die. At the very most he was probably thinking "ah shit, might get in another scrap tonight" but he wouldn't fucking stand there like that. He'd have just left. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong if he did stand there contemplating life and death and all meaning on Earth for about 5 minutes and you back that up with some sort of evidence I'll gladly retract what I said but for now, I'm gonna say that inspirational bs didn't happen.
Finally, I want to talk about Snoop Dogg. Snoop was in the film, I know some of you who know all about Tupac and the people he was friends with are probably saying "duh you idiot, they collaborated and were friends how did you not know this you idiot" so like...one, I genuinely didn't know, I thought they would have just been separate entities in the music industry, two; I don't mean that someone was just playing Snoop Dogg in the film, I mean the guy did voice over work for the actor playing him. That's what I got the issue with. When the actor first opened his mouth, and Snoops voice came out I was blown away. This guy's the BEST impersonator, how did they swing that? Then as the film went on I just didn't feel it you know? I knew something was up and I wasn't sure. It was only on the way home that Ben said he'd noticed that at some points, the voice didn't match up with the actor's mouth so I googled it and it's dubbed. Why? Did the actor just look like a young Snoop but had such a horrid voice that he had to be dubbed? I dunno, there's just something about that that just kinda presses the wrong buttons with me.
So, onto the good. Learned a fair amount, like Shakur dated Madonna. Brave guy. He was in the Baltimore School For The Arts, I dunno why it surprised me but it did. Pretty much everything in this that wasn't the events leading up to his death was something cool that I learned.
I also loved the choice of actors, every single person cast in this looks like their real life counterparts, how do I know? I looked at side by side shots of the actors and real people. But for real, this was just so weird to look at yet you can definitely tell that whoever was in charge of casting was definitely not wanting to miscast anyone and in doing that, offend anyone.
Finally, there was no talk of conspiracy theories. No "Biggie killed Tupac" or anything like that. When Tupac was first attacked and shot, he believed Biggie to have been a part of it, and so we saw that through his eyes. There's no definite thing on who did that mentioned in the film and I think that's good, at least it portray's that in an unbiased and honest light. They could have gone down the route of showing the gunman's face for a very split second to be discovered on DVD when people look at it to overanalyse it. Hell for all I know that could be it but I don't think so.
So that's what I thought of that, everyone did a great job in making the film, except whoever decided on the framing device, that was dumb. Anyway, that's it for today. It'll be my birthday when this goes out so like, the best present would be shares and stuff on any of my posts. Up to you like. Anyway, peace out, love you's, 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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)