Monday 25 December 2017
2017: A year of Photos
2017: A Year of Movies
I doubt that this will come as a surprise, but after a year, I still haven't learned to be responsible with my money, but thankfully I don't have to worry about paying for movies, thanks to my Odeon Limitless membership, which I've used about 50 times this year, and that's not a joke, I counted my tickets, 58 times to be exact. This of course means that I've watched even more movies this year, making this my hardest top ten list to date, by a considerable margin. And as usual, I still haven't seen every film released in 2017, so I'm sure there are some out there that would be on the list had I watched them, but of the ones I did, these are my favourites, organised into a neat little list because top tens are popular, for some reason.
Honourable mentions include Wonder Woman; the fact that a Wonder Woman movie turned out not only to not be complete shit, but the best thing DC's come out with since The Dark Knight, still boggles my mind, it's a pretty good film, but still not film of the year material, at least for me.Life; a solid science fiction horror film that did follow most of the familiar beats of the genre, not really breaking any sort of mold, but it had cool characters, a fascinating monster, and an ending that scared the living fuck out of me, which instantly gives the film top marks in my book, as it really doesn't happen often, not like that anyway.
Ghost in the Shell; I film surrounded by controversy, one I've written about at length, and a film that, I felt, did a lot right, a lot more than it was given credit for by the vast majority of reviewers. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but a lot of the strengths from the anime were adapted very well, and in some aspects, I even thought it made improvements, like making the characters better and interspersing its philosophy with some really enjoyable action sequences, good film, would recommend.
And the dishonourable mention goes to The Emoji Movie, because fuck The Emoji Movie, enough said.
Number 8 is one of two films on this list that I never reviewed, because I was too lazy to do it, you know me, I don't make excuses for myself. But just like its predecessor which I also loved, War for the Planet of the Apes has a long title, and is a film where I never knew what to expect, since it was such a splendid example of good story telling. It's twists and turns are numerous and effective, it's characters are terrific, even if they consist almost entirely of CG apes, the CG work and motion capture has never been and probably won't be done better until they make the next one, and the film is dark, like really dark, a bit rough to watch even, impressive for a film about talking monkeys, and it rounds out what's probably one of the best movie trilogies in recent years.
Number 7 is a film that would always have been on the list, even if, like Planet of the Apes, I didn't review it, Edgar Wright's latest masterpiece; Baby Driver. Baby Driver is certainly the most stylish film of the year that I've seen, with fantastic directing, very stylish and high energy editing, brilliantly snappy writing, and some seriously sweet car chases that completely make the film, that and the soundtrack, good god, the soundtrack. Baby Driver was a cracking film that I'd gladly have watched again, had my local cinema still been showing it, which for some weird reason they weren't.
Number 6 is the latest in my favourite dead movie genre; the Western, only it's disguised as a superhero film for more audience appeal because it's also an X-men film, that's right, it's Logan. Everything that needs to be said about this film has already been said, many times, by many people, with its grim, depressing portrayals of heroes who have fallen from grace, a uniquely small sense of scale in it's very effective story, and a few scenes that are completely heart breaking, including possibly the most satisfying ending to a superhero story that the genre has seen. It's hard hitting stuff, with a style completely dethatched from the flashy, larger than life X-men franchise, it's unique, brutal, and film of the year material through and through.
And on the complete opposite end of the scale is number 5, The Lego Batman Movie, a superhero movie that isn't dark, or bleak, or brutal, in fact what little that it does have in common with Logan is that it's not really much of a superhero movie, and that it's also amazing. The Lego Batman Movie has probably my second favourite portrayal of Batman, as not only does he have all of his Batmanisms, but the film relentlessly spoofs them at every chance it gets. Just how extensive and how merciless it's piss-taking of Batman is is funny enough, but on top of that, it's also really clever; similar to The Lego Movie, it's not just a standard animated film, it's one with something to say, and its message isn't shoehorned, it's woven seamlessly into this film's comedy, which is on overdrive, even by Lego Movie standards, its jokes are fast, witty, and brutally constant, and the film is a complete blast from beginning to end.
Number 4 is a film that, to my surprise, isn't in the number 1 slot this year, Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Yes, this film is very heavily debated among Star Wars fans, with some saying it sucks, and others saying it's brilliant, and seemingly no common ground at all; with the debate starting to get a bit too dogmatic in my opinion, only time will tell which side is right, but for now, I still think it's a pretty great movie. Narrative flaws aside, the film is thematically genius, beautifully directed, and tells a story that boldly forces you to leave all of your predictions and expectations at the door. But it is those narrative flaws; the forced conflicts, entire Canto Bight subplot, and the really sloppy romance, that hold it back from true greatness for me. That doesn't change the fact that when Poe was taking on a Dreadnought in his puny X-Wing, I was losing my mind with excitement, so it's still in the top 5.
Swooping in (pun intended, obviously) at number 3 is Dunkirk, a very peculiar film in a lot of ways, mainly in its narrative decisions, the relative lack of characterisation and the non-linear storytelling, but what the film offers instead is something far, far more impactful; a sense of dread and peril unlike anything any film this year has produced. This film's greatest strength is its ability to stop your breathing for prolonged periods, as the threat of death looms for literally every second of the film, and if this is getting a little emotive, it's because I'm listening to the Dunkirk soundtrack while writing this, and it's making me anxious just hearing it. Dunkirk is a very simple yet immensely effective film, and it's a film that I love for all of its perfections, and hate for how scared for my safety it makes me.
Something a bit less stressful than Dunkirk is number 2; Paddington 2, the most adorable, lovable, charming, and just darn cute film of the year. I still have no shame in the fact that among my favourite films are Paddington and its sequel, because there's just so much good dripping off of them, not just in terms of quality, but in terms of spirit, they're just so nice, Paddington is such a positive, joyous character to watch, and the sequel does the original justice in every way. The comedy is still relentless, the heart is still there, except it's even more gut punching in the sequel, and Paddington's love for everyone around him is heart melting, my love for this film is probably a little unhealthy, but I don't care, number 2, Paddington 2.
On second thought, maybe my love of my number 1 is even more unhealthy, at least there isn't a framed poster of Paddington 2 hanging in the upstairs hall, yet, unlike my favourite film of 2017, which is IT, and that part about the framed poster, yeah, that's true. Like my first time watching Wonder Woman, I went into IT very cautiously, knowing that it being completely terrible was a very real possibility, but instead IT ended up being easily the most moving film I've seen all year. And when I say moving, I mean completely grab me and not let go, spark an autistic obsession with a film, one that dragged me back to the cinema another 5 times, 2 of those times with a note pad, one that made me frame a poster of the film and hang it in my house, buy the book, buy the original miniseries on Blu-ray, frame my fucking cinema ticket and put it next to my framed Godzilla IMAX ticket (also true), I was obsessed, and was so for about 2 months. IT excels at basically everything that it does; it's a nail biting horror, a touching drama, a rib-tickling comedy, an intense thriller, and an intriguing mystery, and somehow the film juggles all of these things and doesn't become a train wreck, with a cast of characters that is unparalleled in the genre, and an unforgettable villain. Yes, I'm gushing, but what did you expect, I wrote a 4000 word analysis of this film, of all the films I've seen this year, no film has been as burned into my brain as IT, so it has to be my number 1, it can't not be.
And now you know what films I loved in 2017, and like I said at the beginning, there are a lot of films that I haven't seen; The shape of Water would almost certainly be on this list had I seen it, and films like Coco, Detroit, Darkest Hour and Only the Brave, films I would probably really like, I either haven't seen or haven't had the chance to see, I also skipped dumpster fires like Fifty Shades Darker because this is only a hobby and I'm not an idiot, ignoring the fact that I did see The Emoji Movie for just a second. This list is also just my stupid opinion, so if you think IT or The Last Jedi are bad films, that's cool, because every arsehole like myself has their own opinion, so feel free to disagree, or to think that I've given IT way too much credit, which I very well might have. But with all that being said, it's now time to look forward, 2018 is coming, Pacific Rim: Uprising, Avengers: Infinity War, Solo: A Star Wars Story, Deadpool 2, and many more are all coming, even a new Grinch movie, which hopefully won't be as bad as the last one. Hopefully that will fill the void between now and March 2019, which is probably going to be about the time that I die from some great, cosmic irony, only time will tell. Merry Christmas and thanks for reading, and if you like this nonsense, stick around, hopefully 2018 will be a good year.
Sunday 24 December 2017
Christmas Review: The Polar Express movie review
Very long ago on this blog I did a series of spooky reviews to mark the occasion of Halloween, I loved doing that, though it was a bit of a train wreck (pun intended), and the same applies to a series of festive reviews I did later that year, sadly. To tell the truth, I'm not a very festive person; I like getting presents for people, I like getting presents from people, and I enjoy putting up Dinky, my affectionately named shitty little Christmas tree. But there are few things that make me as unenthusiastic as when people over do Christmas; the songs, the lights, the sentimentality, yes, I'm a Grinch like that. That being said, I can tolerate Christmas films, enough so that I have a few of them in my Blu Ray collection, so why not, let's embrace the season with a festive movie review, my mum's favourite Christmas film that I got on Blu Ray for her as a present last Christmas, and that she never even took out of the plastic; The Polar Express.
The Polar Express has a very snappy opening sequence, we never learn the main kid's name, but in this span of a few minutes, we are shown everything we need to know; that he's excited about Christmas, but also that he's putting it together that Santa isn't real. This isn't over done in the slightest, we are shown the evidence as he sees it, cold and honest, and it's very effective for the audience, the film wisely establishes in it's opening that Santa Claus, looking at it logically, makes no sense, which is a great way to start off a fantasy film like this, as not even five minutes in, we get to the Polar Express, revealed absolutely perfectly, with a good amount of wonder, and a dash of suspense. We are then introduced to easily the most entertaining character in the film, the Polar Express' Conductor, who sings about hot chocolate and obsesses about the train getting to its destination on time, what I'll say now is that this film struggles with character depth, with a few exceptions, the majority of the crew are rather basic, and that sadly includes the Conductor, who's draw probably comes mostly from his onscreen presence and the infinite charisma oozing through Tom Hanks' every word, it really is hard not to focus on him whenever he's onscreen. The shallow characterisation carries over to the other nameless kids, mainly a snotty know-it-all who's character is he's snotty, and a girl, who I don't really remember anything about, other than her creepy, super memeable smile, something we'll get back to. Weirdly, one of the most interesting characters in the film is the train's last pick up, a reclusive kid who spends the majority of the film alone in the train's rear car, where he comes from is both literally and figuratively nebulous, but the film heavily implies a troubled family life, one that explains his reclusiveness and his reluctance to fully embrace the spirit of Christmas, something this film does well for the most part is subtlety, and his character is a good example of that. But my favourite character in the film is the Hobo, though, in a twist, I actually think the film did too much with him. Allow me to explain, the film first shows us a Hobo living aboard the train, drinking from a food can next to a makeshift campfire on the roof of the train. But where I think the film let's itself down is in its explicitness that the Hobo is in fact a ghost who haunts the train, maybe I over value subtlety in films, but I do think a bit more subtlety as to how corporeal the hobo was would had added a bit more intrigue to the film. As it stands though, the lonely kid and the hobo are the most intriguing that this film gets, I need to stress that this is not a bad thing, the story presents a cool idea of a magic express train that takes disillusioned kids to the North Pole, which is brilliant on paper, and the adventure the train and it's passengers go on is perilous and entertaining, with a few really badass scenes that I'll get to, but the film is very surface level in a lot of key areas, making it a very easy watch, not an issue on first viewing, but it does hurt its value in repeat viewings.
From a presentation standpoint, this film is a very mixed bag. The animation of the film holds up extremely well in some areas, even for a film from 2004; wide shots of the Polar Express consistently look amazing, little things like lighting and hair and cloth animations are things that stand out to me with how impressively done they are, and I always find myself being wowed by this film's more spectacular moments. The problem doesn't come from the quality of the animation, but rather from the motion capture, of course, this film relied on motion capture performances, and when it's good, it's great, models move like real people, and it's really well done, until you get to their faces. This is where the illusion really starts to break, and these very well animated models slide into the uncanny valley, it gets less noticeable as the film goes on, and it effects some characters more than others, but like I alluded to earlier, when you first see the girl in the film, and she's smiling at the main kid, it looks kind of creepy. This effects the kid characters a lot more than it affects the adult characters, the facial animation on the Conductor for example is really well done in some scenes, but it is something that the film struggles with as a whole, and how bad it is will depend on how much you notice it, or when you notice that sometimes someone will be talking and their faces aren't actually moving, which just doesn't look right. I did however manage to get past the faces, and start appreciating this film's excellent cinematography, of course it's all animated, and some of these camera movements are ones that are only possible with entirely digital images, but a lot of it's really good, which brings me onto the film's action sequences. My favourite scene in the entire film when I was a kid was the scene on the frozen lake, and now, watching it as an adult, yeah, it's still the best scene in the film, in which the Polar Express derails on a frozen lake, and the crew trying to get it back on the tracks before it goes through the ice. This scene is badass, and highlights a lot of what the film gets right, for starters, this scene shows off the quality of the animation and cinematography, as the train slides along the lake, barely under the control of the engineers, the scene is exciting as hell, as they struggle to keep the train moving in a straight line, and something I always love in films, tension, is done really well here, it's just an all round cool scene, it's not the only scene of spectacle, but it's easily the most spectacular of them. It's not the only thing that I love about this film however, I love this film's ending; as the films wraps up, it starts to get mushy, as you'd expect for a Christmas film, but the film then does something unexpected, it uses subtlety, the final twist of the film is wonderfully done, and it embodies the spirit of the film brilliantly, which threw logic out of the window at the 5 minute mark in favour of something that I usually dislike about Christmas films, the magic of Christmas, but in The Polar Express I thought it was really well done.
The Polar Express has it's strengths and it has it's weaknesses; the animation and motion capture looks really good, considering the age, but the quality starts to dip around their faces, understandable, but still something worth pointing out. A greater weakness however is the shallowness of the film's characters, less of a problem for the Conductor and the Hobo, who are decently charismatic, but more of one for the kid characters. The film also starts to get mushy in its ending, but that's really more of a nitpick. The film does however have it's secret weapons, like some really cool action sequences, and an end twist that's really well done. I do get nostalgic about this film, not surprising given that I was 7 when I first saw it, but that doesn't mask it's flaws. Still, I like The Polar Express, it gets a lot right, not just as a Christmas film, but as a film in general, and I'd say that it's worth watching.
Saturday 23 December 2017
Star Wars: The Last Jedi movie review
Another year, another Star Wars movie, and unless you've been living under a rock, you'd know just how mad the hype got for The Last Jedi, the film which appears to have really pissed a lot of people off, judging by how many videos there are on YouTube of people tearing the film apart. So, knowing the scorn this film is getting from Star Wars diehards, this might become an unpopular opinion, it's too early to tell, but I really like The Last Jedi, even though as I will admit in this review, I think it has flaws, so let's go.
Worry not, detractors of Rogue One's lack of the opening crawl, this film has one, and as it should be; we are immediately shown the might of the First order, as the resistance scramble to evacuate their base with Star Destroyers jumping in from light speed in the skies above. The film's opening space battle also highlights two of the film's greatest strengths; the characters and the action, Poe taking on a First order Dreadnought is intense and exciting, and him pissing off General Hux, while a bit weird to see, is still pretty funny. Something excellently carried over from The Force Awakens is the film's excellent characters, who fortunately get expanded on in this film. Right off the bat, we need to talk about Rey's parents; anyone who's been tireless theorising as to who Rey's parents are will be left very, very disappointed by the truth, and in fact I've heard that the reveal makes Rey un-compelling, not less compelling, un-compelling, which is utter nonsense. I personally really like the poetry of the reveal, what it stands for, it's not grand and mysterious like a lot of people were hoping, it's dark and cruel, and I think it works, as does the message that anyone can become a hero. But her dad not being Luke or Han makes her a shit character, that's a mindset I think is completely stupid in all honesty. Rey is a character I still love, and who still isn't a Mary Sue, in The Last Jedi we see her trying to get help from Luke Skywalker, though that's not really what she gets, as like many, many things in the film, her relationship with Skywalker defies expectations, as does what becomes of her relationship with Kylo Ren. Luke Skywalker is a character a lot of people are pissed off about, though again, I really like the poetry of the film; Skywalker isn't the hero that the rest of the galaxy thinks he is in this film, and I know a lot of people don't like that. Saying how exactly they've changed Luke Skywalker is obviously spoiler territory, but I will say that I like what they did, the film doesn't show Luke Skywalker, the legend, the hero who saved the galaxy, it instead takes a much more human approach, giving us a Luke Skywalker who is flawed, and has clearly seen a lot of shit, and again, I think it works, as does the conclusion of his story in the film, which I absolutely loved. Leia's naturally a hard one to talk about, but it is actually one of the things that took me out of the film briefly, in the film she does something, and it doesn't make a lot of sense, it was a very strange moment, and I that felt actually did take away from what could have been an emotional moment with her and her son, but I really can't say anymore about it, though people who've seen the film will know the scene, and know how absurd it is. Her story in the film ties very closely into Poe's ark in the film, which is probably the most extensive character ark in the film, and it is cool to see the situation first from Poe's perspective, and then from Leia's, but the problem is how the entire conflict that Poe has in this film seems to have come from a simple case of poor communication, it sounds spoilerish, I know, but had Poe simply been told something early in the film, the entire conflict he has with Holdo might never have happened, and that forced conflict is stupid and does hurt the film. What really hurts the film however is that that isn't the only forced conflict the film has, as there's also an entire subplot with Finn and series newcomer Rose, who go to a planet in search of someone who can smuggle them aboard the First Order's flagship, and it's a completely pointless subplot that adds hideously little to the overall film. The film throws in Benicio Del Toro's Han Solo lite, who's a cool character, but doesn't add anything to the story outside of forced conflict, which is by far the film biggest issue from a narrative standpoint, and it really makes me dislike Admiral Holdo, whose decision to be passive aggressive to Poe resulted in two pointless subplots and even more dead rebels, it's stupid.
Something I found very funny while looking at the online response is people complaining that the film changes things about Star Wars, which I find funny given how much people were complaining about The Force Awakens being too similar to previous Star Wars films. This film does take narrative elements from previous Star Wars films, most notably The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but where this film dabbles in the formula the most is how it constantly defies expectations; Luke is not a hero in this film, Snoke, who was built up to be Palpatine 2.0 in The Force Awakens, is revealed to be a red herring in this film, and Porgs aren't the annoyingly blatant toy sellers that the trailers made them look, the film does a good job of throwing curveballs, and it's moral muddying of the water is fantastic, as is its remystifying of the Force, the thematic elements of the film are all absolutely amazing, as is this film's version of the battle of Hoth, this time on the visually breathtaking salt flats of Crait, as is the Gareth Edwards cameo, but maybe that one's just me. Something else that this film nails is presentation; the battle on the salt flats is amazing to look at, and some of this film's imagery is just gorgeous, not only is a lot of it symbolically powerful, but it's just really nice to look at; the film's obligatory lightsaber fight in particular has one of the best wide shots of the entire year, as sad as that makes me sound. The in-camera effects and sets are all stunning, even the ones on Canto Bight, and a scene with Luke and a badass cameo is made so much better by the use of practical effects. This is the best looking Star Wars film, by a mile, even shoving out Rogue One in my opinion, the effects and cinematography, combined with the film's gripping thematic elements are where this film becomes my Favourite film in the series, and that honestly isn't a joke. In key areas however it's also my least favourite in the series, not including the Prequels, as already stated, the film has a serious issue with forcing conflicts onto its characters, which is weird given how well the film does other conflicts, Kylo Ren in particular is one of the film's strongest characters, as his conflict is actually really good, and not pointless like Poe's or Finn's. But something that scares me is how in addition to forced conflict, the film forces a romance, and I'll be blunt about it, it was absolutely terrible; it just happens, with no build-up, and happens amidst a very crucial sequence in the film's climax. How it scares me is how the film explores the relationship between Rey and Kylo Ren, I really don't want a romance between those two, nor do I want a romance between Poe and Rey, or Rey and Finn, or Finn and Rose, or, god forbid, a love triangle, forced romance is something the film really doesn't need, since these characters have been shown to be compelling without a romantic subplot, which is why the random romance bothers me so much. Seriously though, not a love triangle, please god, anything but a love triangle.
The Last Jedi is a very interesting film; in some areas, it's the highlight of the series, and in others, it's really stupid. Thematically, the film is amazing, I love this film's little poetries, and its portrayal of the Force, while clearly incredibly divisive among Star Wars fans, is something I personally love. The film is also Blade Runner levels of good looking, with gorgeous visual effects, both digital and practical, and breathtaking cinematography. But if you've not appreciative of the cinematography, you'll have a much harder time forgiving the film's narrative shortcomings, as the film suffers from forced conflict, long and effectively pointless subplots, and scenes that either don't make sense or are just stupid. This is definitely a more technically impressive film than The Force Awakens, and it's good that it takes risks, but with the good comes a fair bit of bad, and there's just no apologia I can give to excuse all of it. People saying that this is the worst Star Wars film ever and Disney ruining Star Wars need to calm the fuck down however, because it's really not that, I mean, seriously, do these people not remember the Battlefront II debacle from just last month. The Last Jedi is an enjoyable film, even if it wasn't perfect, and I'd say it's definitely worth watching.
Saturday 2 December 2017
Bring on the Meteor IX: The Buchananing
Article link: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/makeapp-makeup-removal/
There's an app, this app is called MakeApp, and at first glance is doesn't look like it's anything special; it's an app that applies filters to pictures to add and remove features like makeup, sounds harmless doesn't it, unless you're a feminist, then this app is Haram, because it's a sexist misogynist tool of women's oppression, apparently. There's countless articles out there of people sperging about MakeApp, making them very easy to find, so I plucked one from the DailyDot titled; Man makes app to erase your makeup in photos—but insists it isn’t sexist, and right away I just want to make a few points about that title. For starters, we all know the answer to this question already, but why does it matter that the creator of this app is a man, and second, that title doesn't give me reason to think the app is sexist; you've described one of its functions, it removes makeup, but that alone doesn't sound sexist to me, there's men who wear makeup too aren't there, would this app also be sexist to them, somehow I doubt it. Also notice the emotionally charged wording; man makes app to erase your, the wording here does make a difference, since remove and erase your have the same meaning in this context, but one includes the word your, it's personalised for the reader, which is no doubt a deliberate move, oh this one's going to be juicy, I can tell. Continuing through the article, we can see just how juicy in the opening paragraph, where our author talks about FaceApp, and how it apparently normalized Blackface and whitewashing, and perpetuates gender binary, first and foremost, there is a gender binary; male and female, sorry if that truth offends you, but Blackface and whitewashing, well. Earlier in the year I wrote an entire piece about whitewashing as it relates to movies, in which is categorically deny its existence as a problem in Hollywood, but this is new for me, so let's do this. Making a mockery of someone's appearance or culture based on a generalised stereotype is stupid, which is why it's not tolerated anymore in our society, because it's racist, but that isn't what whitewashing is. As I understand it, whitewashing is the act of making something more white, I'm sure if you believe in white supremacy, that's bad, but I don't and so I don't care. But I love how our author lumps Blackface in with whitewashing, as if to say they're equally as shit, and if the assertion that it normalises Blackface and whitewashing were true, that would still be wrong, because one is malicious, and the other is not, they're not the same, and even then, it all relies on intent, and I doubt an AI is intent on being racist. MakeApp and FaceApp are the same thing pretty much, fundamentally, they're apps that alter photos, but in neither of these Apps is an AI with a political agenda, what sounds more likely; that an App based on an unrefined AI applied a change based on numbers, or that the creator of that App or AI or the AI itself are racist, personally I see these Apps as just novelties, it's goofy to see your face transformed into different races, but that's all it is, it's not making a political statement, like the Paddington story we'll tackle later, FaceApp was an apolitical app that got politicised by people who have to politicise everything, and MakeApp is exactly the same.
Oh Wait, that's a good point, I do remember Anita once saying that; that makeup is part of women's oppression because something about beauty standards, but now we're being told that an app that removes women's makeup is sexist, even though it's patriarchy that's making women wear makeup to begin with. So men are sexist if women wear makeup, because patriarchy, and men are sexist if women don't wear makeup, because patriarchy, how very consistent. I don't think I'll get through the whole article, it's long, but the general gist is that our author is sceptical of Gabrelyanov's claim that the AI isn't perfect, specifically noting it's sensitivity to light, which makes sense. But no, our author then says the best thing I've read all day, that the male-led (again, not relevant) team has created a product that dictates what women should and shouldn't look like, forgive me for pissing myself, author, but that's some funny shit. I will repeat, the app is not political, an AI can't have prejudice, the AI may not be perfectly ironed out, it'll be buggy, completely understandable technological limitations, but the App isn't deliberately making women less attractive, and it definitely isn't being forced on them, as dictate would imply, and you either haven't figured out the reason for makeup existing, or you don't want to figure it out. But it'll wrap this story up and explain, mansplain if you will. Makeup is used, mostly by women, to make themselves look more attractive, it doesn't mean men are idiots, as you go on to allude to, and it's not for empowerment either, it's to feel nicer, either by looking more professional or looking hotter, unless you only wear makeup at work or around the house and never to parties, which I highly doubt. Men aren't mislead by makeup, they're not animals, contrary to your beliefs, I'm sure, but makeup makes you better looking, if that wasn't true, you wouldn't wear it, and when it's taken away, and you squeal about it, it shatters the notion of patriarchal beauty norms. It should be empowering to shed those shackles, not creepy, it almost looks like you have something to hide under that makeup, I mean, if you didn't, you wouldn't care enough to write a whole article about it, but here you are. And here I am, saying that I don't care if women do or don't doll up, they can do what they like and I have no authority to stop them, but to sit there and cry that an App makes you look less pretty, and that that is sexist, does make it look like you, and all the other people mad at this app, have a reason to wear makeup, it may sound harsh, but maybe you're just not as pretty as you'd like to think.
Article link: https://www.themarysue.com/denis-villeneuve-blade-runner-2049-women/
Story two is, regrettably, more Blade Runner 2049, I know I've talked about the movie three times, but what can I say, except I have a lot to say, because the more I think about it, the more I like it, even now, but never mind all of that, our article comes from the Mary Sue so this should be some easy prey. Really what this article is about is an interview with the film's director, Dennis Villeneuve, about the film's portrayal of women, which I've already written about, but again, never mind. And usually I'd be shitting all over directors who cave to ideological pressure, but not here, because while I think his wording was very deliberately placating, I really do admire his sentiment. "cinema is a mirror on society,” and as such, “Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today. And I’m sorry, but the world is not kind on women.” The placating part is the last bit; the 'on women' that's bolted onto the end of that quote, but minus that, I actually can't disagree with him, maybe cinema is not always a reflection of society, but the point definitely has merit. His next quote; “There’s a sense in American cinema: you want to portray an ideal world. You want to portray a utopia. That’s good—dreams for a better world, to advocate for something better, yes. But if you look at my movies, they are exploring today’s shadows. The first Blade Runner is the biggest dystopian statement of the last half century. I did the follow-up to that, so yes, it’s a dystopian vision of today. Which magnifies all the faults. That’s what I’ll say about that.” is an absolutely spot on point, again, it's not all-encompassing, but it's not wrong either, I'm now very curious to see where our Mary Sue goes with this. they go exactly where you'd think they go, usual stuff about misogyny and capitalist patriarchy, forgive me for being dismissive, but I still refuse to believe that our modern, enlightened western world is misogynistic, and that it's stated as a prerequisite for our author's opinion without any examples given, as usual, just makes it very easy to dismiss, women are not oppressed in the west, if they were, how was one able to get so close to occupying the highest position of government in the land. And then they complain about the lack of diversity, and again, I'm going to be dismissive; diversity is always described as something that is crucial, and yet I've never seen a good reason as to why, the closest thing to a good reason that I've seen is the argument of empathy, which would make sense if some of the biggest films right now didn't have non-white actors in leading roles, most notably Star Wars and Marvel. But the same applies here, it's stated as important with no reason as to why, and it's also important to consider that casual cinema goers won't care about this shit anyway, even me, who is versed in this identity politics shit, watched Blade Runner 2049 and never once considered it's lack of diversity, let alone saw it as a problem. I also love how you assert that America is diverse without providing stats, because I found some ACS numbers from 2015 that say that people of colour make up 26% of the population of the US, meaning white people make up the other three quarters. Sure that's definitely diverse, a quarter of the population, but that's all non-white categories combined. Think of it as a pack of skittles, you have one quarter of the pack that's a mix of all the different colours; yellow, orange, green and purple, but the rest of the pack is red, now apply that to a racial breakdown of the US population, diverse or not, white people are still the majority by a considerable margin, and unlike you, I'm not going to say that it's a good or a bad thing, it's just the facts, dude.
I read the rest of the article, as you do, but while I was laughing at the half we've already tackled, my blood started to boil at the second half, and you'll soon see why. Simply the sentences; 'we currently live in a sexist society,' and, 'to represent our world’s oppression of women onscreen', it's pure dogma, presented with nothing to back it up, it's prerequisites of feminism that have never been proven because they can't be proven. Now let's pull apart a statement, 'Including an element is not the same as holding it up for criticism, and what I believe most critics of Blade Runner 2049 were pointing out is how little it pushes back against the misogyny of its setting.' time to translate this; Blade Runner 2049 was being criticised because it didn't fight the patriarchy, again, this is all based on feminist dogma, so she's basically complaining that the film wasn't propaganda. I say that's a good thing, feminist propaganda has a habit of failing miserably with mass audiences, even when they try hide it like with Ghostbusters and The Emoji Movie, the fact that it doesn't dwell on your oppression narrative makes it bad does it, well then sod off, like I said in my Anita Meteorette, Blade Runner has more important things on its mind and your oppression narrative. And as for most critics, you're a fucking liar, I Youtubed video reviews of the film, because there's a few channels on YouTube dedicated solely to that type of content that are huge. In Chris Stuckmann's review of the film, which has 830'000 views on it, he constantly gushes about the cinematography, but never once criticises it's representation of women. In Jeremy Jahns' review, with has 570'000 views, he praised the characters and themes, but criticised the runtime and pace, but never criticised the representation of women. Even IGN, who once called a talking bird in a kids film misogynistic, never criticised representation of women. When you say most critics, what I know you mean is most critics in the feminist journosphere, because of course they'd see a problem, it's all they ever fucking do. But then I conclude that you're just a bigot with your final little paragraph, 'I think his thinking here reveals the way that privilege can stunt your imagination. He clearly had trouble imagining what it might be like to be a woman when the world’s treatment of you does not correspond to your own understanding of yourself. When he pictures a future where the world sees some women as exploitable sex objects meant to serve, he cannot imagine that the women treated that way might not agree.' First of all, let me just get this off my chest; Fuck You, you sexist piece of shit, privilege stunting imagination, fuck off, yeah I'm sure your female privilege stunts your ability to make points that aren't pure feminist dogma, yet again that's all this article is, presented as fact with absolutely no factual basis provided, it's bollocks, all of it. And yet again we see a feminist who doesn't understand Blade Runner, because when she says 'some women' she doesn't seem to realise that those women aren't actually women, they're not even human, that's the fucking point of Blade Runner, it asks what the difference is between human and replicant, and whether or not that difference matters, and it does that while not obsessing over SJW anal vomiting like our Mary Sue author does. And then you have the fucking gall to call this a 'misstep', like Villeneuve's a misbehaving child or something, it's a good thing this is the end of the article because I've had enough of it, fuck this article, fuck its author, and best wishes to Villeneuve, who absolutely does not deserve a single shed of the criticism levelled at him here, now I'm going to go and calm down.
Article link: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/11/paddington-2-anti-brexit-film-where-villains-have-narrowest-minds
Our third and final story today comes from the Newstatesman, and hopefully I won't get really annoyed at it, but then again, our author is politicising Paddington, so maybe I will. That's right folks; 'Paddington 2 is an anti-Brexit film where the villains have the narrowest minds.' Right, I get that art is subjective so maybe that title isn't actually absurd and our author makes some good points, don't know yet, so let's get readin'. He first describes his thoughts on the film's presentation, odd given that its presentation certainly isn't political, but who knows, maybe he's just trying to get us on the same page before speaking his piece. Oh, that was true, because his very next statement is that Paddington was plainly pro-immigration, you what mate. I guess technically, when you think about it, in a literal sense, Paddington kind of is an illegal immigrant, but there's a huge problem with your theory. Your theory would have merit if Paddington and Paddington 2 depicted realistic versions of the world, but they don't, they portray idealistic versions of the world, remember what Villeneuve was on about, yes, Paddington and its sequel are utopic worlds, where everyone is happy, and those who aren't either learn to be through Paddington, or are villains, unless you seriously think that people wouldn't react to a talking anthropomorphic bear with shock and disbelief in the real world. And as for plainly, where did you get that from? Paddington, if we're taking this seriously, which we really shouldn't, does illegally enter the country, find a family that takes him in and learns to love him, but it's never framed as some pro-immigration message, the film doesn't even suggest that he's seen as an immigrant, and never calls him such, he gets called an undesirable by Mr. Curry, but again, that's not pro-immigration as 'undesirable' could mean pretty much anything, he could be on about weed smoking kids for all you know. But it does allude to children being sent to Britain to find homes during the war, and like Paddington, they're portrayed sympathetically, but none of it's political, they never talk about the Nazis or the far right, they just say that there was a war, it might not even have been World War 2, but just simply a war that happened, since Paddington's world is so detached from our own, unless you think that Millicent Clyde is about 120 years old but still looks like Nicole Kidman. And our author continues to politicise the film in the worst possible way, by conflating the film's villain, phoenix Buchanan, with Vote Leave, unless that's not really what this means; 'with a welcome anti-Brexit message. The most despicable characters tend to be those with no sense of community or open-mindedness.' I'm sure I've read that right, so if I have, what it looks like he's saying there is that the most despicable characters in the film are narrow-minded and have no sense of community, and that this is an anti-Brexit message. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt depending on what I perceive their motives to be, like I did with Villeneuve when he was placating feminists earlier, but here's the thing, I remember journalists writing pieces in 2016 about Brexit and racism, I remember it being not all that different in fact to the US election, where you couldn't escape people saying that Trump and his Supporters were racists and sexists, and that Trump would end the world if he won, just as Brexit would end the world, and people who voted for it were just narrow-minded racists who didn't like immigrants. Now if he really is conflating Buchanan with Brexit voters, what he's saying is that Brexit voters are narrow-minded and don't have a sense of community, that would be bad enough, but inconsequential, if he didn't then use the word 'despicable,' because here's the thing; Buchanan is a thief, liar, and attempted murderer; he is solely responsible for Paddington's false imprisonment, idolises his grandfather, who was a murderer, and tries to kill Paddington in the film's climax, he's an evil man, now the Brexit conflation makes more sense, because Brexit voters are evil, unless that's not what he thinks, and he hasn't really thought this nonsense through, because he's an idiot.
Mr. Curry is definitely what our Author initially describes him as; a busybody neighbour who's paranoid and prejudicial, but there's two problems here. One, nobody likes Mr. Curry, when the Browns embark to save Paddington, and Curry tries to stop them, the entire street comes out and helps the Browns start their car, in defiance of Curry and out of their love for Paddington, hardly a statement of our societal acceptance of racism is it, if we're still following your logic from earlier. Two, in the first film, Mr. Curry actually stops being a twat for 5 minutes and tells the Browns where Paddington is, thus effectively saving his life, because he would otherwise have been killed and stuffed by Clyde, something he described as barbaric when he figured it out, if Curry really was that evil, he wouldn't have cared that Paddington was going to die, but he did, so if Curry is a metaphor for anti immigrant sentiment, as you indirectly assert he is, all he proves is that people can change, if only briefly, and that even narrow-minded racists are capable of doing the right thing, again, you haven't thought this through. Our author then proves one of my previous points, by calling the prison scenario depicted in the film a 'candy-coloured version of a gritty situation' and citing that poverty is seemingly none existent in Paddington's London. Yes you moron, also, bears can't talk, and they don't eat Marmalade, Paddington and Paddington 2 are not realistic depictions of the world, like I said earlier, they're idealistic, utopic, approximations of our shithole world where most of the bad stuff has been scrubbed away, and where cartoonish gaps in reason like a talking bin are acceptable, and it's almost like you get this, but you clearly don't, because in a world where some of the basic rules of logic, physics, biology and law do not apply, you are trying to apply real world politics, talking bears, talking bins, infinite marmalade, 10 years for theft and grievous barberly harm, you fucking idiot. Your point about Garden Bridge also doesn't seem very relevant, I understand what you're trying to say, but again, there a problem, Paddington is a family film, it's primary audience is going to be kids, and I've never heard a kid complain about people wasting public money, honestly, like your assertion that it's pro-immigration, there is not enough basis to substantiate the point, and the whole Joanna Lumley point will probably go over the vast majority of the audiences' heads, because unlike you, they're not looking for politics in a family film. Just something to add on at this point that I somehow missed, the little bit; 'The film celebrates London's inclusiveness – but candy-coats its inequality.' How I missed that I do not know, but it's certainly worth mentioning that the film is a celebration of nothing, like I've repeatedly said, it's not a film about politics or a city or a culture of anything like that, it's a film about a bear called Paddington, and as for inequalities, I'll assume he's on about wealth inequalities given his comment about the film not depicting London's poverty, and I'll let that one be, because again, Paddington's world is not the real world, but rather an idealistic approximation of the real world.
As I wrapped up reading this article, I originally thought that this conclusion was the author just being emotional about a Marks & Spencer's add with Paddington, but while I read, I realised something, and what I realised was that our author is completely full of shit. The quote; 'It hit me that the wholesome, lovable Paddington had been hijacked for the sole purpose of getting the tills ringing at M&S this Christmas,' now, I'd be willing to let this slide if our shithead of an author didn't just spend an entire article trying to hijack the wholesome, lovable Paddington to push his fucking politics. Oh so it's fine to assert that a family film is some powerful political message when it's completely apolitical, and when you're saying it's political based solely on your politicisation of it, but a retailer doing a Christmas cross-promotion is somehow the film being hijacked, get your head out of your arse you twit. How is this entire article not you trying to hijack Paddington 2 with the sole purpose of pushing your anti Brexit agenda, how, explain. You claim the first film was pro immigration when it wasn't, you conflate this film's villain with Brexit supporters, you conflate Paddington's shitty neighbour with Brexit supporters, you criticise the film for sugar coating real problems when the film isn't even trying to be a perfect reflection of reality, and you bring up real world economics when it's not relevant, and then you complain that M&S wants a bit of that Marmalade too, you're not as bad as our Mary Sue author from earlier, definitely not as malicious, but you're every bit as stupid. So maybe, rather than complaining that Paddington's getting used to sell Salmon and handbags, you should reconsider using Paddington to sell your bullshit political philosophies that I'm sure matter so much to you. But it seemingly doesn't matter much to the film makers, because repeating myself from earlier, Paddington's London is detached from real London, and that's not a bad thing. And if you love politicising shit, then go ahead, but when you politicise Paddington, you're getting no kindness from me, because you can't leave well enough alone.
Well, what have we learned today; we've learned that feminists have fragile egos, that feminists are entitled, retarded bigots, and that I'll get really defensive about Paddington, so basically all things that we already knew, at least I had a laugh reading these articles, so it wasn't a total waste of time, and hopefully you've enjoyed my sperging about this toxic drivel, if so, it wasn't a waste for you either. Of course though, these are my thoughts on these things, you may have others, you may see things I haven't, or you may just completely disagree and think I'm a fool, because opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one, so as usual, feel free to disagree, and stay warm, because even with the beautiful glow of the meteor, it's fucking freezing out there.
Monday 27 November 2017
Paddington 2 movie review
One thing I've never been shameful of, least of all in the past week at work, is my adoration of the 2014 film Paddington, a film I went to see with my then girlfriend way back when, and that I still love, in spite of her. And so there I was, a 20 year old man getting his 1 ticket for Paddington 2, bet that didn't look funny at all, but the honest truth is I was buzzing to watch the sequel, and for good reason, because just like it's predecessor, its amazing, let's go.
Paddington 2 opens with, of all things, a flashback to Peru, and it's great to get about 40 more seconds of Michael Gambon as Pastuzo, but in all honesty this is a surprisingly throwaway scene in the film's setup, as we next see Paddington, who at this point has not only been completely accepted by the Browns, but by seemingly the entire city of London, which we are shown in a monstrously heart-warming sequence of him making his way through the streets saying hello to literally everyone he sees. Just like the first film, it's impossible to not love Paddington; his motto of always seeing the good in people is some of the sweetest shit, as is his friendliness and optimism, Paddington is still one of the most optimistic movie heroes you're ever going to see, and it's every bit as adorable here as it was in 2014, though this time it might require a bit more suspension of disbelief, something we'll get back to. What I found very surprising about the sequel was where they took Paddington as a character; sure his journey in this film hits pretty much all the same beats as the first, but putting him in prison was an interesting move for sure, something the audience will inevitably be invested in because of how unjust it is, and seeing Paddington making friends out of the most hardened criminals in Britain would be a testament to his naivety if it wasn't so sweet, and if you haven't already accepted that this film is a live action cartoon. In terms of the character of Paddington, he really hasn't changed much from the first film, and doesn't change much in this one, but his personality and endless shenanigans more than compensate. The same can be said of the Browns, though Paddington has had a noticeable impact on their lives, with Henry now being a bit more laid back, and with Judy and Jonathan now effectively treating him like a little brother, while Mary hasn't changed at all, and what's weird is just how much of a non negative that is, as the maternal love she constantly throws at Paddington is just as adorable here as it was 3 years ago, god what's happening to me, I'm saying sweet and adorable so bloody much. An addition this film makes to the mix is Paddington's new friends, his neighbours all love him, except Mr. Curry, who's gone from redeemable dick in the first film to quasi-bureaucratic, prejudicial dick in this one, maybe they went a bit overboard on the dick, which might the most unintentionally funny thing I've ever written. when Paddington ends up in the slammer is when your suspension of disbelief will be tested, as he befriends the hardest criminal in there; Nuckles Mcginty, and ends up effectively reforming the Prison, but Nuckles was great, seeing him starting to genuinely care for Paddington is fantastic, given that in their first interaction he nearly kills him. Then there's the villain, Paddington had a great villain with the crazy taxidermist Millicent Clyde, and Paddington 2, I feel, has an even better villain with Phoenix Buchanan, a man for whom the word narcissist does not do justice, and who keeps all of his old costumes in his loft, where he talks to them and does voices for them so they talk back, he's a bit out of his mind. And if I'm being completely honest, I was disappointed that the 'master of disguise' joke wasn't done that much, because when it was done, it was really funny, if very ridiculous, as one would expect when you dress Hugh Grant up as a nun.
If you're looking for a film that's ground breaking and original, Paddington 2 really isn't what you're after, since in terms of narrative structure, it follows very similar patterns to the original, the first Paddington was similarly straightforward in its story and structure, and just like the first, Paddington 2's strength comes not from what it does, but how well it does it. Sure I was never caught off guard by any plot twists, but by the end of the film, I had one of the biggest smiles on my face that I've had in a cinema this year, and in the spirit of transparency, in this film's final scene, when Paddington finally gets Lucy her present, I was actually starting to tear up, and just like the first film, towards the end Paddington finds himself in some serious mortal danger, and I was on the edge of my seat. Though this film steps it up in its final act, swapping out the skulking around a museum for the finale in exchange for a train chase, yes, a train chase, with Paddington scrambling along the roof of a moving train being pursued by the film's villain, and I definitely find this to be an improvement, this film being considerably more ridiculous than the first, it only makes sense that it would end with the Browns hijacking a steam train to save Paddington, again, suspension of disbelief. Which is definitely something you have to keep in mind when watching both of these films, but especially this one, Paddington 2 is not trying to be realistic or grounded, it's a film about a talking bear that eats marmalade, it's not trying to be believable, it's just trying to be entertaining, and by Jove it is. This film is every bit as relentlessly funny as the first, and even brings back some of the funniest jokes from the first; like how the Band that followed Paddington around in the first film is still following him around in this one, now appearing in even more absurd environments like inside the prison and on the side of the Shard, as someone who admires the art of filmmaking, I find that fucking hilarious. And like the first, I don't think I've picked up on all the jokes the film offers, I noticed a joke hidden in a newspaper column in this film, I bet there's dozens more that are hiding in plain site as that one was, which makes this film immensely rewatchable, at least to someone like me. But while the film is extremely funny, something else that it gets very right is the feels; seeing Paddington's effect on the people around him is heart melting, Paddington's friendship with Nuckles was strained in the second half, and it left Paddington in a surprisingly dark place emotionally. But then there's of course the finale of the train chase, that would absolutely have rendered me a blubbering mess if it had gone on any longer. Like the first film, Paddington finds himself in a very dangerous position in the climax, but to me there's just something horrible about seeing a character accepting their own mortality, and Paddington 2 actually goes there, and it was horrible, and I absolute adore it, since the best family films out there tend to have the balls to be a bit fucked up, and Paddington 2 is no exception in that regard, I heard a few kids a few rows down from me crying, and I was actually tempted to join them, something I will fully admit to, because Paddington 2 did that.
Paddington 2 is very much like the first film, and not only is that not a bad thing, but it's probably the best thing I could say about it. It doesn't reinvent the formula of the family film, but it doesn't try to, it's simply taking the formula and doing the best it possibly can with it, and the result is absolutely fantastic, it's the best family film I've seen this year by a mile; it has the most lovable main character I've seen all year by a mile, one of the strongest supporting casts I've seen in ages, and a great villain, but on top of all of that the film is just fun; it's fast, funny, and at times surprisingly emotional, and I'll be honest, I loved every minute of it, Paddington 2 is absolutely a must watch.
Justice League movie reivew
Fortunately for me I managed to get out there and see Justice League, which I think was really beneficial, since Justice League wasn't doing too well at the box office on its opening weekend. And like the majority of DC universe films now, this one has a Rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, well, you know what I've always said, fuck review aggregators, Critics have their opinions, me and you have ours, so what is my opinion of Justice League? let's go, a week late, but oh well.
Justice League wastes little time in getting to the threat; the parademons are introduced very early, and the film's villain, Steppenwolf doesn't take long to show up, probably as a result of the considerably shortened runtime. The action scene with Batman taking on parademon is brief but entertaining, and a surprising opening sequence sets the tone for a world mourning Superman very nicely. A concern I, like probably many people, had for Justice League was its characters; since it has to juggle Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Aqua Man, Cyborg and Flash, half of which have never had solo films, in that way, Justice League handles its characters remarkably well. Batman and Wonder Woman carry on as they were left in Batman V Superman and Wonder Woman respectively, but the new comers are done really well, Aqua Man in this film shapes up to be a sort of Wonder Woman 2.0, being the king of a underwater kingdom of metahumans, the glimpse we get of Atlantis in this film is cool enough, though it is just a glimpse, and that's a smart move, since after Batman V Superman, the last thing this film needs is to be bogged down. Cyborg, the Justice League member I know the least about, surprisingly became the most intriguing of the team, with the film portraying a very damaged individual who doesn't really know what he is yet, being part human and part whatever the hell the rest of him's made of. He, unlike the rest of the team, is still figuring out what he is capable of, and starts the film hiding away from the world, it's a sympathetic character introduction that serves Cyborg as a character incredibly well. Then there's Flash, who is awesome, and easily my favourite of the Justice League so far, not only are his powers the most visually interesting, but he's just funny; his very childish and excited reactions to a lot of the shit he sees is sickeningly endearing, he spends the entire film acting like a child who got to hang out with their favourite superheroes, and far from being annoying, it's hysterical. I honestly can't stress enough how much I liked Flash, there's one bit where he saves Wonder Woman from falling rubble, I won't spoil the details but it's absolutely priceless, as is when they reach the Batcave, and he becomes Robin from the Lego Batman Movie briefly. You may already know this, I'd be surprised if you didn't, but Superman is in the movie, and what I liked is A how they bring him back into the story after, you know, dying, and B his reaction to no longer being dead; it's one of the coolest scenes in the film, even with Henry Cavil's CGI upper lip. But Justice League, just like Man of Steel, Wonder Woman and Batman V Superman, has the problem of an interesting setup for it's story and characters; I actually liked Steppenwolf as the film's villain, and I was really enjoying the characters, but then it inevitably becomes a big dumb really CGI battle that serves as both the film's final act and climax. With this comes all the problems those other films have, after seeing and enjoying these characters kicking arse and setting up for the climax for the entire film, we are treated to a big CGI mess that thinks that more is more. It still delivers entertainment in the same way a Roland Emmerich movie would, but this switch off your brain action comes at the expense of the any depth the film had, a problem that particularly affected Wonder Woman earlier this year. And like Wonder Woman, this film has a really mushy ending; obviously I can't spoil anything, but while I like seeing the members of the Justice League hanging out, it's more how the battle with Steppenwolf is resolved where the weird mushiness comes from. And, something to know, the film has a post credits scene, obviously, that introduces a new villain that I can't wait to see in future movies, if they ever get made.
Anyone who's familiar with this film's production will know that it was a very troubled one, with Zack Snyder dropping out in post production for personal reasons and Joss Whedon coming in and doing extensive reshoots, not to mention that the film's production went ahead on schedule despite the disastrous release of Batman V Superman, and it's surprising just how little you can tell in the finished film, but you definitely can tell in some key areas. This is a much more light hearted film than Batman V Superman, which is a very welcome change, because watching people brood isn't very entertaining, and the more comedic additions actually work, surprisingly, the film isn't the tonal mess that it could have been, having effectively been directed by two different people with very different visions. But easily the most obvious problem the film suffers from is the effects; the film still hit its November release date despite the post production problems, but with that comes visual effects that probably aren't as ironed out as they could have been, they're alright, at no point was the film completely broken by its effects, but one look at Superman's face in this film perfectly illustrates the problem that the rest of the film's effects have. They look rushed, and most likely were, when Steppenwolf is wiping out Amazonians in the film's first act, similar to a flashback depicting the war against Steppenwolf, the CG is very CG, and while it isn't bad enough to be distracting, it's bad enough to be noticeably fake. I can forgive this, after all, I like the 1999 The Mummy, but when you have the same gripe as the rest of the franchise of big ridiculous crazy action sequences when people are flying through the air and levelling areas of ground as big a football pitches, and you have the rushed CG, then you have a problem. I still think that this franchise should start adopting a less is more approach, less CGI people throwing each other around and more stuff like the Warehouse scene in Batman V Superman and the village scene in Wonder Woman, small, contained skirmishes that demonstrate the power of these heroes. Because just look at Wonder Woman; watching her take out a squad of Germans in a small room while she's armed with a sword and shield and they all have guns demonstrates her fighting ability, it's badass, it's exciting, while seeing her fighting Ares in a ludicrously over the top and very heavy CGI action scene does not, in fact when she goes full god mode it starts to undermine the humanity of the character that the rest of the film was establishing previously, less is more. And just like Batman V Superman and Wonder Woman, Justice League shows that it can do this, with a cool action scene under Gotham Harbour, I know I've been dwelling on this for a while, but, as crazy as it sounds, if the DC Universe made their superheroes a bit less super, the films would benefit from it. Just something positive to end this on, after dwelling on the CG for so long, the film sounds great, it's got some excellent music, with very complimentary soundtrack from Danny Elfman, it's far from the most effective soundtrack I've heard, it's not even the most effective soundtrack I've heard this year, coming behind IT and Dunkirk, but it gets the job done perfectly well, and when it isn't a big CGI mess, the film is nicely directed, by whoever was behind the camera at any given time, and for my lady readers who like them some shirtless dudes, don't worry, Justice League has you covered, unlike Jason Momoa and Henry Cavil.
Justice League does a lot of things that I like; it's got great characters, an interesting enough story with some surprisingly well done humour, and somehow manages to do both of those things without being a complete mess. But the film struggles in the presentation department, a problem that I don't think is entirely the film's fault, but more the fault of it's messy production. One issue that is the film's fault is the more is more mentality that is still present, and that still gives us big CGI finales that aren't as entertaining as they should be. But Justice League isn't bad, something that's apparently hard to say, I liked Justice League, and thought it was far better than it was at risk of being, but at the end of the day it's not as good as Wonder Woman, and right now in the theatres is another Superhero film that, honestly, is better. Justice League is an alright film, and it's worth watching.
Tuesday 21 November 2017
Thor: Ragnarok movie review
Well, that was an interesting day; I did some Christmas shopping, bought a sweet Blade Runner 2049 Tshirt, stuffed my face at an Asian buffet, had a chocolate milkshake with whisky in it, and of course, saw Thor: Ragnarok, the 3rd MCU film I've seen in cinemas, and the 8th I've seen overall, yes, I really need to catch up. To be honest though, Thor: Ragnarok had some promising promotional material, and I'd heard good things about it, so why the hell not, it's not like there's anything else on, he says while holding his Paddington teddy bear.
Thor: Ragnarok is the first in the Thor series that I've watched, so maybe it's just something I'd notice, having not seen the first two, but Thor: Ragnarok has a very hasty introduction. It's not a bad thing, there's a cool action sequence in the first scene, and the introduction to Thor is very well done, with some surprisingly funny dialogue between him and the Balrog of Morgoth, and me not having any knowledge of Thor's character from prior films, I really liked Thor in this opening scene, and throughout the movie for that matter. As the film goes on, Thor's character growth is very minimal, the enjoyment comes from his interactions with his fellow heroes; the scene with Doctor Strange is great, and I actually wish there was more, because I liked Doctor Strange, and Doctor Strange has changed a fair bit since his film, sure he was getting good at magic in the film, but here he's got it nailed, he's teleporting all over the place and refilling Thor's beer with magic, it's actually really cool. I've never understood the love people have for Loki, apparently there's a huge Tumblr fan obsession thing for both Loki and the actor Tom Hiddleston, but it's Tumblr, so I have no fucking idea, I did however like Loki in this film, I thought a lot of his dialogue with Thor was very funny, and I like that his trickery isn't fooling Thor, who gets the upper hand a couple of times, and it was great. What was also great, there's actually a lot of great in this film, spoiler alert, was Hulk, I loved Hulk in this film, there's was a lot less Banner than I was expecting, which confused me a bit as Banner introduces into the film a threat that the film then doesn't really capitalise on, it does in one scene near the end, but it kind of gets lost in the comedy, a point we'll be getting back to. But it's just really easy to like Hulk in this film, where he's played up like a big childish dummy, it's weird how cute it is. I could talk about the characters in this film a lot, since I actually liked all of them; Valkyrie was cool, the Grandmaster wasn't in it much, but he was alright, Hela was a cool villain, and thankfully the family tragedy dynamic wasn't played as much as it could have been, it's already a sci fi comedy about Norse Gods, Shakespeare might have been overkill. What I will say however is that while Hela was cool, she wasn't the most menacing villain ever, after banishing Thor and Loki and laying waste to Asgard's defenses in a pretty ridiculous battle scene, she does little besides be in asgard, spouting exposition and occasionally doing something, her fight with Thor in the film's climax is where things pick back up, and there's a really cool scene where she reveals the hidden history of Asgard, but she's no Vulture, more Ronan the Accuser. Her henchman was pretty cool too, only he actually did things, and was played by Judge Dredd, so not liking him is already really hard. The film's plot mainly centres around two worlds; Asgard and the shithole scrap planet Thor lands on after being banished, with a few scenes on Earth, and to be honest, I like that, of the Marvel films I have seen, my favourite ar the Guardians of the Galaxy films, so I am very much a sucker for sci fi, and this film tells a very enjoyable sci fi story, depicting an interesting world in the scrap planet, a place where the rest of the universe dumps it's literal and figurative trash, and where a society somehow managed to form out of said trash, it makes sense then that it's a shithole run by a lunatic. But Asgard is equally as interesting in this film, as we see it's hidden history, and get a look at its society too, maybe that was in the first two, don't know, but I liked it here.
Something pleasant is the film's visuals, I love the way the film looks, the film's visual effects are top notch of course, but rather than being dull, colourless landfill like it could have been, the trash planet is gorgeous; it's bright, colourful and vibrant, and visually appealing. Asgard, while less colourful and chaotic, is very grand and pristine, and similarly visually appealing, but until the final battle with Hela, I was far more interested in the trash planet, where Hulk is the champion of a gladiatorial arena and a rebellion against the Grandmaster is slowly simmering, seeing Thor and company piggybacking on the rebellion in order to get back to Asgard was really entertaining, and it allowed for some really enjoyable action sequences, like the gladiator battle from all of the trailers, and a great ship escape through the skies of the trash planet. But what was equally entertaining was simply the characters, Hulk and Thor arguing was surprisingly endearing, and Valkyrie's drinking habits made for some good laughs, while Korg was great, with such a juxtaposition in his voice and appearance, and such a polite and friendly demeanour, he's really good, and his comedy is usually really good. But the comedy, while working for the most part, is also one of the film's failings; near the end the film depicts a significant event, one that should carry significant emotional weight for both Thor and the audience, but then Korg makes a joke, Banner's Hulk transformation in the film's climax carries serious implications for Hulk and Banner as characters, but it's done for comedy; there are times then Thor: Ragnarok compromises the moment by trying to be funny, and it happens enough to be bothersome, it happens a couple of times just in the gladiator fight, this is a problem that was very minor in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but here it's a lot less minor, and the film does have its moments, like Thor's final interaction with Odin, Skurge's repentance, and Scarlett Johansson's cameo appearance, but for all of them, there's one that was made less impactful by a forced joke, and I know that many other people have the same problem with this that I do, in your story there are times when a joke just doesn't fit, and a lot of the Marvel film's I've seen, including this one, don't seem to know that. This creates a sort of tonal inconsistency that is pretty much the only thing I do not like about the film, other complaints are minor, like the lack of blood in the action scenes, which usually pits people with swords and axes against other people with swords and axes, I know Marvel is aiming to make their films as inclusive as possible to generate mass audience appeal, but when someone gets a huge blade thrown at him and it hits him in the chest and kills him, the lack of blood makes it look a bit silly. There's a scene about half way through the film that looked like it was going to a really dark place, but then the film pussies out at the last minute, as if going through with it would have been too extreme, which is the only reason I can think of, what annoys me about it is how had the film actually gone through with it, Hela would have become more menacing as a villain, and Skurge's repentance would have carried more weight, but instead the film keeps it clean, that could be called a nitpick, especially when there's so much to like about Thor: Ragnarok, but it's something to think about, especially given what Hela ends up doing to Thor in the finale.
I ended up really enjoying Thor: Ragnarok, something that was probably inevitable, but here we are. Right from the outset I thought this film was funny, entertaining, visually great, and had some really endearing characters that I ended up loving, particularly Hulk. The film's villain ends up being nothing special, but she gets the job done. But where this film shines is in its great presentation and comedy, even if the film develops a habit of having jokes that compromise the tone of a couple of scenes. It doesn't really change the fact that I was smiling for the majority of the film, and still had a smile on my face after it ended. Thor: Ragnarok is a solid film, and it's definitely worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)