Kamis, 05 April 2012

Why X2 is better than X-Men: First Class

When X-Men: First Class came out, general conception seemed to be that it was the best X-Men movie ever (it gets 7.9 on IMDb vs. X2's 7.6). To which I say bollocks! And here's why.....

 vs

Let's take the protagonists. X2 has Wolverine, First Class has Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). Both have compelling missions - Wolverine's is to find the truth about his past, and Erik's is to seek revenge on the man who murdered his mother. Wolverine's mission is carefully developed throughout the entire movie, going from investigation at Alkali Lake, to interrogation of Xavier back at the mansion, to full-circle return to Alkali.

This is interrupted by William Stryker's attack on the mansion. But the two key points here are that a) the interruption is caused by the man who holds the key to Wolverine's mission, and b) Wolverine is forced to take this trip away from his primary mission - "I'll be fine," he tells Rogue as they flee the mansion. "But we won't," comes the reply. Wolverine must leave his mission in order to save lives.

In First Class, Erik's mission is interrupted by Sebastian Shaw (ok, good - he holds the key to his primary mission). But in contrast, Erik doesn't have to further divert from his goal of revenge. We've already seen that he is more than capable of fighting his way to Shaw and coming within spitting distance of him. But presented with the possibility of creating a cool team of superheroes with a guy he's just met, he says yes. Why would he do this when he can just fight his way back to Shaw and have another crack at him? This is a man who has spent his entire life filled with anger and revenge, and he's suddenly willing to put that on hold to mentor a few spotty teenage mutants? Sorry, I don't buy it!


The other problem is that First Class does a rather poor job of juggling a few too many characters. Our focus is on Erik for the first act (and what a great first act it is!), with secondary thoughts on Charles and Raven. Then suddenly we're expected to care about a bunch of teenagers who we haven't seen before. That's where the problem lies - we put a lot of time and effort into following Erik's story, but then we're cheated when the film changes from a revenge thriller to a motivational teen movie. And why should we care about them? For example, why was Alex Summers in prison? Why should I care about him if you won't give me a reason?!


In contrast, X2 juggles a large number of characters near-perfectly. Nightcrawler demands a bit of our time, especially later on in the movie where his knowledge and skills become vital. But it's ok, because he is introduced in the opening act. The same goes for Rogue, Bobby and Pyro. But again, we see them early on, so their stories don't come out of the blue. And their backstories are explained enough for us to care.

The only issue I have with X2 (and all of the X-Men movies for that matter) is that Cyclops is criminally under-used. Once he's kidnapped, we don't see him again until the finale, where he does sod all. But perhaps that was wise, as trying to deal with too many main characters can be a disaster (as First Class demonstrates).

Don't get me wrong - I like First Class (it's miles better than The Last Stand, anyway!). I think the first act is excellent, but it's downhill from then on. But X2 beats it on every level. Especially in the final act. Characters ring true in X2 (Magneto betrays his new team members, tricking Xavier into attacking every human on the planet). Whereas First Class expects us to believe that Raven is going to abandon Charles (a man she has spent the best part of her life with) when he has just been shot and paralysed (and may be dying!) in favour of the guy who just caused said paralysis and is wearing the helmet of a Nazi-friendly murderer!

Nah, X2 will always be far superior to First Class.

Rant over.

Rabu, 04 April 2012

Relaunching the blog

Since the last thing I posted on here was back in October, I've come to the conclusion that I should re-brand the blog. So from now on, I'm mainly going to be posting super-short film/TV reviews/musings. In the meantime, here's a picture of a cat.



Watch this space.....

Rabu, 05 Oktober 2011

Dexter - what's an extra 4 million....?

So there are rumours that Dexter (my favouritest show on air at the moment) is facing cancellation because of cuts:
Showtime is currently in a similar situation with its own hit series Dexter, since talks have broken down between the network and series star Michael C. Hall. The actor's contract is up after this current season, which premiered on Sunday night with a record 2.2 million viewers tuning in. That figure is up 24% from the Season 5 premiere. It is said that Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons. Negotiations are still ongoing, but it seems there is a big gap to overcome.
(via movieweb)

Read that again.
Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons.

Seriously? Four million?! What's four million to Michael C. Hall - the co-executive producer and star of Showtime's biggest show ever? Especially compared to 20 million?

Now, I'm all for people getting money for their work. It doesn't bother me that Tom Hanks has enough money to build seven Death Stars. Neither does it bother me that Michael C. Hall is (most likely) a wee bit richer than me.

But does it really matter whether he gets that four million? I'm in two minds really - part of me loves Dexter and wants to see it continue for as long as possible. But another part of me doesn't want to see the show fizzle out and get worse and worse until, finally, it's axed (Smallville anyone?).

On a side-note, Sunday's season 6 premiere seemed to present a real sense of finality about the show. As though serious shit is about to go down that will never be reversed. Dexter has to get caught eventually, right? I just hope we get to see it....

Ah, I don't know. Watch this space I suppose......

Kamis, 22 September 2011

The Academy Awards "changes"

They're clamping down on the "cheating" involved in the Oscars. Take a look here.
A rundown of the new Academy restrictions:
- After Oscar nominations are announced on January 24 (until Feb. 21), no receptions may be held following screenings.
- During this period, Academy members (and nominees) may not attend non-screening events celebrating that year’s nominees.
- Filmmakers may only participate in two Q&A panels at screenings that Academy members have been invited to.
- Remember, no crap talking the other guys on Twitter or Facebook or other social media. Or else, suspension and then bye bye membership! Got it, Nicolas Chartier?
- Also, this will be the first year in which studios may send digital screeners to voting members for consideration.
But will it do any good? Will it make a difference?

There's always going to be a prestige issue with the Oscars, particularly Best Picture.

Why does a "Comedy" never win? Why does Animation get its own category - should every film not be measured on the same scale? Just two issues. There are many.

Looking at the Best Picture winners over the years:

The King's Speech (2010) - I thought Black Swan was vastly superior in terms of writing, acting, and scope. But The King's Speech was a film about a historical figure and was "important". So it won. It was always going to because of that alone.

The Hurt Locker (2009) - again, I thought District 9 was superior. But The Hurt Locker was "important" and based on fact. Whereas aliens have yet to invade (apparently).

Shakespeare in Love (1998) - I've never understood this one. How Saving Private Ryan didn't win is a mystery to me. But then.....Shakespeare in Love is about a historical figure.

Titanic (1997) - better than Good Will Hunting? Seriously?! Ah....but Titanic actually happened!

Yes, I know I'm generalising, but the point is that it's never a level playing field. Prestige is always there.

Maybe it's better that 10 films are nominated now (instead of five, since 2009). But does it mean the bottom of the barrel gets a little scraped?

Some Best Picture nominations from the last two years:

Inglourious Basterds - seriously?! Other than one very well-written scene early on, it's a bit of a train wreck, surely?

Avatar - yes, it's technologically wonderful. But what does it bring to the table? Not much.

Inception - I know a lot of people love it, but for me, the logic doesn't hold up half the time, it's not that visually interesting, the performances are sub-par, and it all seems like an inferior version of The Matrix.

Okay, rant over. You may now go back to your coffee/beer/whisky.

Selasa, 02 Agustus 2011

Talking theme - 2001: A Space Odyssey

I remember talking to someone a bit ago (someone with considerably more experience) who said that theme is pointless. A writer shouldn't think about it once during their work. It's just a word used by critics and academics. A prestige thing. To which I say - bollocks!

For me theme is what makes a good movie (which may have a very enjoyable story) a great movie. Particularly with sci-fi.


2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic example. Some say it's only about theme and that there's no story whatsoever. They may be right, but in terms of theme, it's littered with interpretation. "Bring your own subtext," as Joss Whedon would say. I've read/heard about dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations of 2001. What is that Monolith? Is it God? Is it an alien being? An alien technology? Does it merely symbolise technological advance? Organic advance? Change in human life?




Take one route.....

The monkeys open the film. They are at war with a rival clan, it's a stalemate. One monkey touches the Monolith. Then he uses a bone as a weapon to win the clan war. The Monolith triggers his development into the humans we see aboard the spaceship. These guys also encounter the Monolith and x years later, the ship is controlled by the computer HAL - technological evolution. The people aboard this ship are forced to kill HAL, the thing they created. They destroy their own technological advance. Dave encounters the Monolith again and ages dramatically - the Monolith destroys human life and gives birth to the next stage of evolution (whatever we see floating in space). Theme = technological and human evolution.

Another interpretation: the Apollonian vs Dionysian man.....


The monkeys are purely Dionysian - instinct, emotion, the "id" - and that just doesn't work, the result is murder. Later, during the Jupiter mission, the characters we see are purely Apollonian - structure, logic, the "ego" - having created a mechanical being (HAL) to control their lives. They are completely devoid of emotion and what makes humans human. This also fails, resulting in death. So in the film's finale, the Monolith scraps both versions of Man (Dave ages rapidly and dies) and creates a new form (the foetus we see hanging in space is another kind of Man). This is the "super ego", the natural balance between the instinctual, primal side of Man and the logical, mechanical side. What Freud would say is the balance needed for humankind to function completely. Theme = what makes us human?


Anyway, those are just two possible interpretations (very loosely summarized). The point is, you can throw anything you want at 2001 and it will stick. A religious interpretation - the Monolith is God and He presses the reset button on humanity. Or.....in the end, Dave - the representation of Man - becomes God (he is afterall, hovering in the sky over the world all deity-like). 

One way of creating theme would be to write the script (forget about everything else). After draft 1 or 2, look for some sort of interpretation for your script, and you can create a theme. If your film has a clear Christian vs. Atheist thing going on, change that character's name from Bob to Abel. You might surprise yourself....

Next up - Blade Runner.

Senin, 18 Juli 2011

Sad

This was a b-side:


All the photographs are peeling, colors turn to gray
He stayed... in his room with memories for days
He faced... an undertow of futures laid to waste
Embraced... by the loss of one he could not replace

And there's no reason that she passed
And there is no God with a plan, it's sad
And his loneliness is proof, it's sad
He could only love you, it's sad

The door swings through a passing fable, a fate we may delay, we say
Holding on, live within our embrace

He lit a match, he lay in bed,
Hoping that dreams would bring her back, it's sad
And his loneliness is cruel, it's sad
He could only love you, it's sad

Holding his last breath, believing
He'll make his way
She's not forgotten, he's haunted
He's searching for escape

If just one wish could bring her back, it's sent
And his loneliness is proof, it's sad
He will always love you, it's sad
 Written by Eddie Vedder

Rabu, 06 Juli 2011

5 Shock Horrors

This blog is great for writing rants and general thoughts/advice etc. But sometimes it's nice to have the bigger audience, y'know? So scoot on over to Obsessed With Film (which has just become whatculture.com) and check out my article on Five Shocking Horror Film Scenes to Keep You Awake at Night.
It’s undoubtedly a bad day when you and your friends happen across a seemingly deserted house, only to discover a collection of human bones and a terrifying masked killer. But spare a thought for poor Leatherface. That’s what director Tobe Hooper demands of us in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Not two kills into his massacre, Leatherface panics when Jerry discovers Pam inside a freezer. Things were fine until those meddling kids poked their noses in. What can Leatherface do? He can’t let them get away! So more killing is called for. After which, he runs in circles and collapses onto a chair. He holds his head in hands like a man who knows he’s got himself in deep trouble. This very human reaction tells us that Leatherface is not some unstoppable monster or a crazed psychopath – this is a man, nothing more. It’s a very sobering scene that ultimately brings the film back to reality. A very bad day for Leatherface!