Post by Cristo on Oct 21, 2008 19:35:32 GMT -5
Casablanca and Mr. Vincent at the Movies
12th Episode
casablanca3491 - Casablanca
----------------------
Hello, MR Directors and patrons, and welcome to the twelfth episode of “Casablanca and Mr. Vincent at the Movies”. Sadly, Mr. Vincent won’t be here for this episode and will be joining me on episode 13. Also, I would like to take this time for an extreme apology as the show has been on such a large delay. I consider this season 2, with just a small break in between. Now, I guarantee you an episode a week, even if it is just me doing one alone, if Vince happens to be too busy that specific week. However, I am picking up the pace, effective immediately, as I have missed doing this so much. Tonight, I was going to say we have a nice episode, but with the break, we forgot what that was like, so let me introduce everything. We start with 3 reviews to new film, then Trailers, following that the interview and then info, after a review to an older film. Not much, but it really is a lot to handle, so don’t judge it right now. I hope you all welcome me back, as I sure am happy to welcome this show back!
To start off, I am going to review three films for you. Two have just came out and one has yet to. The first one will be a film I doubted from the beginning, and had always had curiosities over, bucksfan’s “Halloween”.
*** out of ****
This is a case of relief, a case where a critic can sit back and laugh at himself for his own paranoia. This film is all right, it is, really. I’d call it a good film. It almost reads like a novel, it is pretty non-linear, as it flashes back and forth to events, and with a few other devices it really does do a good job handling terror, a task bucksfan has proved more then well he can handle.
First off, not only is the horror done for entertainment, it is done for the purpose it was made for-to scare, something I don’t think any film has done so far, and if I read this, sitting alone in a dark room, it may have just succeeded, because there is a tension in this film, laid on over the events and pulled tight, quite taut, so that every move can be the link between life and death. Now, let me mention the beginning, because this is actually a great scene. It starts with an interrogation- Laurie Strode. The police are asking her about Michael but before they can get to it an officer walks in. We know what he is going to say, and he says it. Michael has escaped. Both officers leave the room and Laurie alone. This is where I really feel the fear, feel her isolation and her terror, and, in fact, I was hoping that Michael would be seen through the window of the interrogation room, as that would be beyond frightening, however, the film did something which left me impressed. It cut back in time, and it did this quite a bit. This is really fine filmmaking, when it does this. Take, for example, Loomis and the man arguing about letting Michael out, then it cuts to the night he escaped, really good methods of suspense, as it makes us know what happens and then wonder how it happens. Class A thriller technique right there which many thrillers can learn from.
Also, there is a style it was written, using description.
We slowly zoom up and see the shape’s face for the first time. This is Michael Myers, the psychopathic killer who murdered his brother and sister 15 years ago. Why is he here, we will soon find out.
Go to the script yourself, I guarantee you this is a line from the film. Look at it, like a book, telling us everything! How neat is that? I regard this as the saving point of the film. It was decent with everything else, but this made it quite a good film. It reads where we picture everything, which is so much more scary then seeing it, and it is all left to brew in our imagination. During a murder, we may pause reading and picture it, adding on our own odds and ends, making it match our fears, and that is a wonderful method, and a surprising one, as I didn’t expect this film to do it. But, as if you couldn’t read above, this film already blew my expectations, only because they were dirt low, and surprised me in the most, well…surprising ways.
Overall, this is a good film, but not so much a story, as it is a display. It is a display of horror, of the different types and the different methods used to evoke it. Like “Little Piece of Heaven” it is a fascination piece, not so much a story. We see how terror is handled, how suspense is built and how it plays with out emotions, all wonderfully done. It left me impressed and I would recommend seeing it highly, not for greatness, but to see how a film of the genre should be made.
--------------------
With that film over with, and a large anticipation over with, let’s turn to a film that is buried in the realms of obscurity. “Batman: The Lost Legend”, a film I had no clue about until it came out. Does poor advertising lead to a poor film?
This film is short so please excuse a short review.
** .5 out of ****
Hm. I am torn here. Really, it isn’t a great film, not that well tossed together, due to lack of ambition, however, it did have some nice things about it, and I will elaborate on those. Also, it had a nice mood. Again, some of it seemed to lack, but overall I would say it is more interesting then really good. It is basically a quick, concise statement on super hero films and a slap in the face to the genre, the problem though, it is more of a backhand slap without a ring, virtually harmless and not the revelation it could have been.
The story is about one thing –Batman kidnapping a politician. Now, as shocked as I was too, he has his reasons, as the politician has been funding the mafia. What ensues is a minor thrill-game of cat and mouse, as batman calls Gordon, tells him to look into the politician’s accounts as proof, and the police and people alike now think batman has twisted into a villain, so the elements are there all right, the film just lays them on too thickly, and thus, too condensed.
If this film was long, drew out the drama and added in sub-layers of insanity, guilt and lost identity, it would have been a very good film, certainly deserving of the title “one of the greatest superhero films”. But it doesn’t, and it isn’t. It is simply a neat little excerpt, as if a scene to a far greater film. With its ambition and scope stripped bare, we are left with the essentials. A story and characters, nothing else. It almost seems as if the director rushed it, pushing out the basics, and leaving the rest, sadly, locked in his brain.
Maybe someday there will be a director’s cut, a longer version. Then I could say it was the film I was hoping for, but that looks unlikely, if not impossible. The ending is nice, a fine way to close it, but the middle lacks. If it was extended and added to, I would be pleased.
Overall, it is fine, and you could see it and should, but don’t feel an obligation, maybe you can see a longer version someday and save the surprises it does carry for then.
----------------
Well, after those reviews let’s move on to something a little more recognizable: Trailer Analysis. We have got 3 trailers for you tonight, so, without further ado, let’s jump into those, see what they’re like, how they work, and maybe figure out a little bit about the film while we are at it. First off, we have “A Moral Aroma”, an upcoming film by Hanelle, the writer of “Clocks” as well as co-writer of the show “Reel Tales of Horror”. It starts:
GEORGE, a distinguished man in his fifties, sits in complete darkness. His eyes are full of sorrow and his face is grim.
He takes in a deep whiff of a rose he is holding between his fingers.
This really sums it up. Not only does it create a mood, it also places the film in a category, as well as gives us what will be, at least, a little part of the story. Now, there is darkness, there is a rose, and there is sorrow. This is the ideal atmosphere, or setting, for a tragic romance. I sense a dark picture, a movie of loss and grief, and a movie of terror, terror in the mind. However, I do not expect a film wild with this horror. There will not be fast surprises, except maybe the end, there will not be crazy sequences of love or violence, and I know this by looking at the man. Sometimes I believe that a story can be summed up by the main character, and this is one of those cases. He is a distinguished man. Scripts, especially teasers, never should tell us any information we don’t need to know, so every little detail is to be looked at. When I think of the word “distinguished”, I think money, formal clothing at formal parties, careful to never miss-step or use the wrong word. That is what I expect from this film. A movie more concerned with carefully choosing their words besides exciting us. Next, we read that his “eyes are full of sorrow” and his “face is grim”. Very subtle. We do not get, “He looks terrorized” or “he looks sad”, we look into his eyes, which tells me that this movie will have depth, but also that the horror will be under the surface, where you need to look to find it.
GEORGE (V.O.)
She loved the smell of roses.
George reaches in his bag and pulls out a bottle of red wine.
GEORGE (V.O.)
I think things worked out better than I could have imagined.
PAN OUT to see George is sitting in a damp, freshly dug hole. He is sitting on a coffin in the middle of a cemetery.
This trailer must be trying to trick me, because it is dodging left and right, however, I was right about the woman. Now, why is he in a coffin? I believe it is symbolic. He is not a perfect victim, ravaged and then depressed. I feel he “took” some sort of revenge, possibly, and probably, murder. Thus, he feels, not guilt, but he doesn’t feel redeemed, and this is symbolic for how he feels, his mood, and also done to create a mood for the story, showing us the inner turmoil this man feels.
young man, mid-twenties, sitting in a chair. The room is completely white and empty. He smiles strangely as his hands seem to crochet something that isn't there.
GEORGE (V.O.)
This journey has taken me to many places.
George stands in front of a window looking out at the sunrise. SUZANNE, a middle-aged blonde woman approaches from behind, wrapping her arms around him tightly.
SUZANNE
What are you looking for?
GEORGE
Resolution.
We are now presented with an all white room, and this sort of, in my opinion, represents heaven, or a womb. Something protected, somewhere sacred, and this shows that we have a man who is trying to save himself, trying to get himself, essentially, in heaven, thus, clear himself of his sins, of the problems that circle around him. And that, really, gives us the story, the story I guessed earlier. This is supported by the word, “resolution”. He is seeking a resolution of his sins and his mistakes.
QUICK FLASH of a man in a mental asylum. He walks backward in a rhythmic motion.
GEORGE (V.O.)
I've met many interesting people...
George stands in front of a cashier in a convenience store. They awkwardly stare at each other.
This is an, to quote the film, interesting part. It gives the film the quality of a twisted road trip film, and we all know how those turn out, where the main character meets a series of other characters, however, where as most road trip films have the different characters as plot devices, I believe this film will use them as symbols. Notice the character in the mental home. This is used to show us the main character’s mental state, and thus, the whole films really revolves around his emotions, and his “trip” will be taking him through the different layers of himself.
GEORGE (V.O.)
What do you do when everything good in your life is ripped from your grasp?
Sarah, a beautiful young woman walks across a busy street, her hair blowing in the wind.
GEORGE (V.O.)
Everything you ever knew, everything you ever loved, was taken in an instant.
The soft hum of a subway approaches, growing louder and louder.
GEORGE (V.O.)
There is really only one thing you can do...
It comes to a stop. George stands in front of the sliding Subway doors. As they open, he sees LEONARD, a handsome young business man, sitting in the subway, his face buried in his work.
GEORGE (V.O.)
Take it back.
Now, I’m guessing Leonard is the one who, in short, killed his loved one, and who will be the target of the revenge. However, by looking over things, I do not expect an overtly violent film, if not that violent at all. Leonard seems to be a business man, quite successful, and always likes to be on top. I am assuming that the revenge will be more “tearing him down” then just walking up and shooting him, I assume it would be more of a character depth-revenge, where he is broken mentally, beaten in his mind, and really that is the worst form of revenge, because it is a clear indicator that someone has won. In order for true satisfaction, it appears that George wants a victory over mind and body, and overall, it really adds an effect to the film. I expect a film filled with artistic glories, it seems to leave none of those behind. I also expect it to be quite taut, unlike many of the fantastical epics, I expect this to be more pulled together, more contained, more tight and enthralling, and that is a great position to be, for a thriller, because if you let the audience wander to far, they are liable to get lost.
With that over, I’d like to turn to the next trailer, the next scene, actually, as this isn’t a trailer. This will be a scene from indy’s new film “Ricochet Fight”. It begins:
FADE IN: Desert road- day.
A single paved road runs through the desert, and a single black truck drives through it.
INDY42 PRESENTS
Inside the truck, DARREN, a 34 year old clumsily shaved man, next to CLAY, a 40 something war veteran- ready for anything. Clay sits obsessively cleaning his pistol.
Well, as they are ready for anything, so are we. We have a pistol, two men riding in a truck, and the knowledge that this is, indeed, an action film. We can only guess where it will go. Now, lets see if we can address the type of situation we are at right now. First, we have Darren. He has a clumsy shave and is in his 30’s. Not much info, but I am guessing he isn’t a rocket scientist. I suspect that he will be the comic relief from the film, indy told us to expect. Next we have Clay, a 40-something Veteran. Look he “obsessively” cleans his pistol, it adds a tone of lightness, just how absurd it is. Now, looking forward, this will probably be the butt of a joke in a few seconds, and that will be the tone establisher. We will see how much of this is action, and how much is comedy.
SIMON PEGG
darren
Damnit, do you ever leave that thing alone?
Clay looks up, offended.
clay
This is my protection. Did I mention I used it to
Darren mouths the words as Clay says them-
CLAY
-save my life back in Desert Storm?
DARREN
Same old shit, different day.
As I guessed. There it was, the butt of a joke. I now know what kind of film this is, and it isn’t so much a mix as a trade off. I have a feeling this movie will act as a comedy, then give way to action, then come back to comedy, then more action, and this isn’t a bad thing, especially when done well. In fact, it is often more neat then adding everything together. The comedy seems to be used for an effect anyways, not to make us laugh. Not that the film will be dark, but unlike “The Punisher”, I think indy is giving us a break from the barrage of action, a little rest, where we can just lay back and not think, have a good time, and that is kind of him, and interesting for him to do, as it shows control, and this really will be a controlled film.
The tarp over the back of the truck opens, revealing NATHAN JACK laying underneath. Nathan props himself up, and raises his hands triumphantly. He is british, wears a New York yankees baseball cap and a jeans jacket.
Then the dust hits his eyes.
jack
Ack!
He covers his hands with his eyes, then turns around, facing the front of the truck. He pulls himself over to the side of the truck and shimmies forward toward the driver's seat.
RICOCHET FIGHT.
Now, I know you all are thinking I am wrong about not mixing action and comedy, but I still stand by it. Watch, and I bet the comedy will go up, right until the action, and then let way to violence, unless the action itself is meant as a joke. But, here it is, this is the film! I suspect the film will be a mix of thrill after thrill, no matter how often, no matter how random, but we will never be given a moment’s peace, except those comedy scenes. And seeing this, an action scene, doesn’t it show us just how much of a break the first scene was?
INT. Truck. JACK APPEARS IN THE WINDOW!
JACK
Pull over! Pull ov-
Clay FIRES his gun at the window. Jack ducks and slips, falling off the truck and into the dirt.
DARREN
Jesus f*cking christ, Clay, you almost hit me!
EXT. Truck. Jack stands up and begins running towards the car, firing his gun wildly.
INT. Truck.
CLAY
Pull over.
The truck pulls over.
There, see what I mean? Not much comedy, in fact, none really. I’d almost be tempted to say it feels quite grim, actually. If not grim, then at least violent. All the gun shots, all the word choices, the capitalizing of “FIRES”, it all goes to serve a point, and that point is to basically pump us up, make us sit up after that comedy break and get back into gear, which goes back to what I said about this being a controlled films, because it is. It wants us to do what it tells us to do, and it does a fine job of making sure we are on track.
EXT. TRUCK.
Jack stops running.
JACK
Yes...
Clay gets out of the truck and fires towards Jack.
jack
Oh, f*ck.
Jack dives out of Clay's line of sight.
CLAY
f*ck!
Clay shoots out the rest of his bullets, sits down behind the truck and begins to manually reload them.
Why not drive off quickly? That wouldn’t be entertaining enough. This film is destined to give us as much action as humanly possible, perhaps a little more then that even, and they want us to feel the excitement, to be there. Why then, you may ask, do they use short descriptions and quick dialogue? Easy, to speed up the pace of the film, to quicken the read, to make it fly by, as these types of things really do, Clay, a war veteran, can attest to that. Well, what can they do next?
Jack shoots back, until he sees Darren begin to pull a BAZOOKA out and point it at Darren.
JACK
Those things are f*cking illegal!
DARREN
Who the f*ck cares!??!?!?!
Darren fires the Bazooka, and Jack dives out of the way, as a MOUNTAIN of dirt is blown sky-high.
Jack fires back, hitting Darren in the hand.
DARREN
f*ck!
We see that Darren's index finger on his right hand has been completely blown off, and the stump bleeds wildly.
JACK
That's disgusting.
Oh, a bazooka! I knew there was something missing, I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Darren is missing something too, his finger! And Jack couldn’t be more right, how disgusting! This, at least, shows the morals of the film, as they take no care in pleasing us artistically, they just want to be as gritty and entertaining as possible, and while it may be disgusting, hey…it is interesting! Also, notice the dialogue. These characters have a favorite word, one which goes with each scenario, can be used universally as a sign of distress and an attempt to pump adrenaline, need I tell you what it is?
DARREN
f*cking motherfucker!
Darren gets out of the truck, pulls out a handgun and points it at the now-exposed Jack.
JACK
Sorry!
Jack shoots his gun, and hits Darren's left hand, blowing off his other index finger.
DARREN
OH f*ck!!! NOOOOO!
Clay finishes reloading and puts his gun out, and without looking begins firing towards Nathan.
Darren's head explodes.
JACK
Oh, f*ck!
Jack is sprayed with blood. He begins to crawl away from the bleeding body.
JACK
f*cking nasty!
Poor Darren, today was not his day! Not only was his second index finger shot off, but also he received the epitome of movie violence- the exploding head! Often reserved for horror movies with a complete disregard of critics, indy takes a risk in using it, as it could do 1 of 2 things.
1. Go for proof that the film is a fun read, and just an entertaining blood bath
2. Finally take it over the top and make it a ridiculous crap-film
Which one it is actually falls in between. It is crap, yes. But this is the most widely entertaining crap I have ever seen.
Jack crawls into the driver's seat of the truck.
He looks into the back seat, and we see... A little girl. She is about 6 years old, and her hands are covered her ears, eyes glued open in fear, lying down in the backseat.
JACK
(softly)
Don't worry... Everything is going to be all right...
A bullet smashes through the back window, hitting Jack in the shoulder.
JACK
(loudly)
OH, f*ck!!!!
The little girl jumps, scared.
JACK
f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck...
Jack moves out of the car, back onto the dirt, grabbing the bazooka. He loads another rocket.
JACK
Fucker, fucker, fucker....
As long as this film stays as offensive as possible, it seems to take joy in what it does. Why not throw in a kid? When the bullet went through the window, it hitting the child actually was not the last thought in my mind, and that is what the film did to me, it has demoralized me, it had made me lose my regard for human life, sort of like…a war veteran, and that is an amazing feat, as it basically copies and pastes the effect of a war. And we feel like soldiers, caught in a terrifying array of firepower. There is a bit more to the scene, none of which, besides the use of our favorite word, shows much that we didn’t cover. I will post it, then move on.
Clay runs toward the other side of the truck. Jack stands back up, and closes the truck door.
JACK
f*cking TOURETTES!
Jack stands up and fires the bazooka through the two windows, impaling Clay, knocking him back 20 feet and finally EXPLODING.
Jack throws the bazooka down and crawls back into the car.
JACK
Are you ready to go home?
The little girl nods.
Next, we have trailer, moving away from scenes a second, and this trailer is a video, so while I cannot break it apart, allow me to give my overall thoughts on it. “Dryerman 2”.
As it opens we automatically get the feel for what kind of images we will be shown. This is a film of stark black and white, astonishing use of shadow-ish effects and undeniable beauty. Its angles are impressive, but I cannot form a solid opinion yet. They may be shaky a tad, perhaps not. As for the story, there is one item of praise, and one I am still curious about. Yes, the action looks good, the thrills fine, but how about the drama? I can’t picture too many actors in this, and am curious at how the drama, if any, will be played out. Will we have extended persons to person conversations? Will we be surprised by the high number of actors and me proved wrong? Who knows, and in the long run, who cares. If it was meant to be a deep drama, it would have been a script, but it isn’t, it is a video, and thus, set out to amaze us with visuals, astound us with that “meld of music and imagery” that films like “5:30” and “Night of Eureka” did, and on this level, it succeeds, fully. I am impressed with what I see so far, and cannot wait for the final video, which may prove to be not only proof that visuals are necessary in video based films, but also that the craft of art is still well and alive.
-------------------
On that good note, but still holding on to xplay, let’s take a look at our interview with…xplay! He was nice enough to agree to come back, and I am sure that it will be quite enlightening on not only his career, but also his new upcoming film “A Little Piece of Heaven”, a neat and odd film that has already garnered my praise.
Q: Hello xplay, and thank you very much for coming back, in your second interview and be willing to answer a few questions for us. First off, I realize that a new film by you, “A Little Piece of Heaven”, which I have seen, and reviewed, however, I would like to center the interview on that film, as to let the public know more about it. To start, it is quite an odd film, and I was wondering what inspired you to make, not only a short film, but such an odd film as this, perhaps, more odd then your previous efforts.
Well, as known, it's based upon a song by a favorite band of mine called Avenged Sevenfold with the same title. Now, the story is taken from it but the tone and interactions are by myself. I really enjoyed the story and had the perfect tone to it. I tried my best to make humor out of the darkest, most creepy moments and give it a quirky quality. I didn't want to take it seriously but I didn't want to make a comedy.
Q: Secondly, in a “Little Piece”, I got the sense that it seems to be your ultimate film, not in story or length, but in how it seems more of a summary of your work, besides a film really. Do you see this? What, would you say, makes you up, as a director?
Yes. It almost seems like if I wanted to show people how I make films, and my style, of all of my films: this would be the one to do it. I tried getting my "quirk" into it, it's very dark, visually and story wise althought humor shines at the most disturbing moments and you might have to read it a second time to see the humor in it because you might be shocked or disgusted by it on the first go around you may not see it.
Q: Also, the tone in “Little Piece” jumped around like it was playing leapfrog. It was romantic, then horrific, then darkly funny, all the while being a disturbing film. Is “genre hopping” a characteristic you like to use? It seems so in “The Raven”.
Yes. I adore "genre hopping" alot. But I want to do it in a way that it doesn't basically shout "ALRIGHT, CHANGE SEATS!". A film that does that is "From Dusk Till Dawn". The first half of it are a total Tarantino crime road film then the second the gang arrives at the bar, it becomes a Rodriguez campy action fest. "Edward Scissorhands", one of my favorite films by my favorite director does it well. At times, it's a moody character study, then it's light comedy, then it's a coming of age story and it's also a romance. I love it and try to put that in every film but not in a obvious way.
Q: Now, “Little Piece” seemed less ambitious then some of your other projects, because on the length. Did something interfere with your writing? Are your other projects getting in the way? Or did you simply have a case of loosing inspiration for it?
I did sorta lose inspiration but mostly because I wanted it be quick. The longest I ever thought it going was 15 pages. It's a quick film because by the time you've gotten to the heater scene, you've nearly done all you can do to shock the audience. Time to "change chairs". I wanted it to capture you so by the quick time you finish it, you'll want to read through it again and look see if you view it differnetly. It's more or less as you said, "this is how xplayadam does his movies".
Q: In the previous question, I mentioned inspiration, and was wondering what drove you to writing film, period. Why do you write movies? What fixates you on the task, draws you into it?
The thing that makes me love writing so much is because I can create my own world. In a way, I'm playing God, something I've always loved the idea of. But mostly because it gives me a escape, I'm not good at sports, I can't ride a bike, I generally don't have the best social skills so writing helps me to fuel my creative energy, my energy period. If I find something I adore, I can get into it and talk about it for hours. Writing is a way to channel my passion and my energy.
Q: Two more questions. First, how would you say your style is “odd” or “different”? Is this intentional or just one of your quirks? Explain why you add in the bizarre events and such, as you do.
I want to create "bizarre events" but make them subtle. You need to think about it to realize: "well, this is odd...". I'd have to say that my style is "differnet" more then "odd". It's hard to describe but it could be odd also.
Q: And finally, with the recent changes, and the addition of Mr. Vincent to take Joey’s place, what do you feel about this show? How do you see it in the future?
I see it doing well as long as Vincent keeps working at it. It's hard to row the boat when the other man is swiming.
------------------
Well, thank you again xplay, as that proved to be more then informative regarding your films. I’d like to take this time to briefly run over “Piece of Heaven” as it is not only a good film, as I said, but also a palette, you can say, of xplay’s work so far, and fine work it is. From “Flaming Carrot” to “Batman: The Musical”, xplay has really put out some of the most daring films out there. Sacrificing greatness with the two mentioned projects, he has bolded and enhanced a style which cannot be copied, and that is what makes a great director, a style of his own. When I sit down, and open a trailer or a film, at the first paragraph, I know it is an xplay film; it has that mood, the appearance, the style, everything that makes his films his own. He won his universe of films, like a king or a master, and that puts him in a really good position, as he can keep watch over every line, every word, a task which some directors can’t, and this makes their work drag on, or run off, out of their reach, a serious flaw!
----------------
Well, with the end coming closer and closer, I’d like to turn to our last event of the night, and that is 1, sorry, only 1, review to an older films. The film will be “Batman: Origins”
** .5 out of ****
Now, before you all get scared due tom the rating, hear me out. This film is fine, decent, but I found it far to cliché of the genre, so middle class, that it rides in the shadows of so many films, far greater films. It is a nice story, but it is told with the ambition of a film that has no intention to be great or even released publicly.
I see where it was going, it was trying to be a nice homage to a very popular hero, and create a film that shows his start. It succeeds at doing both, but it excels at nothing else, as if it set its sight on those two things and attempted nothing else, and thus, went nowhere else except to the obscure archives of forgotten films on MR.
The characters seemed one sided, bland, nothing to them but a voice, not even a voice, written words. And even the word felt forced. Everything had a wooden quality to it, as if it was put down by a director and not flowing dialogue from the character’s mouths. It worked, granted, as it told a story and did allow you to visualize things, but in terms of creating a mood or crafting an atmosphere, it didn’t.
The story was fine, if not too short. It was something which could have been covered in less of time, but instead, the director stays on the side notes, creating more and more scenes that go nowhere, hoping to create a great film around the hero, hoping that each scene on him is diving into him, when really it isn’t, and we are left on the surface wondering what is going on.
Overall, it is fine, don’t let me call it terrible, but there are SO many better superhero films out there, why waste the time to see this one, unless you have a calling. If not, leave this one out.
------------------------
With that, I would like to close the episode for the night, and I hope you are all pleased with the arrival of the show after, what I was told, has been 2 weeks. Again, expect more episodes more frequently and I hope that the chat discussions will be back soon, as those are something I didn’t wish to sacrifice.
It feels good to be back and I hope to see you next week on “Casablanca and Mr. Vincent at the Movies”!
12th Episode
casablanca3491 - Casablanca
----------------------
Hello, MR Directors and patrons, and welcome to the twelfth episode of “Casablanca and Mr. Vincent at the Movies”. Sadly, Mr. Vincent won’t be here for this episode and will be joining me on episode 13. Also, I would like to take this time for an extreme apology as the show has been on such a large delay. I consider this season 2, with just a small break in between. Now, I guarantee you an episode a week, even if it is just me doing one alone, if Vince happens to be too busy that specific week. However, I am picking up the pace, effective immediately, as I have missed doing this so much. Tonight, I was going to say we have a nice episode, but with the break, we forgot what that was like, so let me introduce everything. We start with 3 reviews to new film, then Trailers, following that the interview and then info, after a review to an older film. Not much, but it really is a lot to handle, so don’t judge it right now. I hope you all welcome me back, as I sure am happy to welcome this show back!
To start off, I am going to review three films for you. Two have just came out and one has yet to. The first one will be a film I doubted from the beginning, and had always had curiosities over, bucksfan’s “Halloween”.
*** out of ****
This is a case of relief, a case where a critic can sit back and laugh at himself for his own paranoia. This film is all right, it is, really. I’d call it a good film. It almost reads like a novel, it is pretty non-linear, as it flashes back and forth to events, and with a few other devices it really does do a good job handling terror, a task bucksfan has proved more then well he can handle.
First off, not only is the horror done for entertainment, it is done for the purpose it was made for-to scare, something I don’t think any film has done so far, and if I read this, sitting alone in a dark room, it may have just succeeded, because there is a tension in this film, laid on over the events and pulled tight, quite taut, so that every move can be the link between life and death. Now, let me mention the beginning, because this is actually a great scene. It starts with an interrogation- Laurie Strode. The police are asking her about Michael but before they can get to it an officer walks in. We know what he is going to say, and he says it. Michael has escaped. Both officers leave the room and Laurie alone. This is where I really feel the fear, feel her isolation and her terror, and, in fact, I was hoping that Michael would be seen through the window of the interrogation room, as that would be beyond frightening, however, the film did something which left me impressed. It cut back in time, and it did this quite a bit. This is really fine filmmaking, when it does this. Take, for example, Loomis and the man arguing about letting Michael out, then it cuts to the night he escaped, really good methods of suspense, as it makes us know what happens and then wonder how it happens. Class A thriller technique right there which many thrillers can learn from.
Also, there is a style it was written, using description.
We slowly zoom up and see the shape’s face for the first time. This is Michael Myers, the psychopathic killer who murdered his brother and sister 15 years ago. Why is he here, we will soon find out.
Go to the script yourself, I guarantee you this is a line from the film. Look at it, like a book, telling us everything! How neat is that? I regard this as the saving point of the film. It was decent with everything else, but this made it quite a good film. It reads where we picture everything, which is so much more scary then seeing it, and it is all left to brew in our imagination. During a murder, we may pause reading and picture it, adding on our own odds and ends, making it match our fears, and that is a wonderful method, and a surprising one, as I didn’t expect this film to do it. But, as if you couldn’t read above, this film already blew my expectations, only because they were dirt low, and surprised me in the most, well…surprising ways.
Overall, this is a good film, but not so much a story, as it is a display. It is a display of horror, of the different types and the different methods used to evoke it. Like “Little Piece of Heaven” it is a fascination piece, not so much a story. We see how terror is handled, how suspense is built and how it plays with out emotions, all wonderfully done. It left me impressed and I would recommend seeing it highly, not for greatness, but to see how a film of the genre should be made.
--------------------
With that film over with, and a large anticipation over with, let’s turn to a film that is buried in the realms of obscurity. “Batman: The Lost Legend”, a film I had no clue about until it came out. Does poor advertising lead to a poor film?
This film is short so please excuse a short review.
** .5 out of ****
Hm. I am torn here. Really, it isn’t a great film, not that well tossed together, due to lack of ambition, however, it did have some nice things about it, and I will elaborate on those. Also, it had a nice mood. Again, some of it seemed to lack, but overall I would say it is more interesting then really good. It is basically a quick, concise statement on super hero films and a slap in the face to the genre, the problem though, it is more of a backhand slap without a ring, virtually harmless and not the revelation it could have been.
The story is about one thing –Batman kidnapping a politician. Now, as shocked as I was too, he has his reasons, as the politician has been funding the mafia. What ensues is a minor thrill-game of cat and mouse, as batman calls Gordon, tells him to look into the politician’s accounts as proof, and the police and people alike now think batman has twisted into a villain, so the elements are there all right, the film just lays them on too thickly, and thus, too condensed.
If this film was long, drew out the drama and added in sub-layers of insanity, guilt and lost identity, it would have been a very good film, certainly deserving of the title “one of the greatest superhero films”. But it doesn’t, and it isn’t. It is simply a neat little excerpt, as if a scene to a far greater film. With its ambition and scope stripped bare, we are left with the essentials. A story and characters, nothing else. It almost seems as if the director rushed it, pushing out the basics, and leaving the rest, sadly, locked in his brain.
Maybe someday there will be a director’s cut, a longer version. Then I could say it was the film I was hoping for, but that looks unlikely, if not impossible. The ending is nice, a fine way to close it, but the middle lacks. If it was extended and added to, I would be pleased.
Overall, it is fine, and you could see it and should, but don’t feel an obligation, maybe you can see a longer version someday and save the surprises it does carry for then.
----------------
Well, after those reviews let’s move on to something a little more recognizable: Trailer Analysis. We have got 3 trailers for you tonight, so, without further ado, let’s jump into those, see what they’re like, how they work, and maybe figure out a little bit about the film while we are at it. First off, we have “A Moral Aroma”, an upcoming film by Hanelle, the writer of “Clocks” as well as co-writer of the show “Reel Tales of Horror”. It starts:
GEORGE, a distinguished man in his fifties, sits in complete darkness. His eyes are full of sorrow and his face is grim.
He takes in a deep whiff of a rose he is holding between his fingers.
This really sums it up. Not only does it create a mood, it also places the film in a category, as well as gives us what will be, at least, a little part of the story. Now, there is darkness, there is a rose, and there is sorrow. This is the ideal atmosphere, or setting, for a tragic romance. I sense a dark picture, a movie of loss and grief, and a movie of terror, terror in the mind. However, I do not expect a film wild with this horror. There will not be fast surprises, except maybe the end, there will not be crazy sequences of love or violence, and I know this by looking at the man. Sometimes I believe that a story can be summed up by the main character, and this is one of those cases. He is a distinguished man. Scripts, especially teasers, never should tell us any information we don’t need to know, so every little detail is to be looked at. When I think of the word “distinguished”, I think money, formal clothing at formal parties, careful to never miss-step or use the wrong word. That is what I expect from this film. A movie more concerned with carefully choosing their words besides exciting us. Next, we read that his “eyes are full of sorrow” and his “face is grim”. Very subtle. We do not get, “He looks terrorized” or “he looks sad”, we look into his eyes, which tells me that this movie will have depth, but also that the horror will be under the surface, where you need to look to find it.
GEORGE (V.O.)
She loved the smell of roses.
George reaches in his bag and pulls out a bottle of red wine.
GEORGE (V.O.)
I think things worked out better than I could have imagined.
PAN OUT to see George is sitting in a damp, freshly dug hole. He is sitting on a coffin in the middle of a cemetery.
This trailer must be trying to trick me, because it is dodging left and right, however, I was right about the woman. Now, why is he in a coffin? I believe it is symbolic. He is not a perfect victim, ravaged and then depressed. I feel he “took” some sort of revenge, possibly, and probably, murder. Thus, he feels, not guilt, but he doesn’t feel redeemed, and this is symbolic for how he feels, his mood, and also done to create a mood for the story, showing us the inner turmoil this man feels.
young man, mid-twenties, sitting in a chair. The room is completely white and empty. He smiles strangely as his hands seem to crochet something that isn't there.
GEORGE (V.O.)
This journey has taken me to many places.
George stands in front of a window looking out at the sunrise. SUZANNE, a middle-aged blonde woman approaches from behind, wrapping her arms around him tightly.
SUZANNE
What are you looking for?
GEORGE
Resolution.
We are now presented with an all white room, and this sort of, in my opinion, represents heaven, or a womb. Something protected, somewhere sacred, and this shows that we have a man who is trying to save himself, trying to get himself, essentially, in heaven, thus, clear himself of his sins, of the problems that circle around him. And that, really, gives us the story, the story I guessed earlier. This is supported by the word, “resolution”. He is seeking a resolution of his sins and his mistakes.
QUICK FLASH of a man in a mental asylum. He walks backward in a rhythmic motion.
GEORGE (V.O.)
I've met many interesting people...
George stands in front of a cashier in a convenience store. They awkwardly stare at each other.
This is an, to quote the film, interesting part. It gives the film the quality of a twisted road trip film, and we all know how those turn out, where the main character meets a series of other characters, however, where as most road trip films have the different characters as plot devices, I believe this film will use them as symbols. Notice the character in the mental home. This is used to show us the main character’s mental state, and thus, the whole films really revolves around his emotions, and his “trip” will be taking him through the different layers of himself.
GEORGE (V.O.)
What do you do when everything good in your life is ripped from your grasp?
Sarah, a beautiful young woman walks across a busy street, her hair blowing in the wind.
GEORGE (V.O.)
Everything you ever knew, everything you ever loved, was taken in an instant.
The soft hum of a subway approaches, growing louder and louder.
GEORGE (V.O.)
There is really only one thing you can do...
It comes to a stop. George stands in front of the sliding Subway doors. As they open, he sees LEONARD, a handsome young business man, sitting in the subway, his face buried in his work.
GEORGE (V.O.)
Take it back.
Now, I’m guessing Leonard is the one who, in short, killed his loved one, and who will be the target of the revenge. However, by looking over things, I do not expect an overtly violent film, if not that violent at all. Leonard seems to be a business man, quite successful, and always likes to be on top. I am assuming that the revenge will be more “tearing him down” then just walking up and shooting him, I assume it would be more of a character depth-revenge, where he is broken mentally, beaten in his mind, and really that is the worst form of revenge, because it is a clear indicator that someone has won. In order for true satisfaction, it appears that George wants a victory over mind and body, and overall, it really adds an effect to the film. I expect a film filled with artistic glories, it seems to leave none of those behind. I also expect it to be quite taut, unlike many of the fantastical epics, I expect this to be more pulled together, more contained, more tight and enthralling, and that is a great position to be, for a thriller, because if you let the audience wander to far, they are liable to get lost.
With that over, I’d like to turn to the next trailer, the next scene, actually, as this isn’t a trailer. This will be a scene from indy’s new film “Ricochet Fight”. It begins:
FADE IN: Desert road- day.
A single paved road runs through the desert, and a single black truck drives through it.
INDY42 PRESENTS
Inside the truck, DARREN, a 34 year old clumsily shaved man, next to CLAY, a 40 something war veteran- ready for anything. Clay sits obsessively cleaning his pistol.
Well, as they are ready for anything, so are we. We have a pistol, two men riding in a truck, and the knowledge that this is, indeed, an action film. We can only guess where it will go. Now, lets see if we can address the type of situation we are at right now. First, we have Darren. He has a clumsy shave and is in his 30’s. Not much info, but I am guessing he isn’t a rocket scientist. I suspect that he will be the comic relief from the film, indy told us to expect. Next we have Clay, a 40-something Veteran. Look he “obsessively” cleans his pistol, it adds a tone of lightness, just how absurd it is. Now, looking forward, this will probably be the butt of a joke in a few seconds, and that will be the tone establisher. We will see how much of this is action, and how much is comedy.
SIMON PEGG
darren
Damnit, do you ever leave that thing alone?
Clay looks up, offended.
clay
This is my protection. Did I mention I used it to
Darren mouths the words as Clay says them-
CLAY
-save my life back in Desert Storm?
DARREN
Same old shit, different day.
As I guessed. There it was, the butt of a joke. I now know what kind of film this is, and it isn’t so much a mix as a trade off. I have a feeling this movie will act as a comedy, then give way to action, then come back to comedy, then more action, and this isn’t a bad thing, especially when done well. In fact, it is often more neat then adding everything together. The comedy seems to be used for an effect anyways, not to make us laugh. Not that the film will be dark, but unlike “The Punisher”, I think indy is giving us a break from the barrage of action, a little rest, where we can just lay back and not think, have a good time, and that is kind of him, and interesting for him to do, as it shows control, and this really will be a controlled film.
The tarp over the back of the truck opens, revealing NATHAN JACK laying underneath. Nathan props himself up, and raises his hands triumphantly. He is british, wears a New York yankees baseball cap and a jeans jacket.
Then the dust hits his eyes.
jack
Ack!
He covers his hands with his eyes, then turns around, facing the front of the truck. He pulls himself over to the side of the truck and shimmies forward toward the driver's seat.
RICOCHET FIGHT.
Now, I know you all are thinking I am wrong about not mixing action and comedy, but I still stand by it. Watch, and I bet the comedy will go up, right until the action, and then let way to violence, unless the action itself is meant as a joke. But, here it is, this is the film! I suspect the film will be a mix of thrill after thrill, no matter how often, no matter how random, but we will never be given a moment’s peace, except those comedy scenes. And seeing this, an action scene, doesn’t it show us just how much of a break the first scene was?
INT. Truck. JACK APPEARS IN THE WINDOW!
JACK
Pull over! Pull ov-
Clay FIRES his gun at the window. Jack ducks and slips, falling off the truck and into the dirt.
DARREN
Jesus f*cking christ, Clay, you almost hit me!
EXT. Truck. Jack stands up and begins running towards the car, firing his gun wildly.
INT. Truck.
CLAY
Pull over.
The truck pulls over.
There, see what I mean? Not much comedy, in fact, none really. I’d almost be tempted to say it feels quite grim, actually. If not grim, then at least violent. All the gun shots, all the word choices, the capitalizing of “FIRES”, it all goes to serve a point, and that point is to basically pump us up, make us sit up after that comedy break and get back into gear, which goes back to what I said about this being a controlled films, because it is. It wants us to do what it tells us to do, and it does a fine job of making sure we are on track.
EXT. TRUCK.
Jack stops running.
JACK
Yes...
Clay gets out of the truck and fires towards Jack.
jack
Oh, f*ck.
Jack dives out of Clay's line of sight.
CLAY
f*ck!
Clay shoots out the rest of his bullets, sits down behind the truck and begins to manually reload them.
Why not drive off quickly? That wouldn’t be entertaining enough. This film is destined to give us as much action as humanly possible, perhaps a little more then that even, and they want us to feel the excitement, to be there. Why then, you may ask, do they use short descriptions and quick dialogue? Easy, to speed up the pace of the film, to quicken the read, to make it fly by, as these types of things really do, Clay, a war veteran, can attest to that. Well, what can they do next?
Jack shoots back, until he sees Darren begin to pull a BAZOOKA out and point it at Darren.
JACK
Those things are f*cking illegal!
DARREN
Who the f*ck cares!??!?!?!
Darren fires the Bazooka, and Jack dives out of the way, as a MOUNTAIN of dirt is blown sky-high.
Jack fires back, hitting Darren in the hand.
DARREN
f*ck!
We see that Darren's index finger on his right hand has been completely blown off, and the stump bleeds wildly.
JACK
That's disgusting.
Oh, a bazooka! I knew there was something missing, I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Darren is missing something too, his finger! And Jack couldn’t be more right, how disgusting! This, at least, shows the morals of the film, as they take no care in pleasing us artistically, they just want to be as gritty and entertaining as possible, and while it may be disgusting, hey…it is interesting! Also, notice the dialogue. These characters have a favorite word, one which goes with each scenario, can be used universally as a sign of distress and an attempt to pump adrenaline, need I tell you what it is?
DARREN
f*cking motherfucker!
Darren gets out of the truck, pulls out a handgun and points it at the now-exposed Jack.
JACK
Sorry!
Jack shoots his gun, and hits Darren's left hand, blowing off his other index finger.
DARREN
OH f*ck!!! NOOOOO!
Clay finishes reloading and puts his gun out, and without looking begins firing towards Nathan.
Darren's head explodes.
JACK
Oh, f*ck!
Jack is sprayed with blood. He begins to crawl away from the bleeding body.
JACK
f*cking nasty!
Poor Darren, today was not his day! Not only was his second index finger shot off, but also he received the epitome of movie violence- the exploding head! Often reserved for horror movies with a complete disregard of critics, indy takes a risk in using it, as it could do 1 of 2 things.
1. Go for proof that the film is a fun read, and just an entertaining blood bath
2. Finally take it over the top and make it a ridiculous crap-film
Which one it is actually falls in between. It is crap, yes. But this is the most widely entertaining crap I have ever seen.
Jack crawls into the driver's seat of the truck.
He looks into the back seat, and we see... A little girl. She is about 6 years old, and her hands are covered her ears, eyes glued open in fear, lying down in the backseat.
JACK
(softly)
Don't worry... Everything is going to be all right...
A bullet smashes through the back window, hitting Jack in the shoulder.
JACK
(loudly)
OH, f*ck!!!!
The little girl jumps, scared.
JACK
f*ck f*ck f*ck f*ck...
Jack moves out of the car, back onto the dirt, grabbing the bazooka. He loads another rocket.
JACK
Fucker, fucker, fucker....
As long as this film stays as offensive as possible, it seems to take joy in what it does. Why not throw in a kid? When the bullet went through the window, it hitting the child actually was not the last thought in my mind, and that is what the film did to me, it has demoralized me, it had made me lose my regard for human life, sort of like…a war veteran, and that is an amazing feat, as it basically copies and pastes the effect of a war. And we feel like soldiers, caught in a terrifying array of firepower. There is a bit more to the scene, none of which, besides the use of our favorite word, shows much that we didn’t cover. I will post it, then move on.
Clay runs toward the other side of the truck. Jack stands back up, and closes the truck door.
JACK
f*cking TOURETTES!
Jack stands up and fires the bazooka through the two windows, impaling Clay, knocking him back 20 feet and finally EXPLODING.
Jack throws the bazooka down and crawls back into the car.
JACK
Are you ready to go home?
The little girl nods.
Next, we have trailer, moving away from scenes a second, and this trailer is a video, so while I cannot break it apart, allow me to give my overall thoughts on it. “Dryerman 2”.
As it opens we automatically get the feel for what kind of images we will be shown. This is a film of stark black and white, astonishing use of shadow-ish effects and undeniable beauty. Its angles are impressive, but I cannot form a solid opinion yet. They may be shaky a tad, perhaps not. As for the story, there is one item of praise, and one I am still curious about. Yes, the action looks good, the thrills fine, but how about the drama? I can’t picture too many actors in this, and am curious at how the drama, if any, will be played out. Will we have extended persons to person conversations? Will we be surprised by the high number of actors and me proved wrong? Who knows, and in the long run, who cares. If it was meant to be a deep drama, it would have been a script, but it isn’t, it is a video, and thus, set out to amaze us with visuals, astound us with that “meld of music and imagery” that films like “5:30” and “Night of Eureka” did, and on this level, it succeeds, fully. I am impressed with what I see so far, and cannot wait for the final video, which may prove to be not only proof that visuals are necessary in video based films, but also that the craft of art is still well and alive.
-------------------
On that good note, but still holding on to xplay, let’s take a look at our interview with…xplay! He was nice enough to agree to come back, and I am sure that it will be quite enlightening on not only his career, but also his new upcoming film “A Little Piece of Heaven”, a neat and odd film that has already garnered my praise.
Q: Hello xplay, and thank you very much for coming back, in your second interview and be willing to answer a few questions for us. First off, I realize that a new film by you, “A Little Piece of Heaven”, which I have seen, and reviewed, however, I would like to center the interview on that film, as to let the public know more about it. To start, it is quite an odd film, and I was wondering what inspired you to make, not only a short film, but such an odd film as this, perhaps, more odd then your previous efforts.
Well, as known, it's based upon a song by a favorite band of mine called Avenged Sevenfold with the same title. Now, the story is taken from it but the tone and interactions are by myself. I really enjoyed the story and had the perfect tone to it. I tried my best to make humor out of the darkest, most creepy moments and give it a quirky quality. I didn't want to take it seriously but I didn't want to make a comedy.
Q: Secondly, in a “Little Piece”, I got the sense that it seems to be your ultimate film, not in story or length, but in how it seems more of a summary of your work, besides a film really. Do you see this? What, would you say, makes you up, as a director?
Yes. It almost seems like if I wanted to show people how I make films, and my style, of all of my films: this would be the one to do it. I tried getting my "quirk" into it, it's very dark, visually and story wise althought humor shines at the most disturbing moments and you might have to read it a second time to see the humor in it because you might be shocked or disgusted by it on the first go around you may not see it.
Q: Also, the tone in “Little Piece” jumped around like it was playing leapfrog. It was romantic, then horrific, then darkly funny, all the while being a disturbing film. Is “genre hopping” a characteristic you like to use? It seems so in “The Raven”.
Yes. I adore "genre hopping" alot. But I want to do it in a way that it doesn't basically shout "ALRIGHT, CHANGE SEATS!". A film that does that is "From Dusk Till Dawn". The first half of it are a total Tarantino crime road film then the second the gang arrives at the bar, it becomes a Rodriguez campy action fest. "Edward Scissorhands", one of my favorite films by my favorite director does it well. At times, it's a moody character study, then it's light comedy, then it's a coming of age story and it's also a romance. I love it and try to put that in every film but not in a obvious way.
Q: Now, “Little Piece” seemed less ambitious then some of your other projects, because on the length. Did something interfere with your writing? Are your other projects getting in the way? Or did you simply have a case of loosing inspiration for it?
I did sorta lose inspiration but mostly because I wanted it be quick. The longest I ever thought it going was 15 pages. It's a quick film because by the time you've gotten to the heater scene, you've nearly done all you can do to shock the audience. Time to "change chairs". I wanted it to capture you so by the quick time you finish it, you'll want to read through it again and look see if you view it differnetly. It's more or less as you said, "this is how xplayadam does his movies".
Q: In the previous question, I mentioned inspiration, and was wondering what drove you to writing film, period. Why do you write movies? What fixates you on the task, draws you into it?
The thing that makes me love writing so much is because I can create my own world. In a way, I'm playing God, something I've always loved the idea of. But mostly because it gives me a escape, I'm not good at sports, I can't ride a bike, I generally don't have the best social skills so writing helps me to fuel my creative energy, my energy period. If I find something I adore, I can get into it and talk about it for hours. Writing is a way to channel my passion and my energy.
Q: Two more questions. First, how would you say your style is “odd” or “different”? Is this intentional or just one of your quirks? Explain why you add in the bizarre events and such, as you do.
I want to create "bizarre events" but make them subtle. You need to think about it to realize: "well, this is odd...". I'd have to say that my style is "differnet" more then "odd". It's hard to describe but it could be odd also.
Q: And finally, with the recent changes, and the addition of Mr. Vincent to take Joey’s place, what do you feel about this show? How do you see it in the future?
I see it doing well as long as Vincent keeps working at it. It's hard to row the boat when the other man is swiming.
------------------
Well, thank you again xplay, as that proved to be more then informative regarding your films. I’d like to take this time to briefly run over “Piece of Heaven” as it is not only a good film, as I said, but also a palette, you can say, of xplay’s work so far, and fine work it is. From “Flaming Carrot” to “Batman: The Musical”, xplay has really put out some of the most daring films out there. Sacrificing greatness with the two mentioned projects, he has bolded and enhanced a style which cannot be copied, and that is what makes a great director, a style of his own. When I sit down, and open a trailer or a film, at the first paragraph, I know it is an xplay film; it has that mood, the appearance, the style, everything that makes his films his own. He won his universe of films, like a king or a master, and that puts him in a really good position, as he can keep watch over every line, every word, a task which some directors can’t, and this makes their work drag on, or run off, out of their reach, a serious flaw!
----------------
Well, with the end coming closer and closer, I’d like to turn to our last event of the night, and that is 1, sorry, only 1, review to an older films. The film will be “Batman: Origins”
** .5 out of ****
Now, before you all get scared due tom the rating, hear me out. This film is fine, decent, but I found it far to cliché of the genre, so middle class, that it rides in the shadows of so many films, far greater films. It is a nice story, but it is told with the ambition of a film that has no intention to be great or even released publicly.
I see where it was going, it was trying to be a nice homage to a very popular hero, and create a film that shows his start. It succeeds at doing both, but it excels at nothing else, as if it set its sight on those two things and attempted nothing else, and thus, went nowhere else except to the obscure archives of forgotten films on MR.
The characters seemed one sided, bland, nothing to them but a voice, not even a voice, written words. And even the word felt forced. Everything had a wooden quality to it, as if it was put down by a director and not flowing dialogue from the character’s mouths. It worked, granted, as it told a story and did allow you to visualize things, but in terms of creating a mood or crafting an atmosphere, it didn’t.
The story was fine, if not too short. It was something which could have been covered in less of time, but instead, the director stays on the side notes, creating more and more scenes that go nowhere, hoping to create a great film around the hero, hoping that each scene on him is diving into him, when really it isn’t, and we are left on the surface wondering what is going on.
Overall, it is fine, don’t let me call it terrible, but there are SO many better superhero films out there, why waste the time to see this one, unless you have a calling. If not, leave this one out.
------------------------
With that, I would like to close the episode for the night, and I hope you are all pleased with the arrival of the show after, what I was told, has been 2 weeks. Again, expect more episodes more frequently and I hope that the chat discussions will be back soon, as those are something I didn’t wish to sacrifice.
It feels good to be back and I hope to see you next week on “Casablanca and Mr. Vincent at the Movies”!
