Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Oh boy, I'm going to be publicly lynched won't I? 

Ok so I enjoyed it, it was a fun movie, but the story, the villains and everything else just felt off. Look, I didnt like the handling of things, it dragged, there were too many characthers, everything is a Deus Ex Machina, the force is handled stupidly, Kylo Ren is a whiny teen-ager, the megaweapon in the poster isn't used in such of an intresting way. Three quarters of the film is fanservice, the movie is crowded...... Now, I could go on telling you all the things wrong with the film. But thats not going to stop you from seeing it will it? You will likely go see it 5 times, I know I might actually see this again. It was fun. So ignore what I say like everyone else, and go see it, Its still Star Wars. And Lightyears better than the prequels. But I hope the two announced follow-ups are better.

Bridge of spies

Despite my jokes on twitter, I absolutely loved Bridge of Spies. But I just dont know how to review it, nor do I think I should. The movie is its own best compliment, it needs no more praise than what you see on the screen, it is clear Spielberg poured his everything into this picture, and thats what it is. A picture. Every shot, every scene, every camera-move, every line-delivery everything, is the absolute best it could be. I wont even tell you about how the story is a master-piece, or how the characters seize to be Tom Hanks or Mark Rylance putting on a mask. Theyre people. One absolutely does not lose intrest in this film, every scene is important, every scene has the actors putting themselves in the shoes of the real person they play, every set, is like watching an extremely detailed train-model or dollhouse, every set looks just as detailed, no matter how little of a part it plays. Every set, is lit perfectly, every light, is natural, it comes from a real source in the fictional world. All this, combined, becomes more than just the sum of its parts, its....... I cant even think of a word. Just do yourself a favour, and go see this film, not only will you get an expirience of wich every second you could hang in an art-gallery. You might also learn something about history.

Independence day and why it might actually be pretty good

Not great, though. How many sequels released decades after the previous one have been that amazing? Jurassic World was cool, Terminators since the second one have been progressively worse, I barely need to remind people about the prequels, Riddick was a thing and lastly, Indiana Jones we waited nearly 20 years for, only to find it to be absolute horseshit.

But why am I optimistic for Independence day? Because the original wasn't exactly the next Star Wars, but still a good film that I like to occasionally re-watch. The bar isnt too high, it'll be pretty easy to make something thats atleast on par with the original. The second reason for my liking the idea, is its similarity in premise with Jurassic World, its a continuation in real time, telling us what the world might be like if there really was an alien-invasion 20 years ago. Thirdly and most importantly, it has Jeff Goldblum!!! What more would, uh, you, um, want? Will Mith isnt here but who cares? Goldblums Dad is here! whatever his name was.

Batman v Superman and why it might not be that great

No spoilers here, in the trailer, yes.

We got a new trailer for BvS, and the internet stood divided, pondering its next move. But here's my opinion on the matter; At this time, I believe that the movie has a bigger possibility of being bad than good, why? Because the trailer shows so much. That tells us that Warner bros. doesn't think its getting enough people in the seats with just bats and supes. But of course it will!! Yet the company doesnt have enough fate in the project, trying to appeal to fans of every single character in the film. And by putting all those characters in, they are making it obvious that they need the hype around every one of them. And the movie gets crowded like that.

But thats not the only reason to be worried for the film. Jessie Eisenberg's performance reminded me of Michael Cera as himself. He is just too teenage-y and naive to convince me that he is the biggest nemesis of the alien-god that is Superman. And his hair looks like its from American Ultra

Jurassic Park and the one thing missing from it, but is overused in Jurassic World

Excuse the long title, but it is the shorted version of it, that I could abbriviate it to.

I didn't actually go and check this, but as is common knowledge, I am never wrong. But in Jurassic Park, there is one thing noticebly missing, overhead, helicopter shots, with the only one being at the beginning when the characters are on the helicopter. All other scenes are from the viewpoint of someone who could be standing around. And all scenes revolve around a character, showing only things they know. None of the scenes take place in a setting that any of the characters could observe. Similar to Shaun of the Dead, nothing they doesn't know, is show, But in Jurassic World these types of scenes are everywhere. I guess, it's been a few months since I last saw either of these, and I'm writing this only becauese I am a) bored, and b) had this idea in my head for a few days. And I had that VS. poster made. So scroll down, theres better content under this one, I guess.

Interstellar and why movies need sad scenes in them

Warning! spoilers for Interstellar in the video below.

inertstellar ending reaction video

What you just saw was a recreation of me watching Interstellar. Only with me replaced with an actor, one can barely tell the difference. But back to topic here. Sad scenes are plentyful in movies, but only if they're done well, will they actually make the audience cry. Such is the case in many Disney/Pixar films. Here's a few examples of this phenomenon:

Montage of sadness

And what do all those scenes have in common? They make me, an "adult" person, cry like a little baby. And besides that, there are very few aspects that would be similar. Its the context of the scene that makes it sad, with the right set up, anything could be made so sad that Kirsten Steward would show a hint of emotion.

There are of course many things that go to making a scene so sad that you think your childhood is over.  For example, the death of bambi's mom. I never saw the whole movie, but on a school field trip, my teacher put it on, we only saw the very beginning and the other kids would tell me that she dies. Just the idea of it made me so sad, that I would lock myself in my room for a day. Now that is effective character-building at its finest. Another way to improve a sad scene is music. (while writing this, I'm listening to the soundtrack of Interstellar and I feel like I'll never be happy again)  For instance, Mufasas death: the music penetrates your heart like a sword and chruses your soul like a million wildebeests. For a lot of you, it might be the music that sets of the memory, not the image.

Now thats all great and all but why do movies have to totally annhiliate us with their perfectly composed scenes and absolutely murderising scores? To teach us. If we didn't learn how to act in a certain situation, we wouldnt be that great as people. It's the same reason we play house, or police and robber. Only we learn different things, with house, its how to cook, clean etc. with police and robber its right and wrong, with movies, its emotions. Practicing human interaction in the controlled enviroment of a movie theatre or living-room couch. If we didnt know how to react to negative emotion, we'd become, in essance, psychopaths, not knowing how to associate emotions with situations, and not knowing how to read those emotions off of others. So maybe we should expose ourselves to these feelings. Just to grow as people. And it wont traumatize you, I give you my 75% propability word. So go watch that movie that made you cry as a kid again. You might learn something about yourself, and while it might not make you cry anymore, maybe you'll realize that you've grown out of it. So wheter its the Fox and the Hound, Up, or Monters Inc. you should watch it. Its healty.

Go check out my friends youtube channel he helped with the editing

 >>>>JohnnyBoii<<<<

Civil war and why Captain America is better than Iron Man

We just got a trailer for Captain America: Civil War, and we found out a lot of new things about the movie, wich is the purpouse of a trailer. But rather than do the obvious, wich is talking about the trailer, I will explain why as a person/character, Steve Rogers or, Captain America, is better than Tony "dickhead" Stark. First, lets look at their villains. More specifically, the opening monologue of Iron Man 3. why? because in it Tony says; "everyone creates the thing they dread". Wich we will take as fact in the Marvel universe. That means, that a) Tony is afraid of his enemies and b) he created them. Wich he did! Every villain exept for Whiplash, that his father created. So to conclude: Tony destroys his villains because they were his fault. But what about Steve? His villains include: Hydra and Shield, both goverment orginazations, and evil. So it makes sence why he wouldn't want to register. He didn't create those villains, he fights them, because its the right thing, unlike Tony who does it in order to not look bad. 

So Cap is better duh, hes a nice guy doing what's right, not an asshole cleaning up his own mess. And when he gets some alien tech, he destroys it, not what Tony did, wich was create Skynet and then, do it again. He was lucky that the second one was nice and british, but he didnt know!

The Walk

This is NOT the sad, drowned in a swamp of sadness post I have been teasing on twitter, it is however something. And its a review of the rather good film, the Walk. So lets review this thing. 

To be honest, I was exited for this movie. Robert Zemechis, Joseph Gordon-Lewitt, the 70's. All things I like, and found out, are not the main-point of the film. Rather, The charcter of Philippe Petit, the Frenceiest guy you can find, whom decides one day to walk accross the then uncompleted Twin towers. The movie then is divided into three clearly definable segments, or acts, if you will: the first is a traditional French film, stylized, colourfull, shot in a certain way (the french way) and it really reminded me of the works of Jaques Tati, who pioneered movie-making. The second act is the longest one, playing out like a heist-movie, with its tensity so thick you could slice it up and serve it on a piece of baquette, you really feel like things could go wrong. The third part is the "climax", most films have one, for exeptions, see the first half of any book-movie divided into two parts. No spoilers here so lets move on.

The style; as said, it shifts like loose cargo on a finnish train, but it fits the setting and feelings the characters go through, the beginning is like a dream, almost surreal, for when things are going well, the middle is dark and tense to reflect the stress and uneasyness. And the end is realistic to grasp the *gravity* of the situation. No? Moving on! The cinematography is unbeliavably beautiful, making things look either realistic, tense or surreal, whatever the scene needs, and the direction of Zemeckis is flawless as always, expect the same kind of Oscar-material as in Forrest Gump. The score is nothing special but you dont notice it being bad either. The cast is comprised mainly of Hobbit-rejects, seeing as how everyone seems to have the physiqye of a 12-year-old. Maybe thats just me since I am a 6'2'' sentient muscle. 

Since pointing out differences between an adaptation of a book based on a true story and real life seem to be a thing around here nowadays, heres some of them: Petit walked over the Sydney Harbour Bridge before WTC, he took reference photos with a helicopter. Those and at least three other things that actually happened were absent from the film. Cinema was born in France, so it makes sence that one of the best films I've seen this year is set there.

Legend

I was anticipating Legend for a long time, it had everything I liked, English accents, the 60's Tom Hardy, twice! and lets not forget the Gangster-themes. But then I went and saw it. And I was amazed at how good it actually was. Better than my already high expetations. But what made it good? what made it more than a gimmicy-, double-role movie.?

Well!

The story, it was great! While it felt like it dragged at some points, it made clear that it was necessary in order to make the emotional pay-off work. Telling the story of the Kray twins, the sensible and well-behaved Reginald, and the paranoid-schitzophrenic Ronald. Played by Tom Hardy and Tom Hardy respectively. The tale of the two brothers is balanced between the two, perhaps focusing more on Reggie and his wife, Frances. The first half of the film really reminded me of Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels, with its british wit, long suspensful shots, and the fpm being about 5. The second half however flips the tone on its head, not that thats a bad thing, it just comes unexpectedly, everything just gets darker from the beginning. 

The casting couldnt have been better, researching some old photographs of the real-life counterparts of the characters, they are spot on. And the acting by those dobbelgangers is perfect, feeling like real people and all delivering great performances. But about Tom Hardy, he is absolutely mindblowing in the movie. Usually with twin-movies where the same actor plays both siblings, its hard to tell apart wich is wich without context clues, thats why films like Parent Trap had the twins speak in different accents. Here though, the manorisms, look, walking style, voice, are all distinguishable, without being too different, I completely buy these two being two different people who happen to have the same face. The glasses were added to Ronnie, to make it easier for the audience, even though in real life, he didnt wear them. If Tom Hardy doesnt win the Oscar for best actor, I will be mad.

This being an adaptation of the book, The Profession of Violence: the Rise and Fall of the Kray Twins, there are a lot of inacruases, like Ronnie being gay instead of bi, Reggies second wife not even getting a mention, and the last words of some characters. All in all, Legend is worth going to see, while a bit dragging at times, you will no doubt have a good time watching it. 

Spectre

I was among the first in Finland to see this, and I saw it a week ahead of most of the world. But, to do so, I had to not sleep for a night, due to the fact that the screening was at seven minutes past midnight. While I was glad to see it, waking up at 3 PM just now, was pretty embaressing.

But this is a rewiev, not my autobiography, so lets get on with it! 

Spectre opens with a great action piece with bond having gone rogue again. After the great yet somewhat nightmarish title-song by Sam Smith, wich leads to a very good opening act. We get nods to stuff, intresting plotlines, an explonation to how Bond ot his Aston Martin in Skyfall. All very good stuff, but by the second act, the movie turns into a rushed collection of barely connected scenes made with the sole purpuose of more action set-pieces. And thats not even half of Spectres problems; Bond is much closer to the Roger Moore, goofy; Bond with an endless supply of quips and jokes. And alot of the elements seen in the trailers are wasted, underused or just bad. And some thigs happen only because they have to, and because they are things that were in the original movies. 

Even the Aston Martin DB10 is underused and extremely unintresting, partially because of the way its used. it only really has one scene, and in it, its placed in a parking lot with 53 other supercars, all of wich look exactly the same. 

There is however alot to see in this film, Q is back, and hes used extremely well, even getting his own actionscenes. Other returning characters are; Gareth Mallory, or M, Miss Moneypenny and for a few moments, Mr White, remember him? of course you dont, but he is important, for whatever reason. And then theres the big guy! We all know who he is, and what he is. Still the movie tries to hide this for the first hour and a half. And if you dont know, I wont spoil it. 

While not the best of the reboot-series, it also isnt the worst. so if you liked skyfalls look and atmospere, but preferred the stories of Casino Royale, but wished for a more human bond, then a) Why? and b) then this movie is for you! go see it if all this didnt out you off, its not the  worst movie to see right now.

How to make a Half Life- movie-series

If you follow my twitter and you dont but you should, you'd know that I'm a big fan of Half Life. And seeing as how the Half Life movie is still floating around, I decided to make this help ful guide to making a 4-part series of films. Keep in mind that I will spoil mostly everything.


First: lets look at the basic plots and titles for the movies. I'm not saying they should be this, but they are the best version of a script I've seen so far.

1. Half Life: Resonance
This one would be set during the first game and would follow the story of it pretty closely, the major difference I would make is to have Gordon Freeman and Adrian Shepard team up. At the end, Gordon would be transported to Xen, while Adrian is left behind and then reqruited by the G-man. In Xen, Gordon defeats Nihilianth and also gets put into stasis by mr. man.

2. Half Life: Suppression
Suppression would take place during the seven-hour war and would feature Adrian as the main character. This part of the lore is barely mentioned in the games, and ends in the Combine winning. And thats the point. Adrian is also never heard of again in the games, but the G-man appears to reference his failurre during the first dcene of Half Life 2. This could be a straight up war movie, happening maybe a few months after the events of Resonance. In the end, Adrian would of course die, or would he???

3. Half Life: Resistance
Aaaand were already at the start of the final few days in the Half life- timeline. Covering the expiriences that Gordon goes through between his arrival in City 17, all the way through to him leaving Ravenholm. So setting the scene for the rise of the resistance. This film should be droughted in loneliness, making any interaction between characters something important. Much like the game. Splitting the game into 2 movies, in this case, would make sense, it would provide a good narrative on its own, and setting the scene for the destruction of the Citadel in the next one. And making the end set in Ravenholm would be a great way of setting the tone of the final one.

4. Half Life: Anticitizen One
Speaking of the last one; here it is. maybe, well see. As the title implies, it  would be the second half of Half Life 2. Highway 17, Nova Prospect and the citadel would all be here, some parts would of course have to be stripped down, but a must is the game of chicken with the razor-train. Mostly retelling the game, The ending would naturally be: "Time, doctor Freeman?" And gordon being put into stasis. And the future of Earth left uncertain, Gordon waiting for his next assingment. The Episodes dont need movies yet. Conclusion to the games first, Dammit! These ideas arent, and probably shouldn't be what the movies will be, but this is a good start, make sure this gets to valve.

Here are the posters and some guidelines to the look and making of the movies, as well as tips and musts for making a half life movie

What comes to the tone and visual style of the motion-pictures. Look no further than Children of Men, with a similar setup and a perfect bleak European setting, Gordons bright-orange HEV-suit would really look like a symbol of hope and act as a strong contrast for the Combines filtered down and grey colours. The tone should be similar to the games, serious but with a spoonfull of humanity, a pinch of humor and a bucket of optimistic and fun characters. 

Tips and musts to making the a Half Life movie

-Dont wander too far from the source material, look what happened to the Far Cry movie. Sharing only the name with your source material is the biggest mistake you could make here.

-Victor Antonov. The desinger of the visual style and City 17. That is all.

-Get G-man right. G-man is the most mysterious character in all of gaming. Telling too much or too little would ruin the story and the narrative of the entire franchise. You should mostly stick to what we've seen from him in the games.

-Writing is key! If the story is great but the dialouge and pasing are horrible, youll be in trouble.

-Have someone from Valve look over.

- Make the relationships realistic, so like in the games

Casting and Directing and Writing

Techincally, you could cast anyone who looks the part as Gordon, but he should be playn simillary to Mad Max. Others are a bit harder, there are though some obvious choises; Morgan Freeman as Eli, Sean Connery as Wallace Breen and Rowan Atkinson as Odessa Cubbage. For the rest, hire Andy Serkis and mo-cap him for all I care. No real candidates come to mind. Maybe Edward Norton as Gordon, though he might be too old to play the 27-year-old MIT-graduate.

Writing could be done by the writers from valve, if they can do it properly, otherwise. Here I am!
Though J.J. Abrams was rumoured to be working with valve, his invovment in both star wars/trek, makes him basically impossible. Ridley Scotts visual directing and work on such movies as The Martian and Alien, make him my favourite. Guillermo Del Toro could also prove rather fitting for the rather surrealistic world of Half Life. And if you cant find any "good" ones; Alfonso Cuaron would most likely nail it.

And if youre only making one; make Suppression. But explain who Adrian Shepard at the start, Maybe a flashback during the G-mans mandatory speech.

Sorry for the long post but this is a subject that is very dear to me.

Everest

I spent a long time thinking on how to write this review. And waiting for my laptop to start working again. The movie is based on a true story, and as such, the story won't exactly be the prime example of a perfect three-act arc. 

The film retells the story of a mountaneering group whom have hired Rob Hall to take them to the top of Mt. Everest. The beginnig goes well, a few dangerous moments. But have you ever seen a movie based on a succefful event? Titanic didnt get made because everyone survived now did it? I wont go over the plot or characters too much, rather, I'll tell you about the experience. And boy is it one! The close-up shots of the mountain look so real that I'm starting to think if they actually climbed on to the top of the mountain, even the snow looks so real!! (I'm from Finland, I know how snow works) The over-head- and wide-shots look rather fake though, it might have been the 3D but I just wasn't convinced by the swoopy- musicy- establishing shots of the mountain. 

While its not the next Titanic, in terms of "based on a true-story"-type films, its perfectly good to see if you're a fan of climbing, mountains or a set-piece- enthusiast.

The tag-line is false though, Mt. Everest isnt even the most dangerous mountain.

The Martian

There were three movies opening in Finland yesterday. Unfriended, a movie thats been out elsewhere for 6 months, Pan, a movie thats the namesake af a cooking appliance, and this one. The choise was obvious; Go to the space movie directed by Ridley Scott and starring the man who's costantly being saved from places after being sent to that place by the U.S., exept this time he isnt a total dick about it. Yes this is another Matt Damon movie. And he rocks it, surviving on Mars like a real Botnist should. 

The movie was a great expirence and all the different aspects worked together, seeing such a well-made movie about space. The setting is this: a research group is researching Mars when a Martian storm hits and they need to evacuate, Matt Damons character Mark Watney however gets knocked out and left behind. But he lived! wouldve been a short movie if he didnt. If you know anything about space, you know that its pretty deadly, so, Mark needs to survive until he can be retrieved. And thats how the movie plays out. Matt Damon on mars, making Vlogs and poop-jokes, while the people on earth try to come up with a plan to save him. It's a pretty good plot. The characters are realistic, have good chemistry and are well-acted. 

This being Ridley "I made the best horror-movie ever" Scott, space is of course, beautiful. Clearly a lot of sets, props and real locations were used to make Mars and the base believable places. The weightlessness looks extremly convincing and the make-up department clearly worked really hard on this one, you'll see when you watch the movie yourself. There was aparently a Nasa-space advisor on set and it shows, everything makes sence, everythings scientifically accuarte and the slightest details are all real space-things, like the way one would use the bathroom on Mars. And while I think the movie maybe would have been better as a Moon or Alien sort of film in wich the isolation really shows, it was darn good anyway.

All in all I'd say that this is the best movie of this year in wich Kate Mara leaves someone behind on a strange planet. And judging by Ridley Scotts movies, its certainly better than Prometheus.

And its allways nice to see Jeff Daniel do something good for a change.

Sean Bean didnt die though. And they chose Starman instead of Space Oddity. (if you dont understand, you are too young for this blog)

Is motion capture really the future of CGI?

When Andy Serkis first appeared as Gollum in The Two Towers, the whole world was stunned at how greatly he nailed the role, and more importantly perhaps, how good the corrupted little smeagol looked. That started the slowly-growing trend of mo-cap, while it had existed since the early nineties, it was only now that film-makers saw to what ends it could be utilized to. After the success of the Lord of the Rings, motion capture has been utilized in video-games and movies alike. 

Before mo-cap, CGI would have painstaicingly hand-made, one polygon at the time, and while movies like Terminator 2 and Tron made huge leaps in the craft, it was Jurassic Park that made living, breathing CG-creatures a reality, emplying a sort of mo-cap device called a dinosaur input device:

The device would bring together stop-motion and computer graphics, with the animator animating the dinosaur on the screen by moving the device in the desired motions. This ensured the working-style was familiar to the animator, and prevented un-natural movement of the animation, something that plagues CG-fests to this day. But things have only moved forward since the earliest days of coputer animation in star wars. 

But is motion capture the way to go? Smaug was nearly perfect in the Hobbit, Avatar broke every box-office record in thee world, and The adventures of Tintin: the secret of the Unicorn was a movie that happened that one time. (also King Kong used mo-cap, remember how it was over 3 and a half hours long? good times) Ever since Gollum, things have only gotten even better, directors only needed the technology to be perfected by someone. Now that more and more characters have gotten mo-capped, movies have gotten more immersive and actors have been able to give better performances now that they have something to interact with, rather than standing in an empty room, talkong into a microphone about things they couldnt see or touch. So maybe motion capture is the way to go, even with the problems it causes, like the animation being inconsistent when switching between captured and hand-animated footage.

The Angry Birds Movie and why you shouldnt go watch it

click here for the Trailer

I didn't even put a picture here, thats how little respect I have for the francise at this point, not only have they made about 92 vertually identical games, but also invaded every part of our lives, I bet that I could live the rest of my life using only Angry Birds tie-in products without that much of a difference. By going to watch this movie, you engourage them further, finance their next varioation of the game and worst of all, most likely torture yourself by seeing this likely horrible movie. I have to watch it because you people wont leave me alone if I judge the movie by the trailer and then dont even see it. This is the internet after all.

Also whats with the character-desings? The cartoon shorts atleast look like the game.

But until the movie comes out, we wait, concerened for our well-being.

The Worlds End: The cornetto trilogy retrospective finale and summary

Warning! contains mature language, spoilers and Gifs. Read at own risk.

With a title like this, how could it be anything but a masterpiece? While the gap between Shaun of the dead and Hot fuzz was only three years, the last one in the series took six years to complete, partially because all the creative input was working on something else most of the time. But somehow, against all odds, this movie got made, and it was fucking mental!!! Once again, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost play the leads and Edgar Wright directed. The basic plot starts like any other movie about old frieends getting together.

Gary King assembles his old gang to attempt completing the golden mile in their old home-town. It starts off okay, the lads have some fun, drink beer and run into some old acquaintances. but in pub number four it all goes fuck-up. DO NOT READ PAST THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM

Gary, while in the bathroom gets into a fight with a young jock and ends up taking his head off, revealing that the townsfolk have been replaced by robots who aren't robots, Blanks, if you will.

and they are filled with blue stuff and have bright lights for eyes and mouths.

With this information the gang decides not to attract too much attention to themselves and try to complete the golden mile. at firs thigs go good until they run into their old school-teacher, Guy Shepard, who explains who built the robots, why they are here and why its a good thing that they are here, They dont fancy being turned into robots filled with blue stuff and decide to take drastic action.

After  realizing that the battle cant be won, they decide to make a run for it but Gary insists they finish what they started. But now he is being chased by not only the entire fucking town of robots, but also his friends, this leads to the absolutely epic finale in wich we see the absolutely terrifying ways shit can get fucked in Garys path to completion, the chase accross town culminates in the Worlds End, the twelveth and final pub. In it we see a masterfully created battle to the death between bros. and we find out why completing the golden mile is so important to Gary. But then one of my favourite scenes from anything ever happens. I wont tell you about it, because if youve seen the film you know what im talking about. In it, we see Gary come to terms with himself. BUT! the world sort of ends and Gary is left without his conclusive final pint.

The ending is bittersweet and leaves a sort of melancholy feeling in you, but we then see that Gary is still, the once and future King! 

But since this is the final post in the series, I will list some of the the connections, running gags and cameos in all three movies.

And thats the only gag  in all three movies, however, there is an arcade-machine that makes an appearance in all three, and several actors appear in all of them, Martin Freeman plays Declan in Shaun of the Dead, a a police-officer in Hot Fuzz and Oliver in this one. Bill Nighy also appears in all three and both Peter Jackson and Cate Blanchett cameo in Hot Fuzz. But why are you looking them up on the internet? go watch them you doofus, then come here and yell at me for missing something obvious.¨

Farewell, until my next post, and then my next retrospective that may or may not be about another English Comedy group and their films.

The Jungle Book and why disney needs to stop making these things

Click here to see the trailer

Yesterday we got a trailer for a live-action version of the Jungle Book, it looks cool, the cast couldn't be better, the CGI animals look great and most of the set-pieces from the original appear to return. The problem here is tone, the original was light-hearted, witty and fun family action. This one appears to be dark, realistic and brooding. Not to say that the original didnt have its fair share of nightmare fuel, but it had more than that, it had apes singing and dansing, it had Baloo!!! this one has the apes and a bear, neither of wich appear to be having that much fun, King Louie is turned into a king kong and Baloo is a generic bear, in fact all the animals lack their distinct features, the best part about Shere-Khan was his square form as the opposite to Baloos round shape.

But we havent seen it yet and  it might be good, but Disney has made live-action versions of so many classics already, with many more announced, Winnie the Pooh is for some reason among those. Now Im not saying theyre going to be bad, just that they are uninspired cashgrabs and show that disney has lost its grip on imaginative and fresh stories. Frozen was a great movie about how the first one is rarely the right guy, among other things. But what happened, we havent gotten anything original since, every movie since has been an adaptation on an old Disney classic. Pixar is doing some great stuff, why cant disney come up with new ideas? They used to be the king! 

A part of the problem might be the fact that they dont know where to go from Frozen, they believe they cant top what they did with the tale of sisterly love. But they dont have to, they could try more diverse characters, I can count on one hand the amount of non-white main-charachters, so theres one idea, or maybe try less conventional love-stories, maybe a movie about a lesbian princess and her struggles in a prejudice world for once? No progress can happen without some risk-taking. So heres to hoping that well get some originality from disney in the future!

Paul and why it is the best fan fiction ever

Thought you'd get a conclusion to the cornetto trilogy? So did everyone else in 2011!

Even though it stars both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, just like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, this is not the third installation in the Cornetto Trilogy. Rather, it is a Sci-Fi fanfic. A Fan Fiction of the generic green space-alien:

The film was first thought up on the set of Shaun of the dead, via a doodle that Simon an Nick made. From there the next 6 years they worked the idea into a film, and then made,  and finally released in 2011,  Rather than Edgar Wright Directing it, like normal, Greg Mottola took the role of director, for better or for worse. While being a fun little fish-out.of.water type movie, its also the biggest tribute to Sci-fi, with every other line being a famous quote or reference. 

In fact: a lot of the shots are copie- *ahem* tributed from other movies:

But does borrowing and merely acknowledge the existence of other movies count as tribute?

No, but Paul does much more with the material its given, it plays with the idea of an alien influencing pop-culture, explains why fictional aliens all look the same, retells classic scenes in a modern-earth scenario. Alot of Pauls humor is based on knowing what its paying homage to, like the music at the bar, or the way a phone is shot. And as the loneliest person in my town, I of course noticed every single one of them. But why is Paul the best fanfiction ever? there are two reasons: its published work of two sci-fi fans, and the only other published fanfiction ever is Fifty shades of grey. 

Asterix the land of the gods, and what is wrong with making animated comicbook-movies

Here me out before you rage out in the comments. I personally liked the new Asterix movie, the score was great, the style was spot on and the charachters are amazingly desinged and written. But thats the problem, its too much like the comics, observe:

Look at the composition of the panel, the top half is all text, this does not work in a movie, there are large chuncks of nothing in every frame, causing the point of attention moving around, tiring the viewer, and thus, making the movie feel longer than it actually is. 

But thats not the biggest problem. I asked my friends about the film, but neither had seen it. Why? they didnt grow up reading the comics like I did. But why am I even talking about this? does anyone remember 2002? Thats the year when Scooby-Doo the live-action film came out, and it featured a digital title character, and it looked horrible. Somehow that started a wave of such movies, Garfield, Marmaduke, Smurfs..... It didnt end until this year when Asterix came out. And now there are 5 more movies with the same kind of style announced: Peanuts later this year, Popeye some time in the future, a Smurfs reboot is rumored etc. They all look the same again, Same bouncy, comicbook-style with the same empty space where the speech-bubbles would go. 

But is there a way to fix this? yes there is! And its right here on this wall of text! How convinient!

The Solution To Fixing Comicbook Animation Movies

Rule 1

Thy shalt not reuse the same animationstyle in every movie

Rule 2

Thee shalt comprise the frames like any other movie

Rule 3

Remember all those other movies and dont make yours like theirs was

Rule 4

Stay loyal to the source-material but consider new audiences who are not familiar with it

And thats how you make a good animated comicbook movie. But if there is a Calvin and Hobbes movie I will start a riot! It wasnt meant to be one long story! Leave them alone!

Hot Fuzz: Cornetto trilogy retrospective: part two

This is part 2 of a 3-part series of posts, expect spoilers, swearing and gifs! You have been warned!

Hot Fuzz was not a logical continuation for Shaun of the dead, but the fact that the trilogy only shares the cast, editing style and a joke, we can overlook this minor detail. Most of the cast did indeed return, like Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Bill Nighy. The fast-paced editing and pseudo-realistic action return aswell, thouhg this time mocking the fact that cops in movies never do any of the considerable amount of paperwork that they should.

As mentioned, this time around Pegg and Frost are police-men-officers in the small town of Sandford, Pegg playing a sergeant, Nick Angel, who has without his consent, been transferred from London, for the reason that hes too good, and they can't have that. Frost, on the other hand, plays the local village-idiot-cop, Danny, who feels like he's missing out on the action, due to being from Sandford.

The story is as follows,  Nick gets sent to small town, befriends Danny, no-one else likes him, shit goes fuck-up. In the beginning of the shit going fuck-up, Nick notices that things are not right in Sandford, crimes arent dealt with acordingly, minors are allowed at the pub, and no in the police force gives a shit. Angel meets the townsfolk, who are not normal, and starts noticing how everyone appears too good, and theres never anything going on. Then, a speeding solicitor and his mistress are found dead after their interpertaiton of Romeo and Juliet turns out to invoke this face:

Nick doesent believe that the cause of death was actually a traffic-collision as is lead to believe, but rather it was cold-blooded murder. (it was) As a result, the entire station starts hating on poor Nicholas, and starts pranking him. Later a wealthy business-man gets himself blown up by leaving the gas on after making himself a fry-up. Once again, Nick is suspicious. And while everyone else is in denial of the truth, a church-fete is held, and Angel is put as host, leading to more bulliyng.

Then, the editor of the local newspaper gets a piece of chuch-roof down his skull, once again leading everyone to believe that it was an accident, despite Nicks best efforts. During all this Nick and Danny get closer, and while on Dannies birth-day, Nick goes to buy him a plant, He witnesses yet another murder, and even though he chases a suspect, no one believes him.

After conducting a search of his own, Nick concludes that the murderer is Simon Skinner, the manager of the local super-market. After finding no conclusive evindence against him, the case is closed. However, the very same night, the 7-foot tall Lurch, under the guidance of Skinner, attacks Nick in his hotel room. After following the lead to the castle, a random twist appears, I won't spoil it, just in case you only came here to be able to be a part of the cool kids who can talk about Hot Fuzz.

Nick is then forced away from the village, but he returns, armed and dangerous. Shooting up the entire village, killing no-one and absolutely ridiculing every modern action movie. Joined by Danny, the hero cop arrests all those responsible for the killings. The climax ends in the entire fucking police-station blowing to little bits. 

The movie retains most of the charm of Shaun of the Dead, all the while manageing to be unique and fresher than than the ingridients that make up crandberry juice during the winter. Also, laying down the groundwork for using old Bond-actors as minor villains was done with this film. And while not the best in the trilogy, no one can question its genious and greatness. So go rewatch it, then go Watch The Worlds End, for though I might return next week with a twinkle in my eye, I will indeed be blind! of laughter, after making the final part of this retrospective, all about The Worlds End, and the Cornetto trilogy as a whole aswell. And maybe I might make a review of Inside Out, if you guys are nice! And maybe in the future I might make another Retrospective of another trilogy. and maybe I allready have teased it. 

The Dark Knight Rises and how Bruce got back to Gotham in one day

Warning, Spoilers for the Dark Knight Rises ahead!

One of the biggest complaints about the conclusion of the epic Nolan Batman-trilogy was, that Bruce Wayne got back to Gotham, from the pit, in just one day. But heres the twist, he didn't. 

First, look at this line of dialouge, just before bruce tries to escape for the second time, failing, presumably on the same day.

Then, he tries again, without the rope, succeeding, this could have happened anywhere between later that day, and 22 days later. Then we get the scene of Gordon ranting about there only being 18 hours, later that day Batman shows up.

Conclusion: Batman came back to Gotham in a timespan of anywhere between 22 and 1 days.

I can't believe I'm the only one who has noticed this, its so obvious, yet there are hundereds of people complaining about this being a plothole. Also, he's, the goddamn Batman!

Shaun of the Dead, Cornetto trilogy retrospective: part one

This is the first part of a three part serie of analyzations, reviews and discussion about a movie series. Expect spoilers, cursing and Gifs!

The first in a Series known as the Cornetto Trilogy (sometimes The Blood and Ice-cream trilogy) of wich Shaun of the Dead is perhaps the best known. The movie is a social satire and pokes fun at modern horror movies by making a realistic take on what a group of survivors would do in a zombie-apocalypse. "And why should I see it, because it has an Orangutan impersenation? Fuck-a-doodle doo" I hear you say. Because it's fucking hilarious!

The film opens at the Winchester where Shaun is having an argument with his girlfriend Liz, while we are being introduced to the other carachters; Shauns flatmate Ed, and David & Dianne, a couple who live with Liz. From there we get the now iconic credits that show extremely well that a zombie invasion might go by completely unnoticed in our modern society.

We then see Shauns daily life as an electronics-shop sales person. We do get some hints of the zombies happening, such as people being sick, glimpses of news reports and the military spreading around London. Shauns step dad, Phillip, comes to remind him about a visit to his parents house, and we can see that the tension between the two men really high. After work Shaun gets a phone call from Liz asking him if their anniversary dinner was okay, wich it isnt, so he has to go over to Liz's place to make it up, but the plan backfires badly and the couple ends up breaking up, leading to the hatred between Shaun and David getting set up

After a night of drinking and foreshadowing at the Winchester with Ed, Shaun decides to party around with him, leading to the reveal of Petes, the third flatmates, injury, he has been bitten by some crackheads, At this point we get some brilliant writing in the form of Pete telling sort his life out.

The next morning Shaun and Ed find a girl in the garden, realize that shits getting out of hand and come up with a plan to save themselves, Shaun's mom and Liz, allthewhile getting to a safe place and dealing with Phillip whose been bitten.

It all goes fuck-up but they manage to get to the winchester with David and Dianne tagging along.

Inside the pub things go good at first but thanks to David being a prick, they are confronted by half of London in zombie form. they manage to defend for a while until Shauns mum reveals that she's been bitten earlier, leading to one of the most awsome emotional scenes in a movie ever; David wants to shoot her but everyone else opposes causing a wild reservoir dogs reference to appear, ending in Shaun finishing the job himself. But due to David being a twat, He gets himself torn to pieces and lets the hoard of zombies inside to the pub. Dianne makes things worse by opening the door for twice the zombie fun! With only Shaun, Ed and Liz remainig, they defend off some of the zombies until Ed gets bitten by zombie-Pete who made his way to the pub. 

With the three cornered behind the bar, they make their way to the cellar, but cant get the hatch open. In their desperation they think of using the last two shells in their rifle on themselves. Emotion ensues when they find a way to get out but are forced to leave the zombifying Ed behind. The military shoots up the pub and we cut to six months later when Liz and Shaun are back together and living together. We are shown via newsreports that the zombies are used as cheap labor and that the outbrreak has been contained. In the last shot we see that Shaun brought zombie-Ed into the shed in his backyard to play videogames with. 

The Film was a huge success making four times its budget, and leaving people to quote it for years to come. 

There are several runnug gags and repeated dialogue in the movie and it requiers several viewings to notice them all, so go see it again, and after you see it go see Hot Fuzz, as its the topic for the next part of this retrospective, coming next week. then after youve done that, go see the Worlds End, as its the last part. And after that, you should come back here to suggest another trilogy to do a retrospective off, and then you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest, with a herring!

Pixels

Its crap, go play this if you want pacman =)

pacman in the google logo

Fant4stic

Thought I wouldnt make fun of the title, did you? you were wrong!

Of all the superhero-movies coming out this year, this is the worst. It tries to justify itself by talking about patterns, and how everything has one, but then while that apples to movies, all the other scientific techno-babble is completely made-up and fals, and the film makes no attempt to mask this, anything can be debunked if you give it a little thought.

But how is the movie? its, bad, worse than the previous two films trying to make a movie about four pseudo-scientists getting superpowers and wearing matching blue suits. And atleast the 2005 version tried to make the characters real, or even charachters, there is no develoupment. there exists the faintest idea of a real group of people. this is clearly an attempt to make the superhero market seem more diverse than it actually is, it tries to show that a superhero can be from any place from the world, while its really just two white guys, a black guy, and a white girl trying to represent ethnic diversity by giving them foreing backgrounds and making them fight an  east-europian "bad-guy". the quotations are there because he isnt really one. Doom's motivations, powers, and reasonig are never explained, nor is his survival in the other dimension.

Just dont go see this film, there are lots other, better, moviees about these guys out there, three to be exact. go watch those, this is just another the amazing spiderman, made because the studio would lose the rights unless they deliver a movie. (trivia, so was the very first, unreleased 1994 movie). Go see the one starring Chris Evans, it has Chris Evans.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

Its no Ghost protocol but damn, its great. Ethan Hunts latest adventure takes him to a lot of desparate situations, including the side of a plane, but that is by far the most intresting part of the film, and its put at the very beginning. I admit that that was probably the best choise considering the plot of the film, but then why have it? Its obvious that this is just another film made partially to boost Tom Cruise's self-image, but it also has some great action besides that, and while a lot of it is BS, one can enjoy it quite a bit.

The movies best parts are in the interaction of the characters, Benji is once again my favourite bit, relatable and realistic to the situation. Ethan is Ethan, wich he should be, but he at times seems a bit too immortal and you cant really believe that he's actually in danger, unlike other characters. The villain wasnt mentioned in the trailers, so I wont spoil it, but I'll mention that while menacing, he has the appearance and voice of a tortoise grandmother. 

The stuntwork isnt as engageing or tense as in M:I 4, and most of the tension comes from the quiet scenes. It is much more heartpounding to watch a beloved character face death than seeing an indestructible action-man dodge CGI-beams that have no reason to be there. But over-all, the movie does its job, even with a little convelution in the plot. Go see it if you liked the previous one or are a fan of good chemistry between characters. 

Angry birds

I know its not a movie, but! there is an Angry birds movie set for next summer. And since Angry birds 2 is coming out tomorrow, I felt to need to step forth and intervene with this madness.

Why is there an Angry birds 2? What where all those other games? Why is there a movie? Why do I have bloody Angry birds themed ice-cream cones in my freezer???? Could someone please go to Rovio and tell them to calm down with their "original idea". the consept of throwing things towards other things allready existed in video games, and there are allready a dozen "angry birds"-labelled games out there, why is there only now a number in the title, Why is this so important to me? 

Because videogames and movies are both art, and as art, it should be treated as such, but thanks to things like Angry birds, both ways of communicating messages are lost to a consumeristick ideology that re-uses and wears out every original idea there is, and in doing so, creates a generation of idiots who play frozen songs in their Minions-themed wedding. So please, if you're Rovio, stop, if you're not, make sure you spread ypuor own ideas but dont let them become this kind of repetetive, omnipresent BS that invades every aspect of every-day living.

I now have a twitter account

Or, more specifically I repurpoused my old account from 2 years ago to act as my "what is film" Quick-info for people who are keen on knowing what movies I'm going to review in the future. Find me at @Apenator

Also I'm taking this opportunity to show off my fanart =) 

Next review coming on friday! (hopefully)

Ant-man

Marvel did it again!! Ant-man is the newest chapter in the MCU and introduces a new superhero known as Ant-man. The story starts out simple, an ex-criminal is given a chance to redeem himself by performing a daring heist. But it gets more complicated than that. (But this is a non-spoiler review) The story is co-written by Edgar Wright and it shows, the clever and funny humor feels like it was lifted out of Shaun of the dead or Hot Fuzz. Wright was also set to direct and there is still some test-footage on the internet of his version and the influence shows heavily.

While 3D is often regarded as no more than a gimmick to get every bit of box-office money possible, it really adds to this flick, you really get a sense of scale when an ant sized person runs on top of guns and flings people around. A lot of the effects are practical wich really helps make the universe seem plausible, in comparison to some other MCU films like Thor and Guardians of the galaxy. But the movie throws in tons of references to the larger universe with some characters playing an important part.

If youre a fan of Edgar Wright, the MCU, superhero movies or action-comedies in general, you should heavily consider seeing this film.