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.