Kong: Skull Island - Trailer Review

Would I say that I am excited for this movie? - No
Would I say that the trailer got me excited? - No

However, the trailer intrigued me enough where I want to know how messy this movie will be. First the tone was a mess, it didn't know what route to take, scary and mysterious or funny and light-hearted. The mesh of both made it hard to understand what to expect, which can work for other movies but for a King Kong movie, I have an idea of how it should feel and putting me in the dark makes me nervous for the monster flick.

What I was expecting was a Predator vibe, the feel of tension mixed with action.

When it comes to monster flicks the CG is important and I was not amused by the inconsistent CG effects, Kong looks great CG wise (not appearance) but the other monsters are missing some extra pixels. However, this can be due to them not being fully ready but if this is not the case then it could put a real damper on this movie.

Kong's appearance is supposed to be big and imposing but in the trailer he looked small and huggable. In this situation I'll give the trailer the benefit because we don't see him in scale with anything else, and on the other hand the poster makes Kong look like a titan. They also showed more Kong in this trailer than Godzilla in its entire film which is a plus.

However, the biggest threat to this film is its comedy, based on the trailer the movie seems light hearted with some comedy to ease up on the serious situations but if the comedy falls flat then it could be unbearable.

The trailer didn't sell me on the Kong movie but this won't stop me nor others watching the beast in action again.

Hayao Miyazaki Returns!?

Hayao Miyazaki returns to direct!?

Legendary director Hayao Miyazaki has stated many times that he was retiring and many times did the film bug keep biting him. It is no surprise that Mr Miyazaki has once again gone back on that statement. It has been stated by NHK television special "Owaranai Hito Miyazaki Hayao" that Mr Miyazaki wants to make one more film called "Kemushi no Boro" (Boro the Caterpillar). It is a short CG animated film that Miyazaki has been creating for the Studio Ghibli museum but it seems that the legendary animated film maker wants to bring this to the bigger screen.

It has been reported that the release for this animated film may be in 2019 but this is still not confirmed. The short has been planned for 20 years and has a completion date for next year. The feature version has not got an official green light and the decision for it to be fully CG which Miyazaki has been against for his previous films has not been released. However the film will be an anticipated one, which many Studio Ghibli fans are dying to see.

Are Trilogies Dead!?

What happened to movie trilogies?

It was always exciting to watch the first movie of a trilogy, seeing the world being built up and what that world presented. As the second movie came along, we saw the world expand and we delved deeper with our character and finally the last movie was the conclusion. However, movies no longer use trilogies to tell their story but instead expand to six or more films.

This isn't a bad idea. In some cases more than three movies is necessary such as Harry Potter and Mission Impossible franchise where a continuous story of that world is intriguing. However, the problem with movies that over gamble and release more than three films is a loss of interest in the main protagonist. In the Bourne franchise, the resolution for the third movie was all we need but with the fourth and fifth it lost its emotional connection we had with Jason Bourne. Resulting in two boring flicks.

The reason movies get boring after the third installment is a trilogy acts as a three act structure. With the first movie represented as the setup, the second film is the confrontation and the last installment is the resolution. An example is the Star Wars trilogy with New Hope acting as the setup by setting the rules and introducing the worlds, Empire Strikes Back is the confrontation (literally) with Luke fighting his demons and against Vader, and finally Return of the Jedi was the resolution and closing the book on that story. Until The Force Awakens (which I like) was released in 2015 which lost the emotional connections and tries too hard to rekindle our attachment. The death of Han was the only emotional connection I had with the characters.

The biggest support for trilogies is the experience. Now, with these universe movies they are also experiences but with trilogies the three films watched back to back is more magical because that time we have with out character means we see their development by the end of the last film. While with a six movie franchise, we see the development early on and then we are left with three other movies with our character already blossomed and not flawed, an example is the Die Hard franchise. John McClane becomes a super hero and doesn't do anything wrong and can survive any explosion. As a result It becomes boring and the stakes are lost.

As I have mentioned, franchises such as Harry Potter work with more than one movie because of how many books there are and the complex stories. Imagine a movie being a fat piece of dough and the first movie kneads it, the second movie proves it and the third movie bakes it. What do you get? A perfectly tasty bread. But then take the dough and stretch it for some reason, holes start to appear. Too much stretching is the fourth, fifth and sixth installment, You don't need to stretch it but you do it anyway. Plot holes become more apparent and the bread becomes a mess. That's what happens when a simple story gets the 10 movie treatment. Simple story is better when told in a simple way. Bread is better when baked in a simple way.

But...

Is it a bad idea for trilogies to die away?

I believe that trilogies dying and making way for more expanded movies can lead to exciting films. We are in a new era of cinema which I call the "universe films". Studios are now beginning their own universes that can expand a film's world. It is an exciting time because this change is still in an early phase and will only grow to become better.

In essence the universe building will make cinema exciting again. With trilogies, once it's done,  it's done. Audiences crave more from films and want stories to continue. Movies that have more than three films can explore more of the world that was established, Mission Impossible has been going on forever and has continually grown stronger and Fast & Furious has upped their game (for better or worse) and deliver movies the fans want. They have both become better with their latest release.

Without the restriction of three movies, studios can build their movies from the ground up and take as much time to tell a story. It's all about creating an excitement with the audience and a studio slate with a movie universe is more exciting than a movie slate with just three films.

Also...

Movie trilogies dying is an evolution in cinema. We now get franchises that could last a hundred years. Is it a good idea? Maybe or maybe not but it's a necessary step in discovering how far we can take this art form.

SCHEDULE!!

A new schedule that I hope I can keep!! I'll try and upload on these days!!

MONDAY - Film/TV Discussion or Analyses

TUESDAY - News

WEDNESDAY - Rest

THURSDAY - News

FRIDAY - Film/TV Discussion or Analyses

SATURDAY - Rest

SUNDAY - Rest

Why has Mediocre become Acceptable?

Furious 7, Iron Man 3, Minions and Transformers: Dark of the Moon have all made over 1 billion at the box office. More than The Dark Knight, Drive, The Wolf of Wall Street and Inside Out. How did it get this bad?

We have the power to dictate what studios release. We refused to watch Ghostbusters (2016) and no more will be made. Yet we never do this often. We all complain about the influx of terrible movies but we're the ones fueling studios to keep making them. Have we just accepted mediocre as normal?

With so many studios wanting to build their own universe, it has seemed that they want to rush an important step; quality. This is the same with us - we want different characters to cross-over in other movies that we accept that bad movies will happen in order for them to cross-over. "Who cares if Iron Man 2 was bad at least he'll be in Avengers" - Sound familiar?

The quality in which we as the audience accept a film has dramatically declined. As it seems the standard of a film no longer matters but instead it has come to who stars in the film or if it's a character we recognize that gets us to the cinema. I am no saint and often do that too. If it's a star I know then I'll probably watch that movie over an independent masterpiece with no one recognizable. This has fueled Hollywood to keep making these generic movies that have no personality. However, the studios are not the only ones to blame as it may also be down to everyone being over sensitive, leading to studios having to hit every demographic in order to make some money. But we can change that by opening our minds and allowing different ideas on the screen.

You cannot sensor art.

Art is expression and freedom and once you sensor that then we live in a world where free speech doesn't exist.

Our over sensitive minds means studios will cater to them. If a studio allows a risky move in their movies, you can guarantee backlash and boycotts from audiences which studios do not want. An example is The Interview, which had such a backlash that cinemas didn't play it and Sony got hacked. This has put fear in studios not wanting a similar situation which means they would rather make a generic movie than push the bar of creativity.

As the audience we have power. We have to stop buying tickets for the generic crap and demand something different. If we support more creative films (even bad ones to a degree) then studios will have to consider making more dynamic and inventive pieces of art. We shouldn't accept mediocre but instead films that push the medium to more imaginative places. But before we change the studios, we have to change ourselves.

Remember, If we don't change now, we are one step closer to a Citizen Kane remake. Think about that.

Is Christopher Nolan an Auteur?

Christopher Nolan is cinema's most interesting directors. His movies have wide spread love and in some cases hate but there is no doubt that his movies have a lot of intrigue.

Chris Nolan has released this millennials best films such as Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight and Inception. His filmography is different, from the Sci-Fi to comic books but they all feel 'Nolan-esqu'.

This begs the question, is Christopher Nolan an auteur?

We must first discuss what an auteur is. In essence the Auteur theory created way back in the 1940's by Andre Bazin and Roger Leenhardt states that a director is the creative force, more than a screenwriter.

The blocking, lighting, position of a camera and scene length conveys the message of the film more than the plot line. The style of the film is what defines it. An example of an Auteur is Alfred Hitchcock, his suspense and sexual taboo has made it easy for any audience member to know they are watching a Hitchcock film.

Auteur theory projects the director responsible for a movies quality and their directing must be recognizable that anyone can differentiate their work with others.

REALISM

It becomes clear in every Nolan movie that it is set in some real world reality and has become a trademark for him. His movies differ in genre but it's the sense of realism that connects them to Nolan.

It was first prevalent in Batman Begins by taking the caped crusader and shoving him into the real world where Gotham was an actual city and every person was a real character not just a comic caricature. However this has always been with Nolan since his first feature Following, a film which a man follows people around for inspiration. With a limited budget, Nolan and his actors had to shoot in and around London.

Nolan also achieves his real world feel by the use of practical effects and location shooting. For Interstellar the space craft(above picture) was a real craft built for the actors. They even built actual compartment, tables and whiteboards. It was the detail that was put into the space craft that brought us closer, there were hidden seat on the floor and laptops shoved in cupboards that provided the realism. We might have not seen every thing in the space craft but it's that detail that makes a movie special.

For Doctor Mann's world, Nolan and his team went to Iceland and filmed on beautiful glaciers, bringing us closer to the extreme weather and environments the characters had to deal with.

IMAX 

Nolan is pioneering the use of IMAX and it has become an essential tool for him. He first used the IMAX camera for The Dark Knight but only for selected scenes. However it was never wasted and made The Dark Knight feel bigger.

It has been used for every other Nolan film since except Inception for the reason IMAX would lose the films dream quality. For Interstellar, Nolan used it the most and even fitted on a rocket miniature and actually breaking the very few IMAX cameras in the world.

It has become a staple for Nolan and when watching a his movie I look forward to the IMAX scenes because I know they will be visually stunning.

THEMES

In Chris Nolan movies, it becomes clear that his movies protagonist are all about the struggle of who they are. In Memento Leonard struggles to find out who he has become and uses tattoos to keep track of himself and the others around him.

In Batman Begins, Bruce travels far away from Gotham to find out who he is and how he can adapt to the world he lives in. The Dark Knight Rises Bruce again struggles with his identity of being Batman and eventually succumbs to the fact he'll have to die as Batman before he truly can live as Bruce.

Inception has Cobb struggle with the loss of his wife and children and distorts his reality to become the man he was, before his wife's death.

Interstellar has Cooper being a farmer even though he's the world best pilot. But when the time arises he finds out his true purpose and becomes Murph's ghost.

Nolan hits on identification and where his movie protagonist belong in their world. Everyone of them starts out lost and gradually finds out where they belong in their world.

CONCLUSION

Christopher Nolan is an auteur. His movies are distinct and can be recognized by the themes and techniques.

His style is similar to David Fincher with The Dark Knight being heavily influenced by Seven but Fincher is only an inspiration. Their works are two different animals.

Nolan's use of IMAX, his themes and realism helps audiences identify with him. Being an auteur means that a director's films are recognizable and can be affiliated back to them. This is the case for Nolan. We know when we are watching his films. 

Nolan will be remembered as a pioneer in film and deserves to be called an auteur. 

The Problem with Doctor Strange

*CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Doctor Strange is the third in Marvel's phase three line up. It stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Steven Strange and is about his recovery and enlightenment with the help of The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). The movie has spectacular visuals and choreography that transport audiences to new realities but it has some problems that made this film a 'good' film but not a 'mind blowing' one. 

When I watch a movie, I judge it on how the movie was directed and if the story was interesting. I do not judge a movie on, if they got a certain character correct or if they put some Easter eggs in there. This is no different to comic book movies. I don't care if a movie has got Batman correct because if the movie sucks then the movie sucks.

I have no knowledge of Doctor Strange so I watch this movie as I would any other by not knowing that much about our main protagonist. Which the movie doesn't help, Doctor Strange has no character arc. This is shown when he only struggles with his powers for about five minutes and he masters the skill of magic in about 15 minutes. There's no struggle nor does he change his ways to become more skilled. He just achieves master level in minutes.

A struggle of a character who has worked hard to earn his skill helps create tension however Dr Strange does not struggle meaning there is no conflict with his inner-self. He doesn't beat his demons because he never changes throughout the movie. He stays the same man from beginning to end. The only thing he learnt was there's something bigger out there.

I hate it when these movies have the whole world at stake. THIS DOES NOT CREATE TENSION! It's boring because I don't care if everyone dies as I don't know them.

Making a movie smaller is not a bad thing. It actually means the stakes are bigger for our protagonist. Doctor Strange should make a hard decision to save the people or person he loves or cares for, not the world because who cares? The movie should have focused on Strange and Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) because they have a deeper relationship that we as the audience can relate to. How many of you go out and save the entire world? and how many of you would sacrifice yourself for the people you love?

In The Dark Knight Rises, Chris Nolan shows that even an entire city can still have stakes involved. But how they do it, which Doctor Strange fails to do, is establish other characters and their world. In The Dark Knight Rises, we see other characters interact in their world, from Gordon, Blake and Foley. They all have something to lose if they fail. Batman doesn't save the entire world, he save his city. A place we have seen throughout the entire trilogy, not like Hong Kong for Doctor Strange. He wants to save his legacy and the people he cares for. For a third movie in a superhero trilogy, it was small compared to Doctor Strange and it worked in their favor. The movie focuses on a few characters and allowing us to see what they can lose. 

In Doctor Strange, we see he cares for Christine, but the threat is in Hong Kong. Thousands of miles away from her. She's not in harms way nor does she know what is happening. The giant CG blob fest was neat to look at but it never transmitted fear. The bomb in The Dark Knight Rises was ticking and every second lost was a step closer to everyone's loved ones being dead. For Doctor Strange I had no idea what was happening because they weren't clear on the outcome. 

With all these world shattering threats, what will make Infinity Wars stand out? 

I also want to compare it with Interstellar. Both relied on visuals to push the story but Interstellar is much more effective because of the emotional connection we see with Coop and Murph. That was missing in Doctor Strange. There was no emotional connection between him and Christine. They had a fling in the past and she does mean something to him but we never see anything that really shows us their connection. They never have time to themselves and discuss their past and maybe their future. She is ultimately forgotten and without the emotion, a movie loses it soul.

How Doctor Strange beat Dormammu was pathetic. I have no problems with rewinding time - I enjoyed the battle when time was reversed and we see that effecting the fight. But the loop was unforgivable. This is where I don't judge a movie by how comic accurate they are but by how well they are made. Doctor Strange fans probably know what that necklace power is capable off - but for me they did not establish enough rules. The biggest one is - how did he stop the loop? They never show us and they probably didn't know themselves. It took me right out the movie because of how ridiculous it was. Film is a visual medium, show us the important parts! 

On the other hand if they wanted to go down the 'Earth in danger route', there was only one way to make this movie incredibly ballsy. Replace Dormammu with Thanos. At first when Steven Strange went on his acid trip, I thought he saw the impending doom of Thanos, this got me super excited but alas I was wrong.

Instead of having Dormammu, making Thanos the antagonist and losing to Doctor Strange shows that Thanos needs the infinity gems because he is not strong enough without them. By making Doctor Strange defeat Thanos it gives him the important role of guiding the Avengers because Strange would have the know how to defeat him. It would have shown the importance of the gems and how far Thanos would go to collect all of them. With Thanos defeated, he would come back angrier and wary of Earth's threat making him a more fierce villain. 

Overall Doctor Strange was a good movie. It focused more on the visuals then the story and for that it lost its emotional footing. The movie lacked heart and lost itself in the Marvel formula. Mads Mikkelsen was sorely wasted and should have been the only antagonist. A more emotional story with those visuals would have created a gripping movie from start to end.

But I do recommend you watch it and see for yourself.