Friday, 15 July 2016

Forrest Gump : Review

Summary: 4.25/5. There's a reason why it's a go to feel good classic.

So i'm not going to tell you why you should go watch this movie because if you know anything about movies you know how good this movie is. Instead what i'm gonna do is just fanboy about this movie the whole way through.

So if you're a fan, just like virtually high 5 me. If you're a non fan, hope i can convince you  there shouldn’t be a need to. If you don’t know about the movie take my word and see it cause

Run Spoilers ahead run

The best part of this movie is no doubt the perspective that it adopts throughout the movie. Through the point of view of Forrest we get to see the terrible, cruel world in a naive, innocent way. It gives you a happy feeling and adds a layer of irony. It makes you think if you were more naive and didn’t well think so much maybe you’ll live an easier happier life. Forrest is also one of the most likeable characters in cinema history. He is so good hearted you feel so bad when his innocence harms him. He is aggresively inspiring, and he just pushes through all obstacles and always does the right thing, without hate or anger.

The events are also fun to experience, going through decades of events from the Vietnam war to the black panthers to watergate. Its fun to laugh at how Forrest is at the centre of all these events and oh i don't know how to explain it HES JUST SO MUCH FUN.

The thing is you begin to realise Forrest is an unreliable narrator. His perfect princess Jenny is a drug addict, and may have given him Aids and made him raise a kid that's probably not his and cheats his feelings. HUH but you don’t hate her, you appreciate her tragedy. Forrest is someone who was at the righr place at the right time doing the right thing. Jenny was at all the wrong places doing all the wrong things. Captain Dan is also much less heroic than portrayed by Forrest.

Sometimes you wonder if his story is the truth because it seems too cliched. Hugging Jenny in front of the white house. It just raining in vietnam until the gunfire starts. It makes you think how much of his story he actually experienced and how much he MAYBE watched on tv. JUST MAKES IT MORE FUN. Maybe he just imagined he was at all those places that he watched on the news??? Hmmm.

Movies are like a box of chocolates. But Forrest Gump is the most delicious one.

Copyright belongs to relevant companies and production studios.

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Birdman ANALYSED

Birdman in my opinion is the best crash course to cinematography. What i want to do here is something different than usual. Im gonna provide my theory as to the meaning behind birdman.
Heavy spoilers ahead. If you haven’t seen the movie go squawk away and watch it
From this point onwards of you haven’t watched the movie you will probably so lost you're gonna have a lousy finale that answers no questions.
So those that have seen the movie probably got pretty weirded out. Riggan has telepathy? He's Birdman? Is the long shot just stylistic flair? He flew away in the last scene? He shot himself? What? Yes my lad. I too was lost for along time (i thought about this movie for about 3 months so yes).
My general theory is that everything that happens in the movie is through how Riggan imagines his life. Its his thought. His imagination. Its his imagination combined with the real world. Like a kid who imagines two monsters fighting on top of buildings when he's on the road. Buildings from reality, monsters not so much. We see evidence of this like when he “flies” back to his studio we see him levitating and blowing up cars but ultimately we see a taxi driver chase him asking him to pay so we know he actually got there by the cab.
Ok, but what does this all mean?
Riggan, is a self centred person. He wants to be the star, he thinks of himself. That’s why we don't always get POV shots as if we were on a gopro. We get shots of his face, his expressions. That’s because at that moment he’s not thinking about what he’s doing but rather how he looks when he is doing something. Like when you’re walking down the street with a kind of flair you’re thinking about how cool you look and think about how others are looking at you. The long shot adds to this because this is how we see the world we don’t have cuts in our view of the world, we open our eyes and boom it's a long shot 24/7. This makes you think about how absolutely self centred he is at times. When he is scolding his daughter for taking drugs he is thinking about if he looks stern and serious instead of if his daughter is listening. This also makes you realise that Riggan isn’t as good as actor as he says he is. I mean the movie reinforces this a couple times, but when actors act they aren’t supposed to be them they are 100% their character. They don’t think about if they look angry they just are. (Just like how in the movie Edward Norton’s character has ed off stage but can get erect on stage cuz he is 100% just another character) This not so good acting makes you realise maybe Riggan was not meant to succeed and adds to tragedy because we know he just can’t make it.
What about all the Birdman stuff? As I said it’s all in his head. And have you noticed when we see Birdman it's always Riggan in the foreground and Birdman at the back? This is because Riggan is thinking about how he is facing his inner demon. So what does Birdman symbolise? To answer this we have to dissect what Riggan’s personality is like and what he wants to be. Riggan wants to be prominent and important. Just like how his daughter (Emma Stone) says he wants to be important and is afraid to be unimportant and forgotten. Riggan wants to be creative and new. Besides creating an entire production himself, the experimental nature of the play he produced is repeated many times, and he refused to do Birdman 4 because then it’s nothing new. Riggan wants to have power. This is basically the whole movie as things spins out of control and destroys him. So what is Birdman? Birdman is what he wants to be. Birdman was groundbreaking and new-experimental, Birdman can destroy buildings-powerful, and most importantly,Birdman is never forgotten.
Now what the hell was going on with that ending? To understand this one must carefully analyse the opening scenes. One, we have a quote before the movie starts “And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.” Then we cut to him talking to his daughter. No. No we don’t people forget. We first see two burning streaks crashing to earth. Like a bird. Falling from the heavens. Then we have him fighting with his daughter saying that they don’t have the flowers he wanted. And then during the table read we hear that the character, who is a big failure (who is clearly a mirror of Riggan), “screwed up shooting himself in the mouth”.
Then in the end Boom. He shot himself in the face. The audience claps. The critic, who hates him, walks out. Then we get our very first cut in the entire movie. We cut to the same falling bird, now closer to the ground. A band, some jellyfish, some cosplayers, the stage setting, then boom the ceiling of a hospital. We get to see his wife, who he has had a strained relationship, waiting for him there. His best friend (Galifianakis) is happy for the first time. On tv we see that people all over the country are lighting candles for him. He gets a great review that says he is revolutionary. His daughter visits him, hugs him and gets him the flowers that he wanted. He goes to the toilet, sees he has a new nose because he “shot himself in the nose”. He look like Birdman. He jumps out the window. His daughter comes back and she looks down first, then up, as if her father flew up.
What? I know. Here’s my take.
He is dead. He is in heaven, or the place where he wants to be. He has all the things he wanted. Attention, family, love. But it's just impossible. No way there are vigils all over the country, he’s a washed up actor. No way he got a good review, the critic hates him. The lots of cuts is his life flashing before his eyes. That’s why there is a cut. But this is what he wanted. But then Inarritu also leaves it open and hanging. Did he really fail to kill himself? No. This is just an idea planted in Riggan’s head, that he imagined happened. Did the audience clap? Since it came before the cut? Yes. Riggan succeeded. He just gave up too early and barely got to see the fruits of it. He got what he wanted from this life. He was beloved.
The main rebuttal i have to this theory is that there were some scenes where Riggan was not there to witness, so it’s not in his head. THEY DIDN’T HAPPEN. ALL IMAGINED. This is proven by the two scenes Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) has with Riggan's daughter. When Riggan was jealous of Mike, the latter courted his daughter and got close to her. Later when he was on better terms with Mike, he imagined Mike saying praises about him to his daughter. This is something the real Mike just would not suddenly do. Inarritu masks this by showing a complex character but the genius of Inarritu wouldn’t leave plot thread like that loose and unresolved. Unless Riggan doesn’t care about it anymore and stops imagining it.
So what’s the moral of Birdman? I think the faintest lesson i got was that the pursuit of dreams is tough, if you abandon everything else and then give up before realising it, that is when you are a true failure. You don’t fail when shit hits the fan. You fail when you don’t try to dodge the shit. But that’s a personal lesson. I don’t think Inarritu meant for a lesson. This is a story about a man. Not a theme or an idea. A man whose life is just a mess and has the perfect downward spiral.
And it’s perfect.
HA! IT FITS DOESN’T IT. I THINK I FOUND IT. I THINK I UNDERSTOOD BIRDMAN!
P.s. about the hidden cuts in the movie, i think they are a visual metaphor too. In the first 45 minutes you can barely point out where Inarritu cuts to make it seem like a long shot. After that he uses some painfully amateurish obvious ones, getting more obvious as it progresses. Not because he’s a bad director halfway through the movie but because the low quality cuts show the deterioration of Riggan’s mind.

Copyright belongs to relevant companies and production studios.

Monday, 4 July 2016

Birdman : Review

Summary: 4.8/5. This is an absolute masterpiece. The best film i have seen in my life thus far and undoubtedly a modern classic. If you want a crash course on cinematography and tone and characters, this film is the best case study.
Actors: Michael Keaton, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, Emma Stone
Every oscar film these days does something few have or dare to. Boyhood is shot over 15 years. The revenant is shot in natural light. Birdman’s is the most impressive. The whole entire movie is a long shot. This means that it looks like there are no cuts and it's shot in one continuous shot. The beauty of this movie is that even the “hidden cuts” is a visual metaphor. If this isn’t the perfect use of cinematography i don’t know what is.
So what i want to do here is discuss the beauty of this film.
Slight spoilers ahead. Not much but i recommend completely clean mind when watching for the first time.
The story is that Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) is a superhero star that wants to direct and star in a play so that he can be prominent again. He puts everything on the line for it but it just seems to keep failing and failing with obstacles just thrown on. Poopoo hits the fan at lightspeed here. Meanwhile he tries to patch his life up with his exwife and hus daughter.
This movie is a film for film fans. If you don’t know what a long shot or how much effort it takes to take a long shot, your appreciation for the movie is...less. Another area where one's understanding of the movie increases is when you realise how absolutely pinpoint perfect the casting is.
Michael Keaton plays a man whose acting career is dwarfed by his one role as a popular superhero who set the stage for future superhero movies. His dramatic ability is unnoticed and he is fading into obscurity. THIS IS MICHAEL KEATON. After he acts as batman, the movie that is the definitive superhero movie, his other brilliant work goes unnoticed. This just shows how much effort inarritu took in making this movie. And Keaton’s performance is absolutely perfect. I don’t think a great actor is a description of Michael Keaton, Michael Keaton is the definition of an actor period.
Edward Norton also plays an actor who is great at his job but has an absolutely pricky attitude. There is no other way to describe him but as a top grade ass. Again, Norton is also an actor who despite his talents is an absolute ass BTS. In  the movies he screams “Amateurs all of you” to the crew, just like he did to the Incredible Hulk crew! At this point idek if they are acting or just shooting a reality tv show.
The direction is amazing in this movie, the long shot, the jazz track behind the whole movie, the acting, the dimmish lighting, all add to this dready, tiring feeling throughout mirroring the fatigue Riggan feels when everything goes wrong.
When Inarritu says that every beat is planned in this movie he’s not kidding. Perfect. Beautiful. Cinematic. Perfection.
One jibe i have with the movie is sometime you are pulled out of the movie because tou are distracted by the cinematography and just think “How in the world did he do that?”. But hey if there’s anything to pull you out of your suspension of disbelief, beautiful cinematography is definitely one of the better “distractions”
(I’ll write my theory in another post this is way too long)
Ok guys, go watch Birdman and come back and fanboy with me. Or just uk fanboy with me if you watched it before.
Click to the left or right or up or down for more posts. (Depends on what ur reading this with) byeeeee

Copyright belongs to relevant companies and production studios.

Friday, 1 July 2016

Finding Dory : Review

Rating: 3.75/5. Great fun and death by cuteness. Comedy and heart lands perfectly but drama falls short of pixar classics. Characters also suffer from sequel-itis and are underdeveloped.
This movie is painfully overrated and overhyped. Now don't get me wrong it's a great movie and if you don't see it what do you live for but it's just not a Toy Story 3. So here we go….
The good. The jokes are great. The build up the payoff all good. You’ll be laughing a lot. I needed tissues.
The pace is really fast and it's a lot of excitement so it's also a fun adventure. There’s a lot well executed “chase” scenes which are fun.
The characters are really cute. So there’s that.
The bad. The characters are fun but for a pixar film they were really underdeveloped. Like for example the octopus, he mentions that he is scared of the ocean because of the bad memories he had there. Its his main motivation and fear. But we never get to know what happened that caused him so much trauma. Dory showed no arch besides i nnneeeedddd to find my paaaarents the whole movie. Marlin and Nemo echo a similar Ddddoooooorrrrryyyy. We don’t get much background or info on new characters and the old characters are terribly flat.
The aforementioned tissues also did not dry any tears of sadness. For the studio that gave us Up, the drama really fell flat. The scenes were either suddenly too intense and too unexpected or too long and dragged out. There was one scene that tagged my heart a tad. But that’s it.
Well, despite all its flaws Finding Dory is a pixar movie and it brings its standard quality of family fun. But if this is how they handle sequels we are about to have the biggest let down in history. (Incredibles 2 cmon man)

Copyright belongs to relevant companies and production studios.

Now You See Me 2 : Review

Rating: 3.25/5.
Positive: Fun visuals. Fast pace. Knows not to take itself seriously.
Negative: Plot holes when thought of too much. Weak characters and archs.
    I actually loved the first Now You See Me. I thought the twist was cool, the magic was fun and the whole movie was tight and a modern day Sherlock Holmes meets Ocean 11. Now give that sequel-itis.
    In this movie, we have the Four Horsemen coming out of hiding and doing their tricks again. First it was to expose a corporate scam, but then they get kidnapped and after a series of events work for Daniel Radcliffe’s character. They try to steal a computer chip thing and cheenamajig they end up wanting to expose Daniel Radcliffe. See, not the tightest plot.
    The best part of this movie was the “magic”. There were lots of cool visuals. If you saw the trailer you know they stop water and so on so forth. Plenty of fun to see them do it, and you buy into it, trying to figure out how they did it. The best scene was easily the cardistry scene and when you see it you know you want to watch it again, it’s just so fun. But...then again if you think about it too much, then it has huge holes..and...Basically you need to have just the right amount of suspense of disbelief for this movie. Too much, and you just see pretty pictures. Too little and the whole thing falls apart.
    The acting...okay. Eisenberg does does Eisenbergisms and old man woody harrelson with his stuff. The weird thing is really the characterisation of some “ characters”. Like those who read anything about this movie probably knows woody harrelson has a twin brother...whose motivation is that his brother...dumped him to go solo...okay. Hes just a cartoon man. Just ugh. And daniel radcliffe also dumbest “smart villain” second only to lex luthor in bvs.
But again just dont walk into the cinema expecting a masterpiece in flim making. Close 1.75 eyes and you’ll have a great time.

Copyright belongs to relevant companies and production studios.

Featured post

Star Wars: The Force Awakens : SPOILER Review

Summary: 4.25/5. Great movie. Definitely Earned its place in a legendary saga and extremely rewatchable. Characters interesting, universe e...