INSIDE OUT (2015) thoughts & review, "the best since UP!"...

It's time for a current release, current to the point that I haven't actually seen it yet! These words were kindly provided by one Adam James Young, currently running his own blog, right here.

I must admit, I wasn’t really expecting anything much from Disney/Pixar new movie. After all, the last films that Pixar had done weren’t exactly stellar: Monsters University was okay, but lacked humour of Monsters Inc. and before that Brave was a piss poor attempt to try and be “Brave” with the princess theme that Disney perfected a long while back and try and make it empowering to women and younger girls. However, that went horribly to say the least. Even when I saw the excellent reviews on Rotten Tomatoes at an amazingly high 98%, I felt something inside me saying that it was going to be another mediocre dud. Not bad, just plain average.

Boy was I shocked - not only was this good but it was certainly by far the best Pixar film since Up! No film since Up! has had a stronger message for kids than this. It’s excellent. The story is about Riley Anderson (Kaitlyn Dias), an 11 year old girl who has moved with her parents from Minnesota to San Francisco. Naturally moving from Minnesota to hippy central San Francisco both of which provide a mix of emotions to experience.

In comes Riley emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling). The cast is for the most part. Amy Poehler voices her the exact same personality as she does in almost everything else she's been in. Optimistic, bubbly & just a little bit unrealistic. Really if you close your eyes and just listen to her talk, it sounds like clips from Parks & Recreation. But... I like Parks & Recreation so I'll allow it. The real standout though is Sadness voiced to perfection by Phyllis Smith. Her dry & slow performance make the most quotable lines in the film.

The story is interesting and always seems to be on the move. This is because of the need to swap perspectives in the film to flesh out both sides. Usually this is never helpful for a kids movie (Osmosis Jones anyone?) but because of it always being interesting to watch, whether it be in Riley's head or outside of it you'll probably not seem to mind.

The many messages of the film is by the far the best thing about this film. Every kid’s film should have some important message. The message in this kid’s film however, it even goes to rival many adult films. It’s damn well in philosophical terms.

The message is the importance of our mixture of emotions. It talks about the importance of suffering. To link in with religious philosophy, this film is saying the Veil of Soul Making. The idea that we suffer to make us better people. We need sadness as much as we need joy. Those events make us stronger. Another compelling idea that has been overlooked by other reviewers is the accepting that we let go of things. We lose friends in life. We have to face that facts that we just grow apart and move on. This may not be a nice concept but it is an honest one, the whole film had me genuinely questioning things about life. A rare feat for a supposed “child’s” movie...

Safe to say, Inside Out is one of the most mature films to come out of the Disney canon. No real and generic truly happy ending and no bad guy or villain. (Unless you consider loss of one's self a bad guy but who would?) All you need to make a great film is good characters, good story and concepts that get your head into motion.

Not forgetting Richard Kind's portrayal of Riley’s ex-imaginary friend Bing Bong, playing it to Jewish perfection...

THREE FLAVOURS CORNETTO: The World's End (2013), just one more...

THE WORLD'S END is what most people consider the weakest of the series - I'm here to disagree with that.

Why I believe this film is not the worst of the three but the best, reasons are aplenty. The complete role reversal between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost for one. In the past two entries, Pegg has been the upstanding citizen or at least the better of the two, with Frost being the self-deprecating and borderline dumbbell. This time, it's different. It's unusual seeing Pegg as the loony, and he fits into the archetype perfectly, the entirety of the film he is bursting with energy and is so pinned on his rose-tinted spectacle of the past it's heartbreaking. However, as they progress to titular pub, Frost reveals his true colours as a drunken beast of a man, albeit that isn't applicable to his initial character.

I feel also that this holds up more because it mixes the niche subject matter of Shaun of the Dead and the hilariously over-the-top, debris-filled action of Hot Fuzz to garner the best of both worlds. It learns from its predecessors and takes appropriately from them to become the most progressive film of the three. The same silky smooth camera work and direction trademarks have their place, only more refined. The cumulative experience of past work coming together at once.

As for audience reaction, upon its release, the reaction was certainly positive and a majority of critics seem to agree with me, but no one whom I know that has seen The World's End thinks it is anywhere near the best, but the worst. That I don't understand, with the only aspect of this film that I could nail down to that attribute perhaps being the plot, in its simplicity. However, that never dismayed audiences with either of the past films, as Shaun of the Dead in itself was no complex narrative.

If anything, the detail of The World's End should simply please any fan of the Wright/Pegg/Frost collaboration, an example being how each of the pubs that the cast has to crawl through to achieve The World's End not only foreshadow the plot, but the characters actions within said plot, The Old Familiar serving as quite a hearty and memorable punchline from a much more prominent, gladly, Martin Freeman. The supporting cast is arguably the strongest also, as usually a majority of the chemistry between Pegg and Frost's characters are solely with their characters, and The World's End opens that up to a whole crew, broadening the personalities on offer whilst also maintaining said tight chemistry, as if it were still between only the two.

The whole film ties up the loose trilogy very nicely, perhaps incredibly, as all of the past efforts and experience with one another culminate to create the most refined, being equally as entertaining as the past two if not more, as the loving care and homages are all still there, it just makes it so very difficult not to recommend for one who is looking for a comedy. As The World's End, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead are all must-watches for anyone who is even remotely interested in film, regardless of their preferences. It is a guaranteed good time.

A montage/recap of the best of the trilogy, obvious major spoilers ahead...

THREE FLAVOURS CORNETTO: Hot Fuzz (2007), back for seconds...

The "extravaganza" continues...

HOT FUZZ is the second and what most people would argue is the best of this titular and loosely-related trilogy - and with good reason.

Blue is the colour of Hot Fuzz, as well as the colour of the trilogy's name check, and by all means far more action-oriented than the previous entry. That only benefits Hot Fuzz, as it allows for the spoofing and subsequent homage to not two but three separate and wholly clichéd genres: comedy foremost, but the buddy cop sub-genre housed within action. What is also housed within Hot Fuzz is a bigger budget and more star power, Timothy Dalton lending his hand to a rather villainous role that he was destined for.

I sung high praise for Simon Pegg and Nick Frost which needs not to be sung again, as honestly they've done just as well, if not better than prior. They follow their character's archetypes to a tee, Pegg being the attentive hard-worker with Frost countering with his slacker sensibilities. There is honestly nothing more to be said that hasn't been said already as regards to their performances, at least in the case of Hot Fuzz.

The reason I believe as to this film's wild success in comparison to Shaun of the Dead which was already a wildly successful film is that the punchy dialogue and more accessible action sequences lend themselves to a much more mainstream audience. The niches of Shaun and the latter sequel The World's End, from horror to science fiction have never been as popular as a straight forward action flick, which is all the more perplexing as Hot Fuzz certainly has some definite horror elements within it.

Besides the film's success other than it being deserved, this film is awe-inspiring in its creativity, watching, you can really point out the little nuances and details in almost every aspect of film making. It demonstrates how much fun they must have had during it's production and that transmits on the audience perfectly, judging by the matter of fact I have never spoken to anybody who has actually disliked this film.

Whilst I may have mentioned that the previous entry Shaun of the Dead was intended as a horror, Fuzz doesn't hold back in it's usage of blood and gore. Perhaps past Shaun, as it features a literal head explosion, the screen spattered with the colour red and other gleeful gore. The special effects are to be commended in that extreme case and in most others also.

Now, while this is not my favourite of the three Cornetto flavours, it certainly still is incredible, delivering wall to wall laughs and some pretty mind-boggling action interwoven to leave a long-lasting impact on you as a viewer. With that, there is only a lead onto the next and final film of the comedic combos - as Danny Butterman would say, they're simply off the fucking chain... another one for the Station's swear box.

THREE FLAVOURS CORNETTO: Shaun of the Dead (2004), the first of three...

Arbitrary personal deadlines aside, over the next three days, an "extravaganza" of posts celebrating Edgar Wright's Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy will arise from my own vocabulary utilising the English language...

SHAUN OF THE DEAD prides itself on being a mix of romantic comedy and the more visceral staple of horror: zombies, and so it should.

The film that launched the trio of Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost into the movie-making spotlight, it's sharp wit and wonderful homages to both genres on offer here is what keeps it relevant today, over a decade since it's release.

Pegg and Frost work and bounce dialogue off of each of so effortlessly with an endless stream of quirky jabs at each other and their surrounding environments that you could be forgiven for these characters being their actual respective persona. They serve as good company throughout the film's runtime, always welcoming what they have to say to the point where you'll be grinning hopelessly at the screen at everything, chuckling at the aforementioned punchy dialogue.

Leading onto the writing team of Wright and Pegg, the unconventional blending of comedy and horror not often seen up until that point in time is beyond refreshing. The often strict and fast pace that Shaun of the Dead handles creates this slap-happy and relentless combo that never lets up, with the surviving cast members holed up at the Winchester as quick as the outbreak starts. By no means bad, with the pace only reinforced by Wright's directorial trademarks lending to cinematography, several pans, snap zooms and dolly cams are peppered across this self-titled "rom-zom" film. 

As any self-respecting visceral zombie film, there is blood, and no shortage of it. The use of practical effects lends to the film's instinctive tone, but then with this, a man whom is attempting to gather focus in his life and revive his failing relationship. Liz first, zombies later, which comes as no surprise after learning that this film's inception came about due to Wright and Pegg, both finding that they had a mutual respect for zombies after an episode of Spaced handled a similar subject matter.

There is no words for how influential Shaun of the Dead was with it's release in the early 2000s, with the main proprietor of the zombie sub-genre George A. Romero asking Pegg and Frost to be apart of his then next film Land of the Dead... which ironically pales in comparison to this one. Whoops.

TERMINATOR: GENISYS (2015) review: "I've been waiting for you..."

Just pretend it's Friday.

If you haven't seen the trailer, consider yourself lucky...

TERMINATOR: GENISYS is the fifth film in the franchise that frankly should have ended after the second, but nevertheless here we are...

Horrific marketing campaigns aside, this film, I probably shouldn't defend it, but I honestly didn't find it anywhere near as bad or unenjoyable as other critics and audience members alike have been telling. It suffers from an unnecessarily convoluted and borderline silly plot, but only just barely saves itself with some bizarrely unexpected humour. There's a lot of it sprinkled throughout the film, and whilst humour has been no stranger to the Terminator franchise in the past, it's utilised far more in Genisys as an obvious tip of the hat for fan service, and it worked to an extent. That's as far as I can go - to an extent. 

As with everything that this does well, there's about a dozen other problems to counter-act it. For one, the lead characters with the exception of Schwarzenegger, lack charisma in almost every conceivable way. Acting is not the strong suit of this film, I'm not necessarily cutting Schwarzenegger slack for his acting ability, as he is safe to say, not the greatest. However, when he appeared on screen, all was well. Until he left and then it's back to the jarring and uninteresting plot that fiddles with the entirety of the Terminator timeline. Back to the same old and honestly incredibly repetitive premise of the two Connors and their quest to stop Judgement Day.

Yes. It's a Terminator film, but does it always have to revolve around these characters that have already been done to death? Why can't it refresh itself with a new slew of characters, perhaps a smaller division of the resistance and their struggles? There would at least be something to admire there, even if it flopped, you could say that they at least tried something new - but no, they bend and change everything that the previous films set so their plots can fit in between and it glaringly shows. This insignificant plot is squished in between all of the other Terminator timelines.

Flipping back onto the love-hate relationship with this film as the plot could be rambled over all day, with the action sequences falling flat and serving as bland for entire sequences, and some of it being unintentionally laugh out loud hilarious and mind-numbingly entertaining. The latter involving everyone's beloved Arnie, without a doubt. 

Special effects deserve a shout out also, with a majority of it looking top notch, all thanks going to the flashy budget that Genisys boasts, delivering some pretty believable set pieces and computer generated imagery, with the only thing stopping it being the uncanny valley that all humans stand upon. A sequence involving the T-800 circa 1984 is near perfect looking... until it moves. However, you could take individual frames and you could be mistaken.

"Smile..."

It is what it is, and after reading all of this you probably think that I hate Genisys, but the truth is, I don't. You could consider it the guiltiest of pleasures for Schwarzenegger alone, and that is it's saving grace, with the exception of very nice visual effects and dips and dabs of acceptable action thrown in here and there. I'm probably letting Terminator: Genisys slide off the hook too easily, probably far too easily, but after all, the Terminator franchise has seen much, much worse times. One word: Salvation.

MISGUIDED MOVIE TRAILERS: the marketing teams that show too much...

An insightful look into the wrong doings of movie trailers...

Most recently came the trailer of Terminator: Genisys, the newest and hopefully last (although probably not last) film in the Terminator franchise, notable for spoiling the film's most pivotal plot points, to the point where even the director Alan Taylor stepped in to say that the "marketing gave it all away".

The Terminator franchise is no stranger to spoilers in it's marketing: the previous entry, Salvation, also suffered a similar fate, detailing a twist pertaining towards the lead role.

These two examples and the many other examples out there stand as the reason as to why directors should be able to dictate what plot points should and should not be used for marketing. Guidelines as the video above suggests, per say.

When entire plots aren't being given away, there's the formulaic and repetitive structure that trailers seem to follow. Don LaFontaine during his lifetime cemented himself as the quintessential movie trailer voice-over, and you'll be hard pressed to find yourself a person who hasn't had the phrase "In a world..." burned into their brains. A film has had that phrase dedicated to its title. That pretty much explains it all.

Back on to the titular topic at hand, it is an issue that's occurred in trailers from their inception, with a very simple solution, yet it's never been addressed. For one - these films still do good business regardless of their marketing, not to use the recent Terminator films as a scapegoat but they both made and are currently making money hand over fist. That serves as an incentive for the marketing departments to continue as usual, as there are no negative effects to the process. There may be complaints, but the vast majority of viewers voting with their wallets are still opting to go see the movie anyway.

It's a fine balance that needs to be achieved, show enough for an audience to gain interest, but not too much so as to deter the audience, in theory. Then there's ridiculous practices such as one The Amazing Spider-Man 2 employed: watch the first 10 minutes of the film. It is the laziest and silliest marketing practice possible short of releasing the whole movie for free. So when you do go and see the film, you can just sit and let your mind go numb for the first 10 minutes whilst you wait for the boredom to pass and get on with the parts that you haven't seen. There's spoiling a scene, then there's spoiling an entire chapter.

After you've thought that I've lost focus, I pose a few points, some of which are in common with the video most nearest to the top. Restrict the length of trailers, don't give yourself the chance to give too much away. Provide a guideline that allows directors to choose which specific scenes or timecodes that cannot be altered and for the love of god, don't release the first 10 to 20 minutes of the film and call it an "extended preview" or even for that matter "good marketing".

Behold! How not to "market" your film!

SHUT UP AND PLAY THE HITS (2012) review: the very, very, very loud ending of LCD Soundsystem...

SHUT UP AND PLAY THE HITS is special, detailing the eventual build-up and great release of musician James Murphy's final show with his renowned band LCD Soundsystem, standing nothing short of touching.

Don't you want me to wake up?...

The first response from those whom have not heard of the film's subject matter is likely a groan and presumable skip. That would be a mistake. A big one, as even if you are not a fan of LCD Soundsystem, unlike myself, there's plenty to be found here. This spectacularly loud and up-beat event all on the record - and at the center of it, a surprisingly down-to-earth and easily likeable front man, attempting to cope with easing back into a normal lifestyle and waving one last goodbye to a project that's been with him for a decade. 

The interspersed narrative that starts at the end and goes back to explain itself is a touch of genius, creating that level of accessibility that allows new listeners to the band jump in and with the click of their fingers know what's going on. It's what allows the doc's often brisk pace to take shape and work fluently. 

That's only part of the beauty however, it is gorgeously shot, with some slow-motion shots thrown in there to accentuate the concert. When Dance Yrself Clean kicks in and you see Murphy sauntering on stage, you know you're in good hands. It makes it a great pleasure to look at and is worth watching alone to see some of the wonderful camera work on offer here, a trait of the documentarians behind Shut Up And Play The Hits, who have had prior experience in this sector before - and it shows. 

This serves as a fine introduction to the quirky dance-punk band that is LCD Soundsystem, hooking you on a band that no longer exists whilst simultaneously kicking yourself for not being able to witness their final hoorah at Madison Square Garden for your own eyes, as I did, similarly applying to those who were already fans, of which the effect is only heightened.

If the music struggles to please your ears, do not fret: the aforementioned focus of this doc is a brief glimpse into the end of an era for a musician, a vertical slice of what it is to get out while the goings good and perhaps regret it immediately, or maybe not. The confused and low-key nature of James Murphy's attitude is honestly charming, leading me to ask as to who could possibly hate this guy?

The end of the concert, which is coincidentally where the doc draws to a close is a tearjerker, pulling on your heart strings in every conceivable way as Murphy utters his last interminable pause as he loves New York whilst it also is bringing him down. Horrific and questionable puns aside, Shut Up And Play The Hits is a remarkable and superbly crafted doc that I would have no trouble in recommend to most, or at least those who are looking to shut up, sit down, and watch the hits.

You're still the one pool where I'd happily drown...

FROM INTERACTIVE TO PASSIVE: the all too often failure of video game movies...

A prime example of how NOT to do a video game adaptation...

Films based upon video games have seemed to have been a lost cause from the very beginning - why is that? What is it that makes it so difficult to faithfully adapt an entirely different medium and vice versa? The answer does not rest on the shoulders of Uwe Boll, that's for certain.

What is also for certain is that this article will not be added onto the pile of that is expressly written to disgrace Boll... I think every self-respecting person has had that point hammered home already.

...yeah. 

(If the title of the video doesn't give it away, watch out for some choice language in there.)

Moving swiftly on, my personal bugbear when it comes to video game adaptations is a simple one: the project is often handled by a director or crew that have either never heard of, change too much from what was expected of an adaptation or just don't care about what it is they're adapting. The adaptation of hard-boiled noir thriller Max Payne is at the forefront of this problem: whilst director John Moore expresses in several interviews about how he attempted to appeal to the fans of the game, very little of what made Max Payne what it was made it into the film. My mind swivelled through all kinds of mild insanity clauses wondering why the archetype Jim Bravura, a crooked and stubborn, most notably white detective was cast with rapper Ludacris sporting the role. Why is beyond me. It could be interpreted as attempting to mix up the formula so as to not alienate audiences or fans, but what it ends up doing is alienating both, as the dialogue is clearly written for that archetype, creating a jarring tone with the entire character.

But that was the least of Max Payne's worries...

In the basis of adaptation, books go through similar issues as video games do, albeit video games have the issue of transgressing an interactive medium to a passive medium. The same issue occurs vice versa, with video game tie-ins of films, which can come out good despite often being rushed to match the film's release.

This leads to the question teased ever so cunningly at the beginning - but how can a video game be faithfully adapted into a film? (Same applies for any other medium.) 

Respect for the source material! This goes the longest of ways for an adaptation, those who are behind it have to have respect for what they're adapting and savvy enough to know when to make compromise in order to fit it into the medium of film. What is key also is to not change what the original material provides in terms of its story or not to retcon any plot elements from said original material, but taking the material and taking it for a spin, create a new story within that universe instead of taking liberties with the material and doing a story that the original material has already done. After all, the point of adapting into a new medium is to tread new ground - not retread old ground that has frankly probably been done better before.

Sometimes however, there are just some things that should not be touched, as taking a game with barely any substance in terms of story and giving it a feature-length story is most likely going to go horrifically wrong. Here's looking at you, Street Fighter or the Super Mario Bros. movies. Those should have been left to their own wits, if you ask me.

If you're morbidly curious however, you can find the Super Mario Bros. movie in its entirety on YouTube. "Why the hell would you want to watch it, especially after what you just said?" I hear you ask, and I reply: Why the hell not? Instead of paying precious money to see it, you'll only be paying with your time, which is arguably not that precious if you watch this film with the intention of finding something more than just laughably passable.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME (1992) review & retrospective, "The last seven days of Laura Palmer..."

...better late than never?

TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME was the return to the titular town, where no one is innocent - the same goes for the critics and fans like who watched the film upon its release. No one liked it. Released in 1992, a year after the show had run its course and David Lynch at the helm once more...

What happened, and why is it celebrating critical reappraisal 20 years past its release?

The curious case with this film and the point that everyone has with Fire Walk With Me is a simple one: it has little to do with Twin Peaks, at least in style or tone. Instead it plays like standard Lynch fare - more akin to his features, with some quaint and odd echoes to his past films such as Blue Velvet, handling similar themes. It's non-linear structure and seemingly incoherent narrative lost fans, including myself on a first viewing, baffled by the images that had passed my retina. It takes a deeper look to fully appreciate what Fire Walk With Me is, which is not Twin Peaks, the goofy, loveable and ever so slightly uncomfortable look into a small town, but Twin Peaks, the horrifically dark and sinister place with the façade of an idyllic small town. The literal fourth wall breaking moment at the very beginning with the smashing of a TV screen should be enough evidence to suggest that this is to subvert expectations and play with it's own space, the big screen, not the small.

It touches upon all of the elements that would have been in Twin Peaks if it weren't on TV or more appropriately, a network looking to play it by the books, not taking any risks. Drug abuse, violence and psychological torment play key roles in this film, at the centre of it - a girl who is about to give into said torment and end her own life. It goes back to fill in the blanks, Lynch himself coining the story as not the obvious death (or at least it should be obvious) of the lead, but when. When is Laura going to die? It's this uncertainty which is what Fire Walk With Me hinges upon, it constantly unnerves you. It's that feeling that many horror films attempt to replicate - that sense of dread, you know something is going to happen, but when? When it does happen, it feels like a great release, like a burden has been lifted from your shoulders because you know that Laura is free from her torment, from the killer BOB, from her revolting nightmare.

As ultimately, when I think of this film, I have a horrible feeling inside: a feeling I have for no other film, this film disgusts me... but that's what I love about it. That's what keeps me coming back. It's taken several years for people to realise this - Fire Walk With Me exists as its own entity, detached from the TV show to show Twin Peaks from a different perspective: the disgusted and haunted perspective of Laura Palmer and how she sees it before her untimely demise. I feel as Laura does and I'm not alone in this feeling.

Looking forward now, onto the already covered subject of a revival, most fans will be clamouring for that same old goofy Twin Peaks, that is what shouldn't be expected of the return and I believe it's third season will be much more akin to this misunderstood prequel, a much, much darker approach. Either way, be it like the show or the film, or even perhaps a mix of both, I look back to Fire Walk With Me and can't help but love it, and look forward to the small screen eagerly for the return of the cult classic - but maybe in a darker light.

Under the sycamore tree...

I'm not alone in seeing past Fire Walk With Me's undeserved hatred: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11153925/Fire-Walk-With-Me-the-film-that-almost-killed-Twin-Peaks.html