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

TWIN PEAKS revival in 2016... scratch that... 2017: what made it so special to begin with?

I'll see you again in 25 years...

Twin Peaks was and still is a pretty perfect example of a cult phenomenon - still maintaining a large enough following over 25 years later, rife for a comeback, which is indeed happening after a brief scare involving David Lynch's departure and subsequent boycott. Crisis averted.

Enough baseless appraisal. What is it that made Twin Peaks so memorable? How is it that such a short-lived stint on America's then third place broadcast network could attract such a following?

One simple thing: character, for me at least. Everything within Twin Peaks reeks of character, even it's idyllic setting, but from the moment you're introduced to the FBI's Dale Cooper, you are succumbed to intrigue as he blabbers away diligently to his tape recorder also known as Diane. This quirk alone builds the charm that is ultimately Cooper, a charisma so great it becomes nigh impossible not to like him. This follows onto each of passing characters and their locale, crafting a sense of nostalgia, this coming from a viewer whom only stumbled upon this show in recent years.

It is simply Lynch's masterpiece, as together with partner Mark Frost, the two created a balance, notably restraining Lynch's abstract nature in his films, allowing the show to have a goofy quality that adds to its unique nature. On the note of restrictions, the restrictions of the show being on ABC and of course the show's downfall due to the network's incompetence more than anything is what hampered it's progress, in addition to the waning interests of both of the show's creators during the second season and horrific anti-climax during said season. This lead to that 25 year unsolved cliffhanger (that I thankfully wasn't even in existence to wait for), which will finally be resolved with the show's return, with the passage of time hopefully being manipulated to the show's benefit, seeing these bizarre and often juvenile characters pushing the envelope of grand or great grandparents.

Leading onto the cultural impact Twin Peaks brought, it's had countless references and parodies as well as influenced all forms of media, ranging from it's habitat of television, film and video games, with video games taking up a large percentage of the influence with such lovely titles as Alan Wake, Deadly Premonition or a ham-fisted reference in Gone Home that take liberties from the series whilst being their own unique property. It's not only what Twin Peaks brought to it's audiences from it's own face-level existence, but the aforementioned director behind it: David Lynch, but not his own individual talent, but the prospect of a big screen director coming to the small screen. Whilst now you have directors such as Martin Scorsese behind shows such as Boardwalk Empire and going so far as to praise television as the next great medium, it was a different story with this show's conception in 1990. Television was largely avoided by film makers up until that point, opting to stick with the one-time feature-length experience, missing out on the benefit of a lengthy continuous story that can grow over time, instead of being condensed into one sitting.

There is oh so much more that can be said about Twin Peaks, with it's return to be welcomed by the collectively open arms of it's fan base, with a final note to the fan base being: don't be surprised if the new series is more in the vein of Fire Walk With Me, which I myself would not be all too saddened by. Only more excited.

"Diane, 11:30 A.M. February, 24th. Entering the town of Twin Peaks..."

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002) review, "People are just crazy in this world..."

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is a 2002 film starring Adam Sandler, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman, written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. This follows the bizarre Barry Egan, a novelty toilet-plunger salesman who finds himself caught in love with his sister’s co-worker and that's only the surface.

----------

A heartily different and trend defying film, Punch-Drunk Love is often considered the best of Paul Thomas Anderson’s films. There’s only one problem with it, at least initially…

Adam Sandler stars as Barry Egan, as aforementioned. His performance can only be considered a remarkable flair, a once in Sandler’s lifetime performance as it will sadly never be seen again. He plays his role as a frustrated dead-end worker perfectly for what is intended in the film and it is astonishing. It shows purely that Adam Sandler can act, but chooses not to. The late Roger Ebert put it quite simply at the film’s release: “He can’t go on making those moronic comedies forever, can he?” The answer to that supposedly rhetorical question being yes.

Emily Watson and the also late Philip Seymour Hoffman co-star, as Barry’s love interest and antagonist respectively. Both in contrasting roles and therefore both exceptional for contrasting reasons. Watson is charming, unassuming and bizarrely understanding of Barry, proving the age old saying that opposites attract. She is understated in her role, and ultimately brings to her character that less is more. Hoffman however, is over the top in every conceivable manner in the best way possible. Sleazy, just as the business he runs and at one point in a shouting and very explicit verbal battle with Barry, seeing him on screen brings an uncomfortable feeling also.

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, it is a delightfully quirky script with absurd dialogue passed around as if it is common place and uncharacteristic set pieces involving a crash and broken windows aplenty. It feels almost fairy tale, or if it set in its own fictional world where faces and broken language do the talking instead of the conventional niceties that we are accustomed to in the real world. It is difficult to explain, but easy to understand. An unnerving tone throughout the script and direction keeps you oddly on the edge of your seat and sometimes cringing away from the screen, traits not typically seen in a romantic comedy. It’s a P.T.A. film through and through. Adding onto the direction and that ever so distinct unnerving tone, characters move and act in a very specific way, as if his vision has come to fruition just as he wanted, the mark of a great director, you look at one frame of this film and you can tell what it is.

Score is by Jon Brion, once a regular with Anderson and later providing incredible scores on forthcoming films such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Synecdoche, New York. This may just be his best work, as when you think of this film in addition to the frame, you think of the score. Repetitive and at a constant unease with high-pitched world beat instruments, it creates a sound that is astoundingly unique and completes the silly world that is Punch-Drunk Love.

Overall, Punch-Drunk Love on the surface doesn't sound like a romantic comedy, or a good one at that. It isn't. It’s more than that, the showcase of a usually limited actor, a twist on a tired and balding genre, a wonderfully personal stamp on cinema. Punch-Drunk Love is that.

"You can go places in the world with pudding... that's funny."

TRUE DETECTIVE returns in it's second season blues: a plea against early judgement...

I can't say I'm alone in saying that the first True Detective was an unexpected delight, taking actors not known for their dramatic gravitas and putting them in just that - a fascinating character study between Rust Cohle and Martin Hart, Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, the latter set of names eventually forgotten as you, or I at least, came to love their fictional counter parts in all their fatal flaws.

Past the acclaim of the first, in comes the second. Troubled from the beginning, the fledgling second season had big shoes to fill after the news of it becoming an anthology. A clean slate for another story to be told - daring to say the least. The hype was and still is insurmountable for the second after the first, which seems to be deeply disappointing fans and critics alike. With only the first episode aired as of this writing, the picture hasn't been fully painted yet; this is the pilot, our introduction into the world that is far too early to be properly judged, a point that some publications don't seem to understand.

You look through any articles relating to the return of True Detective and you will only find the words "bad" and "disappointing" scattered through each piece, and this to a certain degree is true, but as aforementioned, it is far too early to tell.

From my perspective, this second coming is promising. It struggles to find footing, each of the characters flailing for a plot point to grasp onto which was finally answered by the four star-studded and solidly acted vignettes intertwining by the episode's end. The mutual connection to one Ben Casper. The atmosphere and look is as thick and enriched as ever, from the second the entrancing riff of Leonard Cohen's "Nevermind" kicks in, you know you're in for a ride, regardless of it's prioritisation of style over substance. This is Nic Pizzolatto's show through and through, it's made clear that this is exactly what he wanted, even from this first vertical slice, and that is admirable to say the least.

Retreating back past my potential hypocrisy to my previous ham-fisted moral: reserve your full judgement until the story is told, yes, do have your opinions and thoughts on each of the episodes as they come, but don't treat them as if it is representative for the entire season until the entire season is here. TV critics prove to be frustrating, putting their foot down before the picture is present - colouring the minds of viewers before the viewers themselves get a chance to form their own opinion on the basis of a three episode head start.

The blame is not on the critics to be perfectly honest, as while aggregate review scores on sites such as Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes have their place, they are taken far too seriously by some.

After all, it's not about what others think including myself. It's about what you think. However, consider this: give the second a chance, and for the love of god, don't compare it to the first, as it's not trying to be what it was before, but what it is now.

"I was not caught, I crossed the line..."

Check back for more thoughts about the second True Detective past it's finale on August 9. Then a conclusive tale can be told...