Is it good?

Last week, I decided to watch a couple of films I've been meaning to watch for a while. You know how it is, something always comes up, and then you forget.

I started with American Hustle (2013).

To me this is a very interesting movie. It is extremely well done, capturing the 70's incredibly well. Cinematography, acting, story etc, are all satisfying, but for some reason I still don't like it. I don't know why though. I've tried to pin down the reason but I can't.

There is no one thing that I could point to and say “look at that, that's just terrible”. In fact, I really like many of the scenes, but over all... Not my movie. Which is weird, since I generally love heist/con movies.

So you need to give this one a shot yourself. I certainly recommend it, since I should love it, but I don't. Go see it.

Then I scratched a much older movie off my list with Boogie Nights (1997).

I've heard a lot about this movie, and being that it's about the adult movie scene in the late 70's and early 80's, it's not a child friendly movie in any way. Was it good? No, not really.

The acting is good though, and the cinematography is excellent, but the story is predictable and the balance is way off.

Spoiler Time

We follow a young man as he becomes a star in the world of adult cinema. He's a natural and quickly becomes rich and famous. But he gets into progressively harder drugs and looses his career. And my biggest problem is that his rise goes by pretty quickly and then the fall takes forever. An it's not only unpleasant to watch, it's tedious as well.

So I can't recommend Boogie Nights. Sure it wasn't a waste of time, but I could have been watching something better with out a doubt, and so can you.

I'm off to watch more movies, so until I see you again, have a great week!

True Detective 2

This winter past I blogged about the first season of True Detective. In order to save you some time I'll recap here: I absolutely loved it!

So when the second season rolled around, I was pretty exited to watch it. And that's what today's post is all about, season 2 of True Detective.

To start, I'd like to say that the two seasons have nothing to do with each other. Not a damn thing. So one mustn't compare them, if at all possible. For me, it wasn't entirely possible, but to be fair they really have to be judged alone. So here we go:

The acting is good, and I liked the choice of actors and the characters they play. Everyone did what they were supposed to do, no complaints. Well, one small complaint. Every one of the main characters in this season did several really dumb things. And at times these choices felt a bit forced. But to be fair, they were all under tremendous amounts of pressure, and you don't always make the right call when you're coming apart at the seams. You'll have to make up your own mind here.

The general atmosphere is amazing, easily in my mind the best thing about the season. Where season 1 wallowed in rural decay and isolation, season 2 is all about the urban hellscape. Dirty, harsh, noisy and brutal, it's a marvelous depiction of the urban jungle. Full points here, A+.

The main plot though, is extremely convoluted. Even while binge watching, I had a hard time following it at times. But the story is good, so hang in there. My biggest complaint is that originally the 2^nd season was to be about the occult history of the American transport system, or something like that. If you choose to view occult in it's original meaning i.e. hidden, then yeah, that's kind of what the season is about. I'm however more used to interpreting occult as supernatural and that this season isn't.

There were times when I thought we'd get something at least mystical, but if there was any, I missed it.

My biggest complaint over all, is the ending. The final episode clocks in at around 90 minutes and it ties up all the loose ends. But here more than anywhere else, characters make those silly decisions and I didn't like it. I even predicted several events way ahead of time, and was sadly correct.

It maybe that the creator Nic Pizzolatto was rushed for time. Nothing felt out of place and wrong, but I've come to expect so much more from him, and here's where I foolishly compare the two seasons with each other. The S1 had many moments that were true heavy hitters, something that was lacking in S2, even though there were a few. S1 was honed and polished until it shone lie an evil jewel, and S2 is more like an alternative, more brutal take on The Wire. Not that being compared to The Wire is in any way a bad thing, it's just that these are two different shows, and should remain so.

Over all, season 2 is absolutely worth watching as long as you are thoroughly aware that it is not season 1 and never will be. Had the two seasons been switched, with S1 as S2, I think the pressure on Mr. Pizzolatto to create season 3 would be inhuman. Season 1 is better, yes, but season 2 is good. Go watch it.

That's it good folks, until next time, have a truly nice week!

Zombie Fairy Tales

A couple of weeks ago, BookBub informed me that a book called Zombie Fairy Tales: TheComplete Collection was on sale.

My first reaction was: Really, it's zombie fairy tales now? But I also remembered how much I enjoyed both Pride, Prejudice & Zombies, as well as it's prequel Dawn of the Dreadfuls. So I decided that a dollar wasn't too much of gamble and I picked it up.

I can without hyperbole state that it is a fantastic book, really amazing. Kevin Richey has done an incredible job seamlessly weaving together all the different fairy tales into one open, shared world and then unleashing the zombies in the mix.

I'm by no means a stranger to zombie fiction, but I found things in this book that were new and interesting to me. What really caught my fancy though, was how so many of these over-familiar stories like Cinderella, Pinocchio, Red Riding Hood, Beauty and The Beast etc. are combined with characters like Bluebeard, The Headless Horseman and Countess Bathory, and it just works. Then when you add zombies and plague to the mix, all hell breaks loose.

When I say all hell, I truly mean it. This is the goriest book I've read in years. Even though it doesn't dwell too much on the grisly carnage, there's something gruesome on almost every page. If that's a problem for you, stay far away from Zombie Fairy Tales.

But to be fair, the gore is necessary. If Mr. Richey had left it out, the book would have been too dry and dull. Besides, the original versions of the classic fairy tales were brutal, sometimes in the extreme.

The way in which all these characters live (and die) in one shared world is wonderful. This means that as the book progresses, the story becomes more convoluted without ever becoming complicated. Each chapter is sort of stand alone, but most characters show up more frequently as the book continues, but never just for show. There's always a reason.

I really can't explain too much more without running into spoiler territory, but if any of what I just said sounds interesting, please read this book. You won't be sorry.

That's all he wrote for this time, so until we see each other again, have a great week!

Trailers pt. 2

Last week we talked a bit about the history of the movie trailer. This week we focus on different kinds of trailers.

First up we should separate them into three different camps; honest, misleading and dishonest trailers.

An honest trailer shows you what the movie is about, plain and simple. There's not much else to say, except that the biggest problem an honest trailer can have is when it shows too much. I still remember when I went to the movies back in 1996 and saw the trailer for The Rock. I turned to my friend and told him that this was either the whole movie or it would be the best action film of all time. As it turned out, it was pretty much the whole movie.

Misleading trailers don't outright lie, but they present a distorted version of the film. Like showing a scene with a famous actor, giving the impression that (s)he is prominently featured in the film, when in reality that is the only scene the actor is present.

There is a fine line between the misleading trailer and the dishonest trailer. But when it is crossed, you do not get to see the film you thought you were going to. Studios usually use these when a famous actor is riding high on a particular genre, but suddenly makes a movie that's very different. They know that audiences will flock to see a new movie like the previous ones so they shift the trailers focus and outright lie.

Studios also lie in the trailer if they become concerned that the audience won't like a movie, but since it's already made they can't shelve it without loosing all their money.

An example of when the trailer shows scenes that aren't in the film at all is Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988). The trailer shows Steve Martin pushing a small boy off a pier into the water, while Michael Caine shoves an ice-cream into a girls face, all while strolling down the street. This scene is not in the film.

Apart from these three categories we have the teaser trailer. The teaser is usually cut together from early footage and it's sole function is to give you a rough idea of the movie. Just enough to whet your appetite, or as the name implies, to tease you. Teasers can be misleading and dishonest, but they are usually so short and abstract that it's unfair to categorize them as such.

If you remember last weeks post, I mentioned that the Jazz Singer had a seven minute trailer. Now these days that's impossible, partially because no advertiser would make a commercial that long, but also because the MPAA forbids it. According to them, a trailer can be no longer than two and a half minutes long. Every major studio gets to exceed this once per year, and only if it is really necessary.

Apart from the length of the trailers, the MPAA also hands out the so called bands for the trailers. Not musical bands, mind you, but the usually green splash screen that appears before the trailer starts. The following preview has been approved... you know how they go. The green band denotes a trailer that conforms to all MPAA's rigid demands concerning content, including profanity, nudity, violence etc.

If the trailer does not conform, it gets a red band, denoting that it's for mature audiences only. You may have seen these though they are fairly rare, if not as rare as the yellow band, intended for internet only trailers. The yellow band is so rare, that I can't find more than screenshots of them.

Now I'm not saying that making a trailer is in any way easy, but it seems to me that Hollywood is getting worse at making them. It seems that the trailer for the newest Terminator film, Genisys, spoils the major twist in the movie. Yeah, that's smart... Sure I prefer an honest trailer above all, but don't spoil the twist, or even hint that there is a twist.

That's it for this subject and today's post. So until next time, have a great week!

Trailers pt.1

Trailers, we've all seen trailers. Love them or hate them, they are an essential part of the film industry. However you feel about them, trailers are as old as cinema itself, right? Or, in fact older, if you accept that the first trailer was for the theater.

In 1913, Nils Granlund handled advertising for the Loew Theater chain and in November that year he produced a short film as advertising for The pleasure seekers. It was made up of actual rehearsal footage, and it became a huge success, setting a trend for the cinema that's, still today, extremely active.

In those days, trailers were shown after the movie, thus the name trailer as they trailed after the feature presentation, but the problem was that the audience tended to leave after the film was done. Therefore they started showing them before the film, to what is essentially a captive audience.

Of course, the earliest days of cinema was the silent era, so it wasn't until the talkies came along, pioneered by The Jazz Singer (generally considered the first talkie) in 1927 that trailers started to bloom. The jazz singer had a whopping seven minute long trailer, something unthinkable by today's standards.

As the film makers got more used to making trailers, they added a new feature to them, or rather between them: cartoons. The perhaps greatest example of these were the old Looney Tunes shorts. If you ever wondered why Bugs, Daffy, etc. sometimes addresses the theater, it's for this reason. They were never intended to be seen at home.

From between approximately 1920 to the end of the 50's all trailers were made by National Screen Service, who had ironclad contracts with everyone on Hollywood. These trailers invariably show scenes from the film covered with huge letters like THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD and dramatic stuff like that, and they were accompanied by voice overs equally bombastic.

With the eventual demise of the NSS, trailers started to become more artistic and unpredictable. Stanley Kubrick led the way here with his trailer for Doctor Strangelove, but it wasn't until Spielberg’s Jaws in 1975 that the trailer starts to look modern in our eyes. Jaws is basically the first blockbuster, and it's only fitting that it's trailers were equally groundbreaking. Universal used $1.8 million promoting the film, including an incredible $700,000 on television advertising alone with two dozen 30-second advertisements airing each night on prime-time TV.

Other noteworthy trailers at the time were Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, George Lucas's Star Wars and Ridley Scott's Alien. The modern trailer was well and truly born.

Here the history of the trailer becomes a bit muddy, but standouts include Independence Day for showing a major spoiler (the white house being destroyed) and The Blair Witch Project for breaking open the door for the found footage genre, with the added bonus of using the internet as a part of the trailer campaign.

Naturally the scope of this post is woefully inadequate to properly analyze this subject, so I have to cut it short here. We'll continue next time, so until then, have a great week!