The storytelling masters

Finally! Pixar's is going for "Best Picture" at the next edition of the oscars with "Toy Story 3". Not "Best Animated Picture", which they should already get by default, but the big "Best Picture" award.

And in my always humble although occasionally loud and overexcited opinion, if Pixar wants the Oscar they should be able to just have it. Not only is TS3 the best movie of this year (and one of the best movies of all time), when it comes to making movies, there really is no one else better than Pixar.

The audience has spoken, TS3 is the biggest box office hit of the last months. But of course, this can't be the only reason. It is a long time ago now that Pixar has gone beyond the boundaries of animated movies to find themselves a place between those who can tell stories better than the rest. Better, in fact, than anyone else. Pixar's professional policy to create only the best stories and to care for the audience is worth this award and more. It is not very often that one sees grown-ups laughing out loud, jumping at the edge of their seats and then crying their eyes out in the same movie. That's the emotional journey that we should always get with our ticket, and that sadly we don't. Why? Pixar are those guys who haven't forgotten what a good story well told should be like.

Oh. And trying and compare it with "Inception" is just obscene. There, I said it.

Expectations versus Experience

In the words of William Goldman, "nobody knows anything". It's interesting how sometimes you go watch a film expecting brilliance and finding disappointment, or the other way around. You never know. The fact that it may happen at all levels -and with any budget- is to me kind of refreshing, and I just wanted to give a quick example with 3 of the latest films I've seen.

Inception: A film I couldn't wait to see and that most people seem to love for reasons that escape my comprehension. A superb idea brought down by the unnecessarily numerous rules imposed by the writing and the endless explanatory movie-stopping sequences. Dreams where possibility is purely a reflection of physical forces and not human, limitless imagination. A spectacular visual effect-packed feast wasted in a merely passable experience. An experience, however, instantly turned into religious dogma by the touch of Saint Christopher Nolan, the man who made the first realistic superhero movie (apparently, the ones before don't seem to count) and became a god in the process. In short, you expect 9, get just a 5... Oh well.

The A-Team: A film I wasn't so excited about but I HAD to see (it's the A-Team, yey!). You can tell has been done for the fans, crafted with love and respect for the original characters and the TV series. Not perfect at all, but thoroughly enjoyable. See? Expect 4, get at least 8! Lovely.

And of course there's Pixar. As usual, beyond any labels or classifications. You expect 10, you usually get 12. Damn it, Toy Story 3 is a film so brilliant that makes you both laugh out loud and cry your eyes out in less than 2 hours. A story that you experience intensely, caring about the characters and living it all with them. That's what cinema should be all the time! All that despite being a 3rd part. A 3rd! Seriously, who else can make not a great 3rd part, but even an acceptable one?

You can't beat Pixar. That's the moral here, I guess. Or maybe not.

"The bigger monster" ending

As a life comic reader, I'm now living the dream, watching the endless series of comic book adaptations and looking forward to some more. Still, there's one thing I think could definitely be better: the endings! Hollywood-size endings are one thing, the careless elimination of all emotion attached to the film at that point is another completely different!

Hulk 1, Hulk 2, Iron man 1, Iron man 2, Spiderman 3. they all have painfully done the same: after generally taking the plot in a good direction, things start getting interesting and such... and then all you get in the end is... well... a big monster! Or rather, a BIGGER monster, courtesy of yet another meaningless visual effects feast.

A representative example of "The bigger

(and in this case much uglier) monster" film practice.

"So what do we have? Iron man? Hell, let's use a larger-framed armoured guy for the final battle then". "What about the character we have been developing until now?" "Forget it, waste of time".

"Hulk, huh? No problem, we'll just use a slightly more ferocious/dangerous-looking monster for this one. Easy".

"Spiderman?" "What can we do with this interesting Sandman character? Should we add another beat here and there for his relationship with her daughter...?" "Rubbish, let's just have him grow BIG! and "big-punch" Spiderman in the face. That should get people involved in the story".

(Sigh)

Not only comic-based movies do it though. Clash of the Titans presents a delightful example of it, among other things. It doesn't make it right though.

(Deep, bigger sigh)

Blake Snyder's "finale"

"I love writers" - Blake Snyder


Blake Snyder, enthusiastic screen writing guru, loving teacher and practical structure genius, died yesterday.

His seminars and his most popular book "Save the Cat" (and the only one I've read, by the way) are said to have inspired and enlightened both budding writers and established professionals. Personally, I learnt a great deal from his approach and found his words extremely useful: an excellent starting point and a light to follow when lost in the dark corridors of your own writing.


Snyder had a blind faith in writers, and an unnatural respect for an audience that, as we all should know, expects to enjoy the film they go to see. He wasn't as popular as Michael Jackson, however, so media coverage have been somewhat moderate. And so I felt I needed to do my bit by posting something here and updating wikipedia (and sobbing a little when no one was looking...). After all, he was in fact "a lot of people's Michael Jackson", and his work means a lot to quite a few of us.


I feel the best way of explaining who he was is to leave a few relevant lines directly extracted from the messages on his blog after his passing.


"We'll never know how many bad movies he saved us from"

"I am starting production this month on my feature film that wouldn’t be happening if not for Blake’s book"

"This is very sad. Blake was one of the good guys. Shared his knowledge with everyone and anyone. He’d actually email you back if you had a question"

"Blake was a great writing teacher and the first person who really got me to understand structure, but more importantly he was a really nice man and seemed genuinely interested in his students"

"Blake, you saved more than just a cat my friend. I will truly miss you"

"This reminds me that there is no tomorrow. Only today. Make the most of it"


Which takes me to the end of this post. Whatever and however small it may be, let our work on stories be the best ongoing tribute to his life we could possibly offer.

Damn, Blake, I miss you too, and I never even met you.

Revolutionary Road

Leo and Kate's world of pure suffering.

One of the reasons I keep devouring stories in general, and films in particular is that I firmly believe that the authors always have something to say, something worth being heard. A powerful message, if you may, about their view of life. A revelation to present the audience with, so we can leave the room with that “wow, life is just like that” feeling.

This message may be positive or negative, but it should always be believable within the reality of the film. I confess I rather prefer a positive one. Or, if negative, at least with a tiny bit of hope hidden somewhere, I rather not leave the room feeling miserable. But I understand some audiences may enjoy this and, in any case, it doesn't matter: it's your message, isn't it?

According to Justin Haythe (writer) and Sam Mendes (director), life is just too painful to be lived, too full of suffering and sorrow as to find the time to enjoy, create or love. We are hit with a most melodramatic picture of everyday events in a script that fails to create actual conflicts and believable drama. In such a farce, the luxury of the intense performances given by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio are outrageously wasted.

Fans of the actors will undoubtedly enjoy it, of course, and such an effort certainly deserves recognition. But the story itself contributes nothing, neither to the film history wealth, nor to the poor audience's expectations, that are likely to feel rather down after the show, or even mad at the whole world for no apparent reason, just like the protagonist couple.

The Spirit

The film that wasn't such.


If you think you can make a film with:

• A comic-book artist whose graphic style may be something of a legend in his world but has no idea whatsoever about how to direct a film.

• A couple of rough guidelines scribbled on paper, too weak to even be called story plot.

• Dialogue lines that, for the most part, try to be clever but come off as ridiculous, absurd and embarrassing to everyone involved in the film and their families. Including yourself for watching it.

• A female cast dressed up as prostitutes and whose only requirement is too look sexually attractive so that the promotional posters work. Never mind their professional reputation (it's just Scarlett Johansson, Eva Mendes, Paz Vega ... who even knows them anyway?). And don't worry about the actual film, they'll just be given any line we can come up with in the set, nobody will notice.

• Yet another silly, empty character played by Samuel L. Jackson, who seems to be more resolved than ever to flush what is left of his believability down the toilet.

Well, if you do think you can make a film with all this, then you are wrong. They just tried in The Spirit and failed miserably. Whatever this by-product is, it can't even be considered a film.

I personally think that, as his tribute to his admired Will Eisner (the creator of the original character, who is probably turning in his grave since opening day), instead of creating this pointless sequence of events, Frank Miller should have been as humble as to politely say "no, thank you, get an actual director" to the offer. And same with the actors. I can't believe that they actually read the script and didn't just kill their respective agents for getting it in the first place.

Not even the visual aspect can be praised here. Yes, it replicates Miller's style faithfully, but we already saw that in Sin City (oh, no, parts 2 and 3 are coming!) and there was no need of repeating it if there was nothing else to add in any other sense. At no point is there any sign of efforts for making something that the audience might like.

All things considered, The Spirit may be the worst comic-book-based film ever. Apart from an insult to moviegoers.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa

Alive.

Two things make Madagascar 2 stand out from the usual offer of 3D animation films. The script and the performances (performances? excuse me? I though it was a “cartoon”??). I'll start by the second one instead of the first so as to test if you are alert and engaged, while adding a bit of chaos.

The characters no longer seem to be animated as such at any point. Instead, they now look a lot more natural, and act and move as naturally and effortlessly as yourself (unless of course you are one of those couch potato persons, in which case you can consider that they would easily beat you at that). We often find them trusting comments to other characters, and struggling with their emotions. At times, they even look like their voice actors (I'm certain Ben Stiller would move LIKE THAT if he was a lion). They are alive.

As for the script, we are presented with an enjoyable story with overtones of friendship, love and family. Don't throw up yet. They manage to make it enjoyable and not too cheesy, and top it up with a couple of the most beautifully dialogued scenes seen so far not just in an animated film, but in any film. And this is the key.

3D films have come a long way. More and more, secure in satisfying technological frames by now, 3D-film filmmakers seem to concentrate more and more in something else apart from the animation and the looks themselves, which can only be beneficial for the audience. I see Madagascar 2 as a potential milestone in animation, just as Toy Story 2 -the first script for one of these films to win a Golden globe for best comedy/musical- or, of course, The Incredibles -whose script was also nominated, this time for an oscar, unfortunately but fairly lost out to the exquisite Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, only against another giant could The Incredibles fall!-. Moreover, this existing technological situation, combined with animators' skills and creativity, is meant to keep providing us not only with lots of animation films to come, but with good films. Closer and closer to this academy award for “3D character performance” now.

And yes, the rest is all as expected (I now, I digress). Like in the first "episode", fun characters, simple but very personal visual style and very fast pace. There always seem to be something happening, and the camera is always there to capture it. Go watch it.

Quantum of Solace

When change is GOOD.

While keeping the idea of the intelligent, elegant British secret agent that bad guys can't possibly outsmart and ladies can't possibly refuse going to bed with, Daniel Craig makes a much more believable spy than any other James Bond (if not excessively British, okay, but wasn't Sean Connery Scotish?).

Although in this new new “episode”, Bond's heroic deeds seem to be more diluted in visual effects than in Casino Royal, and lacking the memorable scenes (like the opening and the poison scene -tremendous, see it-), Quantum of Solace is still a very valid film, and so is the new Bond generation, to which I can't help to dedicate a few more paragraphs...

Mark Forster's new Bond is very capable, you can see he undertook a tough training to become a “00”, yet he struggles in his own over-human way. Believable-yet-amazing is always better than spectacular just for the sake of it.

Leaving aside the exaggerate advertising campaign that has flooded our lives for the past month, I like to think that the secret to keep such an old character “in” doesn't lay in the more spectacular approach visual-effects-wise, or the additional violence added to the series. But in the daring but necessary time re-location of the character and, of course, in the fact that the new Bond stories, unlike the classic ones, move forward and force the characters to grow, evolve, or even die.

It would look like what a few years ago wasn't but a moribund franchise still has a lot more fuel to keep going. In the days of degrading narrative and worshippers of J.K Rowling, this is something to be looking forward to. Too bad that in this second new film visual effects have such a patent, visible prominence, when it wasn't really called for.

The strangers

Not very surprisingly, just disappointing.

Another dull “horror” film built with easy scary scenes and with nothing else behind to back up the sensationalistic series of events.

But rather than being utterly unnecessary, the actual problem is realising that no one even tried to create anything minimally original or even worth of the genre at any point.

As usual, it is the poor audience, lured into the cinema with attractive, promising posters and expectation-creating commercial slogans, who suffers the ultimate disappointment.

On the plus side, the protagonist couple (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler) is really good-looking, and their mere sight will delight the audience greatly. Which must be rewarding for the producers, since, given the rest of this uni-dimensional product, this seems to be the one aspect they were concerned about.

Hellboy 2: The golden army

Yep. I'll do it this way because I can.

Once more that beautiful word, “respect”, comes to mind. Respect to an author like Hellboy-creator Mike Mignola, who has earned the reverence of his peers and the interest of readers all over the world with his solid and original characters, and his very personal, apparently simple and yet so complex style and enjoyable stories. But also, respect to the audience, us. We don't go to the cinema to watch a bad film, we subconsciously expect the best and, if rightfully feel disappointed when we don't get it, we may even feel betrayed when we are lured to a film with false hopes and lies.

In the comic-book, Hellboy -despite his appearance- is quite a human character. His believability and sense of humour contrasts with the very essence of his stories, in which he often sees himself involved with mystery, darkness and monstrous creatures, while remaining someone we can identify with.

Director Guillermo del Toro and his producers take all this and, quite lightly, turns it all into a mixture of forms and colours where you can hardly identify which character is which. After the success of Pan's labyrinth, he, apparently backed up by Mignola himself, seems to think that the key to a good film is to pack it with his typical creatures, and so he creates an unrealistic (but not fantastic) and more often than not even ridiculous world populated by dozens of ugly monsters, supposedly ON creativity's sake. Characters' arcs are clumsy and vague, as are their personalities (so to say). Over and over again, we are forced to see visual and make-up effects which are so careless most of the time that one would think that not even the crew liked the film, not even during the making.

In other circumstances, this Hellboy 2 would only be a poor film. Being an adaptation, however, it denotes either a complete lack of interest or too lax a criteria when working with someone else's character. This is an offense to good, solid stories (like the original Hellboy's), and to the audience.

Let's be professional. If adapting, let's do serious research before embarking ourselves in this fascinating although dangerous journey of transformation. OR let's create our own characters and then, if we so wish, let's destroy (or rape!) them. But in this case, don't expect the audience to come back for Hellboy 3.

Wall-e

They would never let us down.

Pixar, the production company responsible for diamonds like Toy Story, Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, keeps doing it. They keep making compelling human stories with each of their films. And they do it with all of us in mind, knowing what we like, how we understand stories, what is too obvious and must be discarded, or what is too clever and might go overlooked. How we react to what happens on the screen. They know their job. After decades of film making, we should be able to delight our senses with this level of craft all the time, to find that our likes have been learnt from and respected for making the next film in line. But the reality is different, and the nature of the business often causes the beautiful entertainment side of it to be undervalued. The capability of keep respecting us as spectators, rather than any other compliment that I could try to fill this article with, is what makes Pixar special.

Wall-e, the most tender and human of all the robots, lives his adventure among a full set of human and robot characters that move us, make us hold our breath, smile and laugh out loud. Some of them, we only see for seconds, but even so, they often become a story in themselves, and rarely aren't examples in characterisation.

Nothing to say about the 3D itself. As usual, Pixar makes it all believable. And this is the greatest achievement. The animation becomes reality and, when it comes to characters, beautiful performance. Computer generated actors will have to qualify for an academy award one day if we want to make this world a little bit less imperfect, just like Wall-e attempts to do with its ending moral in the film.

Wall-e is one the films one can't miss. However, despite its brilliance, the incredible The Incredibles is still the best Pixar ever made. To me anyway. Maybe it's the patent division between the two parts of the film in Wall-e (although it doesn't affect the rhythm greatly), or maybe it's just a personal priority for the genre. By the way, when I wrote the review for The Incredibles, the article turned into an ode in the end too...

Robots

(IMPORTANT: This is an old review. No matter how fast you run, it won't be showing at the local cinemas when you get there. You can always get in on DVD though...)

”Robots”, the latest 3D production by “Twentieth Century Fox”, is built on a too obvious and little original story which eventually turns out to be only and excuse to fill the screen with lots of colourful robots during almost two hours.

It’s a true shame when something like this happens. The audience is asking for more and is actually able to absorb much more content. And since this need doesn’t disappear during the movie –because the script is too simple, like it was only meant for our kid brother- we appreciate the always amazing 3D environment but don’t enjoy it as much as we should.

Still, the film offers some hilarious moments, until we bitterly find out almost all the jokes are based on the fact that the characters are living machines and start to hate them. Again, this helps us to unconsciously switch our attention to different things; like the music, for instance (which is really enjoyable, by the way, but this is beside the point).

The messy cast contains millions of unnecessary characters, each of them with a different colour, slightly different shape and seldom showing more than one sign of personality. The good guys are kind and pleasant and have many merry friends; the bad guys have no feelings and of course no friends. Inside this context the audience doesn’t get to believe in them, since neither of them seem to have powerful motivations nor even show a different facet at some point.

On the other hand, our senses are delighted by a feast of 3D graphics, credibly created and satisfactory animated (along the lines of the fast and vivacious “Ice Age”). After a while, however, so many robots on the screen at the same time become tiring and pointless, as it happened before even with the numerous armies of evil creatures in the multi-award-winner “The lord of the Rings”.

As a computer-generated film, we must say that, although the 3D effects are in general believable (except maybe that oil which doesn’t convince completely…), “Robots” is not as daring as other recent products in regard to virtual effects development. By the time it was released, “Shrek” came up with the best liquid effects; “The Incredibles”, along with many other improvements, contained the first attempt to use create human character for the whole cast. But, what is it that “Robots” has to offer as its new and revolutionary contribution?

When the script heavily arrives at the ending, we are given the oldest and most overused message of the film history: “Be yourself”. Unfortunately, we are quite fed up with the movie in question by then and feel our intelligence has been insulted in some way. I wonder if even the little kids won’t feel the same.

In short, few surprises in a film which probably shouldn’t have been made and undoubtedly deserves oblivion.

See here the original Canalmanchester format.

The Happening

Whatever you do, don't insult the audience.

It is hard to imagine a film worse than The Happening.

The seemingly endless series of scenes itself seems to get lost in nonsenses. The script is over-dramatic and incoherent. The acting, painfully executed through some of the most senseless lines of the film history, is just terrible. Both main actors, Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel give very poor performances, sadly matching the quality of the story. We can almost feel the pain as we watch in astonishment, denying what our eyes see, and force ourselves to smile before a few scattered jokes. This is a film that doesn't move forward. Nearly every scene of the film is either unnecessary, or badly built, or both. Ridiculous moments and easy scare shots degrade the genre and insult the public over and over.

Before watching this film, after seeing the promising trailer, one would want to go out of his way to compliment M. Night Shyamalan, director of The Sixth Sense and would even be inclined to forgive his momentary slip-up with the lamentable The Village. But the truth is that, in The happening, the script is as weak as the directing work. And the actors' delivery is just one of many tokens of it.

Out of respect to filmmakers who love what they do and make films for intelligent audiences, films like this should, quite simply, not be made.