MISE EN CRIMESCENE

I writing this today to say goodbye to one of the most genuinely great shows of our time. Unless you haven’t been on the internet recently, you’ll know there is a huge nostalgic craze over teens and adults watching kid’s cartoons. Now a lot of these are anomaly as to why they are popular among this fanbase. My Little Pony for example has one of the most varied and strange fanbases of any show, though I really don’t think there is anything in it that is better than any other average kids show. Shows like Adventure Time and Regular on cartoon network have been appealing to adults with weird non-linear and sporadic storytelling. But nowhere do I think we have found the perfect child and adults tv show in Disney’s Gravity Falls. Back before my time, Kids movies and shows were full of creativity, risk taking and moments that push the boundaries of what was allowed in children’s entertainment. Movies like Labyrinth and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, explored dark themes and really felt like they were not trying to talk down to children. Something a lot of children’s entertainment does not do as much. In fact a lot of the decisions in recent kid’s films have been clearly lead by selling toys, pandering to the audience and repeating boring cliché plot devices. Just take the Minions in Despicable Me, after they became a world-wide phenomenon, almost every following animation movie seemed to try and create a similarly cute and sellable character. Even Pixar’s Brave tried and failed to recreate this in the 3 bear cub children characters. With decisions like that it’s no surprise that Brave was one of the most poorly received Pixar’s projects (Wreck it ralph should have won the Oscar.) So in this very money lead and seemingly stale kid’s entertainment, in huge part spearheaded by Disney, it is very refreshing to see Disney commission a show like this. Why is Gravity Falls so great? It has jokes that make me laugh more than any average American sitcom. It has a great voice cast including Kristen Schaal, Nick Offerman and guest voices from Louis CK, Weird Al, Neil Degrass Tyson, they all give hilarious and often unrecognisable performances. The lead characters are so likeable. Dipper is a neurotic 30 year old in a kids body, Mabel a crazed cute overload to the point of diminishing returns and Alex Hirsh’s character’s Soos and Gruncle Stan steal every single seen they are in. Alex Hirsh is the creator of the show. He has injected a spirit and mystery into the imaginary setting, adding clues and puzzles for the viewers to solve. Not since Twin Peaks, has a show created such a really interesting layered and creepy world. It seems weird to compare a Disney show to Twin Peaks, but in a lot of ways it is a valid comparison. In short I highly recommend spending the time to watch the 40 episode 2 season run as even though there are a few filler episodes, which are always still good for some really creative and hilarious jokes but a mystery that actually challenges, scares and inspires a fan-base of children and adults alike.    

For years and years there had been rumours of a Deadpool movie in development hell, since then we have had scripts leaking, test footage. Eventually this has all culminated in a positive fan reaction and the greenlight for a Deadpool movie. With Deadpool being one of the most abrasive and hard to pin down characters in the comic book world. This film had a lot to live up to.

Let me preface this by saying I liked the movie, I think a lot of people will love the movie. But I really think Deadpool does the bare minimum it can. It is a safe Deadpool movie that is simultaneously trying to please the original comic fans and a new audience, without most of the actual risk from the comics. In fact I think the movie tries to pander to the internet phenomenon of Deadpool rather than try and tell and interesting story with the limitless device that Deadpool is. Like I said I liked the movie, I just think there was so much more potential that was not reached with this character. Straight from the get go, I was slightly worried, because the first half of the movie was almost surprise less because of the trailers. Most of the scenes were in the trailers and even if jokes were extended or there were some comedic set pieces, nothing was surprising or new to the audience (who had seen the trailers) this makes you disconnect with the story because you know where the plot is going for the first half and the jokes are just filling in the gaps. The jokes that often go for the easy vulgar humour when there is so much potential for smarter, more layered or even physical comedy. Like it is an important part of the comics that Deadpool is very sexual and vulgar, but when the same sort of joke is repeated again and again it loses its charm.

While I do think the film doesn’t always take the easy route, it doesn’t try to pander to a PC audience, it flat out makes cancer jokes without flinching. This has already gone down surprisingly well in a movie landscape that is normally too shy to make fictional characters offensive. However the film didn’t take many risks after this fact. The film is constantly telling the audience it’s not a “typical” superhero movie. But apart from the offensive jokes and r-rated content, which isn’t particularly new in recent superhero films. (This has been done more effectively in Matthew Vaughn’s Kickass and James Gunn’s Super as well as many other r-rated superhero films.) The film just follows a lot of safe, re-used plot, the same safe re-used plot it seemingly criticised in the opening credits. That’s where I have the biggest problem with the film’s use of Deadpool’s trademark meta syndrome.

It is great to use a self-aware character to turn to the camera and tell the audience the film is not typical and not ordinary, but the film has actually got to deliver on those promises. The film at the beginning lists off troupes of Superhero movies instead of the cast. For example the bad guy is billed as “British Villain” but the film makes no attempt to make the villain more interesting than the very troupe it is parodying. The same can be said about the female lead, Morena Baccarin, who is shown to not be a normal female lead, becomes a plot motivation for the lead male character, the same as in most superhero or male lead action films. In fact more time is spent trying to show her as a subverted stereotype that the writing omits giving her much actual character. Even the final climatic fight scene of the film is so predictable, boring and riskless for this movie. It ignores the principle of show not tell, but telling us it’s a wacky off the wall movie but showing us the same plot devices of every superhero movie. I think Deadpool is a fine enough movie, it is a great comedy and takes a few risks, but ultimately I was left unsatisfied. Maybe it’s because there was little surprise in the film because of marketing and maybe it was because the film followed a simple formula, the very one it is trying to mock. I see potential for the sequel as I hope the safe choices in the film were due to studio interference.

Directed by Lenny Abrahamson, Room is a film that in another director’s hands could have felt claustrophobic, cliché and desolate. In fact Abrahamson himself appealed to Emma Donoghue, the writer of the book, to make to film. He did this because he believed another director could have easily interpreted the book as dark suspenseful drama. But instead he succeeded in making it, true to the heart of the story, which is the relationship between a mother and her child. That is the beauty of room, a story that could have ended up as depressing is translated here to one of the most uplifting films of the year.

The success of the film is in part due to two outstanding central performances. One being Jacob Tremblay, a nine year old who not only outshines the low bar set by the majority of child actors, gives a performance on par with a lot of those in the best acting category at the Oscars. Props go to the crew on Room, who must have worked hard to ensure that performance. Secondly Brie Larson, an actress who has been on my radar in short roles in Community and Scott Pilgrim Vs the World. She has always been a standout in those roles and here she gives an incredibly layered and powerful performance. There is a reason that she is front runner to receive all the best actress awards this award season. But the star of the film really is Abrahamson himself, who just coming off the equally brilliant Frank, which I was reminded of through Room as both films really have a bright and optimistic approach to dark and gritty subjects. They both also show the Human spirit at its finest. At the beginning of this review I talked about how Room could have easily felt claustrophobic, but even in the smallest spaces, the cinematography creates huge open spaces. This really allows the audience see the world through the eyes of a child, discovering his surroundings. This is important as it helps make Room the surprisingly uplifting film as it puts the audience in an as forgiving mind-set as the child. Allowing us to love the beauty of the world after being shown the dark depths of it.

If you haven’t seen the film, I have purposely tried to leave this review vague as possible because I believe the film is something you should experience first-hand. But I will took about a single shot from the film that has become one of my favourite of all time. This shot concern simply a character looking up at the sky from a van, (if you’ve seen it you know), this shot, brings a complete set of mixed emotions to the film, contrasting freedom and being trapped. In short it sums up the brilliance of the film, that shows us a vast sea of opportunities and human spirit and quite frankly made me question whether I was doing enough, see it.

Every so often I watch a film and sit there the entire team so annoyed, because it is so close to being a really good movie. Film’s that seem so good on paper, with an awesome concept, cast and crew so how fall short of being a masterpiece or just great fun. In the case of American Ultra it is the latter. 

American Ultra was on the track to being a smart stoner comedy that could have gained a cult following, but instead it was universally panned by critics. What went wrong? Well that is what I what to find out as well as discussing how it could have been changed slightly to become a cult classic. 

One of the biggest debates coming out of the Oscar nominations this year is about whether or not Mad Max: Fury Road should be included on the best picture list. It certainly won over critics and audiences alike with its practical effects, mesmerizing cinematography and nostalgic references to the originals and silent comedies. But does the film have enough substance to really be the proclaimed “saviour” of action movies or has the bar just been lowered in recent years?

It seems like every summer the blockbusters that get the most praise are still full of gigantic problems. Take Guardians of the Galaxy last year, Marvel’s so called first “risk.” But the risk seemed to end at the fact that no one (other than die hard comic book fans) knew the characters before the film came out. I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy, but the plot challenged no-one and stuck to the cookie cutter Marvel formula. Even if you would argue that blockbusters are not meant to challenge, the story didn’t take any twists or turns not tread before by previous superhero films, despite the film being set galaxies away from the usual marvel heroes. I think there is a distinct problem with blockbusters that extends to Mad Max: Fury Road, that even when they are trying new things, it seems to be dumbed down or simplified. 

The story of Mad Max: Fury Road is primarily about Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, as she attempts to defect from a warlord while harbouring fugitives that used to be said warlord’s property. Cue a 2 hour chase scene. Now when I first heard that the nature of the film was to be entirely a chase scene, I was intrigued, how would they keep it fresh? Constantly changing, so that the audience was always feeling scared for the protagonist’s lives. Here’s where I think the biggest problem lies in the film. I don’t think it achieves this. The plot seems to be a rinse repeat cycle of “ooh shit they’re coming”, driving off fast, destroying a couple of cars and them someone managing to fall out of the car, only to in most case get back on the vehicle. We have the clichéd sacrifice which is blatantly hinted at us throughout the entire film. All in all I think the plot plays out as conventionally as any over action film of the last 20 years. Though some people would say to ignore the plot and watch it for what it is supposed to be a 2 hour exploration into madness. Maybe that is where I differ from other people on the film. I saw wacky, I saw zahny, I saw surviving, I saw short tempered. But I don’t think I saw the cinematic exploration into crazy. At least not to a degree the other Mad Max film hadn’t already covered, or even other blockbusters. Take Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, it is a multi-layered performance that makes you not sure what is going through the head of the character or actor. Compared to Nicholas Hoult in this movie, whose motives can be reduced to he wants to impress the evil warlord. So without the plot or madness is the movie really a masterpiece, best picture nomination worthy?