Film Review: Only The Brave (2017)

Director:

 Joseph Kosinski

Writers:

 Sean Flynn (based on the GQ article "No Exit" by), Ken Nolan | 1 more credit »

Stars:

 Josh Brolin, Miles Teller, Jeff Bridges

It is a tall task to adapt a film from a true story.  There is so much to consider, so much source material to attach to it and at the end of the day, it is essential to not just please the audience, but to honor the real people and their families being depicted on screen.  It is with this sort of mindset that I went into Joseph Kosinski's Only The Brave, the real life story of the Granite Mountain Hotshot wildfire firefighters who lost their lives in the Yarnell Hill Fire of 2013, the deadliest wildfire in America since 1933.

The story follows a similar formula that has grown more common over the last few years.  Mainly with the films of Peter Berg, such as Lone Survivor, Deepwater Horizon and Patriots Day, the focus of the true story is on the characters.  It is the heart and soul of this film, the Hotshot firefighters of Granite Mountain who train hard and risk their lives to fight wildfires all over America.  Led by Josh Brolin as the determined and hardworking, Eric Marsh, leader and founder of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, Kosinski uses his keen eye for cgi in the scenes with fire and dreams of fire to create a supernatural entity in the flames that Eric Marsh and company extinguish.  Brolin is so on point, it's obvious how much he cares about telling this tale as honorable and real as can be.  Finally, there is a vehicle for the talents of Kosinski, who has the vision of a great director, but never the script.  Kosinski, who shot onto the scene with Tron:Legacy and Oblivion, has often been viewed as a visually gifted director with his use of cgi and scope but of plotless films.  In Only The Brave, he options to allow the cast of real lived people to tell the story and rely on the actors to push the story forward.  His job then becomes depicting the wild of a forest fire and in that regard, this is some of the best footage filmed of a burning world.

The rest of the cast handles like a military unit of close comrades.  The Hotshots are brave and daring and skilled, more skilled than any other Hotshot unit in America according to some dialogue, but the dangers of what they do for a living is trying on their families.  Kosinski uses this to show humans being humans, but becoming heroes at the same time.  They are just men fighting fires, but somewhere along the line, we learn their work ethic and the hazards they endure and earn respect for their labor.  Where so many real life tragedies are focused on an hour and a half of devastation and drama, Kosinski focuses on the men and their lives first, only getting to the tragedy in the final act.  This makes it a rare film about people with a tragic ending as tribute.  With great acting from Miles Teller as the rookie fighting his shady past and trying to make a good mark for his newborn daughter, the heart of this film is the men on the line.  The fires they face bring them closer together and we see that develop.

When the film comes to it's finale, we see the purpose of their journey.  I couldn't help but feel bonded to these characters and forced to lose a piece of that bond as their tragic story plays out.  It becomes emotionally deep as it rolls to a conclusion and eventually breaks as we witness the anguish of the families the Hotshots left behind.  All of this, like a letter lit up to ash against a candle, leaves a lasting echo in us after it ends.  The beautiful tribute given to each man as the credits being closes out the film with complete respect.  Where so many of these films tries to omit or redirect facts for a more extravagant meal, Only The Brave shines for it's approach and handle of the material, making it an easy digestible true life story with a devastating conclusion.  A fitting tribute to fallen American heroes.

8 of 10

Tyler Baker

 

Film Review: The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

Director:

 Yorgos Lanthimos

Writers:

 Yorgos Lanthimos, Efthymis Filippou

Stars: Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Barry Keoghan

Yorgos Lanthimos is a bizarre sort.  A Greek import in the directing department, Lanthimos has impressed the indie world of filmmaking with strange fed movies like Dogtooth and Alps, but came to Hollywood in 2015 with one of the sweetest and strangest films ever in The Lobster.  Lanthimos' odd writing and directing (always with the writing partner of Efthymis Filippou) bleeds through the screen and his sharp vision on life and the awkwardness of humanity has become a masterclass.  With The Killing of a Sacred Deer, Lanthimos continues this habit of standing on the outside, but never looking in, and gives us one of the silliest, but disturbingly watchable films of the year.

I went into Sacred Deer with an immense love for The Lobster and excited to see Colin Farrell work with Lanthimos again.  This film was different.  It had the same sort of displaced direction that Lanthimos does best, forcing deadpan performances from everyone as if the people of the world had been drained of human emotion but still continued to feel them.  All the actor's cadences were mimicking one another, everything said was spit out strait and it shows Lanthimos' ability to direct everyone to his will and purpose.  The story itself is crazy and I suggest knowing as little as possible about the film (I won't spoil it here) and then watching it with complete confusion as you find out more and more as time goes on.  The music and tone of the film, all blended together in foreboding mischief of dark corners, was perfect to confuse the audience what the film really was until it is revealed half way through.

The real benefit of this film is seeing Barry Keoghan, who had a less than bit part in Dunkirk last year, show his ability to act with such talents as Farrell and Kidman.  He works perfectly in Lanthimos' twisted tale.  The acting only goes so far, however, letting the absurdity of the story soak in as it constantly misdirects towards any logical avenue.  The result is a dark but zany drama that could be a comedy or a horror film or a thriller or an allegory for humanity or something else entirely.  It is that kind of foggy misunderstanding that makes The Killing of a Sacred Deer something to really sit down and watch.  Pay attention to, absorb...if you can make it past the first minute of open heart surgery.

8 of 10

Tyler Baker

Film Review: Netflix's The Polka King (2018)

Directors:

 Maya Forbes, Wallace Wolodarsky

Writers:

 Maya Forbes, Wallace Wolodarsky

Stars:

 Jack Black, Jenny Slate, Jason Schwartzman

Netflix is coming into 2018 after a successful year of Stranger Things and other stuff.  Sure, they completely whiffed with shows like Gypsy and Disjointed, were forced to end their award winning drama House of Cards without Kevin Spacey, had a hard time winning over critics with films like Bright and almost every Adam Sandler "movie" they produced, but all in all, they hit big with The Crown, fans flocked to Ozark, stand up dominated their viewership and Peaky Blinders took out the last week of 2017 like a powder keg with a lit fuse.  This leads us into 2018, the year of Netflix's true assimilation into the film industry and it began on January 12th with the release of the Jack Black led true story comedy, The Polka King.

Netflix has pushed plenty of money into their film division.  They spent over $100 million on Will Smith's Bright (and what seemed like nothing on the script), produced movies with Adam Sandler and Brad Pitt, but never found a strong footing in 2017.  Most of their films were misfires because of what seems to be an overwhelming freedom they let their filmmakers work with.  With Maya Forbes and Wallace Wolodarsky, they found the perfect team to write and direct the insanely true story of Jan Lewan, famed Pennsylvania polka singer and ponzi scheme mastermind.  At it's core, the film revolves around who Jan Lewan was as a person, played by Jack Black, and how things spiraled from needing to make more money to pay his polka band to stealing millions of dollars from elderly people.  Black bends his ability to play silly with an instilled form of deception and manipulation that makes you sort of root for "Jan the Man" while shaking your head at his nonsense.  It is this area that Black has shined in before, playing a lovable murderer in Bernie or the big talking fame seeking director in King Kong.  Black shines with the strong writing that has perfect pockets for comedy and utilizes the kind of over the top character Lewan was.  With fine surrounding acting from Jenny Slate and specifically Jackie Weaver, Black has plenty of moments to act and not just chew scenes for a gag-reel.

What propels this film to interesting levels is the actual content.  What happened with Jan Lewan and his "investments" is as strong of a true tale as something like The Informant, but just off the mark of The Big Short.  With great joint effort from Forbes and Wolodarsky, who are obviously both comfortable with one another to avoid pointless scenes or poor directing choices, the film benefits from having two sets of eyes and two writer's pens in charge of it.  This is a rare film that hits all it's marks and comes to a satisfying end...all in under one hour and forty minutes.  So many films have pacing problems or dead spots or don't build enough on the characters, especially with comedies, but here is a smart and meaty balance of all things filmic.  The result is a fun, laughable but real plot and strong bodies all around it boosting the entirety of the project beyond just another comedy to watch and forget.  

Where Netflix has been just fine letting Adam Sandler hang with all his friends that can't get work outside of him, The Polka King works as a sign of good things to come on the film side of Netflix in 2018.  As bizarre as it is true, The Polka King is precisely what Netflix needs to build a bigger streaming giant.  Definitely worth the watch and with little to no fat around it's edges.  This is a solid streaming steak.

7 of 10

Tyler Baker

Film Review: Dunkirk (2017)

Written and Directed By: Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, Memento)

Starring: Fionn Whitehead , Tom Hardy , Kenneth Branagh

Since the release of The Dark Knight in 2008, Christopher Nolan has had his way with Hollywood.  Sure, he was far established by then with incredible directing efforts with Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins and The Prestige, but 2008 marked the beginning of Christopher Nolan's domination of the big screen.  His advanced understanding of time structure, storytelling and character development was only overshadowed by his keen eye for beauty and grandeur.  As a result, we were awarded such amazing follow ups as Inception, Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises.  What we really were getting was an auteur mastermind of filmmaking who had refined his craft to the teeth.  His efforts as a filmmaker could only be quenched by his need to tell amazing, original stories.  From all of this, after the superhero franchise trilogy and the space odyssey and the magic show, Nolan was finally ready to make his passion picture, Dunkirk.  While he takes many risks with this war film based on the true story of British and French soldiers during World War II evacuation, there isn't an inch of this film that isn't addressed with complete adore and attention worth watching.  This is Nolan reminding us that he isn't just another director, he's a filmic genius and we need to stop forgetting.

First, let me just say I loved Dunkirk for what it was, a story without telling a direct story, built on actions and scenes of motion rather than a cast of characters explaining everything to the audience as if they weren't smart enough to grasp it.  Nolan never insults his audience that way, however some people find his work in Inception to be insulting for the complexity of the story as "arrogant".  Nolan has a specific vision within his mind and attempts at the most finite level of everything to get his shots the way he sees them inside his mind.  Does this alienate the audience?  I always looked at it this way, would you rather have a person trying to cash a check by making the same crap you've seen twenty times or a person who would go through personal trials to take the risk of doing something original or amazing with the utmost respect for the source?  No brainer, right?  That is why 90% of Michael Bay movies have over-dramatic explosions and trash-bin reused one liner jokes and Christopher Nolan won Oscars with a Batman movie.

Dunkirk is built on the concept of telling the story in three phases, land, air and sea.  We get to jump through the beaches of Dunkirk, where the soldiers are nothing but sitting ducks for the constant swarm of enemy fighter planes bombing them, to the air where Tom Hardy seems to battle the entire enemy sky fleet on his own, then focus on the rising water of a sinking ship as the young men soldiers pile out into open waters to survive.  Without a focused narrative, Nolan is able to build this  "snowball effect" he attempted to create purposely where everything builds up throughout the entire movie on it's own.  Without force.  That is a kind of skill almost no filmmaker has besides Nolan.  In fact, he is perhaps the greatest director of all time when it comes to juggling scenes within different time frames, while still holding the integrity of the drama.  What he does great in Dunkirk is find a young cast, led by Fionn Whitehead in an almost silent role, to display the desperation of the British soldiers in limbo.  We follow them, wanting to know what will happen next, but the split between the sky and the sea make for a nice pace of action and story.

If nothing else, the air battle scenes with Tom Hardy are a calculated adventure to behold.  Everything about his character, from the beginning of the film to the end is powerfully placed as a reminder of the slow spots on land or sea, where people are trying to survive, that there is still a war above them.  With great performances all around, Nolan's care of casting is safely managed by his actors.  He then places them in danger and lets them slip in and out of it like waves on a constant tide.

Visually, the film is a wonder, but that was a given considering how much Nolan loves IMAX cameras and widescreen format.  He continues to be the closest grand scale director to Ridley Scott, who's The Martian mirrored Interstellar visually in a lot of ways.  Nolan has taken his visual talent to many different levels however and seems in complete control of everything in Dunkirk.  His care of the fictional characters telling a real life story have purpose and meaning, which is missing in so many movies these days.  If nothing else, Dunkirk is further evidence that Christopher Nolan should be given $200 million and let loose upon the Earth whenever he has an idea.  Dunkirk was born in the 90's, when he traveled the route of the English Channel that rescue boats from England took to save soldiers.  He refused to make it until he had enough experience with action films.  That kind of care, waiting twenty years to make a movie right, is a dying art in cinema and one that we are ALL rewarded with by the masterpiece that is Dunkirk.

8 out of 10

Tyler Baker

Film Review: Wind River (2017)

Directed by	Taylor Sheridan

Written by	Taylor Sheridan
Starring	Jeremy Renner Elizabeth Olsen

Wind River is the gripping story of the vast cold lands of Wyoming and the mysterious dark deeds that go unresolved in this land.  The third film written by Taylor Sheridan, the scribe behind Sicario and last years Hell or High Water, Wind River marks Sheridan's first crack as a director.  It is Sheridan's keen sense of his own script, what he wants to show the audience, what the message is, that drives this quiet, sprawling crime story.  

Led by Jeremy Renner (Avengers, Arrival) in one of his most passionately painful performances, the film broods and barks like the winter winds of Wyoming as the characters move throughout, trying to solve the murder of a teenage native american girl.  As an FBI agent dead set on finding the caulprit, Elizabeth Olsen (Avengers Age of Ultron, Ingrid Goes West) uses her now refined acting skills to move the story along with gravity but also with a sense of gathering information.  She doesn't know the land, doesn't know the people and Sheridan uses this character to bond with the audience, so that we learn as she does.

The story itself is ice cold and at it's most raw.  What I mean by this is that it makes no apologies for what you are watching, but instead continually reminds you of the animistic urges within man himself.  Sheridan's sharp dialogue and unique scenes make every shot memorable.  Every inch of the film is carefully vetted by Sheridan to instill the sort of awareness he is after (which is bringing awareness to native american female victims of assault).  His passion bleeds through the camera.

I can't express how amazing Renner was in this.  The guy dominates the background in the Avengers, but year by year he ends up in one of the top 10 films of the year.  This year is Wind River, which allows him to utilize his dramatic chops, but portray him also as a skilled hunter and tracker, which Renner seems born for.  His own inner torture wears on his face throughout, adding layers to his character without even adding a word.  When he does almost every line he utters is something to behold, especially as the movie spirals down it's third act.  By the end, his words are like ghosts that will stay with you long after the credits roll.

There is a sinister sort of shadow following this film as it plays out.  All the way to the bone it chills, helmed by a man willing to tell a real story without filling the film with fodder to appease action junkies or sex for the lustful ones.  This is a story worth telling, worth watching and then worth carrying with you into the world.  If nothing else, to help solve the world in the slightest, Wind River is arguably the strongest drama of 2017 and perhaps the best of Sheridan's work yet.

9 out of 10

Tyler Baker

Film Review : Thor Ragnarok

A film as well built as Thor: Ragnarok doesnt come around often in a modern time of quick hit blockbusters and small budget franchises.  Most of today is built on reboots, connected cinematic universes and microbudget indie films that have broad appeal.  Then you have director Taika Waititi, the director of such great recent indies as Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do in the Shadows, who comes in to an already established connected film world (the only success one so far) and redefines the genre with comedy, creativity and the willingness to kill the old world formula.  As a result, Thor Ragnarok is the thunder god franchise star film and perhaps the funniest film of the year.

Lets break it down quick.  The highlights is the comedy, sown together by random improv and carefully focusing the feel of it to the amazing cast strengths.  Goldblum is Goldblum, Hemsworth carries the very comedic aura throughout and then there is Korg.  Played by Waititi himself, Korg the stone gladiator is the funniest character in film since the Step Brothers.  His random causality brings a real rise over the plot and steals every scene hes in. The rest of the cast is well fitted for their parts, though some are only there to service the reinvention of Thor's story.

The big bad, Hela, played by Cate Blanchett, is by far the best villian in the MCU thus far and continues to prove Thor films as Marvel's only true villians (with Loki and that big Laser eye guy).  Hela is mischievous and unremorseful, having little patience for inferiors who do not bend the knee.  She elevates the areas that dont rely on comedy, but danger.  It fits perfectly to build the grandeur and scale of the quest of Thor.  The stripping of his pieces (hammer, hair, ext) allows us to bond to him like never before.  Add in the best version or Hulk seen yet and we have us a stew going.

The colors, the soundtrack, the story, the acting, the everything about Thor: Ragnarok makes this film in the top tier of not just the MCU, not just comicbook movies, but film in general.  A nonstop thrill ride, a matter buster for the silver screen, this is a must see film if only to make you laugh your ass off during a bad day.

9 of 10 Stars

Tyler Baker

One Chance : The Tad Washington Story

Hey everyone,

Check out my mockumentary short I made.  It's about a guy who wants to become an event announcer like Michael Buffer.  Also, he's very effected by Eminem's 8 Mile.  Good for a laugh or two.

TyT

2011 Top Ten Films

Alright, so it's been a while since I've blogged and I apologize for the neglect.  Truth be told, I've been a little lax and lazy since 2012 rolled around.  No more!  The time for blogging and doing things pertaining to social networks and tweets is now.  The advent of my personal opinions, mapped out in written words is upon us.  So, I have to get the 2011 shit out of the way.  Like I always do, I made a list of my TOP TEN BEST FILMS OF 2011.

Before you read them, understand that there are films I did not see and therefore cannot put on the list.  The following list is a list of these films that I will have to see eventually, but will not make my Top Ten for that reason. They are:

Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, Hugo, The Artist, The Decendants,  The Muppets, Tin Tin, War Horse, Beginners, Carnage, We Need To Talk About Kevin, Contagion and whatever else I'm completely forgetting about.

That said, here is my TOP TEN BEST FILMS OF 2011:

10. X-Men First Class

I want to put this at number one, but I'll keep it real.  First off, I'm a giant X-Men fan and have been one since at least second grade.  I knew with such a well casted film and Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Kick-Ass) at the helm, this would be a huge success.  To my own surprise, however, it was more amazing than I thought.  It is arguably better than Brian Singer's versions of the X-Men.  The thing about it is that it was well thought out, well executed and well acted.  When you consider that they were rushing to complete the film earlier in 2011, there is a level of respect that must be given for the product that came out.  Imagine what Vaughn would have done with more time?

9. Tree Of Life

I had to put this on here because it was incredibly emotional and beautifully shot.  Very artistic, very close to the chest and it tells a serious story.  It doesn't tell the story of a family who lost a son in the traditional way.  Instead, it plays out like a sprawling map of memories, chopped up and chosen with impeccable visual balance.  I had heard when this first came out on the Indie circuit that it was long and somewhat boring, but that it was possibly the most beautiful film ever shot.  When I got the chance to see it, I could see arguments for both sides.  I had to go with the flow on this one and the fact is, this film is an ever moving canvas of emotional nostalgia.  Definitely worth watching if you have any sense in your head.

8.The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

This might be a little high on my list, but it is David Fincher and an amazing Rooney Mara.  Everyone else just works into the film, but Mara takes her acting to a new level.  I personally knew she was capable of this having seen her in basically everything she's ever done, but I think she proved herself this year to a lot of people.  Whether you think the original is better or Fincher's is the more solid version, you have to consider that it is a trilogy and the original trilogy didn't have the staying power after Dragon Tattoo.  Fincher is more than qualified to bring this series to an all time high and with the bar set low for these next two, it should be interesting to see how he expands on the series.  Either way, Mara is the true talent here and everyone else is just background noise.

7. The Help

This is a guilty pleasure film for me.  I am not like most filmgoers, because I don't tend to segregate myself to a certain genre.  Some of my favorite films are Romances or "Chick Flicks" or Animated film.    The Help had a lot of buzz behind it after it was released.  When it came out on DVD, I got a chance to see for myself.  Again, totally surprised, The Help had the perfect blend between comedy and seriousness.  It poked fun at it's characters, but also dived into the social issues surrounding them.  It wasn't preachy or overly aggressive, it just told a story and had an amazing cast.  Of them, Jessica Chastain, who I was reluctant to accept until actually seeing her act.  Since then, I've seen all her films this year and would say she's the real deal.  The Help will catch you off guard if you let it and it's refreshing to see a movie about discrimination that doesn't feed on excessive acts of racism or inhumanity, but instead relies on the characters to handle the material.

6. 50/50

This was such a special film for me.  It really helped me understand the gravity of life, but how to embrace the simply, silly side of it.  Forget all the bouts with drawn out dramatic scenes and overly emotional breakdowns, 50/50 keeps it real.  It tells the story of a young man dealing with cancer in a real way.  This was also a great turn from Seth Rogen, who I love as a writer, but feel he has a hard time acting outside himself.  While he was a bit similar to every character he's ever done, I think he had the room here to show a more sensitive, but irrational character.  Plus, Anna Kendrick once again proves she is way better than Twilight and Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues his strong career.  Seriously, Miss Kendrick, you are far better than Twilight.  The thing about the film that makes it so special is it's ability to play from comedy to serious drama in seconds and then back to comedy without losing any emotional charge.

5. Attack The Block

I had heard great things about this British film about rough street teens who defend their block against glowing, grizzly teeth aliens primarily because it had Nick Frost in it.  Also, Edgar Wright told everyone to watch it and I listen to smart people.  When I saw it, I was not disapointed for a second.  It was funny, exciting and it felt like the kind of film that could be real if aliens did exist.  It doesn't have a lot of flaws.  It's fast and creative and you can get a feel for what it is like to be from the block in England.  My roommate and I joked that they even had a Rufio like character in their crew and it's that kind of relativity that this movie brings that gets it on my list.  That and the fact that it's one hell of an entertaining flick.

4. Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

The final Harry Potter had arrived this past year and brought with it great expectations.  Say what you will about the boy wizard, the Harry Potter series of films is one of the funnest and most consistantly good franchises in film history.  I own each one on blu-ray and this last one was the best of them all.  It was beautiful to behold, the story kept true to the fans and it played out like a true epic conclusion should.  The hardest part of a franchise is ending it and here is an example of not just ending it, but ending it on a high note; in style.  Yates is a great director, can't wait for him to do something else, but until then, we have Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2.  It is easily the best of the series.

3. Moneyball

Brad Pitt is a bad ass, but here he plays a cool dude with a nack for keeping it real.  I know that is my own interpretation, but I loved this film for what it was; a great baseball flick.  Arguably a contender for awards season, Moneyball was written by my favorite screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin.  It is funny, it is fresh and it is lead by Pitt who is amazing and Jonah Hill who most people remember as that kid with a dick drawing addiction in Superbad.  Hill really showed he not only could act, but that he was far more capable at acting than anyone in the comedy game.  Although Steve Carrell is good and Paul Rudd showed in Our Idiot Brother that he was relevant as well.  Moneyball is strong in every aspect, however and one viewing really doesn't do the film justice.  It's hard to say this isn't the best writing of the year, but I think perhaps my number one would trump this one.

2. Drive

This is just an oddball of a film.  Dark and harnassed at times, quiet at others and all mixed together with the sounds of pop/electronic playing in the background.  Drive was awesome and I'm upset more people didn't see it.  I'm also upset that some stupid woman tried to sue the film over the trailer misreprenting what the film was.  Lady, you're stupid, please move to Canada.  Seriously, though, this was a strong film because it worked with sound in an amazing way.  That and Ryan Gosling once again dominated in everything he ever tries to do.  Let's not forget Albert Brooks really shined as a smart but sinister go-hard.  The times of the film when Gosling has to do nothing but stare or drive, is like some sort of drifting, lingering eye candy we're all allowed to enjoy.  When the film and Gosling go dark, we go dark with him.  It's not a movie for dumb people because it respects what a film should be.  Forget high cost explosions and gaudy vacation locations that have nothing to do with the plot, Drive turns all that in for a clever and original story about a loner stunt man with a scorpion jacket and you can't help but feel bonded to him just because.  Kick ass.

1. Midnight In Paris

Not as many people are fans of Woody Allen as they used to be.  For a while, he couldn't find the vision he had decades back.  We got glimpses with Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, but Midnight In Paris is by my opinion to be his best work ever.  It's hard to say, really, because he has a lot of strong conversational, human condition focused films under his belt, but financially, Midnight In Paris is his most successful.  Not financially, it's my favorite.  I didn't quite know what it was other than a Woody Allen flick with half the cast of Wedding Crashers, but when I got into it, I couldn't help put drool over the entire artistic integrity of it.  Like the number two pick, this is a film for smart people.   People who enjoyed Transformers 3 (who should be quarantined) will not enjoy this simply because they have no taste.  This is not for mindless moviegoers who want to watch tired, overly comical action  movies with thin, unbelievable plots and $100 million in explosions, this is for people who love literature and art and history.  This is for the people who want to see originality and effort, not cheap thrills and quick cuts to pointless, brainless characters.  You guys, I really hated Transformers 3, if you couldn't tell.  Paris, however, drilled into my love of good writing with amazing acting and unbelievable casting.  Owen Wilson took a step back in the right direction and I applaud him for it.  The film played like an oil painting for your brain and if you allow yourself the opportunity, it will reward you with quick and witty dialogue, cleaver oddity and an ability to stretch your imagination.  All that and not one explosion.  Movie of the year, maybe even movie of the century.  Either way, my pick for best film of 2011.

Honorable Mention:

Warrior, Mission Impossible 4, 13 Assassins, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Thor, Captain America, Rango, I Saw The Devil, Source Code, Bridesmaids, Super 8, Win Win, Fast Five, Hanna, The Trip.

WHY JAMES CAMERON’S AVATAR CAUSED THE REBOOT EFFECT (PART THREE)

Let me start by addressing the recent allegations surrounding James Cameron and Avatar.  Two people have sued him claiming he stole their idea.  If we remember in Part 1 I explained how unoriginal the story was.  Well, apparently, these guys suing Cameron never saw Fern Gully.  That's fair.  Apparently, they haven't seen Dances with Wolves either.  Or Disney's Pocahontas.  Or learn the history lesson about the real version of Pocahontas of which the aforementioned film was based on.  I don't understand how two of what I assume to be HACKS, without reading a written word, can even claim to have such unoriginal, overused stories in their stables.  Suing one of the most unoriginal scripts of the decade for ripping your material off?  Seriously?!

And we're back.  I was saying that James Cameron's big, blue film mucked up Hollywood perception.  Well, let's just be honest here.  The truth is, it all started with other James Cameron films.  Since Terminator 2, people have been fond of the big, slick blockbuster machine.  True Lies perpetuated this even further.  Of course, Cameron took it to a whole new level with Titanic, where he kept all the CGI and the hefty handed budget, but picked a love story.  Of course, that was interrupted to sink the world's biggest ship, but you didn't see Arnold running around shouting one-liners, did you?  Avatar just brought it to the next generation who missed out on Last Action Hero.

Cameron isn't the only one who is allowed fat stacks of money to make a movie.  Steven Spielberg's last two films cost a total of $200 million (War Horse; $70 and Tin Tin $130).  He earned the rights when he turned the $9 million film Jaws into a $470.6 million dollar return.  Michael Bay loves to blow shit up.  That costs money, but Avatar cost the most and it bled into our culture.  After that, it became a space race for who could break the record next.  Only Batman or good old Mr. Potter could ever come close, though.  We've been in a recession, however, so raising costs and budgets isn't plausible.  It's not smart.

I said in the beginning that Avatar's approach on home entertainment basically killed us as consumers.  That movie made so much damn money that Fox decided to release the DVDs and Blu-rays in little slices.  Instead of getting commentary and special features, the first round only contained the standard movie.  Then, months later, you could buy the movie with the commentary and some extras.  Then, after all that, they sold the movie in 3-D...but not with the special features.  So suddenly, people had to buy three versions of the film to get the same as a standard 3-D sale (which really didn't exist two years ago).  If you ask me, that's brutal in the harshest sense.

People have to take that, consumers have to take that because otherwise we twiddle our thumbs.  Don't want to buy what we're selling?  Don't watch.  And we get abused like this while Hollywood houses complain that it has to be that way due to piracy.  Piracy began because of money moves like that.  No one wants to pay $30 to watch Tower Heist a month after it's released!  No one should have to.  Don't get me wrong, I buy films.  I have hundreds of DVDs and Blu-rays, it's a sickness.  I cave at every turn is the problem.  I could buy a car with the money I've spent on movies.

Anyway, after that quick trick, 3-D TVs became the new "it" girl (though numbers are identical to last year) and you couldn't operate a 3-D Blu-ray without a special player and either of those without a special TV.  All cost extra.  Now, people have to pay extra not just to see I-Max ($17.50 for MI4, which was very worth it), but extra on top of that to see I-Max in 3-D.  Next they'll come up with skipping the previews for a buck more.  Better yet, Robert Rodriguez's 4-D scratch and sniffs will be included for $2.50 extra.  I'll cry when that happens.

So, you can see how things have escilated over the past two years.  Well, at least I hope you can see.  It's not that things are bad, the industry is looking better with so many big named stars trying to make smaller, more personal and original films.  Drive, Shame and Midnight in Paris, I'm looking at you.  The problem is, we are but a few and die-hard Transformer fans are going to go to see those films no matter how many tacky, hacky regurgitated jokes plague that script.  As long as this happens, Hollywood doesn't have to apologize (even though Michael Bay did after the second robot fiasco).  Talk to your friends, tell them the truth.  The Hangover II was just The Hangover with out the comedy.

Ty-T

WHY JAMES CAMERON’S AVATAR CAUSED THE REBOOT EFFECT (PART TWO)

(Let's get back into it.  I was saying Avatar is a decent movie with amazing visuals.  Basically, America was blinded by the beauty of CGI.  Avatar grosses over $749 million.)

The next thing we knew it, everything went smurf blue and studios began raising obscene budgets without even contracting any scripts.  Perhaps they figured if Avatar is the most expensive film of all time and it made the most money of all time, it must be a winning formula.  Why would the goal of business be to increase your costs, especially during a recession?  I know enough about the film industry to know that the film going population is filled with cliques and niche hounds that rally for one genre but verbally raid another.  Avatar hit the demographics because it could be shown to children and they are the largest clique of all.  What horrid, monster of a parent would refuse to take their poor child to see that movie with the blue cat people and Sigourney Weaver?  Of course the parents went, they secretly wanted to see it too.  Don't leave out the fanboys and first time daters; that movie hit ever demo.  The problem is, all those same audience demos aren't going to show up for Ridley Scott's reboot of Robin Hood (which cost $200 million to make).  That hits men 13-up and whatever female demographic loves Russel Crowe.

Some budgets made no sense from the start.  Giving up $200 million to make a video game adaption of Prince of Persia might have sounded like gold in the early morning meeting, but video game adaptions have never been lucrative.  We go to Box Office Mojo, where we see the number one video game film of all time is the original Tomb Raider at $131 million.  All together Raider brought in $274 million, so it theoretically was probable, but realistically too big a budget to justly defend.

How then do you expect to start an unproven franchise at what a third installment is supposed to cost?  By the third film, the franchise has been successful and is familiar, so studios have less of a chance to lose money.  Instead, you give up $200 million, which should be $100 million over the film salary cap (we'll go into that at another time), and you don't even bother writing a coharent script.  The costumes and make-up made a production where everyone should be gold dipped and gleaming into a SyFy mini movie with really nice cameras.  At least the CGI was appealing and Jake G can rock a wicked accent.  The end result was $90.7 million domestic and a worldwide total of $335 million and some change.  To those not versed in the Hollywood system, it looks like a win.  They made their money back, right?  Wrong.  Any film that does not make it's money back domestically is considered to be a failure in the eyes of studio executives.  Call it ego, call it favoritism, but that's the way the numbers game works in film.

Let me get to the point of all this.  According to Box Office Mojo, in the year of Avatar (2009) the yearly domestic box office was $10.595 billion.  That was a 10% jump from 2008.  The following year, it was off by about $30 million with 12 more films and almost a dollar extra per average ticket price.  That's a failure because it's all about topping the year before.  What they didn't have in 2010 was an $800 million film to anchor the end of the year like in 2009 and they couldn't possibly cover the damage that Avatar had done.  Think about it, three years of buzz, almost $200 million in marketing (way too much) and wild fire word of mouth spread by James Cameron himself, so of course the numbers were going to be down the year after.   Hollywood doesn't make excuses, though, and so the year of big budget films reduced their profit margin and people were losing intrest because ticket prices were becoming unbearable for casual filmgoers.  Don't forget, you had those sleepers in 2009 like The Hangover ($277 million) and The Blindside ($255 million) which weren't supposed to make more than $80 million in a best case scenario.  2009 was simply a great year for blockbusters.  Star Trek, Harry Potter 6, Transformers 2, Twilight 2, Sherlock Holmes and even the attrocious Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 all brought in over $200 million.  So, something had to give in 2010, right?

I believe this has to do with Hollywood's overwelming need for familiarity.  With big budgets come justification.  You need to back up that price tag on your production.  So, one sure fire seed for success is familiar films.  Take your audience back to a place they loved.  That's why films are being looked at not just as a trilogy anymore, but more so as a four or five picture franchise.  Fast and Furious, Pirates of the Carribian, Shrek, Harry Potter, Twilight, and Resident Evil all have four or more in their franchise.  All are also franchises that began after 2000.  Resident Evil is the only one in this category that actually relies on foreign box office numbers to make a profit, since like I said, video game films don't make much.

Back to the familiarity theory, in 2010 the top five releases were all sequels or remakes.  ALL OF THEM.  Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2, Twilight 3, and Harry Potter 7.   Alice in Wonderland fed off that obsene 3-D ticket price and Johnny Depp/Tim Burton connection to make it's money, all the while promising a Burton-esque re-imagination of the established Lewis Carrol adaptation.   I personally thought it was a swing and a miss, especially considering the actual story was based around strange happenings and randomality.  Burton's film turned what was supposed to be a non-linear storyline into a big budget fantasy epic where Alice was foretold to save Wonderland.  Really?  As for the rest, they were bound for the top of the list since they were proven franchise formulas.  Now, let's take a look at their production costs.

Toy Story 3 - $200 million

Alice in Wonderland - $200 million

Iron Man 2 - $200 million

Harry Potter 7 - $250 (though it was shared with Part 2 because Warner Bros. is smart)

Twilight 3 - $68 million

Besides Twilight, who have notoriously had low budgets on account of the fact that Summit doesn't have $200 million to spend on films and Twilight series doesn't need good scripts or sets because the female population is going to gravitate to theaters either way, these films all cost more than what Avatar made in 2009.  It's not uncommon to put some pennies into a production budget, but if you spend $200 million on one film instead of four or five, you're limiting your potential to make a profit and your margins will eventually shrink.  Then distribution rises, ticket prices rise and attendence drops.  All this because James Cameron made it work?

I don't know if any of that makes sense, because to be honest, I feel I've rambled and rifled off numbers like a Texas instrument.  Let me say one last thing here.  Look at the Indie market of last year.  The King's Speech, Black Swan and The Fighter to be specific.  All three cost a total of $53 million to produce.  I didn't forget a zero, that's how much they all cost ($15,$13 and $25).  Together they made roughly $336 million domestically and $533.3 million overseas.  That's $869.3 against $53 and everyone involved is still on vacation.  Did they look as good as the top five of last year?  No, they arguably looked better (The King's Speech and Black Swan anyway).

They didn't need wire work and fifty-five minutes of CGI to make it work.  They applied three very engaging plots to smart, visual auteur directors and three amazing and willing casts.  Almost every actor in those films took salary cuts from their market value.  They get much more for a back end percentage when a budget is $15 million and you're making $115 million, but that's another story.  Plus, of course, there are the insane amount of awards these films received.  Combined, those three took most every major acting award there was last year and King's Speech took Best Film at the Oscars.  Now they not only made more money, but gobbled up awards season like a pack of hungry, hungry hippos.  With such a severe success rate and unbelievable profit margin, how could Hollywood think big action flicks with an overabundance of CGI was nessessary?  Simple, Avatar made more than The King's Speech.

Alright, I'm going to put a pin in this until my third and final installment of this blog.  I hope you guys are enjoying it.

Ty-T