Review | Mary and the Witches Flower (メアリと魔女の花)

Mary leans on the Ghibli tradition moreso that Ponoc state, but without the sheer charm and joy that made those films so loved to begin with.

Read our interview with the director and producer here: http://bit.ly/2FVxV61

Support Us!
This Film: https://amzn.to/2rvrxNw
Jack’s Microphone: https://amzn.to/2GJUek8
Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl
Amazon: https://amzn.to/2JoqV4p

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Transcript

Hi and welcome back to Reel Opinions.

Before I get to the proper review I just wanted to say that there is an interview with the director and the producer of Mary and the Witches Flower up on our website that will be linked in the description. There’s only a few questions just because we had limited time and there was translation back and forth. But yeah, give it a read if you’re interested in more.

Mary the Witch’s Flower is the first film by Studio Ponoc; meaning “midnight” or “a brand new day” as a majority are staff that have left Studio Ghibli to start their own company. Yonebayashi, the director, he originally did ‘When Marnie Was There’ and ‘The Secret Life of Arietty’, and basically when Studio Ghibli started shutting now and it’s masters announced they were no longer producing feature films, its younger staff thought: “Well… We still want to do stuff. We’d like to have jobs” and so they have set off on their own ways.

There is a quote from the original book that they cited a lot in a lot of the interview materials  where Mary says at one point: “I want to open this door but I want to open it without using magic no matter how long that takes” and that is kind of how they’ve cited their mindset going into this film. They wanted a character that liked magic, but then realized at the end of it that they no longer needed magic to be who they were. That is the context that they’ve seen for moving on from the magic of Studio Ghibli.

I understand that concept, however I think that they don’t push far enough with this film to be completely separate from the past.

I also think there’s something with that statement where you say “We don’t want magic” – as it’s disregarding that that is the aspect most people like about Studio Ghibli? They like that it’s got this magical element to it, this fantasy, this wonder, and saying we want to leave the magic of Studio Ghibili behind — I know that they’re  highlighting its reputation moreso than the actual style of the films, because this is very much a continuation of that. But it’s a touchstone that I think highlights a few of the flaws going into the final product.

Mary and the Witch’s Flower is based on the English novel The Little Broomstick. Mary has moved to live with her elderly aunt in the countryside and it’s summer so she’s just waiting to start school in this new area. So she’s left in the house with just elderly people and nothing to really do and so she’s very bored and she slowly starts exploring the nearby countryside. While doing that she follows some cats finds the magical witch’s flower and a broomstick. By crushing one of the flower’s berries she gains magical powers for those 24 hours and the broom sets off and takes her away to Endor College where she finds a magical headmistress and plots happens, as it tends to do sometimes.

As films go it’s not particularly flawed in any way, it’s just missing that magic that they wanted to kind of step away from. Mary feels like a compilation of all the kind of stubborn Ghibili girls rolled into one, but with nothing in particular defining her. It’s also a very similar plot of being whisked away to a magical building run by a kind of creepy crony old woman who uses magic to control the girl at several times and it ultimately wraps into a story of Technology versus nature. So to say this is a film that is entirely branching out from what’s happened before would be… untruthful.

They have also said in all the promotional materials that they didn’t deliberately go out to try and make a film that would be popular and make money – they wanted to make something that they wanted to make; and again I think, is that really true? Because, granted, the director’s previous two books that he’s adapted into films are English fantasy novels by female writers around the same era, So that’s definitely in his MO, but the past two films were definitely smaller in scale and a lot more focused on human drama and emotions. Whereas this is on a much larger scale and just seems to skim over a lot of the human element of the film.

As you could probably see in the trailer obviously the animation is just top-notch all the way through. I think they’ve put a majority of the kind of flourishes in the trailer so you’ve probably already seen it on this video but there are some really amazingly animated sections.

I don’t know why I’ve left off this review so long because I saw it a while ago and when I think back to it I just think that there wasn’t that much to remember about it. Like I said the characters were kind of cut-out, the plot was… I wouldn’t venture to say predictable but it wasn’t particularly imaginative and the moments where the film was being imaginative it seemed to really brush over to get back to a plot that I wasn’t that interested in. In all of the interviews they mentioned how passionate they were about this project and I’d watched the behind-the-scenes documentary on the amount of work that they did put into it and the amount of late nights – but watching the final film you don’t feel that. You don’t feel the passion.

You don’t feel like this is a story that he really wants to tell. It feels like the story that the studio wants to tell to get a really good first start and I can understand that because starting a studio, especially a high quality animation feature film studio, is just–  it’s a very very risky move. It just is. I’m not saying that they don’t love animation, obviously they love animation that’s why they are wanting to make this, but they need to set a good foundation for that company and I completely understand that but I just think that it means that whatever Ponoc come out with next potentially, or maybe the film after that, if they continue to be successful I just think that this will be looked back on as the safe foundation from which they tried to build something new.

I can’t hate the film for that. But it doesn’t mean I have to love it or particularly like it. I don’t think there was much to watch back on. I think that if you maybe have a kid, they might enjoy it. Just a kid that loves fantasy in particular But for adults–  like adults can re-watch a lot of the classic Ghibili films and still feel that wonder of it and the fun. Personally I just don’t think there was enough of that here to really get me excited about it.

 

 

Interview | Natalie Burn for ‘The Executioners

You can find our review for The Executioners here:
https://reelopinions.com/2018/04/10/review-the-executioners/

You’re clearly a versatile talent, skilled in the realms of acting, writing, dancing, choreography and more.  What compels you to dip your toes into all of these different areas and how do you manage to keep on top of it all? 

The love to create is what compels me to wake up each morning knowing that I get to choose to live my life and everyday fight for the things that make me happy. It doesn’t matter what form it is, as long as I get to inspire others with my creativity. I consider myself an artist and artist don’t limit themselves. With all of my approaches to the art, on any given day, I have to prioritize what gets addressed first and then move down the list. There’s no formula on how to get it done, it just has to and to be honest I wish I had time to do even more. On another note I don’t think that anyone is born with a talent; I think people are born with a passion and the talent gets created over time. For example, I started to train to be a ballerina at 3 years old and rose to become a professional. But I got there through hard work and dedication. Every teacher that saw me said that I had no talent whatsoever in dancing but yet I took it upon myself to not only prove them wrong but prove myself right. My talent came from my work ethic. I truly believe that when we recognize talented people in the world excelling in their respective professions, we are acknowledging their dedicated hours of work that they have put in. With that being said, when I moved on to become an actress I didn’t ask anyone’s opinion if I was talented enough to become one. I set-up a goal, I saw a path and I took it. And every day of my life, what makes me happy is that I follow my passion. That one day my passion will turn into talent and that talent will one day be undeniably acknowledged by the ones I consider the greatest. Anyone can be talented at something but it’s up to them to figure it out. Malcolm Gladwell wrote once that “it takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field.” When you know you’re the best at something, that’s when you have found your talent.

Speaking of your diverse workload, you’re also an accomplished producer. Right now you’re shepherding 59 Rows of Teeth through pre-production. I know it’s still early days, but what can you tell us about the project? 

When I first read “59 Rows of Teeth” working title today is “The Bayou” I was intrigued by the charters that Peter Iliff developed. It took me to his world and I was fascinated by this story overall. That’s how I remember movies that inspire me, actors that push me to be better. It’s the characters that great writers create. So, I contacted Peter and I told him that I believed in his script, could he hopefully take a chance and believe in me as a young producer? He responded with a very quick rebuttal question: But you’re an actress. Why would you pick a project where you can’t star as the lead? To which I replied, “because this story needs to be told and something is drawing me to it.” Passion will drive us toward paths we did not know had our names on them already. With this particular film, it has been 2 and a half years walking on this path and we are finally seeing the fruits of our labor… I can’t say too much because things are still being finalized contractually but just know that this is a piece that I worked very hard on and I can’t wait to share it with the world. It will have Gary Fleder sitting in the director’s chair with my movie company “Born to Burn Films” co-producing the project with Millennium Films. Production begins this summer.

Do you ever find that your behind-the-scenes experience enriches your acting work? Does it give you a broader perspective and make it easier to work with writers and directors?  

Yes, it definitely broadens my perspective. It opens up our tunnel vision of what we believe our roles to be when we are given tasks to do. Being an actress, I believe it’s ignorant to think that my way is the only one that matters because there are so many other moving parts that go into creating a film. For instance, when I’m auditioning for a movie and I don’t book it, I don’t take it personally. I understand that there are other elements involved in casting a film that I don’t have control over. Sometimes there are things that actors don’t see that producers have to deal with when going down these avenues of creation. Being a producer has taught me a great deal and it showed me the hard work that other people put in that never gets seen nor recognized. Actors and actresses get so many accolades & praise for what they do while the majority of those same people don’t realize that there are hundreds of others behind the scenes that make the movie possible in the first place. They all work symbiotically, including those actors on screen, to be able to show the world a film. In my opinion, to make a movie It is truly a collaborative effort.

Alongside your extensive dance education, you’ve also received training in kickboxing, jiu-jitsu, wire work, sword fighting and have even picked up a few languages along the way. It’s certainly an impressive resume. Of all these things, which was the most challenging to learn and which are you most proud of? 

Without a doubt, the most challenging thing in my life that I struggled with was becoming a professional ballerina. There’s nothing more difficult than getting up every day at ungodly hours of the morning and taking a ballet class. Walking up to that barre and doing the same exercises over and over again, day after day. You literally put your body through agony and hide injuries so that you can move forward without losing your edge. It is such a brutal profession and it is not remorseful. If you can’t do it, there are a 100 girls waiting for you to fail and take your spot. Ballet challenges your body and your mind while bringing you to the line of your pain threshold. It has been the one place that has truly taught me to never give up, that failure is not an option. That quality has helped me in my professional work as an actor and producer. The passion and desire to not quit has served me well and continues to propel me forward. When I make the decision to not fail I always find solutions. And that demand to be perfect, with ballet and now my acting, pushed me to places I never thought I could reach because it forced me to go into the unknown. “Only when we reach our “do not cross” line and pass it will we truly know what we can really do.”

Moving onto The Executioners itself now, I was interested in how the film initially presented itself as a simple home-invasion flick. I mention this because the premise actively subverts our expectations on a few occasions. I wondering if you could talk a little about that?   

When I first read the script I was drawn to how the story unfolded and where it took me. I conversed with the writer about the elements and my character i was curious to get a better understanding of which direction this film would go.  Once I had a better grip on things I saw that the director and the writer wanted to leave things ambiguous for the audience. They wanted the audience to have the opportunity to create their own conclusions on things and allow them to have debates about it after the credits rolled. It is a harsh movie to watch but it was intended that way in order to reveal what is being said within the hidden lines of this story. It starts off as a home invasion film and it turns around to become a twist driven movie filled with violence and sexual deviance. The director chose this path so that the ending makes sense thus validating the dark turns this story makes. Two things that drew me to this psychological thriller was the twist in the middle with the women taking back the power and using it on their oppressors. I loved how we show women in a place of controlling decision making in this film as well as the second quality to this story which was my character “Kay” and her unique journey through these forced trails & tribulations she faces and what she ultimately does with that challenge. Again, this film is not an easy pill for many to swallow but that was the intention of our director. He has great rhymes & reasons for why it goes where it goes.

On that note, the script also plays around with the audience’s sympathies. The characters are put into a highly distressing situation and this causes them to make rash decisions and clash with one another. Was this exciting ground to cover as an actor?  

As an actor, I never play for the audience. I do my research, I trigger my imagination and I truly submerge into my character. I don’t know how the other girls find what they need that will serve their instruments but when we come together, it is truly exciting. The script comes alive and characters clash while as actors we bond. When there is trust amongst your fellow actors, there is true freedom to explore and create. That ebb & flow becomes the lifeline of any scene, moment, act, etc. and your scene partners connection becomes as thick as blood. We were a part of many intimate, demanding and violent scenes so the support of not only your acting peers but of a professional/respectful crew goes a long way. The safe environment creates a great breeding ground for everyone’s imagination to flourish and grow. The most exciting thing for me when I get to sink my teeth into a character that myself Natalie will disagree with what “they” will do so I have to find that common ground where we can both operate as one. It’s in those moments of trust between one another that I begin to fall in love with my roles and I no longer find disagreements with their reactions. That is the most exciting quality of my journey with my characters. I find my disagreements, go deeper to solve them, and then I let my acting go and just live in a role that is truly alive & uninhibited.

Towards the middle of the movie, we venture into an extremely dark territory. Some of the things that happen are really disturbing, specifically those involving Kay. Was it daunting to film these scenes, as they’re unflinching and don’t really shy away from showing what happens. 

It was definitely difficult & uncomfortable to shoot those scenes but that’s what was needed in order for the story to work and I felt like I was truly living in the moment. Comfort kills in anything we strive to achieve in life and acting is no different. The more uncomfortable I was, the more it showed on the screen which worked perfectly in those scenes it was in those moments that I felt “Kay” took over me completely. On top of those complex scenes, there were crew and lights and cameras so all of that, combined with where I was going emotionally, added to the uneasy air that I was taking in. My biggest fear was to be fake in those high-stress moments that I wanted to be as real as possible. As actors, the more we give ourselves over to the vulnerable parts of us, the more we live in our truth, the more real we become on screen. And we were very lucky to shoot those scenes during the middle of production. We had all shared secrets with one another by then and that knowledge kept us connected to one another during those tough scenes. We supported each other no matter the cost. By the end of production, we all had an undeniable bond with one another.

Before the inciting incident, we spend quite a lot of time with the characters just hanging out as friends. Given this, did you do anything special to develop your chemistry as a group, or did you just fall into a natural rhythm?

Each one of us knew what we were getting ourselves into when we shot this movie. And being professionals we knew we had to get to know one another to create real bonds because “winging it” on set to find chemistry was not an option for us. From day one we found out all kinds of things about one another from our likes to our dislikes. I took it even a step further by confiding in secret with actors that had solo scenes with me. So by sharing private moments with them, we were able to take our trust to the next level and that, in turn, allowed our intimate scenes to blossom & live. Also, all of our shoots were at night so in the beginning, we thought it was cool & fun. Waking up late with one another and turning in before the sunrise. But after 7 days straight of the same thing, we all started to get delusional as a group. We never saw the sun and since we all were having the same experience it was even more things to connect us that was unique to our investment to one another. On a lighter note, being in Orlando we all went to Universal Studios together during one of our off days and let me tell you: if you can’t bond with someone, free falling on a rollercoaster or getting freaked out in a haunted maze, then you must be stranger than the home invaders from our film.

Spoilers below for The Executioners 

At the end of the film, we discover that Kay has actually orchestrated the entire thing in order to stir up publicity for her new book. Was it this reveal that attracted you to the character? 

Yes. When I read the script the director told me he saw me as Kay and I agreed. Kay has a lot of depth to her and I was very intrigued to explore that abyss as an actress. I usually do not get to play these types of characters so I saw it as a beckoning challenge. It was an opportunity to take her where I wanted to go as I had free reign to do so, (and obviously with the discretion of the director’s vision), too.  create something unique. I still remember the first day of shooting. I had changed into my costume and when the director saw me, he jokingly asked: “are we shooting a Greek mythology film?” I was dressed all in white with elegant boots that had laced up my legs. I looked like a holy virgin. He wanted the wardrobe dept. to get something different for me. I pulled him to the side and told him to trust me. That I knew how I saw this character in my mind and that he would be satisfied with my vision. He agreed and I went with the make-up & wardrobe people to find my new costume. We halted production that day to a standstill. And with these type of independent movies to lose a day of shooting can be debilitating. The next day, he saw me dressed up as this awkward girl with glasses on, a pencil in my hair, weird notes scribbled into the palm of my hand and an unassuming outfit on. He was overjoyed with excitement. He said, “that’s EXACTLY how I imagined Kay to be like!”

I’m curious, after reading the script, did you consciously play Kay as a secret villain, leaving hints scattered throughout your performance? Or was your approach to try and conceal her true nature so that it would be more surprising for the audience?  

I definitely played her as NOT the villain. I spoke to the director several times about it because I was trying to leave hints throughout my performance. After the 3rd day of shooting he pulled me to the side and said “Natalie, I saw some of the playbacks we did the other day and I love what you’re doing but I need you to play her as someone who has NO IDEA what’s happening and not gives away anything that is going on. That way the end will be that much more surprising to the audience.” He continued, saying that at the beginning of the film we have enough hints dropped that give our audience clues as to what might be happening and he didn’t want to insult their intelligence. I complied with his notes but as an actress I still tried to do my best, to plant seeds here & there in hopes that the audience caught things. Certain reactions Kay had that happened to other characters, over exaggerated laughs or screams, moments that affected Kay, etc. I was doing my best to subtly show that, honoring the ending so that the audience could have a chance to figure it out but could still be surprised. One of my favorite “twist-character-movies” that inspired me in creating “Kay” is “The Usual Suspects.” To play a villain is any actors dream come true and to play a SECRET villain is even more daunting & invigorating. Luckily I got to play both.

You can find our review for The Executioners here:
https://reelopinions.com/2018/04/10/review-the-executioners/

The Executioners is out now on VOD

 

 

Competition | Brigsby Bear

THAT’S RIGHT! All your years of putting up with us you might finally get something out of it!

Brigsby Bear is out on DVD today and so we have two copies of the comedy to give away.

Synopsis: Dave McCary (writer and director at “Saturday Night Live”) makes his directorial debut with BRIGSBY BEAR, “a truly original and remarkably touching comedy” (Ben Barna, NYLON). Co-written by Kyle Mooney (“Saturday Night Live”, Zoolander 2) and Kevin Costello, Mooney stars as James who has grown up with the kids’ show BRIGSBY BEAR and the programme has grown with him as well.  One dramatic night, James’ insular world is upended. Upon learning the series has been cancelled, he adopts the old adage that the show must go on. By becoming BRIGSBY BEAR’s new creator, James finally builds meaningful connections his life has lacked.

You can enter three ways:

1) Email:
Sign up for our email newsletter via this link: https://t.co/ZIDuKmDaGs

2) Facebook:
Like and share this post on our Facebook page.

3) Twitter:
Follow and retweet this tweet:

Winners will be picked at random on the 23rd April. You may only enter once per platform.

Further T&Cs can be found via this link: http://reelopinions.com/competition-terms-and-conditions/

Not My Cup of Tea | Bright

David Ayer lost a lot of credibility with Suicide Squad, let’s see if he can make it up with follow-up Bright. Oh, written by Max Landis? That’s a no then.

Jack and Harrison discuss the numerous ways in which Bright tries and fails to build a fantasy realm with real world implications.

Support Us!
Jack’s Microphone: https://amzn.to/2GJUek8
Jack’s Camera: https://amzn.to/2GHhGKU
Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl
Amazon: https://amzn.to/2JoqV4p

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

 

Mini-Review | I Kill Giants

While earnest I Kill Giants may be remembered as nothing more than a doppelgänger film.

Support Us!
The Original Book: https://amzn.to/2EFr8Ng
Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl
Amazon: https://amzn.to/2JoqV4p

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Review: The Executioners

The Executioners is a septic turd of a movie, devoid of any redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Conceptually, it is indistinct from every other home invasion film in existence, save for the fact that it has a leering obsession with sexual violence and a gang rape scene that seems to go on indefinitely. So if that pitch gets your motor running, then you’ll likely have a whale of a time. Otherwise, it’s probably best that you stay away and go watch literally anything else.

Alternating between two settings; ”Crushingly Dull” and ”Relentlessly Unpleasant”, The Executioners manages to be pull of the unenviable trick of being consistently off-putting. When it’s not boring, it’s sordid. When it’s not generic, it’s just stupid. And when it is is not tiresome and uneventful, that’s only because it is showing us a woman being forced into fellatio.

ex-1

Not only that, but director Giorgio Serafini has precisely zero new ideas. Even his last minute plot ”inversion” is a predictable staple of the genre. Without giving too much away, a variation of this reveal is used in almost every home invasion flick (see the infinitely superior You’re Next or Better Watch Out for further reference), so somehow the twists and turns here are also by-the-numbers!

Worse still, there is a pervasive attitude of seediness that clings to the film throughout, specifically in relation to the (exclusively-female) victims.  The camera is constantly ogling them, even when they are in a states of severe emotional distress/ physical peril, and they take their clothes off at seemingly random intervals, as if they’re trying to meet a quota or something.

Honestly, it’s telling that this gawking continues after the aforementioned assault, because the sleaziness of this film truly knows no bounds. How anyone could derive titillation from the sight of naked flesh AFTER already giving us a rape scene is truly beyond me, but apparently Serafini thought he’d give it the old college try.

Speaking of that churlish, needless rape sequence, boy is it a doozy! Overlong, uncomfortable and shamelessly exploitative, its only purpose in the film is to aggravate and disturb, which is pretty shitty when you think about it. It has no narrative justification for existing, other than to be used as a base shock-tactic. The heroines could have just as easily been under threat by armed killers or burglars and it wouldn’t have made an iota of difference. The only reason the filmmakers opted to go with rape is because that’s more ”extreme” and attention-grabbing.

Did I mention that the whole ordeal is presented as a montage too? Just to make it more untenable and crass.

Anyone who knows me personally will testify that I am not easily offended or upset and that I have seen FAR worse things than The Executioners before. So it’s not that I’m overly fragile or sensitive, nor do I automatically have a problem with rape appearing in  films.

I just think it should have a reason for being there. Which is what I found so objectionable about this film. It went nowhere with its nastiness, there was nothing else to it besides endless misery.  It was like having someone poking at you with a stick, repeatedly asking ”Are you shocked yet? Are you shocked yet?”

Also aren’t these rape-revenge narratives supposed to focus on the eventual retribution and payback? You know, the part of the story that’s actually cathartic and exciting for the audience? Take I Spit on Your Grave for example. That film dedicates significantly more time to showing the villains getting their, arguably even more brutal, comeuppance. By contrast, The Executioners kind of just shies away from all that stuff and is curiously hesitant to show us the perpetrators getting what they deserve. Why unflinchingly depict the suffering of the women like that, but then go so easy on the bad guys? It doesn’t make any sense!

There’s truly nothing positive that I can say about this film. The closest I can get to a compliment is that it successfully elicited a visceral reaction from me, but even then, that response was one of vitriol twinned with boredom.

Whilst it is indeed true that talented filmmakers like David Fincher and Martin Scorsese have made a name for themselves by producing provocative and twisted work, there was crucially always some substance to back up their edge. It takes real skill to do what they do, to keep people watching in-spite of the grime. Alas, Giorgio Serafini does not have that skill, so he comes across less like a dangerous maverick  and more like a desperate try-hard with nothing to say.

Review | Dead List

If you type the words “Dead List” into Google, then you will be immediately confronted with a terrifying portrait of online culture. Granted, the same could be said for almost any two word combination on the internet. After all, there’s plenty of stuff out there to make you question our worth as a species, like revenge porn, malware viruses, Logan Paul videos and those articles where you have to click on a new page every 50 fucking words. Still, even in the festering cesspit of depravity that is the world wide web,‘’Dead List’’ manages to conjure up some uniquely depressing results.

For context, there seems to be a worrying abundance of blogs dedicated to forecasting which elderly celebrities will be the next to expire. Each of these sites is repulsive in its own right, but The Death List manages to stand out amongst the bunch, by keeping a running tally of their accurate predictions. They even go as far as to proudly display their score out-of-50 right right at the top of the page, just next to the eminently classy tagline; ‘’on today, gone tomorrow’’. Oh and they have a tacky merchandise store where you can buy their official underwear too. Nice!

Now as far as I’m concerned, no film should have its SEO comprised by a website that features headlines like ‘’No More Squawking for Hawking’’ and ‘’Hef in Hell?!’’ So in that sense, I feel inclined to be generous to Dead List, because no matter how shoddily made it is, it doesn’t deserve to be buried beneath all of this decadent slime. It makes me feel bad for it. Indeed, by virtue of not being a ghoulish mortality aggregate, it should be ranked higher in search engines results.

Sure, the camera work is ugly and the colour grading will be instantly off-putting to anyone with eyes. And yes, the production values are consistently appalling, the acting is at times embarrassing and the script is full of accidentally hilarious moments (e.g. ‘’There’s not enough space in this 5-seater to fit 4 people. Sorry you’re gonna have to get in the trunk!’’)

But beneath this scrappy, amateurish surface is an anthology rife with creative vigour and affectionate direction. For this very reason, I can honestly say that I found Dead List to be strangely charming and endearing, as it’s blatantly a misguided labour of love. Each of the film’s discrete chapters has something worth recommending in it, be it an interesting, if not particularly well realised concept, an inventive, if not particularly frightening scare, or just some fascinatingly inept decisions.

Even the lamest sequence, a silly, Drag Me to Hell riff with a demonic hag, offers up plenty of unintentional amusement. Which is still amusement. Most of the laughs stem from a ludicrously hammy performance, courtesy of Susan Stangl, who plays the cackling witch with such demented relish, that she begins to resemble a Monty Python character. Every single moment she is on screen is glorious, as she comically presses her face against windows, manically bulges her eyes and generally overacts to a cartoonist degree.

Curiously enough, not all of the highlights are of the so-bad-its good variety. As with any anthology, this is of course a mixed-bag, but what’s striking is how much the episodes differ in quality. Whilst some are enjoyably terrible, others are just legitimately enjoyable!  For instance, a protracted sequence with a monstrous clown (obviously riding on the coattails of It) has some surprisingly novel ideas, such as balloon art that doubles up as a voodoo doll and a sentient chain of magic handkerchiefs that act like a snake.

The framing device that links together all of the disparate segments is also fairly clever. Essentially, a struggling actor is driving home following a disastrous audition, when a cryptic book mysteriously lands on the roof of his car. He takes the artefact home, with the intention of selling it online, only for his roommate (who is inexplicably schooled in the dark arts) to interject, explaining that the book can be used to sentence people to death by way of a mystical force. All you have to do is scribble down the target’s name and then let the eldritch horrors do the rest.

Tempted by this offer, our protagonist decides to eliminate his competition and writes down the names of all his acting buddies, so that they can never steal a role from him again.  Each chapter then presents the fallout of this decision, with the chosen individuals being menaced by a different threat. Oh and to spice things up, it’s all presented out of sequence and with overlapping chronology, kind of like Pulp Fiction.

This is a relatively strong premise; think Death Note by way of Kill Your Friends. What works about it is that the vague nature of the malevolent force allows the filmmakers to change things up at any given time, without having to worry about how it all fits into the larger scheme of things. As a result, one minute we might be treated to a clunky race relations parable, the next we’re transported into a pulpy body horror movie.

In this regard, the overarching conceit of ‘’write down a name and then something bad will happen’’ is very liberating and stops the movie from ever falling into a repetitive rut. Because the book seemingly has an unlimited scope for what it can do, the filmmakers are free to transition between various different tones and sub-genres of horror, whilst still maintaining the sense of narrative progression that you would get with a traditional film. It’s the best of both worlds really; preserving the anything-goes sensibility of an anthology, but also facilitating a more focused narrative.

All in all,  Dead List might feel like a glorified home-movie, but it is consistently fun. Sometimes it manages to hold your attention by making you laugh at it (thanks to its DIY makeup effects and wonky performances)  but this is often balanced out by moments that show genuine promise and talent. Either way it’s never boring, which is more than I can say for a lot of straight to VOD releases.

Support Us!
Our Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl
Amazon: https://amzn.to/2JoqV4p

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Reel Opinions is a UK based film review group that covers just about anything. From reviews of terrible movies to interviews with casts and directors Reel Opinions covers everything we can be bothered to make.

Review | Isle of Dogs

Wes Anderson’s second animated feature is his most entertaining yet!

Isle of Dogs is the latest work of style-supremo Wes Anderson. It is his second crack at stop motion animation but this is a marked improvement on Fantastic Mr Fox.

You feel that Anderson wouldn’t have got back to stop motion unless he felt he had a great story to tell, and that’s true of this film. It’s a dog-based caper and is perhaps one of Anderson’s most fun and enjoyable movies to date.

I saw this in a cinema full of kids during the Easter holidays but I think it’s fair to say that this isn’t really a film for children despite the PG rating. There’s the usual sense of melancholy which doesn’t really chime for younger viewers but I think anyone can enjoy the incredibly detailed animation so perhaps I’m not the right person to say that.

And that is a great point to start on. The level of detail and thought that has gone into every frame is incredible. The Isle of Dogs is an abandoned island upon which all of the dogs in the fictional city of Megasaki are banished after an epidemic of dog flu breaks out. There are two narratives at play; one is a young boy’s desire to find his pet dog which was sent to the island and the other is of the dog’s desire to flee the island and overcome the dog flu. The settings are divided between this island and Megasaki city. The island is a place in decay, abandoned by humans and now serving as little more than a rubbish dump. The beautifully detailed mise-en-scene makes this animated world feel real and genuinely inhospitable. The city seems vast and densly populated and demostrates extensive research into Japanese culture and architecture.  A couple of scenes which demonstrate this are one in which sushi is prepared and another where a kidney is transplated. It sounds completely inane but it is honestly staggering. It’s probably the most I have been in awe of something in a film for some time.

You might be concerned by the fact that all of the human characters speak Japanese in the film without any subtitles. But Anderson deals with this intelligently. During the speeches, an interpreter, voiced by Frances McDormand sits in a booth as if to translate it to a television audience watching at home. Greta Gerwig voices Tracy Walker, a foreign exchange student, who acts as another means of translating the words of the Japanese human characters. It’s hard to explain the ways in which Anderson achieves this but he does very well in making this accessible.

The rest of the voice cast is superb. This animated film gives the director a chance to work with many of his regular muses as well as a host of new talents. The actors’ doggy doubles are perfect. Gondo is a rough around the edges gangster dog voiced by Harvey Keitel while Scarlett Johansson voices an immaculately groomed pooch.

The cast deliver some very funny dog-based lines – even for those like myself who wouldn’t claim to be ‘dog’ people. Bryan Cranstone voices Chief, who is perhaps main dog of the piece. He repeats the warning ‘I bite’. The way that Anderson maps human personality traits onto the dogs whilst they retain their canine characteristics has neither the cuteness of Disney nor the abrasiveness of Family Guy. They are melancholic muts.

For me Fantastic Mr Fox felt like a bit of a mistep for Anderson. The character and story was well loved and well known in its original literary form by Roald Dahl. With Isle of Dogs, Anderson has more creative freedom and uses it to create a film that has all the fun, adventure and wonderful camera work of Moonrise Kingdom or Grand Budapest Hotel. It does carry on in the vein of those films rather than Anderson’s early work but that’s no bad thing. There is enough there to please the hardcore fans.

As for the soundtrack, whilst there is only one pop song used in the film, the score is absolutely brilliant and more than makes up for it. I love the music in Anderson’s films but I didn’t find myself wishing for 60s pop over Alexandre Desplat’s wonderful score.

Being released so soon after the awards season you know that this movie will disregarded by the big awards next season. But that’s fine. This is a fun film which doesn’t claim to be anything more. If you love Wes Anderson it is essential viewing, if you love dogs it’s essential viewing or if have even just a passing interest in films and want to see stop-motion animation at its absolute peak then this is a must. If it isn’t Anderson’s best film, it is at least his most mainstream.

Support Us!
Buy Isle of Dogs: https://amzn.to/2H4lPMp
Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Reel Opinions is a UK based film review group that covers just about anything. From reviews of terrible movies to interviews with casts and directors Reel Opinions covers everything we can be bothered to make.

 

6. Wonder Woman

Foot fetishes, giant mechanical monsters, and “wicked sexiness” – all this and more features in Joss Whedon’s controversial 2006 Wonder Woman script.

Twitter: @Reel_Opinions

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ReelOpinionz

E-Mail: reelopinionz@gmail.com

Website: https://www.reelopinions.com

Podcast: http://goo.gl/CoAMcX

Us as individuals:

Jack: @JackCGracie

Harrison: @haribo217

Support Us!
Jack’s Microphone: https://amzn.to/2GJUek8
Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl
Amazon: https://amzn.to/2JoqV4p

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Reel Opinions is a UK based film review group that covers just about anything. From reviews of terrible movies to interviews with casts and directors Reel Opinions covers everything we can be bothered to make.

Review | Pacific Rim: Uprising

SWOOSH! KLONK! ZAM! QUNCKKK! CLANK! AIEEE! VRONK! THUNK!

No, this is not an itemised list of all the onomatopoeia used in the 60s Batman show (Although incidentally, every single one of those phrases has appeared in there somewhere. Even QUNCKKK!) Instead, it is a transcription of how Guillermo del Toro likely pitched his 2013 schlock epic Pacific Rim.

Picture the scene; the dignified artist marching down the hallways of Legendary Entertainment, psyching himself up to wow the room with his latest idea. He walks into the production office and introduces himself to the execs, masking his nervousness beneath a cool facade of confidence. Once the pleasantries have been dispensed, he takes a seat opposite the studio heads and opens up a mysterious briefcase.

For their part, the producers are all simmering in anticipation, expecting something really special. After all, del Toro is renowned for filling notebooks-upon-notebooks with his ingenious sketches and deranged scribblings. So whatever is in that briefcase, it’s gotta be good.

It comes as something of a surprise then, when the esteemed auteur instead produces a heap of vintage action-figures (depicting various anime mechs and giant movie monsters) and starts gleefully mashing them together like an overgrown version of Andy from Toy Story. The revered filmmaker treats the producers to 20 minutes of this man-child lunacy, accompanying the action with his own acapella sound-effects and voices. Then, when he is finally finished, he composes himself, puts his playthings away and stares expectantly at his audience. Patiently awaiting the greenlight.

And sure enough, they give him just that, along with $190 million with which he recreate this demented play-session as a major summer release.

Okay, granted this is probably not how Pacific Rim truly came to be, but when you’re actually watching the movie, the above scenario feels entirely plausible. Because it doesn’t come across as a typical studio product, aimed at selling as much merchandise as possible. Rather, it feels like a particularly excitable 10-year-old (one weaned on a diet of Saturday morning cartoons and old B-Movies) was given the keys to a multi-million dollar blockbuster and just went nuts with the opportunity.

There was something so sincere about the youthful exuberance behind the film, making it clear that del Toro saw it as more than just a quick paycheck. Perhaps it seemed like a brainless spectacle to everyone else, but to him it was obviously something greater. It was a chance to let his enthusiastic imagination run wild and translate his childhood fantasies onto to the big screen.

Now here we are, five years, two films and a couple of Academy Awards later, and Del Toro’s baby is finally getting its long overdue sequel, in the form of Pacific Rim Uprising. The only problem is that the project has spent so long in development hell, that its creator has since absconded to other things. Which is hardly surprising, given that del Toro is a man with about a thousand ideas gestating at any given moment. Indeed, he already left The Hobbit for similar reasons.

Still, given that Pacific Rim was very much his brain child, many have questioned if the franchise can feasibly survive without his nurturing influence. This concern is only exacerbated when you learn that the reigns have been handed over to Steven S. DeKnighta man whose IMDB is curiously bereft of any cinematic offerings. How could this guy (responsible for that risible Spartacus series) possibly hope to follow in the footsteps of one of the finest filmmakers of this generation? Honestly, how could anyone?

Well, to be fair to DeKnight, he actually does a pretty decent job here. Sure, he’s no del Toro and mostly provides workmanlike direction, but he is equally far removed from the likes of Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich, managing to craft impressive set-pieces without ever slipping into the monotonous and disorienting excess of, say, Transformers. It’s a credit to DeKnight that, no matter how much destruction is unfolding on-screen and no matter how many pieces he is maneuvering around, you can always keep a track of where everyone is and what they are doing.

Not only are his fight scenes refreshingly coherent and well-staged, but they are also pleasingly resourceful and inventive. For example, there’s the introduction of the ‘’gravity sling’, a weapon this is used to great effect when a Jaeger, quite literally, pulls down a series of skyscrapers on top of an advancing monster. There’s also a fun chase scene that takes place inside one of the robots, cleverly using its internal mechanisms and compartments as a kind of obstacle course. When it’s indulging in fun gimmicks like this, Pacific Rim Uprising is a riotous blast, offering up thrills that other franchises could only dream of.

Alas, whilst DeKnight seems to appreciate the ingredients of a diverting action sequence, he is less skilful when it comes to communicating the scope of proceedings. In the first film, the towering Jaegers and massive Kaijus always felt palpably immense, because del Toro used tiny details to emphasise their scale. For instance, he had oceans be displaced whenever a monster climbed onto land, the same way that water is unsettled when a person gets out of the bathtub. He also made use of thoughtful shot compositions, in order to show how the behemoths dwarfed their human counterparts and our feeble man-made structures.

DeKnight on the other hand, doesn’t really have a knack for awe-inspiring visuals or dramatic presentation. Exemplifying this is the fact that, for some reason, the action is shot at Jaeger height throughout and so we never get a look at things from the ground-level. This means that, instead of feeling like giant colossi are rampaging through sprawling cities, it just looks like two normal size entities duking it out in a miniature village. As a consequence of this shortcoming, there’s nothing here to rival Godzilla’s jaw-dropping H.A.L.O jump sequence, or Cloverfield’s iconic decapitation of the statue of liberty.

In short, without any kind of cinematic flair, everything in Uprising feels oddly small. The previously stunning Kaiju design is uninspired too and the promising world building from the original is largely brushed aside (bar a couple of references to the Black Market). Where the first film was bursting with intriguing lore and almost mythical imagery, this one feels far more restrained, with blander visuals and less ambition. For this reason, del Toro fans will no doubt miss the first film’s comparative artistry and breadth.

Neverthless, Uprising does improve upon its predecessor in at least a couple of ways. Most surprisingly of all, the narrative has been considerably bulked up, with an interesting conflict revolving around remotely piloted Jaegers and a clever, legitimately unpredictable twist that builds upon a minor plot point from the first movie.

Moreover, the characters are vastly superior this time around, with John Boyega’s Jake proving to be a much more magnetic protagonist than Charlie Hunnam’s Raleigh ever was. This is mostly down to the former’s significant charisma, as he routinely manages to save what would otherwise be excruciating comedy scenes, on the strength of his sheer likeability alone. Meanwhile, newcomer Cailee Spaeny is a charming presence who elevates a potentially annoying character into someone you can actually care about. The pair of leads play off each other well and their mentor/protege dynamic gives the film a strong emotional core.

Oh and Charlie Day gets to go absolutely batshit this time, which is good news for It’s Always Sunny fans.

Overall, Pacific Rim Uprising lacks the magic touch of its creator, with downgraded visuals and a lower calibre of imagination. That being said, it’s still thoroughly entertaining and manages to preserve just enough of the original’s DNA to succeed on its own merit. If you like big monster movies, this is well worth checking out.

 

Support Us!
Pacific Rim Uprising: https://amzn.to/2EzjQdT
Editing Software: https://amzn.to/2qfVbpl
Amazon: https://amzn.to/2JoqV4p

These links are affiliate links – by clicking them we will receive a small commission at no cost to you.