Best & Worst of 2017 - Acting

A random side character in Disney’s The Rocketeer once said, “Acting is acting like you’re not acting.” On the other hand, the late great Paul Newman once said, “To be an actor, you have to be a child.” As strange and silly as both these quotes may seem, there is a great deal of truth to them both. Acting is about playing an elaborate game of let’s pretend. Taking it upon yourself to play with your imagination and conviction to create and embody characters to tell a story. In my experience, good acting can potentially save a lousy movie. But horrible acting can drag the rest of the film down with it. Here are my picks for 2017s best and worst performances. 

Best acting of 2017 

Tulip Fever

Character driven dramas like this one require a cast that is all at once talented, committed, skilled, and passionate about their craft. This film has all of that in spades. The movies cast successfully carries the whole movie. Everyone in this film gets to be funny, dramatic, over the top, subtle, and a little crazy. This movie is terrific in many departments, but it is worth watching for the acting alone. It fills me with joy to see performances on screen with such grace and nuance. So much so that I’m a little annoyed that it didn’t get nominated for anything. Oh well. 

Worst acting of 2017 

Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets

Before I share my feelings on the horrendous acting in this film, I would just like to point out something a little odd. This film is based on a series of French science fiction comic books titled Valerian and Laureline, named after the male and female lead characters. So, why is it that the male character gets to have his name in the movie title, but the equally crucial female character does not? I can’t help but feel that’s a little sexist. But I digress: Anyway, this movie had a lot riding on it, and I wanted to like it and for it to do well. Sadly, it failed on multiple levels. Not the least of which is the acting from the main cast. As I stated before in my review for this film, the two main leads are far too young, far too inexperienced, and far too limited in range to play these characters. Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne (both of whom were also in Tulip Fever and were actually good in that one) are so miscast in this film that it’s baffling. They have no chemistry, no charisma, and are just not convincing as a pair of partners who have worked together in dangerous situations for years. This movie might have been saved it if had two older and more experienced actors with better chemistry in the leads. I for one still think that they should have cast Jeremy Renner and Amy Adams. If you must see this movie, see it for the effects spectacle it is. Don’t see it for the main cast. 

Coming soon: The Best & Worst films of 2017. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

Best & Worst of 2017 - Writing

Every film begins with a script. Be it based on a famous novel or an original story entirely; there’s no movie without a script to act as a starting point. The funny thing about films is that the writing you start with is never the same by the end. The only real final draft of any screenplay is the film itself. More often than not, texts go through lots of changes during production, causing lots of unexpected turns and changes in the story. This is one of the many aspects of films chaotic creation I find so enjoyable to examine and practice. Here are my picks for the best and worst writing of 2017. 

Best writing of 2017: 

Wind River 

Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan 

This film may not be the most pleasant to watch, but it is the most important to see. That is due, in large part, to its script. Taylor Sheridan, who previously wrote Sicario and Hell or High Water, presents a story that is all at once relevant to modern issues, classically entertaining, and actively taking down old and dangerous cliches. It is a story of family, diversity, history, love, the situation of the disenfranchised, and a call for action. All delivered in a package with interesting three-dimensional characters, provocative points on the human condition, and a slap in the face to both conventional Hollywood and society as a whole. This script is smart, suspenseful, lovingly textured, and filled with something for everyone. This writing has made me proud to be a loyal fan of Taylor Sheridan, and I look forward to what he will deliver next. 

Worst writing of 2017: 

Alien: Covenant 

Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green 

Screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper 

I’m not sure what else to say about this script other than it’s lousy. Despite having these many talented writers on deck, this entire screenplay contains nothing but stupidity, arrogance, and laziness. For starters, none of the characters (if we can even call these people characters) are given any development to allow the audience to sympathize or connect with them. As a result, these people are less like characters and more like walking talking plot devices, making it very difficult to care about them. Next, the script seems to be under the impression that audiences wanted to know the origin of the Xenomorphs, or at least a theory as to their roots when that shouldn’t matter because the more you know what a threat is, the less scary it becomes. Last, but most certainly not least, if these people are supposed to be really smart cream-of-the-crop scientists, why, oh why, do they walk around an uncharted, unknown planet…without environmental suits? I’ll tell you why: it’s called writers convenience. Can’t think of a smart way to get one of the characters infected with the early version of the Xenomorph? Just make the characters idiots. This is inexcusable for a movie of this caliber. These people should have known better, and I hope they learn a valuable lesson. Especially you John Logan. You’re better than this. 

Next up: Best & Worst acting of 2017. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

Compression is not your enemy

This is a subject regarding the art of digital filmmaking. It's something I originally wanted to discuss in a video I was planning on making, but circumstances have caused me to skip that long process and just put my thoughts in writing instead. This is, after all, a blog about movies as a whole and not only limited to reviewing new releases. With that in mind, I think it's time I talked about an aspect of filmmaking that has been on my mind for a while. That being what is arguably the most controversial word in digital cinematography: Compression.

For the uninitiated compression refers to how most prosumer video cameras (that is video cameras available on the consumer market that include professional level features) tend to record video. When a prosumer video camera shoots a clip of video, it will usually squeeze said video file into a smaller version of itself to maximize storage space. It's like taking a giant photograph and folding it down to make it fit in your back pocket. For the most part, this is not really a problem. As maximizing storage space is a much-desired aspect for prosumer video cameras. However, for specific applications, like say cinema, it's not always preferred.

Most cinematographers who opt to shoot their projects on digital video will typically want to shell out the cash for a more powerful and more expensive camera. These kinds of cameras include the RED, the Arri Alexa, and any camera in SONY's F series. These cameras offer higher resolution, more color control, and shoot video that is uncompressed. 

Part of the problem with compressed footage that most cinematographers take issue with is the degradation of said footage. Depending on the brand of camera and the technology utilized for compression as there are many different kinds, most compression methods create what is commonly referred to as "compression artifacts." These are small and sometimes hardly noticeable elements occasionally found in the compressed footage. Thay can range from an image not being as sharp as desired to what is called "macro-blocking," which is the appearance of small squares randomly flashing in the video clip. This is when the camera is trying to figure out how to accurately recreate the image without really remembering what was in the picture in the first place. A kind of guesswork if you will.  

Now, this is not intended to give the impression that compressed footage is automatically ugly and could never be used in a cinematic situation. The good news is that not only is it possible to use the compressed footage in a cinematic condition, but it has also actually already been done. In 2012, cinematographer Shane Hurlbut (you know, the guy that Christian Bale chewed out on the set of Terminator: Salvation for not standing still during a scene) took on a unique film project titled Act of Valor. An action thriller that would star active Navy Seals. Due to the unusual and extreme nature of this project, and partially due to the Seals erratic deployment schedules, Shane Hurlbut decided that this film was going to require an equally unusual and extreme approach.

Shane decided to shoot the majority of the film on three Canon DSLR cameras. The 5D Mark II, the 7D, and the 1DX. All of which shot high definition video at 24 frames per second, the traditional cinematic frame rate. See images below:

Because of the small form factor, lightweight, and convenient internal recording options, these cameras allowed Shane Hurlbut to better maneuver around the Navy Seals and the extreme situations they were asked to be placed in for the story. Including a stealth infiltration scene shot in a bug infested and Crocodile occupied swamp. 

After this experience, Shane Hurlbut loved these cameras so much, not only has he fully transitioned from shooting on celluloid film to shooting on digital video exclusively, he has also advocated the aesthetic power of compressed video. In an educational series from B&H Photo & Video he hosted, he goes on to describe compression as "the reason it looks like digital film." Don't take my word for it, listen to the man for yourself. See video below: 

Another example of this phenomenon is an indie romance film titled Like Crazy. Cinematographer John Guleserian originally intended to shoot this movie with two digital cameras. The Canon 7D and the RED. However, after a series of tests with both cameras, John decided that he preferred the convenience and the aesthetic quality of the 7D and convinced the director, Drake Doremus, to shoot the entire film on that camera instead. That same camera would be used for another indie film titled Tiny Furniture. Which not only played on the big screen but is also now included in The Criterion Collection. 

Today, most filmmakers who are still making videos and movies with DSLR cameras are now opting to use an external recorder. A device which connects directly to the camera and records higher quality video uncompressed. Which is an excellent option but, at least in my opinion, I can't help but feel as though that defeats the purpose of using a DSLR in the first place. I have shot projects on DSLRs and have, on occasion, used an external recorder. I love the images I get from both recording options. But even so, I can't help but agree with Shane Hurlbut and John Guleserian and prefer the aesthetics from the original compressed footage. 

The technology you choose to tell your story with doesn't matter. It is the quality of the story itself that matters most. While better technology can play a significant part in enhancing your story, I believe that you should not worry about compression. If compressed footage can hold up on a sixty-foot screen, it can hold up anywhere else and carry your story to greater heights. 

Best & Worst of 2017 - Director

The director is the one who orchestrates all the pieces of a film. In all stages of production, a director makes most of the crucial decisions of a film's construction. Some directors like Steven Spielberg and David Fincher have created masterpieces through their passion for the craft and pursuit of perfection. While other directors, like Uwe Boll and James Nguyen, will likely remain in history as some of the worst. Here and now, I pick my director who should join the ranks of the greats and who should not quit their day job. 

Best Director: 

Get Out 

Written and Directed by Jordan Peele 

In addition to having a brilliant script, Jordan Peele has genuinely cemented his power in the director's chair. With his debut film, Get Out, he establishes his understanding of camera placement, pacing, tension, and a talent for getting the best possible performance out of every one of his actors. For a man who spent most of his career in comedy and well-crafted comedy I might add, Jordan Peele may be on his way to breaking the mold and branching out into other genres. I am looking forward to whatever comes next. 

Worst Director: 

The Dark Tower 

Directed by Nikolaj Arcel 

This movie does suffer from a lot of problems. The vast majority of which lead straight to its director. The Dark Tower could have been a fresh, fun, and exciting beginning into something new and different, but instead, it just passed by leaving no impression and promptly forgotten. Mostly thanks to this director. Yes, the movie suffered from an unpolished script, but that wasn’t the films most significant problem. Director Nikolaj Arcel made some bad decisions that ultimately dragged this film to the ground. It was him who decided to keep the movie at ninety minutes with no exceptions. It was him who didn’t allow any of the mythology or characters to develop, and it was him who assumed that having Stephen King’s blessing meant something when history had taught us how much that doesn’t matter. Add to that some boring action scenes and a sad waste of Idris Elba’s talent, and you’ve got a director who should go straight to the blacklist. I hope I never have to suffer through another one of this mans films again. 

Next up: Best & Worst Writing 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, Thank you for reading. 

Best & Worst of 2017 - Editing

Editing is where a movie is made or broken. Because editing cannot save already bad movies (see Suicide Squad and The Snowman for proper examples), it can cause a previously good film to be even better. Take the shots from a master artisan and put them into the hands of an equally powerful editor, like Thelma Schoonmaker or Walter Murch, you’ve got the makings of a masterpiece of cinema. On the other hand, if you hand over that same footage to some guy who puts together music videos for his brother's band, you might want to pull back your expectations a bit.

Here are my picks for the best and worst editing of 2017. 

Best Editing: 

Wonder Woman 

In addition to being an overall excellent movie, and the only sound DC movie in recent memory I might add, this has the best looking editing I have seen all year. Especially in the action scenes. With modern action movies, there is a tendency to use what I call “Rapid Fire Editing,” which is when an action scene is cut in a hyperactive fashion to make the scene feel more visceral when all that does is leave the audience with a severe headache. Wonder Woman, on the other hand, doesn’t have any of that. Every cut is precise and adequately timed, every shot is utilized at the appropriate moment, and every action scene leaves you with a sense of accomplishment and, no pun intended, wonder. The best example is the scene where Wonder Woman walks out of the trenches and marches straight into enemy fire taking down the bad guys and liberating a village in the process. That whole scene is edited so gracefully that I wish that films editor could work on all action movies. There are many reasons to watch and enjoy Wonder Woman, and the editing makes it all even more beautiful. 

Worst Editing: 

Transformers: The Last Knight 

I have never really been a fan of the Michael Bay Transformers movies except for the first one, which wasn’t awful but still wasn’t worth any praises for many reasons. As each sequel continued to make money and repeat the same story, characters, lousy jokes, ugly designs, boring action scenes, and horrendous misogyny over and over and over again, I just got more and more frustrated with this series. While I am happy to report that I have never given any of the sequels my box office cash, I have rented one or two of them on-demand, purely out of curiosity. Which is why I can talk about this one today, and proclaim, without a doubt, this is the stupidest, laziest, and most unprofessional editing I have ever seen. First, once again, the movie spends way too much time with human characters we don’t care about as evidenced by the editing choosing to put all focus on them rather than the giant fighting robots. Next, just like all other Transformers movies that came before it, every action scene is choppy, incomprehensible, and has no tension to it despite the “epic” stuff happening. Finally, and this is the most annoying part, the aspect ratio continually changes. I don’t mean it changes from scene to scene, I mean it varies from shot to shot. One shot it will be full, then next it will be square, next it will be a massive rectangle, then back to wide again, and so on and so forth. I fail to understand how a movie could have had six editors (yes, that’s right, six editors) and not one of them thought to tell the director to pick a single aspect ratio. This movie is garbage from shot one, and the editing only exemplifies its awfulness. 

Next up: Best & Worst Director 

Ladies & gentleman, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. 

Bright - So crazy it actually works

Those who have watched my video reviews on YouTube (in particular, my review for American Ultra) may remember my comment on one of the best ways to describe a movie. Which is proclaiming it to be an amalgamation of other films that share plot points, themes, aesthetics, and character types with the movie in question. Example: James Cameron's Avatar can best be described as Dances with Wolves meets Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest with a little bit of Halo for good measure. With that in mind, the best way I can describe Netflix's new and most expensive original movie, Bright, is that it is Zootopia meets Training Day with a heavy dose of Lord of the Rings, and it is just as crazy as that sounds. To be clear, I mean that in the best possible way.

The story takes place in an alternate universe, where it is technically modern-day Los Angeles, but it's a world where magic exists and is populated by humans, elves, orcs, and other kinds of fantasy creatures found in Dungeons and Dragons and the like. Our heroes are two cops, Officer Ward (Will Smith) and Officer Jakoby (Joel Edgerton) who is the first Orcish officer on the force. This creates tension with Ward, as well as the entire police force because Orcs are not well regarded as a people. They are seen as evil and untrustworthy and only loyal to each other. However, Jakoby is kind of the black sheep of his race, as he is not just a genuinely good-natured person, but has wanted to be a cop ever since he was little. But I digress.

Anyway, while on patrol, the two officers respond to a domestic disturbance in a pretty shady part of town. After a quick firefight, they raid the house to discover a murder scene with the only survivor being a young elvish girl named Tikka (Lucy Fry) who is also in possession of a magic wand. Word gets out and suddenly everyone in town, from some gangsters to some crooked cops, want to get their hands on the wand to utilize its unlimited power. Our heroes then take it upon themselves, somewhat reluctantly, to protect Tikka and the wand, not only from the threats as mentioned earlier but from another and a more terrifying threat that wants to use the wand to bring back a robust evil known as The Dark Lord. Now, the two heroes must survive the night, and hopefully, learn to trust each other.

This film is actually a delightful surprise. In that, it has so many unusual pairings of thematic and genre-oriented elements that you would think wouldn't really work when fused together, and the movie actually succeeds in pulling it off. I think what really makes it work is how well grounded the story and characters are. Despite them sharing a more realistic environment with such fantastical elements, everyone involved in the production treats it all with conviction and commitment, making it all more tangible. Also, the real audience pull is, surprisingly, Officer Jakoby. As he is the most sympathetic character in the whole story. Not unlike Judy Hopps from Zootopia, they both face diversity issues, are regarded as not deserving a badge, and have to struggle with earning their partners trust. With the main character being so sympathetic and relatable, it is impossible not to get so immersed in the story.

This film was written by Max Landis, the son of the late director John Landis, and incidentally, the writer of the movie mentioned above, American Ultra. I've heard that he is not really the best person to get along with, but I have to say that I love this guy's writing and philosophy & opinions about screenwriting. He has a YouTube channel where he shares his experience as a screenwriter and offers advice and insight as to how to become a better writer. I will leave a link to one of my favorite videos of his below so you may see what I mean.

The script is layered with texture. There are lots of details and subplots that, at first, don't seem to have a purpose, but manage to flow well into relevance throughout the runtime. While most of the supporting characters can come off as a little two dimensional, the script has the good sense to not spend too much time with them. As they are really less like characters and more physical embodiments of the various obsticles and goals for the protagonists. Typically I would demand more than that from the supporting characters, but in this case, I find it easy to forgive. As the primary focus is the relationship between the two officers, and by extension, the relationship of the two races.

The film was directed by David Ayer, who seems like a strange choice at first, but he actually handles this story pretty well. David Ayer is best with gritty, macho action dramas, usually about cops. As a director, he can be pretty hit or miss. Sometimes his style works, like with his previous films End of Watch and Fury. But other times, it just goes too far and falls flat on its face, like with Sabotage and Suicide Squad. Fortunately, he manages to find his balance with this film and delivers.

Usually, this is where I would tell you if it's worth seeing in theaters or not, but that won't work here since this is strictly a Netflix release. If this film is getting a theatrical release, I am not aware of it. So, instead, please allow me to conclude this review with this note. I can't say that this is an entirely great film, but I can say that it is an intriguing and fascinating one that is very much worth checking out. If you're looking for something unusual yet familiar, queue up Netflix and give this one a look.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

Link:
Max Landis talks about storytelling

Best & Worst of 2017 - Cinematography

When it comes to talking about movies, the cinematography is my favorite subject. As a cinematographer myself, I love examining lighting technique, camera technology, and color style. In my opinion, these are the things that truly make a movie. When you’ve got excellent cinematography, you’ve got a beautiful movie. But when you’ve got lousy cinematography, you’ve got nothing but ugly. 2017 had some gorgeously shot films as well as some abysmally shot ones. These are my picks for best and worst cinematography of 2017. 

Best Cinematography of 2017: 

Logan

Despite how much I didn’t like the movie itself, I was awestruck by the cinematography. In my video review, I proclaimed that I could frame almost every shot in this film and I stand by that assessment. Photographed by John Mathieson, who previously shot Gladiator and X-Men: First Class, this movie is a beautiful example of an all natural light aesthetic. Regardless of where a scene is taking place, it all looks gorgeously natural. At no point did I find myself asking “where is that light coming from?”. The movement of the camera, especially during action scenes, is smooth and almost effortless like it should be. Even some of the essential special effects in the film are created by using traditional in-camera techniques rather than CGI, which is always a plus for me. And, of course, let’s not forget the color style, as it manages to look stylized yet subtle. It’s subdued enough to fit the bleak tone of the film, but still bright enough to be easy on the eyes. If you must watch Logan, just watch it for the cinematography. It is probably the best looking film of 2017. Although, if Blade Runner 2049 gets the Oscar this year, and Logan doesn’t, I won’t cry over it. 

Worst Cinematography of 2017: 

Alien: Covenant 

I never thought I would live to see another film with cinematography that was on par with the likes of Fant4stick. Alien: Covenant has got to be the ugliest major studio budget film I have ever seen on the big screen. Photographed by Dariusz Wolski, best know for Crimson Tide, The Martian, and the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, this film has all of the hallmarks of lazy and wrong-headed cinematography. Let’s run down the list: 

Shaky cam - Check 

Non-sensical shot composition - Check 

Improper and insufficient lighting - Check 

Ugly grey color palette - Check 

Underexposed to the point of incomprehensibility - Check 

I fail to understand how a film that cost so much money to make, and had such an experienced DP on board, could look so cheap and ugly. Worst yet, this film was shot on the Arri Alexa. Arguably the best digital cinema camera on the market, capable of delivering gorgeous colors and textures. For that reason alone, this film should have at least looked decent. Instead, this whole movie looks like it was shot on an old standard definition video camera from the early 2000’s, sent to be color graded by an intern from Technicolor, who merely over-cranked the “Bleach Bypass” setting on his recently acquired copy of Adobe Premiere Pro. A movie with this much pedigree should not look like a film school students senior project. Let’s hope that Mr. Wolski does better in the future. Although, I honestly kind of doubt it. 

Coming Soon: 

Best & Worst Editing 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.