Tau - Elegant, simplistic, and emotional

I may have mentioned once or twice that I am a big fan of science fiction. Arguably the one genre that has the most opportunities for exploring and commenting on the human condition (aside from the works of Shakespeare). It also provides filmmakers with the chance to get super creative with unique visual styles, often unexplored concepts, and mind-blowing statements about humanity as a whole. Speaking personally, the best kinds of science fiction films are the ones that manage to make the most out of very little. Movies like The Man From Earth or Safty Not Guaranteed, which revolve around incredible concepts (one about a man who is thousands of years old and another about time travel) yet focus mostly on the journey of the characters and their observations on their own human experience. Tau, I am happy to report, is such a movie. A simple story about one woman's efforts to break free from certain death while teaching a machine about the beauty of the world. It is the kind of story that might have made the late Rod Serling and Issac Asimov proud. 

The story follows a young woman named Julia (Maika Monroe). A pickpocket and street thief trying to make ends meet so she might have a chance of escaping her world and going to music school. That is until she gets kidnapped a man named Alex (Ed Skrein), an uber-wealthy technological genius who also happens to be a psychopath, as demonstrated by his regularly capturing people off the streets to conduct strange experiments involving the human mind. Julia finds herself trapped inside a house overseen by an incredibly advanced A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) named TAU (Gary Oldman). Desperate to escape her confinement Julia begins talking with TAU about the world outside of the house, as TAU has deliberately been made unaware of life outside. As the two of them talk to each other, they form an unusual friendship where they both learn some profound lessons about nature, culture, individualism, personhood, and what it means to be human. 

Right from the start, this movie has everything I like. A simple premise set in one location with a handful of characters, a story that contemplates and comments on aspects of the human condition, and creates a unique world that feels familiar yet fresh. 

This is the kind of film that requires robust acting from the whole cast. Fortunately, this movie is chalk full of great performances across the board. Especially from the leading lady Maika Monroe. I have to mention that I commented on her acting talent before in my video review for Independence Day: Resurgence and I was not impressed at the time. Either she had not yet gained enough experience or had not been directed well enough. Whatever the case may be, in this film, Miaka Monroe shines. Showcasing a wide emotional range, sympathetic traits, and believable reactions. She even manages to pull off convincing chemistry with TAU despite being just a disembodied voice. 

Speaking of which, Gary Oldman as TAU is perfect. Oldman's voice makes TAU come off as advanced and wise, yet TAU is really more like a curious and mistreated kid. Giving TAU a kind of innocence that makes him more interesting and sympathetic. He's not the typical evil A.I. who gains self-awareness and wants to destroy the world but instead is very curious and empathetic, and he even likes music.

Of course, it would be rude of me not to mention Ed Skrein as the villain. I honestly almost didn't want to bring him up, not because his performance was terrible (it wasn't) but because I utterly loathed his character. This guy has to be the most unsympathetic, easy to hate, and least worthy of living person I have ever seen in a movie. Incidentally, the biggest reason this guy is so hateful (aside from being an abusive jackass) can lead one to suspect what may be, arguably, the only plot hole in the story. If this guy is so wealthy and has so many resources at his disposal, why doesn't he just hire volunteers for his research instead of kidnapping them? Without spoiling anything, the movie does explain the reasons for his methods. It is kind of annoying that his character technically falls into the "Mad Scientist" trope, but at the very least, the movie doesn't blame his intelligence for his insanity. He is just an unpleasant person who really doesn't understand the first thing about being human. Worst, he doesn't seem to care. 

It is this villain, I think, that makes the story so satisfying. Julia and TAU overcome inhumanity by discovering, and eventually embodying, the best aspects of human nature. For that reason, this may very well be the best original Netflix movie to date. 

TAU is the kind of science fiction film that takes notes from the old days and modernizes them. It has a solid premise, incredible performances, comments on sensitive subjects like child abuse, and provides a profound statement on what it means to be a person. If you have a Netflix account, check this one out. If you don't, then borrow a friends password or sign up for yourself. This is one of those movies that will make you proud to be a member. 

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

Sony - The Camera Crafters who Can't Create Cinema...but really should

I may have mentioned once or twice, either on this Blog or in person, that I have a somewhat tricky love/hate relationship with Sony: A company partially responsible for jumpstarting the modern age of digital cinematography that, ironically, continually makes horrible movies. As a gearhead when it comes to cameras, I am always impressed and excited to hear what Sony will bring to the table next. Much like Panasonic, Sony has done significant business with filmmakers by paying attention to their needs and desires and applying that input to each subsequent new camera. Creating brilliant photographic machines the likes of which have even surpassed celluloid film. However, a great camera does not make a great movie, as evidenced by Sony's embarrassing and frustrating track record of failed launches of franchises, painfully clear corporate sellouts, and an inability to put their money where their mouth is. Sony has so much potential to be more than they keep trying to be and it annoys me that they either don't recognize that or don't care. So, if you have a minute, I would like to share with you all my complicated relationship with Sony, and what I think they could do to revitalize themselves before it's too late because I do believe that Sony can do great things if they would take a step back and listen.

First, a little history.

One of the many goals of the founder of Sony, Akio Morita, was to create a digital camera which could make images on par with celluloid film. Their first step was to build standard definition consumer level camcorders utilizing CCD (Charged Coupled Device) technology initially developed at Bell Labs. This technology created decent quality video images but was very obviously not on par with the likes of celluloid. At the time, these cameras were primarily for the average consumer looking for a decent video camera for family and business purposes, and the idea of using them for cinema, outside of film school, was unheard of at the time. That is until a group of filmmakers in Denmark started a little event called Dogma 95, a filmmaking movement with a very fixed set of rules intended to remind people of the real values of movie creation: These include profound stories, robust acting, and relevant themes. Some of the regulations put in place included no elaborate special effects, production was to be on location, and handheld camera operation only (as in no gimbals, cranes, or other such external camera devices were allowed).

Director Lars Von Trier is shooting his Dogma 95 film on a Sony camcorder.  

These rules drew the filmmakers to the conclusion that shooting on video was more substantial. As such, the vast majority of films created in the Dogma 95 movement were shot on consumer level Sony camcorders. Much to everyone's surprise, despite the original fear of not being taken seriously because of their choice of capture format, many of these films were well received and kickstarted many filmmakers careers. It was the Dogma film The Celebration (photographed by Anthony Dod Mantle) that inspired director Danny Boyle, then known for the Leonardo DiCaprio lead blockbuster The Beach and the Scottish comedy Trainspotting, to collaborate with Anthony on the films 28 Days Later and Slumdog Millionaire. Both of which used digital cameras and the latter of which earned the two men Oscars.

Anthony Dod Mantle and Danny Boyle on set. 

That was the moment when the idea of digital cinematography was on its way, and Sony was arguably the front-runner. Even so, it hadn't reached Hollywood yet until a legendary filmmaker joined forces with Sony to get the ball rolling. In the early 2000s, renowned filmmaker George Lucas was in pre-production for Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (yes, I know, please don't run off, bear with me for just a minute). After shooting the first Star Wars prequel, The Phantom Menace (which George Lucas shot on celluloid), he was determined to capture the next film on a digital format. So, he approached Sony saying he wanted to help them build a bigger and better camera system for motion pictures. Thus, Sony and George put together what is arguably the very first high-end digital camera, the F900, which was then used to shoot the second Star Wars prequel. So one of the few things we have the Star Wars prequels to thank for is helping to kickstart the use of digital cameras in primetime Hollywood.

George Lucas on set with the Sony F900. 

Since then, Sony has become a household name in digital cinema camera technology and has continued to design and build more powerful and versatile machines for making movies. Within the last ten years, Sony has developed many cameras with better light sensitivity, superb color quality, and robust amounts of detail. Though they may not have the same prestige as other major cinema camera manufacturers, like Arri or Red or even Panasonic, Sony has managed to proudly cement their place in the world and history of digital cinema.

The Venice. Sony's latest entry in high-end digital cinema cameras and the camera that will be used by James Cameron for his upcoming Avatar sequels. 

So...why are Sony's movies so horrible (most of the time)?

Having a great camera will not guarantee a good or even greater film. Nor should one expect any given company to have a firm understanding of storytelling just because they manufacture one of the essential tools for doing so. However, a company that regularly produces tools for making movies according to storytellers specifications, improves and upgrades said tools by listening to filmmakers, works closely with talented storytellers especially in their video game department, and owns a movie studio, it stands to reason that said company would know a thing or two on how to make proper films. Instead, the vast majority of theatrically released movies from Sony have been one of three things. Elaborate feature-length commercials for Sony products (as well as other blatant product placements), overly extended moments of toilet humor, or an apathetic and lazy attempt to cash in on a fan base or fad that has either already been done better by another studio or was already outdated before they started. Sometimes, it's all three of them at once.

Sony's adaptation of The Smurfs from 2011 is a prime example of what I'm talking about. If you have not seen this movie, I would highly discourage you from doing so. Aside from being a lazy and incompetently made story (another thing Sony is infamous for), it has all the issues as mentioned earlier of an overall Sony production. To go over all of them here would take up too much time, so instead, here is a list of five things that actually happen in this movie. 

1

The cast features the voices of Jeff Foxworthy, Joan Rivers, Paul Reubens, and John Oliver who all only have, at most, two lines of dialogue for a set of background characters who are just featured within the first five minutes of the film. 

2

There is a scene in which the villain of the film, Gargamel (Hank Asaria), while in a fancy restaurant, mistakes a water pitcher for a chamber pot and proceeds to urinate into it on the spot in full view of the patrons as well as the audience. This was apparently supposed to be funny. 

3 

Despite being of Belgian origin, The Smurfs in this movie spend the majority of their time in modern day New York City, seemingly to only serve the purpose of advertising Sony's BluRay home video format and Blue Man Group, thus removing, however unintentionally, the fantastical element of The Smurfs. 

4 

Every single electronic item used in the film is from Sony, and the camera cannot help but remind the audience of this at every opportunity. Including an overly long, unnecessary, and unentertaining scene in which the characters play a round of Guitar Hero on a Sony PlayStation 3. 

5 

Despite being in all of the advertisements, having the most screentime in the trailers, and having the movie titled after them, The Smurfs are not the main focus of the film. Instead, the story focuses on a young advertising executive (sigh) who is coming to grips with becoming a father. Which, if you ask me, is about on par with making a military drama that suddenly throws in Ponies for no reason other than name recognition.  

Also, when Sony isn't pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator in the audience, they're wasting their time trying to build up their own multi-movie franchise. One of the unfortunate side effects of the success of Marvel Studios is that every other movie studio (that is to say every Studio not owned by Disney) has been desperately trying and miserably failing to put together their own version of a Cinematic Universe. There are many reasons they haven't worked out, but the one factor that all other Studios have in common is that they keep trying to build up their multi-movie plans in the first film they put out. In contrast to what Marvel did at the beginning, which is to put out one single movie that can stand on its own, which gave a promising hint at something more extensive on the way at the very end. 

This was the very first film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It tells a single story, develops a handful of characters, and provides a small wink at something more abundant at the very end. 

Needless to say, Sony has been no exception to this phenomenon. While it is reasonable to want a franchise to build a profit from, it is entirely unreasonable to do so in a manner that has already proven to be incorrect. Aside from completely bombing their attempt to reboot their Spider-Man franchise (short version, Sony owns the movie rights to Spider-Man, sort of) Sony has been spending the better part of the last few years throwing all of the franchises they can grab the rights to on the screen and trying to make it stick. A more recent example of this misguided business plan would be with last years failed Sony blockbuster The Dark Tower. 

This was intended to be the first in a series of films based on the multi-book series by Stephen King. Instead, they completely blew their chance right out of the gate. Rather than tell a single story with a few relatable characters, exploring one part of this new world to start with, and providing a satisfying conclusion, Sony just repeated every mistake made by all other studios before them. The movie spent the vast majority of its albeit short runtime building up teases for sequels, establishing plot points that have no relevance to the immediate story, and only providing the audience with walking archetypes with little to no relatable personalities instead of three-dimensional & sympathetic characters. The movie was less of a narrative and more of an elaborate power-point presentation of Sony's long-term plans for this franchise, which, needless to say, never happened. 

Sony's latest at trying to build a franchise and jumping onto a Band Wagon that has long since left the station. 

By now, I'm pretty sure that you're asking a distinct and vital question. Why do I even care? What is the point in my going on about a corporation that everybody knows puts out awful products that insult audiences, panders to corporate greed and puts no real effort into their creations? To be honest, it's because Sony doesn't need to be that way. Yes they are a big company, yes almost every other major movie studio does this kind of stuff (though maybe not as regularly as Sony seems to), and yes, not every movie in the world has to be a masterpiece of art. I am not an elitist! I don't expect every single film I see to have the artistic purity of a Snowflake. All I ever really ask of a movie, no matter what company produces it, is that it has heart. A film should make me feel glad to have taken time out of my day to give it my attention and emotional investment. Make me feel like I'm in another world, make me care about a character that I can relate to in some way, and give me a story that makes me feel as if my life has been enriched in some way. None of these things are possible if I'm watching a film that relies too heavily on fart jokes, outdated pop-culture references, and one-dimensional characters. 

Sony has the power to become better than they have let on to in recent years and I genuinely hope they eventually make an effort to transform. If for no other reason than if there is going to be at least one movie studio not owned by Disney, I would prefer that it be the one that can make all of its own movies in-house and be satisfied with smaller stories of success. Sony has enough power and stamina to stand up on its own without any kind of multi-movie franchise. At least, I'd like to think they do. As much as I enjoy the films produced by Disney, especially from Marvel Studios, I don't want to live in a world where all of our entertainment is dominated by one entity. 

Sony, you need to take a step back. You need to seriously overhaul your business practices. You need to spend less time trying to be like the big boys and start being your own thing with smaller and more original projects that, believe it or not, we as an audience genuinely want. Give us something we haven't seen before, or at least haven't seen in a long time. Give us something fresh, something unheard of, something that the big boys at all of the other major studios aren't doing right now. Stand up and stand out. Because if you don't, then who will? 

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

Flavors of Youth - Flawed but gorgeous

Japanese animation (Anime) is one of those rare art forms that has the prestige to be easily forgiven for faults that would usually weigh heavily on a films appraisal. Because it is still a traditional hand-drawn medium (with the occasional use of computer graphics), one can't help but be in complete and utter awe at the gorgeously realized visual spectacle on display. Because of the unique advantage, an Anime can get away with things like a not-so-developed script or cheesy voice acting, so long as it retains the visual majesty that has become synonymous with the medium. Flavors of Youth is just such an Anime. It is beautifully realized with breathtaking animation and fabulous design and is a joy to observe, despite the lack of fully fleshed out scripts and the occasional gran inducing line delivery. It is true that pretty pictures can't tell a story on their own, but sometimes, it is just enough to get you through the day.

This particular piece is an anthology film consisting of three separate stories revolving around a similar theme: the nostalgia of youth. The first story revolves around a young man reflecting on his past about his love for his grandmother and for rice noodle soup. He goes into detail about the best bowls and the worst bowls and how each and every one is connected to a memory of childhood. The second story follows a fashion model becoming more and more afraid that she is getting too old for her passion and may lose her ability to model. She also has to contend with the fear of losing her relationship with her sister and has to determine which is more important. The third and final story is a classic young love story about a boy and a girl trying to break from their fears and express their feeling for each other. Even worse, they're both likely going to be attending different schools and may never see each other again. Will they confess their feelings, or will they become a footnote in each other's lives?

All three of these stories are charming in their own way, as well as visually fantastic, and each one leaves a different impact.

The first story earns bonus points for making rice noodles a central thematic element, as I am indeed a big fan of the same dish, and serves as a clever little nod to how even the smallest of events can have a lasting impact on who we grow up to be. Sadly, it also loses a lot of points from me for relying way too heavily on voice-over narration. Mostly because it is wildly unnecessary as it spends most of its time describing things we can either already see or should have been visualized in the first place. At other times it tries to drive up the poetry of the visuals when they are already strong enough on their own. It just felt like the voice-over narration from the theatrical cut of Blade Runner, it didn't need to be there but was thrown in because the studio was afraid that the audience was too dumb to understand the visual language. Granted, in this case, it was more unlikely, but I can't help but suspect.

The second story also maintains the voice-over narration, but it has the good sense to keep it to a minimum. Only being employed when best suited to the situation. While this story follows the tried-and-true storyline of "beautiful model getting jealous of a younger replacement," it doesn't fall into the usual trap of becoming a story about obsession or seeking eternal youth like so many other stories like this have done before. Instead, it takes a different and more optimistic approach and becomes a story about transitions and new beginnings rather than about the end of something. Furthermore, it spends a little more time revolving around the relationship between the main character and her sister, as they grew up relying upon each other after the death of their parents. It's a charming and unconventional story that I wish more western studios would do when telling these kinds of stories. Granted, this may not be the best version of said execution, but it is at least close enough for a start.

 The third and final story is kind of up in the air for me. While the romance between the lead characters is sweet and charming to behold and serves as a decent commentary on unreasonable expectations of parents, the story gets severely bogged down by an incredibly untalented voice actor as the male lead. Regardless of the nature of the scene, this guy is just ridiculous. He sounds like a volunteer from a local community theater who's only doing this to gain the required credits for his other classes which have nothing to do with the performing arts. It completely hinders what would otherwise be a decent romantic story. When you can't overlook a bad performance, it's kind of hard to appreciate anything else.

Overall, despite its flaws, this is a pretty and touching piece of work from some very talented artists who deserve the opportunity to work on bigger and better projects. Some of them have indeed already done so and will likely continue getting more work after this, but others who are still getting their foot in the door have shown that they deserve a shot. Give this one a look if only to support the art form.

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

Anon - This shouldn't be boring, but...

One of the words I hate using when reviewing a movie is "disappointing." Because usually, that's the result of a film that has so many great things going for it only to be dragged down by one or two creative decisions that could have very easily been fixed either well before production or early on during production. A great example of this would be with the great science fiction film Back to the Future. In the early days of shooting, a young actor named Eric Stoltz was originally cast as Marty McFly. However, after about five weeks of working with Mr. Stoltz, director Robert Zemeckis decided that, though Mr. Stoltz was very talented, he just didn't have the comedic sting that the role required. So Robert approached producer Steven Spielberg and asked if he could be replaced, hence why the part ultimately went to Michael J. Fox, and the rest is history. Fortunately,  Anon does not suffer from poor casting choices, but it is bogged down by one or two creative decisions which I will get to in a moment.

The story takes place in the future. Humankind has significantly advanced the technology for automation, convenience, and, supposedly, privacy. Instead of carrying around the latest and most advanced smartphone, people have implants placed into their eyes and brains, primarily functioning as a set of internal Google Glasses. This implant can place phone calls, operate external devices, and even record memories. To police this technology, a new branch of law enforcement is in place with officers who have special privileges allowing them access to anyone's implant at any time purely for investigative purposes. One such person is a cop named Sal Frieland (Clive Owen) who is working a case involving a series of murders and unexplainable hacking of the victim's implants. His primary suspect is a mysterious woman known only as The Girl (Amanda Seyfried), who not only doesn't appear in any systems records but apparently can hack into anyone's implants and delete any unwanted information. This leads to a game of Cat & Mouse between the two as they try to solve the mystery while maintaining their safety and, at least for one of them, their anonymity.

This is a really great set up. It's got some timely and relevant commentary about technology, automation, privacy, personal security, and the importance of the human experience not peered through a screen. Not at all surprising coming from writer/director Andrew Niccol who seems to specialize in these kinds of movies, and, for the most part, does an impeccable job. However, every once in a while he makes a creative decision that can make the proceedings unintentionally dull, or miss an opportunity to take his ideas further than he does.

Because this film takes place in a world where everyone can view, create, and share digital information in their heads, the vast majority of the film is static shots of people sitting or standing around staring into space. Though the film does have the good sense to cut to POV (Point Of View) shots to showcase the technology being used, it's unfortunate that the technology itself is equally dull to look at. The computer system in everyone's minds consists of a blurry background with various grids of white lines providing information mostly in onscreen text and video files. While this kind of presentation worked in films like Robocop and The Terminator it sadly doesn't work here. There are some parts where the hacker creates hallucinations to mess with the cops, but that's about it. This is further exacerbated by the cast. While all the actors have proven themselves to be talented and capable of a wide range of emotions, here, they appeared to have been directed into acting like robots. Monotone deliveries, overly slow movements, and blank, emotionless faces (mostly). This creative choice was likely made to better showcase the dreariness of the setting, but it just makes the proceedings unintentionally dull.

If the cast had been allowed to show more range and the visuals had some more flair to them this could have been a perfect new entry for science fiction. However, as it stands, it is an unintentionally dull slog prevented from being utterly unwatchable by its fascinating subject matter and the ever-reliable screen presence of the gorgeous Amanda Seyfried. If you're a fan of writer/director Andrew Niccol or anyone in the cast, then, by all means, give it a shot. Just be sure to have some coffee on hand. It will help.

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

The Ritual - Horror storytelling at its finest

The best kinds of horror stories are the ones that make you question what's going on almost as much as the characters are. Psychological horror films are the most appealing to me because they offer an extra level of immersion that most other horror sub-genres don't. Sure, we can feel for someone's plight when they're trying to survive the zombie apocalypse, or when they're running for their lives from a masked giant wielding a machete, or even when they're forced to suffer through a gruesome test to learn a lesson and live to tell about it. Despite the intense and occasionally grotesque nature of these situations, none of them are as active or as engaging as the uncertainty of your own mind. Without spoiling anything, while The Ritual is really only about 85% psychological, it keeps every other aspect of itself within that realm, making everything all the more creepy and uncertain. A rare and incredible accomplishment in modern horror cinema. In an age where horror tends to get relegated to cheap jump scares and vapid characters, it's refreshing to see a recent horror film actually do it right. 

Based on the book by Adam Nevill, the story follows a group of college friends on a camping/hiking trip on The King's Trail in the Swedish Mountains. Along the way, one of them twists his knee making walking possible but more difficult and painful. To reach their destination faster, they all decide to stray off the path and cut through the forest. Once inside, however, things get really, really scary. They find mysterious Nordic symbols at almost every turn, unusual noises from beyond the trees, and are having vivid nightmares. As they struggle to get out of the woods, who knows what may be awaiting them?

What makes this such a good horror film, at least to me, is how much it succeeds in keeping you guessing. The main character of the story is suffering from survivors guilt due to a traumatic event that happened before the camping trip. Because of this, his mind is already in a fragile state as he has not yet forgiven himself. This emotional issue, combined with the stress of getting lost in the woods and witnessing some horrific sights along the way, creates an unbalanced mindset for both the protagonist and the audience. As we are continually questioning everything that we see, as well as the credibility of the main character. This is what horror is genuinely about: taking advantage of the dual nature of people and putting it front and center.

What sells this movie for me is the cast. All of the actors are committed, entertaining, and sympathetic. Their chemistry makes the film robust and makes you feel for their plight. Once more, none of the characters act like idiots. Most of the time in movies like this, the plot is driven because one or two of the characters in the story make incredibly stupid choices that no person in their right mind would ever make, especially in the dire situation these characters find themselves in. These characters are scared, sure, but they make an effort to keep a level head to get out as quickly and as safely as possible. Adding yet another level of believability to the story that we don't see very often in modern horror films.

This is the kind of horror film that we need more of. It's well presented, it centers around a relatable aspect of human nature, and offers up a satisfying, suspenseful ride. If you have a Netflix account, you owe it to yourself to check this one out. Though be warned, it does contain some scenes of gore, albeit few and far in between.

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