Serenity - You have to see it to believe it

I may have mentioned before that January and February are usually the worst times of the year to go to the movies. The first two months of the year are commonly relegated by the Studios for things like reluctant contract obligations and films they don't have any faith in doing well. The assumption being that because it's right after the Holidays, and many people have already spent an abundant amount of money on gifts and food, people are less likely to go to the theaters. So they release the movies they don't really care about just to maintain a regular schedule and box office returns be damned. Even so, every once in a while, there is a movie released in this dumping ground period that turns out to be a real diamond in the rough. Today's film may not be precisely that, but it is pretty damn close. 

Framed as a neo-noir thriller the story follows a down on his luck fishing boat captain named Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey) who spends his time taking on odd quests and hiring his boat out to tourists looking to make a big catch. That all begins to change when he is greeted by his ex-wife Karen Zariakas (Anne Hathaway) who Dill has not seen or heard from in ten years, nor from his young son. Turns out that Karen has found herself in an abusive marriage (both emotionally and physically) and seeks an escape for herself and their son. She offers to pay Dill one million dollars to take her husband out on his boat and leave him for the Sharks. Now, Dill must carefully consider this complicated situation as he weighs the consequences. 

To say any more about the story or the plot would constitute spoilers and I intend to keep this a spoiler free review. What I will speak about the story, without spoiling anything, is that I very much appreciated the way it depicted and represented a specific form of technology as a means of coping with harsh times and as a means of healthy escapism rather than as the central cause of evil action. 

This is actually one of those rare occasions where the less I can tell you about the movie, the better your experience will likely be with it. Aside from a few issues I personally had with the editing, this movie genuinely delivers a unique experience. Add to that some compelling performances, competent writing and directing, gorgeous cinematography, and a profound message about some of the more harsh things in life, you have a January release that is actually worth your time. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Yes 

Why? 

It is a one of a kind film that must be seen to believed. 

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

Bring on the noise - the ignored cinematic aesthetic of video

Take a look at this image. Don't pay attention to the composition or the color or the subject matter. Turn up the brightness on your screen, enlarge this image as much as possible, and take a good long look. What you're looking for is something that digital filmmakers seem to have overlooked or disregarded. This image you just starred at for a moment contains what is called grain or texture, which are small bits of seemingly random sand-like bits spread throughout the image. When shooting movies on celluloid, grain is pretty much inevitable! It is part of the real film, and while you could use some digital effects to mask it or outright wash it away, this sandy texture is actually what many filmmakers, especially older and more experienced ones, have loved the most. Digital cameras, even the most expensive and powerful ones, also have this kind of texture to it, except for one difference. In digital, this texture is called noise. Also, many digital filmmakers hate it with a vengeance. This feeling towards this aspect of digital cinematography is understandable as some forms of noise are not very aesthetically pleasing, but this notion, at least to me, does not apply to all types of noise. 

For those of you who may not be familiar with camera technology, noise is a phenomenon found in most, if not all, digital video cameras. Even those built for high-quality cinema. In most cases, it is the result of pushing the sensitivity of the sensor, which is adjustable according to the amount of available light. Some camera sensors are better at creating incredible images in even the smallest amount of light while others don't have it as good. Most of the time, digital filmmakers will opt to keep the sensitivity as low as possible to prevent too much noise. Also, there are lots of computer programs available to clean the images up. When it comes to getting a crisp and sharp image, the options are through the roof. 

Even so, why do most digital filmmakers want to get rid of the noise? 

The most obvious answer would be to have the cleanest and best-looking image possible, which is, of course, an understandable goal. I work hard to make my pictures look as gorgeous as possible. In the world of HD and 4K, it is reasonable to expect that digital seems crisp and sharp just like film. However, celluloid has never really been sharp at all. Sure, lots of Hollywood movies and independent films shot on celluloid look incredible and intense, but that has more to do with the time and money they all had to properly light their scenes and apply proper cleanup tools to the footage before release. And even then, it's still damn near impossible to not notice the grain. Take a look at these screenshots from the movie Blade Runner. Pay particular attention to the shadows. 

Chances are you noticed the grain particularly in the lighter parts of the shadows. Even though Blade Runner had an incredible budget and lots of production value, the grain is still present in the images, and it mostly has to do with the nature of its capture format. Celluloid film is an emulsion of silver alloy crystals that react when exposed to light creating an image. Though they are microscopic, they can still be seen by the naked eye in the form of grain. Much like how boosting a digital sensors sensitivity will usually yield more noise, using high gauge film stock will generally provide more grain. Even so, there have been some cases where, despite using lower sensitive film stock, there is a ton of grain. It can be seen best in the film The French Connection which was captured using low gauge film stock and nominated for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography. 

Noise, like grain, is also inevitable. However, as I stated at the beginning of this article, there are some types that, at least in my opinion, are not all that ugly and genuinely add to the cinematic aesthetic of the image. One kind in particular which is unquestionably ugly and does not belong in an image, let alone one meant for cinema, is what I will refer to as Rainbow Noise. This phenomenon usually occurs in cameras with smaller sensors especially when the sensitivity is pushed too high. As a result, the image gets flooded with multi-colored pixels that no amount of color correction or image cleanup will effectively eliminate. Here's an example from the feature film The Purge: Anarchy. 

Another kind of noise, which I personally find to be aesthetically pleasing, is referred to as "Mosquito Noise." This is the type which I argue is more akin to film grain. A kind of fine sand particle especially noticeable in the brighter ends of shadows. This, in my opinion, is one of the many things that makes digital video inherently like film. Having a light amount of seemingly random bits of sand-like particles flying around the image is part of digital videos charm. It is even present in feature films made within the last few years captured on digital video. Take a look at these screenshots pulled from Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie and The Raid: Redemption. 

Both of these films were captured on the same camera. The Panasonic AG AF100. 

Now, I'm willing to bet that a lot of you who have examined these images closely likely had a hard time noticing the noise or the grain. I can assure you, it's not because I tried to fool you. It's actually because things like grain and noise are difficult to really notice in still images. It is there and can be seen if you look carefully enough, but it's usually easier to notice when viewing it in motion, and even then, it's really only noticeable when looking at a clip frame by frame. When watching a movie, provided the story has done its job in grabbing your attention with sympathetic characters and a compelling narrative, the overall asthetics of the images don't matter. Yes, it is best to have as good looking a picture as you can get, but that does not mean that you are required to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for a camera that delivers noise-free images. Mostly because aside from maybe a few cameras manufactured by Sony and Canon, there is no such thing. Perhaps someone will develop such a device in the future, but even so, why are we wasting our time whining about noise when it looks more like cinematic grain? 

Part of our perception of digital noise is conditioning. We tend to be suckered into believing that our images should look absolutely pristine and have no unsightly blemishes at all. We see this visual idea in commercials, display TVs in electronic stores, and even in our motion pictures. Many people would have us believe that the most cinematic image is one that replicates how we see the world accurately. A perfect presentation. Except for one problem: We don't live in an ideal world. 

I personally believe that art should always reflect the natural and beautiful imperfection of people and the world as a whole. Movies should still have some kind of character flaw about them which makes them more relatable and enjoyable. For me, that beautiful imperfection is in the noise, the digital equivalent to film grain. 

Screenshot from Public Enemies captured on early digital cameras. 

The good news is I do not appear to be alone in this belief. Phil Rhodes, a regular contributor to Red Shark News (an online magazine for digital cinema production), posted an article expressing his own take on noise. You can find a link to that article at the end of this one. Also, Rachel Morrison, the cinematographer for Black Panther, wanted to capture that film in a higher than usual level of sensitivity to get what she called "digital grain," but ultimately didn't do so at the request of the special effects team, who asked her to not go past a certain level. Also, just last year, Steven Soderbergh made an entire feature film on an iPhone using no external recorders. Producing images that not only had a good deal of noise but also contained the least amount of color information to work with. And yet, the film looks spectacular. 

There is no such thing as a perfect camera or a flawless image. There is only the art we create and the tools we use to do so. In painting, different brushes will leave specific kinds of strokes based on their materials. You cannot control the subtle marks they will make, but you can determine the direction they will go. Despite this inability to control precisely how the brush will create the strokes, very seldom does the artist complain about it. Because, after all, it is the eye of the artist that will make it into something amazing to behold. The same can be said for filmmaking. If you genuinely want to create incredible art, you must embrace imperfection. 

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

Red Shark article on noise. 

Worst Movie Theater EVER!!!

 

A few weeks ago this Icon Theater opened up close to my hometown. Naturally, out of curiosity, I decided to go see a movie there and get a sense of what this brand new theater was like. I wasn't sure what to expect as I have grown accustomed to my regular theater (Cinemark at Shoreline) and was kind of looking forward to seeing what advancements this theater offered that could make it a potential competition. To my utmost dismay, and grave disappointment, this theater, as it turns out, is entirely awful! Even with its technological advancements and sleek modern design, it is not enough to hide the most amount of mass misdirection, poor organization, and unwelcoming atmosphere I have ever encountered in a public space, let along a movie theater. I know that the location itself doesn't really matter so long as the movies are good, but I cannot in good conscience let anyone I care about share my horrible experience in this horrid place. And if you have a moment, I will gladly explain why.

To best describe the experience, allow me to take you on a sort of guided tour of the theater. As you enter the front door, you make your way up two sets of escalators leading to a large open room. Down the other end is where you may purchase tickets and concessions. The entire system is automated, but there are some people there to help you through the process if need be. You are able to select your movie tickets and your concessions at the same kiosk. Once you have purchased your tickets and selected your snacks, you then proceed to the actual snack stand to pick up your food and drink. Once you're finished there, you may then continue to the theater itself where you get to enjoy heated reclining seats for your comfort. Then, the movie theater experience can begin. 

The ticket kiosks are to the left, and the snack bar is to the right. 

Sounds pretty cool, right? Well, here's how they managed to mess it all up. 

First of all, as I said, the ticket kiosks are fully automated and require you to either manually punch in the movie you want to see or, provided you purchased your tickets online already, scan a provided barcode into the machine. However, when you arrive at the device, there can be anywhere from four to eight employees crowded around them telling you how to use the system. When I said that I had purchased my ticket online an had the barcode in my email (which had not been made clear to me upon my initial purchase at home) I was told by one person to find said barcode and scan it. Then, just a few seconds later, another employee looked at my phone which had the ticket information and said that I actually didn't need to scan anything and could go straight to the snack bar if I wanted. Upon doing so, I was then told by another employee behind the counter that they could not actually perform any transactions for snacks and instructed me to return to the ticket machine to select my items. So I did, then I went back to the snack bar again, and they presented me with the popcorn I had purchased but were puzzled when I politely asked where my drink was as well. It wasn't until they looked at my receipt that they realized I had indeed purchased drinks. Once I finally got my cup, I went to the soda machine they have and, much to my horror, it was one of those touchscreen multi-choice soda machines that never works. The drinks always come out too flat, they never taste well, and they never have even the most basic selection available.

Already these issues raise some important and relevant questions. First, if their goal was to remove the need for a ticket teller and have it all fully automated, then why do they have eight people walking around the large hall hovering over the customers as they try to work the machines? I mean, I would understand if they had two or three if one of the devices breaks down or a customer has a question, but if you already have as many people as you have machines, what's the point of a fully automated system in the first place? Second, why do you have people at the concessions stand if they can't actually take customers orders? This would be like taking a table at a restaurant waiting for the menu only to be told that we have to place our order on a tablet outside the front door. Third, these multi-choice soda machines just do not work and are overbearing. I understand the idea is to have as many options as possible, but again, these machines just don't work. Purely because they never produce anything even remotely tasty. Which I realize is a first-world problem, but the point still stands. 

I know that all of these complaints sound like the ramblings of a bitter old man who can't stand the modern technological age, but I want to assure you that is not the case at all. I happen to enjoy much of the advancements made in this generation and will likely continue to do so for a long time. I am also aware that many of the people working at this theater are just there for a decent day job and are likely struggling to make ends meet and are very probably not getting paid very well, thus are not entirely happy to be working there, which I totally understand and relate to. These issues and more are, in actuality, symptoms of an even bigger problem which is starting to take hold of just about every aspect of society: automation. 

We are progressing to the point that businesses are trying to save more money by adopting a sort of "humans need not apply" approach. Where machines and algorithms take over customer service as much as possible. This in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but the way society is trying to adapt it is, at least in my opinion. Rather than trying to work out a way in which technology and manpower can coexist, companies are just throwing the technology out there expecting everyone to just go with the flow and consequences be damned. Except there's one small problem with this approach: Humans will always be required. 

No matter how far technology advances, or how socially inept more people become, or how much money is saved in the long run, the plain fact is that human beings are, by nature, social animals. We require regular human contact to remain mentally and emotionally healthy. This is one of the reasons people go to the movies: to have some kind of interaction with other people. Be it with friends and family or total strangers. 

Making things more convenient with automation is not a bad idea. So long as it does not come at the cost of human interaction. This theater tries to be more convenient, but in doing so, it forgot that movie theaters are a communal space, and as such requires opportunities for human interaction. Because even in the age of mobile phones, social media, and video games, we will always need external stimuli from other people in one form or another. 

Please do yourself a favor and don't bother with this theater. 

Aquaman - Mostly refreshing

I'm not sure how to write this review. Aquaman is a rare film that has equal amounts of quality and lack thereof in almost every single aspect of its presentation. For everything that this film does well it is carefully counterbalanced by something that doesn't make sense or feels underdeveloped. Even so, it still succeeds in being a fun ride with fresh characters and a decent take on the traditional hero's journey. In comparison to any other DC Comics superhero film released in the past few years, with the notable exception of Wonder Woman, Aquaman is leagues above them all in quality and entertainment value, but sadly still falls into the unfortunate traps left by the previous films and the wrong-headed last minute choices made by Warner Brothers. Despite all that, while I would not dare to rank this movie on par with the likes of Black Panther, I will say that I enjoyed the hell out of it and genuinely hope that DC & Warner Brothers learn some valuable lessons. Sometimes, all you need is a little crazy. 

The story follows Arthur (Jason Momoa) a.k.a. Aquaman, as a man who is half human and half Atlantian: a race of people who live deep in the Oceans of the world. When Arthur is not helping innocent people from pirate attacks or saving marine wildlife, he spends his time drinking at the local fisherman's bar lamenting about his lost mother and how much he hates Atlantis for betraying her. That is until one day a new Atlantian friend named Mera (Amber Heard) approaches Arthur with news about his other home. It turns out that his half-brother King Orm (Patrick Wilson) has grown tired of hiding from the surface world as they pollute the oceans and threaten their very existence, and has decided to declare war on the surface. To so do he must first assemble an army of all six kingdoms of the seas to join him. To stop King Orm and save his home and loved ones, Arthur must seek out the ancient Trident of King Atlan, the first King of Atlantis, and challenge Orm as the rightful heir to the throne, securing peace between Atlantis and the surface world. Meaning Arthur will also have to prove himself worthy of being King. The question is, does he want to take on the new title, and is he even ready for it?

First, let me talk about what I liked about the movie, and fortunately, there is a good deal of quality stuff here. 

Almost the whole cast, especially Jason Momoa and Amber Heard, are fantastic. Everyone seems to have fully embraced the fantastical nature of the film and are having a lot of fun. It often at times feels like watching kids play an epic round of "let's pretend," and I mean that in the best possible way. Jason has a surprising charisma about him that was sadly not present in his previous outing as Aquaman, Justice League. Amber Heard as Mera is fun, energetic, sympathetic, and badass, like Ariel from The Little Mermaid if she knew how to fight. Patrick Wilson as the villain is incredibly entertaining to watch as Mr. Wilson successfully balances the dual nature of his character. He can be calm and diplomatic one moment, only to shock you into submission with killer aggression the next. Although, my favorite supporting character has to be Willem Dafoe as Vulko. He's like an amalgamation of Yoda and the relaxed yet caring uncle who takes you fishing. No pun intended. 

The action scenes are phenomenal. No two fight scenes or chase sequences ever look or feel the same. Each one gets progressively exhilarating and more impactful to the general story. At the end of each action set piece, I felt out of breath like I was the one running and fighting. A true testament to the talent at play in the director's chair. Speaking of whom...

The film was directed by James Wan, who is genuinely showcasing himself as quite a versatile director. Starting as a horror specialist with great modern chillers such as Insidious and The Conjuring, James Wan put horror cinema back on the map with his exquisite direction of the camera, spooky atmosphere, and well timed scares, not to mention his excellent workflow with actors. After ranking in tremendous success with his scary movies, Mr. Wan tried his hands at the action genre with Furious 7. Much to everyone's surprise, despite the original perception that he might have been well out of his comfort zone, Mr. Wan delivered an incredibly fun action movie. Complete with silly yet thrilling set pieces and a reasonably compelling narrative to boot. All of that has been further showcased in Aquaman as Mr. Wan effortlessly delivers fantastic action scenes with comprehensible camera movement, fluid editing, and satisfying choreography. Also, his handling of the quieter moments is equally stunning. I'm looking forward to seeing his future films. 

Unfortunately, as I have already said at the beginning of this review, for everything good about this movie, there is a negative counterpart. 

Starting with the writing. While the general story and overall theme of heritage vs. personal identity is pretty well executed, the rest of the script, at least for the most part, is not. Half the dialogue is relegated to unnatural-sounding exposition, and most of the other half is incredibly amateurish. Like it was written by a sixteen-year-old surfer dude over the weekend. Also, as sympathetic as Arthur-Aquaman is, and as much as a genuine hero he turns out to be in the end, it is challenging to believe that he would be a genuinelyly great leader of a Kingdom he has never visited or cared about until now.  Also, King Orm's motivations, while understandable, don't make much sense within the narrative. Minor spoiler warning, when Orm says he wants to wage war against the surface world for killing the Ocean and destroying their home, we never actually see any of that stuff happen. In fact, whenever we look at the Ocean in the movie, it is perfectly clear and free of garbage say for one or two small moments. And even then, it's not really all that devastating. Also, we never see how any of this affects Atlantis. Actually, I'm pretty sure it never does. The script is full of plot holes like this that, granted didn't really change my overall experience, but it did make me long for something more clever. 

Another issue I personally have with this film is its treatment of its supporting villains. Namely, the ruthless pirate Black Manta (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) as well as his father (Michael Beach) who is also a pirate. As characters, they are perfectly fine. They have a rich and sympathetic backstory (not unlike Kilmonger from Black Panther), they are played well, and they provide some of the more impactful action scenes. The big problem I have however is the fact that these two are literally the only black characters in the whole film that I can remember. Under different circumstances, this might not be a problem. But when the only black characters you have in your movie are ruthless killers, it kind of paints a bad sign, however unintentional. The good news is, at the very least, the film never forces them to devolve into any sort of stereotype that would otherwise further any unwarranted negative implications on the characters. So while they are still murderous villains, they are never really dehumanized. If anything, they are arguably more interesting than the actual main villain, King Orm. Almost makes you wish the movie was more about Aquaman dealing with them rather the politics of the throne. 

The last thing I have to nitpick about the movie is pretty minor but is worth mentioning. The transitions between the more quiet moments and the action scenes are just too repetitive. The first time a softer moment is suddenly interrupted with an explosion to the face was just fine. It gave me a good jolt and informend me that something big was about to go down. However, when that same tactic is utilized for almost every single action scene, it gets a little dull. 

To be fair, a lot of this was kind of inevitable. Because of the misguided standards initially put into place by Zack Snyder, and the studios sudden and drastic desire to change course, there were going to be some issues like these with this movie. Even so, much like Justice League from last year, there does seem to be some real effort put into making these movies better and more fun. While I still have my reservations as to whether or not they can succeed in turning their plans around for the better, I feel more hopeful now than I ever did before. 

While Aquaman is not necessarily the new pinnacle of quality for DC superhero movies, I do argue that it is at least, for the most part, a good step in the right direction. If for no other reason that it is one of the few DC movies in recent years that actually does understand what a hero is and actually likes them. If Wonder Woman is the highest possible execution of good DC superhero movies (and it really is), then Aquaman is the result of a humbled fool trying to follow the good example made by her. It may not be the next best thing for DC movies, but it's getting closer. Let's hope they continue to improve from here on out. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

While it may not have the best writing or use of characters, it succeeds in being a thrilling visual presentation that is best experienced on the big screen. If you can look past its flaws, you'll be in for a pretty cool ride. 

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

Bird Box - Intensely intriguing

Every once in a while you come across a movie that is so intense, so relentless, so frustratingly immersive that you almost feel angry at the film for making you feel so alive. Only to slowly rewind and remind yourself that, as adrenaline-inducing it all was, it's still just a movie. These kinds of films can be tough to make and even harder to watch, but when they are as well made as this one, it can be one hell of a ride. It is a true testament to the power of cinema in that it can move you in ways you often seem to forget it can. These kinds of films are the very reasons I am so passionate about cinema. 

Based on the novel by Josh Malerman, the story takes place in a post-apocalyptic world in which strange and unknown entities have populated the planet. They appear to be invisible, but upon looking in their general direction, they apparently take on the form of your worst fears or deepest regrets and cause you to commit suicide. Even worse, some of the people who have seen these entities have lost their minds and systematically seek out survivors to force them to look. One such survivor is Malorie (Sandra Bullock), a depressed and isolated painter with two small children. When we first meet Malorie, she and the kids begin a long boat ride down the river in search of sanctuary. All the while cutting to flashbacks of the events leading up to the boat ride. To better assure their safety, they must make the trip wearing blindfolds the whole time. Will they find their new safe haven, or will they be tempted to look? 

Many of the films story elements seem heavily inspired by other movies and media. The notion of avoiding an unknown entity by depriving oneself of a specific stimulation seems lifted from A Quiet Place (the significant difference being sound as opposed to sight). The plot dynamic of a parent and kids traveling through a post-apocalyptic wasteland in search of a safe haven is very similar to The Road. And of course, the idea of blindness being not only a side-effect of the inciting incident but also the means of survival can be traced back to Day of the Triffids. Yet, despite all of those connections, coincidental or not, Bird Box succeeds in making everything feel as if it was all its own. Every single element I just listed is taken into account, and the film mashes them into its own identity, which makes this film a genuinely unique experience. In the words of Stanly Kubrick, "everything has been done before, it's up to us to make it fresh again." Those may not be his exact words, but the point still stands.

Sandra Bullock delivers her usual professional powerhouse performance. Her wide emotional range and a tremendous sense of conviction never fail to get one invested in the story. Even when she seems unlikable at first, as she does in this film, she still manages to make you curious enough about her character to allow the benefit of the doubt. One could argue that it is mostly the doing of the screenplay, but I say that any writing is only as good as the one who has to deliver it. I have always admired Sandra Bullock as an actress, and it is always appreciated to be reminded as to why.

The film was directed by Susanne Bier. A Danish director whom I mostly remember for her original film Brothers from 2004, which was remade in the United States in 2009 and was far less impressive, but I digress. Susanne seems to have a talent for telling dark and intense stories but in such a way that it never devolves into complete bleakness. She seems to relish in bringing you close enough to the edge that you can just barely see the bottom only to reel you back in forcing you to only imagine what might have been down there. Despite the film featuring some rather gruesome and disturbing images, none of them every outstay their welcome or feel out of place. It's the perfect example of how less is more or how you don't have to show every single gory detail. The implication is far more potent than full depiction, and Susanne Bier has prover herself to be the master of that philosophy.

The cinematography by Salvatore Totino deserves special mention as it arguably contributes the most to the films visual realism. The lighting feels naturalistic and never stylized, which is a big plus for me personally. The camera often feels like it's being operated by a person in the scene, thereby making the audience feel more like a participating character. Best of all, no shaky cam. These may be minor things to point out, but speaking as a cinematographer as well as a critic, I appreciate seeing my personal preferences being practiced in other big budget productions.

This film may not be the easiest to watch, but it is one you must check out when in the proper mood, especially if you happen to have a Netflix account. This streaming service turned premium network has been on fire with its original content getting better every year. It's almost enough to encourage me to give up attending the movie theater entirely. Mind you I said "almost" as I still enjoy the theatrical experience. Even so, it's nice to know that quality control always seems to exist, at least in some capacity.

If you have Netflix, or you have access to a friends account, check this one out.

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

Bumblebee - More to love than meets the eye

They did it! It took over ten years and five awful movies by the same lousy director, but they finally made a Transformers movie worth watching. This is what we as fans of the source material have been waiting for. A smart, thoughtfully crafted, tactfully paced, and emotionally resonating feature film bringing a part of the childhood of my generation to life. Not only do the robots look more akin to their original designs, not only do the filmmakers have a better appreciation for the appeal of the Transformers, but the movie has what the whole franchise had been missing for far too long: a sense of childlike awe. Moreover, though it is soaking in 80s nostalgia, that is not the main reason this film is so enjoyable and memorable, but rather for its authentic story, loveable characters, comprehensible action scenes, and a genuinely relatable journey of growth, love, and overcoming obstacles. 

The story takes place in 1987 in a small town near Santa Cruz. A young girl named Charlie (Hailee Steinfeld) is struggling with the death of her father. Distancing herself from the rest of her family, as well as her own self-value, finding refuge in rebuilding an old Corvette she and her father were working on. On her 18th birthday, while salvaging parts in a local scrap yard, she stumbles upon an old yellow Volkswagon Beatle, which the friendly yard owner gives her as a birthday gift. However, as soon as she takes the yellow Bug home, it transforms into a colossal robot right before her eyes. Despite the robots intimidating size, he is actually very timid and confused, like a lost puppy. Turns out that the robot, which Charlie chooses to name Bumblebee, is an Autobot soldier in an intergalactic civil war against the evil Decepticons and was sent to Earth to establish a new base for the resistance, as well as protect the planet from the Decepticons. Except for one small problem: Bumblebee has somehow lost his memory and his voice and cannot fulfill his mission. Even worse, Decepticon agents have landed on Earth in search of him. Now, Charlie must help her new friend remember who he is and, in doing so, come to terms with her own loss and reconnect with her own true self. 

This movie is an absolute delight in every possible way. Arguably the most significant reason why is because of how different it is from any other live-action Transformers movie that has been produced. Since 2007, Paramount Pictures has released five films, and they all share the exact same problems. Without going into too much detail, all of their issues can be chalked down to director Michael Bay and his inability to understand or appreciate the source material as well as basic storytelling. It got so bad that The Nostalgia Critic successfully predicted everything about last years movie before it was even released. Despite Mr. Bay's failure to make a decent or even watchable Transformers film, they continued to make lots of money and discourage producers from taking any risks with the franchise. It was only recently that their repetitiveness finally caught up with them. After the last film, Transformers: The Last Knight, failed to deliver the box-office performance they were expecting, they finally took a step back and re-evaluated their approach to the material. Needless to say, their efforts have paid off. 

Bumblebee was directed by Travis Knight, the co-founder of the stop-motion animation group known as LAIKA Animation Studios, which was the studio behind Paranorman and Kubo and the Two Strings. This is Mr. Knight's live-action debut, and it is a beautiful break out hit. Considering Mr. Knight's background in animation, he knows how to pay attention to fine details. His visual style is calm yet active in its elegant simplicity. His talent for crafting action scenes is a joy to behold as he never resorts to shaky cam or rapid-fire editing to artificially up the intensity. His ability to handle actors makes for some of the most touching and memorable moments in the film. His firm understanding of the need for emotional resonance in a story puts him on par with the likes of Steven Spielberg. All of these things and more secure a glorious display of talent and skill that deserves applause. Hollywood would be wise to keep Travis Knight in their employ. 

The relationship between Charlie and Bumblebee is, hands down, the best part of the movie. They are the heart and spirit of the story and the real reason the film is worthy of your emotional investment. The two of them come to each other broken and, through their friendship, rebuild each other into better versions of themselves. It is true that this particular story is very similar to that of The Iron Giant or E.T., to which many other critics have, understandably, compared this movie. This does not bother me because, as I have stated in my original video review for Wonder Woman, I would prefer that the filmmakers take too much inspiration from the right material than from the wrong ones. Also, these characters have already had five movies worth of blowing stuff up, so it was time to do something different, and I for one welcome it with open arms. 

Hailee Steinfeld, whom some of you may remember as the Academy Award-nominated actress from 2010's remake of True Grit, delivers a heartfelt performance the likes of which I would put on par with the cast of Black Panther. Offering genuine chemistry and believable relatability despite not having an actual on-set opposite presence to work off of. Also, Hailee puts so much conviction into her performance that she sells everything else that happens on screen. Regardless of whether she is running through a mountain range from armed robots or sharing her vulnerability with a friend, it is always genuine. I for one look forward to seeing her in future movies. 

The special effects and the action scenes are leaps and bounds above anything else that has been seen in any other Transformers movie, if only because you can actually understand what's going on. The design of the robots not only look more accurate to their original conception but are also adjusted in ways to make them stand out more. So even when the robots are fighting each other causing tons of damage to their surroundings you are never confused as to what's going on or who is fighting who. From what I understand the film utilized a combination of practical effects and CGI, which is something I have always advocated and appreciate when it's actually practiced. 

Perhaps what ultimately makes this film such a fantastic experience, besides the genuine friendship between the main characters, is that anyone can watch this movie and enjoy it for what it is. Even though it is based on a popular cartoon series from the 80s, and it makes some great callbacks to it, the movie doesn't really expect everyone in the audience to be familiar with it. While those who are already familiar with the source material will get a good chuckle at some of the inside jokes, like I did, the film only expects you to be ready for a compelling, self-contained story. Any and all recognizable acpects of the Transformers is relegated to lore and additional texture so as to add further depth to the real meat of the story. Much like The Princess Bride, there is something for everyone. 

This is precisely what the Transformers franchise needs right now. Rumor has it that if this movie does well, the studio will use it as a launch pad to effectively reboot the entire franchise and start again with Bumblebee as the model for all future Transformers movies, effectively erasing the Michael Bay films from cinematic history. Which, if you ask me, is not a bad idea at all. Make no mistake: Bumblebee is not a great film because of its nostalgia value, but because of its storytelling power. This film may well be the best Holiday present I have received in cinemas ever, and I can't wait to go see this again. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Yes 

Why? 

It is a heartfelt, exciting, well crafted, emotionally resonating film that makes the whole movie going world brighter by its existence. Roll out to the theater for a genuinely transforming experience. 

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

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse - Masterpiece

I may have mentioned once or twice before that Spider-Man is my favorite superhero of all time. Considering how there have been so many new and exciting versions of the character, it stands to reason that Spider-Man is indeed a universal figure. There are many reasons as to why but none are as important or as influential as to just how relatable he is. Despite having tremendous powers and a sharp suit to boot, he is just like you and me: A relatively normal everyday person just trying to make ends meet. Sure, Spidey can tackle monsters or foil bank robbers, but he also has to deal with things like school, a day job, and family. The real power of Spider-Man is the idea that anyone can be a hero, even if you can't swing through buildings. It is a fundamental aspect of Spidey's character that is gloriously demonstrated in this beautiful film. It is indeed a masterpiece in every way. 

The story follows Miles Moralis (Shameik Moore), a young boy who, in the comics, would eventually become the new Spider-Man after the tragic death of the original Spider-Man, Peter Parker. Before the idea even crosses his mind, Miles spends most of his time balancing his artistic desires with his school obligations. One night, as he sneaks out to meet up with his uncle, Miles stumbles upon Spider-Man in a fight against a monster. Even worse, there's some kind of giant machine that just exploded and caused some bizarre stuff to happen. Also, Miles gets bitten by some mysterious Spider which gives him his own set of Spider oriented powers. Anyway, after that event, not only is Miles discovering his own Spider powers, he is running into other versions of Spider-Man, including Spider-Woman. It turns out that the explosion was some kind of dimensional portal which caused a rift in space and time. Forcing five alternate versions of Spider-Man to arrive in Mile's universe. Now, they all must team up to solve the mystery and get back to their own worlds. All the while Miles is struggles with the idea of even becoming Spider-Man, and what that means to him personally. 

This movie is downright amazing. While it may not be my personal favorite Spider-Man film (that distinction remains with Sam Rami's Spider-Man 2), this film succeeds where so many other iterations have failed. The choice to make the movie animated alone makes the experience all the more incredible. As Spider-Man is one of those characters who truly benefits from the animated medium. Considering the colorful style and the incredible feats shown in the comics. 

The script is hands down what makes this film so great. Penned by Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman, the whole screenplay is a wild collection of meta-humor, witty action, and touching moments of emotional drama and character development. All of these and more are beautifully balanced to deliver a narrative that is not only compelling but also feels personal. As if you are the one going through this unusual journey. It is the kind of writing that comes from genuine talent and expertly honed skill. Both writers deserve a medal for their beautiful work. 

Miles Moralis as a character is sympathetic, three dimensional, and wonderfully entertaining. Just like Peter Parker, he is a normal kid who is suddenly thrown into a fantastic situation. With no clue as to how to tackle all that is happening, he still manages to keep his head up and do what is right. His character arc, which I will not spoil, best showcases the great message of Spider-Man as a whole. That true heroes are within us all, and anyone can wear the mask. 

Each and every version of Spider-Man presented in this film is fun and fascinating. Speaking personally, my favorite is Gwen Stacy a.k.a. Spider-Woman (Hailey Steinfeld). For those of you who may not be familiar, in the original comics, Gwen Stacy was Spider-Man's first girlfriend who tragically died during a battle with a villain. The alternate version of Gwen Stacy, as presented in this movie, is one where she was bitten by the spider instead of Peter Parker. So she became Spider-Woman in her universe. It is an intelligent and fun new take on a character who had typically been treated, let's say not so reasonably in the original comics. In this film, she plays a pivotal role in Miles's development and gets some great moments of her own to boot. Plus, Hailey Steinfeld plays her with a whole lot of enthusiasm and charm. Not to mention, her costume is just so damn cool! 

This all may seem a little overbearing and hard to follow, especially for non-comic fans. Fortunately, the movie has the good sense to not assume that everyone in the audience is as familiar with the character as others may be and succeeds in bringing everyone up to speed. You don't have to be familiar with all of the details to understand the situation at hand. Those who are familiar with the details will get some extra mileage out of this movies charm. 

The animation and art design of the whole film is just jaw-dropping to behold. It incorporates so many different styles, techniques, and genres, and blends them all together so well, that the whole film can double as a beautiful collage of art. Best of all, no matter how insane the animation can get (and boy does it get completely crazy especially towards the end) you will never feel lost or overwhelmed by what is happening on screen. 

I had so much fun with this movie and loved it so much that I cannot recommend it enough. Even if you're not a big Spider-Man fan, or a superhero fan for that matter, the compelling story, fantastical art style, and the universally appreciated message about our inner heroes is more than enough to enjoy it. This is a powerhouse of a movie and one that does not come along very often. Please don't miss it. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Absolutely 

Why? 

It is fun, vibrant, impactful, and all kind of entertaining. There's a little bit of something for everyone. 

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