Yesterday - My guitar weeps for something better

Few things are as upsetting as watching an excellent concept for a story not being utilized to its full extent. Yesterday provides some incredible musical performances, strong acting from the whole cast, and massive goldmines ideas and possibilities to explore. Sadly, as much as one can enjoy the good bits, the rest of the movie stumbles in place trying to find its footing. Worse yet, it doesn't even really seem to grasp the possibilities of its own concept, preferring to be a by-the-numbers romantic comedy. Even then, it's still not as well executed as it clearly should have been. Yet, despite that, I cannot deny that I did enjoy parts of it. Like I said, the music and the acting is top notch, it's just a shame that it's not in a better movie. 

The story follows a failing singer/songwriter named Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) and his manager/childhood friend Ellie Appleton (Lilly James). Jack has finally reached his breaking point with his musical aspirations since he can't seem to attract an audience to his songs and is on the verge of giving up. That is until one strange night when all the lights in the world go out causing Jack to accidentally get hit by an oncoming Bus. After recovering from his accident, Jack performs his cover of the classic Beatles song Yesterday to some of his friends, only to discover that, somehow, no one remembers The Beatles. Jack has become the only one who remembers the famous British band. Also, he knows all of their songs by heart. After realizing this strange phenomenon, Jack gets an idea. He will pass off The Beatles music as his own. From there, Jack's musical career skyrockets as he is heralded as a genius and the next big thing in the history of music. Will Jack be able to maintain riding this Yellow Submarine, or will the moral dilemma of succeeding off of someone else's work make him sadder than Jude? 

This is an excellent concept for a story. It offers the opportunity to explore what it is about The Beatles music that makes it so memorable and universally beloved, it has the potential to comment on the power and necessity of music, and a perfect vehicle for showcasing and commentating on the music industry as a whole. Which the film does none of. 

Much to my disappointment, the film decides to cast aside its own mind-blowing premise in favor of a standard romantic comedy. To be fair, the romance aspect is at least decent, mostly due to the competent performances and believable chemistry between the two leads, but I found myself not getting as invested in their relationship as the film wanted me to, when there is a much more exciting idea just hanging around in the background. It was like seeing a rock concert interrupted continuously by the unfunny scenes that were cut out of Love Actually. On top of that, the movie could not even be bothered to have a satisfying twist. I spent the latter half of the film trying to figure out what the twist would be (is he in a coma or is he dead?) and while the ending was still somewhat satisfying, it just didn't feel as fulfilling as I think it should have. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it when a movie decides to leave some parts of its story up to the interpretation of the audiences, but there are areas of narrative that are more suited to that kind of exicution. 

As I said, the musical performances are lovely. I was unable to determine if the songs were indeed performed by Himesh Patel himself or not, but if they were, then Patel has some incredable talent for music. His voice, assuming it was his own, was bright and beautiful. He did a wonderful job bringing these great classics to life. Also, his chemistry with Lilly James was actually pretty nice to watch. Even though I wasn't all that invested in their relationship, I did enjoy watching the two of them perform off each other. 

To be fair, the movie does explore some of the moral complexities of finding success with work that is not your own, and it does have some fun with the idea of being the only one who remembers something famous. However, you eventually realize that seems to be the movies only joke, as they repeat it a few different ways all throughout the film. Which, again, they don't go into any juicy details about which would have been fun to explore. 

The film was directed by Danny Boyle, late of Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later, and 127 Hours. To be honest, I don't think he was the right choice for this film. While Mr. Boyle is a talented director and I have enjoyed most of his past movies, his particular sense of style was just too much for this film. Danny Boyle's style can best be described as what you would get if Kenneth Branagh started directing music videos for Genesis while experiencing a minor contact high. He's not so much hyperactive as he is a little over enthusiastic. Please understand, while I do like aspects of Danny Boyle's style as it works well in other kinds of films, I don't think this movie in particular really called for it. Not to mention how it seems as though Danny Boyle was either not interested in going deeper into the more fascinating aspects of the story, or was simply unable to do so. I hope that Danny Boyle finds another project that is more suited to his taste. 

Yesterday is yet another case of a solid idea not reaching its full potential. What could have been a deep and profound exploration of music and love, is just a by-the-numbers romantic comedy that happens to feature surprisingly well-performed covers of Beatles songs. I cannot say this film is necessarily bad, just underwhelming. Still enjoyable in some spots, but nothing that you will remember an hour later. This track is, sadly, best skipped. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It's a paint-by-numbers romantic comedy that can't be bothered to do anything fun with its unique premise. The music and performances are decent but aren't enough to justify full admission price. Wait for video, or better yet, just buy some more Beatles albums. 

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

Stop Hitting Yourself - 3 clichés and bad habits that Hollywood needs to quit

Cliché: Something overused and lacking any originality. According to some, the word itself is an onamonapia, which is a collection of letters used to create a word simulating a sound. Comic books famously utilize this technique. For example, the word "BLAM" is used to create the sound of an explosion or gunfire. In the case of the word cliché, it was taken from the printing press, as it repeated the same sound when printing the daily newspapers. In the case of Hollywood, it is often used to describe tropes, story beats, character types, and other such narrative devices utilized with no evolution or effort. Some of the more famous clichés include a car not starting while the villain is closing in, not calling the police while a psycho killer attempts to invade the domicile, and my absolute least favorite, the black character who only exists to die first. These and many others have been used in Hollywood films ever since the early days. While some can be fun and contribute to the enjoyment of the film, most of them are just so overdone that they lose their charm. 

Over the years, I have watched and observed many kinds of movies. I have studied them, learned from them, and in doing so, come to a few conclusions about the Hollywood system. Chief among them is that Hollywood itself is clinically insane. Why? Because despite the vast majority of the less-than-interesting clichés proving themselves time and time again to be unentertaining and destained by both audiences and critics, Hollywood can't take the hint and is one of the many reasons I want to make movies for a living outside of the Hollywood system. Because, at the very least, I can learn from my mistakes and make an effort not to repeat them. 

Recently I spent some time contemplating the clichés that Hollywood has repeated the most and has continued to annoy me to no end. To list all of them would result in a much more extended essay than I am prepared to write, so I have narrowed my list down to the magical number, 3. So, without further ado, I present to you my list of Hollywood's top 3 clichés or bad habits. 

3: The bland "Super Special" chosen one audience proxy pretending to be the protagonist. 

"High School Sucks" The Movie

This particular cliché tends to be in movies aimed at teenagers usually adapted from a young adult novel. Movies like The Hunger Games, Divergent, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief, and I am Number Four all suffer from this horrendously overused cliché. The idea is to have a primary character function as a vessel for the audience to insert themselves — creating the impression that this movie was made just for them, which is more annoying when you consider that this kind of character is also super-duper-uber special and is the greatest living thing ever to walk the Earth. You can't see this, but I am facepalming right now. 

The problem with this cliché is that it robs the audience of any real investment in the story. Traditionally, the protagonist (the main character) is someone with whom you can sympathize. A person with struggles, conflicts, and a personality that you can relate to. What ultimately makes them relatable, and what drives the story (not the plot) is their flaws and how they overcome them. A prime example is Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) from the Christopher Nolan masterpiece Inception, a man with personal demons regarding his past mistakes who must now confront them to achieve his goal of returning home to his children. That is something any human being, especially parents, can understand and relate to and is a perfect driving force for a story. 

With the "Super Special" audience proxy, there is no relatable investment. Most of the time, this kind of character is blank and has no real personality. They're just there to be dragged from plot point to plot point with no real sense of agency. What makes this kind of character so appalling to me personally, aside from lacking any relatable personality, is that it's not challenging. It gives the impression that the writers and producers of these kinds of movies believe that the intended audience, mostly teenagers, are so stupid and gullible that they can't handle nor deserve a real story. Not only is that mindset lazy, but it's also insulting to both teens and adults alike. 

This cliché is lazy, uninspired, and only exists to keep talentless hack writers employed. Sure, this cliché sadly works and has allowed most of the films that have utilized it to rake in tons of money, but it comes at the belittlement and disrespect of the audience. We watch movies to escape the real world, and we accomplish that by being presented with a relatable protagonist. Yes, it requires real talent, skill, and effort to write a good protagonist, as well as any character in a story, but if you're not willing to put in the work, then why are you writing screenplays in the first place? 

2: Placing fantastical characters in the real modern world. 

Guilty Pleasure (Don't judge me) 

This particular cliché is one that Hollywood refuses to let die. Although part of their business model is trying something once and never trying it again if it fails, this is the one thing that seems to remain constant. Every few years there is a movie adapted from a fantastical source material only to find that the characters have been removed from their unique setting and shoehorned into the real modern world. As I have shown in the image above, a prime example of this cliché is the 1987 adaptation of Masters of the Universe. While I do still enjoy this movie in my strange way, I cannot deny how much of a lousy adaptation of the source material it is. Masters of the Universe takes place in a magical world known as Eternia populated by Sorcerors, magnificent beasts, and alien technology, not unlike that found in any given Star Wars film. Yet, despite having a variable gold mine of creative possibilities at their disposal, the makers of the movie decided to shove these characters into then modern-day California where they spent the majority of the film partaking in unfunny fish-out-of-water shenanigans in between action scenes that don't last as long as they should. Guilty pleasure? Yes. Good movie? Far from it. 

As you might have suspected, there is a big reason why this cliché is the most repeated in Hollywood, money. Producing big fantasy films can get expensive because there's a lot that needs to be made to bring a fantastical world to life in a live action movie (elaborate sets, detailed costumes, functional props, and so on). These days it's not as challenging to pull off with the advent of CGI and the abundance of handsome looking accessories found almost anywhere. Just go to etsy.com, and I guarantee you will find what you need. Not to mention, there have been so many smaller production companies that have created convincing fantastical worlds in movies using nothing but junk and recycled material. James Cameron started as a set builder/decorator, and he constructed real looking spaceship interior out of McDonalds's Happy Meal boxes. (No, really, I'm not kidding). 

So, when it comes to big budget Hollywood productions, you would think it's no longer a colossal undertaking, right? Well, for Hollywood at least, it's not just about the money. It's also about being out-of-touch. Hollywood executives have proven time and time again that they, quite frankly, don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They seem to operate under many outdated impressions about people. The most prominent being that audiences could not accept anything that isn't ultra realistic. They know that many fantastical properties like Masters of the Universe are beloved and have a large fan base. So they do what they can to make a movie based on that property while spending as little money as possible and having no faith in what makes that property accessible in the first place. 

If you want to make a film based on a popular franchise, but you have so little faith in the concepts and ideas presented therein, what is really the point in making that movie in the first place other than cashing in on a trend? If you want to make money with a film based on a fantastical setting, then build it. Don't give the intended audience a fraction of what they want. If your movie is creative enough, accurate enough to the source material, and provides an experience not often seen in a film, then you will make more money and reign in more success than you otherwise might have. Hollywood is a business, yes, but it is also a creative business. As such, there is always an element of risk. If you're too afraid to take the jump, then don't even bother. 

1: The "In-Name-Only" movie. 

Isaac Asimov deserves an apology! 

This is, admittedly, not really a cliché, but an ill-advised business practice. Thankfully, it is not employed as much as the previous two clichés, but when it is, it grinds my gears in the worst possible way. Not necessarily because it's so blatantly inaccurate to the source material, but because there is no justifiable reason for it. The only reason Hollywood continues to utilize this cliché is marketing purposes. Putting out an easily recognizable brand and/or name to increase potential ticket sales. In other words, straight up lying. 

The "In Name Only" movie is when a studio has a film to release, but because Hollywood is now only driven by name recognition, they will put the name of whatever famous property they happen to have the rights to on the film they want to sell, in an attempt to ensure a profit. Consider the movie mentioned above, I, Robot, as it claims to be based on the book by Isaac Asimov. Just one small problem...it's not. Like, not at all! The film in question and the book it claims to be based on are so different from each other that the studio behind the movie deserves to be charged with fraud and false advertising. 

The book by the late Isaac Asimov is a collection of short stories all based on a potential future where robots and humans have found a kind of harmony with each other, showcasing the possible good that robots can provide for humanity as a whole. While each story is different, yet some are interconnected, none of them are about robots rising up to take over the world. Mostly because the three laws of robotics, as listed in the book, make such an event impossible. Not to mention, Isaac Asimov himself was sick and tired of reading countless science fiction stories about evil robots rising up and destroying humanity, that he set about to write something different entirely to try and balance the narrative landscape. Now, compare that to the movie bearing the title of the book, which is, in a nutshell, Terminator meets Robocop with a dash of George Orwell's 1984 for good measure. None of which blend well at all! If this movie is based on any of Isaac Asimov's novels, I have no idea which one, because it is not based on I, Robot. The only reason the film even bears the title is because of how recognizable and beloved it is among science fiction fans, who then became bitter and aggravated upon seeing this monstrosity. 

Lying to the audience about what your movie is about is a guaranteed way to lose future ticket sales. If you want to make a film based on a beloved property, then do so. Don't just slap the name onto whatever generic script you have lying around to artificially up ticket prices. Actions like these are a big part of the many reasons Hollywood is dying. Rather than putting any genuine effort into their products, they just keep repeating themselves expecting different results each and every time never learning the harsh truth. All they have to do is be at least mildly creative, and maybe things will start to look up. Until then, we'll just have to weed our way through the sea of uninspired nonsense to find the genuinely good stuff. Quality is out there if you know where to look for it. 

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

Toy Story 4 - Never doubt the power of PIXAR

I can still remember the day the first Toy Story movie hit theaters. It is the one film I can say I have seen on the big screen the most number of times ever (seven to be exact). I was blown away by the clever writing, amazing visuals (especially for the time), and lovable characters. Not to mention how genuinely sincere, sophisticated, and emotionally resonating the overall story, and the themes of existence and acceptance were. Which is all the more impactful when you remember that even though it was mainly for kids, adults were able to enjoy and appreciate it just as much as the children if not more so. Then Toy Story 2 came along and not only successfully upped the steaks, it bravely went further and deeper into its mythology and came out all the stronger. Only until the release of Toy Story 3 did these characters reach their apex and, quite literally, faced the flames of hell ready to accept the ultimate end, only to find themselves entering a heartfelt and satisfactory conclusion, proceeded with a brand new beginning. It is for this very reason I consider Toy Story 3 to be PIXAR's magnum opus, and have always believed that there was no possible way they could ever come back to this world having given it such a powerful and emotional send-off. 

And yet, PIXAR has not only returned to their roots, but they've done so with grace and love. Toy Story 4 is not just a surprisingly good movie; it is yet another proper sequel that reminds us why we fell in love with PIXAR in the first place. Taking an old friend of ours and continuing to find new ways to be creative, innovative, entertaining, and above all, enjoyable. While I have expressed my concern with the idea of a 4th installment of the Toy Story series, I am happy to report that all of my doubts and concerns have been addressed and put at ease. I will never doubt PIXAR's power ever again. 

The story takes place a few years after the events of Toy Story 3. Woody (Tom Hanks) and the rest of the gang have been living a happy life having been passed down from their former owner, Andy, to their new owner Bonnie. We begin properly with Bonnie getting ready to attend the first day of kindergarten, where she makes herself a little friend named Forky (Tony Hale). A new toy made from arts & crafts. However, Forky is not convinced that he is a toy and feels that he truly belongs in the trash. Woody, not wanting Bonnie to lose her emotional support for school life, does his best to convince Forky that not only is he a toy, he is Bonnie's toy. As in her friend in his unique way. Things get even more complicated when, during a road trip, Forky jumps out of the car and Woody gives chase saying he'll meet up with the others at the next stop. Upon arriving at a small town with a Carnival, Woody stumbles into an antique shop where he meets up with his old flame Bo Peep (Annie Potts), who has been living on her own for a few years as a kind of toy Robin Hood helping lost toys find new owners. After reconnecting, Bo Peep agrees to help Woody find Forky and get back to Bonnie. That is, of course, if Woody truly does want to get back to her. 

The movie is, overall, an enjoyable experience. There's not much else I can say about the film without spoiling too much. There is an amazing and genuinely heartfelt subplot involving a brand new character, who is worthy of an MVP award and is, arguably, the best part of the whole movie. All I will say about it is that it was the part of the film that made me cry and for a good reason. It alone makes the whole movie worth seeing. 

The animation looks spectacular. PIXAR has always made good looking movies, but the advancements made in computer animation technology has come a long way. Everything from the lighting effects to the textures on characters and environments looks jaw-dropping. I don't know they utilized it in this film, but apparently, PIXAR has successfully created a program that emulates the visual effects of various brands of cinematic lenses. I can't say if this film utilized this advancement, but it would not surprise me if that was the case. There are moments when the visuals genuinely fooled me into believing it was not animated, which made the presentation even more immersive. 

The whole cast, from the original characters to the newcomers, are incredible. Tom Hanks still delivers his likable and sympathetic portrayal of Woody front and center. His chemistry with Annie Potts as Bo Peep is uniquely entertaining. Speaking of Bo Peep, she is another character worthy of the MVP award. She is the most fun to watch, is performed with tons of energy and enthusiasm, and provides some satisfactory closure to an unanswered question dogging the series since the third movie. It feels great to have her back and in such an excellent capacity. 

What makes this film so enjoyable is how much it avoids trying to one-up its predecessors. Rather than attempt to rehash old ideas or hit the reset button on its history, like most of Hollywoods content, Toy Story 4 honors and respects its elders by taking what they have learned over the years and going one step further. Toy Story 4 is proud of its history and doesn't try to push it aside. Instead, the film embraces where its been so it can better move forward to something new. As far as I'm concerned, I can gladly and wholeheartedly trust PIXAR to continue to deliver quality. Both in their original films and in their sequels. 

Toy Story 4 is a rare and genuine surprise. Much like Star Wars: The Last Jedi, the movie acknowledges all the concerns that the fans had and tosses them out the window in favor of something different and new. If you are a fan of the Toy Story movies, then you owe it to yourself to see this brand new installment. We all indeed have a friend in PIXAR. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?

Yes. 

Why? 

It is familiar yet fresh. A heartwarming story about love, joy, and childhood: please don't miss this one. 

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

Men In Black: International - Meh (Minor Spoilers)

The first Men In Black released back in 1997 was and still is an excellent movie. It was full of fascinating and creative visuals, witty and intelligent writing, relatable characters, and some of the best jokes & action scenes anyone could ask for. What made it so fantastic, at least to me, was the implications of a vast and diverse universe just perfect for all kinds of new stories to be told and strange worlds to explore. Sadly, the guys at Columbia Pictures (owned by SONY) chose not to even consider that possibility in favor of spending two more movies (and one cartoon show) rehashing the exact same story and plot almost verbatim. After the third movie flopped back in 2012, SONY put the franchise on the back burner and spent the past few years trying to figure out a way to revive it once again. It seems that their solution was to cast two of the Avengers, set parts of the story in a few exotic locations (on Earth) like a James Bond movie, and put in a bunch of old jokes that only L.A. comedy writers think are still funny. Despite that, however, there are some decent occasional good moments and some remarkable chemistry between the two leads, but that's not enough to detract from what this movie really is: a meaningless reminder of a better movie you could be watching. 

The story follows a young woman named Molly (Tessa Thompson) who sees and remembers the MIB having witnessed them Neutralizing (a memory erasing device) her parents not knowing she was watching. When she grows up, she seeks out and eventually finds her way inside the MIB headquarters expressing a lifelong desire to join. Having proven herself capable as a potential agent, the head of the New York Branch Agent O (Emma Thompson) decides to hire Molly, now known as Agent M, under a probational trial. Her first assignment is to head to the MIB London Branch and investigate a possible breach within the agency. Upon arriving, she meets up with Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) and his former partner and leader of the London Branch Agent High T (Liam Neeson), and together they investigate who may be the mole within their ranks. From there, the story becomes a series of shenanigans and pratfalls that are under the impression they are funny and within the spirit of the original movie. Spoilers: They are not! 

The biggest problem with this movie is the script. In addition to the unfunny jokes and easy-to-decern plot, it doesn't really have any relatable characters. Sure, as I mentioned before, Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson are great performers with solid chemistry together, but aside from one or two defining traits, there's really not much to them. Even worse, the script has an incredibly bad habit of telling rather than showing. For example, there is a scene when Agent M receives a welcoming gift from Agent High T, which we discover later on has a tracking device inside it. Except, the only time we ever see this gift is when she first receives it...and that's it. She never uses it in at any point in the film, and we only learn the fact that it was bugged because Agent M says so in a throw-away line of dialogue. There's a reason the golden rule in cinema is "show, don't tell." Because not only are movies a predominantly visual medium but unless you show it, it might as well not have happened. 

The editing in the film is terrible. The whole movie never feels like a coherent story. Instead, it feels like the filmmakers started out with one idea for a story, changed their minds halfway and started another idea, then changed their minds again and went with another entirely different direction than what they started with. Then, in a desperate attempt to make a single movie, SONY hired three editors to salvage what they could from the jumbled mess they were given. It's almost on par with Bohemian Rhapsody in terms of terrible editing. 

The film was directed by F. Gary Gray, who previously handled some of my favorite movies, such as The Negotiator and Straight Outta Compton. Not to mention the latest Fast & Furious film, which was a whole lot of fun and had some impressive action scenes. I cannot say if this sudden dip in quality is due to a lack of interest or Studio interference, but something has gone wrong, and I hope that F. Gary Gray can come back from this. Because I refuse to believe that the same guy who successfully handled a decent remake of The Italian Job had anything to do with how lackluster this poor excuse of a movie turned out. 

The only other saving grace from this film, aside from the watchable performances from the two main leads, is one small character (literally) named Pawny (Kumail Nanjiani). He's probably the best thing about this movie and will very likely become the one thing about this film anyone will remember. Because this little character is so funny, so likable, so textured, and so versatile that if they keep trying to make more MIB movies, I will be insulted if they don't include this character in some capacity. 

Men In Black: International feels like a movie that cannot decide what it wants to be. It tries to do too many things at once without even looking at the target. I do want to see more MIB movies, but only if they make some real effort to do something different with the incredible universe they have established for themselves. The performances are okay and, like I said, Pawny is entirely entertaining, but they can't save the tragic dullness that is the rest of the film. If there's nothing else playing that you're interested in this week, then it's okay. Otherwise, I recommend waiting for the video. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Nor really. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It has no real life to it and whatever life is there is too short lived to enjoy on the big screen. Skip it or wait for Netflix. 

Ladies & gentelmen, I am TheNorm, thank you very much for reading. 

Godzilla: King of the Monsters - What just happened?

The very first Godzilla film was released in Japan in 1954. It was more or less a severe drama about Post-WW2 Japan after the atomic bombs had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Godzilla, at the time, was the antagonist of the movie functioning as an allegory for the horrors of the atomic age and nuclear fallout. Then, at some point, Godzilla evolved from being a severe metaphor for fear, paranoia, and senseless destruction, to the cinematic equivalent of a beloved wrestler in the WWE fighting evil to maintain his title of King with a new challenger (i.e. new movie with a different monster to fight) seemingly on a regular basis. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, just kind of unexpected. 

Since then, Godzilla has become something of an icon. While I may not be a member of the Godzilla fan community, I do appreciate the movies as well as the various other iterations for their silliness and enjoyment of awesome monster brawls. There was a kind of reboot movie back in 2014 directed by Gareth Edwards which attempted to recapture the same sort of severe dramatic quality of the first Godzilla film but sadly failed to do so for several reasons. Chief among them being forgetting to properly balance out the drama with compelling action. Even so, the follow-up movie, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, does a better job and balancing the two extremes,  despite this one leaning more towards massive action. 

Taking place a few years after the events of the previous film the story follows a scientist named Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) working together to find and learn about the many different monsters, referred to as Titans, all over the Planet. The theory is that these Titans were among the original forms of life on Earth who had laid dormant only emerging when nature deemed necessary for re-balancing the Planets ecosystem. Dr. Madison has devised a unique device which can communicate with the Titans, allowing humans and Titans to better coexist. Things go awry when a group of environmental terrorists kidnap Dr. Madison and her daughter and take the device with them to awaken all the Titans they have found. The terrorists are under the impression that humanity has caused too much destruction with pollution and overpopulation. So to save humanity from themselves, the terrorists will awaken all the Titans effectively hitting the reset button on the Planet, forcing humanity to begin anew. Their plan works too well as they stimulate all the Titans who have started wreaking havoc and are on the brink of annihilating all life on Earth. All hope seems lost until the good guys, a secret organization called Monarch lead by a Titan expert named Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe), realize that all the Titans respond to an Alpha, and the only way to prevent total destruction is to awaken the true King of the Monsters, and possibly the last hope for humanity, Godzilla. 

I know this summery sounds like I'm skipping a lot of stuff, but the plot and story of this movie are so unnecessarily complicated that it would take me another two paragraphs to explain everything and I would rather just discuss the film proper as a whole. 

Godzilla: King of the Monsters can best be described as loud, flashy, a little pretentious, and ridiculously fun. It's one of those movies where you don't really need to put too much brain power into it and can just relax and enjoy the crazy action on screen. I know there are people out there who only watch action movies for the fantastic set pieces and substance be danmed, but I am not one of those people. I prefer that my action movies have some kind of texture outside of the gunfights and explosions to make it all feel more worthy of my emotional investment. Films like Aliens and Ronin are precisely the kind of action fair I love best because they have texture to themselves outside of the action. While Godzilla: King of the Monsters does have some of that, it doesn't have quite as much as I might have preferred. 

The one thing I can say I loved the best about this film is that it makes fantastic use of the legendary Japanese actor Ken Watanabe. Back in the early 2000s he was just about everywhere playing great characters and establishing a name for himself here in the West. In recent years he's mostly been making glorified cameos and only getting minor supporting roles that don't have much texture to them, which has always annoyed me. Ken Watanabe is an incredible presence on screen who outshines everyone else. Even in his more famous film, The Last Samurai, where he starred opposite Tom Cruise, arguably the biggest box-office draw in the world, Ken was such an incredible performer, that not only did he force Tom Cruise to up his game (which he seriously did), but Ken was also nominated for an Oscar for best-supporting actor in the movie. Say what you will about The Last Samurai as a whole, and trust me there is a lot to say, it still showcased Ken Watenabe as a strong talent on film. I hope we see more of him in the future. 

Another thing I can say in this movie's favor is how much I appreciated one specific scene. Minor spoiler warnings ahead. At one point, the good guys are discussing various legends that were likely inspired by some of the Titans. The two characters, an American and Chinnese scientist, start talking about the Western and Eastern interpretations of the most legendary creature of all, Dragons. Which, as I may have mentioned in my review for How to Train Your Dragon 3, is a legend I am absolutely fascinated with. I have always favored the Eastern interpretation of Dragons and this movie goes into detail as to why that is. It's something that we don't see very often in Western produced movies and I very much appreciated its presents in this film. 

Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a movie that those who are bigger fans of the franchise than I am will totally have a blast with. While casual admirers, such as myself, will probably have a decent amount of entertainment value from the action and incredibly well-done special effects. It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination but it is a decent and satisfying waste of time. If there's nothing else you're interested in seeing, then give this one a try. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It's enough of a decent spectacle to be most enjoyed on the big screen. Just be sure to bring some earplugs with you. They might come in handy. 

Ladies and gentelmen, I am TheNorm, thank you very much for reading. 

Monsters - Deserved to be better

Shot on the Sony PMW-EX3

Every once in a while, we come across something that has all of the best ingredients yet lacks a quality execution. For example, let's say a renowned chef has all the things you need to make an incredible Chocolate Cake, but instead of using a conventional oven, the chef decides to bake it over an open fire. Sure, the cake will probably still be tasty for the most part, but it won't be as delicious as it could have been had the chef just done something different. I don't mean to say that experimentation is a bad thing, not at all. However, experimenting only really works if you have a firm understanding of what already works and how best to bend those expectations. While today's movie, Monsters, does genuinely want to accomplish this goal, it falls short of doing so by lacking the one most crucial aspect of any narrative: a reason to care.

Taking place six years after an Alien invasion in northern Mexico, the story follows a young photo-journalist named Andrew (Scott McNairy) who is sent to retrieve his bosses daughter Sam (Whitney Able) from a retreat just south of The Infected Zone. After missing their intended transport, the two of them have to travel through the war zone on foot to make it back to the U.S. Along the way; they encounter a couple of Alien creatures, witness the changes the invaders are making to the Earths eco-system and form an unexpected bond. All the while trying to stay alive, and in doing so, learn more about the nature of the invading beasts.

This movie is yet another prime example of a high-quality homemade piece of cinema (mostly). Not only was the film shot on a high-end consumer HD camcorder, but it was also put together in an incredibly minimal fashion. The crew for this film consisted of writer/director Gareth Edwards (more on him in a moment), who also functioned as the cinematographer, camera operator, and co-visual effects artist along with an additional sound recordist and visual effects man. The team would pick a spot to shoot a scene (much of the dialogue was improvised). Afterward, they would import the footage onto a laptop and edit the scene while applying the special effects. Most of it was creating fake murals on walls, changing the content of road signs, and adding or removing various pieces of debris and the like to sell the illusion. All of which was accomplished using consumer level equipment on a budget of $500,000 while maintaining a much more expensive and professional look and feel. This film should be excellent in just about every possible way, am I right?

Well,

Before I discuss the movie proper, I want to take a moment to talk about the camera used to capture the film. Monsters was shot on a Sony PMW-EX3. A consumer camcorder with an interchangeable lens system and built-in cinematic options such as 24p framerate. Another piece of gear used for the film was a Letus Adapter, which was a unique device you attached to the front of the camera to use various brands of lenses. Thereby creating a more shallow depth of field and adding a slightly grainy look to the footage to better simulate the look of celluloid film. Also, just like Down and Dangerous, Nikon photography lenses were used with the camera system. All of these elements, combined with what must have been liberal use of natural lighting, create a beautiful looking film that stands as one of my favorite examples of great looking cinematography. As well as a perfect example of how you can make a movie on just about any kind of camera system and damn popular conventions.

Okay, not on to discussing the film proper.

On a technical and technological level, the film is incredibly admirable. It succeeds in creating a Hollywood flare on a shoestring budget. Thereby reinforcing the idea that just about anyone can make a great movie, and anyone out there who wants to do so should just go for it. It is, arguably, one of the best examples of having the guts to go out there and make your dream a reality. For that reason alone, Monsters is a movie I will always appreciate and admire.

However, it's just not as good as it really should have been.

You see, the biggest problem with the movie is its writing, and by extension, the treatment of the main characters. As I mentioned earlier, the film was written and directed by Gareth Edwards. A British filmmaker who started as a visual effects artist. He eventually went on to head the 2014 Godzilla reboot and Rouge One: A Star Wars Story. The former of which is not all that better and the latter of which is incredibly underrated in my opinion. As a director, Gareth Edwards is, for the most part, an artist I like. His camera language is fluid and conveys the mood of the given scene remarkably well, his sense of framing is on-par with the likes of Spielberg, and his color style succeeds in being dark and eerie without really feeling dull or lifeless. All of these things, when combined with a good script and a competent cast, have the potential to create something beautiful and genuine. Unfortunately, in the case with Monsters, the writing falls entirely on its face.

Much like the central conflict of the Alien invasion depicted in the film, the script seems to be at war with itself between what it wants to be and what it truly is. It wants to be a character-driven story focusing on the relationship between the two leads (which in and of itself is a good idea), but the two lead characters in question are terrible one-dimensional jackasses who don't speak or behave like real or sympathetic people. Not to mention the incredibly limited range of the main actors along with their lack of chemistry. The movie wants to deliver a relevant commentary about illegal immigration but delivers it in an overly simplistic and even childish manner, not befitting the intended severe and dramatic tone of the film. It wants to be a profound story about love and the nature of humanity, but its execution of those themes wouldn't even be acceptable in an episode of The Care Bears. To quote MovieBob from his original video review for Monsters, this movie "shows the world what might have happened if M. Night Shyamalan had directed Cloverfield." I don't think I could have said it better myself.

I genuinely wanted to like this film. Watching a movie with all of the best ingredients and intentions fall apart at the seams breaks my heart. Because movies like this should be a beacon of hope and inspiration for all aspiring and professional filmmakers, and while Monsters still achieves that, if only on a technical level, I cannot recommend it as a good movie. I can, however, recommend you give it a look as an example of sound low budget special effects, the professional power of consumer equipment, and an inspirational demonstration of doing what it takes to make your vision a reality. In other words, see it more as an inspirational tech demo, and less as a compelling narrative.

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

Angry Video Gamer Nerd: The Movie - Gloriously Ridiculous

Shot on the Panasonic AG AF100

One of the strangest things about the internet as a whole is how it seems to have taken a life of its own. Creating sub-cultures, providing easy access to tons of information, and of course, Cat videos. Also, lots and lots of entertainment value. One such form of online entertainment which I occasionally partake in myself is the Review Show. Where nerds and experts of a specific field like history or film and so on provide video essays on any given subject related to their area of expertise. Other times, there are funny guys in silly costumes who take it to a whole new level. As in way over the top. The Angry Video Game Nerd is just such a crazy show, and his movie is, without question, his magnum opus of ridiculousness. This isn't a movie, it's an experience. One that admittedly is not for everyone but is good silly fun for its own audience. 

For those of you who don't know, The Angry Video Game Nerd is a fictional character created by professional online filmmaker, and cinema enthusiast, James Rolfe. Growing up as a fan of horror cinema, especially the classics like Dracula and The Mummy, James Rolfe has wanted to make movies for as long as he can remember and has made countless short films since he first picked up a video camera. One of his short films, The Angry Nintendo Nerd, in which he plays an over-the-top parody of stereotypical video game obsessed nerds, skyrocketed his online filmmaking career. The Nerd, as portrayed by James Rolfe, would review old video games and mock them in an incredibly profane and occasionally gruesome fashion. While his main attraction was the ludicrous amounts of profanity and occasional gross-out humor, at the heart of it all was a guy who just wanted to make movies. James Rolfe has since toned down his act and continues to make Nerd videos to this day, but now he tends to put more emphasis on more clever comedy and commentary, as well as the occasional surprise guest appearance from people like Lloyd Kaufman (the founder of Troma Entertainment) and Macaulay Culkin (I swear I am not kidding).  

Anyway, after making Nerd videos for a few years, James Rolfe decided that he was ready to finally make a motion picture, and his Nerd character was the best jumping off point to do so. After raising well over his proposed budget through crowdfunding via Kickstarter, James gathered his friends, put together a cast and crew, and went to work. Some of the ambitions at play for this film was to utilize as many practical effects as possible, to include as many things as James Rolfe liked as a film enthusiast including giant monsters, and to feature a review of an old and much-hated video game. 

How did it all turn out?... Well...

Before I run down the story, please allow me to give you a brief history lesson about one of the worst video games ever produced. This is the driving point of the movie's plot, and it's actually kind of fascinating. 

Back in the 1980s, a little film titled E.T. directed by Steven Spielberg hit theaters. It was a massive hit and tons of merchandise was manufactured to capitalize on its success, including video games, or rather one game for the great grandfather of gaming consoles, the Atari 2600. Back then, game designers who regularly developed games for the Atari 2600 had an order for about three hundred thousand copies and were usually given at least four months to build the game. Well, the people who were commissioned to make the E.T. game was only given six weeks to make the game and had an order for five million copies. Needless to say, this became a huge problem. Because of this rushed production, the game itself was not tested before release. As such, it turned out to be so unplayable and so unnecessarily tricky, that the few copies that were sold had promptly been returned and refunded. Causing retailers to either chuck the games into bargain bins or return them to the manufacturer. Legend has it, the game became so useless and unable to sell, that Atari recalled all of the unsold cartridges dumped them into their own landfill, where they lay dormant to this very day. 

And now, the story. 

The story follows The Nerd (James Rolfe) going about his life making review videos and working at a video game store. That is until he's approached by a representative of massive game developer that's looking to produce a sequel to the E.T. game and requests him to review the original mainly for publicity and marketing opportunities. The Nerd is very reluctant, not just because the game is so awful, but because he has a personal phobia of the game. Even so, his fans become infatuated with the idea of The Nerd reviewing the game and even more with the legendary Atari landfill. So, to appease his fans while not having to discuss the game, The Nerd decides to travel to the legendary landfill and prove once and for all that the legend is just that, a legend. However, upon arriving at the landfill, The Nerd stumbles upon an even bigger conspiracy that he could not have even imagined involving actual Aliens and their connection to the original E.T. game. Now, The Nerd must solve the mystery, and in doing so, confront his greatest fear. 

This movie is a no-nonsense, self-aware, overcranked, absolutely insane experience. While it is catered to a specific audience, there is still a great deal of passion put into every single frame. Even if you don't like the film, there is still so much about it to admire. Speaking personally, while I am a proud fan of The Angry Video Game Nerd for my own reasons, despite there being occasional jokes that don't land for me, I find his movie to be an odd yet enjoyable experience. This may be one of the best visualizations of the word "fun." The film embraces its own insanity thereby encouraging the audience to do the same. A rare treat indeed. 

 The main attraction of the film is, arguably, the special effects. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the effects are practical. As in they utilized a lot of miniatures, puppets, and classic tricks such as rear projection to create most of the events on screen. While a good deal of CGI (Computer Generated Imaging) was also used, the general rule of the film was to use as many practical effects as possible. Due to the films limited budget, some of the puppets and miniatures do look, admittedly, pretty obvious. Even so, that did not seem to bother James Rolfe. In his behind-the-scenes features, James comments that when the audience can see how an effect was accomplished, it makes them feel like they're part of the experience. Similar to how a joke can be funnier when only a select few are in on it. Even so, the quality of the effects are so incredible, I am still impressed whenever I see it all unfold. 

Just like the previous film I reviewed (Down and Dangerous), Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie was shot on the Panasonic AG AF100, and was captured utilizing the cameras internal AVCHD codec. This makes the film even more impressive to me. Not just because of the excellent quality of the format, but also because of how well utilized it is for the movie. Typically in films that have as many special effects like this one (miniatures, green screen, CGI and so on), filmmakers will want to utilize a more advanced capture format that allows for more flexibility in image manipulation. As I mentioned in my most recent blog post where I discussed AVCHD in great detail, I said that it is a pretty limited video format in terms of color space and wiggle room. It is not the first option most modern filmmakers would consider when taking on such an effects heavy movie. And yet, despite that, all of the effects in this film are gorgeous and seem to integrate into the images almost flawlessly. What's more, none of the effects shots ever look muddled or ugly as some might suspect given the capture format. 

I was fortunate enough to get in touch with James Rolfe himself to inquire about his experience with the camera and the choice of video format. I was curious to know if he had any negative experience with the restrictive video codec when color-grading or adding in the special effects. More importantly, I was interested to learn if he ever received any complaints about the image quality. In his response, James Rolfe confided in me that during pre-production for the film, they had actually considered a more advanced camera system, including some 4K models, but ultimately couldn't afford it. He further told me that when applying his color-correction and special effects, he never encountered any serious problems that made him question their vitality or quality. Even better, no one ever complained about the image quality or capture format. Needless to say, this made my heart soar. 

Now, one could argue that since this film was "Home Made" and mostly intended to be seen on televisions and computer screens by a smaller audience, that any validation regarding the films capture format is irrelevant because it wasn't made to be a serious movie. I would argue that, on the contrary, this was indeed a serious movie. Because the people who made it were passionate about it all the way through its conception and distribution. This movie did play in theaters for mass audiences, both Nerd fans and general audiences alike. Even those who were unfamiliar with The Nerd admitted how impressed they were with the film and how much crazy fun it was. Are we meant to believe that genuine labors of love such as this film are automatically invalidated because of their capture format and their intended audience? If that's the case, then there's really no reason to make, watch, or enjoy movies of any kind. Trying to invalidate a film for its technological aspects or audience reception is like trying to disregard a well baked Chocolate Cake because it was made with Hershey's chocolate rather than something more prestine. If the Cake still looks and tastes good, who cares which chocolate was used? 

While it is not exactly for everyone's enjoyment, Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie is a film that just about everyone can admire in some way. It has a ton of heart and embraces a high level of silliness that, frankly, is missing from a lot of Hollywood movies, and even indie films these days. Filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts alike can learn a lot from the film. If you're the least bit curious, give it a look. Just be prepared for a couple of moments that can only be described as juvenile.

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