Gemini Man REDUX and the Future of High Frame Rate for Cinema

Back in October of last year, I saw and reviewed the action sci-fi drama Gemini Man starring Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. For the most part, I genuinely enjoyed the movie. I thought it was an incredibly well-crafted film, and the special effects in creating a twenty-four-year-old clone of Will Smith was absolutely astonishing (mostly). However, the real main attraction of the film, arguably, was that it was the second feature film by Ang Lee (more on him in a moment) to be shot in a semi emerging format for cinema known as High Frame Rate or HFR. This is turning into an incredibly fascinating debate in the world of cinema for many different reasons. I am neither for it nor against it, but rather intrigued by the many facets of modern film technology that seem to have lead to its current state of debate in the world of filmmaking. So, if you have a moment, and I'm pretty sure you do since I imagine you're still reading, I would like to discuss my own take on HFR and where I think it fits best in the modern world of film. 

First, a little history: 

Kinetoscope

In the early days of cinema, there was some debate as to the appropriate frame rate, or Frames-Per-Second (fps), for the best possible presentation. Some argued for 18fps, others for up to 48fps. Thomas Eddison, the inventor of the motion picture camera, argued in favor of faster frame rates. However, because of the expensive and cumbersome nature of celluloid film, it was decided early on to determine the exact amount of frames necessary to create the illusion of movement without using too much physical film. Eventually, right around the time that synchronized sound came into play, it was decided that 24fps was the best frame rate. Since then, every single movie, both feature-length and short, that ever graced the silver screen, was captured at 24fps. 

Many filmmakers and movie buffs alike have come to adore 24fps for many different reasons. Chief among them being its unique aesthetic quality. 24fps grants the medium of film the ability to transcend reality to create a compelling story. Some have described 24fps as having a kind of "dream-like" quality to it, thereby providing an essential ingredient to the magic of cinema. In fact, one could argue that the most significant contributor to making digital video an acceptable format for cinematic capture was the addition of 24fps. It is arguably the main thing which makes cinema...well...cinematic. 

This brings me to the discussion of High Frame Rate. Because in recent years, the term "cinematic" has undergone quite a lot of scrutiny, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Not to say that it is a dirty or offensive term, but it is something that has been thrown around by many people (particularly younger filmmakers) as if it was an absolute rule with certain expectations that must be met to the letter at all times. However, like many aspects of the arts, there is never just one meaning to anything. 

In the broadest of definitions, "cinematic" refers to images that emulate the aesthetic qualities that are generally associated with Hollywood movies. The most popular, especially in the early days of digital cinematic capture, is a shallow depth-of-field, or an image where the subject is in focus while the background is blurry. However, just like any other aesthetic preference that can be deemed "cinematic," it is not really absolute. When you take into account some of the films that were captured using "deep focus" (as in photography with no blurry backgrounds at all), it quickly becomes apparent that "cinematic" is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a guideline. So long as there is individual artistic taste, there will always be various interpretations of what cinematic actually means. 

For a more in-depth look at the nature of cinematic, check out this article from Red Shark magazine. 

Anyway, back to the reason we're here. 

As mentioned before, movies are traditionally captured at 24fps. However, while that is now widely available in pretty much all digital video cameras, that was not always the case. Before 24fps became an option, video cameras captured footage at 30fps or 60fps. There was also an earlier framerate known as 60i, but that's a different discussion entirely. Most early television programs would broadcast at faster frame rates. Most notably, daytime Soap Operas, most of which were captured at 60fps. This gave most television programs an incredibly distinctive look that would never be considered cinematic, at least not in the traditional sense. Even so, there is something rather alluring about higher frame rates. I should know because I find myself somewhat attracted to it as well. 

In my early days of being a filmmaker, I used to shoot my projects exclusively at 30fps. Partially because my editing software at the time was unable to support 24fps, but mostly because I liked the smoother images it would produce while still retaining some of the aesthetic qualities associated with 24fps. Even when attending film school, I shot my projects at 30fps despite all of my instructors encouraging me to do otherwise. In the years since then, I have grown to appreciate 24fps and currently shoot my projects in that framerate. Even so, I still find the idea of making movies in faster frame rates to be a fascinating concept, despite how uncertain I am of its future. 

Martin Freeman & director Peter Jackson on set for The Hobbit, which was shot in 48fps. 

One of the earlier examples of experimenting with HFR in the cinema was The Hobbit. Director Peter Jackson, who previously had great success with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, took it upon himself to tackle J.R.R. Tolkien's smaller work. At this time, Jackson had transitioned from shooting his movies on celluloid film to high-end digital video. Jackson also decided to shoot the film in native 3D, which is apparently what prompted him to experiment with HFR. This, incidentally, seems to be what kickstarted the HFR debate in the first place. Because of the nature of shooting native 3D, the images as produced in traditional 24fps can appear to be too difficult to observe, causing unintended strobing effects in the picture, especially with fast motion within the scene. Personally, I think that's really because of the 3D itself rather than the frame rate, but I digress. However, by increasing the frame rate for the 3D presentation, the image is smoother and less likely to cause eye strain. At least, that is the working theory. 

I had the opportunity to see all three Hobbit films in their native 3D HFR presentation, and honestly, I was not impressed. Aside from not enjoying the 3D (as I have never liked the damn format), the higher frame rate made every singe image on screen look too fake. In HFR, you can see the thickness of the actors make-up, the foam structure of the sets that were meant to be rocks, and every single pixel of CGI (Computer Generated Imaging) used to create nearly every single shot. In an attempt to make the film feel more real and more comfortable to look at, they instead made the film look too real, thereby removing the veil of movie magic. 

While there were many other aspects of The Hobbit films I did not enjoy or appreciate for various reasons, seeing it in HFR made me realize something essential about traditional 24fps that I had overlooked. Aside from its general aesthetic qualities, 24fps can better conceal various aspects of film production. It provides us with just enough visual information to make out the subject without allowing our brains to fully comprehend its true nature. A perfect example, at least to me, is Billy Crystal's make-up job from The Princess Bride. While there is no doubt that the make-up itself is top-notch, especially for the time, a big part of why it appears so convincing is the fact that because of the 24fps frame rate, out brains do not adequately absorb enough information to recognize it as make-up. Of course, a lot of that also has to do with the incredible writing, witty performances, and elegant lighting design. Still, if you were to take all of that and apply it to 60fps, I guarantee that you would not believe for one second that Miricle Max felt real in that scene. 

Billy Crystal as Miricle Max 

Now, at this point, you're likely wondering what any of this has to do with Gemini Man. Well, aside from my personal feelings that it is a criminally underrated film, it has also officially renewed my interest in HFR for cinema. At least, for particular situations. Gemini Man was captured in HFR at 120fps. Probably the fastest frame rate ever attempted for cinema. You may be surprised to hear that this is not the first time that director Ang Lee has utilized this frame rate. A few years prior, he shot Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, a military drama about PTSD, at 120fps. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to see either of these films in their native 120fps presentation, so I cannot comment on the aesthetics of it at this time. However, I recently had the opportunity to watch Gemini Man on home video in a special 60fps presentation. Which now brings me to my awaited REDUX of that film. 

When I started watching Gemini Man at 60fps, having already experienced the film in a traditional 24fps presentation, the first thing I noticed was, surprisingly, how little the 60fps experience was affecting my enjoyment of the film. I had read countless other reviews regarding Gemini Man and its HFR presentation saying it looked too fake, the acting was rendered unconvincing, and the general aesthetics were too uber-realistic to be taken seriously as cinema. I was fully aware of all of that, and yet, when watching the 60fps version of the film, I honestly didn't feel any different. I still loved the movie as much as I did the first time I saw it in theaters. Now, one could argue that 60fps wasn't the exact same experience as 120fps (which is fair), and having experienced the 24fps version of the film prior, my experience with the 60fps version may have been hindered by my own personal enjoyment of the film. Even so, what little differences I could glean from the two different versions of the same film, my overall experience and impressions were largely unaltered. If anything, I actually found myself enjoying the 60fps version a little more. 

Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Gemini Man 

This puzzled me exponentially for so long that I actually started asking myself questions I would later realize I already knew the answers. Such as "Am I just not well versed enough in the world of cinema to see the real difference?" Or "Is there something about this whole debate that I am simply missing?" The answer, as it turns out, was a definitive "no" for the first question and a resounding "yes" for the second. In regards to the first question, I think I have learned a lot about cinema (and continue to do so) at the present time so as to know what I find to be genuinely good storytelling. At least, enough to know what I personally prefer. As for the second, there is another aspect to this whole discussion which I had completely overlooked: The inherent aesthetic beauty of digital video itself. 

Ang Lee and Will Smith on the set of Gemini Man. 

Not too long ago, I stumbled upon an article about Gemini Man from The New Atlas. This article features a quote from Ang Lee regarding his personal artistic taste and ideas for the future of cinema. Ang Lee is quoted as saying:

"I'll continue to chase the aesthetic quality of digital cinema. It has an aesthetic that's worth grasping. We've been imitating film and that's just not right. You can use it as a reference, but it's a different medium". 

This quote was the exact answer I was looking for because it reminded me of my own personal artistic taste as well. Not to mention, it reminded me why I preferred shooting my projects in 30fps in my early days (aside from the limitations of my editing software at the time). Digital video is its own medium and has its own individual, artistic, and even cinematic aesthetic that is truly beautiful. The real problem is not that digital doesn't look enough like film, but rather that popular conjecture insists that because it is not film, it is not acceptable as a cinematic medium. I think the real reason some filmmakers are pushing for higher framerates in movies is not so much for the smoother and cleaner images (although there is no arguing that is at least part of it), but rather it is part of an effort to remind people that cinema is not determined by what format you make it on, but by how you artistically and competently tell your story. 

Furthermore, I think that as cool as HFR looks, it is still not really suited for all kinds of stories. If we've learned anything from Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, it is that stories which require as many special effects and artificial reality as The Hobbit, benefit more from slower frame rates in order to better sell the artificial as tangential. While stories that require fewer or no special effects might actually gain some advantage from faster frame rates. In the case of Gemini Man, while some of the effects were still less-than-perfect, the best use of special-effects was in creating the twenty-four-year-old version of Will Smith, which looks almost entirely convincing in both 24fps and 60fps. The real strength of the film lies within the writing and the performances, especially from the films MVP, Mary Elizabeth Winstead. 

Regardless of your personal feelings about HFR and its proper place in modern cinema, Gemini Man is still an entertaining and mindful film that deserves so much more than it has received. "Criminally underrated" is officially an understatement. If you have the chance to see this film, in 24fps or in 60fps, I highly encourage you to do so. 

As for the future of HFR in Cinema, I personally believe that it certainly has a place in some circles but not all. When utilized for the right reasons and by the right storytellers, it can yield compelling and fascinating results. As for me personally, I will likely continue to create my own work in 24fps, but I will no longer be embarrassed or ashamed to suggest a faster frame rate should the project call for it. After all, I am still shooting on digital video, which is a different medium entirely. Isn't it? 

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

1917 - Unbelievable (in a good way)

In1998, legendary director Steven Spielberg made what many still consider to be the God of War films, Saving Private Ryan. It is regarded as one of the greatest and most sincere dramas about brotherhood, human fragility, and the Hell of War. It went on to receive a few Oscars but lost Best Picture to (of all films) Shakespeare in Love. I myself can remember seeing it in theaters and I can still feel the trembling in my chest and the tears in my eyes. Since that film's release, many other War movies have tried to match or even one-up Saving Private Ryan with varying degrees of success, but none of them ever really reached the same level of sincerity or impact. Now, over twenty years later, I think we may have finally received a genuine contender for the spiritual successor to the God of War films in the fantastically crafted World War One epic, 1917. 

Set in the tail end of the First Great War, the story follows two young soldiers: Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay). Blake has an older brother in another regiment closer to the front lines that are on the verge of a heavy attack against the Germans. However, what they don't know is that the Germans have been anticipating their attack in preparation of a trap allowing the Germans to annihilate over sixteen-hundred British troops, including Blake's older brother. Unable to send a radio message to the front lines, Blake and Schofield are sent on a mission to hand-carry a message to the other regiment across a vast No-Mans-Land calling off the attack. So begins the race against time to save their fellow soldiers and Blake's brother. 

The main attraction of the film is that it plays out in real-time. That is, it is another feature-length film to be shot (seemingly) in one continuous take. Utilizing classic editing techniques, the whole film plays out in one go save for one brief time jump in the middle. This isn't the first movie to pull off the one long take trick. Alfred Hitchcock's Rope and Alejandro G. Iñárritu's Birdman are a few that come to mind. The attraction of the long take, at least to me, is allowing the scene to feel more visceral. Because there are no cuts (apparently) we as an audience are with the characters every step of the way, thus we feel the most as though we are part of the proceedings. In the case of 1917, it's so much more than that. The film boasts a new level of awe-inspiring presentation with camera acrobatics the likes of which I cannot remember seeing anywhere else. Every time the moment transitioned to another point in the story, I found myself utterly amazed at how often I genuinely forgot I was watching a film. That is when I wasn't geeking out wondering how the hell they moved the camera along multiple bodies of water so fluidly. It is an achievement in cinematography that deserves any and all praise it gets. 

Speaking of the cinematography, it is, needless to say, absolutely gorgeous. Cinematographer Roger Deakins, one of my all-time favorites, and who previously collaborated with director Sam Mendes before (more on him in a moment), once again demonstrates his uncanny talent for creating striking images with minimal lighting. Most of the lighting in the film is natural with a few darks scenes lit by flashlights or fire sources. All of which looks as gorgeous as only Mr. Deakins can deliver. 

The set and production design is arguably the real main character of the film. Everything seen on the screen was hand-built and designed. Every trench and bombed-out town was painstakingly crafted with incredible detail and uncanny realism. Resulting in visual storytelling that is as visceral and beautiful as it is horrific in its subject matter. Much like Saving Private Ryan, the film is not afraid to showcase the true tragedy of war. 

Director Sam Mendes, who previously made the incredible classic American Beauty and one of the better James Bond films Skyfall, got the inspiration for this film from his Grandfather, Alfred Hubert Mendes, who was a messenger on the front lines in World War One. As a filmmaker, Mendes is generally a good talent to behold. Despite his films often carrying a dark and seemingly sad tone, they never feel utterly depressing. In a strange way, he has a talent for presenting grim stories with an undertone of optimism. Not so much through levity, although his films do still feature some of that, but rather in small reminders of the better parts of human nature. This very feeling makes its way all throughout the film. 

However, the MVP award must go to the music. Composed by Thomas Newman, the film's soundtrack practically carries the movie. It never stops and yet is never overbearing. Playing the right notes at just the right time, going somber when needed, rising up again to enhance the visuals even further, and adding subtle tension to the atmosphere at all times, it almost becomes a character itself. It may very well be the best film score I have heard all year. 

1917 is a film I had been looking forward to all year, and I am glad to see that my excitement has paid off. This is an achievement in visual storytelling the likes of which is rarely pulled off so beautifully. While I do caution some viewers for graphic violence and images, it is appropriate given the subject matter and is all in service to the story. This is one film that deserves a high place in cinema history. 

Sam Mendes, all I have left to say to you now is this: You are forgiven for Specter. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It's a technological and narrative achievement that must be experienced on the big screen to be fully appreciated. Don't be ashamed to cry if you are so inclined...I wasn't. 

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

Best & Worst of 2019

Happy New Year, Everybody! 

I hope that everyone had a safe and fun transition into the new decade. Here's hoping that things start to get better in every possible way, but mostly better movies for me. Yes, 2019 has not been the most exciting year for cinema, with a few notable exceptions of course. So that's why we're here today! To reflect on the best and worst of 2019. Let's kick things off with the good news. 

Best film of 2019: 

There have been some unique and timely films this year. The most notable and relevant is, arguably, Queen & Slim. However, as important as that film is, I personally got more out of my experience with The Peanut Butter Falcon. Please understand, I do not mean to imply that I thought Queen & Slim was irrelevant or not impactful to me in any way, not at all. What I am saying is that Queen & Slim, while very much a powerful and pertinent film, was a vastly different kind of experience. While I am a firm believer in the power of cinema and its importance within the popular culture, I personally find more inspiration and solace in films like The Peanut Butter Falcon. Because it is a story that speaks to me in a much more profound and emotionally resonating way. This is the kind of movie that makes people like myself say "they don't make'em like this anymore." 

The Peanut Butter Falcon has everything I love about movies. The writing is clever and thoughtful. The cinematography is colorful and graceful. The characters are three-dimensional, flawed and likable. The direction is spot-on and fluid. The acting is delightful and energetic. It is just an overall unbelievably pleasant experience! One that gives me a sense of hope for the future. Both for movies and for society. If you have not yet seen this film, I implore you to do so this very moment. What's more, I highly encourage you to just buy it. Films like this deserve as much financial and popular support as we are capable of providing. Stories like this only come around once in a Blue Moon these days, so, please, add this wonderful story to your collection. I assure you it will be well worth it. 

Alright, not it's time for the bad news. 

Worst Film or 2019: 

I have to be honest. When I was deciding which film to declare the worst of 2019, it was a toss-up between this and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Both films are insultingly awful for various reasons and have no justification for their present condition other than laziness. However, after some extra thought, what ultimately brought me to my decision was the level of negative influence the two films had on the audience and society. In which case, Rambo: Last Blood takes the cake. 

You see, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker was bad for many reasons, but even so, the negative impact it had on audiences and pop-culture was minimal. Because when all was said and done, that film was just ultimately disappointing. It had the potential to expand and grow upon its predecessor, The Last Jedi, and deliberately chose to not do so, purely because both J.J. Abrams and Disney were not up to the challenge. Choosing to revert back into their comfort zone and not make any effort to challenge themselves or the status quo. As such, The Rise of Skywalker was simply disappointing in its refusal to step up to the plate. Which, in all honesty, is not really worth getting too worked up about. 

On the other hand, Rambo: Last Blood is the exact opposite. It had no expectations to follow nor any challenges to take on. It had the utmost amount of freedom to be what it wanted to be. It just turns out that it wanted to be, among other things, racest, sexist, and uncompromisingly narrow-minded when representing an entire culture. This film's depiction of Mexicans and the nation of Mexico is not only lame, but it is also, intentional or not, dangerously bigoted! It is one thing to showcase the dark and unfortunate side of a society in an effort to raise awareness, but to do so in such a manner as this film did is inexcusable. I have already gone over the reasons this film is so awful in my original review so I will not repeat myself here, but suffice it to say that this movie's politics are disgraceful and inexcusable, especially in these difficult modern times. Shame on Sylvester Stallone and everyone who had a hand in the production of this film. 

 Well, thank you for checking out my best & worst of this year. Hopefully, there will be more highs than lows in the movies in 2020. I will continue to see them and report back to you. I hope you will continue to join me on this journey. 

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

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Lazy Fan Fiction (SPOILERS)

I feel that it is absolutely important for me to acknowledge here and now that I cannot properly review this film without spoiling it. While I would normally avoid them for the sake of my wonderful readers so as to ensure the best movie-going experience possible, I cannot in good conscience write a detailed review of this movie without revealing the very reasons it is a horrendous waste of time. The Rise of Skywalker may very well be the worst Star Wars film since Attack of the Clones. Speaking as someone who loves the original trilogy, enjoyed The Force Awakens, appreciated Rogue One, absolutely adored The Last Jedi, and tolerated Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Rise of Skywalker has to be the most insulting, aggravating, and heartless feature film to ever bare the Star Wars name. The only real achievement this film makes is finally cementing co-writer & director J.J. Abrams as a cowardly one-note talent with no individual artistic voice to speak of. Disney should have known better.

For those who wish to avoid spoilers, you very likely guessed my feelings on this film and I do not recommend you waste your time, energy or money. However, if you are not sensitive about spoilers, or have already seen the film and don't care either way, by all means, please continue reading, as I have much to say about this trainwreck. Otherwise, I suggest you back out now, as there will be spoilers galore from here on out. This film is not worthy of my usual spoiler-free protection.

And with that, let's get into it.

Taking place sometime after the events of The Last Jedi, the story follows Rey (Daisy Ridley) training to become a stronger Jedi while helping the Rebellion fight back against the First Order. Meanwhile, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), seeks out a mysterious figure claiming to be a Sith lord who will take over the Galaxy. Kylo Ren discovers that the mysterious figure is Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) who somehow survived his encounter with Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi and has been plotting his revenge ever since. With his massive fleet of Star Destroyer ships, each one equipped with a Death Star weapon of its own, Palpatine will begin his reign of tyranny once again. That is unless the Rebellion can find and defeat him first. To do so, Rey and her friends must find a means of determining Palpatine's location, all the while evading Kylo Ren who has joined forces with the ancient Emperor. Further complicating things is he has discovered that Rey is...wait for it...Emperor Palpatine's granddaughter, and for mysterious reasons, wants her dead. Now, Rey must confront her heritage and find the strength to determine her destiny.

Yes, you read that correctly, the big twist of the film is that Rey is Emperor Palpatine's granddaughter. Now, setting aside for a moment that this is an incredibly stupid and incompetent twist, the real issue at play here is the fact that Emperor Palpatine is in this film in the first place. Bringing back the main antagonist of the original trilogy accomplishes nothing for the new characters and storyline that have been established in this new trilogy. As far as I can speculate, the only reason for his presence in this film is twofold: First, to appease the rabid and unreasonable fans who unjustifiably hated The Last Jedi, and to provide J.J. Abrams with yet another opportunity to spend an entire movie telling me how much he claims to love Star Wars as a whole without actually understanding what makes it so great.

That has always been the problem with J.J. Abrams as a filmmaker. He spends so much time geeking out over the things he really likes but never actually stops to think about why he likes them. If you carefully examine any film that J.J. Abrams has directed, you will find that they all follow the same pattern. Visually striking, highly energetic, lots of flair (both figuratively and literally) and very little substance when it comes to narrative. Even when he does put more focus on the story, it never feels like his own, but rather his direct replication of better stories as told by filmmakers more talented and skilled than himself. In short, he is the equivalent of a little kid retelling a joke he heard but without understanding what made it funny.

Another issue I have with this whole twist, as well as J.J. Abram's execution of the whole affair, is that it robs Rey's character of any individual growth. Rey was supposed to become the embodiment of the next chapter of the Star Wars Universe. The one who would bring the series out of the shadow of its own nostalgia and into a brand new era of its own. Instead, J.J. Abrams has effectively taken the whole series a huge step backward, prioritizing an unhealthy addiction to nostalgia and an unreasonable desire to appease an ugly fan base who, in all seriousness, should not be entitled to a say in how any given property must be handled. While I do agree that it is good to at least listen to what the fans of any given property have to say: unless they are directly involved in the creative process, it is not their place to dictate how or when a property as universal as Star Wars should or should not grow and change. By making Rey directly related to Palpatine, the movie has been reduced to nothing more than a fruitless exercise in unwarranted damage control.

When I say damage control, I mean exactly that. Despite how well made The Last Jedi was, many of the uber-fans disliked the film for unreasonable and invalid reasons. Even so, The Rise of Skywalker spends the vast majority of its time trying to win back these rabid fanatics. The most offensive of which is the lack of screentime given to Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) due to the fan's unjustifiable dislike of her character from the previous film. Basically, the film is trying to pretend that The Last Jedi never happened. Which is not only impossible, it's disrespectful to everything related to the Star Wars story.

Speaking of story, The Rise of Skywalker doesn't seem to actually have a real story of its own. The movie is in such a rush to get through all of its action, space battles, and weaponized nostalgia, that it completely forgets to add any real texture to any of it, thereby depriving the audience of the most essential element of any story: A reason to care. Plot points and new characters constantly jump in and out that are never developed properly or utilized in a meaningful way, the main characters are never given any breathing time to interact and bond like they should, and to top it all off, every single moment of the film is completely predictable. At no point did I ever feel concerned with the characters, not just because I wasn't given any compelling reason to sympathize with them, but nothing about the proceedings ever made me feel as if they were in any actual danger. This is a mortal sin for any kind of story, but it is especially egregious for a Star Wars story.

The Skywalker Saga, as it has been recently branded, is one of the best and most influential cinematic stories ever devised, and it seriously deserved a much better conclusion than this. The Rise of Skywalker does not elevate the Star Wars universe in any meaningful way. I am beyond disappointed in this film and unquestionably frustrated with J.J. Abrams. The only thing I can say in this movies favor is that I am glad it has finally been released because this now means that we can look forward to many more Star Wars content that will, undoubtedly, have more heart and courage to take on new challenges and find more compelling new stories to tell. That is, of course, provided that J.J. Abrams doesn't get his hands on anymore Star Wars content.

Mr. Abrams, despite what you may choose to believe, the force is not strong with you at all. Do us all a favor and stop making movies until you find your real voice, that is assuming you ever had one in the first place. Also, stay far away from Rian Johnson and his own Star Wars trilogy.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No.

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
No.

Why?
It is a heartless, spineless, arrogant waste of time. An insult to everything great about Star Wars as a whole. Rather than seeing this film, take some time to write your own version of the story. I guarantee it will be a million times more creative than what J.J. Abrams has done here.

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

May the Force be with you, always.

Readers Request - Fist of the Vampire

Well, you asked for it, and here it is. The first Readers Request Review. Not sure if I should laugh or cry about this first entry. 

Honestly, I almost feel guilty about reviewing this one. It's clearly an indie movie with an incredibly limited budget that, I have you doubt, also had a lot of passion put into its creation. Even so, love does not make a good movie. It can play a significant role in the creative process, but it does not guarantee a good or even watchable film. Also, if you succeed in publishing your work in some capacity, be it a theatrical release or a limited run on Amazon or Netflix, you are opening yourself to criticism and constructive input. As such, I don't care what kind of a budget you had to work with, I only care about what you managed to do with it. In all honesty and sincerity, I am not convinced that the people behind this movie did a lot to hide their incompetence. This movie is, in every conceivable way, painful to watch. 

Released back in 2007, the story follows a deep undercover DEA agent infiltrating an underground gambling/fighting ring. Which happens to be managed and operated by a group of Vampires. That is, regrettably, pretty much all you need to know about the story. 

There are at least two positive things I have to say about this movie. A handful of the actors are fun and enjoyable to watch, and the script, despite being cliche and clunky as hell, is actually fairly decent. The general storyline and characterizations presented in the text are well developed enough that had it been polished by a more talented writer, could have a significantly more compelling narrative. Sadly, both of these positive aspects are aggressively bogged down by every other piece of incompetence and arrogance spread throughout the movie. 

This film was made by professional martial artists who, while clearly enthusiastic about making movies, clearly have no clue how to craft cinema. As a result, the movie suffers from any and all problems often associated with High School students trying to make an action movie on their phones. 

The acting, save for one or two of the cast, is horrendous. Half of the cast consists of young women who, while attractive, have no acting talent whatsoever. Most of the men do not fare any better, either. Most of the cast is wooden, continually struggling to remember their dialogue, and has no facial expressions other than "dull surprise." It's roughly the equivalent to watching middle school children give a lecture about the Spanish-American War while trying really hard to not look down at their note cards in an attempt to impress the audience when all their actually doing is showing off a skill and talent they do not possess. 

The special effects, of which there is an overabundance in this film, ranges from terrible to laughter-inducing. Most of the film takes place indoors (in locations that are clearly the homes of the cast & crew), and half the time, especially during action bits (more on those in a moment), the scene is sprinkled with shots where the talent is clearly sanding behind a green screen with the same room protected as background. The only justification I can think of for this practice is that since most of these scenes contained violence and blood, they could not afford to mess up the location. So rather than spend the extra time setting up scenes to accommodate the demands of the area, they did what no filmmaker should ever attempt. They tried to fix it in post-production. 

The action scenes, while decently choreographed, are so unconvincing, so under-rehearsed, so terribly photographed, and so incredibly lame, it felt less like watching a fight scene and more like watching high school kids attempting interprative dance. Made all the more inexcusable by the fact that, as mentioned before, this movie was made by professional martial artists. 

But all of these issues are tame when compared to the most egregious problem of all with this film, the cinematography. Most likely captured on a cheap camcorder or smartphone (IMDB does not list the exact camera), this must be the ugliest, laziest, most incompetent cinematography I have ever suffered through. There is no lighting technique of any kind, no sense of shot composition, every single shot is handheld (terribly), and it eventually becomes clear that whoever is operating the camera is relying too much on the automated features. Not to mention, every single scene, regardless of indoor or outdoor settings, constantly changes from daytime to night in-between shots. Plus, every single frame in this film is coated with some kind of ultra softening filter, which I suspect was an attempt to make the images look more "cinematic," but all it does is make each and every shot aggressively blurry and difficult to distinguish from one another. 

Indie cinema is capable of many things. Small budgets can go a long way if utilized right. Anyone with talent, skill, and wisdom can put together a compelling homemade feature-length film with gusto and heart. Sadly, the vast majority of the people behind this film lack everything I just listed. This isn't just a bad movie, it's insulting, offensive, and disgraceful in its incompetence and apathy. If you want to make a silly action movie about Kung-Fu Vampires, then fine, please do so. So long as you remember this simple truth: Just because you don't need to do a good job, that doesn't mean you shouldn't. 

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

Quick Reviews

Hey everyone,

With the Holidays coming along, and my eagerness to get Reader Requests going for this month, I have seen a few recent movies that I don't really have time to write a full review for. So, in the interest of saving us all much valued time, here are a few quick rundowns on some films that came out in the past few weeks.

Relevant if repugnant. Similar to the critically acclaimed film Erin Brockovich, it's the story of how a major corporation is knowingly and apathetically poisoning all of its customers. In this case, the Du-Pont company murdering everyone with Teflon. While it may not be an easy film to sit through for various reasons, it is incredibly important and must be seen to be appreciated. Don't see this one for the entertainment value, but rather for how much it drives home how important it is for all of us to never back out of a fight for our lives. Recommended. 

Smart, creative, and funny. Writer-director Rian Johnson, who previously made Looper and Star Wars: The Last Jedi, delivers a fresh take on the classic Agatha Christy murder mystery scenario complete with elaborate mansion set, greedy relatives clawing at inheritance, and a super sleuth always one step ahead of the game. Some may criticize this film for not following traditional story structure, i.e., no character growth & change, but Johnson compensates for that with witty dialogue, gorgeous visuals by cinematographer Steve Yedlin,  and a fresh take on an overdone mystery sub-genre. Absolutely worth seeing. 

Agonizingly disappointing! A simple if cliche premise that should make for an incredibly exciting time at the movies considering the talent involved is instead a slow, redundant, and frankly stupid dud of a film. The action is repetitive and boring, none of the characters are engaging or relatable (save for Chadwick Bosman's role), the writing is lazy and lacks any kind of texture and the overall production just reaks of apathy and passionless contract obligation. Like everyone involved is only there because they're obligated to be and not because they actually want to. I should not want to fall asleep at a movie likes this, but I did indeed do so. Skip this one. 

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

Frozen 2 - Better the second time around (mostly)

Back in February, I published my reaction to the Frozen 2 trailer, in which I briefly recounted my opinions on the first movie and my renewed interest in the series with the next film. The short version is that I liked the ideas and the characters within the film without actually enjoying the movie itself. I felt that it was a waste of potential and should have been better. Even so, I still appreciated many of the thematic elements within the story and also, like everyone else, fell head over heels for Elsa as a character. So much so that not only do I wish she had more time in her first movie, I was genuinely hoping for her to have a stronger presence in the next. That much, at least, has been made real in this movie, for which I am grateful. As for the rest of the film, while I cannot say that it is perfect on its own merits, I can say that I found it be a significant improvement from the first. If only because it has a much more coherent and satisfying narrative. Oh, and the creators of the film thankfully confirmed that Elsa is indeed what we all thought even though the movie itself will not. Let's just say I'm having Legend of Korra flashbacks. 

Taking place six years after the events of the first film, the story follows two sisters, Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell) as the Co-Queens of the Kingdom of Arendelle...or is Elsa the Queen and Anna is technically still a Princess?... I dunno! Anyway, They rule their kingdom with kindness and altruism and have settled down into a happy life, for the most part. Things begin to stir up when Elsa starts hearing a strange feminine voice that seems to be calling her to somewhere. Later, it's revealed that there is a mysterious and magical forest that was once an ally to Arendelle until an unknown event put the two at odds with each other, and the wood was sealed off by a magical mist. This particular forest is alive with the spirits of Earth, Fire, Wind, and Water (enter your own Last Airbender and/or Final Fantasy jokes here), and it is they who have suddenly awakened and called to Elsa. Now, to protect her home and her family, Elsa and Anna must venture into the unknown to find the truth, and in doing so, right the wrong that was made. 

For the most part, the film is relatively stable. It makes better use of its main characters, the story is better structured, and the general themes of self-realization and acceptance, as well as friendship, love, and the importance of understanding history are all well presented and always appreciated. I can honestly say, without a doubt, that I did enjoy this movie better than the first. Even so, Frozen 2 is still not without its flaws. 

For one thing, I had an issue with the songs. Not the amount of them or their overall quality, but their placements in the movie. There were moments when, much like the first film, the songs were too close together. A song number, at least in my opinion, should not be followed up with another one immediately after. This over-eagerness to get to the next song number has the potential to diminish their intended impact. Thankfully, that never really happens here, but it got pretty close. Also, some of the songs, while nicely composed and brilliantly performed, felt unnecessary. One song, in particular, titled Lost in the Woods, stands out. I understand why it was in the film, but for some reason, minor spoiler, they played it in such an over-the-top comedic fashion, that it didn't feel genuine. This specific moment was supposed to be about a man overcoming his fear and embracing his feelings, yet the actual scene felt like a cheesy music video on MTV...from the 80s. 

To be fair, not all of the songs share this issue. Elsa gets most of the songs in the film and, as performed by the unconquerable Idina Menzel, are fantastically radiant! Her two main melodies, Into the Unknown and Show Yourself, are the highest of highlights for the film's music. While they may not reach the level of acclaim as Elsa's song from the first movie, her new songs carry a charm of their own that will assuredly stand the test of time. I should note that I have always been a fan of Idina Menzel and her singing voice. I already own two of her albums and, the first thing I did after watching this movie, was to download her songs from the soundtrack. They are genuinely that spectacular and best showcase how much of a pleasing and resonating voice Elsa has. 

Another issue I had with the film is that it often felt at times as though there was stuff missing. In addition to a few scenes from the trailer that were not present in the film, as well as a number of songs featured in the deluxe edition of the soundtrack that were also not in the movie, it occasionally felt as though some scenes were meant to go on a little longer and possibly go into s specific direction, only to kind of forget about it in the end. I cannot point out a particular moment when I felt like this, but I still had that little feeling here and there while watching the film. It was never so massive as to be distracting or diminish narrative cohesion, but it was a bit strange, to say the least. If Disney releases an extended cut of this film when it comes out on BluRay, I just might have to check it out. 

Setting aside these issues I personally had with the film, it does still have several good points. 

The visuals, as you would expect from a Disney animated film, are absolutely breathtaking. The colorful landscapes, the character designs, the renditions of water, and the flying leaves are all gorgeous to behold. Despite having a stylized presentation, there were one or two shots that looked so convincing, for a split second I forgot I was watching an animated movie. 

The film's strongest point is the enhanced relationship between Elsa and Anna. Compared to the first film, not only is their chemistry more believable, but their relationship feels more genuine and even tangible. To the point that when they were separated at one point in the story, I was genuinely afraid that they were never going to see each other again. This time around, their love is indeed the heart of the film. 

The writing, for the most part, is a bit more intelligent, engaging, and plays around with fascinating themes and ideas. One, in particular, the idea that water can have memory, I personally found to be most intriguing. The concept is utilized in a smart way for the story as well as for some creative visuals. Though some of the jokes didn't totally make the landing for me, the kids I shared the audience with did get a good laugh, which I appreciated. All of the characters, especially Elsa and Anna, have more satisfying character arcs than before and are given more engaging roles in the story. While I was disappointed that Disney didn't jump into the "Give Elsa A Girlfriend" movement as I would have liked them to, I can still say that, at the very least, they're keeping that idea open and not making any effort to shut it down. Speaking personally, I think they should just set Elsa free entirely, but that's a discussion for another time. 

The MVP award must go to Bruni, the Fire Salamander. This little guy is so adorable and so much fun, especially when interacting with Elsa that he makes me wish he had more to do in the story. I have no doubt that he's most likely just there to give Disney a means of making more money with toys and merchandise, but I don't care! Just look at this guy! He's too cute to be mad or frustrated with! 

I cannot say that Frozen 2 is entirely a great movie, but I can say that I personally found it be a more satisfying and enjoyable experience when compared to the first film. Those who share my feelings on the first film can easily cherry-pick events from the first movie and jump right into this one, while fans of the first film are sure to appreciate the callbacks and expansion of the story. There may be moments when the movie feels like it's trying too hard or not hard enough, but it never feels like it doesn't know what it's doing overall. I stated in my blog, as mentioned earlier regarding my reaction to the trailer that one could easily view the first movie as an introduction to the characters and the world rather than a narrative, and jump right into Frozen 2 for a much more satisfying story. Having seen the film, I can hapilly stand by that assesment. This may very well be, for the most part, the Frozen movie I have been waiting for. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Mostly, Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Maybe. 

Why? 

Unless you have children and are therefore going to see this in theaters regardless, you may prefer to wait until video to check this one out. While I did enjoy watching it, and would gladly do so again, I would personally prefer to do so with the ability to skip specific parts. As I did find parts of the film to be unnececary and just a little annoying. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading, and have a Happy Thanksgiving.