They say there’s an elusive “formula” for Oscar gold, and the 2014 Academy Awards only served to support this. Best Picture went to a socially relevant movie about American history. Best Actor went to Matthew McConaughey, because he lost weight and played an AIDS patient. Best Director went to Alfonso Cuarón, because his movie Gravity was technically revolutionary. I predicted all of these choices.

It’s critical to note at this point that I do not belittle all of the winners this year, but there’s a difference between the recipients that should win and those that will win. As I said, there’s a formula in place, so most recipients won out of sheer obligation due to reputation rather than being actually deserved.

For instance, anyone could smell 12 Years a Slave’s win a mile off. Not because it was the year’s best movie – it was not – but because it deals with slavery, is a true story, is a period piece, and has an esteemed reputation among critics. That’s ticking every Academy box imaginable. It’s the “safe” choice, because it winning the award won’t offend anyone. Sure, its content is graphic and conservatives won’t be able to deal with it, but it’s hard to deny the movie’s impact.

This is reflected in the fact that a story recently broke, explaining that a number of Academy voters went with 12 Years a Slave for Best Picture despite the fact they never watched it. They felt obligated to vote for it because of what it is. They were afraid to be more adventurous in fear of controversy. As I said, the Academy has grown soft and safe.

Let’s look at a few of the other Best Picture nominees, and theorise the consensus if these movies actually won the top prize:

Gravity – People would liken the movie to Avatar, saying there’s plenty of special effects and no substance, and there’d be instant online controversy. Gravity does not offer a great deal beyond the experience, sure, which is by design, but in the eyes of some, this means it would be an insult to call it 2013’s Best Film.

The Wolf of Wall Street – The year’s most polarising movie. It’s full of drugs, nudity, sex, non-stop profanity, and so on. Awarding the movie Best Picture would horrify the conservatives and offend those who found the movie offensive.

Captain Phillips – I personally wasn’t an overall fan of this outing, as it did whitewash several aspects of the historical record to fashion a pretty straight-ahead hostage drama. Many would decry “It’s a dumb American action movie!” if it won Best Picture.

Other nominees – like Her, Nebraska, Philomena and The Dallas Buyers Club – will simply be seen as too slight for the top prize. Most would scratch their head if any of them won, even if they did like these movies. The Oscars want to keep people happy, otherwise they wouldn’t tune in for the telecast year after year.

Admittedly, American Hustle is another “safe” choice and theoretically had just as much chance as 12 Years a Slave, but the latter movie had an advantage: it’s about Big Important Issues. Hustle was about a scam back in the ’70s, and would have won in any normal year, but 12 Years a Slave being about slavery and blacks automatically gives it the edge.

What would my pick be for Best Picture? The Wolf of Wall Street. It’s my favourite movie of the year, sure, but it’s also the best movie of the year for several reasons, and I would have liked to see it win big. This may lead many to call me out for being biased, or immature for liking the orgy of excess, but that would prove my point. See, movies are not meant to be inoffensive. A film which shocks, offends and makes a genuine stir in the cinematic marketplace is the very definition of a keeper. Movies should prompt us to feel things, and should prompt passionate responses, whether positive or negative. People will be discussing the movie for years to come, and it has its hardcore fan base, whereas 12 Years a Slave will remain more of a niche curiosity.

12 Years a Slave fading into obscurity might be mere speculation at this point, but let’s look at a movie like The Artist, which won Best Picture a couple of years ago due to it being a love letter to cinema. Now? Nobody remembers the fucking thing. I’m a very avid reader of entertainment news and forums, and I haven’t seen it mentioned or discussed for years. It did not make an impact. In fact, I have never even watched the fucking movie myself, because I didn’t care. A “pleasant” throwback to old timey cinema is not Best Picture material, period.

Ironically, bold choices might actually draw in more viewers. They might lose a few conservative viewers, but chatter about controversial choices would carry over into the next year, prompting others to tune in merely to see what the Academy does this time.

Oftentimes, people describe Oscar fodder as boring and turgid, and the Academy as a society of stuffy old folks who don’t know how to have fun. This year’s Oscar telecast reminds us exactly why this stereotype is in place. It’s been happening for years, and I see no merit in spending many hours of my evening watching the telecast when I can read the results the next day in a 10-second scan.

For the record, I was not too enthusiastic about McConaughey’s win, but there’s no point going too far into that. Terminally ill character + weight loss = Oscar. It’s very cut and dried, and very annoying.

The post Why The Oscars Are No Longer Worth a Damn appeared first on Something Clever.

But nobody went to fucking see it, and Dredd died a brisk death at the global box office. It was a financial disaster, leading to a massive loss for the investors.

Although screenwriter Alex Garland had pre-emptively mapped out a cinematic Dredd trilogy, such plans were squashed in the wake of the first film’s failure. But word of mouth about Dredd eventually spread, and it became a massive cult hit on home video. So large the fanbase is, that the online community even staged a “Day of Action,” during which fans were encouraged to order the Blu-ray from Amazon. As a result of such labours on Amazon US and UK, the movie cracked the Top 5 best-selling Blu-rays for the day in both nations. How often does that sort of dedication come around?

The fans have spoken, and Dredd 2 needs to happen. But the desire is understandably overshadow by the fact that it would be a massive gamble. Is the market big enough to guarantee proper box office success for this go-round? Or will it become another money-losing flop?

Karl Urban is keeping hope alive for a sequel, recently stating that “conversations” are taking place between writer Alex Garland and the studio about the possibility of a sequel. Although it’s nice to know that there’s some kind of dialogue, there is still a long road to a Dredd 2 because of two factors:

1) The budget

2) The rating

No doubt, if a sequel was to occur, the studio would push for a PG-13 rating in an attempt to broaden profits, but nobody wants that. So it comes down to how much money can be thrown at Dredd 2 to retain an R-rating, and if a sequel would even be worth it if it was made for peanuts.

Here’s the thing: Dredd 2 does not need to be a lavish affair. The first film cost a maximum of $50 million, but a sequel can logistically slash these costs without compromising the finished product. Dredd was shot in 3D, which inflated the budget by a considerable margin – as much as $15 million was spent to facilitate 3D cameras, and rendering CGI in 3D. Get rid of the 3D, and we’re already saving money. 3D was pushed on the first movie in the wake of Avatar, but now we live in a world disillusioned with 3D, and some people reportedly avoided seeing Dredd in the cinema directly because of a lack of 2D showings. So, no 3D needed for Dredd 2! This already brings down the budget to as low as $35 million, a respectable price tag for an R-rated gamble. Riddick was made for $38 million, and look at the wonders that were done with such meagre funding!

Added to this, Dredd 2 would be a passion project for everyone involved, so the crew could take pay-cuts, or even just agree to a percentage of the profits. It’d be a gamble and everyone involved would need money flowing in to support themselves, sure, but actors like Urban are surely financially secure enough to do one movie for a reduced rate. Vin Diesel mortgaged his house to help funding for Riddick, and waived his actor’s fee!

Other cost-cutting measures can easily be implemented. For the scenes of Mega-City One, why not shoot in Detroit? The place is a shithole, it would cost peanuts to film in the city, and not much set dressing would be required. Dredd 2 would need to expand its scope and give us a tour of Mega-City One and the Cursed Earth, yet this doesn’t need to drive up its budget too much. It would be easy to imagine a respectable sequel being produced for $40 million, a price-tag that the first film has covered with its global home video sales alone.

It’s worth noting that some have posited the idea of a Kickstarter campaign for a Dredd 2, but it would never work. Even the most popular campaigns have never run over $5 million in donations, funding that wouldn’t put a dent in the costs needed for a proper sequel. Of course, a Kickstarter campaign could work as a starter – the studio could set it up to gauge interest, and if it reached, say, $2 million, then the rest of the bill would be footed by the studio. Not a bad idea.

The world needs more Dredd. At least a Dredd 2, but ideally a Dredd trilogy, or even a fully-fledged franchise. That’s obviously reaching for the stars right now, but I just really want a Dredd 2. It needs to happen, and could happen.

The post Dredd 2: Why It Must Happen, And Can appeared first on Something Clever.

So without further ado, here’s my wrap-up for the year!

Top 5 Best Movies of 2013:

1. Rush

Rush is the product of a collaboration between Ron Howard and Peter Morgan, which should be an indicator of the quality of the picture. This is an extraordinary movie, with its amazing racing sequences and compelling drama making it a shoe-in for the Academy Awards.

2. Gravity

A third act deus ex machina aside, Alfonso Cuarón’s latest picture is a staggering work of cinematic art. Its art design and special effects are simply breathtaking, and it’s easy to get lost in the experience, especially if you’re watching it in 3D. Even BBC One’s vocal 3D hater Mark Kermode said it’s worth seeing in 3D.

3. Frozen

I would’ve been happy if Frozen was simply a good movie, but it’s legitimately great, showing more maturity and sophistication than anything Pixar has done since Toy Story 3. It’s the best Disney animation since the ‘90s (not including Pixar).

4. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Although it features a rubbish love triangle, Peter Jackson’s second Hobbit venture is a home run. Its action sequences are as thrilling as anything in Lord of the Rings, and Smaug is a CGI miracle. It’s a wonderfully enjoyable fantasy action-adventure that I plan to watch over and over again.

5. Iron Man 3

Yeah, I said it. Come and get me. Iron Man 3 is one of Marvel’s best to date, and it’s also a great Shane Black movie. Stripping Tony Stark of his suit and forcing him to rely on his intellect makes the picture incredibly interesting, and it’s bolstered by dialogue that literally sparkles. Not to mention, The Twist is one of the boldest and most interesting things in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far. Weren’t people criticising Iron Man 2 for being safe? Calm down, people, this is a great movie.

Honourable mentions: The World’s End, Prisoners, Man of Steel, Bad Grandpa, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.

Bottom 5 Worst Movies of 2013:

1. Scary Movie 5

About 80% of the movie was shot two months ahead of its release. It took them two months to shoot and edit this. Think about that.

2. Movie 43

Every cast member refused to promote this film. Even Dennis Quaid, who’d probably prostitute himself if you gave him a few bucks.

3. A Haunted House

This movie is more traumatic than any real-life haunting could ever be.

4. Sharknado

The poster simply reads “Enough Said.” How apt.

5. Grown Ups 2

Rob Schneider couldn’t clear his schedule for this movie. Rob fucking Schneider thought he had better things to do than this.

Dishonourable mentions: The Purge, After Earth, You’re Next, Planes, Pain & Gain.

Most Fun: Escape Plan

We’ve been yearning for a proper team-up of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone for almost thirty years now. Although the pair have appeared together in both Expendables pictures, Arnie’s roles are always severely restricted; we have always wanted a proper movie with the pair as the main characters. And now we have it, and it’s spectacular. Escape Plan is not just a fun movie, it’s a great movie, with a smart screenplay and some exceptional performances from everybody. It’s a great story, and it’s peppered with some great one-liners. But the climax is something else. The action scenes which close the picture are staggering, the type of stand-up-and-cheer stuff that we wanted from a team-up of these two titans. It’s a bloody good time.

Most Underrated: Gangster Squad

I watched the movie on opening night and drew my judgements before I saw any reviews. Gangster Squad is some of the most fun I had in the cinema last year, and it’s also a well-made movie with kick-ass action scenes and engaging storytelling. The haters can hate. I loved it, and I’d be lying to myself if I said that I didn’t.

Also: Spring Breakers, V/H/S 2, Only God Forgives, Bullet to the Head.

Most Overrated: American Hustle

Give me Gangster Squad over this movie any day of the week. I mean that with utmost sincerity. American Hustle is in dire need of coherent plotting and an emotional attachment to the characters. I walked away completely cold and unmoved. I doubt I’ll ever watch it again.

Also: Captain Phillips, The Kings of Summer, The Heat.

Most Disappointing: Thor: The Dark World

Isolated set-pieces of the movie really shine, but it lacks the proper in-between stuff. I felt no attachment to the characters and I found it hard to get invested in the movie properly. Iron Man 3 is head over heels superior to this.

Biggest Surprise: World War Z

I’m not putting World War Z here because it was some kind of masterpiece. I’m putting it here because it didn’t suck, and considering that Paramount and Plan B pumped about $400 million into the film, delayed it extensively, had to rewrite the entire final third, and did about a month of reshoots…the fact it’s actually pretty enjoyable is a big deal.

Deserved to Flop: The Lone Ranger

There is absolutely no reason for Disney to have spent $250 million on this piece of crap. It’s a pure paycheque effort for everyone involved – another excuse for Johnny Depp to be “quirky” and walk away with a $50 million payday, and another blatant attempt for Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski to try to recreate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean. It’s not surprising that the movie landed with a resounding thud. It deserves all the scorn that it gets.

Deserved Better Box Office: Kick-Ass 2

The fact that Kick-Ass 2 flopped is heartbreaking. It was a real gem of a sequel, and it’s a miracle the thing even got made. It’s one of the most entertaining action films of the year, and it’s worthy of its predecessor. And now the fate of the third movie hangs in the balance, and it’s doubtful we’ll ever get the trilogy capper we want and deserve.

The post Cal’s 2013 Movie Wrap Up appeared first on Something Clever.

It’s not the first time Peter Jackson’s work has been accused of being bloated. In 2005, his King Kong remake clocked in at three hours, with an extended cut running even longer. The extended edition DVD even came with an extra half an hour of deleted scenes. Is the story of King Kong really worth four hours?

In my opinion, Peter Jackson’s work should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I love the original three-hour cut of King Kong as it facilitated rich character development, but the extended cut is inferior, as it’s mostly superfluous extra action beats.

But I’m a tremendous Hobbit apologist. It remains to be seen how well the story sustains itself across The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again, but An Unexpected Journey was a pure delight.

Here’s the thing: The Hobbit is a kid’s book. It’s a short & sweet novel meant to be read to children at bedtime. A rote adaptation would be entertaining, but it would yield just another fun but insignificant blockbuster. Tolkien realised that he had created a rich universe, and proceeded to write The Lord of the Rings in order to tell a much darker, more complicated, more thematically dense adult story within this universe.

Since Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings first, there’s a certain level of anticipation now. Following it with a one-movie prequel would just not be good enough. Jackson and co. realised this, hence the trilogy approach gives them the opportunity to mine extra character depth from the story and explore the origins of Sauron’s return, making it a true prequel trilogy. Besides, a Hobbit trilogy feels more in keeping with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It’s not like the Star Wars franchise just got one prequel. It’s tidy continuity, and although it sucks that we have to wait 12 months between each instalments, it’s exciting to live through another multiple-year saga of Middle-Earth adventures.

Although some have claimed that An Unexpected Journey was bloated and overlong, it really isn’t for the most part. The oft-criticised stuff in the Shire is an ideal length, as there are 12 dwarves for us to acquaint ourselves with. We’re not supposed to know them all name-by-name, but that’s a gag in itself straight from the book, which is why they all have ridiculous names. What matters is that we can recognise one dwarf from the other, and the extensive time at Bilbo’s place achieves this. They all have distinctive designs and personality traits, perfectly established in the meeting scene.

Likewise, a lot of stuff happens on the road, but there’s a lot of great character dynamics at play here. The heart of the movie is Bilbo becoming comfortable with being away from home, and finding his place amongst the dwarves. This arc would feel completely unearned if it took less time, hence the breathing room is definitely appreciated, and makes the production feel more “epic.” You get to the end of the movie knowing you’ve experienced something long, but it feels gratifying.

This is not to say that An Unexpected Journey is perfect, however, as there are some scenes that are a bit unnecessary. The extended material in present-day with elderly Bilbo and Frodo goes on for too long, working too hard to tie itself into the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. A lot of this stuff should have probably been excised for the theatrical cut, saved for the extended edition. Likewise, there’s a scene with battling rock giants that feels more like an extended edition scene.

But here’s the thing: even if there is bloat in some scenes, and in the ridiculously over-the-top action sequences, Jackson’s deft touch makes it fun and palatable. Whereas Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was padded out with witless idiocy, An Unexpected Journey is flat-out fun all the way through. I never got to the stage where I was looking at my watch or wishing for it to end – on the contrary, I was enjoying the colourful action and dynamic interactions too much to notice how much time was really passing.

It all comes down to personal preference, of course, but I had great fun with An Unexpected Journey, and I’m expecting the next two instalments to be just as entertaining.

The post The Hobbit and the “Peter Jackson Bloat” appeared first on Something Clever.

Which is why it’s exciting to report that its sequel, Catching Fire, is a tremendous improvement over the original movie. Here are a few reasons why it’s better, and why you should spend your money on it, no matter what you thought of the original movie.

Bigger Budget

Catching Fire was produced for almost double its predecessor’s budget, leading to an increase in special effects spending and more refined production values all-round. The CGI in the movie is truly impressive, far more convincing than the underwhelming digital effects in the original movie. More than that, the scope has increased, leading to a more lavish look. The added money really shows on-screen, and it’s terrific to see a more polished follow-up.

Better Story

Without getting into a big debate here, the first Hunger Games was just Battle Royale. Although there was build-up to the games, the actual competition was the prime focus of the narrative.

But Catching Fire is about more than just the games. It’s about the repercussion of Katniss’ dual win with Peeta, leading to rumblings of a rebellion uprising against the draconian government. There’s a whole lot at stake and a lot happening, rather than the boring love triangle bullshit of the first movie.

Better Creative Team

Catching Fire was made by a different creative team to the original movie, with Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) taking the directorial seat, and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) handling the adapted screenplay. It’s a better pedigree, and they are better suited for the material. Lawrence gets rid of the shaky-cam, making for a much smoother experience, while the screenplay adds more details that the first movie left out.

No Shaky-Cam

I know I just mentioned this, but it bears repeating. The cinematography of the first movie was awful beyond all comprehension. It was unnecessarily shaky, and there were constant violations of the 180 degree rule. You couldn’t tell who was fighting who, who was winning, or even what sex the combatants were. The excuse we got was “We’re seeing the chaos as if we were really there!”, but that’s bullshit. Our eyes have in-built stabilisers; we do not see the world like this frenetic camerawork. The shaky-cam was meant to disguise the violence to retain the all-important PG-13 rating, but its shakiness will make you more queasy than any amount of violence ever could. And the fact that Francis Lawrence makes Catching Fire violent and gritty without shaky-cam proves that Ross really fucked up with the first movie.

The Supporting Cast

Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth are okay, but the latter pair in particular are just pure blank slates. And the colourful supporting players make them look positively boring.

Jena Malone is the most notable as the borderline psychotic Johanna. She takes her clothes off in her very first scene, and proceeds to steal the show with a scenery-chewing performance. There’s also Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Lenny Kravitz, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and many more, not to mention the enjoyably flamboyant Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones.

Better Ending

The ending of Catching Fire actually reminded me of The Empire Strikes Back. Without spoiling too much, it closes on a cliffhanger, and now I’m really looking forward to the next one.

It’s for Non-Fans as much as Fans

I’m not a fan of this series, but Catching Fire is a more friendly experience for the non-fans, because it’s simply a great story that’s told and performed well. I hadn’t seen the first movie since the cinema, but I had no problem following the narrative of Catching Fire.

Trust me, this movie is worth your money.

The post Why The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is Better than the Original and Worth Your Time & Money appeared first on Something Clever.

It’s entitled It’s a Wonderful Life: The Rest of the Story, and story details suggest this is a story about Zuzu (one of Bailey’s kids), who’s now an angel and is sent from heaven to show one of Bailey’s grandkids what the world would be like if he was never born.

At least it’s not a remake of Capra’s film, but it might as well be, as its storyline is remarkably similar. Does this sequel really need to be made?

The fact that this movie is happening can potentially mean a new era of Hollywood sequels. Sure, we have sequels to movies a few years old, and sometimes a decade or two (Cats and Dogs 2, Anchorman 2, Boondock Saints 2), but nothing like this. If it’s successful, studios will take note, frantically rummaging through their back catalogue to find other classic, much-loved movies which can be sequelised.

What’s next? Miracle on 35th Street? Rear Windows? Text M for Murder? Rebel Still Without a Cause? The African Queen 2? Shane Returns? Casablanca 2? More Blue Velvet? Post-Modern Times?

To be fair, a few sequels to ostensibly untouchable classics have been spearheaded, but for the most part none have reached the end of their production without losing ties to the original movie. For instance, a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid sequel was planned, and it was made, but somewhere along the line it became a standalone movie called Blackthorn. Likewise, Raging Bull 2 reached the filming phase, but studio tensions and looming lawsuits interfered, and now it’s an independent movie called The Bronx Bull.

But if The Rest of the Story actually happens and reaches cinemas, expect more of this stuff. Where will the buck stop?

It’s baffling that this movie is happening, budgeted at between $25 and $35 million. Dozens of unproduced screenplays hit the Black List every year, yet this malarkey gets the green light?

It’s a Wonderful Life doesn’t need a sequel. And if The Rest of the Story is actually good and well-received… Actually there’s no point positing that hypothetical. It ain’t happening.

But I am curious to see what the end product will be like.

The post It’s a Wonderful Life is Getting a Sequel… appeared first on Something Clever.

Escape from New York/Escape from L.A.

Kurt Russell has said that out of all the characters he has played in his career, Snake Plissken is his favourite, and it’s easy to see why. He’s a sarcastic, gritty badass who delivers one-liners and kills without compunction. It’s a brilliant role, and Russell sunk his teeth into it.

It took 16 years for Escape from New York to get a sequel, Escape from LA. It was intended to lead to another sequel, Escape from Earth, but the film’s box office was dismal, and plans were dead in the water.

Here we are 16 years after Escape from LA, and another Plissken adventure seems feasible if someone is willing to fund it. And that’s the problem, really; it’s hard to get proper funding for an R-rated action movie. Plus, John Carpenter isn’t really working much anymore, and it’s hard to imagine Carpenter concerning himself with another Plissken adventure. Russell would do it in a heartbeat, though.

Chances It’ll Happen? 3/10

Conan the Barbarian/Conan the Destroyer

This is a strange one to include on this list, as it looks like a third Conan movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger is happening, but it hasn’t happened yet and it’s still in the rumoured stages, so I’m just championing the idea.

After the failure of the 2011 Conan reboot, it would be perfect to bring back Arnie and give him one last Conan adventure. He’s older, sure, but he’s in AMAZING shape. He’s still a buff tank who could rip a man’s arm off with his bare hands, and it’d be quite something to see the aged Arnie kicking ass with a fucking huge sword.

This needs to happen. And it needs to be R. And John Milius needs to be involved.

Chances It’ll Happen? 7/10

Ace Ventura

I know it probably seems like an idiotic idea to bring back Jim Carrey as Ace Ventura, but if it was done right…it’d be awesome.

Carrey is showing a willingness to get back to his roots now. After a few years of taking it easy, he’s now doing the sequel to Dumb & Dumber, even though the original movie was already sullied by a prequel without the original cast. Ace Ventura was sullied by a woeful spinoff without Carrey, so why can’t they make a new Ace Ventura adventure with Carrey?

I’d just like to see more of this type of silliness. Carrey has still got it.

Chances It’ll Happen? 4/10

Starship Troopers

Yes, I know this movie spawned two direct-to-video sequels and an animated spinoff, but Starship Troopers deserves a theatrical sequel supported by a solid budget and the kind of ingenuity that Paul Verhoeven can provide.

It’s probably too late at this stage, but c’mon, what the fuck are Casper van Dien and Denise Richards doing these days? Verhoeven isn’t doing much, either. With the right script, a franchise revival could be awesome.

Chances It’ll Happen? 2/10

Lethal Weapon

It’s the perfect time to bring back the Lethal Weapon series for just one final hurrah. Mel Gibson has recovered after his various public humiliations and is back in films (Machete Kills and Expendables 3), Shane Black is suddenly a major player in Hollywood, Richard Donner could use a return to form, and Danny Glover still isn’t too old for this shit.

Whether or not you’d like to see the forever-rumoured Lethal Weapon 5 falls down to personal choice, but I’d like to see what Riggs and Murtaugh are doing in their latter years. Both would likely be retired by this stage in their lives, but something could pull them back into action.

Lethal Weapon 4 was a very underwhelming way to close out the franchise. Entertaining, sure, but not a patch on the first film. Shane Black could write a magnificent final film and send off the characters in a proper fashion.

Chances It’ll Happen? 5/10

48 Hrs/Another 48 Hrs

48 Hrs. only spawned one sequel, and it wasn’t good at all. It felt perfunctory, to be honest, as if everyone was just doing it for the sake of a payday.

Imagine what could happen if Eddie Murphy, Nick Nolte and Walter Hill actually put their heart into another sequel… They could all use another hit, for sure.

Chances It’ll Happen? 3/10

Alien

Talks of Alien 5 have persisted for a few years, but nothing seems to be coming of it. Ridley Scott is too interested in his Prometheus series now, though, and nobody seems to want to do it anymore.

It’d be nice to see Ripley again, but that’d probably be stupid. I’d just like to see another sci-fi film featuring the xenomorphs.

Chances It’ll Happen? 4/10

The post Old Franchises That Can Still Be Revived appeared first on Something Clever.

This has actually drawn quite a bit of controversy online, to the extent that being a critic is no longer anything special. And if you set out with the goal of being paid to write reviews, you’re facing stiffer competition than ever before. You have a better chance of winning the lottery, to be honest, and the pay is not going to be overwhelming. I myself wrote my first movie review in 2003. Ever since, I’ve taken it up as a hobby. I hold no delusions that I’ll be a professional, paid critic someday, so reviewing remains a personal interest which in no way interferes with my career aspirations or job searching.

Over the decade that I’ve written reviews, I have come a long way, learned a lot of things about how to effectively structure a piece of writing, and I’ve read a lot of reviews from a lot of critics. I find there are a few whose pages I always read, but there are multiple critics who rarely write anything of note. I do not pretend to know everything, of course, but I’ve found there are several pratfalls that too many reviewers fall into. Even I’ve fallen victim to these in the past; and when I read my writings from as close as 3 or 4 years ago, I cringe.

Here are a few observations about the less successful reviewers:

1) “Brevity is the soul of wit”

That’s a Shakespeare quote, and he’s right on the money. There’s nothing worse than reading a completely bloated review that takes a long time to say very little. Review lengths need to be earned, not put into place by obligation. I have my own reviewing formula, but I frequently abandon it if there is not much to say. If I’m reviewing the latest Steven Seagal direct-to-DVD actioner, I don’t need 6 paragraphs analysing every aspect of the production; you hit the bullet points with precision. Now that’s not to say that you should not provide an analysis of several areas, I’m saying that you should be direct in your analysis, rather than following several tangents and reiterating the same thing over and over.

2) Beware adjectives

Adjectives get your point across, but they should be used as sentence enhancers; not sentence developers. For instance, someone should not write “This movie is exciting, exhilarating, riveting, pulse-pounding, amazing and incredible, an awesome thrill ride–“ GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE! Half of those words mean the same thing. Most professional reviewers avoid this, but the amateurs fall for it, mistaking adjectives for sophistication. It’s like Joey from Friends, when he uses a Thesaurus on every word for a letter to make himself sound smarter. What matters is your sentence structure, rhythm and flow, not how many big words can be shoved into your thesis.

On one website, I came across a reviewer whose writings were literally adjectives, saying the same thing over and over and over again. For instance, he opens his Only God Forgives critique with “A stylish, grim, bone-chilling, viciously nasty and brutal thriller. A bizarre, intense and hard-boiled neo-noir that takes no prisoners. Director, Nicolas Winding Refn crafts another dark, compelling and mind-blowing masterpiece, one of his best and most absorbing films. [sic]” That’s barely a quarter of the piece. He skimps actual analysis in favour of surface-level sophistication, and as a result makes no argument and actually says nothing. It’s a waste of a voice. You could literally use those exact words for another motion picture, substituting the name of the director for someone else.

3) Sometimes, we just don’t care…

A lot of reviewers fall into the trap of telling us stuff we do not care about. This falls into two categories: personal anecdotes, and too much history behind the film.

In the first category, we get reviewers saying something to the tune of “I saw this movie on the shelf at the video store for years and years. I never thought to rent it. None of my friends had seen it. I finally rented it. I enjoyed it.” We don’t care about your life story, pal. The same sentiments can be summed up by saying “Although I had no interest in this movie, I liked it upon finally viewing.” I get that you’re trying to connect to the audience on a personal level, but it has the opposite effect on me. It sounds like gratuitous filler, and can be used for literally any movie.

In the second category, reviews of famous movies and sequels are often filled with useless malarkey, giving us every single detail of a famous film’s accolades, or a new film’s predecessor. It can take up to two or three paragraphs. Rather than dry fact-stating, facts can be woven into a review to make a point that’s relevant to the movie in question. For instance, “Rocky was nominated for the Best Screenplay Oscar, and it’s easy to see why: it’s a wonderfully-designed narrative focusing on dramatic growth and character development.” Or if you’re talking about a sequel “Raiders of the Lost Ark earned a handful of Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, but Kingdom of the Crystal Skull falls way short of this excellence.” See what I mean? We don’t need a history lesson; we want to know what the fucking movie is like.

This comes back to the brevity argument. We want the essential facts, and we want them in a way which enhances your writing. If we want extra production info, Wikipedia or the IMDb trivia page will scratch that itch for the interested peeps.

4) Brisk plot synopsis, pl0x

This is the big one. Even professional reviewers fall into this trap. For my reviews, I write a brisk, one-paragraph plot synopsis, because that’s all that we need. If the person reading the review has not seen the movie, they want a brief overview of what to expect, rather than being spoiled by information of a film’s three acts. If the reader has seen the movie, your four paragraphs of plot synopsis are nothing but redundant reiteration to someone who doesn’t care. We do not care about how well you can provide a film synopsis; we want you to get into the analysis. And if the person reading the critique has seen it but cannot remember it, a brisk synopsis is all they need to jog their memory.

Some critics actually forgo plot outlines altogether, using only one or two sentences to establish the general gist of the movie. There is nothing wrong with this.

5) Either too sophisticated or too colloquial

This is a very tough one. A reviewer has to state their case in an engaging, sophisticated manner, but not to the extent that they alienate the readers, leading them to wonder what the hell you are saying. Likewise, if you’re too colloquial, you sound like a churlish idiot.

The big rule I find for the latter point is that one should avoid using first-person tense as much as possible. I’m not saying you should never use it; I’m simply saying that you should only do it when your writing actually calls for it. Most of the time, I actually refer to myself in the third person in my reviews, using the phrase “this reviewer” as opposed to “I” or “me.”

Wrapping up…

Amateur reviews may read this and find that their writing applies to a number of, or even all of the above. Likewise, I’ve seen professionals fall victim to a few of these pitfalls. I’m not out to start a flame-war with you guys, I’m simply telling you that, from my perspective, there are things to keep in mind which can improve your critiques and stand out from the crowd. I don’t pretend to be the best reviewer in the world, but, since I started avoiding these pratfalls, I’ve developed more readers and I am now a reviewer for an entertainment website. I’ve been quoted on Blu-rays, too.

The post The Democratization of Movie Critiquing appeared first on Something Clever.

Me? I like the gimmick…when it fits. The problem is that too many movies misuse the effect. Here are movies that got it right. If you’re still on the fence about 3-D, watch any of these movies. You will have your mind blown.

1. Avatar

It seems cliche to place Avatar atop a list of the best 3-D I’ve seen, but it fits. James Cameron ushered in a new era of 3-D, allowing it to finally take off. I saw the film multiple times at the cinema in 3-D, including IMAX 3-D, and loved it. I went back to watch the 3-D Blu-ray when it finally came out, and it was enrapturing.

Avatar is the 3-D pallbearer for a reason. It looks stunning.

3-D Rating: 10/10

2. Oz the Great and Powerful

Wow.

I’ll say it again: Wow.

This is the best live-action 3-D I’ve seen since Avatar, and that’s saying something. It’s a beautiful film to behold, and the 3-D makes the visuals all the more stunning.

Wow.

3-D Rating: 10/10

3. Prometheus

Even this film’s harshest critics admit it’s a spectacular visual feast. The 3-D is some of the best you will ever see, period. The cinematography is amazing; every single frame of this movie could be a painting on a wall. And 3-D adds so much depth to the frame, making the whole experience all the better.

There isn’t much that can compare to the experience of watching Prometheus in 3-D.

3-D Rating: 10/10

4. Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole

It may feel like a cop-out to include an animated movie, but this one stands out from the pack. It’s not DreamWorks or Pixar, but a movie made by another pack of animators, and it looks stunning. This is my go-to 3-D demo disc at present; every shot looks extraordinary in 3-D. The depth is astonishing, and you can count every feather on every owl. I was in awe from start to end.

3-D Rating: 10/10

5. Hugo

Roger Ebert said he wouldn’t support 3-D until a filmmaker like Martin Scorsese dabbled in it. And now here we are, and Scorsese has filmed a movie in 3-D. And oh boy, the 3-D is something to behold. It was planned and filmed in three dimensions, yielding stunning depth and space between objects. It feels like looking through a window.

3-D Rating: 10/10

6. Rise of the Guardians

Another animated movie, because this one is better than most. Whereas most animated movies have good but rote 3-D, the 3-D here is exceptional. It feels like snow is falling in your living room, and it looks like a world really is stretched out behind your television screen. This is a great movie, and experiencing it in 3-D is wonderful.

3-D Rating: 10/10

7. Toy Story 3

This gem is a treat in 3-D. You quickly forget the glasses are on your head, and instead find yourself immersed in this world. It amplifies the emotion and the intensity, and it makes the toys look more believable.

3-D Rating: 10/10

8. Titanic

This is the only converted 3-D movie I’ll include on this list. There are some other good conversions, but this is the best, because it continually looks like a native 3-D feature, though the odd few shots look a bit on the flat side. Still, it’s a stunning conversion, and it adds quite a bit to the experience. In fact this is one of the films that persuaded me to purchase a 3-D television for my bedroom.

3-D Rating: 9/10

The post Proof That 3-D Has Legs appeared first on Something Clever.

1. Clash of the Titans (2010)

I saw this on opening night at the theatre, before the bad buzz engulfed this massive pile of shit. Having been dazzled by Avatar, I was still a 3-D fan at this point… But oh man, the conversion was HORRIBLE. It was disjointed and rushed, and it honestly hurt my eyes. The brightness levels were also a huge problem. Even Warner Brothers know how much the 3-D sucked, because apparently they did further work on the conversion for its home video release. I haven’t seen said Blu-ray 3-D, but I don’t intend to. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

3-D Rating: 1/10

2. Conan the Barbarian (2011)

This movie was not filmed for viewers wearing sunglasses in dark cinemas. Many fight scenes take place in claustrophobic caves or in dusty, smoky areas. Movies originally planned for 3-D will bear the dark glasses factor in mind and light scenes accordingly, but the filmmakers here did not. But that’s really the least of their problems. I have never seen such a sickening display of 3-D on my home video set-up. It did not look like genuine 3-D; it looked like a few cardboard cut-outs at different levels of depth. I couldn’t bear to watch past the first couple of minutes.

3-D Rating: 3/10

3. Thor (2011)

I loved Thor, it was one of my favourite blockbusters of the 2011 summer season. But I saw it in 3-D, and I kept wishing I had sought out a 2-D session. The extra-dimensional effects were terrible. The depth was terrible, there were no worthwhile pop-out effects, and it mostly looked like 2-D at different levels. I refused to buy this movie on 3-D Blu-ray, even though I own a 3-D television.

3-D Rating: 3/10

4. The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

While seeing this movie on the big screen, I consistently removed my 3-D glasses, to see if the image was blurry. It often wasn’t. I often kept searching for 3-D imagery with glasses on, but it was flat and ineffective. This was filmed in 3-D, but you wouldn’t know it. Even 3-D conversions look better than this. When this movie was playing, I’d cinema-check sessions, both 2-D and 3-D… I could never tell the difference.

3-D Rating: 3/10

5. I, Robot (2004)

On some television sets, you can press a 3-D conversion button, and the television will haphazardly convert anything you want into 3-D. It’s not as good as the real thing, but it’s a fun novelty. I, Robot in 3-D is basically that random novelty. Instead of a meticulous conversion, three or four technicians spent a few months putting the movie through an automated conversion machine. No time was spent rotoscoping, or negotiating depth… it was automatic. Bollocks.

3-D Rating: 3/10

6. G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)

Sometimes the film looks good in 3-D. A few shots here and there look effective. But for the most part, the 3-D here is awful. It evoked memories of Clash of the Titans. Things look flat, some shots are really badly-handled and look puzzling, and there’s a bit of shaky-cam throughout, sometimes at night, making the images impossible to follow. I wish I saw this in 2-D.

3-D Rating: 4/10

7. The Last Airbender (2010)

First of all, I have not seen the full thing in 3-D. However, I did see the trailer in 3-D a number of times, and I’ve read reports of people who hated the extra dimension. From what I saw in the trailer, the rotoscoping is dreadful, and the 3-D makes the special effects look even more obvious and like a video game. I hated this movie and will never watch it again, so I’ll never experience the full movie in 3-D. Thank Christ.

3-D Rating: 4/10

8. World War Z (2013)

While I have not seen the full movie in 3-D, I did watch large chunks of it while cinema-checking at work. I was not impressed. And neither were the patrons. When the film opened at work, we had one daily 2-D session and four 3-D sessions. The 2-D session kept selling out, and the 3-D sessions received dire attendance. A couple weeks later, we were showing three 2-D sessions a day, and no 3-D.

The problem with 3-D for this movie is simple: there’s a lot of shaky-cam and dimly-lit scenes. At times it’s impossible to follow things without getting a headache.

3-D Rating: 5/10

The post Biggest 3-D Blunders appeared first on Something Clever.