Tag Archives: shia labeouf

Why Films Are Getting Stupider (Probably)

Posted on by

When DreamWorks’ CEO, Jeffrey Katzenberg, stated last month that 2011 had so far been one of the worst years for cinema in recent memory, it was easy to see where he was coming from.

Sure, the CEO of DreamWorks complaining about the quality of filmmaking does reek of hypocrisy (this is the man responsible for the unforgivable Shrek sequels) and yes, this year is probably not worse than 2010 but still, it’s hard to imagine 2011 being remembered as a golden year for cinema (or une année d’or if you want to be all Cannes about it).

How will it be remembered?

Perhaps as the year Harry Potter part 7 part 2 was able to stake a legitimate claim to the title of ‘Best Film of the Summer’, or the year Hollywood was running so low on ideas that they made a freaking Smurfs movie even though no one asked for one and scientific studies (probably) showed that most people would rather have a knitting needle shoved into their eye than have to pass posters emblazoned with the vacuous faces of the smug blue bastards on the tube everyday. Or perhaps 2011 will quite simply be remembered as the year cinema got even stupider.

The central problem with cinema today is that the film industry is no longer making movies for adults. I believe that the blame for this can be attributed to one little word: ‘demographics’.  For a long time now, the balance between ‘show’ and ‘biz’ has been out of whack. Studios are so focused on revenue that films are increasingly being made solely to appeal to the broadest possible consumer demographic, forsaking little things like quality and integrity.

It seems that some marketing genius somewhere has also decided that people over the age of about 15 don’t go to the cinema anymore.  In addition to this, it’s common knowledge that the young, perhaps due to their not-as-yet-entirely-formed brains, are much more inclined to buy the ‘merchandise’ that movie studios are busy fashioning out of cheap plastic and the tears of orphans in some factory in the Far East. This has led to film studios pouring huge amounts of time and money into films aimed at teenagers and, God help us, tweenagers. (It should be noted at this juncture that this demographic of course deserves to be rewarded for its valuable

Unnecessary and irritating

contribution to our flagging economy and for the fact that it isn’t comprised of ungrateful squatters insistent on milking dry our society’s bizarre idolisation of the young).

This not only leads to more films being made specifically for a younger age group, but also to the tweaking of films that traditionally might not have been aimed predominantly at a youth market (this is why every big Hollywood film now has to have a seemingly unnecessary and irritating teenage character who makes wisecracks and adds little or nothing to the plot).

In addition to this, there are countless examples of screenwriters having their work butchered because Hollywood execs are worried that this youth market won’t understand words of more than two syllables or be able to focus on the screen for 15 seconds without an anaemic chase sequence or a cutesy CGI rabbit prancing around.  In short, they are attempting to make movies so stupid that even the stupidest person in the room can enjoy them.

Of course, this is based on the mistaken assumption that teenagers and children are idiots. I don’t believe this and I’m sure you don’t either. In fact, in my experience kids are more equipped than most to follow the plot of even the most byzantine blockbuster because not having student loans to pay off or a job to worry about means that they are able to focus much more energy on understanding the intricate details of a fictional world.

Naturally, some children are idiots in the same way that some adults are idiots (children and adults share many similarities like this, something the use of ‘demographics’ fails to elucidate) but on the whole, children are pretty smart. If you don’t believe me, just ask any little boy about his love of Star Wars or James Bond or dinosaurs and I guarantee that he will amaze you with an answer so extensive and detailed that even Temple Grandin would probably think it was a

All it takes is one strong gust of wind...

little over the top.

No, I don’t think that the youth market is stupid and neither do you, but as we all know, conventional wisdom has no place in Hollywood and clearly they think the little darlings are as thick as box of rocks.  Don’t believe this? Don’t believe that movies are getting stupider? I have a statistic: the average shot length (ASL) of US films in 2008 was 2.5 seconds (the most recent statistic I could find). This means that roughly half the time in 2010, movies could not go 2.5 seconds without cutting to a different shot. The average movie studio believes that we can’t go more than about three seconds without the under-15s getting distracted and leaping around the cinema trying to catch imaginary butterflies.

If this is not an absurd underestimation of our collective intelligence then I don’t know what is.

Compare this to the fact that in 2000 it was 4.7, in 1994 it was 6.8 and in 1972 it was a whopping 8.6 seconds and you have categorical proof that films are getting dumber and it’s children’s fault.

 

Of course, the fact that so many films are being so heavily targeted to the youth demographic means that anyone over the age of 15 is skipping the cinema and staying home to watch Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic instead. This means that when the marketing guy checks the figures again, he naturally comes to the conclusion that no one over the age of 15 goes to the cinema and so he reports that the studio should be even more heavily targeting their output to the youth demographic who are of course all suffering from ADHD, anterograde amnesia

Did you know that if you watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon whilst simultaneously listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon it actually drowns out the piss-poor dialogue?

and crippling stupidity. This in turn, leads to more stupid movies and even fewer intelligent adults going to the cinema. The marketing guy then checks the figures again and so on and so forth. It’s a vicious circle, but I’m sure you’ve got that now (unless of course you’re a teenager, in which case we’ll be here for hours).

Compounding this problem is the fact that films getting steadily stupider means that cinemagoers (on the rare occasions that you do go to the cinema) are becoming less demanding, indoctrinated by this widespread idiocy. This means that the bar for what people will pay to see at the cinema just keeps getting lower. So when you forked over your hard-earned cash to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon (even the title has a typo) because ‘y’know it passes the time of day and there are like some real cool ‘splosions and such’ you were actually creating a demand for more horribly inane movies to be made. Basically, it’s your fault.

By now this relentless negativity, this somewhat condescending end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it attitude that I’ve adopted has started to wear you down and you’re probably left asking firstly, whether things are really as bad as I’m making out and secondly whether we can do anything to prevent cinema’s seemingly inevitable descent into idiocy.

Well, the answer to the first question is a tentative ‘not really, I’m being dramatic’. While on the whole, studios do seem to be churning out more and more movies that are little more than products designed to generate revenue, all is not lost. This year alone has seen

Apathy is bad

many surprising, heartfelt, challenging brilliant films such as Win Win, True Grit, Tree of Life, Beginners, Bridesmaids and Submarine so we definitely shouldn’t give up hope yet.

And the answer to the second question is ‘yes’, you can prevent it by going to see the films I listed above because demand creates supply.

If more people go to see intelligent and well-made films, then more intelligent and well-made films will be made, it’s basic economics. Now, I’m not saying that we all need to be watching Eastern European art house films with inexplicable costumes and ugly people crying, just choosing the better option.

If you’re going to the cinema this evening, don’t go and see Transformers, go and see Super 8 or Tree of Life instead. And later this year don’t go and see Final Destination 5 (5inal Destination, seriously?), go and see Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.

Have some self-respect and demand something from cinema. Demand to be challenged, to be moved, or to laugh. Demand to be exhilarated or befuddled. Demand to be angered even.  Just don’t allow yourself to be yet another pile of laundry who just sits in that dark room feeling nothing for 90 minutes and then immediately forgets about it afterwards because you are better than that and you deserve better than that. After all, we are lucky enough to be alive at a time when the likes of Terrence Malick, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are still making movies. Let’s take a moment to be grateful for that.

If you want to try to counteract the ill-effects of the cinematic junk food you are being force-fed, then please check out our new semi-regular feature, ‘Have you seen… ‘. The first of these is about the 1998 film Happiness and can be found here:    Have You Seen… Happiness?

Transformers: Dark of the Moon {Film Review}

Posted on by

*WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Back in 2007, Michael Bay admitted he originally did not want to make the first Transformers movie, calling it a “stupid toys movie”, until Steven Spielberg changed the premise to “a kid and his car”.

It suggests that Bay was unsuitable to take the reins of a live-action Transformers movie. Despite this, the first film was a huge hit, considering it was during the year of threequels (Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and The Bourne Ultimatum). The follow-up, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, was plagued with a script that was barely finished, thanks to the writer’s strike, and although resulting in a complete mess, still made $800 million worldwide. So now the inevitable conclusion to the trilogy has come around and, as much it is a slight improvement to Transformers 2, it’s still no good.

The plot starts off with Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) making a monologue (you know, like he did with the last two movies) about the war of Cybertron (which could’ve been a potentially better movie if explored further). It’s revealed a ship managed to escape, but lands on the moon, heavily damaged. John F. Kennedy (worst rotoscoping effects I’ve ever seen) authorises Apollo 11 to land on the moon and document footage of the crash site.

Flash-forward to the modern day, Optimus Prime learns about the ship and finds his mentor, Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy). Sentinel mentions his mission was to take the pillars away from Cybertron, so it’d be out of the Decepticon’s reach. Though we eventually find out the Decepticons raided the ship long before, while also revealing Sentinel made a truce with the Decepticons, betraying the Autobots for the survival of Cybertron.

The problem with these movies (a flaw since the first film), is the Transformers feel more like supporting characters, but shouldn’t they be the ones leading the movie? They barely get any screen-time whatsoever. Instead, Bay focusses on the human characters; Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), Lennox (Josh Duhamel), Simmons (John Tuturro), Epps (Tyrese Gibson) and Ron and Judy Witwicky (Kevin Dunn and Julie White). We’re also introduced to a whole new bunch; Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), Mearing (Frances McDormand), Bruce Brazos (John Malkovich), Dutch (Alan Tudyk) and Dylan (Patrick Dempsey).

The problem with 11 characters vying for screen time is that they too get very little development. So, in essence, we have a film where we don’t have anything or anyone to relate to. We just don’t care about anyone. Live, die, I’ve dropped my popcorn – emotionally,  it all feels the same.

Anyway, it starts off with Sam having a hard time finding a job, but also bothered that he’s been awarded a medal by Barack Obama for saving the world twice (though technically once, since he did squat in the second film). The man clearly has angst, yet still barely makes any contribution to the narrative.

Meanwhile, the character of Carly feels it was originally written for Megan Fox’s Mikaela, but with the name changed at the last minute. Rosie’s previous “acting” experience was being a Victoria’s Secret model (also being in a VS commercial, directed by Michael Bay). It’s no surprise then, that her purpose in the film seems to be none other than to exploit her looks in the most juvenile way possible. Her performance in this film is terrible. She really brings down the film and she’s just as bad as Megan Fox (early contender for Worst Actress, put my money on it!).

The scenes involving Sam working for Malkovich could’ve easily been cut out, as could The NEST team (led by Lennox). Their sole purpose is to allow Bay to exploit his fetish for everything military. All of these characters act like cardboard cut-outs and deliver lame attempts of humour. Especially Ken Jeong’s character, Jerry Wang, who at one point locks Sam in a toilet stall and says to him “Deep Wang” (just to really force it down your throats, he says it three times and then says: “Get it? Deep Throat”). One for the kids, that.

In fairness, the action sequences in this film have been improved – no longer shaky-cam or close-up, but wide enough to see. The climactic battle at the end of the movie is very well done, but is literally the only thing worth watching. However, 90% of the battle is focused on the humans and barely on the Transformers. As much as it features Autobots and Decepticons beating the living daylights out of each other, Bay wants to have his fix by having soldiers parachuting out of a plane in flying squirrel suits and gliding down in Chicago (which was such a good plan that only one plane out of six made it).

The other problem is, as mentioned before, you just don’t care if any of the characters die in this big, winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost shoot out. Plus, the tone in the film is all over the place. For example, Carly gets kidnapped and Sam is forced to spy for the Decepticons. It’s a scene where Sam grapples with the decision to betray his friends, only to go straight into pure slapstick humour. If you looked up the words ‘killing a scene’, it’d have a link to this film next to it.

A live-action Transformers movie could’ve gone any other way, but Bay decided to take this route and we’re supposed to accept what we have in front of us. The phrase people say when going to go see this movie is ‘leave your brain at the door’. Well, I honestly think it comes across as having too low standards and being easily amused. Don’t get me wrong, I like blockbusters as much as the next person, but I DO have a brain (we all do!).

Inception proved that you don’t need to dumb down your movie to attract mainstream audiences and become a box-office hit. You can bring good story-telling with some amazing set-pieces, instead, we just get a movie that’s all style and no substance. I don’t expect everything to be a Terrence Malick movie, but I at least expect a blockbuster that entertains and doesn’t insult our intelligence. If only Bay had watched X-Men: First Class.

Overall, a typical Michael Bay movie. Loud, incredibly dumb and exploitative as hell (in the worst sense)! The characters are bland and pointless, the Transformers are treated with no respect (especially Optimus Prime) and the plot is nonsensical. The worst summer movie of 2011 and one of the worst movie series ever made!

2 out of 5

 

Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. {Film Review}

Posted on by

When the original Wall Street film came out in 1987, only two months after the Black Monday stock market crash, it was very apt. It was as much a damning indictment of the yuppie generation as it was Hollywood entertainment. As history repeats itself, so has the timing of the second film. With fears of double dip recessions, crashing house prices in America and massive unemployment, Oliver Stone once again holds up a mirror to the financial world – it looks as ugly as it did last time.

Whilst the original glamourised the industry it sought to shame, Wall Street 2 makes the industry seem much more brutal. Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko is more grizzled and world weary. Coming out of prison after decades for insider trading.

I can’t separate the actors life from the character. This may seem strange, but during filming Douglas’s son, Cameron, went to prison for 5 years for dealing drugs. In the film, Gekko has a son who died from a drug overdose. In a speech near the end about his son, the speech is so truthful I could barely watch, the pain was so visible.

Wall Street 2 is a good film. Shia LaBeouf is spot on as the hier broker engaged to Gekko’s daughter. Josh Brolin is as good as ever as Bretton James. An unscrupulous billionaire who’s callous actions cause Shia LaBeouf’s character, Jake Moore, to seek revenge. To incredibly watchable effect.

The other thing this things reminds you of is how amazing Michael Douglas is as an actor. I really hope he has a speedy recovery from cancer soon. The loss to cinema would be too great.

Throw in a cameo no-one was expecting and you have a brilliant film. Well worth a watch.

By Catherine Balavage