Movies like roller coaster rides.

Do you know that phrase: “That movie is like a roller coaster ride!”?

I decided to take it literally and actually create several roller coaster rides based on the twists and turns from some famous movies. You can find them here (together with the coaster parts I created for this project.).

Now, this exercise has several rules (that I immediately broke). Each part of the ride represents a type of moment in a movie. To name them:

A straight track is exposition. A period in the movie where there is hardly any tension.

The lift is a building up to a moment of tension (e.g. the hero enters the house of the killer) or a moment of relief after a strenuous moment (e.g. the hero captures a killer at the beginning of the movie but now gets a new case).

The drop is the following pay-off. The killer attacks. (The longer the drop the more frightening the moment).

Then there’s the turn. This is literally the turn in the story. For example the power shift that occurs halfway through the movie ‘The mist’.

A looping, then, is a moment of tension. The killer attacks and actually manages to slay his victim. I consider the looping more a frightening/shocking event than the drop in this sense.

And finally there’s the twist which is obviously a twist in the story.

I kind of liked making this project because somehow it shows the flow of the movie. As I said before I, pretty much, threw out every single one of those ‘rules’ I stipulated above but still. You can see, for instance, that Rear Window is actually a rather boring ride even though the movie is great. And the Sixth Sense is a far more a ‘fright and recover’ ride than The Mist (which simply plunges you deep down into darkness without a flashlight).

I’m probably sounding a bit captain obvious, but I had fun making these.

Lesser movies

Everybody has those guilty pleasure movies that are generally frowned upon, yet you like them. Usually these films are the lesser productions of Hollywood.[1] And, of course, the more impressively bad a movie is (Super Mario, The garbage pail kids, Teen witch) the more impressive my response would be.

Now you can't blame people. Everybody's got one or two of these movies. As long as you know that the general consensus is that these aren't the best in the bunch it's all fine.

However, there are some movies that aren't (overall) considered that bad at all. They weren't financial hits or groundbreaking cinema they did what they had to do at the time, tell a compelling story. It's this niche that I want to delve in. Those movies that didn't quite make the cut and are usually considered to be a lesser movie. But not as horribly bad as, for instance, Troll 2.

Paycheck

Nowadays we live in a world of anthologies, serials and whatnot. There isn't a single blockbuster that has any chance in hell of becoming the greatest on its own anymore. And trust me, in a few years time summer season is going to be filled with parts twos and threes

Then why is paycheck a great movie? Well, let me start by asking you. Did you like it? Did you enjoy the villain getting his comeuppance in the end? I sure hope you did because I did. And if you didn't you might as well stop reading the article now because it is going to get a lot worse from here.

Second question: does it need a sequel? Nope, not needed. It could be done but why should it? Besides, since the movie wasn’t a massive hit at the time the chances of any money-hungry producer green lighting a sequel are not very likely (I’m looking at you Katzenberg and your ‘Want-More-Breaking-Bad’ claptrap.  If it’s good, leave it alone.).

For starters this film was a breath of fresh air for the two main actors. Ben Affleck just spent a year or two in the glossy column because of his relationship with Jennifer Lopez (this was way before he proved himself to be a capable director). And Uma Thurman just did Tarantino’s Kill Bill wherein she kicked all kinds of behinds. So for her to play the female lead in this movie and let all the behind-kicking to her male co-star was probably a relaxing few weeks of work for her.

The movie is a fun times at the movies. It’s got action. It’s got mystery. It’s got a love story. And the movie doesn’t expect you to remember it after you’ve seen it. Just enjoy the ride.[2]

Now before we delve into the story one thing you have to know about me, I’m a big sucker for a good script. Acting or directing doesn’t really interest me (unless something spectacular is being done). A good movie –to me- depends on how good the script is. Whether all the cause-and-effect makes sense.

And Paycheck's script works like a charm. Let me explain:

It starts great with Ben Affleck’s character showcasing his skills. A very simple trick with a 3d-television just to show how smart he really is. Next on the agenda is to show how capable he is in fighting (it is an action movie after all). Supported by the -always great- Paul Giamatti, Affleck shows those light pillars whose boss. And then the evil plot starts.

You see, Affleck’s character’s job involves –basically- stealing patented tech from other companies and taking it to the next level. After each time he does this he has his memory wiped of all knowledge of that particular project; Instant deniability. And of course the evil Aaron Eckhart (and let’s be honest you know he’s the main villain the minute he walks into the room) wants Affleck to do a little project for him.

Now we are going to delve in spoiler territory so be wary:

Affleck makes a machine that can see the future.[3] And, as the story tells us later on, he sees death and destruction in it. But he has no memory of it afterwards. Moreover, the minute he is released from the project and collects his paycheck (hey!) instead of money he gets a bunch of random items.  Now each of these items he uses along the way to find out what project he was working on whilst trying to escape the villains trying to kill him.

And this exact thing is the whole reason I’m deeply in love with this movie. Not only is it an action movie. It is also puzzle. The film asks viewers to figure out what item would belong where. Affleck even makes a big show of it by (one-by-one) showing the items to the camera and placing them all in a big question mark.

So there you are in the movie theater asking the same question as the main character: “What the heck does one do with a necklace and a bullet?” It’s a bit like the ‘whodunit’-question except you already know who did it –he just can’t remember why and what for.

Second, I love the fact that in the universe of this movie –once the magic future machine has been revealed- it actually makes logical sense that Affleck’s character uses every single one of these items along the way –he planned it as such.

Normally I hate movies wherein the hero finds several ‘Chekhov’s gun’s’ (look it up) at the beginning of the movie and in the end, ends up using all of them. Example, James Bond who uses exactly every gadget Q-branch ever gives to him and in the next movie, he doesn’t have them anymore. Wouldn’t it be great if Bond kept that dart shooting wristwatch from Moonraker? It would have gotten him out a lot of problems later on.

As a side note to this I like that Affleck and Thurman are in love in the movie. Simply because they became lovers during that time that Affleck can’t remember (and thus –you, the audience- doesn’t get to see). So there isn’t a shoehorned boy-meets-girl subplot that gets in the way of the action. No, one moment they meet, next moment they are a couple. And the script doesn’t need to explain this because it happened off screen.

Third, when you think about it afterwards, the silliest thing happens. Affleck and Thurman are never truly in danger because Affleck made sure (with this future machine) that they would survive. So we have an action thrill ride that actually acknowledges the fact that the heroes will survive until the end. Normally we –the audience- based on previous movie-going experiences, assume this on some sort of meta-level before ignoring it because we indentify and move along with the characters.

So, yeah, every action sequence –well done by John Woo- looks spectacular but there is no real sense of threat. And that’s great because the movie kind of tongue-in-cheek manages to tell you that everything will be alright in the end so you don’t have to pretend like other movies.

So yeah, Ben, Uma and Paul all survive the movie and live happily ever after. Even though Ben still hasn’t gotten his money – but hey he saved the world so that’s okay. And then, to finish it all up, they win the bloody lottery! Ben Affleck’s character might have waved away his original paycheck to do the right thing for once. But he sure as heck wasn’t stupid. I mean, it’s not like he’s tossing a million dollar diamond necklace into the ocean because…why really (the only scene from Titanic that still makes me cry –and murderous against little old ladies at the same time).

So this movie even ends on a happier note. Ben and Uma are in love and happy together and, sugar on top, they now also own a few million bucks. And the fun part is, (again) it works in the script. Moreover the movie is actually telling the audience that you should’ve know that Affleck hadn’t used all the items he received as his paycheck. It’s a polite add to the mystery-element of the movie and a small friendly twist-ending. Nothing fancy but that’s not what the movie wants to be. It wants to enjoy you. Give you a good time at the movies, like the next one.

Stargate

The movie Stargate doesn't get the love it deserves in my opinion. People usually refer to the television series as the better outing. The movie is -in this view- merely the rough, forgettable (bad?) version it was based upon. Pretty much like, Buffy the vampire slayer. Then again, I liked the original campy movie. However, Josh Whedon (who also wrote the original movie) made the concept entirely his own in the television show-elaborated on it. To such an extent that you can't really compare the two anymore.

The same goes for Stargate. The TV-show(s) and the original movie are two very different things so it doesn't do to compare them.

But then why do I like Stargate-the movie? For starters (again!) it is a great standalone movie. Nowadays I get pretty fed up with a movie ending with a potential sequel attached to it. No, this movie ends when the main troupe returns to earth. A sequel could have easily been written (the TV-series), but on its own this movies stands like a rock.

Again it is a fun ride of a movie that doesn’t pretend to be more than it actually is. Also the whole movie has an air of ‘everything will be alright in the end’. Great, I’ll just enjoy it then.

For starters it is fun to see James Spader as the good guy for once. He has played a whole lot of villains during his career so whenever he is a ‘goodie’ is always a treat.[4]

Second the story creates the possibility to have sci-fi elements in old times. Movie makers try this combination once in a while but it hardly ever truly works (cowboys and aliens).[5] Here it does because they play around with alternate reality.

Yes we are in ancient Egypt where people dress in rags and there is a lot of sand present. But not really ancient Egypt, actually a planet that looks a lot like it, so there is room for the filmmakers to be inconsistent with what we know about ancient Egypt (plus they don’t have to deal with time-travel paradoxes or whatnot).

But, what adds to this is that because the true ancient Egypt is such a mystery to us there’s also a lot of room to have some fun with. I assume it is widely known by now that Egyptians developed some sort of battery. So they were technologically advanced –just how advanced we don’t really know.[6] And in this mysterious realm it’s a simple step to take it up to an Atlantean eleven and introduce dictatorial aliens. Who gave them that technology? Well E.T. did.[7]

Now, the script is simplicity itself: Great American heroes go to undeveloped country, get acquainted with the weak but friendly natives, find evil power lord, start a revolution and (generally) kick evil lord’s butt.

Pocahontas on steroids if you will.

It’s not the most politically correct movie.[8] And I assume that the average (cultural) anthropologist will be rather shocked.[9]

But it is fun.  The villain is a true villain who couldn’t care less about his people and enjoys the Godlike status.[10] So you are very happy to see him get his due in the end -in a rather smart move to be exact.[11]

The natives aren’t mentally retarded (like Kipling’s the man who would be king) or even simple folk. They got brains, courage and strength; they just simply lack the moral and the knowledge of the situation. The actually believe that the evil alien is a God because they’ve never seen anybody like him before. Naturally the minute our American heroes arrive the power scale shifts. Now the natives start to realize –not only- that this God-thing is a scam but also that those new ‘Gods’ are actually a lot friendlier than that prick in the pyramid (say that ten times in a row).

Now, of course, the movie uses a lot of clichés: All American heroes are white. Kurt Russell’s character mourns the loss of his child and is on a suicide mission. James Spader’s character accidentally marries one of the natives. There’s an old woman in the beginning who has all the answers. Spader's science-geek character (a cliché on its own) solves the whole mystery. And so on and so on.

But, for me, this was the first movie in which I saw those movie tropes so it never bothered me. Now, being a bit older, I do see them, but I also see that these clichés are necessary to the script. How else do you bring an atomic bomb to a far away planet if you don’t have a suicidal colonel to accompany it? If you introduce a science geek to figure out the translation of the Stargate and decide to bring him along on the ride then of course you need to give him something to work out once they get there.

Third thing I liked are the special effects. The big problem of course with movies between (about) 2000 until 2013 was the heavy reliance on CGI. 2000’s Star Wars I partly sucks because of this overabundance of computer graphics that (even then) looks outdated.

In Stargate the moviemakers play with CGI (e.g. the mask sequence) but overall use practical effects. Now, I’m not going to delve in the discussion if practical effects are better than CGI. Or whether a combination of the two brings the best result. I just wish to point out that the makers of Stargate knew just when to use CGI and/or practical effects and when to simply tell the story.

Star Wars I overcrowds the movie with effects which gets in the way of the story. It is like George Lucas tried desperately to put an effect shot in the background of every shot in the movie. Remember those rereleases of the original trilogy. That moment in Empire before Lando betrays Skywalker and his friends to Darth Vader. The corridor they walk through suddenly has open windows with space-ships flying past. This distracts me –the viewer- from what the guy is actually saying.In Stargate they use some effects and sometimes the movies just places two people on a dune to talk things through. No effects, simply story.

Now, as a final note on this, because the story is simplicity itself there is a lot of room for character development and beautiful landscape shots. Because you don’t have to invest time in getting elaborate plot points across.[12] In short: you feel this strange Egyptian world come to life. And, as a result, all the characters that inhabit it come to life as well.

So to sum up: Stargate is a movie that presents itself as another fun ride. It has the simplest of stories with characters straight out of the how-to-make-a-movie booklet. But because the story doesn’t require an awful lot of explanation it has time to make these characters come to life. Throw in the fact that the script of the movie explains that it isn’t in fact true ancient Egypt it allows a certain amount of leeway with history and the portrayal of native inhabitants. You want to see sci-fi in ancient Egypt? You got it. Enjoy.

---

[1] Even though I did once meet a person who named Shindler's List as his/her guilty pleasure. Now what am I to make of that?

[2] The fact that I do remember this movie is a great thing. Because movies like Transformers or Eagle Eye; I’ve seen them several times but if you ask me to recount the story I draw a complete blank. Fascinating that some movies can be so easily forgettable. 
[3] Now I’m not going to delve in time-travel theory or anything. Because trust me that’s at least ten pages more. Just accept it. 

[4] I also liked him in the Watcher. Keanu’s performance in that movie however….

[5] Often by constructing some time-travel plot –e.g. Time Cop where the moviemakers wisely kept it pretty much a gimmick.

[6] Although it is safe to assume flying temples weren’t around back then.

[7] I not a big fan of the movie Cats and Dogs (I don’t hate it; it just doesn’t really do anything for me –maybe because I prefer cats over dogs). But I do always chuckle at the ‘explanation’ given in the movie that in ancient Egypt cats ruled the Egyptians. Because our archeologists don’t know that much about that time –in the fantasy of film- that could very well be the case.
Or, as Terry Pratchett would say it: “In ancient times cats were worshiped as gods. They have not forgotten this.” 
[8] That military salute of the natives at the end (oh dear). 

[9]  Though not as much as the end of Emmerich’s other film; Independence Day wherein he actually had some people dressed in loincloth and holding spears cheering when the spaceships went down. Like –yeah- that’s all that Africa is people in loincloths and twelve centuries behind the times. 
[10]  Also a very well cast part (Jaye Davidson). I wouldn’t be able to guess his age in this movie. He looks timeless (and a bit androgynous). The way I would imagine a God.

[11] I mean, how to get rid of the villain in a spectacular fashion and manage to get rid of the atomic bomb without destroying everybody (As mentioned before the A-bomb in this movie is like Chekhov’s gun, once introduced it has to go off at one point.)? 
[12] The more elaborate a plot the more you have to focus on people explaining things to further the story along and the less time you have to show the setting to immerse the audience into the story.

Sinister 2 -review

Spoilers obviously. 

I am biased. I'm a great fan of haunted house stories. And if they involve ghostly characters (the woman in black, Hugh Crain) I'm happy as can be

Now, in a horror movie, I can usually do without all the detailed bloodshed. Just a creepy ghost peeking around the corner every once in a while is enough for me to have a frightening time. And that is why I liked Sinister 2.

True the story isn't much. It's pretty much a coat rack to hang those creepy 16mm (not 8 in this one) segments on (I'll come to that later). But, then again, not much is needed.

You need a family undergoing the haunting, a bit of elaboration on the first movie and enough thrills and scares. The movie delivers on that front.

The story involves a mother and her twin sons who -having just left her abusive husband/father- find shelter in a house on the countryside where previously a massacre has taken place. The police officer from Sinister 1 believes that this involved the so-called demon ‘Bagul’ and investigates.

The big twist from part one is already out in the open at the start of the movie. The aggressor is one of the children. So, by making the kids twins, the movie cleverly asks the audience which of the two boys it will be. We already know that the final aggressor will be one of them, the question is who? However, the minute one kid becomes friendlier and the other more of a bully it becomes rather obvious how it is going to go down. Nonetheless the level of ambiguity is fun to play around with.

Also including the cop from part one gives the movie enough to elaborate on the rules of this fiction. Creating the universe wherein a demon uses children to make sacrifices. Even though his storyline doesn't have much to hold on to it is an interesting addition. And in the hands of the capable actors this basis of a story happily moves from one 16mm segment to the next.

Those segments are horrifically good. But, to be honest, a bit too farfetched. Part one only needed a lawnmower. But here we need poison, rats, hot coals and whatnot to commit a 'simple' murder. It's Scream 2's infamous rule of horror-sequels: "The murders are always more elaborate". Which is great and all. But the minute I need a two page shopping list to kill I might opt for something simpler.

Which brings me to another little point: the ghost-kids. Ghosts are scary. The way they remain scary is because we don't know a lot about their motivations. They don't talk much. In this movie the ghosts, however, have full on monologues (including corny lines like: "Come out, come out wherever you are..." - if memory serves). This doesn't really help. Plus -let's be honest- kids aren't the greatest actors in the world. But, then again, the involvement of the ghost-kids in the final act do make it all worthwhile. I loved the poltergeist-ing things moving around.

But then there's the script. Everybody who has ever written a story knows that getting a character from A to B requires believable actions and motivations. In Sinister 2 I don't completely buy it (but -to be honest- the movie does try).

As I pointed out before the whole movie basically uses a minimal of story to get from one creepy 16mm film to the next. But a character has to watch those movies for us (the audience to see them). In Sinister 1 Ethan Hawke's character was a true crime-writer who, during his investigation, watched those movies. It makes sense. It was the reason why he rented that house in the first place. But here the one watching the movies is one of the boys and this is where my 'I don't buy it'-logic gets in the way.

Imaging this: A creepy boy ghost stands by your bed every night and -basically- blackmails you in watching horrific snuff movies or else you will get nightmares. Moreover, the ghosts outright tell you that they did the things you see on the screen and that they want you to do the same.

My reaction would immediately be, not only to run away, but to run far away with mom and bro. I'll take nightmares over ghostly visits anytime.

True, kids don't make the wisest of choices. And the fact that this boy was abused by his father, or the blackmail-element, doesn't help. But still, this 'going along with the ghost' part of the story doesn't sit well with me. It's needed to show those 16mm movies (and you can't have an investigator every movie). But logic dictates to me that this isn't a great character move.

And then there are the underwritten characters. The good/evil brother pretty early on becomes outright evil and abusive. The final twist suffers from this. I honestly believe it would have been stronger if the boys got along well, confided in each other. Remember these are twins, so the audience would hop from one foot to the next wondering who the final aggressor would become.  Who suspected the little girl in part one? Not me. The movie could have done the same here with the twin element but it doesn't. It simply points out the bad boy halfway through and that's it.

Then there's the abusive father. He really is frighteningly real and, therefore, very interesting. But, unfortunately, he only serves as cannon fodder. There is no real comeuppance. He just dies to show the audience that the boy has crossed the line. The movie could have done that better. For starters, it is the (by him) favorite son that ends up killing him. Wouldn't it be nice to see his face when he realizes*.

Finally the demon. Well that's simply. He isn't scary at all. But that doesn't really matter. He's part of the fun. The movie does overuse him though. He pops up in scenes where he isn't needed. Like I said before, ghosts have to stay mysterious. So don't show the big bad too often.

But apart from all this I still liked the movie. As I said before I am biased but Sinister 2 simply is too much fun. There is some great imagery (the flashlight and ghostly figures scene) and some outright steals from better movies (the radio sequence - The exorcist and others, the children of the corn obviously). But that doesn't matter. Sinister 2 wants to show you some sinister 16mm murder scenes with a small story encapsulating them and it delivers beautifully.

* Moreover I missed the opportunity of the two boys changing places. They are twins after all. But then again, this is one of those tropes. And you don't always have to use them.

Pan: silly fun.

Every once in a while a movie comes out that pretty much has the effects button taped, glued, nailed, stapled and weighted down by elephant.

Those movies are pretty often/pretty much/pretty crap. Like Mortal Kombat Annihilation or the Star Wars prequels. Those movie that honestly believe that flashy lights is all that's needed to make a good movie (forget acting, story or even common logic).

But sometimes effect movies do remember to incorporate good acting and a solid script. And -as such- result in fun rides like Jumanji, Journey 1 and 2 or -more recently- Goosebumps.

And then there are those movies that fall in between. But with the highlight that it knows just how silly the stuff is that they can do with the computer...and decide to go happy crazy with it. Pan is exactly such a movie. A scene chewing Jackman, evil nuns, Pop-songs, flamethrowers, strange physics -even without the flying- and every five minutes a crazy action scene just for the fun of it. Naturally this movie was released in 3D.

(Let's be honest, the only reason the movie begins during the second world war was to have a Pirate ship versus spitfire fight.)

Is it a good movie? Nah, forgettable. Is it a fun movie? Absolutely. Perfect for boxing day.

Pan has a great soundtrack. All the actors are having an absolute blast. And there are even quite some good shots hidden in the mumbo jumbo of fast editing, like this one.

The story however...something about a prophecy and some other stuff. Basically it's the hero as messiah story that gives the movie the minimal of glue to get from one action sequence to the next. But the movie isn't serious enough to want you to mind it, so why should you? Just have a good time. It does have quite the body count though -including kids. What is this? Rufio all over again?

Black sea: how to work with plot.

Spoiler warning: you can pretty much read between the lines where this movie is heading, so be wary.

Black sea is about a group of laid-off submarine sailors who go off to hunt a sunken Nazi-treasure. This has to be completely covert because -naturally- they don't want to share with the authorities.

When you get right down to it there are two kinds of plots in the world of movies. Character driven plots and action driven plots. This -I assume- is common knowledge. A character driven plot lets events happen through the choices of the characters (Kevin Spacey's midlife-crisis gets most of the balls rolling in American Beauty). An action driven plot simply throws events at the characters they don't have any control over (An alien invasion messes up Tom Cruise's day in War of the worlds).

Now most movies try to mix this up. Aliens invade and the choices the characters make make things better or worse. And this is where problems arise. Because if the choices of the characters are unbelievable (or just plain dumb/convenient for the writer) the movie becomes unbalanced.

Take for example the latest season of The Walking Dead (not a show known for its intelligence -but very addictive). The main characters find a quarry filled with thousands of zombies. There's a truck blocking the path out for the zombies. But this barrier isn't going to last. Now the choice the main character Rick makes is to open the pathway and silently lead the zombies away from the quarry in some kind of exodus (And of course this fails.). Logic would dictate a better barrier or maybe some kind of slide/ditch to keep those zombies contained. Like a giant wasp trap. So this (in my humble opinion) not very smart choice causes all the later events and undermines the flow of the show.

Anyway this is the point is wish to make about the movie Black sea. The characters and their choices are all a bit too convenient in messing things up to help the movie reach its dramatic conclusion.

The big gripe I have with this movie is that the characters would all have gotten rich quite easily if they simply worked together. But, here they are, all alpha males, on a leaky submarine and they instantly start fighting amongst each other. Not very professional. But most of all actually rather suicidal. I cannot believe that experienced sailors would go at each other’s throats that easily (even before they find the treasure).

The movie tries to brush it off with: "That guy is a psychopath." (a true quote from the movie when they are hiring people for the mission). But even if you accept the fact that one guy is mentally unstable the willingness of these characters to kill each other so soon is far too easy.

I would have understood if they went after each other after they found the treasure midway through. Greed is a great motivator for villainy. But strangely enough the movie does the exact opposite. The minute the treasure is on board the villains (if you kill somebody you become a villain in my book) fight for survival. Because they honestly believe that their captain bases his choices on greed.*

So in short Black sea is disappointing because the characters make stupid decisions and the hero -and thus the movie- suffers from that. It's not a sense of: 'oh darn...I really wished they would have made it' but rather a sense of: 'really? You think that is the wisest thing to do? Oh alright suit yourself an go at it.' -It might have helped if I liked all the characters. But unfortunately I didn't and the nicest guys die first.

*Now, the captain part (and his greedy motivations) is underwritten. You don't really feel that he is making any wrong choices. And you aren't inclined to listen to two people who just murdered people.