Stranger Things map 3.0

Well, shoot...
There I was feeling all ´accomplished´ that I had actually managed to create a workable map of a TV-show.
There were some errors (of course there are), but overall this map worked (link).
And then the producers of the show bring out a book that has the complete season 2 map.
Well, shoot! :-)

One little critique.
Now, being a bit critical this official map doesn’t line up with even half of my research. The map the showrunners ‘allowed' is the so-called ‘Police map’.

The one used in the police station scene in Season 2.

There’s also the ‘Season one’-map, the ‘Bob’-map and the ‘Wherever the show was shot’-map (Butts county).
Those maps don’t line up. So, as a result, this official map given by the showrunners doesn’t line up with the whole of the series.

Loving it.
Sillyness aside, for me, I actually rather enjoy this move. What this proves is that Stranger Things is getting itself organized as a series -the map cements the mythology as it were.
I love this! Like Discworld before it the fantasy world of Hawkins Indiana becomes a lot more tangable.

It's also fun to see that I got a lot of things right (and a lot of things wrong).

So, it’s official: I’m stepping down as the unofficial cartographer of Hawkins Indiana.
But the show better make the placing of locations logical next season I'll be watching.

Searching (2018) – a review

In this age of web 2.0 a father tries to use every online tool at his disposal to find his missing daughter. Soon he learns that his online and offline daughter appears to be two very different people. And so the search begins.

Most of this article is going to be praise. Searching is one very clever thriller/mystery that manages to tie everything up in the end with no loose ends. Seriously, even the most (apparent) blatant inconsistencies can be explained away the minute you know the truth.
A truth, by the way, the movie invites you to solve together with our heroes. Finally an original big screen whodunnit.

With the onscreen revival of Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and now this movie

I’m actually rather pleased with the way the trend is going.

Already outdated.
But, critiques first: In five years time this movie is going to feel outdated. Like the net (1995) before it the movie might feel ‘hip’ right now but we all know digital technology isn’t standing still.

However, this movie has two things going for it. First of all it actually takes place in the past: 2017. So there is no need to get all science fiction on the viewer. The technology used is the technology available at that time.
Second, as the everlasting time-capsule, in five years time people will look at this movie like a techno-thriller set in 2017. With all the elements of social isolation, connectivity and find-ability that define our era. Just like Network (1976)–with its gigantic camera’s- was the result of the seventies (justified) mistrust of mass media as a top-down entity.

The point I’m making; that in five years time this movie might be forgotten by the masses as it will ‘look’ or ‘feel’ outdated. The same way a lot of people don’t like to watch black and white movies anymore. But for us movie lovers this movie will stand as a brave new entry in the form of the medium and the (third) creator of a new genre: the screenmovie.

The screenmovie versus found-footage movies, versus mockumentary.
The screenmovie, the found-footage movie and the mockumentary are closely connected. The latter one being a fake documentary (Orson Welles did a great one: F for fake -1973). Just, basically, lying your behind off and using the tricks of the movie trade to ‘sell’ it to the audience as truth.
The protagonist here is the cameraman/documentarian. It’s his eye, his lens, the choices he makes during editing that guides the story in one direction or another.

Usually, mockumentaries can’t help themselves but to let the cat out of the bag near the end. A magician just has to tell the audience he fooled them somehow.

Or sometimes the subject material is just so ridiculous they don’t even have to (e.g. What we do in the shadows -2014).

Found footage takes this a step further by actually lying to the audience throughout that what you see is ‘real’.
The protagonist here is the camera itself. Meaning, that the only guiding hand is editing. Moreover, since the camera is a thing, all bets are off for the main characters. The camera doesn’t care who holds it. So, like Cloverfield (2008), the camera can be handed to the next person at a moment’s notice.

The screenmovie then is the next logical step. The protagonist, now, isn’t the person who’s holding the camera but anybody in the world using social media. The end of Chronicle (2012) had the main character collecting all the streaming smartphones around him because he liked the attention.

That scene, to me, is the overlap between found-footage and screenmovie.

But in Searching it really is anybody. Or, at least, that’s the notion the movie is playing with. For now, Searching still needs the desperate father as the conduit to give all the information to the audience (like the brilliant Cyberbully -2015). But I wouldn’t be surprised if the next screenmovie might forgo with a main protagonist all together.

The mockumentary and the found-footage genre do have two issues in common that keep on returning in each and every outing.

Something the screenmovie genre might want to keep in mind.

Usually, as the movie progresses credibility starts to strain. This is Spinal Tap (19884) went a bit overboard in silliness that pressed against the ‘straight’ documentary style. And most found-footage movies makes you wonder why somebody in danger would go to such lengths to keep the camera in focus (e.g. Afflicted -2013).

Also near the end of the movie(s), when the big finale is about to happen, the novelty of the form has worn off. Now the question becomes: do I (as a movie maker) keep the original form (As above, so below -2014) or do I change things around (like Chronicle’s smartphone finale)?

Searching changes things around near the end and I’m not entirely convinced whether it’s a good choice. But, at the same time, these scenes do help the credibility. You can’t see everything from your laptop; or can you?

What you write online.
Solidly produced as a love project by Timur Bekmambetov Searching shines with enthusiasm.

I love his directed movies Nightwatch (2004), Daywatch (2006) and, of course, Wanted (2008).

After that, however, it’s a bit of a mixed bag.

The strength of the movie lies within the script. The story has a logical flow from A to Z that relies on the characters to push the story forwards. With a smart tech-savvy father character in David Kim and a devoted (equally savvy) detective Vicks on the case. You never question their motivations or actions.
If you know computers and your daughter is missing, of course you put your skill-set to good use. No matter how much the loss eats away at you.

The dialogue written underlines this with (almost) never a word out of place. Moreover, because this is a movie that is, for large chunks, all about taking in visual information a lot of scenes are the father character silently staring at the screen (and sometimes even literally moved aside), which the movie allows.

Movies are, and always have been, since the very beginning, telling stories by pictures. Apparently it takes a 2018 high tech computer thriller to remind us of the silent movie days.

What you see online.
Aneesh Chaganty shot this movie in (apparently) thirteen days. After that the rest of two years was spent on the clever animation and footage. Every movement of the mouse, every article that appears on screen -the, above mentioned 'moving the father aside'- is well thought out and created. There are numerous little hints and clues in the jigsaw of information bombarded at the viewer that would certainly merit a second viewing.

Now, as a director ordering the camera around, there isn’t a lot of credit to give a man who has to work with a (mostly) immovable camera. Some of the lighting and set design is nicely chosen. But most of all, for such a technical movie, I like the fact that the director trusted the extremely small cast of actors to just act.

The movie is comprised of a series of dialogues through a computer screen (basically monologues because there isn’t somebody in the room to physically react to). These scenes are a joy for an actor to play; the entire stage is yours.

John Cho as and Debra Messing –who always enjoys taking on emotional parts next to her comic work- jump at the chance to showcase their talent as the tale turns darker and emotions run high.
Both actors are on fire as they show that they are more than capable of their craft. Moreso when you realize that (like a limited stageplay) they only have a small space to move in –the webcam’s field of vision. And when they move their face into frame they have to hit the visual mark each and every time. Otherwise –as is often the case in real life- the webcam is filming your nostrils.

Before logging off.
Naturally, as a media critic, I find it fun to note the various little stabs Searching makes at real life cases. Hashtag ‘Hope and prayers’ is in there, The current president is dominating online news in the background, and some people will do anything for views and likes. That’s the cherry on top that you want from such a movie. Again, in five years time a lot of these little jabs will (maybe) be forgotten. But it’s the extra layer of an exquisitely crafted crime-story.

Forgotten movies: F/X2 (1991)

Rollie Tyler is asked to do ‘one last job’ for the police. The minute he’s done it he finds himself back in a pickle with the mob and a dangerous hitman on his tail. Once again he has to use every trick of the trade to survive the ordeal and save his loved ones.

F/X1 was, what one would call, the gritty original. Like any horror-franchise it takes a few parts to get silly. For F/X the people behind it learned fast –the realized what kind of ‘gold’ they were handling.

There was even a, short lived TV-show, and rightfully so. Alas it didn’t come to fruition.

The first effort in the (to be) F/X-franchise was dark as can be, An Australian special effects master called Rollie Tyler helps out the police only to find his girlfriend gruesomely killed, for his efforts, and himself hunted.

Truly, the origins of F/X is dark as can be. It is only halfway through the movie (during the car-chase) that the movie starts to use the ‘silly’ elements the Rollie Tyler character has as a trait. It is at this moment that the movie starts to use its premised ‘toys’. And the finale that follows, follows suit.

Because that is what F/X is: A movie special effects master using ‘every trick in the trade’ to hoodwink the villains. It’s an inside look into the movie-making-business –turning reality upside down- wherein the burning stuntman gets up again and the guy shot a billion times is asking for his pay-check.
F/X spotlights ‘how things are done’ and, as such, itself walks the narrow line between ‘movie fiction’ and ‘reality’.

Getting all philosophical one could say that F/X walks the narrow line between ‘suspension of disbelieve’:

meaning: we (the audience) know we are watching a movie yet we choose to pretend

that the things we see on the screen are really happening.

And, ‘destruction of disbelieve’ –like Brecht’s ‘Die Dreigroschenoper’-

a movie trying it’s best to keep the audience from investing in the tale on screen.

Returning to the core matter F/X1 was a dark tale. No fun to be had until the carcase halfway through that flipped everything around.

F/X2 has an inherent duality on that part. I doesn’t start dark –per se. In fact it's a laugh most of the way through. At least. It should’ve been if not for one or two moments that bring the whole tale down (back) to the gritty original. F/X2 just can’t help dragging you down again, because it wants to stay true to the original on various occasions.

SPOILER: I am, of course, talking about the first murder and the roadside shooting.

Both events could have been rewritten without harming the major plot.

So that’s what F/X2 is. It is far more playful than the first part (which consisted of Brian Dennehy carrying a gigantic moustache –something of the eighties: gigantic moustaches mean – good guy! - Just look at Magnum PI.

However, it cannot help itself by throwing some drama into the mix just to make things a bit more ‘real’ – even though the audience never asked for it and it actually harms the overall tone of the movie.

“Screw Bluey!”
So what’s the fun about F/X2? Why do I like this movie so much?
In the unevenness between the drama and the fun it is the fun that prevails. Rollie Tyler and Leo McCarthy are friends now. The only villains chasing Rollie are mysteriously shrouded which is good.

The whole blueprint of the movie allows for Rollie to have ‘fun’ with his special effects box. And you, as the audience, are waiting for him to do it.

Take, for example, the whole scene in the shopping mall: It's a kids playground. Rollie knows what to do and he takes the viewerby the hand as he sets up trap after trap to capture the villain. The movie ups the special effects mastery of Rollie Tyler at this point. It just can’t help itself getting the good man in situations in which he has to think on his feet and use his skill to get out of a pickle.

SPOILER: Again, the death of the security guard is one of those things the movie could’ve done without.

Then there’s the fact that the movie dared to throw some Science Fiction (or Science Possibility) into the mix: Bluey the clown.

The fun part about Bluey is that this is possible nowadays. Which makes F/X2 one of the few movies that actually managed to predict the future accurately.
But it is also the (Chechov’s gun) Bluey that makes the movie find its stride. With this silly animatronic clown the movie is a whole lot less depressing than the first one. More, it keeps you cheering for the hero.
This continues into the finale in which the ease in which Rollie Tyler takes out each and every mobster is a hoot to behold (“Cue ball corner pocked...I warned you!”).

A great scene in FX2 is also hilariously outdated.

The kid in the movie learns how to chat through the internet (by phone).

It’s one of those scenes Hollywood adds to make a movie modern without

realising that being modern ‘now’ means outdated ‘tomorrow’.

Best friends back.
Then there’s the fun part about sequels: actors are back. It was obvious that Brain Brown and Brian Dennehy loved playing their parts in the first outing. It was also clear that Dennehy really wanted to meddle with some of the F/X-bits of the first movie which he never got to.
So this second time around these two actors got comfortable in their parts and just had fun; which shows.

Dennehy especially is a hoot as his character is allowed more leeway. He’s no police officer anymore, he doesn’t have to order anyone around. He is his own -private investigator- man and, as such, much more relaxed. He’s almost a different character yet (rewatching the first part) still very much in line with the character from F/X: murder by illusion.

Brian Brown, then, is also more comfortable. Having a character-friend to back him up he can just comfortably mess things up for the mobsters knowing somebody has his back. Progressing from his ordeal in the first movie his character takes the next logical step: being the smartest person in the room when it comes to his particular field. Something that shows in the mall-scene.

Why no part three?
F/X2 was a step into the right direction: less drama than part one and more fun with special effects. A third outing would’ve taken the horror-franchise route and gone all out with fun which would’ve made it an entertainment classic. Alas that never happened.

Still F/X2 has lots to offer the friendly viewer. It has the Rollie Tyler character experienced and on top of its game. The Leo McCarthy character charming his way across screen. And then there are a whole lot of special effects shenanigans to be had.

Alpha (2018) – a review

A boy/ (almost a) man is presumed dead on the side of a cliff. When he awakens he finds his clan gone and he has to find his way back home. Along the way he befriends a wolf that he names Alpha and together they undertake the perilous journey home. Oh, and it all takes place 20.000 BC.

As you can read from my summary I wasn’t very impressed by the overall story. It has been done to death this kind of tale: With dogs (White Fang), robot dogs (A-X-L), Bears (The amazing Panda adventure), Orcas (Free Willy) –and I could name at least fifty more if I’m allowed to include aliens (Enemy of mine) and mythological  creatures (The water horse). There’s something about an unlikely friendship that people enjoy.

So this kind of movie has been done over and over again. However, and this is the catch: if done right it always brings an enjoyable ride. And Alpha certainly does it right.

If you think about it, Alpha has a LOT of other movies inside it as well. Just to name a few (see I you can spot them):

The revenant, How to train your dragon, The lion king, The jungle book,

 The lord of the rings: the return of the king and many, many others.

20.000 BC: always tricky.
If the main story is bland it still is a fact that this movie dares to travel to 20.000 BC that elevates it. Apart from Quest for Fire there is hardly any good movie out there about the stone age. Emmerich’s 20.000 BC was (is) terribly forgettable. And then, more recently, there was a Jack Black, Michael Cera comedy that everybody involved would rather love to forget.

The reason for this lack of stone-age-movies is simple; there simply aren’t a lot of story to tell about the stone age. There are no massive castles with crooked kings. There is no Biblical epos of right and wrong. Even the Egyptians and Greeks had some Gods to mess things about.
The only true story to tell in this niche of a genre is ‘man against nature’ which Quest for fire and, now, Alpha do.

Early man: The language.
The second daring thing Alpha does is getting actors to speak in ancient tongue. This is fine for us Europeans who read subtitles all the time but a deathblow for the American market who don’t. So usually, if you want a movie to be successful on the American market this is a big 'No-No'!

I assume that a focus on the Asian market played a part in this choice as well.

The last time I can think of that any movie wilfully adapted a ‘forgotten’ language was in Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto. And, to me, it worked then and the same trick works beautifully now.
But this is a big hurdle to overcome. And, perhaps the existence of this movie is proof that the English language is slowly losing grip on the entertainment industry.

But now I’m projecting.

Sabretooth: A critique or two
Of course there is a critique or two. For starters none of the actors can look like a caveman like Ron Perlman did in Quest for Fire. Kodi-Smith McPhee (new-Nightcrawler himself) does a wonderful job in his one hour, one-man-show but, in the end, can’t hide the fact that his whole physique was born 20.000 years later (let alone his sparkling teeth).

The same goes for every other actor on screen. But, then, this is something you have to accept going in. Alpha offers you a bit of realism with the language and the beautiful desolate landscapes but, at the same time, not too much.

Which is definitely a good thing because Smith McPhee’s character Keda finds himself running and rolling from the fire into the frying pan. From one well shot action sequence to the next. Keda finds himself against almost every element nature can throw at him.

Alpha is an adventure movie through-and-through and like any Indiana Jones-movie you don’t want to stop and think about it too much. If you like the character you just want to enjoy the ride with him.

Mammoth: The visuals
Acting wise the movie is a tour de force for Smith McPhee. His (almost trademark) expressive eyes gives you a sense of a caring hero out of his depth. The story, as predictable as it is, gives the actor enough screen-time and attention to convey this message.

One brilliant scene, for instance, is seeing the utterly inept ‘hunter’ Keda learning the ropes. This is a boy learning to be a man and with it the friendship with his wolf Alpha grows.

And, to further explain the title: as Keda becomes a man he becomes the Alpha wolf.

It’s not that hard to understand the motives.

What is truly outstanding in Alpha is the visual style. This is a movie with hardly any dialogue. The dialogue that is in there nobody can understand without subtitles. However, the movie doesn’t need it. The images speak for themselves. Using many cinematic tricks Alpha guides the viewer through Keda and Alpha’s ordeal.

At times the movie reminded me of an interactive comic book. To explain by example(s):
In one scene a decaying Mammoth can be seen, several scenes later the mammoth returns (the same image and framing) but this time 'round it’s a skeleton- thus time has passed. Then, In another scene Keda is suffering on the ground and the camera uses a quick right pan to movie to the next shot/panel. Not to mention the various ‘hero shots’, ‘slow mo shorts’ or the usage of silhouettes and primary colours.

This (and many other things) makes the movie a visual treat - as a comic book is. In fact, I would add that it makes up for some of the ‘less perfect’ CGI animations early on. Which you’ll happily forgo because the shots are so wonderfully constructed.

Wolf: conclusion
One shouldn’t watch Alpha if you don’t like movies about a character befriending am animal (or if Old Yeller traumatized you). That story has been done before and better. However, Alpha is daring in the challenges it posed itself, getting through to the viewer at the right moments and well preformed by the entire cast. But most of all it is for originality in visuals that Alpha is a must see.

The art of Sierra: coming never?

If you’ve been to this blog of mine more than once you might have noticed something, for instance that I have a whole bunch of links on the left of the screen that I never, ever use or  reference –I can’t even be bothered to check or delete them.

One of the links is the art of Sierra project. Coming up on its ten year anniversary this site is the promise of an artbook containing all the original art Sierra game studios created in its heydays.

Now, legend has it, that back in 2007, one of the creators of the book came across a treasure-trove of boxes after boxes filled to the brim with Sierra-games related artwork. So he wanted to make a book out of it to share it with the world. He got some friends together, made a website and then, pretty much forgot about the whole thing for next ten years.

Then, in 2015 a contributors site went online. Asking people to share what they have. Apparently the treasure trove wasn’t as big as expected.

That’s basically the problem with the art of Sierra. They showcased what they had access to, promised (rightfully) to do it right. But after that no update or anything for years.
I have the patience of a saint but after a last tweet in 2015 and now their official site being eaten away by some virus I’m starting to think the art of Sierra project is dead.

But, as King’s Quest –Sierra’s most famous game series- stated: "The king is dead, long live the king". Maybe somebody else will pick up the travelling cap.

The haunting of Hill house (2018) – a review

The siblings of a tormented family are reunited through death as they try to uncover the tragic mystery of their life: the ordeal they experienced at Hill house.

I stopped watching Westworld this season. The main reason for it was that I found the show to become far too pretentious for its own good. The show has nice ideas. But, as the second season plodded along there was an equal amount of silly, leading-nowhere ideas just filling up screentime without any purpose (the whole feudal Japan-storyline).

The reason I´m telling you this is because the first five episodes of The haunting of Hill house reminded me of the worst of Westworld season two.

To stay with this comparison: The opening sequence of The haunting of Hill house 

is like Westworld's starting with a white statue stuck in a maze –screaming this time.

And yes, since it is Netflix, there is a nipple present somewhere in this opening montage.

It’s like there's a formula at work; like the Netflix formula is known to me now, which makes The haunting of Hill house a bit of an uneven viewing.

I know my Hill house.
To start with me. I know my Hill house. The book by Shirley Jackson is a must read for anybody who wants to learn about smooth dialogue writing, The 1950s movie is charming and definitely intriguing on a psychological level but, alas, also a bit outdated by today’s standards.
Then there’s the nineties version by Jan de Bont which, even though lavish and charming at times, is a CGI overkill with a ramshackle plot.

Which is strange if you consider how perfectly balanced the original book is.

Of course there are other movies that play with the Hill house template like the two crazy House on Haunted Hill-movies, Stephen King’s Rose Red and many others (most recently Winchester).
So, settling in for this new interpretation of the famous haunted house I had to be won over. Trust me when I tell you that the first few episodes didn’t.

Horror from the start.
One big hurdle to overcome in the very first episode is the rather blunt up front statement: “yes this house is haunted!” There’s no ambiguity, no maybe/ maybe not.

Though I appreciate the honesty it does hack away at the mystery. Even though everybody in the audience knows full well that the house will turn out to be haunted it is the ‘pretend’/easing in that an audience needs.

For a short moment an audience needs status quo –or reality to get accustomed to (including getting to know the characters) before a storyteller is allowed to pull the rug from underneath them.
This is the absolute basics in (horror) writing and structure and this is where –I think- the main faults of Hill house lie.

Horror structure.
The series is structured like LOST. Each of the first five episodes focusses on a character (a member of the family) with the occasional flashback to his/her past.

In which It's a bit strange that the characters look exactly the same in the 'two years ago'

segments as they do in the 'yesterday' bit (unshaven beard and all).

The central mystery obscured.
Usually, in ‘TV land’, this structure works. Yes there will sometimes be a character you aren't interested in. But overall the good overtakes the bad. However, in Hill house the main starting mystery isn't strong enough to keep the attention per character.

LOST had a plane crash, Heroes had various people discovering powers, Rome started with finding a golden eagle as the MacGuffin to start the show. Hill house, expects you to be interested in the character from the get go without the ‘spark’ to set things in motion.

SPOILER: I believe that the Nell episode should have been placed as the opening episode.

Then you have a character to care for who then dies setting up the mystery and getting the

 rest of the family members (and all their back-story) together.

Instead we get an inside look in the lives of various people without giving any reason why the audience should invest in the characters. A structure like, of instance, Twins Peaks could've worked better here as you glimpse into a character's life for a span of five minutes or so.

The main characters obscured.
Because of this approach the show lacks a main character or anchor. Michiel Huisman is the first name on the credits, but after episode one he's hardly in the show until the end. Even LOST had Jack; even though he wasn't the most interesting character he was the anchor the audience needed to care for the other characters simply because he was always around.

Instead the show hops around from brother to sister without actually giving the viewer a sense that they are ‘in it together’. Because the minute you know a character the show moves on to the next and only shows glimpses of the character who was before.

The bloating.
Then there’s ‘the bloating’. The haunting of Hill house is ten episodes long. Yet the basic story it tells would only take one episode, at most. The rest of the screen time is filled with character studies.

For the sake of honesty: making a ten hour horror movie is difficult

(for a lot of horrors 90 minutes is stretching it).

Yes, even though the characters are with faults (and, therefore interesting) I couldn’t help feeling that a lot of scenes were taking far longer than they had to. Like the show had to give everybody lines to make the episode runningtime.

Take for instance the whole 'one last hit'-speech in episode five or the 'sisters-car-crash-explanation'-scene one episode later. Both scenes could easily have cut a minute or two to smooth it out.

It got so bad that I started thinking about The Walking Dead. This is a show that has too many episodes to fill with too little money for the zombie action –thus it uses quarrelling characters. Hill house is a ghost story, you don't need any expensive blood and gore -a spotlight and some shadows is enough. Yet still this show feels stretched beyond limits. Each and every episode could easily have cut fifteen minutes.

In fact a six episode show run would've helped Hill house tremendously on a structural level. Especially if you consider that some episodes last a full hour whilst others barely make the forty minute mark.

Also, for a show called: The haunting at Hill house only 30 percent

of the runningtime actually takes place at the house.

Horror dialogue.
The difference between good en bad writing: Good writing takes a normal situation and changes it a little bit and by doing so asks questions about it. So, for instance, a germaphobe at a fancy dress dinner.
The situation is normal, the person is a bit different. The result will put a magnifying glass on the average fancy dress dinner.

Bad writing, however, takes a silly situation and presents it as normal. So, for instance, the world of The haunting of Hill House (just episode 2 alone) assumes that every parent wants their kid to look inside the coffin at a wake. And, also that, every undertaker is allowed to treat deceased relatives.

This is just utterly silly. Moreover, it is silly and it doesn’t work on a character level. It is supposed to define the Shirley Crain-character as somebody with a (strange) scientific approach to death but instead it makes her unrelatable.

Also, occasionally, there are some of the scare scenes which were obviously written

by somebody who adores Ancient Aliens because it uses the same logic spectrum:

Something ever so remotely, slightly extraordinary happens: it must be ghosts

so let’s have our child actors scream from the top of their lungs.

But, good or bad writing, there’s nothing worse than unfitted dialogue ruining a scene.
Take, for instance, the endscene in episode one. Anybody with half a brain can see this scene coming for miles. But still it is a fun little scene even with all its predictability.
However the dialogue that the main character has over the phone with his father and then the monotonous “Steve...Steve...Steve…” as you wait for the screen to cut to black is atrocious.
It completely destroys that what could have been ‘good enough’. The scene is not perfect – if you want perfect you’d have to watch the similar scene in Stir of Echoes- but with the terrible dialogue it actually becomes worse than it would have been if you left the sound out.

Also: "Don't let go of your cup of stars!" -really?

Or my favourite example: A gigantic chandelier falls in episode 6

and the dialogue is literally: "let's move this out of the way I don't want anybody tripping over it!"

Horror acting.
On a structural level I believe the show could've done with one or two less brothers or sisters. In this sense Hill house is the cable rehash of The conjuring-franchise. But where Whan is bound by real life cases Hill house is not. Moreover, Whan wisely puts some of the less important characters in the background. Hill house puts them front and centre with dialogue which stretches the underwritten characters too thin.
Now instead of (let's say) three fully developed characters - with a childhood back story no less- we have seven partly developed characters.

True, you can't have a horror without some cannonfodder. Some people need to die (even though a lot less people die in your average horror movie than they do in an crime of the week show). But, then you have to put the deaths of the ‘lesser characters’ in early as to not stretch them out.

I understand the power of the number seven but still, not everything needs to be connected to myth.

Still the actors give their best with the material handed to them.
Carla Gugino, here, is the best off. This actress who recently gave a wonderful one woman show in Gerald's game (2017), is nicely at ease in this crooked tale. From a loving mother her character gradually changes into a deranged ghost of her former self.
However, the order in which you see this happen is all over the place; so like a Brechtian play you never really get to care for her character.
The same basically goes for every adult sibling who, as I said, are in one episode and utterly forgotten the few after that.

When it comes to the acting of the children we can -by now- call Lulu Wilson a genre powerhouse or Scream-queen as the title goes. The young actress –a brunette this time ‘round- is more than capable in her role as the oldest daughter of the household. Which, however, contrasts massively with her younger onscreen siblings who aren’t as gifted in the craft yet.

Normally the directing would hide away from this. Young children (often) can't act so, as a kind director you use all kinds of tricks to make their acting believable; either by directing them on set, using the camera to move the focus away a bit or ,on the basic script level, hiding them in the background. For some strange reason this doesn't happen in Hill house which, unfortunately, makes each and every scene with the youngest kids annoying (also: Twins? Really?).
Unfortunately it aren’t merely the children who suffer this fate. Even the adults suffer from the occasional strange acting directing.

There are some (obvious) none smokers who then pretend they've been smoking for years

-Just a tip, don't shove the filter half-way down your throat. 

As a result of this each and every episode is littered with uncomfortable silences and Joey-Tribbiany styled acting of adult actors not really being able to get in the motions of things.

Horror directing.

With every episode directed by Mike Flannigan there is a pleasant continuity to the style of the show (with the exception of the deliberate episode 6). It is also fun to notice that Flannigan reuses a LOT from his previous films. For instance the dumbbell lift (Ouija: Origins of Evil) and creepy reflexions (Occulus). And then, of course, he also borrows things like the crooked man (The Conjuring 2) or The woman in black.

It is, however, quite clear early on that the showmaker only wanted to do the visual (horror) part and used the clunky character work as a means to get there. A wreck of a car with great rims as it were.

An example of this is the lighting conundrum in episode 3. This episode has a great flashlight scare scene but quickly follows it up with a fully lit out basement (with lamps that still work after fifty years) when the character work takes centre stage. Why not keep that scene dark as well? There's not even a reason to fully light the scene -I'm watching a horror show after all.

From episode 6 on.
Episode 6 is the episode in which the ball(s) finally start rolling. The family is together and now both the mystery (e.g. the red door) is addressed and the family starts to interact as a whole. Moreover, this episode finally gives the viewer a much needed breakdown of the layout of the house. This episode the show needed as a breath of fresh air to blow out the cobwebs gathered by five full hours of uninteresting characters and story development.

like The Lord of the Rings books you have to work through the first sixty pages before you get into the swing of things. -Tolkien being the better author.

Actually it is halfway episode five the show becomes interesting.

The episode still stretches on too long (that whole dance sequence) plus it has

the annoying tendency to over explain itself. Still it was a step in the right direction.

The final trick the show pulls that episode doesn't make sense though,

when you think about it, but I'm not complaining - it's something.

Still it is mostly the visual style of this episode that grabbed me even more than the narrative. Episode 6 is basically a few (tricked) long-takes shots after another (and I’m a sucker for longtakes).
Obviously this was the director having a go with the possibilities. In fact, this episode is so much (visual) fun that one starts to wonder why the rest of the show wasn’t in this style. Just imagine, in one of the earlier episodes, a character being introduced and after a while he/she turn a corner in a hallway and the past takes over. It would keep the haunting style and shift some attention away from the strange dialogue.

Now, to be absolutely honest, at the moment this episode is introduced this stage-like style doesn't really contribute to the story anymore because we don't need to be introduced to the characters (we already know them) nor is it needed to increase the tension (the scenes take too long for it).
But it works!

After episode 6 it all starts to get interesting. The dialogue is often still terrible, but now, at least, the show gets to write lengthy monologues of exposition (the ghost monologue or the clock monologue).
Plus the characters are working together with a single goal. Also because the structure starts to line up characters finally start to become full-fledged. Sufficient to say its roundabout episode six that the aforementioned blueprint finally starts to find its stride.

The final episode then is a (predictable) hoot wherein ghosts, the original words of Jackson and all those little misdirections of episodes previous come to play.
Still, it doesn’t make up for five hours of uninteresting drama one has to endure to get there.

Escaping Hill House.
I didn't benchwatch this show. I couldn't -I really wanted to give it an honest chance. But each and every early episode starts out well enough (me full of hope) and then it springs some strange dialogue on me.

The haunting of Hill house is a drama about family dynamics first, ghosts second. However, there is no family dynamic in this show without the ghost element. Each and every interaction between characters is about Hill house. This makes the show (or the first five episodes at least) uneven. It (desperately) wants to talk about the ghosts but it constantly prenteds that there is something 'more important' to talk about.

The two main problems with Hill house are the structure and dialogue (plus troublesome actor-directing). The show would have benefitted greatly from reshuffled forty-five minute episodes. Instead it feels bloated and uncaring. In the end it was episode six that saved it for me. But with a lackbuster ghoststory, out of order (the literal sense) character development and deviously inept dialogue I just can't warm up to giving it the praise people (online) are giving this show. The haunting of Hill house (apart from episode six) is mediocre at best.

A final note: IMDB was freaking me out!
As I was checking reviews -because I couldn't truly believe that I was the only one who might find this show troublesome- I found all kinds of reviews on IMDB.com that praised the show into oblivion.
But, when I clicked the name of the reviewer it was often a single review reviewer. No other movies or shows reviewed, only The haunting of Hill house.
This freaked me out. Does this show have such a following that people are willing to write a single review on IMDB.com? Or, is there some kind of bot-programme at work?
If this last suggestion is the case Netflix is a lot more powerful and a lot more insecure than we 'all' thought it was.

Keywords for online safety.

I made this little presentation ages ago as part of a very basic course to teach people who never handled a computer in their life to (at least) understand the potential dangers lurking online without terrifying them.

I don’t know if I succeeded but at least the people then were happily clicking around trying to understand how smart hackers could get to their files (the brute force attack was something awe-inspiring for them). You can download it HERE.

Final Score (2018) – a review

A career military man Michael Knox (Dave Bautista) has taken it upon himself to care for the wife and daughter of a fallen comrade. One day he takes the daughter to a soccer match in jolly old England only to find evil forces at play. These criminals want the head of one of the 80.000 visitors and it is up to Michael to stop them.

The closed space survival action movie originated in the 80’s with the unsurpassed Die Hard. Since then we’ve had all kinds of variations: a warship (Under Siege), a train (Under Siege 2) an airport (Die Harder), a hockey stadium (Sudden death) and many, many others.

And if there’s one thing all these variations have produced for a fact is a certain ‘blue print’ on how to write such a story.

I’ll come back to that. First I want to talk about the difference between the era that produced Die Hard and our current time which brought forth Final Score.

“Greed is Good”
“Greed is Good!” those were the words of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. The ultimate 80s movie that warned everybody about the dangers of uncontrolled financial moguls.

The actual quote is: "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good".

Did we listen to the warning of the movie? Of course not. But, one thing that does stick out as the main motive for any movie villain during the late 80s and early 90s was money. Money was the main motive for Die Hard. Money was the main motive for the villain in Sudden Death. It was always about the money one way or another (even in On deadly ground if you think about it).

An interesting graph you can make from this collection of similar movies made over those years is that the price gradually went up. It started with a measly few million dollars. By the end of Die Hard with a Vengeance the villain had completed a plan to get hold of several countries net worth.

Where do you go after that? When is the ‘price-tag’ too far out there to impress the audience? Around a billion dollars (Entrapment) movies stopped using money as a motive and searched for other things.

First they went for terrorism with movies like the Siege, the Peacemaker and (famously) Executive decision. But with all the true terror in the world political-free alternatives were sought (terrorism for hire in Face Off or a mad bomber in Speed, the Final Cut and Blown Away). Naturally, after 9-11 movie-going audiences found even these stories to hit a bit too close to home so the whole genre left the spotlight in favour of Elves and Troll-fare like The lord of the rings, or the Harry Potter-franchise (and the various young-adult follow-ups) or the international spy shenanigans of Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible), James Bond and Jason Bourne.

Now, in 2018, almost two decades after 9-11, baby steps are taken to bring the ‘closed space survival action movie’-blueprint (conceived in the 80s) back to the table. But this time around moviemakers aren’t afraid to enter politics. White House down, Olympus has fallen (and its sequel London has fallen), Big Game all had the American President fighting for his life against a foreign country. And if the president of the US isn’t available than some former Soviet State is brought to the forefront as it was the case in The Hitman’s bodyguard.

And, as always, the aggressors find themselves justified in their actions. Final Score adds the next step by having the villain (a wonderfully thick-accented Ray Stephenson)  claiming  that his group aren’t terrorists –which I guess is true, terror isn’t their motive: killing everybody is.
So the balance in action movies have shifted from an a-policital money motive to a political reasoning. I guess the last banking crisis made us all realize that money isn’t the most important thing in the world today. That the real dangers are the ideas people are willing to die for.

“Sudden Death”
There is a blueprint to a closed space survival action movie. Let me just count off the most common tropes:

• First, you need a closed space and being able to lock it down. We’ve had almost every possible space over the years: From Airforce One, to an island (The Rock) to an entire neighbourhood (Marshal law). In Final Score the closed space is a football stadium.
• Then the hero needs somebody to save. It could be his sister, children, daughter, niece, wife (or if you are John Wick –his dog).
• Third you need a ruthless villain.
• One or two (sweet) innocents should die.
• The action should be harder and more gruesome than any movie similar movie previous (borderline horror).
• A hero who cares and is brave (preferably a professional fighter with some decorations under his belt).
• This hero should get hurt: a lot.
• A sidekick is possible but not necessary.

This is always tricky because one can easily go the Judge Dredd route.

• If there is a female villain she will always die by another woman or by accident (never directly by the male hero).
• Finally there is the optional element of a timescale. This works because it gives the movie a sense of urgency – ‘not a second to lose’. Especially if you set the movie at a sporting event than you can go all out with overtime and whatnot.

Final Score ticks all the boxes. It’s almost a direct remake to Sudden Death. The hockey match is changed in favour of an English football match. The guy getting cut in half by a meat grinder is changed for some fish and chips baking. It’s not the children but the niece who is in danger. The villain is borderline sociopathic, and so on and so on.

By the end of the movie you can sit back and marvel at how much you have seen done before. Final Score really is the formula at work. But, and here’s the catch, that’s exactly what I want in such a movie. I don’t want to listen through all kinds of mumbo-jumbo if all I want to see is our hero out of his depth fighting the odds.

So this is the script basically. It’s not very special –the character dialogue is definitely not remarkable- but solid enough to bring the viewer from one action scene to the next.

By the book but alright.
Dave Bautista is quickly cutting his place in the action wall of fame. He has the caring Stalone eyes, the Schwarzenegger bulk and the Seagal tone of voice. Unfortunately, in Final Score, he also showcased that he has the acting talent of the three.

He is a good actor, he showed this in his Marvel movies –and even James Bond (without lines mind you). But, he isn’t quite ready yet to pull the wagon all on his own. Give him a few more movies and he will, he just needs to find the place.

He is, however, perfect for the part. Bautista feels right at home at an English football match with all kinds of hooligans around him trying to be the king of the alpha males. He practically looks like one. Plus, the man is quite capable of showing off his kinder self if he has to which makes him movie-hero material.

I would like to add that Final Score continues the trend as a revival that The expendables started:

big action hero; bigger action hero...biggest.

Then there’s the villain. Any action movie is utterly dependable on the villain. The late Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, even Michael Cain-earning a pay check. The villain and his dark motives are the backbone of any action movie. We want the villain to get his commuppance and the worse he is the more we want it.
Thankfully in Final Score Ray Stevenson is the right kind of villain for the job. Carrying a thick accent he is ruthless and insane. The perfect combination for a scene-stealing villain.
Now, to be honest, he is let down a bit by the script. He simply doesn’t get the ‘movie space’ to showcase his villainy. But he does what he can with the material handed and he is flawless.

Brosnan then, well he was just earning a ‘Michael Cain’. His overall screentime consists of three minutes. Far less than the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park.

Directing will get there.

Direction wise the problems come to show. There just wasn’t enough budget to get a cool shot of Bautista on the motorbike without the obvious green-screen effect telling.
Still the up-close and personal battles are well shot and expertly edited. Just that scene in the kitchen is a pure showcase of potential talent.

Also the eye for detail is mentionable because the hulk Batista is (smartly - script) weakened early in the movie just to showcase that he is human. This detail never goes away – not even in the finale. He’s bloodied all over and hurting and the screen footage shows it.

Still this is a director in his early days. He still has to learn the different between showing a motorbike doing an amazing stunt (truly) and getting the right shots leading up to it. In Final Score it unfortunately shows that the two shots were shot separately (obviously) whilst the illusion demands that the two should be a continuous motion.

Still, given time the director will sort this out. More money for his next movie and it will evaporate –unless he’s become overly confident as many directors before him became.

Alright by my book.
In the end The final score brings what you want: a man of all men: Dave Bautista kicking the behinds of various villains intent on hurting many. Our hero is weakened but that doesn’t stop him – just as we like it. Alas the whole ordeal he goes through isn’t up to scratch, plus is harmed by some visual ailments of the picture. Still, this movie brings you what you want in 2018 villains out for blood instead of money and a kind-hearted hero to save us all.

People I ‘dislike’ on the internet.

I’m quite aware of the term ‘dislike’ that I’m using here in contrast to, let’s say: ‘hate’.
There are all kinds of strange people online from trolls to political correctness advocates and grammar Nazis to actual Nazis.
These are the people I hate, I don't 'dislike' them, I hate them! 'Dislike' is the kinder word. The one you use for discribing your aunt that keeps on about her troubled hip-replacement.

So, in this little fun article I wish to focus on those nice, friendly, people that do little things online that rub me the wrong way. I don’t hate them, not by a long shot, but wouldn’t it be nice if they stopped doing:

1.    Welcome to the forum. I SAID WELCOME TO THE FORUM!!!!!
There is a group of people who cannot help themselves to welcome every new member to a forum. 99% of their comments is something with the word: welcome in it. It’s a bit creepy.
You feel like '1984-before google'. Like that annoying neighbour that comes to call because your car hasn't moved in two days.

2.    The RIP-thread.
Yes the internet is a good place to talk and grieve over deceased people. Even the demise of famous people can hurt sometimes (Aaliyah for instance). Cracked has a yearly list of ‘lesser-known-but: important people’ who passed away just to prove this point.

But above all; it works! Talking about what hurts you even with an anonymous person somewhere on this planet is cathartic.

I, sure as hellfire, remember being rather struck by the death of Alan Rickman.

But there’s a difference between talking about a deceased and just having a thread going: ‘person A just passed away’ and the rest is just people posting ‘R.I.P.’ until the next death is announced.
There’s no care, no importance, it’s just people upping their post-count. Which is why the RIP-threads  are rather creepy.

3.    Partial administrators.
I'm not a big fan of our current American President. For the last year-and-a-half, or so I've been holding myself back posting any kind of insulting thing against him.
However, as I am holding back I am confronted on several forums by forum-administrators who block or deny anybody cracking a joke at the current American president (which is easy, I must admit).
Per example, there is one forum in which the administrator goes all out posting pictures of the president getting a backrub from Jesus (because, apparently, that's the son of God's job - I guess) whilst banning anybody stating a diffent opinion.
If you are the administrator of a forum you have to accept that there are people going to state things that you will/do not like. Accept it and move on. Don't abuse your 'digital' power.

4.    'Being in the know' knowledge posters - or, spoiler forgetters.
I'm not talking about trolls here who like nothing better than to spoil a person's moviegoing experience. What I am talking about are those people on forums who, in their exitement, post topics like: 'JON SNOW DIED!!!!!' or 'MASOSAUR EATS THE INSIDIOUS!!!!!'. Thus spoiling everything for the people who haven't seen the movie yet.
I know you are exited but please be kind and let the rest of the world catch up (especially if a movie has a 'strange' global release).

Spoiling the end to Jurassic World is allowed by now. Spoiling the Sixth Sense is still a no-no (until 2087).

Conclusion.
That's what I'd tried to do with this article to highlight how segmented the internet is nowadays. How easily people are coerced to post something 'here' or 'there' without meaning. Moreover, that people pick their forum that is alligned to their mindset and don't wander off into the darkness of debate anymore. Because, if they do, they will suffer riddicule and banishment.