Topic Of The Day: Why Certain Films Open Against Blockbusters

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Topic Of The Day. For today's topic, I figured I'd delve into a topic that struck me recently involving film releasing in case other people wonder the same thing that I did. When certain smaller-scale films come out against tentpole blockbusters that smash the box office records, I wonder to myself "Why do the studios risk doing such a thing?". But now I understand why: Counterprogramming.

The studios pull off this move so that the films they release can be used as alternatives for those that don't want to see the tentpole blockbusters offered to them as options for the weekend. For example, when The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part II comes out, it'll be up against The Night Before, Legend, and The Secret In Their Eyes. Legend and The Night Before will likely cater to the male adult crowd that isn't interested in these kind of YA film adaptations and The Secret In Their Eyes to a much older adult crowd interested in crime dramas and/or fans who still want to see Julia Roberts in theaters.

Also, when Star Wars: The Force Awakens comes out, it'll be up against Sisters starring Tina Fey and Amy Poehler which will cater to not just women, but women who don't want their male significant others to drag them to Star Wars. 

Another great example is when Winnie The Pooh came out in July 2011. To me, it was released as an alternative for children whose parents won't take them to see Harry Potter. 

So because tentpole blockbusters tend to be most of the rage when it comes to the box office, studios tend to release films on the same weekend as those that may not open at number 1, but will still be alternatives for those that want to get away from those blockbusters and the alternatives can make a semi-decent profit.

What do you guys think? Do you believe as well that counterprogramming is why certain films compete with blockbusters? Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Review: Spectre (2015)

                     

     
             'Spectre': An Entry In The Bond Franchise That Goes Down Like A Bitter Martini

         Earlier, when I did a review of Bridge of Spies, I mentioned how it has been a banner year for spy movies. Yet one of the bigger disappointments of the year turns out to be a film in THE spy movie franchise. Like the great Alanis Morissette once said, "Isn't it ironic?"

       Story:
   Spectre follows the story of James Bond as he pursues a global organization known as Spectre which looks to invade the governments of countries all over the world and is led by Ernst Blofeld (Christoph Waltz).

     Ups:
   I really loved the opening sequence which incorporated a long tracking shot. I thought that was very nice. I kind of wished that technique was used throughout to make things a little more interesting. Also, the cinematography by Hoyte von Hoytema was absolutely beautiful. One of my favorite sequences was the one where Bond infiltrates a meeting of Spectre members and once Blofeld enters the room, he is mostly in the shadows. I thought that was haunting and masterfully done.

     Lastly, I loved that we got to see more of M, this time played by Ralph Fiennes, as well as more Q and Moneypenny and I liked the scenes they all together.

     Downs:
    My biggest problem, that really disappointed me, was how it is the same old formula. Granted many other Bond films follow the same formula. But after Skyfall, which is the best Bond film with Daniel Craig and reinvigorated the Bond film formula, I was left so disappointed that we were given something so basic. Also, with the whole plot of Spectre invading global governments, it felt like I was watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier again but without the political thriller elements that Captain America had.

     Also, while Daniel Craig does a fine job as Bond, some of the actors see their great talents go to waste. Lea Seydoux has a pretty sizable role as the latest Bond girl Madeleine, and is quite good in the role, but she doesn't have much to do. Christoph Waltz wasn't as wasted yet I still felt it was a paycheck performance from him as he spoke his lines rather phonetically. Monica Bellucci has a smaller role as the wife of a member of Spectre and she is WASTED. She does a fine job with what she is given, but she only has one big scene then disappears from the rest of the film which I thought was unfortunate.

     Not only was the storyline involving Spectre cliched, but there was even a big twist towards the end that I could easily sniff from a mile away and in which I won't reveal in case you guys want to see the film.

    Consensus:
   Overall, Spectre is a disappointingly back-to-basics Bond film that features deja vu-inducing storytelling and wasted talent. The action sequences are fine and some of the actors have roles that flesh out their talents, but none of these elements could really save the film.

 Grade: B-

British Independent Film Awards Nominations 2015

Hello, Bloggers, the awards show known as the British Independent Film Awards, which are like the U.K. Independent Spirit Awards, has announced its list of nominees. While they don't carry as much emphasis or indication as say, the Golden Globes, they still have a neat list of nominations that includes films that even won't be much of a factor into the race. They also just had the Hollywood Film Awards, but that's more of a publicity pit stop than an actual awards show. You don't really win one. It's just gives you a kick to your Oscar campaign. Anyways, let's take a look at the takeaways from the nominations.

Full list of nominations here:

http://variety.com/2015/film/in-contention/the-lobster-macbeth-45-years-top-nominees-for-british-independent-film-awards-1201631535/

First off, I LOVE that Ex Machina got major love for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and a few Craft nods. However, I'm a little perplexed that the three actors got snubbed, especially Oscar Isaac who I'm crossing my fingers is a major dark horse in the Supporting Actor race. They did nominate Alicia Vikander for Best Actress but for The Danish Girl. Contrary to the Supporting Actress campaign she is getting. Shows how they are trying to point out the fallacy of her Supporting campaign, I suppose.

Speaking of The Danish Girl, it only got a nomination for Best Actress. Now I don't think this spells doom and gloom for the film, or for Eddie Redmayne who didn't get nominated. But if I were on the film's campaign team, I wouldn't be optimistic as of now. If the film does poorly at the box office then, couple that with the mixed reception it received, it will definitely spell doom and gloom for the film.

It is also neat that Amy got major love outside of Best Documentary over in Best Film and Best Director. That film is on my to-do list, so I'm intrigued to see it. Macbeth also received major love including Best Actor for Michael Fassbender. I think that nod for him will help his momentum for Steve  Jobs and give him a "prolific year" narrative despite the poor box office of Steve Jobs. 

Coincidentally, they have three Toms in the Best Actor category: Tom Courtenay for 45 Years, Tom Hardy for Legend, and Tom Hiddleston for High Rise. Much like Fassbender, Hardy's nomination could help build a "prolific year" narrative with Legend, The Revenant, and Mad Max: Fury Road under his belt. While I don't think The Lobster will get very far in the Oscar race, its nominations have me even more intrigued to check it out somehow.

So those are my quick thoughts on the nominations for the British Independent Film Awards. Please feel free to write your own thoughts about them in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Oscar Watch: Anomalisa (2015)

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of my Oscar Watch where I discuss trailers for upcoming Oscar contenders. For this post, I will delve into the upcoming stop motion animated pic Anomalisa by Charlie Kaufman.

Before I saw the trailer for this, I was pretty curious about it. One reason is its R rating and another is Charlie Kaufman being behind it. This is the same mind behind Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so I can expect this one to be just as unorthodox. But it is neat to see Kaufman trying something different and not just doing live-action.

I also like the voice talent that includes David Thewlis aka Professor Lupin, Tom Noonan, and Jennifer Jason Leigh. All great talents. But while I think it'll likely get nominated for Best Animated Feature, I'm wrestling with whether or not it can overthrow Inside Out. This does have a late December release date which is a double edged sword for many Oscar contenders that go that route. Some fare okay but others end up too late to the party. We'll see how this one ends up, but I am very intrigued by it.

But what do you guys think? Do you think it looks like a viable Oscar contender? Please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Review: Bridge of Spies (2015)

                         

           
                     Spielberg And Hanks Are Like 'Spies' With The Right Kind Of Gadgets

           Well..it has been quite a year for spy movies, hasn't it? Spy, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Mission Impossible, possibly Spectre, and now a spy movie that is mostly negotiations. Who knew?

       Story:
   Bridge of Spies is based on a true story about an insurance lawyer named James Donovan (Tom Hanks) who is asked to defend a Soviet spy named Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) held under custody in the United States during the Cold War in exchange for the release of a U.S. pilot held in captivity even though it means being slowly ostracized by his peers and delving into uncharted territory.

       Ups:
    I'll start off with the direction by Steven Spielberg. Now, like with Meryl Streep in acting, it becomes tiresome to say that Spielberg did an amazing job directing. But he does an amazing job with the direction. One thing I liked was how he was able to keep my eyes glued to the screen thanks to the constant shots of the camera zooming in on the actors. Also, he does a lot of great visual storytelling like the scene where we see the Berlin Wall being built. It is little moments like that which hook you into the grand picture and it is a testament to Stevie's direction. The great performances do as well.

   Next, I'll go right into the acting. Tom Hanks is not only good as always, but he manages to make his everyman character even more endearing through hidden nuances like the way his character stutters and blinks his eyes over his doubt and anxiety. As great as he is, though, the movie belongs to Mark Rylance. Rylance plays, by far, the most intriguing character in the film with Rudolf Abel. He plays Abel as very calm and collected in the face of the scrutiny he is put under and quietly steals the show. Whenever he disappeared from the screen, I would always wait for him to come back. Amy Ryan, who plays Donovan's wife isn't given very much to do, but she does a fine job with what she is given. The rest of the cast has small roles as well, because this is clearly the Hanks-Rylance show, but they are all pretty good.

   I also appreciated how the film demonstrates that when it comes to the conflict between the U.S. and the Soviets, it doesn't feel like we're too different because of how in the film, we capture one of their own and they capture a few of our own. The title of the film, Bridge of Spies, serves as a metaphor for the one that the two nations cross and captures quite a grey area. The title also refers to an actual bridge shown at the climax of the story.

     Downs:
   Now, I thought the film could've been just a little shorter. There was never a point where I was anxious to get out of the theater yet I probably would've loved it even more than I already do if there was more cutting in the editing room. That's the one gripe I have.

     Consensus:
    Overall, Bridge of Spies is a very noble effort from the dynamic duo of Spielberg and Hanks that made it a relief to see Spielberg going back to doing what he does best after a short absence and to continue seeing Hanks do what he does best. In the hands of a lesser team, it probably would've been tedious to watch since it is all talking, yet these two still manage to make it work.

Grade: A-

Oscar Watch: The Big Short (2015)

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of my Oscar Watch where I discuss trailers for upcoming Oscar contenders. For this post, I will delve into the trailer for The Big Short which stars Stebe Carell and Christian Bale and deals with the housing bubble crisis that took place.

Originally, I wasn't going to cover this trailer because it doesn't look like Oscar material. But I think given its pedigree cast of Carell, Bale, and even Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt, as well as the fact it is based on a true story and is being released at the end of the year, I wouldn't be surprised if it got some traction.

But to me, this film looks like diet Wolf of Wall Street and I can't really imagine it being a commercial hit due to its competition like Star Wars, Concussion, Joy, The Hateful Eight, and The Revenant. Around Christmas time, I doubt people will want to spend their gift cards on a movie about the housing crisis. Not when you have Star Wars, J-Law, DiCaprio, and Tarantino to complete with. While pundits are predicting it'll land major Oscar nominations, I'm just not seeing it. Also, on a side note, the makeup on these actors is incredibly distracting and it's another thing that is pulling me out of the film.

What do you guys think? Do you agree that it doesn't look like Oscar material or do you disagree? Also, is this something that you would pay to see in theaters and around Christmas time. Be sure to share your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Topic Of The Day: Regarding The Hollywood Wage Gap

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Topic Of The Day. For today's topic, I figured I'd delve into a subject in Hollywood that, to me, is getting out of hand. That is the wage gap between actors and actresses.

Recently, Jessica Chastain did an interview where she claimed that she was paid less than a quarter of her reported salary in The Martian. It was reported that she made $7 million but only made less than $1.75 million while her male co-star Matt Damon likely made 8 digits. However, in my opinion, that seems pretty fair considering how small of a role she had and that Damon is a big contributor to the film's success. Sure, she's a 2-time Oscar nominee, but with all due respect to her, her name doesn't fill multiplexes. She's a respected name but respect and awards don't always equal being a big draw. Hilary Swank has an enviable 2-0 Oscar record yet she still doesn't command a high salary because she is simply not a draw. It's the same thing with the guys too. Look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He has hits on his resume (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, etc.), but plenty of films he's done where he was the lead haven't all fared well. So if actresses, and actors, want a high salary, they need to be somebody that people will pay to see. Even if you have hits on your resume, it doesn't automatically mean you are a draw.

When I was reading a list of actors who can still command a $20 million payday like Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Angelina Jolie, and Robert Downey. Jr., I can see why they still get that much because they are a significant factor in the success of the films they star in. Jennifer Lawrence just joined that club with the upcoming Passengers, but Sony was reluctant to give her that much. Mainly because they wanted to keep the budget down but I'm sure another reason is because Lawrence won't be shapeshifting or carrying her bow and arrow and David O. Russell won't be directing. The biggest wins on her resume have been her franchises and work with David O. Russell so Sony must've felt it would be a big risk giving her such a high chunk of dough when she doesn't have the three things I just mentioned. If Passengers is a big hit, then she'll likely be able to command a high price tag. But if not, her negotiating power will start to wane. Not because she is a woman, but because she wouldn't be bringing as many people into the theater and, like I said, it is the same thing with the guys too. On the list of actors that I've read who can still command a $20m fee, names like Tom Hanks and Johnny Depp weren't on because they don't have the same kind of staying power as before. If your name alone brings people in, then you get the big paychecks or at least take a small fee and get your $20 million on the backend which is what I think actors should do.

I personally prefer to see actors take a small fee upfront, then get more money on the backend so they can help the suits preserve the budgets on their films. That's why when Jennifer Lawrence's Passengers salary was announced: 20 million upfront plus 30% of the grosses, I was a little miffed. Even though it was in response to the Sony hack, where it was revealed that she made less than Jeremy Renner on American Hustle and had less backend points despite their roles having a similar size, I'm left thinking to myself "Why not just ask for a small bump on your upfront fee and higher backend points?" I think if all A-list actors were to take a small fee upfront and get the same amount of backend points, it would be one way to solve the wage gap problem in Hollywood and make their starring vehicles more profitable because it would keep the costs down.

So, I just wanted to share my thoughts on why I think the Hollywood wage gap situation is getting a little out of hand, with actresses like Jessica Chastain chiming in, and what can be done to fix the whole issue. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for
reading!