Cookie's Corner - Year 2

[Ezen Baklattan]

1 minute ago, cookie said:

Haven't gotten to Freddy Zapper yet but it sounds like a lot of fun so there's that.

TBH I secretly hope Anna Kendrick pulls a Pacino and gets a lot of praise for being a campy villain.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, The Shape of Pasta said:

TBH I secretly hope Anna Kendrick pulls a Pacino and gets a lot of praise for being a campy villain.

 

 

Idk about that but Ben Platt is in Best Actor on my ballot

 

 

[cookie]

War of the Gods

 

This is Gods of Egypt if it didn't suck.

 

No really, like Spark: Rising with Jupiter Ascending the comparisons here are numerous. Some are unavoidable given the setting and characters involved, but comparisons can be easily drawn nonetheless. What this has in its advantage are tenfold though: Abrams' superb directing, an all-black cast of who's who of recognizable actors, a set of characters that aren't alternately bland or total assholes, visual effects that look spectacular instead of half-finished etc.

 

Does that make it great? Not quite. It's pretty good, but not great. There are two reasons for that I feel: one, it does feel overstuffed. Not that the plot itself is overstuffed - it's rather straightforward and simple, but there are a crapton of characters all played by notable actors that outside of the main players on both sides (Horus, Set, Anubis, the two humans) end up a bit superfluous. I get that Egyptian mythology is packed with divine characters, but many of them end up as extended cameos here and with very recognizable actors all playing them you kinda feel jibbed that they don't get more to do. Two, I find it a bit of a missed opportunity to have so little of the story be told from the mortals' perspective. The stuff between the gods is the kind of theatrical melodrama that works really well (and my man Idris' scenery-chewing is one for the ages) but very little is actually spent between the human characters. You could easily play up the contrast between mortal and god for the levity that I also think the film could've used more of.

 

None of that halts the fact that it's still a late summer treat which you should definitely check out in theaters (and judging by the box office, you may already have). If you have an IMAX near you, it's worth the trip.

 

B+

Edited January 25, 2018 by cookie

[Hiccup23]

56 Days of Love is next 

[cookie]

11 minutes ago, Hiccup23 said:

56 Days of Love is next 

I'll say this: when that Laura girl came up I was like "oh boy, here's another sassy laid-back straight female best friend" but when she turned out to be lesbian I was like "well played, movie."

[cookie]

56 Days of Love

 

"*The film is entirely shot from the POV of Frank."

 

First of all that's a lie because it briefly changes to Mark's perspective for a scene two-thirds through. Second, while it's different, it's ultimately just a gimmick. Not much would be lost if it was shot normally.

 

Okay, onto the actual movie: Surprisingly charming. I mean most of it so far is casual conversations and montages, but it's casual conversations and montages I feel have a point unlike Poison & Wine or its disastrous sequel. The actors are good, including a lesbian couple which so far in CAYOM 3.0 has been shockingly rare along with the gay couple is much appreciated, it's beautifully shot as you'd expect from Ang Lee... This is good. I think we got something here.

 

Oh... this random chick turns up and reminds Mark of his past relationship which ended badly and Mark begins having second thoughts about his current one. Okay, a bit out of left field, but let's see where they'll go with this.

 

*Mark and Frank break up and the movie ends*

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

W...w...was that it? I honestly thought the projector broke down or that I somehow fell asleep and missed the entire second half of the movie. I even went back and saw it twice to make sure I didn't miss something. No. That's how it ends. What the hell.

 

Did they run out of time? Is this supposed to set up a sequel? Worse, this serves to make the whole side tangent with Frank's father entirely useless in the long run too. It's now ultimately a scene that exists for really no reason.

 

Seriously @Hiccup23, what you had here was really good, but then you just decided to stop and now I'm just kinda confused.

 

B-

Edited January 26, 2018 by cookie

[Ethan Hunt]

Boo!

[Hiccup23]

What.........

[cookie]

1 minute ago, Hiccup23 said:

What.........

You just summed up my genuine reaction to the ending.

[Hiccup23]

3 minutes ago, cookie said:

You just summed up my genuine reaction to the ending.

 

 

Okay...I completely respect your opinions but let me explain  

 

Why did it end that why? Because that was the story I wanted to share. I didn't want to go into the post-break-up and there is no sequel. Why does everything need a follow up? Why do all stories need a resolution? That isn't how life works and especially how break-ups work. Frank might find love (probably will since he is young) but maybe he won't. This isn't Frank's life story but rather a snippet of a moment of his life. I wanted the film to feel like that. It is an arthouse film, which doesn't follow the traditional storylines/plot devises of mainstream books, TV, and films. 

 

Also with Frank's father. It is meant to add to the atmosphere and fear Frank has. Frank isn't open with his family about his deep and meaningful relationship. He is on pins and needles trying to hide it. I didn't want this to be that generic "your religious family finds out and all hell breaks loose coming out film" THIS ISN'T A COMING OUT STORY. It is a story about first love and how sometimes fleeting it can be. The scene with Frank's father builds the atmosphere of tension and a foreboding sense this relationship with Mark is not going to work out. We know Frank has curfews, is in a religious household, and is dating a guy much older than him. 

 

Also with the "left-field" lady coming in and tell Mark about his past. Yes, that is out of left field and meant to be. This isn't Mark's story. It is Frank's. I wanted the audience to feel lost just like Frank did. (That's also why I did the POV shots in the film). In the film, Frank doesn't understand why Mark is over the relationship and he will never realize what happened. My film Academy also touched on this. Why does everything in life need a happy ending or just even an ending. Things in life sometimes just have an open ending. That's kind of the lesson I wanted to show here. ( Feel like I am repeating myself lol so I am gonna stop). 

 

Ultimately, I wanted to make the audience walk in his shoes, be confused when he was confused, and joyful when he was joyful. I completely understand your problems with the film but I made them there because that is the story I wanted to share. 

 

[Xillix]

I didn't mind ending right after the breakup but I too felt the whole "girl suddenly appears and tells Mark his last relationship was bad and he hasn't been putting his all into this one so they break up" thing was not good.

 

Firstly because we've not been shown anything to suggest Mark wasn't putting his all into the relationship, so having a new character show up and just kind of say it, and suddenly it's apparently true, feels cheap. Storytelling 101; show, don't tell. Secondly because you still broke the film's own rules of keeping to Frank's perspective for that scene, which is clearly from Mark's. It would have been a lot better if you stuck to your concept and left the scene out, leaving the breakup as inexplicable to the audience as it is to Frank (which you claim was your intention). Or if you were going to break your own rules anyway, give yourself a reason to and flesh it out so it's not a total non-sequitur with a completely unknown and otherwise irrelevant character.

[Hiccup23]

12 minutes ago, Xillix said:

I didn't mind ending right after the breakup but I too felt the whole "girl suddenly appears and tells Mark his last relationship was bad and he hasn't been putting his all into this one so they break up" thing was not good.

 

Firstly because we've not been shown anything to suggest Mark wasn't putting his all into the relationship, so having a new character show up and just kind of say it, and suddenly it's apparently true, feels cheap. Storytelling 101; show, don't tell. Secondly because you still broke the film's own rules of keeping to Frank's perspective for that scene, which is clearly from Mark's. It would have been a lot better if you stuck to your concept and left the scene out, leaving the breakup as inexplicable to the audience as it is to Frank (which you claim was your intention). Or if you were going to break your own rules anyway, give yourself a reason to and flesh it out so it's not a total non-sequitur with a completely unknown and otherwise irrelevant character.

 

Don't know why we are hung up on the POV. I typed that so everybody would know that the entire film is in POV. Yes, it changes but I let y'all know it changes so I am not breaking my own rules. I let you guys all know when the film flips and when it resumes again the POV of Frank. If I typed, "this film is shot from the POV of the characters" that would be confusing. I would constantly have to say, "And the film movies to/from Frank's POV". It was just similar to say, "Hey so the film is shot from Frank's POV." 

 

This is a draw back of writing films. If this was actually released, I wouldn't have to put that statement before you watch/read  

Edited January 25, 2018 by Hiccup23

[Rorschach]

 

Personally, I thought it would've been better if it just stuck with Frank's perspective. There'd be sort of an ambiguity in not knowing the exact reason why Mark broke up with him. Since we're seeing it from Frank's perspective for the majority of the film anyway, we would be just as confused as him and feel all the more heartbroken as well. Revealing the stuff about Mark by jumping to his perspective partway through to learn the reason why he had to break up with Frank takes out the mystery of it.

 

Like you said @Hiccup23, we don't always get the full scope of what's going on around us. Especially after a breakup where the other person doesn't know its happening. Which goes back to my main point: the less we would've known outside of Frank's POV, the more shocking and heartbreaking it would've been.

 

Honestly, it's still a good movie. I stand by the 8/10 rating I gave it. The Mark POV part is not horrible by any means. I just thought sticking with Frank the whole way through would've been so much more impactful.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Rorschach

[Hiccup23]

I do appreciate y'alls feedback though  

[Rorschach]

2 hours ago, cookie said:

War of the Gods

 

This is Gods of Egypt if it didn't suck.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Xillix]

23 minutes ago, Hiccup23 said:

This is a draw back of writing films. If this was actually released, I wouldn't have to put that statement before you watch/read  

Even on screen though, the sudden switch to Mark's POV for just the one scene would be jarring (and probably confusing at first since we can't see it's him, given it's through his eyes).

[Hiccup23]

7 minutes ago, Xillix said:

Even on screen though, the sudden switch to Mark's POV for just the one scene would be jarring (and probably confusing at first since we can't see it's him, given it's through his eyes).

Not really, I had it all mapped out how I'd do it. 

[Xillix]

5 minutes ago, Hiccup23 said:

Not really, I had it all mapped out how I'd do it. 

Not in the writeup though, so how are we supposed to know? Besides even if it were clear the change was being made it'd still be jarring - to me personally, and evidently some other reviewers - to have this one scene suddenly switch perspectives for, IMO, no good reason. Again though that's really my main issue with the movie and as issues go it's not crippling (I still quite liked it).

 

If you can be hung up on sex and swears in Mass Effect then we can be hung up on the POV, lol  

[Hiccup23]

2 minutes ago, Xillix said:

Not in the writeup though, so how are we supposed to know? Besides even if it were clear the change was being made it'd still be jarring - to me personally, and evidently some other reviewers - to have this one scene suddenly switch perspectives for, IMO, no good reason. Again though that's really my main issue with the movie and as issues go it's not crippling (I still quite liked it).

 

If you can be hung up on sex and swears in Mass Effect then we can be hung up on the POV, lol  

I wasn't hung up on it. lol I won't criticize or take grades off for a PG-13 Mass Effect. 

[cookie]

1 hour ago, Hiccup23 said:

Also with Frank's father. It is meant to add to the atmosphere and fear Frank has. Frank isn't open with his family about his deep and meaningful relationship. He is on pins and needles trying to hide it. I didn't want this to be that generic "your religious family finds out and all hell breaks loose coming out film" THIS ISN'T A COMING OUT STORY. It is a story about first love and how sometimes fleeting it can be. The scene with Frank's father builds the atmosphere of tension and a foreboding sense this relationship with Mark is not going to work out. We know Frank has curfews, is in a religious household, and is dating a guy much older than him. 

 

Except when you pay that much attention to a specific plot thread it's natural for a viewer to assume there's going to be some kind of payoff to it. If you started and ended at "Frank has conservative parents with strict rules and that makes him unwilling to come out" I wouldn't have had a problem. But because so much attention is spent on it only to have no effect on the outcome it's just dead weight that could've been cut out and it wouldn't have changed much. Especially since what ultimately does the relationship in is Mark's fears and not Frank's.

 

And @Xillix very much summed up the problem I had with the Skyla bit. The character comes out of nowhere, it's jarring how the perspective breaks for only one scene and the break-up is not inexplicable because now the audience expects it to happen because with that scene you planted that idea in their head.

 

I understand the intent, but like with After Party I disagree with the execution.

Edited January 25, 2018 by cookie