Transgressing the standards

I watched Wonder Woman last night and it was okay. There were moments in it that I enjoyed and there were moments that I didn't and, yet, I cannot help feeling a cynical distaste that they were merely check-boxes on an imaginary build list on how to make a relatively competent movie.

Now, as you may already know, I've got a selective taste. One where upside down is despised, Frequencies is appreciated and Bucky Larson is adored. To which, most of you would probably respond with, huh? How is it that Bucky Larson gets a thumbs up while being, quite clearly, a terrible film? I'm not sure ...  but I would like to think that this video from Vox goes a long way to explaining why: 

But, now, back to why I was indifferent about Wonder Woman. I think one of the main issues I had was that Gal Gadot was miscast in the lead role. Her acting ability is very limited and she was unable to create a character which was either charismatic or interesting. Yes, she looked very striking in her vogue cover girl make-up but that's not enough to sustain my interest over the course of a 2+ hour movie. The funny part is that the younger versions of her earlier in the movie conveyed a lot more character and personality than the final product. Make no mistake: Wonder Woman (and every other franchise) are merely products designed to separate you from your money. As the producers / owners of this movie, they would like to try and point out that little girls finally have a strong female role-model to look up to - but that is just silly. I'll give you just a small list of present-day strong female leads/heroes/ass-kickers: Black Widow, Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider/Salt/Wanted, Gamora (from Guardians of the Galaxy), Lucy, Super Girl,  Hit-Girl (from Kick-ass) ... and plenty more. From my vantage point, it seems pretty clear that strong female leads are pretty well-catered for - it's just that marketeers like to try and confuse us with statements to the contrary. Could it be that I'm simply being sexist because I didn't love the movie? Scientist man says otherwise.

I guess the problem I have with most big films today is that the plots are actually approached very scientifically. I will now divulge the blockbuster hero formula:

• If it's the first in the blockbuster film series, it will *always* be an origin film and spoon-fed to the audience so they're not too confused while they engorge their gallon of coke
• There will always be an unexplained element of the origin story which will always be resolved by the end of the film
• If the protagonist is from another country/world/time, there will be classic fish-out-of-water humor inserted
• Whatever the main protagonists' main character traits are, there will be contrasting side-characters there to counter-balance those traits (e.g. naive vs worldly wise, rambunctious vs cautious etc.)
• There will always be humorous side-kicks to distract the audience from the boring / limited acting range of the main character
• There will be a 'you had the power inside you all along' moment
• The arch-nemesis will always be one-dimensional and driven to do bad things ... because reasons
• Slow motion is your friend
• The End of the world plot is your friend
• The final 10 minutes will be a CGI excrement-fest, with smoke, wind, lightning and random explosions that will frighten small children

Notable examples: both Guardians of the galaxy films, Wonder Woman, Thor, Hulk, Avengers, Black Panther (one would presume), Green Lantern, Brave, Captain America, Iron Man 2, The Force Awakens.

In all honesty, I did extract some enjoyment from Wonder Woman ... but it almost feels like I was forced down that path through subversive mentalist techniques. It's getting to a point where it feels like we're moving towards mass-brainwashing; where the intended agenda is prefaced years in advance so that finally, upon its release, the only possible assessment you could ever settle upon is one of complete adulation and acceptance because public media told me so**. I can't be the only one, can I?

**or else I'm obviously prejudice towards some under-represented minority

What's the frequency?

Outside of What's The Frequency being an excellent track, it is also the title of the film I am about to review. Well, at least part of it - maybe not ...

Frequencies is a romantic sci-fi drama which bears a passing resemblance to quite possibly the most stupid film I have ever seen. The basic premise is that there is an alternate world where each person has an assigned frequency which directly relates to their ability to control their fate. Those with a high frequency have somehow rangled fate to align with their desires and needs, conversely, those with a low frequency never get what they want and are constantly at sorts with the world. The only drawback of being high-frequency is that you lose touch of your humanity and ability to relate to others. Now, here's the clincher: if a high-frequency person comes into close contact with a low-frequency person, bad things happen: thunder; lightening; things breaking. The only way to resolve the situation is to depart each others' company. And so, this is the classic tale of two people kept apart by fate (or something quite similar). 

At this point you might be wondering why I gave this film a pass and not Upside Down? Well, maybe because the premise is not that far removed from reality and at least the laws of gravity are not being abused in this film. Maybe we do not have bad things happen when a Bad Luck Brian comes into contact with a Gladstone Gander, but the rest has at least some credence. I truly believe there are those that are somehow more fortunate than others.

The story revolves around Zak with a negative frequency and Marie with a very high frequency. They meet at junior school where a frequency test is undertaken to determine their levels. Upon discovering that they are polar opposites, Marie decides to undertake experiments with Zak to determine the effect of being in close proximity to each other. This continues throughout their childhood, with Marie, robotic in her responses, while Zak grows more and more passionate. During this process, Zak makes it his mission to last more than one minute with Marie (get your mind out of the gutter) without terrible things occurring. For at least half the film, this is an unrequited love story where it's a one-way street of Zak pining for Marie while Marie, at best, feigns human emotion.

I enjoyed how this film progressed and liked how the multiple perspectives played out for certain key parts of the story. The film built up to an enjoyable ending and had a nice bit of scientific analysis thrown in which appealed to my more logical brain. Recommended.

My mind is mush

I watched the film Upside Down recently and, god, it couldn't have been written worse if the responsibility had been left to the drunken ramblings of a troupe of peyote-drinking retarded chimpanzees mashing their mutilated stumps for hands against a typewriter where the only keys that worked were s, u, c and k.

This film follows the romantic formula to a tee, except it does everything in its ability to be even less intelligible by discrediting science in the process. The story's premise destroys the basis of physics to such an incredible degree that even a five-year old would state that this film makes no sense and would not have a shadow of a doubt that he was correct in his assessment.

So, the premise is that you have two planets that are perfectly aligned (they spin at the same speed, with the exact same orbit and I would surmise the same mass, considering they're not smashing into each other) such that there is a bridge that transitions between the two of them. So far, so unrealistic. Now here comes the kicker; the gravity doesn't work the same between planets. Oof. Items from the one planet only interact with the gravity of their planet. Ouch. If these foreign elements are retained too long on the other planet, they burn up. Owowowow. Also this gravity apparently only affects certain aspects at certain times (or at least the way that this film conveys it). All this 'science' is introduced so that we can have the world's most convoluted romance story possible:  (narrator voice)

Two people, living in separate worlds ... but connected by love

I'm not sure why they needed to go to such silly extents to create such a convoluted mechanism to keep them apart. Anyway the cereal box summary is: They meet each other at the closest point between the two worlds and fall in love. For whatever reason, the people of either side of the planet deny people from the other side from interacting with each other and she falls back to her planet and hits her head. Dufus (that's what I'm calling him) thinks she's dead until he sees her on TV and then finds a means of reconnecting with her ... although she doesn't remember him (quelle contrived). The visuals are really quite good but, if you've seen inception (or Ring), you should be pretty used to seeing people walking on the ceiling so that novelty wears off pretty quickly. 

And so, to summarise, this was not my cup of tea. This film is like a nightmare that you keep hoping to wake up from ... until you realise you are awake and you are actually watching your mind unravel as you try to make sense of all the inconsistencies. If you do still want to watch this, do it while stoned or heavily inebriated. You have been warned.