So, You Want To Be A Movie Critic? Guidelines To Being An Online Media Reviewer

So, you’re a young, fresh faced movie geek. You’ve just watched your first Kurosawa or Hitchcock film; you’ve memorised all sorts of random facts about your favourite franchise (Star Wars, Marvel, DC, Jem and the Holograms, etc.), from the names of the production staff to what kind of tape the gaffers used on the set; And, the biggest one of all, you don’t have an immediate circle of people with which to share your passion. For them, cinema is just for big explosion fests, cartoons and maybe the odd ‘serious’ movie around Oscar time.

So, what do you do?

Jump onto social media and become a film critic (or reviewer, depending on your influences and how you view your craft and dedication) of course! Maybe a Youtube channel, popping out a couple of 5-10 minute videos a month, or perhaps a blog that you update every few days. You might even go to Wix or WordPress and start up your own website. Either way, you want to start talking about and dissecting movies.

But how? What are some of the fundamentals you need to get right? Well, as someone with seven years of experience in the field, spanning written and video content (Blasting News, ThirdActFilm (alas, now defunct), Youtube), and collaborating on projects such as Red Ribbon Reviewers), I have a few possible suggestions:

1. KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT!
Do you know a thing about what the process of, say, directing or screenwriting or producing or cinematography is? Do you know your mise-en-scene from your Inciting Incident? Do you understand how dialogue works within the confines of ‘show, don’t tell’, or the importance of three point lighting?

If the answer is no, even to just one of these, then congratulations: you’re already lagging. It’s shocking how many people make movie reviews without understanding the basics (just like people who try to write and/or direct shorts without knowing about the craft). You don’t need to have made a film to talk about film, but you ought to get informed on the how and why if you want to present the best and most thorough review possible. After all, would you trust a doctor who didn’t go to med school, or a firefighter with no training?

There’s a veritable wealth of videos and literature that will greatly expand your knowledge of the medium, as well as make for stimulating reads. Added bonus? If you ever do decide to dip your toe into filmmaking, as study or hobby, you’ll have a heads-up with these.
Some of the usual suspects include, but are not limited to:

• Film Art: An Introduction by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson. This is like a great sample platter of everything that film study has to offer: the medium’s history, evolution, roles, techniques, as well as how to analyse material.
• Biographies of famous artists can be handy for both understanding different crafts, as well as learn film history, such as On Directing Film by David Mamet, Making Movies by Sidney Lumet and Rebel Without A Crew by Robert Rodriguez. As their titles imply, these take you through the much exhaulted yet not-commonly-well-understood process of actually directing a film. Also, William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade is a great read for wannabe writers and those curious about the movie business during ’70s ‘New Hollywood’.
• Save The Cat! The Last Book On Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder. An informative but simple guide to screenplay structure and construction. Also, you can throw in  Christopher Vogler’s The Writer’s Journey (which covers the old chestnut of ‘The Hero’s Journey’, first coined by anthropologist Joseph Campbell and then popularised by George Lucas via Star Wars).
• In The Blink Of An Eye by Walter Murch. Essentially Save The Cat but for editors, editing legend Murch (Apocalypse Now, The English Patient and too many more to count) gives you  everything you could want to know about the art and science of editing and how it affects the audience. It should also finally enable you to properly articulate why you hate jumpcut-fest action sequences so much.

Now, in terms of video/audio content:

• Every Frame A Painting: Terrific video analysis of why movies work, from the styles of auteurs like Edgar Wright, to the soundtrack of movie titans like the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Also recommended: Nerdwriter1 and Lessonsfromthescreenplay.
• The Movie Crypt Podcast: Joe Lynch (Everly) and Adam Green (the Hatchet trilogy) talk about and to filmmakers and their staff about the highs and lows of making movies and TV for a living. The hosts have great chemistry but also great wisdom and respect, allowing their guests to be relaxed and talk freely of the harder times in their careers, which can be a real eye opener. Guests have included Chris Columbus, Adam Wingard, Jordan Peele, Seth Grahame-Smith and many, many more.
• Listening to commentaries and watching making of featurettes? Good, keep at it: right from the horse’s mouth is always best. Stephen Sommers may not be one of the medium’s giants, but his commentaries for The Mummy films and Van Helsing gave me my first education in film.

2. Know about other critics
While this may seem obvious, if you’re getting into movie reviews because you’re a fan of maybe, tops, three or four people on Youtube, then you’re limiting your knowledge base as well as inspirations. Nothing wrong with the likes of Chris Stuckmann, theFLICKPick, schmoesknow and Screen Junkies: but like with my next point, the more you know, the better your own work will be.

Watch and read a variety of reviews, reviewers and critics. Some immediate names, past and present, include Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, Mark Kermode, Janet Maslin, Pauline Kael, A.O. Scott, Peter Travers, Owen Gleiberman and even the anti-christ of film criticism himself, Armond White, all have distinct ways of breaking down films. Some favour a more general deconstruction, step by step, while others will focus on specific elements like say, plot or character or pacing.

3. Have a broad palette
If you want to be a film reviewer, and your only frame of reference is superhero movies, the odd Tarantino flick and some cheap fart comedies, then you might be in trouble. Not saying anything is wrong with these, but to properly discuss and analyse film, you need to be aware of what types of movie there are (same if you were writing about television or video games), how they work, when they were made and how they succeed.

You don’t have to like everything, but you need to at least be aware of all the genres: action, horror, adventure, thriller, comedy, sci-fi, western, biographical, documentary, parody etc. There are plenty of ‘Top 100’ lists out there from both critics as well as film establishments like the American Film Institute or the British Film Institute to help you, but some of the immediate suspects you should have crossed off:

• Citizen Kane (Yes, really. They’re still ripping off its tricks, even today)
• Casablanca
• The Good, the Bad and The Ugly
• Gone with the Wind (Yes, really, there’s a movie before damns aren’t given)
  
• The Godfather (Yes, really, there’s a movie beyond Brando’s wheezes)
• Taxi Driver
• Seven Samurai (Any movie about teams owes something to this)
  
• Psycho (Yes really, there’s a movie beyond the shower scene)
• Bicycle Thieves (this is where the whole ‘realism’ schtick came from)
  
• Chinatown (a holy grail among screenwriting teachers, too)
  
• Jaws
• Alien
• Raiders of the Lost Ark (really, there’s a movie beyond the boulder scene)
• Die Hard

And that’s just a quick skim! I could’ve done an entire article on the must-see movies for any young film enthusiast. Variety and perspective in your film diet counts for a lot when you want to really get stuck in with cinema and discuss the medium in all its strange quirks and habits.

4. This versus that, comparisons versus futility

Unless they are very similar films (like say, Friday the 13th vs My Bloody Valentine), comparisons in a review are a silly and fruitless exercise: why would you dismiss a film because, say, it’s not Citizen Kane, when it’s obviously not trying to be Kane? There are many reasons why, say Transformers: The Last Knight was bad, but it sure isn’t because it’s not Gone with the Wind or Schindler’s List. Likewise, obviously trashy fare like Killer Klowns From Outer Space or the 80s Hercules movies with Lou Ferrignou make no pretenses about being anything other than what they are, and have enjoyable merits of their own if you are willing to try.

These types of sweeping statements stink of amateur and show you haven’t developed a great love or understanding of the medium, yet, if you have to resort to quick name-drops. It doesn’t prove your street cred to fellow film geeks, it’s just hackneyed. Plus, we’re reading or watching to hear what YOU have to say about the film in question, not what you think you’re meant to say and compare it to.

5. Don’t know it? Don’t use it!
Again, another way to avoid looking like a dumb kid on the internet: if you’re not sure what something means, don’t try and sound clever by using said word in your reviews. The people who don’t know it will be confused, and those who do will laugh at you for using it wrong. It’s laughable how often people will say ‘cinematography’ to talk just about camera when, if you actually know what the word mean, you’ll realize it covers more than that. Same with how often tone or theme are misused as well.

In this day and age, you have plenty of resources to be able to check if you want to talk about certain ideas or subjects (like the reading list above) but aren’t entirely sure. If you don’t put in the effort to get your facts and definitions right, then why on Earth should anyone give you their time?

6. Read it, then read it again!
Proof reading is one of the most overlooked yet important elements. Not just basic tidbits like minding Ps and Qs, there and their, its and it’s etc. but also the structure and flow of your piece. Is your focus clear? Is your argument, positive or negative, detailed and well-supported? Do you adequately explain why you thought, say, the musical score was off-putting or the cinematography was intoxicating?

Detail is everything to a film review (or indeed, media criticism period): it’s the eggs and sugar of a cake, or the yipee-kay-ay of McClane. Bad articulation of points, poor use of terminology, bad structure and a conclusion/verdict that doesn’t match the preceding points, whether it’s written or a video review, is what undoes countless newcomers.

7. Do it because you want to
If you think writing movie reviews is the shortcut to fame and fortune, then you might as well put that time into something more practical, like engineering or computer coding. The truth is that there’s very little money in online content nowadays (ad rates have crashed over the last decade), save for those who prove themselves worthy of sponsors or having people willing to pay for a Patreon.

You create your channel or page because you actually want to talk about and share your views on film. You do it because the magic of the silver screen, whether it’s in 2019 or 1939, compels you, entices you, baffles you, intrigues you. You do it because you find merit in the hard work of dedicated artists and craftsmen. The reasons why are legion, but what counts is what you add to the discourse as a unique individual with a unique worldview. No one can do it like YOU.

Bonus tip: be respectful to your audience. Just because you’re the one at the keyboard or mic is not an excuse to behave like a condescending elitist. People will gravitate more towards someone they could actually talk to, and don’t appreciate being yelled at.

(This article was originally posted on ThirdActFilm.com on 26th August 2017. Some elements have since been revised.)

Three Years on: Was Ridley Scott's The Counselor that Bad?

What a reversal of fortune and fate movies can take,eh? Iconic director Ridley Scott teams with novelist Cormac McCarthy to deliver a modern morality tale about sex, drugs and consequence.Having an all-star cast certainly doesn’t hurt your film’s credibility, and the buzz around this film was considerable, to put it mildly. But like Steve Zaillian’s All The King’s Men seven years earlier, all thetalent in the world won’t shield a film from critical wrath, and a wrath indeed was laid upon this film.Accusations of being ‘slow, boring and pretentious’ sounded like war drums, and McCarthy’s distinctive dialogue was called ‘overwritten, indulgent and unnatural’ by many in the critical community. Add a mediocre box office, and you have what seems to eb a certified ‘turkey’. 

So, where do I stand on this? Boy, where or how does one start with this? Well, I'll throw this out to provide proper context: this isn't a high octance, blood & bosoms thriller. Don't go in expecting some akin to Pulp Fiction meets No Country for Old Men, contrary to what the marketing tried to present. This is more of a drama,and a slow burn one at that. Scott and McCarthy have instead crafted a gritty, dingy morality tale about the nature of choice and consequence set against a Mexican backdrop, and one filled with analogies and parables. In fact, for all of its big names and budget, it's very anti-Hollywood in its approach, ideas and ending.To make my thoughts easier to digest, as there is quite a lot to say, 

I'll split the following into Pros and Cons, as they both have knock on effects on one another. 

Ready? Let’s roll. 

The actual plot follows our titular character (Fassbender), a lawyer who has it all (Money and Cruz. Nuff said), as he decides to try his hand at the drugs trade with the help of some rather unusual middlemen (Pitt and Bardem). Of course, his naivety costs him dearly, and sets his world on an upside down turn.So, the Pros: Our casting quintet are excellent, as you'd expect, with Fassbender and Cruz' naive optimism and charisma a nice contrast to the distant, more deliberate and indulgent mentality that Pitt, Bardem and Diaz share as part of the drugs outfit. In fact, Bardem and Diaz serve as direct antithesis to our main couple, very much relishing their debauchery, and these two have an absolute ball with it.As for the technicals, the much undervalued Dariusz Wolski delivers cinematography that is nothing short of gorgeous. He captures the golden, sun baked landscapes and vibrant colours of Mexico andt he uncontrolled high life of these people, while contrasting that with the almost humourless and clinical grey of anywhere outside Mexico that hasn't also embraced this unadulterated indulgence. Musically, gaming and TV veteran Daniel Pemberton provides a rather effective score that enhances the semi-surreal atmosphere, merging the traditional Latin romanticism from say, Horner's Zorro scores, with a grungier sound akin to Morricone's western scores with the use of what I assume are electric guitars. 

Getting back to the actual story now, there is actually a lot of smart construction going on here:throughout, the script offers us numerous parallels between the world and our characters, like our contrasting couples serving as echoes, Diaz owning pet cheetahs to mirror her own animalistic nature,in addition to also reflecting her slightly predatory nature, the diamond Fassbender buys and what it says about value, and indeed the running thread of deceptive appearances and the falsehoods that spring from it. If there's one thing McCarthy can't be faulted on, its thematic detail. Plus, contrary to what a number of critics have claimed, the dialogue isn't just endless soliloquies and monologues (save for one scene, but that's for later), and are told more as anecdotes that are relevant to the situation, often as little warnings to the Counselor that he does not heed. Examples include Pitt and Bardem talking about Catrel killing methods when talking over the Counselor's drug deal and what's he getting himself into, or Diaz using her cheetahs to comment on the violent and animal nature of humans to another colleague at the end who also faces a similar choice to the Counselor. While lines like 'truth has no temperature' may not be the most natural, the people who say it are not the grimy Cartel thugs or lower class Mexicans, but people who have money and asense of mock-sophistication, as well as probably on something given their trade, so its not entirely unjustified or inexplicable to have them talk like this. In fact, its often in one-on-one, intimate scenarios, so that can also be factored in. Again, this isn't the bulk of the dialogue, and it only happens maybe four-five times across the film's entire runtime, so don't worry about actors constantly trying to perform lengthy Shakespearean pieces in the middle of, say, a big shootout or party scene, for the sake of awards notice.

And now, the Cons: While McCarthy may be great on themes and parallels, his actual plotting issomething else entirely, and this is probably, in part, what did the film in for most viewers. The narrative is clunky and lacking in details, which is a shock given how much attention he paid to the other elements. These details cover elements that you would think make up the basics: who are these 'associates' that Bardem and Pitt work for? What are their positions relative to them? How many cartels are there, at least, in direct relevance to our story? How much power does Diaz wield? Why, why, why, why, why? In fact, if that's too up in the air (how fitting), then try this for size: Diaz has her goons kill this biker who has the keys to a drug truck. Then, when her guys are driving along, another cartel duo come in and steal it. Okay, so why isn't she concerned that her own stolen truck was stolen by what seems to be another cartel when she seemsset on accumulating the assets of others across the second half? Or how about, also in the second half, The Counselor's world starts to unravel, and Cruz gets taken. There's a scene not long after where Diaz is talking to someone on the phone, but we don't hear the person on the other end. Who is she speaking to? The scene right before has Fassbender appealing to this lawyer/crime boss to give a hand in getting his girl back, so is she talking to him? Was this part of her plan, and how does it benefit her? If not, who is it then? The other cartel? Wouldn't that then make her plan overly complex given what I just mentioned? Because McCarthy doesn't define who is who in relative terms, good luck figuring out who really benefits from what in this film, and who is responsible for what.

And then comes the monologue that I'm all too confident is what upset the critics: so the lawyer says he can't help Fassbender. So far, sad scene, but then comes one of the most overwritten,overlong and bloated monologues ever put to screen. It seems to go on forever, dragging for several minutes as the lawyer rambles about poets and choices and consequences and 'the world you live in' and oh good lord, just move on already! There is no subtlety or grace here, and as if that's not enough,the lawyer repeats the whole 'consequences' bit several times, as if once wasn't enough. It's like listening to the same verse on a CD on loop for at least five minutes. Where the hell is a script editor when you need them? 

Oh, and the extended version? The opening sex scene is a little longer, the scene at the diamond merchant's is extended to add another long monologue about Jews, a phone conversation between Fassbender and Cruz is fully put back together with cutaways to her, and some scenes are a little rearranged. It flows a little better, but it doesn't cure any of the film's problems, and is probably one of the least substantial ‘Expanded’ cuts Scott has put out.

So, mix together an overly ambiguous story that definitely feels like it would be more suited to the printed medium, slow pacing, one of the most overt bits of 'theme-dumping' ever, and of course, Diaz' car-fudging. It really happens, and in all honesty, it seems too surreal and comical for a film this serious and theme heavy. The end result of this weird mixture? A film that isn't awful for lack of trying, but it screams of inexperience. It's no turd, and has a number of aspects to it that are good, but its core narrative is so clumsily handled despite all the attention to detail elsewhere that it leaves me sort of torn as to what to feel, but certainly not boiling hatred. If any of this has you intrigued, I advise rental unless you're a die-hard fan of Scott or McCarthy.

(This article was originally posted on ThirdActFilm.com on 21st July 2016.)

Monthly Round-Up (Reviews, articles and more) - April 2017

It's that time again, updating you on all the critical goodies, and where to find them. It's proven to be quite a busy but rewarding month for me personally, and MetFilm is going quite nicely. As always, follow my Official Facebook for all news and updates as they happen:
https://www.facebook.com/abeldiazwrites/

Over on Blasting News, I talk about the recently released historical epic, 'Outlaws' (also known as For Greater Glory), starring Andy Garcia:
uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2017/04/outlaws-review-lord-of-the-rings-veteran-tries-catholic-epic-001639509.html

After, on ThirdActFilm, I talk about what many see as the end of Williams' sap years in the 1999 holocaust dramaedy, 'Jakob The Liar':
http://thirdactfilm.com/throwback-review-jakob-the-liar-1999/

Next, in the newest installment of ICFTBB, I talk about Ireland's own 'Fast and Furious' film... made just before the first 'F&F' was even shot, in 'Accelerator': http://thirdactfilm.com/it-came-from-the-bargain-bin-accelerator-2000/

And finally,  I cover every episode of Series 10 Doctor Who for ThirdActFilm's WHOCap series, beginning with 'The Pilot':
http://thirdactfilm.com/whocap-review-the-pilot-s10-ep1/

Followed by evil emoji robots in a WHOCap for 'Smile'.
thirdactfilm.com/whocap-review-smile-s10-ep2/

And now, with ludicrous speed, the 'Thin Ice' WHOCap review:
http://thirdactfilm.com/whocap-review-thin-ice-s10-ep3/

Get your copy of Time Shadows here and support a really good cause for the disabled:
http://pseudoscopepublishing.com/timeshadows/

Monthly Round-Up (Reviews, articles and more) - March 2017

Time again, updating you on all the goodies, and where to find them. My Official Facebook, for all news and updates as they happen:
https://www.facebook.com/abeldiazwrites/

First, a double bill of reviews on Blasting News, starting with Hugh Jackman's final show as Wolverine, Logan: http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2017/03/logan-review-a-sombre-and-satisfying-conclusion-001524317.html

And second, the latest 'Monsterverse' romp, Kong: Skull Island: http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2017/03/kong-skull-island-review-cinematic-wish-fulfillment-001524323.html

Next, over on ThirdActFilm, a Kong double bill, beginning with a Throwback Review for the 1976 version, starring Jeff Bridges: http://thirdactfilm.com/throwback-review-king-kong-1976/

Then, a brand new ICFTBB review of a King Kong remake you've never heard of: http://thirdactfilm.com/came-from-the-bargain-bin-jack-buchanans-king-kong-2016/

And finally, a new recommendations list for 'Beauty and The Beast' if you're hungry for fantasy:
http://thirdactfilm.com/like-beauty-and-the-beast-heres-more-fantasies-youll-love/

Get your copy of Time Shadows here and support a really good cause for the disabled:
http://pseudoscopepublishing.com/timeshadows/

Back To School - Beginning my Masters Degree at Met Film (5/3/17)

Two years after I handed in my last bit of academic work, and now, I'm returning to higher education. I'm getting into film school, specifically the Ealing Studios based Met Film School, for a MA in Screenwriting. The course covers both the process as well as (most importantly for me) the business angle, including the much sought after questions of agents, as well as pitches, development and whatnot. It also offers in-course work experience and a post-grad programme with active industry links.

Like many things in life, this was not an easy decision. Aside from the hefty cost (partially paid for with my own savings from different jobs), I had hoped to be able to achieve my goals once I had left University with just my BA. Call it youthful hubris, or just plain arrogance, but I've tried going alone for two years, and it hasn't worked. Pitch after pitch has collapsed, never mind the slew of projects that never made it or I couldn't crack. As time went on, though I didn't want to admit it, I needed someone bigger, smarter and more experienced than me, to make things happen and show me a potentially better path.

The course runs from March 2017 to this time next year. Don't know yet if it'll also require a running log like Middlesex, so whether or not I'll be actively archiving what goes on I can't say yet. 

 
So, the next question arises: how will this affect online content for ThirdAct, Blasting News, Youtube etc.? Thankfully, I have a bunch of stuff already prepared ahead of time, including a double bill of Kong reviews, a list related to Beauty and The Beast, another Robin Williams movie review and, of course, weekly reviews for S10 of Doctor Who when it hits in April. Pitching for Agents In Odd will also slow for a time, though it'll never be far from my mind.

Buckling up right now, because things are about to get bumpy, but undeniably, exciting too...

Monthly Round-Up (Reviews, articles and more) - December 2016

Happy Holidays everyone!

Now, I'm introducing a new running feature on this blog: a monthly update on all my reviews, articles and other tidbits that aren't my creative projects. This will help ensure a regularity of content, as well as an easy list to access for finding certain works.

As always, you can also keep up with my Official Facebook, for even more news and updates as they happen relating to projects:
https://www.facebook.com/abeldiazwrites/

So, onto my newest pieces and reviews. First off, I've started reviewing novels on Blasting News UK. Specifically, Sherlock Holmes books. First, the South African tale of diamonds and murder, 'Murder at Sorrow's Crown':
http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/11/murder-at-sorrow-s-crown-review-a-superb-sherlock-debut-00126846http://savagescribe.deviantart.com/journal/?edit5.html

 
Next, an American tale involving a Holmes imposter in 'The Counterfeit Detective':
http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/11/the-counterfeit-detective-review-an-american-sherlock-adventure-001285835.html

And finally, Sherlock and Tarzan meet in the very jokey 'The Peerless Peer' from sci-fi legend Philip Jose Farmer:
http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/12/the-peerless-peer-review-a-sherlock-and-tarzan-team-up-001301955.html

Now, for a new first, I do a trailer reaction and review for 'Spider-Man Homecoming':
http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/12/spider-man-homecoming-trailer-reaction-and-review-001319191.html

Over on ThirdActFilm, I review the 2001 thriller 'The Pledge', starring Jack Nicholson:
http://thirdactfilm.com/throwback-review-the-pledge-2001/

An article on The Sweatbox, a documentary about Sting and the troubled production of Disney's 'The Emperor's New Groove':
http://thirdactfilm.com/the-sweatbox-the-documentary-disney-tried-bury/

An article on Doctor Who's future under Chris Chibnall, in light of recent news:
http://thirdactfilm.com/doctor-whos-future-under-chris-chibnall/

And lastly, I review the 1998 thriller spoof 'Wrongfully Accused', starring Leslie Nielsen:
http://thirdactfilm.com/throwback-review-wrongfully-accused-1998/

It's been a long and trying year, but I'm always looking ahead and building myself up. Enjoy and, once again, have a very, very Happy Christmas.