#also GODDAMMIT WHY WAS THIS MOVIE'S MAIN CAST ALL SO FUCKING ATTRACTIVE

[rainymeadows]

[dafukdidiwatch]

U.S.S INDIANAPOLIS: MEN OF COURAGE

Nick Cage mixed with WW2 and sharks. What can possible go wrong?

Answer: Everything

Nick Cage has just an attraction to me. I have known him for so long since I was little, I can’t tell if he is a good actor or if it was nostalgia. All I know is if there is a Nick Cage film, it is going to have that Nick Cage charm. And BOY HOWDY, this movie has it.

Let’s go with backstory first.

This movie is based on the incredible and horrific events that happened to the U.S.S Indianapolis, a Naval Ship during World War 2. It was sent on a secret and dangerous mission to deliver parts for the construction of the Atomic Bomb. However, on their way back a Japanese Submarine sunk it with a torpedo, leaving the survivors stranded alone in the middle of the ocean for 4 days filled surrounded by sharks who would attack the dead, injured, and living. Out of the almost 12,000 sailors aboard, only 300 would survive, making this the worst naval tragedy in U.S. Navy history.

And they made this movie.

Not going to lie, I was stupidly judgy through this movie. I mean, I tried goddammit, to watch and enjoy it straight. But I couldn’t help it. I care about this history. I’m fasinated by this bit of history, the horror and pain the sailors when through. This is THE Greatest Shark Attack in history. I was judgy because I wanted this movie to respect the event and tragedy that had happened, to do the survivors justice. And they tried.

God did they tried.

The problem is that they didn’t do it well.

Let me start with the good things about this movie.

1) Nick Cage was pretty Good

He plays Captain Charles B. McVay of the Indianapolis. There is still a bit of hokiness that comes from Nick Cage being Nick Cage. One is him talking to himself while writing a letter to his wife in the weirdest way possible. Another is the fact that his sunglasses makes it look like his eyes are closer to his forehead. But he does the role well I think. He makes sure to show that Captain McVay cared for his men, put their safety ahead of his own, did everything he can to help. I thought he did a good job.

2) They were respectful in the representation of the Japanese Submarine Crew.

The movie could have just not even show the submarine until the ship sinks, but no, we actually get to see the crew. We see the Captain Hashimoto dealing with the struggles of fighting their side of the war. How he cares for his crew, and how they will lay down their lives for the fight. The ship was sunk by Kaiten Torpedoes, basically an underwater version of Kamakazi pilots. They were manned torpedoes, so you see the men loading themselves in to be launched. So while the main focus is on the Indianapolis, it is nice they tried to be empathetic to the Japanese crew as well.

3) The side-characters were interesting enough.

With a historical story like this, the best way is show the movie is to let the audience see all the possible people that were serving on the ship. You see two best friends fall in love with the same girl. Two guys who were enemies and in jail together. A guy with a gambling addiction. The lovable engineers that you see up above. The brand new green commander who is a bit of a dick. My favorite one is the writer sailor. He writes what he sees and tries to bolster people up with his stories. Like, there is a lot of characters so even if you don’t like one plot-line, there are others you can enjoy. They may act goofy/overly dramatic at times, but the actors did a good job for you to root for them.

With that out of the way, things I didn’t like.

A) The cgi was too basic and shit in places

I wish, I WISH I can find a better picture to show what I mean. When we were watching, even my sister were going back and forth on whether it was good or not. Everything that was cgi was just weirdly too smooth. Like really look at it. It looks more like graphics for a video game. Which, is passable. But you can’t have passable for a movie. This movie came out in 2016! We have the technology for a hell of a lot better images than template models. At that was the better cgi. Because when the cgi is bad, it is glaringly obvious bad.

B) The Editing Kills Me.

They have a weird sense of pacing in this movie. When you hit the middle part of the movie, it’s fine. Decent moments of the sailors goofing around, hving drmatic romance, fights, struggles. But there are some parts of the movie where someone in the editing room was like “Oh shit, the people watching this won’t understand. Quickly! Put out that exposition as fast as you can!!”

An Example: the first 3 minutes of the movie. Minute 1: BATTLE! Ok, good, see our historical men in action. Minute 2: We are in a war council room where the Indianapolis has been chosen for a secret mission. “You mean the atomic BOMB?!” -> Basically the line used. And this was BEFORE meeting ANY of our main cast. So it felt like the movie was putting more emphasis on the ship rather than the sailors. 

It also didn’t help the movie Felt like it ended when the survivors were rescued, but didn’t Actually end for another 20-30 minutes longer. I appreciate them going in for historical accuracy of showing the actual aftermath to Captain McVay, but by that point I was so done and bored that I didn’t really care.

Plus they keep using the same periscope tracking shot 7 times! Seven! In the same scene. TWICE!! When the Japanese were firing in daytime, we see the same daylight periscope 7 times before launch. Then when they fired a torpedo at night, LET’S DO THE SAME THING since it went so well the first time.

B) The ship sinks titanic style, the fuck is that?? 

Not going to lie, while I am facinated by the Indianapolis, I do not know everything about what exactly happened. One of them was how the ship sank. But I am pretty sure the ship did not sink in the Exact Same Way as the Titanic. Where one side is lifted up, then got cracked in the middle, and so it was split into two parts. It was, it was bad. Because this tied in to the whole repeating shots thing, because I saw the same man holding onto a pole trying not to drop 5 different times. The Same Exact Scene. No difference. And I’m sure he fell in the exact same way as in the Titanic Movie shots.

(Note:The jail cell sailors during this part were very good, but I still have No Idea how the hell they got out. Let me know if you figured it out)

C) The Sharks were S H I T!

This is basically where the whole meat of the story should have taken place, nd it was AWFUL! Trash! They were stupidly inaccurate, trying to go for Jaws Chomp factor instead of being anywhere near historical. The sharks were all Great Whites, which wasn’t a thing. Because the sharks that historically attacked were Oceanic Whitetips.

But ok, you could get pass. The sharks look similar enough at first glance so it would be an honest mistake. Except that sailors were specifically talking bout “Great White Sharks” with colored pictures of great whites, (which think about that for a minute) so that was bullshit. in making the audience think Great White.

But ok, so what, who cares, the sharks still does it’s things right? Why should we care if they got the type wrong or not?

^Because of Shit like This!! This movie decided to try and shittily mimic Jaws and the Jaws ripoffs by having crappy cgi sharks launch itself out of no where to stupidly chops on the nearest sailors. God you could make a drinking game out of it. Take a shot for every shark you see. Which won’t kill you, because there were NOT ENOUGH SHARKS!!

^The sharks should have been like this. The sailors literally should have been like waist deep in sharks. There were a lot of fucking sharks. And yet! There weren’t any. The sharks only decided to freaking rocket launch themselves out of the water when it’s time for a jump scare, on any old person they can fine. And maybe the reason they decide to throw themselves to the nearest pound of flesh instead of going for the closest dead body is because

D ) THERE WERE BARELY ANY SURVIVORS!!!

Seriously! When the ship sank there were 800 sailors left in the water, We only see 60. TOTAL! Not even random background sailors. It was just Nick Cage’s group, then a separate group of 30 people, and random boats here and there.  God how could they have fucked this up! I don’t know if it was just, not in the budged to hire more people or what, but you can still get somebody. Show the survivors dammit!

It pisses me off because this could have easily solved their shark problem. Because if there were more people, you can see the sharks eat/take the dead bodies. Then when there is a ton more sharks, see them go after the injured and dying. Like, having screams constantly while sharks pick people off left and right, even if it is just background characters, would build so much more tension than just “guys have a good laugh, talk, and support each other, send the shark for the jumpscare.”

I will give the movie this though: While I feel like the majority of the ending was unneeded, I do respect that they have little end-cards for what happened to the character’s historical counterparts, as well as come footage of some of the survivors describing the experience.

Overall: Don’t watch it. If you wanted to watch it for the actual historical event, watch something else. They made note of smaller historical facts while completely screwing up the actual main event with the sharks. You can find better documentaries Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here. The last one has a clip of the special that I I saw originally and while you do have to pay to see it (Here), it is very well done.

And If you want to watch a “so bad it’s good movie” then maybe it fits the bill, but I just honestly don’t think it’s worth it. The editing and pacing will give you whiplash. The CGI takes you out of the zone.  Nick Cage tried his best, but not even his enjoyable presence could save the film. They make for a great movie to rag on, but having it be on an actual historic event like this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

[notesomi-blog]

‘mother!’: The Most Ambitious Movie of the Year

mother! | 2017 | Director: Darren Aronofsky | Country: US

Warning: Full Spoiler Review

I’ve been eagerly anticipating this latest Darren Aronofsky’s movie called “mother!” ever since I saw its first poster. It shows Jennifer Lawrence’s character in a white dress holding her bleeding heart (literally). I was transfixed by its aura of beauty meets horror. This poster alone can be interpreted in some ways. Then months later, the official trailer finally arrived. I watched it with sheer delight because the tone of this movie―from the confused female character to some of the surreal imagery―reminded me a bit of “Black Swan”, Aronofsky’s much lauded psychological horror movie. I also got some “Rosemary’s Baby” vibe from it. So I was excited to find out that some of the promo posters look like some homage to “Black Swan” and “Rosemary’s Baby”. By then, I thought I had figured out what this movie is about. Man, how wrong I was.

The story of “mother!” revolves around a couple who lives in a secluded house. The husband, who’s much older than his wife, is a poet facing writer’s block and in need of greater inspiration. His house was destroyed by fire and he had lost almost everything until he met his wife. His wife was the one who helped restoring his house from scratch. “We spend all our time here... I want to make it paradise,” she said. Their seemingly serene life was disturbed when an old man suddenly came to their house one night. This stranger’s arrival was only the beginning of stranger things to come.

From its promo materials, I was pretty sure that the story of “mother!” would be revolved around some cult or satanic theme, hence the “Rosemary’s Baby” vibe I felt. As I said before, I was wrong. I still can feel the similar atmosphere though, mainly through the perspective of the paranoid main female character. But this movie as a whole is more than just a paranoia-filled offering. The whole concept is so ambitious that I needed some time to wrap my head around it after the movie ended.

First, let’s talk about the title. It uses exclamation point after the word “mother” and I feel some aggressiveness from it. There are, indeed, a lot of aggressive acts against the mother character throughout the movie. Who does mother refer to anyway? Yes, mother is the main character played by Jennifer Lawrence. Now, the mother in this movie isn’t supposed to be seen from the maternal context, because this character is actually the personification of... mother earth? At least that was what I can assume after finished watching this goddamn movie. My expectation was destroyed. This is not a psychological horror a la “Black Swan” or paranoia-filled horror a la “Rosemary’s Baby” as the promo materials suggest. Those promo materials were deceptions, guys. But hell, I was sure glad that this movie turned out to be something entirely different.

There were some moments throughout the movie where I uttered to myself, “Is this thing actually about the...? Hmmm... never mind... let’s keep watching.” And the other time, I was like, “Holy fucking shit, what is this?” My mind was going places and I felt like I need to replay some of the scenes immediately. By the end of this movie, I was thinking that maybe it is about the birth and death of planet earth, going in circle. I also have suspicion about the role of some of the characters and realized that they don’t have an actual name. So I started to pay attention to the credit title. Then realization dawned on me and I thought to myself, “Is this true? It’s actually about the Bible? OH MY GOD yes I think it is.” In the credit title, the character of Javier Bardem is written as Him, with capital H, whereas the other characters are written all in lowercase. My suspicion is true. He is the personification of God. That’s why the title, “mother!”, is also written all in lowercase. Goddammit! Then my mind replayed some of the scenes and started to connect the dots. So Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer’s characters are Adam and Eve, and their two sons are Abel and Cain? Are the frog and the spray of blood some cues for the ten plagues? Okay, I won’t go far from this scenario because I think that’s not my place and I just don’t have the knowledge for it. I don’t know if Aronofsky has actually crammed all of his interpretation of the Bible into a two-hour giant metaphor... I mean, movie. If that is the case, it means that he has made a movie adaptation of the Bible. That is one big ambition, sir.

Despite that metaphor thing, Aronofsky also infuses some criticisms into “mother!”. One of them is about the violent human behaviour towards environment, or should we call it mother earth? As I mentioned before, Jennifer Lawrence’s character can be interpreted as the personification of mother earth and there are various aggressive acts against her by almost all of the characters throughout the movie. Those acts were some of the reasons why this movie was quite uncomfortable to sit through.

For me, the casting of Jennifer Lawrence is spot on. I felt that her physical appearance here is accentuated, from the choice of her outfits to the way the camera frames her figure. Before calling it objectifying, note that it’s in line with the concept of the character. Mother earth is supposed to appear attractive, almost bare so everyone can see her whole beauty. I think Lawrence fully embodied this character. Most of the time, the camera frames her face in close-up, so we can see her facial expression clearly. She appears innocent at first and becomes more bewildered when random people start to flood into her house. Her face says it all. I’ve been a fan of her since I saw she her breakthrough role in “Winter’s Bone” and I think mother is her bravest role yet.

Another criticism that is infused by Aronofsky into this movie is about an artist’s obsession and relationship with his art. He also depicts how fame and idolatry can be destructive. All of them are presented in such extremity, particularly during the last half of the movie. It becomes more and more fucked-up towards the end.

All that aside, there is one particular plot point that struck me the most: the intrusion of personal space. I can relate so much to the mother character when she feels disturbed by the arrival of strangers into her house. As an introvert, I highly value my personal space and I can be extremely uncomfortable when some people invade it without invitation. I feel you, mother earth. I guess “Intruders!” could be a more appropriate title for this movie, no?

In the end, I think I understand the polarizing nature of “mother!”. This movie surely has potential to offend some people. For the other people, may they be amazed by its big ambition and bold narrative. I, myself, fall into the latter spectrum. I believe that this movie will spark some conversations and it deserves to be talked about for years to come.

Let’s give props to Darren Aronofsky and all the team involved who have pushed the boundaries and presented one of the most ambitious movies of the year. They prove that Hollywood’s major studio still has some guts to bring interesting “left field” concept to life. Cinema has limitless possibilities and a lot of potential to be explored after all.