Pixar's 'Soul' movie review.

Yesterday, me and my friend found time together to watch Pixar's latest animated movie 'Soul'. We decided to watch the animation after we saw that it had just been released on Disney+ streaming service and was available for both of us to see.

Indeed, whenever a new animated film is released, we're more than eager to watch them and give them a chance. Animated films, thanks to their well-intended nature, are something that - almost always - manage to entertain us and put us on a good mood.

So when it comes to this particular movie, Pixar's 'Soul' is a film that basically has to do with the meaning of life. It's about a middle-aged African american music teacher (voiced by Jamie Foxx), who hasn't managed to make his dreams in life come true.

Indeed, instead of being a successful jazz pianist who gets to perform in prestigious clubs with a jazz band, he's a music teacher for students that aren't particularly skilled. He's in limbo with his life and is desperately wanting to become something better.

Story-wise, the catalyst in the movie happens after our protagonist is about to have his break as musicians. As he celebrates getting hired to a four person jazz band after an audition, he accidentally falls through an open manhole cover on the street and goes into a coma.

Not surprisingly - since he doesn't die - once he regains his consciousness [as a new animated character] in limbo between heaven and earth, his quest to get back to earth begins. He has to find a way to do it (and help another person) even though its seems to be an impossible task.

So when it comes to the overall quality of the movie, I have to say that - as unfortunate as it is - I wasn't that impressed with the film and its story. Neither me or my friend liked it that much, even though critics really liked it (95% fresh at Rottentomatoes.com).

Story-wise, one of the biggest problems with 'Soul' is that its screenplay is just too convoluted and contrived. Its basic story concept suffers from too many parallel worlds and characters that don't mesh in well and that constantly compete with each other.

By that I mean is that once our main protagonist is transported to the otherworld (limbo) and takes a new character (see pic above), it takes a lot of time to introduce us to what the place is about. The place has its own rules and parameters that require tons of exposition.

Indeed, before our guy comes back to the real world with his new sidekick (Tina Fey), who takes our protagonist's body and our guy becomes a cat (!), it takes too long before we get back to earth. This is simply too much and is too complicated.

Structure-wise, the really bad thing about making the story too convoluted and complex is that when you do that it really hurts the pacing of the film. When you spend entirely too much time explaining the concepts about the worlds, it pulls you out of the story. 

Not surprisingly, as the movie keeps progressing, I couldn't help but to feel that it kept losing its energy and momentum. Especially when it comes to its ending that is a total cop out, that one breaks every single rule that was established earlier in the film.

Still, just because the movie had its problems story-wise, that doesn't mean that the movie didn't have redeeming values in it. I'm definitely not saying that a Pixar film would be something that is completely awful and that it didn't entertain us at all. 

Indeed, when I think of the movie, I have to admire that the writers decided to take on an ambitious project that deals with the purpose of life. 'Soul' does manage to get across good points about what life is about and what are the things that we should appreciate.

After all, as we live through our main character and his desperate quest to get another chance in life, you can't help but to be moved by his ordeal. The story manages to be fairly touching - the protagonist is relatable - and it has entertaining moments in it. 

Production-wise, when it comes to the film's quality, it also has to be mentioned that the movie looks and sounds good. The animation is once again top notch and especially when it comes to the real world, I couldn't help but to admire how everything looked.

Still, when you look at the movie as a whole, there's no question that watching the story unfold wasn't exactly a fun experience. It was just too much 'hard work', which came as result of the writers not knowing well enough what the movie was supposed to be about.

In that sense, when it comes to recommending the movie, at least in my case as a writer, I can't in all honesty do that. I can't do that, because even though the film did have its moments, as a whole the story was too convoluted and did not work well enough as a whole.

Netflix's 'The King' (2019) movie review.

So last week, as me and my friend couldn't find anything better to see, we decided to watch Netflix's movie 'The King' from 2019. We decided to give it a chance, even though I wasn't that excited about watching a film that had to do with this particular genre.

Indeed, even though I do tend to watch - and even study - 'historical' stuff, I'm not interested in medieval history. There's not that much that you can learn from the era and that time in history wasn't exactly enlightening or uplifting when it comes to us as human beings.

Nevertheless, as we decided to give the film about Henry V of England a chance, we thought that it would be worth our time. There was a chance that the movie would hold our attention (71% fresh at Rottentomatoes.com) and that perhaps it wouldn't be 'that' violent.

So having now seen the film, I think it can be said that 'The King' wasn't that bad of a movie experience. It turned out that this was a somewhat well made and an entertaining movie, even though there are some pretty obvious problems too that need to be addressed.

Premise-wise, the story is basically about Hal, Prince of Wales (played by Timothée Chalamet), who as a royalty and an apparent heir to the throne, doesn't want power. He's a royalty who thinks that wars are wrong and that there's no point in shedding blood for no reason at all.

Indeed, as his father is dying, instead of preparing to become the next king as the oldest son to fight wars, he's more than happy to let his younger brother to succeed his father. It's up to his brother to fight those future battles once their father passes away.

Yet, in the story, it doesn't take long before things change, as his inexperienced brother manages to get himself killed in a pointless battle. This leads to Hal changing his mind and becoming the king, which leads him to a difficult journey (involving war with France).

So when it comes to 'The King's' quality, one of the best thing about the films has to do with its production values. There's no question that for a Netflix movie - that hasn't been known for its big budgets - this movie clearly looks good when it comes to its overall production.

Indeed, as I watched the movie with my friend, we couldn't help but notice that everything in the film looked top notch. The sets looked believable, the battle scenes were well executed (they were pretty realistic) and you simply couldn't help but to stare at the screen.

Acting-wise, it has to be also said that the film did also a really good job. All the main roles were well acted, including Chalamet in the main role, Joel Edgerton as Falstaff, Robert Pattinson as the French prince (he was totally great) and Sean Harris as Hal's advisor.

At the same time, when it comes to the story of the movie, there are some obvious problems here that can't be ignored. The biggest issue by far has to do with its screenplay, which - as unfortunate as it was - wasn't particularly well written or well structured. 

By that I mean is that when it comes to the motivations and the consistency of Hal's character in the first third of the movie, they left a lot to be desired. The movie does an awful job explaining why Hal decided to invade France after being shown as a 'dove'.

Indeed, when he makes that admittedly brave personal sacrifice in the first 15 minutes of the film (no spoilers), there's really no way the audience is going to buy him as a warmonger after that. It's such a strong character defining moment that defines the rest of the film.

So not surprisingly, even though the movie does give some external reasons for him changing his mind and attacking France, they don't make enough sense. They don't feel natural or organic, which made the story after that feel a bit forced and questionable.

In that sense, when it comes to Netflix's 'The King' as a whole, I think it's pretty safe to say that even though this film wasn't by no means terrible, it wasn't a great one either. It's pretty clear that there were some major character arc issues in the story that hurt it.

After all, when you have a protagonist that isn't consistent and changes based on what the structure demands, that's not a good thing. It really makes the story less immersive and pulls you out of the movie, even when those other aspects in the film work.

In that sense, when it all is said and done, whether one is going to enjoy watching 'The King' isn't really that simple and easy to determine. It really depends on what your preferences are and how much you're going to pay attention to the film and its character arcs.

After all, if you manage to get past the first 30-40 minutes of the story that are inconsistent and forced, this might be a movie a for you. In that case you might be entertained by the film and might appreciate it quite a bit (I was more in this camp).

On the other hand, if you set the bar too high and think that 'The King' is historically accurate and has solid character arcs, this might not be a film a for you. In that case, you'll likely be disappointed and might think that the movie as a whole just wasn't that believable or entertaining.

Retrospect: revisiting earlier writing projects.

So when it comes to being a writer, it's not exactly secret that revisiting your scripts isn't always easy to do. It isn't always fun to take another look at your earlier writing projects and see whether they happened to be as good as you thought they originally were.

Indeed, especially when it comes to projects that didn't go anywhere, there's a good chance that you won't like revisiting these scripts. Even though taking another fresh look at them might be beneficial learning-wise, that might sometimes be a bit too difficult to do.

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that during the last week or so I've been actually trying to revisit my earlier writing projects. I've tried to take another look at the quality of them and see whether my previous assessment about them was correct.

Motivation-wise, the biggest reason that I decided to check them - not that surprisingly - has to do with my children's book. Now that I finally got the book finished and managed to make it as good as it can be, I thought I could safely check my earlier stuff 'risk-free'.

So when it comes to this task, the first thing I have to say that I was a bit surprised how I had managed to distance myself from my earlier projects. Even though a lot of time had passed, I thought that I would still be more attached to my tv specs emotionally.

Indeed, especially when it comes to my Big Bang Theory and Modern Family scripts (I wrote seven of them), those were a really big thing to me. I was so invested in them and had high hopes about having a career breakthrough with the specs (didn't happen).

Expectation-wise, when it comes to these scripts, once I was about to start reading my favorite Modern Family spec script, I expected to see some solid stuff. I wanted to see a well written spec that had good flow and that had jokes and funny moments that would make me smile. 

However, once I finally started reading my favorite Modern Family spec, things didn't go as well as I had expected. Once I started reading, I noticed right away that I had trouble adjusting to the pacing of the script and couldn't get a proper feel of what was going on.

Indeed, no matter how hard I tried to read my story about Mitchell's big day as a courtroom lawyer and Jay & Phil going to the auction event, I just couldn't get it. Especially when it came to the storyline about Haley & Alex, I felt that what I had written was just hopeless.

Not surprisingly, based on the reading, I was now pretty confident that I had been previously wrong about the quality of this script. This one, that I knew was the 'best' Modern Family script that I had written, most certainly didn't seem to be that good in retrospect.

So based on this unexpected and unfortunate reading experience, one might have thought that I was now really disappointed about the whole thing. You might think that since my best 'old' script didn't make much sense, I would feel terrible about myself.

Yet, even though it now more or less appeared that the script wasn't even remotely as good as I had expected, that wasn't the end of the world to me. I wasn't thinking that just because this script in my opinion didn't look good at all, all was somehow lost.

Indeed, the biggest reason for that was that I had recently done bigger and more demanding projects that were more challenging story-wise. Especially when it comes to my 'two years plus' book project that required tons of talent and effort, I was in a good place now.

After all, that book project had a story that required like ten times more story beats compared to a sitcom episode. The fact that I had finally managed to come up with a full length story (with 30+ chapters) was something that really made me happy.

The second reason was that just because I felt during that day that the script didn't work, that didn't automatically mean that the script was bad. It might have been that I just had an awful day and that I hadn't been able to adapt to the sitcom format as reader.  

So not completely surprisingly, a couple of days later when I started reading the spec the second time, it turned out that my hunch was correct. As I was this time able to adapt to the sitcom format, the script suddenly started to make a lot more sense.

Indeed, even though there were some tiny mistakes in it, overall the spec was genuinely solid. The way that I had managed to read the characters, come up with solid storylines and execute such a wonderful, kind and clever script was just life-affirming.

In that sense, when it comes to this thing as a whole, I think it's pretty clear that we as writers (considering this task), every now and then, should revisit our older scripts. We should look at their quality and evaluate them, even though it might be a bit difficult to do.

After all, when you as a writer keep looking back at your earlier scripts, it - first of all - gives you perspective about yourself. It shows that over the years you have probably done a lot more things that you can even remember having done as a writer.

The second thing is that once you look at your earlier scripts, you get to know what your strengths and weaknesses are and have been. You'll get to see where you have been good at and what you can perhaps do even better when you start working on your next project.

In that sense, as I'm currently thinking about my next project, based on one of the spec scripts that I just read, I think I got some fairly good feedback from it. I got information that I can use when it comes to considering my next project and its genre.

After all, in my case, even though I haven't been feeling that great about my comedy writing skills, I shouldn't be thinking that as a writer I'm not able to write to funny stuff. I shouldn't be thinking that I'm only good at writing drama and that's where my strengths are.

On the contrary, especially when it comes to that Modern Family spec that I wrote years ago, that one is still good stuff. It's good stuff and shows that even though I've done different things lately, I can still write comedy too if I'll just decide to give it a try.

Movies that I've managed to see this November.

So even though I've been fairly busy this month, I've also managed to find some time to watch movies too. Even though we're still dealing with the pandemic and things aren't back to 'normal', I've tried to check some films in order to keep myself entertained.

Film-wise, even though there haven't been that many films that have been released lately, there have still been some old ones left to see. I've done my best to check those earlier films and see whether they're actually worth watching and worth your time.

In any case, this time, even though we're starting to run out of films, we still have three new movies to review. We have an animation called 'Sonic The Hedgehog', a prison movie called 'Escape from Pretoria' and a nazi comedy-drama called 'Jojo Rabbit'. 

So the first movie that I saw is 'Sonic The Hedgehog', an animated movie about a hedgehog based on a popular video game. In that game, that was released almost 30 years ago, a blue furred hedgehog named Sonic tries to pass levels and collect as many golden rings as possible.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to adapting a paper thin character like that into a full length movie, that is easier said than done. When you have a character that has basically no depth, dimensions or back-story, as a writer you need to get creative.

Fortunately, even though I was a bit worried about the quality of the movie, I have to say that the writers and the producers managed do a fairly good job here. Sonic as a character is pretty likable and the story in the film isn't that bad either.

Story-wise, we're dealing with a movie where Sonic, using those golden rings as a teleport, reaches our human world. Once he gets into some 'hill-billy' town in the U.S, he tries to figure out what's going on and even manages to befriend some people (James Marsden). 

Later on, once the U.S government gets some 'readings' that there's some weird things going on in the town, Sonic gets into trouble. He's being chased by a scientist mad man (Jim Carrey), who wants to kill our hedgehog in order to find out what our protagonist's secret is. 

Quality-wise, the reason that the film works well is that it has an uplifting tone to it and doesn't take itself too seriously. There are more than enough funny & silly moments in the movie and the story beats are placed well enough to keep you entertained.

In that sense, when you look at the movie as a whole, even though it has some problems (weak catalyst), it's still a fairly entertaining film. This is a solid movie, so if you haven't seen 'Sonic' yet and don't have anything better to do, you should watch it at some point. 

 

The second film that I saw this month is 'Escape from Pretoria' a movie about two white guys escaping from a prison in South Africa in the late 1970s. They decide to escape after receiving lengthy sentences for simply protesting the government's racist apartheid policies.

So when it comes to the film, one of the reasons that I watched it with my friend is that I'm a fairly big 'fan' of these escape films. I've watched most of these movies in the genre, that includes films like 'Shawshank Redemption' (fantasy) and 'Escape from Alcatraz' (actual history). 

Another reason that I wanted to see the movie - not that surprisingly - has to do with its lead actor Daniel Radcliffe. I wanted to see how well he would do in a more serious role now that the Harry Potter film series has finally come to its conclusion.

So having now seen 'Escape from Pretoria' I have to say that watching it turned out to be exactly as nerve wrecking as I had imagined. Even though I had read some spoilers about what happens in the story, that didn't stop me from being at the edge of my seat. 

Indeed, as you keep watching the film that is mostly a true story, you can't help to wonder how they were able to pull the whole thing off. You have to admire their enormous creativity and all the things they had to do in order escape from the prison.

Acting-wise, not that surprisingly, Daniel Radcliffe and the rest of the cast do a spectacular job here. They're completely believable - each and everyone of them - in their roles and you simply feel their despair when things don't seem to go their way.

Drama-wise, the only minor problem here story-wise is that the movie, especially in its first half is a bit flat in places. There aren't that many 'bad guys' or B-plots in the movie, which might explain why not everyone liked it (70% positive reviews at Rottentomatoes.com).

Still, when you look at the film as a whole, it's pretty evident that this movie works. It works well, so if you're fan of the genre and are interested to know a bit more about South Africa's apartheid phase, 'Escape from Pretoria' is a must see movie.

The third movie that I managed to see this month is 'Jojo Rabbit', a comedy-drama about a 10 year old german kid who imagines having Hitler as his friend during WWII. I managed to see the film a couple of days with my friend - who really wanted to see it.

Indeed, the fact that we actually ended up watching the film wasn't because I had huge hopes for the movie. I had seen trailer for the movie a year ago when I was at the cinema (with my Canadian friend) and wasn't impressed with the quality of it that much. 

However, having now seen the film, I have to say that my instincts about 'Jojo Rabbit' turned out to be completely wrong. There's actually a real heartfelt story here that you wouldn't guess based on its trailer (94% positive audience rating at Rottentomatoes.com).

Story-wise, the plot is about a impressionable Hitler Jugend kid who finds out that her mother is hiding a jewish girl in their attic. This reveal is what drives the movie and forces the kid to challenge his thoughts about the so called evilness of the Jews.

Quality-wise, when it comes to the overall quality of the film, the biggest reason that 'Jojo Rabbit' works so well is that it manages to mix comedy and drama elements extremely well. There's a nice balance between the different story elements throughout the movie.

Indeed, as we kept watching the film, I couldn't help but admire how well the director/writer (and the Adolf) Taika Waikiki manages to get things click. The movie does a really good job with its heartfelt and laugh out loud moments that bring out the absurdity of the war. 

Story-wise, the only minor flaw in the film is that in the middle of it the story tends to lag a bit. It kinda felt that perhaps there wasn't enough energy to keep the thing going (might have to do with the emphasis being less about the rest of the kids).

Still, when it comes to the film as a whole, there's no question that 'Jojo Rabbit' is a very good movie. This is a good movie and especially when it comes to the kids in it (Roman Griffin Davis as 'Jojo' and Archie Yates as his sidekick 'Yorki'), they absolutely steal the show here.

Thoughts on the U.S. presidential election results.

Like so many others who enjoy following U.S. politics, now that the presidential election is finally over, it has to be said that, in the end, things didn't turn out so bad. It's pretty safe to say that we can finally sigh in relief and look forward to the future at least a bit.

Indeed, even though Joe Biden wasn't that good of a candidate, he still managed to defeat President Trump in the general election. He managed to gather enough support in the crucial swing states in order to claim the presidency and beat the incumbent.

At the same time, there's no question that Biden's electoral college victory, that was almost as slim as Trump's victory over Hillary in 2016, didn't come easily. Trump managed to do way better than what the polls predicted and wasn't actually that far from winning the election.

Indeed, had Trump gotten roughly one hundred thousand more votes total in some of the swing states, he would have won the race. This would have happened, even though Biden is going to end up winning the popular vote by more than 6.5 million votes. 

So when it comes to the presidential election and its results, how did we get here and why did things happen the way they did? What were the things that contributed to Trump's loss and how on earth did Joe Biden not win the election with bigger margins than he did? 

To give you an answer, in a nutshell, the election happened the way it did for two major reasons. The first one has to do with Trump and his response to the global Covid-19 outbreak, whereas the second has to do with Joe Biden and his lackluster platform-free campaign.

So the first and perhaps the most import aspect of the election, not that surprisingly, had to do with the global Covid-19 outbreak. There's no question that Trump's administration completely bungled their response to the outbreak and did not know what they we're doing at all.

By that I mean is that as most countries took the responsible route with the virus by doing lockdowns and quarantines, the United States did not do that. For Trump, especially at the start, the outbreak was basically a Chinese hoax and not a problem at all.

Indeed, as the death toll kept steadily climbing up, that didn't faze the president. His selfish and ignorant attitude towards the virus was so blatant that it took six months before he even started using a face mask to protect himself (he got the virus a month before the election). 

In hindsight, had the Trump administration taken the 'Wuhan flu' more seriously (free masks, lockdowns, more stimulus packages etc.), they would have been in good shape for the election. The backlash - top issue for 20% of the voters - wouldn't have been as severe as it was.

At the same time, even though Trump and his administration screwed up royally, that doesn't mean that Joe Biden did that much better either. There's no question that democrats and the DNC dropped the ball big time when it came to them running their campaign.

Indeed, as incredible as it might sound, in this election Joe Biden had no nationwide 'policy based' campaign against Trump. They had no issue based messaging that would have given them direction and energy especially in the down ballot races (house + senate).  

In practice, what this meant was that instead of running on surefire winners like 'medicare for all', 'green new deal' or 'free college', they did nothing. Even though most of these issues are super popular (70%+), the party 'elites' chose not to go with them.

The really unfortunate thing about this 'orange man bad, but not all republicans are' is that you had almost nothing to vote for. Why would you vote for democrats in house & senate races when you would get nothing in return (most voted against Trump, not for Biden).

Not that surprisingly, even though polls predicted that democrats would gain seats in the house and the senate, that didn't happen. Democrats actually lost some seats in the house and only gained (so far) one senate seat, which isn't enough to give them the majority.

In contrast, every single incumbent democrat in congress who actually ran on stuff like medicare for all won their races. Not one of them lost their re-election and this included 'squad' members AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who all coasted to victories in their districts. 

In that sense, when you look at the election as a whole, it's pretty clear that this race was full of stupid stuff and unnecessary unforced errors. Both parties did completely ridiculous mistakes that turned out to be costly (fortunately Trump, unfortunately Biden).

Indeed, in Trump's case, even though his situation was challenging but not completely hopeless, he managed to make every possible mistake during the election season. He was absolutely pathetic in every imaginable way with handling the pandemic. 

Also, in Biden's case, even though he had so many advantages over Trump, he almost bungled his chances too. The fact that he didn't run on a policy like medicare for all, especially during a pandemic like this, was just mindboggling and idiotic.

Still, when you look at the election as a whole, considering that Biden ended up narrowly winning the race, the election from my point of view was a success. The fact that Biden managed to beat Trump and his neo-fascist cronies (like Stephen Miller) was certainly a good thing.

After all, even though I have tons of issues with Biden and his corporate policies, there's no doubt that he's still better than Trump with his racist anti-science administration. There's no question that Biden's win is at least a some sort of an improvement to the situation. 

In that sense, in the end, now that we're waiting for Biden to get his transition team going, I can only hope that things will go smoothly. I hope that as he starts to think about who are going to be in administration, he's able to make good decisions about his team.

After all, even though my hopes aren't that high for his presidency, it's clear the country deserves better. The U.S. as a whole deserves better and hopefully President Biden - despites his flaws - is able to do good things and is able to give the country the change that it needs.

Movies that I managed to see this October.

So even though I haven't been able to see that many movies lately, I've still managed to see some of the recently released films. I've managed to watch with my friends some of those movies that I thought looked interesting and that would be worth watching.

Indeed, even though things have been a bit challenging lately, we've tried to find time to do things together. As long as it has been possible - either in person or through skype / discord, we've managed to spend time together watching these movies.

So this time I have three interesting movies to review. I watched an animation about a girl and a Yeti called 'Abominable', a Sherlock Holmes spin-off movie called 'Enola Holmes' about his sister and 'Borat 2', a sequel to the popular Sacha Baron Cohen comedy film.

In any case, the first movie that I watched with my friend is 'Abominable', an animation from the Dreamworks studio that I watched with my friend. We watched the movie, because as fans of animations almost every animated film is worth seeing.

Premise-wise, we're talking about a movie where a Chinese girl in a big city befriends a Yeti that escapes from a research facility. Together with the help of some side-kicks, they try to avoid the bad guys and try to get the Yeti to its homeplace in Himalayas.

Quality-wise, I have to say that we were both positively surprised by the film. 'Abominable' as a movie manages to be genuinely entertaining and story-wise has a good & uplifting message in it (95% fresh rating by the audience on Rottentomatoes.com).

Indeed, as we follow our likable characters, you can't help but to be interested in what happens to them. As they get closer to their destination, you can feel how they keep growing as characters and become better as human beings (especially the self-centered guy). 

Story-wise, the only real problem in the film is that as our heroes ran into obstacles, the Yeti creature too many times comes up with magical skills out of nowhere to save them. These transitional scenes were almost too lazy and could have been better.

Still, when you think about the film as a whole, considering the entertaining nature of the film, those aspects didn't bother me too much. They weren't too serious, so if you haven't seen the movie yet, you should give 'Abominable' a chance at some point and check it out. 

So the second movie that I watched with my friend is the recent Sherlock Holmes film 'Enola Holmes'. We decided to give the film about Sherlock's sister chance once we noticed that the film was released on Netflix and was available for us both to watch.

Indeed, even though the reviews hadn't been that good (6.6/10 at IMDB.com), we thought that the adventure / mystery movie would be worth our time. It was likely that there would be enough redeeming qualities in it that we would be able to appreciate.

So when it comes to the basic premise in the film, the story is basically about Enola trying to find out what happened to her mother. Once her mother one day disappears and she doesn't contact Enola for quite some time, she feels like she has to spring into action.

Plot-wise in the movie, it won't take long before in in the story things start to get complicated. Once Enola hops on a train to go to the big city to find out more, she meets a young man who is being chased by an assassin trying to kill him for some weird reason. 

Later on, it's revealed that this young handsome man is a heir to a powerful family and that a big political decision in the kingdom is about to occur. Together they try to find out what is going on (women's suffrage) and how to save the day & stop the bad guys. 

Quality-wise, it has to be said that even though there are a lot of good things that can be said about the film, it didn't turn out to be as good as I had hoped for. It's not good enough, even though it has high production values and the acting is really good.

Story-wise, the biggest problem with the film is that it doesn't have a proper finale or a climax. The arc about Enola trying to find her mom (it's hinted that she's on dangerous mission) goes absolutely nowhere and turns out to be a huge dud (she just shows up at the end).

In that sense, even though 'Enola Holmes' has its moments and is fairly entertaining in many places, I can recommend it that much. I can't give it a high score, because even though it looks good and is well acted, the ending for the film really is that big of a disappointment.

The third and the last movie that I managed to see this month is 'Borat 2' that stars comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. This is a sequel to the comedy film that was made in 2006 about a Kazakhstani man Borat's documentary adventures in the United States.

So when it comes to the first 'Borat', the reason that the film was so popular and highly rated is that Borat's awkward character ran into all kinds of hilarious situations. Especially when it came to those interviews with various famous racist republicans, the movie was a laugh riot.

Sequel-wise, once 'Borat' became a household name in the U.S, it wasn't that easy to trick people anymore. Since almost everyone now knew the guy - with the exception of some hillbillies - he had to come up with something new this time.

Indeed, this time that 'Borat' is on mission (to bring a gift to the Trump administration), he not only has to wear disguises to fool of his targets but he also has a partner. He's this time accompanied by a young Kazakhstani woman who serves as a crucial sidekick.

Not surprisingly, like in the first movie, together these two run into all kinds of wild & ridiculous situations. We have the usual republican targets that include pro-life 'doctors', stepford wives, hillbillies, fundamentalists and 'America's mayor' Rudy Giuliani.

Quality-wise, it has to be said that me and my friends found the movie to be a laugh fest. As we watched the film during our pizza evening, I was totally laughing during most of the scenes in the film (warning: some of the bits were a bit too crass). 

Story-wise, it has to be said that the plot was okayish but could have been better too. There were some moments that weren't really that strong (especially the break-up with his sidekick) and you kinda felt that that movie lacked a direction in certain places.

Still, when you think about film as a whole, 'Borat 2' in my opinion managed to be a film worth watching. It's a film that has lots of laughs in it, so if you're a fan of political cringe comedy like this, I think it's a safe bet that you should give it a chance and watch it.

Spiderman: 'Homecoming' & 'Far From Home'.

So when it comes to my favorite superhero it's not exactly a secret that I'm a fan of the Spider-man character. This is a superhero that I've been able to relate to the best and have found his and adventures to be worth following (in movies).

Indeed, especially when it comes to the first two Sam Raimi films that starred Tobey Maguire, those movies were like they were made for me. Especially when it comes to the second one in the series, that film really managed to impress me. 

At the same time, once we were done with those two movies, things started to get considerably worse in the series. The third film was already a mess and when it came to the Andrew Garfield ones that came soon after, those movies were almost completely unwatchable.

So not surprisingly, when I noticed a couple of years ago that the franchise was being rebooted again - the second time in less than ten years, I wasn't getting excited. I didn't have my hopes up, because I didn't think these films in the franchise would get any good again.

Nevertheless, a couple of weeks ago me and my friend decided to give these new spidey-films a chance. We thought that maybe we should check them, because even though we had our doubts, there wasn't really anything else that we had in mind to watch.

So when it comes to these 'new' films, the first Spider-man movie that we watched naturally was 'Spider-man: Homecoming'. The film stars Tom Holland as our beloved Peter Parker/Spider-man who is trying to sort his problems and save the world from the bad guys.

Character-wise, it has to be said that right from the start the film manages to get something right. Once we're introduced to our protagonist, we notice that our spider-man is a likable character instead of being an unlikable jerk (the Andrew Garfield films).

Soon after, we're also introduced to the rest of the cast - the side-kick, the villain (Michael Keaton as Vulture) and Parker's crush. We get the usual beats like Parker being a student, the villain doing his things and spider-man trying to save the day - which seem promising. 

However, as the movie keeps progressing, goes past its midpoint and is about to reach its climax, it becomes more and more apparent that there's isn't much of a real story here. Even though the story beats keep coming, these short five minute cycles don't add up to much. 

Indeed, the biggest problem with the movie is that there just isn't any overarching plot or theme that would make it memorable or meaningful. The story just plods along without giving you anything that would make you feel (the film has seven credited writers). 

Quality-wise, the movie also suffers otherwise from the script being all over the place. The jokes are too crass, they don't fit in and there are even some problems with over the top 'virtue signaling' (Keaton's daughter is black, Lincoln statue racism 'joke' references etc.).

So not surprisingly, once me and my friend were done with 'Home-coming', we weren't that excited about watching 'Spider-man: Far From Home' as our next movie. Even though Holland as spider-man was pretty good, we thought that the next film wouldn't be that great.

However, having now seen 'Far From Home' too, it has to be said that this spider-man film turned out to be a much better movie than the first one was. Both me and my friend were pleasantly surprised over the quality of this movie.

Indeed, the second film - that this time takes place in Europe (in Prague, Paris, Venice, Austria, London & Berlin) - is way better written as a whole. It manages to learn from almost all of the mistakes that it made in 'Home-coming' both story- and theme-wise.

In practice, what this means is that 'Far From Home' does its best to keep things as positive as possible. Almost everyone in the cast seems to be having a good time (the characters are more likable too) and you can't help but to be invested in what happens to them.

Story-wise, we have much clearer and better arcs that not only involve Mary-Jane and Peter Parker as a couple, but also our hero's struggles with the villain. There's a lot more (emotional) interaction between the characters that give the story meaning.

In hindsight, the only real problem in the film is that the villain by Jake Gyllenhaal doesn't make enough sense and there are some plot contrivances too. Some of them were a bit too lazy for my tastes (like Mary Jane finding the villain's broken device) and were a bit lacking.

Still, when it comes to the the film as whole it has to be said that 'Spider-Man: Far From Home', quality-wise was a positive surprise. It turned out to be much more entertaining than what I had expected based on the first part in the 'new' re-rebooted series.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the latest Spider-man film in the franchise yet, I think it's safe to say that you should give it a chance. If you're a fan of superhero films and especially the Spider-man character, you should give this one chance and not be discouraged.

After all, even though the second Sam Raimi film with Tobey Maguire is still the best in the series, this latest movie is a pretty good one too. It's a pretty solid film and despite my initial low expectations managed to keep me entertained and thrilled me from its start to its finish.

Blake Snyder's beat sheet for my children's book.

So when it comes to my book writing project, it can finally be said that I have more or less completed the book. After spending tons of time writing and rewriting it, it looks like that in its current form the book is starting to get as good as it can only become.

Indeed, even though I've said it before, this time the 'story about a nine year old girl who helps others and tries to find out what happened to her father' is pretty much completed. The story works from its first to its last page and there is a nice, balanced flow in every chapter.

In any case, in order to illustrate the story a bit, I thought about showing how closely the structure in the book follows Blake Snyder's beat sheet. This is the story formula (click the link) that in my opinion is the best when it comes to explaining story in lay-man's terms.

So in the book, the first thing that happens in the story is that in its short prologue I sum up who my main character (Valerie) is and what she does [theme and set-up]. She's a curious girl who likes to help others - even homeless people - which gets her sometimes in trouble.

Arc-wise, when it comes to the story, the biggest and the most important 'goal' that she has is that she wants to know what happened to her father. This is an issue that her mother has said that she simply doesn't want to talk about until she becomes older.

Not surprisingly, since our protagonist is being raised by a single mother, financially they're not doing well. They live very frugally, which means that Valerie can't afford to have any hobbies that she would like to have - which is also why she has no friends either.

This lack of having no friends and hobbies also manifests in school where at the art class Valerie tends to draw paintings that are a bit depressing. This leads to Valerie visiting the school psychologist to talk about what to do about her problems in life [debate].

Story-wise the first big moment in the book happens [catalyst] when a new student joins Valerie's class. The new student is a girl who also happens to have a single mother - although this one is an extremely well off go-getter who only cares about her career.

Not surprisingly, Valerie and the new girl (who is overweight) quickly become friends and become a duo that has an opportunity to do things together. For once the girl has a real friend instead of her just playing alone with her expensive toys and games.

Entertainment-wise, the story really gets going [break into two] when the girl go to visit different places [fun and games] with their class. We have the usual visits to an amusement park (Valerie's friend helps her with the expenses), to the museum and some other things too. 

For Valerie, there are quite a few things that she tries to do during these parts [B story]. Even though she's not yet doing anything about her father, she tries to 1) help the neighbour who sleepwalks, 2) help the homeless man 3) find the elusive stray cat and 4) help her friend. 

Indeed, this section in the story is also when the new friend wants to change her life. Instead of being an overweight girl who likes to eat to feel better, she wants to do something about her weight problem - which leads to her to taking dancing as a hobby.

Story-wise, this is when things in many ways are at their best for both the characters. Even though they haven't yet managed to reach their goals and solve their problems, it seems like things are going their way and that 'nothing' is going to stop them. 

However, once we reach the half way in the story [mid point], this is when things slowly start to get worse. Valerie starts her quest to know what happened her to father and there are some hints that her friend's mother has some plans too that the girls won't like.

Indeed, after Valerie tries to find some information about her father from some letters that her mother keeps in her room, she wants to know more. She goes to social services office, where she sneakily manages to get information that her father is in prison serving time.

For Valerie this is obviously depressing (is she a bad person too she asks) but her friend has even worse news. The girl's greedy mother announces that she's getting a promotion in a couple of months, which means that they're going to move again then [all is lost].

Naturally, this leads to both girls getting depressed [dark night of the soul] and thinking that there isn't anything that can be done about the whole thing. They can't stop her mother's plans and it looks like that their friendship is soon going to be over.

Yet, even though things do admittedly look genuinely bleak for the girls at this point, this is still not a reason to give up. Even though things seem hopeless and horrible, all is not lost and they have to keep going and make the best out of their situation.

Indeed, once we get to the third and the final act in the story [break into three] Valerie's friend's dancing hobby becomes even more important to her. Even though her transformation doesn't always go as well as she would have wanted, she does do her very best here. 

Even more important in the third act of the book is the storyline - the most important arc in the book - that has to do with Valerie's father. This gets to the forefront again when Valerie goes to visit the homeless man - who is sick - at the hospital.

Indeed, when she visits the homeless man and tries to make the man contact his family before it's too late, she also thinks about her own father. As she writes a letter on the man's behalf, she decides that she should contact her father too (she writes a letter for her dad).

Resolution-wise, after all these events in the story, when we finally reach the [finale], we have all kinds of threads to resolve. There is the father question, Valerie's friendship, her friend's transformation, the sleepwalking neighbour and the situation with the homeless man too. 

In theory, when it comes to concluding these storylines, if I hadn't properly introduced them (setup, theme, premise), in that case the story might have gone pretty much anywhere. Had I not taken care of the stuff in the first act, I guess anything could have happened.

However, based on how things were built especially in the first part, all these storylines get a resolution that is more or less satisfying to the audience. Based on the themes and the setup that I came up with, I had no choice but to do what I did here (uplifting resolutions).

Indeed, even though in the case of the sleepwalker there is a fairly tough lesson to be learned and the same goes for the girl's greedy mom, for others I had to be as gentle as possible. This includes the storyline with Valerie's father that actually has an open ended resolution.

In that sense, when I look at the story in the book as a whole, in hindsight it's pretty clear that I managed to come up with a fairly well structured story here. I managed to come up with a story that works and makes sense when it comes to the crucial and important stuff.

After all, even though I had no prior experience in writing books, the story is really surprisingly solid here. The characters in the book are likable and relatable (which is crucial) and as a reader you want to know what happens next to them in their storylines.

Beat sheet-wise, it has to be mentioned how closely the book follows the late Blake Snyder's story structure (beat sheet calculator). Once we get past the first act, most of the beats happen almost exactly on the pages that they 'in theory' should occur. 

After all, even though the first act is bound to have some variance, the rest follow closely the beats. 'Fun & games' starts on page 56 (in theory 57), midpoint is in the middle, 'all is lost' is on page 134 (in theory 136) and 'dark night of the soul' ends on page 156 (154 in theory).

Still, when it comes to this whole thing, even though the book works and seems to be really solid, that still leaves us with one important question. Is this book that I've been working on for so long good enough to finally be published by one of the book companies out there?

After all, even though the book is now good, previous versions and attempts haven't been enough for any of the publishers. They haven't been good enough and instead the book companies have played it 'safe' with publishing others who have a built-in audience already.

Still, when it's all said and done, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the remaining publishers that are there. I'm trying to be optimistic and not give up, because even though it's hard to get published nowadays, this book that I wrote - at least in my opinion - really is worth publishing.

I didn't enjoy watching 'Schitt's Creek'.

So when it comes it to the current situation with comedy on television, it's not exactly a secret that things aren't going particularly well. Even though critics keep constantly telling us that we're living in the golden age of television, this is something that is simply not true. 

After all, even though there are a couple of watchable shows at the moment like 'The Mandalorian', especially when it comes to comedy shows, things are awful. Pretty much all the shows are unwatchable - with the exception of 'South Park' and 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.

Nevertheless, when I checked that a comedy show called 'Schitt's Creek' had won tons of awards at this year's Emmys, I had to give the show a chance. I had to check it out, even though I was pretty sure that it wouldn't be even remotely funny.

Having now watched a couple of episodes from each season 'Schitt's Creek', I have to say that I wasn't impressed by the series. There isn't much going on in here comedy-wise, even though critics liked the show (the series ended this year after season 6).

Premise-wise, 'Schitt's Creek' is about a super rich family that loses all its fortunes thanks to their deceitful manager. The only remaining asset that they have is a raggedy town that they bought decades ago, so that's where they're headed together.

On a paper this kind of premise isn't necessarily that bad or hopeless, as long as the rest of the elements in the series work. As long you'll deliver characters that are relatable and storylines that are well written, then this kind of show might perhaps work in theory.

However, when it comes to 'Schitt's Creek', even though not all the elements are completely awful, there are way too many weak links here. The superficiality and the one-dimensional aspects of the show are pretty much what sink the ship here.

Character-wise, these flaws are especially obvious when it comes to Eugene Levy's son Dan, (the co-creator and the writer of the show) and Catherine 'Home Alone' O'Hara's character. They are just way too over the top and not likable or relatable in a meaningful way.

Indeed, Dan is a fashion obsessed super queer with a squinty face and O'Hara is a former soap actress that acts even more theatrically than the most outrageous diva. These are not the types that exist at least in my universe of believable characters.

Story-wise, the series has scripts that are filled with lazy writing (weak storylines and story beats in episodes) that make the stuff seem vapid and empty. The writers don't seem to know what to do with the characters and what the show is supposed to be about.

Indeed, as I kept watching the episodes, too many of the situations are just re-takes from other tv shows that already did them before way better. There's some fairly obvious references to shows like '30 Rock' and 'Arrested Development' based on what I managed to see.

Joke-wise (don't forget the show's title), it has to be also mentioned that the series wastes way too much of its energy on over the top potty humour and pee pee jokes. This approach is not engaging and tells us how immature and out of touch the writers are.

After all, especially when it comes to 'squinty' Dan's overreactions to anything that might have to do with bodily fluids they try to extract as many scenes as possible from them. This is not funny or relatable to a normal (non Hollywood gay) audience member.

In that sense, when I look at 'Schitt's Creek' as a whole, it's pretty clear to me, based on what I've seen, that we're not dealing with a great show here. It's fairly obvious that this isn't a funny series and that there just isn't enough solid material to make the show comedic enough.

After all, even though there are some redeeming qualities here (Eugene Levy etc.) for a supposed comedy series you'd need to have more good stuff to make things click. You'd need have way better ingredients than what the writers have managed to come up with here.

Unfortunately for us, that's not what the writers managed to come up with here. They didn't come up with stuff that could make us laugh and even though there are some heartfelt moments here and there, as a whole, those things weren't enough to make 'Schitt's Creek' funny.

Movies that I've seen lately (sequels & threequels).

So when it comes to my movie watching habits, it's not exactly a secret that lately there hasn't been that many films to watch. Ever since the covid-19 interrupted our daily lives, there haven't been that many new films out there to watch and to review. 

Nevertheless, since there haven't been new films that have been released, that's not a reason not watch movies. In my case I've tried to check some of the earlier movies that I have missed and see whether they would be worth watching.

When it comes to the films I've seen this time we have three movies (all sequels or threequels) to review. We have an animated film called the 'Angry Birds 2', a '24 / Jack Bauer' type film called 'Angel has Fallen' and a fantasy / adventure film called 'Jumanji: The Next Level'. 

So the first film that I watched is 'Angry Birds 2', a sequel to the first 'Angry Birds' movie. This is a film series based on a popular cell phone game, where you as a player control 'angry birds' characters and try your best to beat the 'bad piggies'.

Premise-wise, it shouldn't come as a surprise that making movies out of this concept was a bit of a challenge. Since we're dealing with a franchise where the characters had zero depth, making a film out of them didn't seem 'organic'. 

Not surprisingly, when it comes to the story in the second film, it has to be said that 'Angry Birds 2' - like the first one  - isn't a particularly well written movie. The second film in the series isn't great, even though there are some redeeming qualities here. 

Story-wise, the biggest problem in the film by far is that there isn't enough solid story beats & quality material in the screenplay. The beats that the writers came up don't justify the film's 1h 30 min plus length, even though there are some laughs here and there.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the completely pointless and unconnected side-story and the hit songs that the movie played every five minutes or so were pretty obvious. They got old very fast and were there only to add to the film's running time.

On a plus-side, there's no question that the production values in the film are really solid. The animation in the film is really good (the movie had a meager 70 million dollar budget) and there's no question that the voice acting is really solid and enjoyable too.

Still, when you look at the problems in the story of the film (the villain's motivation is especially weak), these flaws in the story are just too much. They're too serious and at least in my case, prevented me from enjoying the movie.

The second film that I managed to watch this week is 'Angel Has Fallen'. This the third movie in the 'Olympus / London / Angel Has Fallen' series where Gerard Butler's secret service agent does his best to save the president and the world.

The reason that I watched this is because I thought that I could use some 'Jack Bauer / 24' stuff now that show has been over for years. I thought that 'the Fallen' franchise would likely be entertaining enough, even though I didn't expect anything awesome.

So when it comes to the story in the film, it doesn't take long before '24' things start happening in the movie. Once we're done with the introduction stuff that involves a 'token' training session disguised as a real action scene, things get going.

Indeed, the 'incident' in the movie happens -  during the president's (Morgan Freeman) fishing trip - when the terrorists attack the potus. He and his security detail (that includes our protagonist) are attacked by terrorists with a swarm of bomb carrying drones.

A bit later, when our protagonist manages to save the president by going underwater (potus falls into coma), things get more complicated. The FBI suspects that it's Butler's character who is behind the whole thing (they have the 'evidence' too) and he's arrested. 

Naturally, in order to prove that he's innocent and that he's being framed, our protagonist escapes from his captors. He escapes during a transportation ride and starts his quest to find out what really happened - while the bad guys & the cops are chasing him. 

Plot-wise, I have to say that 'Angel has Fallen' is not even a remotely well written movie. The screenplay is incredibly contrived and there are so many convoluted moments where you can only shake your head in disbelief with how stupid the movie is. 

On a plus-side, perhaps the 'only' saving grace about the film has to do with some of the action scenes and the two leads. Both Gerald Butler's character and his dad (Nick Nolte) are really good (especially Nolte steals every scene that he's in).

Still, when it comes to the movie as a whole, unless you have a huge craving for a '24esque' stuff, this film is not for you. 'Angel has fallen' is not a good movie and despite its box office success, I wouldn't recommend it to almost anyone. 

So the third and the last movie that I've seen lately is 'Jumanji: The Next Level'. This a movie that is a sequel to the 'Jumanji' reboot - a film about people that get sucked into an 80s video game as the game's various characters.

So when it comes to this movie, the biggest reason that I watched it was because I was genuinely curious about the quality of the movie. I was curious because I had seen seen the trailer last year in a movie theater with my dear friend and wasn't that impressed.

After all, the trailer had a lot of 'silly' things that seemed kinda 'hip' desperate to me. There was stuff like 3d character cards on the screen, the characters being in the wrong bodies / the banter and those attacking baboons - among other things.  

Fortunately, having now seen the film (I haven't seen the first reboot yet), I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. Against my expectations, 'Jumanji: The Next Level' turned out to be a pretty watchable and an entertaining film.

Indeed, as a movie one of the very best things if not the best thing about 'Jumanji' is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. There's a lot of silly fun going on in here and it feels like everyone in the cast is genuinely having a good time. 

Story-wise, the film manages to be fairly well written and logical. Once the gang joins the game and is taken to the 'Jumanji' adventure, the internal logic in the story / game kicks in and stays pretty consistent throughout the movie.

Plot-wise, even though most of the story works, it has to be said that the inciting incident in the movie is weak. There wasn't really much of an explanation why our hero decides to - again - enter the game (the girlfriend stuff was really weak and made no sense).

Still, when I think of 'Jumanji: The Next Level' as a whole, this flaw in the story isn't that critical. It wasn't enough to make the audience not like the film and not want for more (the fourth one is going to be made later based on Dwayne Johnson's schedule). 

In that sense, if you haven't seen 'Jumanji: The Next Level' yet, I think you should give it a chance. You should give it a chance, because even though the movie isn't great per se, it's still be pretty entertaining and manages to put you on a good mood.

The 60 percent rule in the (re)writing process.

When it comes to writing in general, it's not exactly a secret that I'm not the biggest fan of rules in storytelling. Even though there are certain 'rules' that are useful in coming up with a good story, you shouldn't get too strict with your story structure and how the script is put together.

After all, if someone tells you that a specific story event has to happen on an certain page or that it needs to have a certain 'cliche' event in the script, that is usually not good advice. You shouldn't think too much of that person's storytelling expertise.

At the same time, just because there are no super strict rules in storytelling, that doesn't mean that there aren't any guidelines that you should follow. There are things about the process that you should be aware of and that knowing them will make you a better writer. 

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that lately I've been (still) doing some rewrites on my children's book. During these rewrites I've ran into challenges in the story that I didn't know were going to be as exhausting as I had thought they would be.

By that I mean is that when I started doing this rewrite, at first it wasn't that exhausting to do. Even though I had some struggles with getting the first third 'exactly' right (spent like a week on one scene), it was still mostly 'brute force' and going through different permutations.

However, when I was finally content and happy with the first half and got to the second half, rewriting the book really started to take a toll on me. When the story got past its 'fun & games' and 'midpoint' beats, things started to get considerably worse for me emotionally.

The reason for this is that when it comes to polishing your script, there is this age old '60% rule' or theory that has to do with your story's second half. Once you reach the 60% mark page-wise, especially in the rewriting process, things might get tough for you.

Psychologically speaking, the reason for this is that when your characters start to get in real trouble ('bad guys closing in', 'all is lost') in the story beats, the writer will also experience these feelings. You can sense that things are going to get worse soon.

The thing that can make these 'bad guys are closing in' scenes difficult is that if you're not feeling physically and mentally well, they will affect your writing performance. You might feel that your story doesn't have enough direction or energy and that your project is just hopeless.

Indeed, in my case, since I didn't manage to polish and fix those minor mistakes fast enough - despite having a good story structure, I felt absolutely terrible. Every mistake that I made felt like a million times worse than had I made them in the other parts of the story.

In contrast, rewriting-wise, it's so much easier to rewrite and polish when you're dealing with the first half of the story in the script. This is when the characters are - more or less - regardless of the genre having 'relatively' good time (Blake Snyder's 'fun & games'). 

After all, as I was rewriting these earlier chapters (my characters were in an amusement park), it wasn't really a problem. Even though I was stressed, fixing the mistakes wasn't that difficult to do because it was 'fun & games' structure-wise (instead of 'all is lost').

In that sense, when it comes to story structure as a whole and its certain challenges, it's safe to say that you should know that the task can be really stressing. You should know that sometimes getting yourself super exhausted is almost an inevitable part of the process.

After all, when you set your standards high as a writer and when you're trying to write stuff that is as good as possible, that will create challenges. Especially when it comes to the latter part in the script this is when your mental fortitude is being tested.

In that sense, in the end, if you ever get yourself in trouble in your rewriting process and feel like you're going to lose your mind in the latter half of the script, you shouldn't lose your hope. You shouldn't think that the task is too hard and too difficult for you.

After all, even though it's possible that you're in trouble because your story has structural problems, that is not always the case. You shouldn't give up and discount the idea that you're emotionally hitting the wall because you're tired and your characters are in trouble.

On the contrary, if that is indeed the reason, in that case you just need take a break from the rewriting process. You need to take a break from the project and not come back until you feel that your mind is clear and you feel that you're able to come up with good stuff again.