'Bohemian Rhapsody' is a really good movie.

A couple of days ago me and my friend had a chance to watch 'Bohemian Rhapsody', a biographical movie about the band 'Queen' and its singer, Freddie Mercury. We saw the movie after getting tickets to the film's premiere last Saturday.

The reason that we decided to watch the film wasn't actually that obvious. I didn't feel that excited about watching the biopic, since a lot of the movie critics hadn't liked the movie that much (only 59% fresh on Rottentomatoes.com).

Nevertheless, having now seen 'Bohemian Rhapsody', it has to be said that the film was much better than I expected. It was so good that I don't really understand why critics thought that the movie was somehow lacking and wasn't good enough.

After all, critics - for some weird reason - have complained that movie isn't all that great as a whole. The story in the film is supposedly too 'formulaic',  it doesn't show enough of Freddie's 'dark side' and doesn't make him 'gay enough' either.

The biggest problem that I have with these kind of critiques is that they - in my opinion - miss the point of the film completely. 'Bohemian Rhapsody' was not produced so that it could be as dramatic or as serious (depressing) as possible.

In reality, the film was made so that it could be as entertaining as possible and that it could make people feel good about themselves. It wasn't going to be another 'Freddie's got Aids' movie that the critics were hoping for.

So when it comes to the story in the movie, even though the film is genuinely dramatic in parts and depicts Freddie (Rami Malek) as a gay man (or bisexual), that's not all there is to it. The focus is a lot more on the band and how it became so successful.

Indeed, this decision to pay attention to all the characters works really well. The movie concentrating on the group dynamics of the band and their creative process works much better than just focusing on Freddie's private life.

After all, throughout the movie there's a really nice balance between the cast members and it manages to keep the dramatic and the comedic elements balanced. This harmony in the story gives the movie its much needed energy and its uplifting tone.

In that sense, I can't help but to think that had the film been about Freddie and had it been too serious, it probably wouldn't have worked. The filmmakers wouldn't have managed to capture what made the band work so well together.

After all, had the critics had gotten their way, we probably would have gotten a miserable 'art' film instead. We would have gotten a movie about all the bad moments in Freddie Mercury's life, that would have only been liked by the critics.

In the end, thankfully 'Bohemian Rhapsody's' turned out to be as good as it did. We are lucky that we got a film that is so full of positive energy and that didn't take its audience for granted when it comes to entertaining us.

After all, especially when it comes to scenes where the band performs songs (like in 'Live Aid'), those moments were absolutely incredible. The energetic songs fit in perfectly with the rest of the movie and made the film what it is.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the movie yet, you should see it. You should see the film, because even though critics didn't like 'Bohemian Rhapsody' that much, at least in my view, the film was superbly made and managed to exceed all my expectations.

Your movie's story needs to be consistent.

When it comes to the craft of storytelling, it's not exactly a secret that writing good screenplays isn't easy. Writing a story that makes sense and works from start to finish isn't something that can be done if you don't take your craft seriously.

After all, there are so many mistakes that you can make with your screenplays. If you don't manage to keep your script plausible and consistent, you won't be able to come up with a story that keeps your audience entertained throughout its length.

So when it comes to an actual movie that has a lot of these consistency problems, let's look at Roland Emmerich's film 'White House Down'. This is a movie (released in 2013) that has a lot of  problems when it comes to its focus and plausibility.

In essence, the movie is about U.S Capitol Police Officer (Channing Tatum) and his daughter (Joey King). These two find themselves in the middle of a hostage situation when terrorists manage to invade and take control of the White House.

So when it comes to the story in the film, it has to be said that the first act of the movie (first 35 minutes or so) is actually rather well written. This is when the story feels plausible and you're interested in what's going on.

By that I mean that the movie - for once - doesn't rush things and takes its time in introducing us to the characters. The divorced cop (an underdog) and his smart-ass daughter are in a situation that most of us are able to relate to.

So when things finally escalate in the story, you feel that the movie has potential to be something solid. When a bomb goes off at the capitol hill and the white house gets invaded - the main protagonists are there on a tour - the movie makes sense.

However, the big problems in the film begin when it becomes apparent that the story is not that much about our protagonists. At roughly 40 minute mark, the focus of the film changes pretty drastically - and not in a good way.

After all, this is when it's revealed that this is not a simple hostage movie. It is revealed that the evil 'mastermind' of the movie is not the head of the terrorist group - but the head of the secret service detail (James Woods).

Unfortunately, from that moment on, the movie gets increasingly more convoluted and more implausible. It keeps introducing tons of new - fairly ridiculous - characters to the story that aren't needed and that make the film lose its focus.

Especially when it comes to the hacker (villain), the innocent wife of the mastermind (who agrees with the plot!) and the speaker of the house (part of the plot too), the movie falls apart. It loses its focus and isn't about the father and the girl anymore.

In that sense, when you think about this movie and screenwriting in general, it's clear that quality writing is not about making your script too convoluted. It's not a good idea to write stuff that is all over the place and that doesn't know what it's about.

After all, if you decide to come up with stupid ideas like adding completely implausible plot twists - like the convoluted plot concerning the speaker of the house - things won't work. There are clearly limits to what you're allowed to do in your scripts.

In the end, that was the reason that 'White House Down' didn't work. The writers - as unfortunate as it is - didn't trust their premise or characters and kept adding stuff that didn't make sense and that didn't raise the stakes believably.

After all, instead of the movie concentrating on the father / daughter relationship and keeping the script tighter, it did the total opposite. The film more or less went from a solid, tight movie to a ridiculous 'nukem all' mess.

In that sense, it's really unfortunate that 'White House Down' didn't have a better script. It's too bad that its script was that bad, because had the writers paid more attention to the basics, this could actually have been a fairly solid movie.

I managed to watch some movies again.

Over the last few weeks, me and my friend have managed to watch some movies together again. We managed to watch some of the recently released films that we were hoping would turn out to be worth our time and worth watching.

After all, we didn't really have that high expectations for most of these movies. We were just hoping that some of these films would keep us entertained and that they would not be completely awful and horrible as movies.

In any case, below are my short reviews and opinions on the three films that we watched. We managed to see 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom', an action/sci-fi 'B'-movie called 'Upgrade' and 'Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation'.

So the first film that we managed to watch is 'Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom'. This is a movie that we decided to watch, even though we didn't have our hopes up - since we had already seen the first one (Jurassic World).

After all, 'Jurassic World' (2015), in all honesty, was a horribly weak and unnecessary remake itself. It had none of the good qualities that had made the original 'Jurassic Park' (1993) watchable and a well made movie.

Not surprisingly, even though we had tiny hopes that this new movie would be even remotely watchable or entertaining, it wasn't that. This sequel did not offer anything that would have made it better than the first remake.

On the contrary, 'Fallen Kingdom's' story was so awful that every aspect of the story reeked of desperation and the writers running out of ideas. There was nothing original or plausible in the story that was completely ridiculous.

Especially when it came to the 'plot' of the film (stealing & black market selling the dinos), I was only able to shake my head and wonder how idiotic the writers and the producers were. The movie really made no sense at all.

The second movie that we watched is 'Upgrade', a sci-fi movie about a paralyzed man who gets his life back when a microchip is inserted to his body. This microchip contains a program (and a 'master') that allows the protagonist to use his limbs again. 

When it comes to this movie, I have to say that 'Upgrade' wasn't actually a bad film per se. There are certainly positive aspects of the film that make it fairly interesting and watchable (my friend liked it a bit more than I did). 

For example, there's no question that the film has an interesting premise. The movie is well acted, its action scenes are pretty well made - considering the movie's low budget - and parts of the film even managed to be humorous. 

At the same time, 'Upgrade' suffers from a screenplay that isn't that well thought out. Especially when it comes to the movie's third act and finale, the story gets entirely too convoluted and doesn't have a clear point of view.

By that I mean that once the 'artificial intelligence' takes control of the protagonist, that stuff pretty much comes out of nowhere. The stuff doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie and I felt like I was watching an episode of 'The Outer Limits' instead.

Still, that doesn't mean that for those who like action films, this is a no-go movie. Even though the screenplay for the film isn't 'A'-grade and the movie is probably too violent, 'Upgrade' is still a film that you likely should watch at some point.

The third and final movie that we watched is the animated film 'Hotel Transylvania 3'. The series is about a Vampire family (father, daughter and her human husband) that keeps a hotel in Transylvania for its numerous guests.

The reason that we watched the film is because we had enjoyed the first two instalment of the series. The first two movies were pretty well made and you couldn't help but to like the characters and the uplifting tone that they had.

When it comes to the third 'Hotel Transylvania', it has to be said that the story in the third one is not as good as in the previous two instalments. The premise of the 'whole gang going on a holiday on a love boat' isn't that strong.

At the same time, just because the story is a bit laggy, that doesn't mean that I wasn't able to enjoy the film as a whole. I'm not saying that the weak parts (weak catalyst etc.) were able to outweigh the good parts in it.

On the contrary, especially when it comes to the dance scenes in the third act and the film's 'love' angle in the latter half of the second act, those parts made the movie. They were well executed and made me feel pretty happy.

In that sense, even though 'Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation' could have been a better film, it's still a solid movie. It's a solid movie that you should watch, even though its screenplay could have been more plausible and better written.

Why are most screenwriting books so bad?

Over the last ten or so years, I've spent a lot of time trying to learn movie writing. I've spent countless hours reading and re-reading books that are supposed to give you insight on the basics of storytelling and how to become a better screenwriter.

After all, since writing screenplays is fairly difficult, I thought that it wouldn't hurt to get these books and read them. I thought that there was a good chance that reading these books would help me and would make it easier to write a screenplay om my own.

Unfortunately, having now read almost all of the popular 'how-to' books that are out there, it has to be said that almost all of them are horrible. Almost all of these books are awful and are written by authors who don't know much about movie writing.

In order to show why most of the screenwriting books are so useless, let's look at Robert McKee's 'Story'. This is a screenwriting book that supposedly teaches you 'Award-Winning' methods about the craft and is one of the best 'how-to' guides out there.

So when it comes to this book, the biggest problem with 'Story' is that its advice isn't simple to understand at all. Instead of the book giving you practical advice that you could use, the author is much more interested in confusing the reader as much as possible.

For example, when it comes to those fundamental aspects of storytelling like story beats and story structure, there's very little useful material in the book. I just couldn't get a clear picture of what was going on, no matter how many times I read it.

In hindsight, the reason that the book is so confusing is that before it starts to talk about crucial stuff like the premise or the film's protagonist, we're already one third into the book. This is not good at all and in most cases will turn the reader off.

In reality, the story always starts with the premise of the film and what your main character(s) is going to be like. This is the most important part of the story, yet the author doesn't bring it up before we've reached page one hundred in the book.

Still, the most confusing thing about 'Story' has to do with its diagrams that are supposed to illustrate story structure. These illustrations (see below) that look like electrical circuit diagrams, are confusing and even contain 'false' information.

For example, even though McKee keeps repeating throughout the book how important it is that your scenes alternate between positive and negative (emotionally speaking), as a writer I have never paid any attention to this supposed 'fact'.

On the contrary, I'm pretty sure that paying attention to these ups and downs is redundant and will only make your scripts worse. I just don't see why anyone should worry about this stuff that seems to have 'voodoo science' written all over it.

That same way, I would also be cautious about (again the pic above) overanalysing the characters' desires or their conflicts. I don't see why one should get too obsessed with these different levels of conflicts, because storytelling isn't really that complicated.

After all, even though you obviously need to have characters that are interesting, them having  direction, energy and purpose (a goal) is what counts the most. Writing movies is not about creating characters that are too complicated and too confused.

In that sense, when I think about books like Robert McKee's 'Story', it's clear that reading them is likely going to make you feel confused about the craft. These are not books for those who want to learn the fundamentals of storytelling and story structure.

After all, paying too much attention to books like McKee's (& John Truby's etc.) will only make you less confident. Worrying about stuff like those diagrams will only make you postpone your own projects and make you think that you don't have it in you as a writer.

In the end, I can only be grateful that in my case - after first reading the bad books - I found stuff that was actually helpful and easy to understand. Solid books like Blake Snyder's 'Save The Cat' series gave me hope and helped me to write my own screenplay.

After all, unlike those other books, 'Save The Cat' didn't try to make the process any harder than it is. Instead of confusing the reader, it gave me a simple 'story formula' that felt natural and wasn't too restrictive in its approach to story structure.

In that sense, if you want to become a screenwriter, you should read those good books instead of the bad ones. You should read the good ones, because they are the ones that can help you and that can give you the chance to understand what storytelling really is about.

You shouldn't overthink things as a writer.

When it comes to writing, it's not exactly a secret that it's not easy to come up with quality stuff. Writing stuff that makes sense and has value is something that takes a lot of effort and is something that should never be taken for granted.

After all, in order to be able to write quality scripts, you have to work hard and use your precious brain well. You can't slack with your projects and phone things in, no matter how good or capable you might be as a screenwriter.

At the same time, just because writing quality stuff is hard work and is difficult, it shouldn't be something that is too difficult for you. You shouldn't find yourself in situations where you worry about the process too much or you keep overthinking yourself to death.

For example, when it comes to my book writing project (adaptation from a movie script), I was in a lot of trouble because I kept overthinking things all the time. I couldn't see things clearly and I kept freaking out about what I was supposed to do.

The biggest reason for my problems was basically that I had no previous experience in writing a book. I didn't know enough about writing a children's book, even though I knew a lot about writing for television and movies. 

In practice, overthinking stuff lead to me constantly overanalysing and micromanaging things. I worried about things like paragraphs, transitions and character dialogue so much, that at some point I couldn't see the forest for the trees anymore.  

Me worrying and overthinking become so serious that I started to feel that I wouldn't get the project finished. I thought that there was no way that I would get the book completed and that my story wasn't suitable for the adaptation.

Thankfully, at some point I managed to take a break from writing and went back to learning more about the craft. I went back and read books like Enid Blyton's 'Five Series' in hopes that I would get some insights on how to write my book.

Fortunately, it didn't take long before I noticed that reading these children's books helped me immensely. I noticed that I had been panicking in most cases for no reason at all and that I had actually been doing the right things all along.

After all, even though I had worried about everything, I noticed that I could get away with a lot of things. Things like my scene transitions weren't actually that bad and my dialogue for the characters was pretty solid too.

In that sense, when you think about overthinking, it's clear that the process has a lot to do with  experience (or the lack of it). It's about feeling insecure of yourself and not having confidence in how things are supposed to be done.

After all, if you don't know enough about the basics of writing novels, it's no surprise that you're going to feel uncomfortable about the craft. You're going to start panicking and overthinking everything, no matter how talented you might be.

In the end, I can only be grateful that in my case I managed to take a break from writing and went back to learn more about the craft. I can only be grateful that I noticed that I was micromanaging everything and that I was starting to feel awful about myself.

After all, even though I had a lot of experience as a writer, the fact that I hadn't written books or even read that many of them made my project so vulnerable. My lack of experience as novel writer wasn't a good thing at all.

In that sense, if you ever decide to write a book, you really should study the basics first as well as possible. You should study the basics and make sure that you feel comfortable about your genre before you start your writing.

After all, the more you know about the craft, the easier it becomes to get the project done. The more you know about how the basics and the fundamentals work, the easier it becomes to complete a project that has value and that makes sense.

I watched some random television shows again.

When it comes to my television watching habits, I haven't lately been watching that many tv shows. Even though I have tried to follow my favourite reality shows (The Amazing Race & Survivor), I haven't been watching anything else on a regular basis.

That of course doesn't mean that I haven't had my tv open when I have had free time during the evenings. After all, I tend to channel surf almost every day, in case there happens to be something interesting on that could be worth my time.

In any case, below are three different shows that I managed to watch while I was flipping channels last week. I watched these shows and gave them a chance, even though I more or less knew that I would not enjoy all of them.

So the first show that I watched was an episode of the 'New MacGyver' series. I managed to watch most of episode S2x20, 'Skyscraper - Power', that aired Wednesday night when I  felt tired and was just about go to sleep.

The problem with this particular episode was that it had none of the qualities of the original 'MacGyver' series from the 80s. There wasn't really anything that would make you care about the characters or what happens to them.

After all, the original series was not just a great action show that kept you entertained. It was also a genuinely intelligent series that dealt with all kinds of social and environmental issues that are important and that we should be aware of.

When it comes to this new series, it just doesn't have any of those qualities at all. The episode in which Mac and Jack are trying to save a kid from a skyscraper after the kid gets kidnapped, was pretty bad and bland.

Especially when it came to the episode's pop culture references (Die Hard), I have no idea what the writers were thinking. It was really frustrating to keep hearing dialogue from the Bruce Willis film over and over again.

The second show that I managed to watch is AMC's long running zombie series 'The Walking Dead'. I saw its episode S8E06, 'The King Widow and Rick', when I was watching Fox channel at 2.30 a.m. in the morning last Sunday.

When it comes to this zombie series, I haven't exactly been a regular viewer, even though I have nothing against the show either. I have tried to give the series a chance if I haven't had anything else to do during the weekends.

After all, there's something genuinely fascinating about human beings trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world. The circumstances - in which the society has fallen apart and there's very little hope left - is pretty fascinating in my opinion.

At the same time, when it comes to this particular episode, S8E06 was, as sad as it is, super repetitive and had nothing going for it. It was clear that the writers had no story and that they were just trying to create as much filler as possible.

Especially when it came to the wounded character (Ezekiel), who kept falling down again and again and who told others that he should be left behind again and again, that was not entertainment. Clearly this was an episode that was difficult to finish.

My last example is the sitcom 'Superior Donuts' that aired on CBS from 2017 to 2018 for two seasons. I managed to watch the pilot episode for the comedy series last Saturday, when I kept flipping channels and tried to find something that would entertain me.

When it comes to the series about a donut shop and its employees, I was somewhat positively surprised by it. The series has a simple, down to earth premise, which makes it possible for its characters and storylines to be relatable and likable.

The writing on the show, surprisingly enough, was also solid for a multi-cam (laugh track) comedy series. The pacing in the pilot episode was pretty good and the jokes came naturally of the situations - which I didn't really expect to happen.

Still, the best thing about the show had to do with its acting. Especially when it comes to the comedy veteran Judd Hirsch, it was simply incredible to watch a guy in his eighties (!) have as much as energy as he has here.

In that sense, if you happen to be on a channel that plays this show, you should watch it. You should watch it, because even though 'Superior Donuts' is not a great show, it's still a series that manages to get solid laughs from its premise and its likable characters.

The importance of learning from your mistakes.

When it comes to one being a writer, it's not exactly a secret that writing is a process that isn't easy to master. It's not a craft that can be mastered easily, even though it's possible to become better at it if you're willing to practice hard enough.

After all, no matter how talented you are, you will always make a lot of mistakes as a writer. No matter how good or experienced you might be, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will always make mistakes in the process.

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that I have been making a lot of these 'mistakes' in my latest writing project. Ever since I started adapting my animated screenplay into a novel, I have been struggling with all kinds of things.

Very likely the biggest problem that I have had with the book adaptation has to do with the story's pacing. It has been a really big challenge to make the story work, so that the novel could actually read like a book instead of it reading like a film script.

By that I mean that when it comes to writing books, the process is certainly different compared to writing television shows or movies. Especially when it comes to exposition in scenes and transitions, there are a lot of differences between these two art forms.

After all, writing books, unlike writing movies or television scripts, is not all about being as simplistic as possible. Writing books - or simply even reading them - requires so much more attention to detail compared to television shows or movies.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to my book, I have learned the hard way that writing dialogue or simply describing events like they are in the film script isn't enough. It takes more to make the scenes and the characters in the story to feel real and believable.

Naturally, this part of the task hasn't been as easy as I had thought at first. It has been super frustrating when I haven't been able to get the pacing and the transitions right, even though I have tried to pay attention to these aspects of the process a lot.

In reality, no matter how much I have tried, some of the problems in the adaptation have been painfully difficult to fix. It hasn't been easy to write inner dialogue, manage timelines and create composite characters so that the story could have a better flow.

Still, just because I have been struggling and making these mistakes, that doesn't meant that this project has been a total letdown for me. Just because it has felt horrible to not get things right, that's not all there is to this process.

After all, whenever I have faced things that haven't gone my way, I have tried to remind myself that just because I keep making mistakes, I can still learn from them. As long as I pay attention to where I went wrong, I can fix these mistakes later.

In that sense, even though I've had my bad days during this project, this has still been a great learning experience for me. This has been a great project, even though there are days when nothing seems to work and you really have to push yourself.

After all, as long as I keep learning and keep fixing these mistakes, eventually I'll get the project done. I'll get the project done and I'll get a chance to work on something new that would challenge me and that could make me a better writer.