'The Mitchells vs. The Machines' movie review.

So when it comes watching animated movies, whenever I see that a new animated film is being released, it's pretty safe to say that I'm more than excited to watch that movie. As long its reviews are even borderline acceptable to me, I'm gonna give the film a chance. 

Indeed, for me animated films usually provide a wonderful moment to forget my worries in life. As long as these movies are even remotely well made, watching them gives me hope and a chance to think about those better things about life.

In any case, this time me and my friend managed to watch together a movie called 'The Mitchell's vs. the machines'. This is a movie about a family that find itself in situation where the machines take over the world - and they're humanity's last and only chance.

Expectation-wise, based on the reviews the movie had received (97% fresh at Rottentomatoes.com by the critics and 89% fresh by the audience), it looked that this film would be a treat. I was confident that it would be well made and enjoyable as a whole.

Unfortunately, having now seen the film a couple of days ago, I have to say that I wasn't really impressed by the quality of the movie. Especially when it comes to its story and screenplay, the film is really poorly written and leaves so much to be desired. 

Story- & premise-wise, one of the biggest if not the biggest problem with 'The Mitchells vs. Machines's is that it doesn't know what it's about. It tries to be at least two different movies in one (in two different genres), without succeeding in either one of them.

By that I mean is that first, during its first 20 minutes, we are introduced to a family film about a daughter, who is leaving to college. As the family (dad especially) is feeling sad about the event, the story points to a sentimental family film that has to do with 'reflecting'.

However, once the dad and the family (for absolutely no reason) decide to go on a road trip to take the daughter to her out of state college, things change. We're now introduced to a story sequence (and new characters) that shows how the machines are taking over the world.

Plot-wise, what is really bizarre about this 'twist' is that this 'machines taking over' more or less comes out of nowhere. Before these sequences almost nothing in the story suggested that we would be dealing with some kind of a wacky survival film here.

Structure-wise, the really big problem with this '2 movies in 1' is that it can't be pulled off successfully. It will only result in everything being completely muddled, like the 'adhd'-pacing and the themes being constantly off and things never happening when they should.

Indeed, as we kept watching the film, all I could see was a film full of events that had plot holes (the only family to not be captured?!), comedy bits that were rushed and emotional moments that were incredibly half assed. None of the stuff felt satisfying or entertaining.

Not that surprisingly, once this overlong movie (1h 50 mins) finally ended, all I could think of was that the whole thing was a complete disaster. How on earth were people able to make a 100 million dollar movie with a script that was so bad and so full of flaws.

In that sense, when it comes to 'Mitchells vs. the machines' as a whole, I think it's obvious that from a writer's perspective, this not a movie that is easy to recommend. There are really that many problems with the film's overall concept and story that can't be ignored.

After all, even though - as usual - there's no question that the movie looks and sounds really good, that's not all there is to it to making a solid film that can entertain you. You still need to have a good story in it that actually works and makes sense.

Unfortunately for us, in the end, that's not what the producers (Lego movies) were able to do. They weren't able to give us an entertaining film, so the end result is a movie that instead of being well made, at least story-wise, is amateurish on almost every imaginable level.

Writing: how long does it take to get a good idea?

So when it comes to writing and getting ideas for your writing projects, it's not a secret that coming up with ideas isn't usually easy. For most writers, coming up with ideas that are good enough and that have potential is a real struggle that takes a lot of hard work.

Indeed, even though writing the script is the most time consuming task in the whole process, first you need to be able come up with that premise for your script. That is something that requires effort for most and shouldn't be overlooked in the big picture.

So when it comes to getting those ideas, how long 'on average' are you supposed to be spending on getting those solid & executable ideas? How long does it usually take before you feel 'comfortable' enough get started and how much work is required from you? 

Project-wise, we have basically three writing categories that need to be discussed: 1) ideas that are good enough for basic articles 2) executable ideas for thirty minute sitcoms / one hour dramas and 3) solid ideas for movie screenplays & books.  

So the first and by far the easiest category is of course the article writing category. This is the category where it's easiest and fastest to get ideas that can be turned into articles (1000-2000 words) that your readers will hopefully enjoy reading.

In practice, if you're actively trying to come up with an idea, my experience (more than 400 hundred articles) is that it usually takes a day or two to come up with an idea. This is if I'm actively trying to find something creative to write about (I don't count reviews as ideas).

The second category is the one that has to deal with coming up episode ideas for television sitcoms and dramas (existing tv shows). This is where you're already going to spend considerably more time trying to come up with a solid premise to write on.

Based on my experiences as a tv spec writer (nine specs total), I've usually spent about a week actively trying to come up with an idea that has potential. It might easily take 40 hours of staring at a blank paper before something clicks, so you need be prepared for it.

The third and the most time consuming category is the movie script / book format. This is the category that isn't easily quantifiable and where the terms passive / active thinking come a lot more to play when you look at how long it takes to get things in order.

Based on my experience, if you're 'passively' getting ideas for a new project, you can  spend a year before you get a solid premise. If you're not actively pursuing a new idea, it's going to take a lot more time to get started (bookmarking, casually writing down stuff etc.).  

On the other hand, if you're actively coming up with a potential story arc, it's still not going to be easy on average. You're probably going to spend at least a month trying to do some initial world building, planning and structuring that could lead to something solid.

In that sense, when it comes to the question of how long it takes (and realistically should take) to come up with ideas for your projects, it really depends. It depends on the size of the project and how actively you're willing to work to get those ideas.

After all, first, if your task is a relatively simple one (article writing etc.) and you're willing to actively work to get those ideas, it might not take that long. In that case you might get an idea even the same day, so you'll get to the writing part of the project really quickly.

On the other hand, if you're thinking about starting a big project like a book and aren't actively planning to get ideas, that's when it's going to take a lot more time. In that case, it might take a year or more before you'll get an idea that is good enough and that has enough potential.

Retro tv reviews: 'Police Squad!'

So when it comes to the current television comedies that are available out there. it's not exactly a secret that things aren't that great at the moment. It's not easy to find anything funny on television that would be even remotely worth watching.

After all, when you combine the fact that there hasn't been any new breakout hit tv comedies in years and that we're also dealing with the covid-19 outbreak, things are really looking break. It's almost impossible to turn on your tv and find a sitcom that could make you laugh.

Fortunately, even though pretty much none of the current tv shows are funny, I've been able to go back check some older stuff. I've managed to find time to watch comedies that aired decades ago and that I hadn't seen in a long time.

Indeed, the latest 'classic' show that I've watched with my friends is Leslie Nielsen's 'Police Squad'. This is a 'forgotten' six episode tv series that aired in 1982 that paved the way for the popular 'Naked Gun' movies that were made in the late eighties / early nineties.  

Premise-wise, we're dealing with exactly the same scenario that we had in the film versions too. We have the doofus police lieutenant Frank Drebin as our main protagonist, who despite his 'stupidity' manages to solve the crimes that he's been sent to investigate.

Comedy-wise, one of the biggest reasons that the series works so well is that the 'gag' or 'joke' count here is absolutely incredible. Pretty much every single scene in every episode is filled with multiple verbal and audiovisual gags that are hilarious.

Acting-wise, there's no question that the veteran drama actor Leslie Nielsen was the perfect pick to play Frank Drebin's character. His ability to pull of deadpan acting and do physical comedy was simply amazing and something that very few actors are capable of doing.

Story-wise, when it comes to the storylines on 'Police Squad!', it has to be said that it wasn't easy to cram in all the needed story beats in only 25 minutes that would let you to tell a full story. This - as unfortunate as it is - is the weakest aspect of the series.

Indeed, even though the jokes in the series are funny, it's the story that in too many episodes is lacking. The resolution in most of the episodes comes a bit out of nowhere and isn't that well written or satisfying if we're being honest here.

In that sense, when you look at this thing as whole, considering that the series was turned into a successful movie series five years later, that is something that we should be happy about. Clearly the producers and the writers knew what they could do with their concept.

After all, when you were able to switch into a 90 minute movie format, that allowed the writers to develop and explore both the storylines and the characters a lot more. They weren't tied to the 25 minute format that put too many restrictions on the story.

Still, when it all is said and done, just because the 'Naked Gun' movies were better than the series was, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't give the series a try. I'm not saying that you shouldn't give it a chance if you haven't be able to watch it before.

On the contrary, despite its flaws, when you look at the series as a whole, 'Police Squad!' as a sitcom is genuinely funny and well made. It's a funny comedy series full of hilarious gags, so if you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely give it a go at some point.

I'm trying to start a new writing project.

So when it comes to this year (2021) and my writing projects, it can be fairly safely said that I wasn't thinking about starting a bigger writing project this year. I had no plans to start anything particularly big that would require a lot of effort from me as writer.

After all, even though I did have some dreams about writing another book, especially considering that I started a new job in January, I felt that this job would consume most of my energy. I thought that I just wouldn't have that much energy to write stuff once I got back home.

At the same time, just because I knew that it would take a lot of effort to start working on a bigger task, that didn't mean that I was thinking about giving up on these projects. I felt that at some point I would just have to give a new project a chance and see how things would go.

So having now been at my new job for three months and having gotten used to how things work there, things have changed at least a bit. I have started thinking that perhaps a new writing project might actually be a task that would be good for me.

By that I mean that even though my work can sometimes be a bit exhausting and stressing (can be rewarding too), I feel that I could do more than that. I have free time after work that could be spent better than what I'm currently doing with it.

Another important reason that I'm thinking about a new project is that earlier this week I was informed that I would start getting paid for my volunteer work as a creative writer instructor. A new book project could also help me with running the workshop too.

After all, if I would start working a book, I could use the book project to illustrate how the writing process works. I could show this way important things like how to create characters, how to structure the story and how to give it the direction that it needs. 

Furthermore, using the book project as an illustrative tool in the workshop would also mean that I would have to keep going with the task. That would - in a good way - put pressure to me to finish the project and not give up on it before it's completed.

Still, when it comes to this whole thing, that leaves me with the question of what my next book would be about. I need to be able to come up with a solid premise (in a genre) that would be close enough to my heart and that would actually interest and motivate me.

After all, even though I have a lot of experience in writing stuffs (articles, a short movie, tv specs, movie script, a children's book) that doesn't mean that I can just 'wing it'. I still need a fairly good idea and a premise that I can build my story on.

Still, in the end, when it all is said and done, considering that it now looks that I might possibly start working on a new writing project, that is certainly a good thing. I should feel happy that I can finally perhaps start working on something new.

After all, even though you never know how things go, as long as I don't demand too much from myself, this might actually lead to something good. This might lead to something good and solid, as long as I manage to keep things in perspective and won't be too hard on myself.

'Mr. Mayor' is an unfunny sitcom about politics.

So when it comes to comedy shows about politics in the United States, it's not exactly a secret that things haven't been great. There haven't been that many - if any - 'political' comedy shows lately that have been relevant or funny in any meaningful way.

Indeed, with the exception of shows like 'Boston Legal' that ended more than 10 years ago or 'South Park', that is still going, otherwise there's really nothing to watch. The quality on those other shows has been genuinely that terrible ('Veep' was a great example of this).

Nevertheless, the latest attempt at making politics / policies funny comes in the form of NBC's sitcom called 'Mr. Mayor'. This is a comedy series created by Tina Fey & Robert Carlock that desperately tries to breath some new air to the political genre.

Having now seen the first two episodes of the show, I can safely say that 'Mr. Mayor', as unfortunate as it is, is not a show that makes you laugh. There isn't anything even remotely funny or relevant in this poorly constructed single camera comedy.

Premise-wise, what we're dealing with is basically a setup that tries to emulate Michael J. Fox's 'Spin City', a sitcom on ABC that ran in the late nineties / early 2000s. That one was a comedy about politics that managed to be pretty funny, despite its very lighthearted nature.

Series-wise, the reason that 'Spin City' managed to work rather well was that it had characters and storylines that managed to be relatively down to earth. Especially its main character (Fox as a Deputy mayor) was a 'straight man' that you were able to relate to.

Unfortunately, when it comes to 'Mr. Mayor', there aren't really any characters that you could take seriously. This is especially true about our main protagonist the Mayor (Ted Danson), who is supposed to be someone who is relatable and believable as a character.

Indeed, in the first two episodes that I saw, our main character simply does too many stupid things. He - among other things - gets high (ha-ha funny), in the pilot doesn't know his way around his office (!) and is just entirely too clueless about everything. 

Story-wise, the really big problem with having characters that aren't believable in a show about politics is that it drastically limits what you're able to do. If your characters are complete air-heads that have no real problems, what is there to explore on the show?

Not that surprisingly, the first two episodes that I forced myself to watch had 'storylines' that consisted of juvenile penis memes, pee pee jokes and other incredibly pointless and superficial stuff. That most certainly didn't impress me in any way and was just embarrassing.

In that sense, when it comes to this series as a whole, I think it's safe to say that 'Mr. Mayor' isn't a series that is going to save the (political) sitcom genre. We're not dealing with a comedy series that has potential to be even remotely relevant.

After all, when you think of all the elements that you need to make click in a sitcom, pretty much nothing here worked on any level. The premise wasn't well thought out, the characters made very little sense and the storylines were genuinely lacking and awful.

In that sense, in the end, when it all is said and done, I just hope that sooner or later we're going to get some new shows that are going to make at least some sense. I hope that we're going to get new stuff that works and that might have some actual value in it.

After all, when you think that pretty much the only relevant comedy for the last ten or so years has been 'South Park', that's not a good thing. That's not good at all and shows that we desperately need some fresh new blood to be able to take chances in this genre.

'B Positive' is yet another depressing sitcom.

So when it comes to the current state of comedies on television, it's not exactly a secret that there haven't been that many watchable shows on tv. Pretty much none of the sitcoms that have been airing lately have been even remotely funny or watchable.

In reality, the last relatively funny comedy show that aired on network television was probably ABC's sitcom 'Modern Family'. This Emmy winning comedy series premiered in 2009 and managed to be fairly watchable almost throughout its run that ended last year.

So when it comes to these new and not so good sitcoms, one of the latest ones is 'B Positive' that started airing on CBS. This is a multicamera series (by producer Chuck Lorre) that tries to break the sitcom curse that has been going for far too long.

Having now seen seen the first two episodes of the series, I can say that - as unfortunate as it is - that 'B Positive' is not a well made comedy series. The sitcom about 'a man who needs a kidney transplant and his donor is not even remotely entertaining or uplifting'. 

Premise-wise, the biggest problem here is that the setup is entirely too depressing. Even though the title might suggest that the show might be about positivity, in reality 'B Positive' does not revolve around 'being positive' or feeling good about life.

Indeed, the only actual reference to the positivity is that the main character's blood type happens to be B+. Unlike on shows like 'Everybody Loves Raymond' or 'Absolutely Fabulous', the word play in the title is the only positive thing that the show has going for it.

Not surprisingly, since the premise isn't well thought out or plausible and doesn't have enough potential, almost nothing in the sitcom actually works. There are problems - more or less - on every imaginable level that has to do with the production.

Character-wise, what this mean is that neither of the two main leads are particularly relatable or likable. Thomas Middleditch (even though a solid actor) as our protagonist with the disease is pretty bland and Annaleigh Ashford as the donor is just too out there and kooky. 

Story-wise, since the premise and the characters don't have potential, there isn't much of a story to tell. The storylines are weak (as is almost always the case with Lorre shows) and don't really have anything in them that would grab your interest in what's going on. 

Production-wise, the problem is also that 'B Positive' looks cheap (standard Lorre) and the sets look like they're recycled from shows that aired during the 80s. This is yet another reason why the whole thing looks as bleak and as depressing as it is. 

In that sense, when it comes to 'B Positive' as a whole, even though it's safe to say that this series isn't the worst show I've ever seen, it's not even close to being funny. This is not a show that works and that has managed to get its fundamentals right.

After all, when you take a look at the show's premise and see how half-baked it is in action, it quickly becomes obvious that there are a lot of other problems too. These problems are a natural consequence from the painfully weak setup that doesn't work.

In that sense, even though critics (as usual) have given the series a somewhat positive reception (86% on Rottentomatoes.com) that doesn't mean that it is actually worth watching. We shouldn't think that their sycophantic reviews mean that you should give it a shot.

On the contrary, as a whole, 'B Positive' is simply not a good show. It's not a good sitcom and shows what happens when critical elements that quality shows are made of are completely missing from the series (strong premise, relatable characters and well written storylines).

'Wonder Woman 1984': movie review.

So when it comes to the latest Wonder Woman movie, it's not exactly a secret that the film hasn't gotten a great reception. Even though the movie didn't get bad reviews (60% fresh on Rottentomatoes.com), the reception on the internet hasn't been positive.

Indeed, almost every prominent channel on Youtube has been very critical of the film. In these reviews 'Wonder Woman 1984' has gotten really negative feedback (some of it deserved) and the reviewers have been critical of the movie's overall quality.

Nevertheless, considering that there haven't been that many new movies that have been released lately, it wasn't a difficult to decision to gives this film a chance. I thought there was a solid chance that I would enjoy watching the film, so I had to give it a go.

Having now seen 'Wonder Woman 1984' a couple of weeks ago with my friend, I have to say that I actually managed to like the movie. It managed to entertain me, even though there are some obvious issues with its story and characters that need to be addressed.

Premise-wise, in this sequel, we're dealing with a story that this time takes place in 1984 (the first one took place during World War I). Our protagonist (Gal Gadot) - who doesn't age - now works as a museum worker at Smithsonian in Washington DC. 

As a character, even though 'Diana' still has her super powers as a wonder woman that she has to use every now and then, she's trying to live her life as normally as possible. She has a regular job so that she could blend in with the rest of the population.

Catalyst-wise, the story in the movie gets going when a mysterious stone arrives at the museum. This dream stone - that the movie's villain, failed oil man Max (Pedro Pascal) is super interested in, is something that has some great powers.

Indeed, those who (including Wonder Woman's work partner) touch the dream stone and make an innocent wish, their wish is granted. This will naturally lead to either some silly or really dangerous things (first we get the silly stuff). 

Not surprisingly, after the 'fun and games' part is over, things get really serious once the bad guy gets his hand on the item and gets to use its power. He makes a wish to 'become' the stone, which turns out to be a decision that has grave consequences for the world.

Plot-wise, this story vehicle - at least in my opinion - was a surprisingly strong one and is the reason that the movie works as well as it does. It gives the story potential and a real arc that the writers were able to utilize relatively well (this is a fantasy movie after all).

At the same time, just because this vehicle in the movie works and has a lot of potential, that doesn't mean that the writers were able to get everything right. There are clearly a lot of problems with the film that weigh down its quality quite significantly.

Among other things, the story has some really obvious plot holes that you'll notice right away as they happen. We have plot holes like Diana & Steve (Chris Pine) taking a trip with a fighter jet all the way from The U.S to Libya, which was just a big no no.

Character-wise, you have stuff like the female villain's (Kristen Wiig) arc being severely mishandled. Her turn from an introvert shy person to a popular one (thanks to the wish) and yet again to a villain (Cheetah) is just badly executed and makes no sense.

Furthermore, the movie is clearly overlong and has at least 30 minutes of material that should have been cut from the film. This stuff, like the montage of Steve trying different sets of clothes to look presentable is just something that doesn't work.

Still, when you put it all together, despite these obvious flaws in the story, at least in my case, they didn't prevent me from enjoying the film as a whole. There were some really good things about the movie that worked well and that countered its flaws.

Indeed, besides the wish-vehicle, Wonder Woman's character is a positive one and someone who has good, motherly qualities. The story, thanks to her, has an optimistic tone that deals with real emotions especially when we get to the last act and the film's climax.

In that sense, even though I do understand why people had a lot of problems with the movie, I think it's rather safe to say that people were a bit too hard on it. They were being too critical of its flaws and weren't completely honest about its good aspects.

After all, even though there were admittedly real problems with 'Wonder Woman 1984', that did make the film worse than it should have been, that's not all there is to it. We shouldn't really think that these mistakes were really that critical.

On the contrary, especially when you think of how uncritical critics were about some other films in this genre, ('Dark Knight' & 'Dark Knight Rises' etc.) they're being hypocritical here. They're being hypocritical and not judging 'Wonder Woman 1984' the way they judged those films.