Film Review: 'The Courier'.

Yesterday me and my friend found time to watch a film that we had wanted to watch for quite some time. We managed to find time to watch a spy thriller called 'The Courier', a film about spying during the height of the cold war in the 60s.

Indeed, especially considering that the movie was based on a true story and had a star actor in it (Benedict Cumberbatch), it was an easy decision to give the film a chance. It was more than likely that the movie was going to be entertaining and worth our time. 

Having now seen the film, I have to say that I'm pretty glad that we gave the film a shot. 'The Courier' is pretty well made and entertaining, even though there are some fairly obvious problems - especially in its story - that need to be addressed.

Premise-wise, the movie is about a British businessman Greville Wynne (Benedict Cumberbatch), who at the height of the cold war gets hired by the Mi-6. They feel that he as a salesman with ties to Russia is the only person to bring information from their inside source in Moscow.

Indeed, the Mi6 knows that a high ranking GRU Colonel named Oleg Penkovsky has crucial information about their Soviet leader's intentions. Secretary Nikita Khrushchev is supposedly unstable and might be starting a war with the west, which needs to be prevented.

Quality-wise, when it comes to the film, one of the best things about it is that the movie looks really good. Pretty much every shot in the movie feels authentic (1960s) and it's clear that the producers spent a lot of time finding the right locations to shoot in (shot partly in Prague).

Acting-wise, it has to be said that both leads in the movie are spectacularly good. Both Merab Ninidze who plays Penkovsky and Cumberbatch, who plays the British salesperson-turned-into-spy are absolutely wonderful in their roles.

Story-wise, it has to be said that 'The Courier', from a perspective of a writer and a history enthusiast (especially the Kennedy assassination), even though entertaining, is a bit of a mixed bag. There are some factual, logic and character problems in it that hurt its quality.

By that I mean that one of the biggest flaws in the story is that its stakes aren't actually that 'high' or particularly well defined. There's no real urgency going on in here, even though the film tries to tap dance around this issue quite a bit.

Character-wise, when it comes to these issues, factually speaking there's no evidence that Penkovsky, even though prolific with leaking information, was a benevolent man. He merely did all the leaking to advance his own 'career', once he would eventually try to defect.

Yet another significant historical issue in the film has to do with how it tries - for storytelling reasons - to portray Russia's leader as a nut. It tries to imply that Khrushchev was somehow insane with his ideas (the upcoming Missile Crisis), which is not supported by the facts.

After all, as the film admits in the final part, the reason that Khrushchev put nukes to Cuba was not because he was crazy. He put them simply to protect their ally Cuba (after the Bay of Pigs) and also because the U.S. had already placed their own nukes in Turkey.

In that sense, when you put these issues together, it shouldn't come as a surprise that these flaws end up hurting the movie. Especially when it comes to the last third (story-wise weak defection attempt + imprisonment) they don't make that much sense or feel authentic.

Still, despite problems like these in the story, there's no question that as a whole, the good things outweigh the bad ones in the movie. These positive aspects, like the portrayed comradery between the two leads and the overall atmosphere kept the movie afloat and watchable.

In that sense, when it all is said and done, if you haven't managed to see 'The Courier' yet, I think it's safe to say that you should probably give it a go at some point. You should give the film a chance and not be too discouraged by my criticism of it.

After all, despite its issues, especially considering that it has received good reviews (95% audience fresh at Rottentomatoes.com), that's something to consider too. That's a reason to watch the film and not be too bothered by its flaws that in the end, might not matter too much.

Review: Pixar's animated film 'Luca'.

So when it comes to watching animated movies, it's not a secret that whenever a new animated film is released, I'm going to watch these movies. As long as these films get even remotely decent reviews, I'm more than eager to give them a chance and see how good they are. 

Indeed, the reason that I watch these animated movies and enjoy them is that they help me to forget my worries in life. These films, almost always, have themes, characters and storylines in them that make me happier and less judgemental as a person.

So this time, when it comes to these movies, me and my friend managed to watch Pixar's latest animated film 'Luca'. This is a film that - thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic was just released on Disney+ service and was now available for us both to see.

Story-wise, what we're dealing with here is a 'fish out of water' story, in which two sea monster kids decide to explore life on land. These kids go on an adventure in a nearby town, once they notice that they assume human form when they're out of the water.

Premise-wise, it has to be said that 'Luca' doesn't have the most well thought out concept that Pixar has managed to come up with. The premise, even though not completely awful is something that honestly doesn't make enough sense and feels somewhat clunky.

Indeed, especially in the film's first act when we're introduced to the main characters, the whole thing just doesn't seem particularly compelling. This includes the sea world with its characters (the family of Luca) that are a bit too underdeveloped.

Fortunately, once our kids (Luca & Alberto) get to the new world, start dreaming and start meeting actual people, things get better. The film - as it also gets more colorful - starts to breath and manages to create an atmosphere that feels pleasant for the audience. 

Quality-wise, one of the best things about the movie, since it happens in Italy, is that it explores the Italian culture with actual insight. The makers of the film spent a lot of time making sure that the film is culturally accurate and feels right.

Indeed, my friend who later watched 'Luca' the second time with her Italian friends, told that her friends had genuinely appreciated the film. All those little details and the 'Fellinian' atmosphere that is in the movie is something that they apparently liked a lot.  

Plot-wise, since this was a 'relaxed' movie, it has to be said that the stakes aren't that high. The main story on the land - about the guys wanting to win a Vespa in a contrived competition with their new friend - is a bit too lazy and weak. 

Furthermore, since the main story is not strong, the villain in the movie is also a rather contrived invention. We have a bully in the town, the king of Vespa driving, who with his henchmen tries to beat our protagonists in the competition - which doesn't feel that organic.

Still, when you look at the animated movie as a whole, even though the story wasn't that strong and had some flaws in it, that doesn't mean that these issues were that critical. I'm not saying that the storyline was so bad that it sank the movie as a whole. 

After all, when you - from a positive point of view - look at how colorful, relaxed and childlike the movie managed to be otherwise, these positive aspects clearly outweighed the negative ones in it. It was still enjoyable to watch the movie as a whole.

In that sense, in the end, even though the film could have been better, it's safe to say that if you haven't managed to see Pixar's 'Luca' yet, you should give the movie a chance. You should give the film a chance and not be discouraged by some of its negative reviews.

After all, especially considering that lately Pixar's films have been disappointing (e.g. 'Soul'), 'Luca' is a surprise. It's a positive surprise and shows that even though the story isn't that great, the film can still work as long as those other elements in it are first rate.

'The Tomorrow War' - movie review.

Last week me and my friend found some time to watch together a new movie. We decided to watch a science fiction film called 'The Tomorrow War', a time travel war movie that had just been released on Amazon prime and was now available for us to see.

The reason that we decided to watch the film, that stars Chris Pratt, is that it seemed watchable. Based on its trailer and the reviews that it had gotten, there was a chance that it could be worth our time (80% fresh by the audience on Rottentomatoes.com).

Having now seen the film with my friend, I have to say that I have a somewhat mixed views about the movie. There were things that worked rather well, but there were also things that - especially story-wise - were not good at all and that weren't well thought out. 

So first, when it comes to those things that actually worked in 'The Tomorrow War', I have to say that the premise itself wasn't that awful. The idea that you have people from the future warn us about an upcoming war against alien monsters isn't that hopeless. 

Indeed, when it is also revealed in the first act that we need to almost immediately send troops to fight the future war through a wormhole, that creates a lot of opportunities for the story. There's a lot of potential in the premise that needs to be handled well.

Story-wise, the whole thing gets going when our protagonist, a military contractor played by Pratt leaves his family and takes part in the operation. He's prepared for the 'suicide mission' and after getting futuristic equipment attached to him, is transported to year 2051.

Not surprisingly, when we reach the dystopian future it doesn't take long before things get really heated and the action starts. The monsters that we're supposed to somehow beat are nasty, deadly and can rather easily defeat our brave volunteers. 

Entertainment-wise, the movie manages to be at its best when our troops - including 'Chloe' from '24' - go on a rescue mission to find some samples that would help to defeat the enemy. This is when the movie works rather well and is fairly entertaining and gripping.

Furthermore, when it is revealed roughly in the middle of the movie that Pratt's daughter happens to be his military commander in the future, the movie finds its heart too. We have an actual emotional stake to get things sorted out and to save the mankind.

Unfortunately, even though at this point the story seems to work (if you're able to overlook the logical flaws in the premise), this won't last. The writers start making some genuinely terrible decisions that will seriously hurt the film's overall quality.

By that I mean is that once the emotional arch is concluded at roughly 1h 45 min mark (Pratt & his daughter find the cure, the big boss is dead and the daughter dies), the movie doesn't stop. Instead we get another 30 minute fourth act that makes almost no sense at all.

Indeed, instead of doing its 'aftermath' conclusion in a closing credit montage, the writers decide that the story needs _more_ problems to be solved. They decide that the monsters were here already waiting for us and that their 'nest' needs to be found and destroyed. 

The problem with this - story-wise - is that once the main emotional arch in the movie is concluded - you shouldn't add new arcs to the movie anymore. You can't start over and think that the audience is going to be hungry for some secondary stuff anymore.

After all, once Pratt and his daughter managed to create the poison to kill the monsters, managed to kill the big boss and the daughter dies, that's more or less where the story should have ended. It shouldn't have gone more than 5 minutes after that point.

Not surprisingly, everything that happens in the extra act is just awful. Pratt's dad is back for a new 'arc', some kid figures out where the nest is (!), they have to go solo because the rest of the world won't help (!!) and the crucial poison becomes mostly redundant too.

In that sense, when me and my friend finally reached the end of the movie at 2 hour 15 min mark, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we weren't happy with what we had seen. This was not what we expected to see from the movie as a whole.

After all, when you think about the film, especially considering how - objectively speaking - incredibly stupid the last act was, it was just impossible not to feel disappointed. There were just too many problems that hurt the movie's quality. 

In that sense, in the end, I just wish that the writers would have ended the film when its main emotional arc ended. I wish they would have understood that this is where the heart of the movie was and not spoil it with some additional content that didn't make sense.

Unfortunately for us, that's exactly what they did with the fourth act of the movie. They added stuff that made no sense emotionally and where all logic flew out of the window, so it's no surprise that the film as a whole - as sad as it is - left a bad taste in our mouths.

What to expect from the new James Bond film?

So as we're getting closer to the latest James Bond movie 'No Time to Die' finally being released, I think it's time to write a bit about the upcoming film and its prospects. Is there a chance that the movie is going to be any good and that the audiences are going to like it?

Indeed, ever since the Covid-19 pandemic hit last year and the release date has been postponed again and again, there has been speculation about the quality of the movie. Some have said there's no way it's going to work and that the producers are really worried about the movie.

So when it comes to my views about the upcoming film - as a writer and a teacher who uses Bond films to illustrate story structure - there are at least a couple of things to discuss. I think I have at least some sort of an idea what to expect from the movie.

Character-wise, the very first thing that needs to be addressed about the film has to do with the online complaints that the movie is going to be too 'woke'. Supposedly James Bond as agent 007 has lost his masculinity and is now part of the #metoo movement.

Indeed, since we have been told that there are also female 00-agents in the film's universe, that somehow kills the franchise. The producers have supposedly given in to the woke-crowd and those who want to emasculate the character, so all is lost now.

In reality though, the problem with this argument is that even though some of these 'new' elements can be interpreted as 'pandering', these female elements aren't actually new. We've already had strong female characters over the years that have made Bond look even 'weak'.

Indeed, when you think about how in 'Thunderball (1965)' the Bond girl kills the villain and saves Bond or how in 'The Spy Who Loved Me'  (1977) 007 has an equal Russian partner, how is that different? This time the female 00-stuff even happens mostly off screen. 

Story-wise, the biggest challenge with the new upcoming film is that the producers have been struggling with the franchise for quite some time. Ever since 'Golden Eye' was released in 1995 after a 6 year hiatus, there have been problems in figuring out what the whole thing is about.

Indeed, once Soviet Union ceased to exist, that changed not only the real world but especially the James Bond universe. Once the almost mythical cold war and its many insanities ended (spying, stacking up nukes etc.), it had a big effect on the franchise.

Film-wise, it's not a secret that Brosnan's last two films lacked any kind of relevance or excitement, whereas Craig's post 'Casino Royale' films (implausible poker plot) weren't that good either. They were basically average at best 'Jason Bourne' & 'Mission Impossible' imitations.

Script-wise, another big problem with the franchise has been that the quality of screenwriters working on these films has gone drastically down lately. Ever since Bruce Feirstein wrote 'GoldenEye' and Cubby Broccoli passed away, the films have been mostly written by hacks.

After all, every Bond movie after 'Tomorrow Never Dies' has been written or co-written together by two guys (named Neal Purvis and Robert Wade). This duo who co-wrote the latest movie is also responsible for the mostly lame and unfunny Johnny English films.

In contrast, when the franchise was living its golden age quality-wise, most of the films were written by writers who knew how to tell a story. These guys like Richard Maibaum - who contributed to almost every Connery & Moore films - actually had real talent and craftsmanship. 

In that sense, when it comes to the upcoming movie and the whole thing, especially considering that the last film 'Spectre' had a bad story structure, I can't say that I'm that hopeful. I can't be that optimistic about 'No Time to Die', even though part of me wants to do that.

After all, when you look at the trailer of the film, there's no question that it admittedly looks pretty good. Based on what we're shown, it actually looks like it could be a solid and entertaining movie - even though other aspects tell that the movie isn't going work.

Still, when it's all said and done, when it comes to the quality of the final product, we won't be able to tell for sure before it is released. We don't know yet and have to wait for three more months before we can tell how good or bad it is (September 30th release in my country).

In that sense, in the end, we can only hope that Daniel Craig's final Bond is going to be an entertaining one. We can hope that it's going to be a solid movie, although the chances are that it won't be and that it will be a pretty flawed movie with some redeeming qualities in it.

'Friends: The Reunion' reviewed.

So when it comes to the current state of sitcoms on television, it's pretty clear that things are not going great. At the moment, there aren't any live-action sitcoms on tv that are popular and that people would actually be talking about. 

Indeed, once 'Modern Family', a popular & award winning comedy went off the air a couple of years ago, after that there haven't been any new sitcoms to watch. All the new shows have been painfully unfunny and not even remotely entertaining, if we're being honest here. 

So naturally, once I noticed that there was a reunion episode of 'Friends', a show that everyone watched back in the day, I felt somewhat excited. Even though the series had been off the air for seventeen years already, I knew I had to watch the two hour special. 

Having now seen the reunion show last week, I have to say that overall I'm fairly glad that I managed to watch the episode. There's enough solid stuff in it for the fans, even though there's some pretty obvious problems too that need to be addressed. 

Premise-wise, it has to be said that a lot of people were a bit disappointed that we didn't get a new scripted episode that would have followed these six characters. It's something that didn't happen, because the creators and the actors simply didn't want to do that. 

Indeed, the reason for this was that since in the series finale every character got a happy ending and a positive send off, the audience already got what they wanted. If they'd have given us a '15 year later' episode, it would have been bound to be disappointing. 

At the same time, just because we didn't get a 'scripted' episode, that doesn't mean that we didn't get anything. What we did get was a special where the actors were as themselves talking about the show and the characters (+ doing some table reads too).

Not surprisingly, looks-wise, since it was already 17 years when the last episodes aired and 27 years since the first episode premiered, the actors now looked different. They were obviously older and had clearly aged during this years - some more gracefully than the others. 

Content-wise, what I liked most about the special was when we saw them visiting the old set of the show. This was a stage that they hadn't visited once the series finale was shot in 2004 (it was immediately disassembled after the finale). 

Indeed, as you kept watching and listening to them talking with each other about the series and doing a light hearted quiz, I felt good about the whole thing. Clearly there was a reason why the show worked as well as it did during its run (the producers chimed in too).

Substance-wise, I also liked when they had a table readings about some of their favorite episodes. It was pretty heart-warming how seriously they still took their characters and became Joey, Rachel, Phoebe, Ross, Monica and Chandler as actors.

At the same time, even though I did like a lot of the things in the reunion special, there were some things that didn't work. It was clear that the producers of the special were trying way too hard and didn't have enough respect for the original show.

Indeed, as the special went along, it among other things kept introducing us to celebrities that had nothing to do with the show, like David Beckham. The celebrity parade that also included Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and some female 'stars' was simply unneeded padding.

Furthermore, I honestly wasn't a big fan of James Corden interviewing the cast in front of an audience. Not only was this a bit awkward and overlapped with the content, but the rest of the stuff here - like runaway modeling - was also pretty embarrassing. 

Still, when you put it all together and think about the special as a whole, despite these obvious weaknesses that made it too long, these mistakes didn't ruin it. There were still enough good moments that managed to save it from being a letdown (the actors saved it). 

In that sense, if you were a fan of 'Friends' as a series or have recently been watching it on Netflix (or wherever it might be available), you should probably give this special go. You should give the reunion a chance and see if you'll manage to like it. 

After all, even though the special could have been better, considering that there aren't solid sitcoms on air, the reunion as a whole was still okay. It was okay and showed that even though things are bleak for sitcoms right now, there was a time when they were actually great.

Combining work and writing isn't easy.

So when it comes to my life and how things have gone lately, it can be said that at least work-wise, things have been pretty good. I got an extension to my contract at our school and will be spending the upcoming fall season with my students too. 

Indeed, even though it seemed that there were going to be some budgets cuts that would affect our staff, those thankfully didn't happen. Our city managed to find extra funding for the students that wanted to take part in our afternoon classes, so my job is safe for now. 

At the same time, even though 'work-wise' things have gone well, it has to be said that as a writer, I haven't been as productive as I thought I would be. Despite my intentions, I haven't been able to meet all my quotas that I had set for myself lately.

For example, when I started working on my new book project, it didn't take that long before I noticed that it would likely be too much work to write it as a side project. Even though I did some stuffs with it, it turned out to be too demanding. 

Blog-wise, over the last few weeks I also lacked energy to write enough articles (lack of ideas to write about). Since I was worrying about the extension of my contract and some stuff about my personal life, it was difficult to concentrate on the blog (it's great therapy for me though). 

Creatively speaking, the biggest challenge has been that ever since I started working with kids, this job has been - even though I enjoy it - rather demanding. The job, even though 'only' five hours a day during weekdays, can be rather involving and emotionally draining.

Indeed, when you work with kids that require your attention (issues like Adhd, language barriers, super sensitivity, selective mutism etc.), it's just something that takes your energy. It consumes me, especially considering that I'm an introverted person (although socially talented). 

In contrast, now that I've been on a vacation for two days, I've noticed that things are different already. I feel that I'm becoming my 'normal' self, have tons free time and don't have to worry about things, which gives me so much more energy to do creative stuff.

After all, even though I have already done some preparation for the fall season (read a special ed teacher's master thesis) and visited old friends at a foundation, I feel different. I feel that I can concentrate on having a writer's identity and start writing bigger stuff again.

In that sense, now that I'm on vacation for the next 8 or 9 weeks, I can only hope that I'll be able to get back to my book writing project. Hopefully I'll be able to progress with it and come up with a solid structure that would eventually lead to a good story.

After all, even though it won't be an easy project to come up with an entertaining story in only two months or so, it's not something that is impossible to do. I shouldn't be thinking that I won't be able to do 'enough' during that time as a writer.

On the contrary, if I manage to get a solid structure that makes sense from start to finish, that's what matters the most. It's the hardest part of the equation and if I manage to do that, the rest I can 'brute force' as a side project when I get to back to work in August.

'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.