Review: 'Ready Player One'.

Yesterday me and my friend managed to find time to watch Steven Spielberg's movie 'Ready Player One'. We managed to watch the sci-fi film after checking that it had gotten solid reviews from both the critics and the general audience. 

After all, since 73% of the movie critics and 78% of the viewers (on Rottentomatoes.com) had given this film a fresh rating, that was good enough for us. There was a high enough chance that the movie would be worth watching and worth our time. 

In any case, having now seen 'Ready Player One', I have to say that the film managed to be somewhat better than I had expected it to be. It exceeded my expectations, which weren't honestly that high for me in the beginning.

So when it comes to the film, 'Ready Player One' is a science fiction movie that is about virtual reality. It's about people escaping reality after their living conditions on earth have gotten considerably worse over the last couple of decades.

In the film, as our protagonist, we have a young guy called Wade (Tye Sheridan), who spends most of his time in virtual reality. By using his special glasses, he's able to enter this another world where there are almost no limits on who you can be and what you can do.

When it comes to the plot of the movie, the catalyst of the film happens when the developer of the virtual reality (Mark Rylance) passes away. In his will, he's giving his company to the person who solves the puzzles that are hidden inside his virtual 'Oasis'.

Not surprisingly, this incident and revelation launches a massive hunt for his incredible inheritance. Individuals and corporations with their massive resources all over the country start searching for clues that could give them the keys to the ownership of the company.

So when it comes to things that I liked about this film, one of the best things about 'Ready Player One' is that it looks really good. There's no question that a lot of effort went into making sure that the movie would look as good as possible.

By that I mean that from start to finish, everything in the film looks amazing visually. The real world and the virtual reality world 'Oasis' both look so mesmerising and wonderful that it's hard to take your eyes off the movie screen.

This wonderful look of the movie becomes especially obvious during the film's numerous action scenes. There are so many crazy action scenes that you just can't help but to wonder how much time it took to make everything work.

At the same time, even though there are a lot of good things that can be said about 'Ready Player One', that doesn't mean that everything in the movie works. Especially when it comes to the film's screenplay, the story leaves a lot to be desired.

At least in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the story is that it's too episodic. The film's plot device - where the players have to find three different keys in order to inherit the company - in my view, feels rather forced and unnatural.

When it comes to those many 'celebrated' popular culture references in the film, I wasn't particularly impressed by them either. Even though it was cool to see some of those popular creatures in the virtual reality, it started to reek of 'fanboy' service rather quickly.

It also has to be said that the movie suffers from not having a clear message. It doesn't take a stand against the dangers of virtual reality, even though the whole movie is about the excesses of escaping reality and the dangers of the system.

After all, when the end result of the film is that the protagonist - after inheriting the company - decides to only limit the use of his 'Oasis' for others, that did not sit well with me. That was just a massive cop out that severely diluted the film's message.

Still, in the end, just because the movie had a lot of these problems in its story, that doesn't mean that I wasn't able to enjoy watching it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't watch it or that the film's story wouldn't keep you entertained.

After all, even though there were quite a few issues with the film's screenplay, that doesn't mean that these problems were too serious. Clearly the positive aspects were able to outweigh the negative aspects, when you put all things together.

In that sense, even though 'Ready Player One' could have been a better movie, it was still a watchable one. It was a watchable movie and kept me entertained, even though its screenplay could have been better and more organic in certain places.

Review: 'Molly's Game'.

Earlier this week me and my friend managed to find time to watch a movie called 'Molly's Game'. We watched this biographical film about Molly Bloom, an ex-athlete, who ran underground high stakes poker games for celebrities and businessmen in the early 2000's. 

The reason that we decided to watch this film - that is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin - is that we couldn't find any other movie that looked interesting. This was the only one that had gotten reviews that were good enough and that had a solid premise.

In any case, having now seen 'Molly's Game', it has to be said that I have mostly positive things to say about it. Even though there are certain problems with the film that shouldn't be overlooked, these problems in my opinion don't hurt it too much.

So when it comes to the good aspects of the movie, there's no doubt that the gambling scenes in it are entertaining. The movie is at its best when Molly - played wonderfully by Jessica Chastain - organizes and runs these underground high stakes events.

By that I mean that when her unlikely new career path - from a waitress to a gambling hostess starts to emerge (after giving up on her sports career due to a serious injury), that's when the story really starts to pick up speed.

In these enthralling scenes, we have A-list movie stars, famous athletes and businessmen (names changed for the sake of privacy) gambling and taking big risks. The movie shows these celebrated human beings in less than flattering light - to say the least.

During this phase of the movie, it was really fascinating to try to figure out who these characters were in real life. I couldn't help but to feel satisfaction when I was able to pinpoint who the characters' real life counterparts were (Tobey Maguire, Jamie Gold etc.).

In these parts, the movie works not only because of the gambling stuff, but also because the main protagonist starts to get in trouble. Molly gets in legal trouble because of her endeavours and also because the Russian mafia starts to go after her. 

The movie also works in these scenes, because in these scenes it knows what it's about. The story doesn't humanize Molly too much or make her - as a businesswoman - seem like she's a good person or that we should empathize with her too much.

That's why it's unfortunate that once we get to those scenes where we're supposed to feel for the character (excluding her getting beaten up) the story feels a bit forced. The scenes don't fit in with the rest of the movie and feel somewhat out of place.

Especially when it comes to the ice-rink scene where she - out of nowhere - runs into her father and has a touchy-feely talk with him, the scene doesn't make enough sense. I just couldn't find it to be believable or consistent with the rest of the movie.

In that sense, when I think about the movie as a whole, it's clear that 'Molly's Game' - even though a fairly good movie - is not a perfect film. It's clear that there are certain moments in the film where the story and the characters don't work that well together.

After all, even though some of these emotional scenes were perhaps necessary for the story to work, they don't fit in as well as they should. The movie's main protagonist isn't as likable and relatable as the writer probably thought she was.

In that sense, if you're thinking about giving 'Molly's Game' a chance as a movie, there's nothing wrong with you if you don't end up liking it that much. You might not like it, because certain moments in the film aren't that plausible storywise.

After all, even though most of the things in the movie are superb and even riveting, especially the scenes where Molly gets humanized aren't that great. They go against the film's ruthless nature and seem pretty inauthentic and misplaced.

At the same time, in case you do end up liking the movie, like me, there's nothing wrong with that either. There's nothing wrong with thinking that the problems in the film weren't that important and that they didn't prevent one from enjoying it.

After all, at least in my case, I found the movie - despite its flaws to be well made. Despite its flaws, I found that 'Molly's Game' as a whole kept me entertained and the good things in it clearly managed to outweigh the bad things in the film.

Updates on my book writing project.

A couple of months ago I wrote about my writing project, in which I would adapt my movie screenplay into a book. I wrote about how I would do the writing myself and that I wouldn't give the project for anyone else to do.

After all, since I wrote the original screenplay, there was no reason why I wouldn't be able to write the book version too. It was clear that I should try to write it myself - even though I didn't have any previous experience in writing novels.

So when it comes to how things have progressed lately, it can be said  that I have managed to get things done here. Even though I haven't finished the book yet, I've been busy with it and should be able to finish it in the next couple of months or so.

The biggest reason that I'm relatively confident that I'll get the job done is because I managed to write the rough draft already. I wrote a draft (in Finnish), which is a lot like the original film screenplay version that I wrote last year.

By that I mean that all the characters and all the events that are in the movie version are also in the novel version. I didn't have to cut any of the storylines or the plot points that were in the original version of the screenplay.

What this basically means is that in order to be able to write a solid book, I 'more or less' only have to follow the road map (the draft) and make sure that I keep the reader involved in the story. That's all that it takes to write a solid book - at least in theory.

Still, just because I can rely on a story that is well written and that makes sense, that doesn't mean that I have been able to make everything work right way. I'm not saying that I haven't had any setbacks during the adaptation process.

On the contrary, the minute I started the second phase of the project - making the draft look like an actual book - it became apparent that I would face obstacles here. There were obvious challenges that I hadn't thought about before.

For example, in the book version, I needed to create a narrative (third person) that would mimic the original version's friendly tone. I would have to make sure that the characters were genuinely likable,  because otherwise the story just wouldn't be worth following.

The other really big challenge in the book version has had to do with the pacing of the story. It has been a lot more difficult to give the story a solid pace, so that the scenes could have a relaxed feel and that the pacing wouldn't feel rushed.

Especially considering that there are so many transitions - characters moving from one place to another - time lapses etc. - it hasn't been easy to figure things out. It has been a lot more challenging to give the story a solid flow than I had expected.

Still, when I think about this project as a whole, just because I have had these challenges, that doesn't mean that I'm screwed. I'm not thinking that I'm not good enough and that I should give someone else the chance to finish the book.

After all, when it comes to projects like these, I tend to be really persistent and won't give up easily. Instead of giving up, I'm willing to try almost every possible solution in order to make sure that the story works and feels natural.

In that sense, even though I still have things to do here, I'll keep going. I'll keep going and will make sure that no matter what happens, I won't give up just because I might sometimes have bad days or just because I don't always get things done.

After all, as long as I'll keep writing on a consistent basis, eventually I'll be able to finish the book. I'll be able to finish the book and will have the chance to do something else that I might find to be interesting and that might be worth my time.

Review: The Florida Project.

Last week I managed to watch a movie that my manager thought I should watch at some point. She recommended that I should watch 'The Florida Project, a film that was well received and that wasn't that different from my own project.

After all, since my own screenplay was also about kids and about them growing up, she thought that I should check the film and compare it to my own story. She thought that I would get a good feel about what this 'genre' is about.

In any case, having now seen the movie, it has to be said that I have some mixed feelings about 'The Florida Project'. Even though this wasn't necessarily a bad film, there are some things about it that didn't really work at all.

So when it comes to the movie, very likely the biggest problem that I had with the film - that is about a single mom and her daughter - is that it has a relatively weak story. The screenplay for the film is lacking and doesn't have all the necessary elements in it.

By that I mean is that even though most of the characters in the film are fairly relatable and likable - especially the kids and the hotel manager (the wonderful Willed Dafoe) - they don't have proper story arcs in the movie.

What this basically means is that instead of the characters evolving and changing over the course of the story, they more or less stay the same. There's no noticeable change in pretty much any of the characters over the course of the film.

This lack of progression is unfortunate, because storytelling really is about characters changing - progressing or regressing. It's essential that you have people in your story that transform and become better (or worse) as human beings.

After all, nobody likes to watch a movie where characters just do stuff that doesn't have an effect on anything or anyone. Nobody wants to watch a film where too many random things happen without any real meaningful consequences.

In that sense, when I think about 'The Florida Project', it's clear that the film suffers from not having enough of these meaningful and progressive scenes. It's clear that the movie has problems when it comes to telling a story that has a point.

After all, even though there are a lot of good things here - the kids making the best out of their situation and the humanity in Willem Dafoe's character - that isn't enough. It's not enough to hold my attention throughout the length of film.

In the end, the movie would have been better, had it paid more attention to its script and to its story arcs. It would have been better had it made sure that there was more to the characters and that more things actually happened to them.

After all, just because the mother gets taken away at the end and just because the kids manage to temporarily 'escape' from their situation, that's a bit too little a bit too late for me. That's not enough drama or change to win me back.

In that sense, even though you should still probably see the film, I can't recommend it that much. I can't recommend it that much, because in my opinion, there are too many basic story problems in 'The Florida Project' that weigh the movie down a bit too much.

Know your strengths and weaknesses as a writer.

When it comes to being a good writer, it's really important that you know your abilities well as a writer. It's important that you have a good grasp of what you're capable of doing as a writer and that you know what your strengths are when it comes to the craft.

After all, the more you are aware of your capabilities, the easier it becomes to make right decisions. The more aware you are of your skills, the more likely it is that you'll get your projects done they way they should be.

The reason that I'm writing about this is that even though I think I have a relatively solid grasp of my abilities as a writer, this hasn't always been the case. There have been times when I have overestimated my skills and have failed with my tasks. 

For example, years ago, when I tried writing my first movie screenplay (in 2008), I did not get the project completed. I wasn't even close to coming up with a script that made sense and that had potential to become a movie.

The biggest reason for this was that when I tried writing the movie script, I didn't know the fundamentals of storytelling. I didn't know that I was still an amateur and only at the beginning of my journey as a screenwriter.

By that I mean is that when I started writing the movie, as a writer, I had only managed to complete my very first television spec scripts. I had just finished my 'Boston Legal' scripts, which gave me confidence that I could write movies too.

Naturally, even though I felt confident about myself, I was still clueless about the craft as a whole. Even though it took a lot of talent to write tv scripts, I had very little knowledge about the story structure or how to create my own material.

After all, when it comes to those drama specs for Boston Legal, I was writing for an existing television series. I didn't have to know anything about creating characters from scratch, coming up with overarching storylines or anything else.

So not surprisingly, when it came to this movie writing task, it was just a total failure. I spent months writing stuff that had no organic premise, no interesting characters or anything that would have given the story any direction or momentum.

As a whole, the whole thing was such a disaster, that it took almost ten years before I had the courage to try writing movies again. I didn't have the nerve to try again until I had learned more about the craft and felt that I knew enough to give it a go again.

In that sense, when it comes to the craft of storytelling and writing in general, it's so important that you're aware of your strengths and weaknesses as a writer. You should be aware of what you can do and what are the things that you don't know enough about.

After all, even though it's true that you don't need to know everything about the craft before you start writing, you should know at least the basics. Writing movie scripts is too much of a crapshoot if you don't know how the fundamentals work.

In the end, in my case, being so clueless about the fundamentals clearly hurt me as a writer. It was so unfortunate that I didn't know the basics of story structure and that there were so many things that I still needed to learn as a writer.

After all, had I known about the basics of story structure earlier (Blake Snyder's beat sheet for example), that would have helped me immensely as a writer. It would have made my learning curve so much easier than it turned out to be.

In that sense, I can only hope that those who think about writing movies manage to learn the basics first. I hope that they manage to pay attention to the fundamentals of story structure instead of getting too excited about their strengths and abilities as writers.

After all, if they manage to do those things, writing movies will become so much easier for them. It will become so much easier to come up with screenplays that are good enough and that have the potential to be produced for the big screen too.

Review: 'The Death of Stalin'.

Last week me and my friend managed to watch a film  that I thought would be worth watching. We managed to watch 'The Death of Stalin', a historical drama/comedy, that had gotten good reviews from the critics (96% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes).

After all, when a historical movie gets positive reviews, it's not a difficult decision to give the film a chance. There's a pretty good likelihood that you'll enjoy watching it and that you'll learn something new about history and how the world works.

So having now seen 'The Death of Stalin', it has to be said that I have somewhat mixed feelings about it. Even though I don't think that the movie was bad per se, there were some problems with it that shouldn't be overlooked.

When it comes to the flaws in the film, the biggest problem with the movie is that it's simply too long. The film doesn't manage to keep your attention from start to finish, and goes on for at least thirty minutes longer than it should.

By that I mean is that when we get past Stalin dying - the most interesting part of the movie, the film stops being funny. Instead of the film bringing out laughs and entertaining you, it starts to drag and takes itself too seriously.

The most obvious example of the movie getting too serious and running out of ideas is that when we get to the second hour of the film, it becomes too vulgar. There so much foul language in the movie that it becomes distracting to watch it.

This is especially true when we get to Stalin's funeral and the inevitable power struggle that ensues. In these scenes the characters become completely obsessed with spouting lines that are as obscene and as crass as possible - which does not work at all.

This use of foul language as a crutch wasn't actually that surprising, because the writer and the director of the movie - Armando Iannucci - has been known for using these cheap tricks. His show on HBO, 'Veep' is all about cursing and being obscene.

After all, on 'Veep', the lack of substance, interesting characters and plausible storylines on the show are replaced with vulgarity. The show uses foul language and four letter words to distract you and to make you forget that the series isn't about anything meaningful.

In that sense, when it comes to 'The Death of Stalin', it's unfortunate that the movie resorts to these kinds of cheap tactics. It's unfortunate that it does these things and doesn't pay enough attention to its story and its characters.

After all, when you consider that the premise of the film is pretty interesting, one would have thought that the producers of the movie would have taken their story more 'seriously'. They should have made sure that the script worked from start to finish.

In the end, even though 'The Death of Stalin' obviously isn't a bad movie, it was still pretty disappointing as a whole. It's clear that the film was lacking storywise and that it didn't always know what it was supposed to be about.

After all, considering that the film switched from comedy to drama in its second half, it was hard to care about what was going on after that point. This change in the movie's tone and the excessive amount of cursing in its second half didn't work at all.

In that sense, even though I recommend the film as a history lesson, I don't recommend it as a 'movie'. I don't recommend it as a movie, because even though the film has its moments, there are too many problems with its length, tone, characters and its overall story.

Predicting movie's quality based on its trailer.

When it comes to movie trailers and film previews, it's not a secret that most films have trailers that look pretty good. No matter how bad a film turns out to be, at least the trailer for it is likely going to be pretty solid.

After all, in order to create a solid movie trailer, you only need to find two to three minutes of decent, passable material from your film. In most cases it's not that difficult to find footage from your film that looks good enough.

Nevertheless, there are cases when the trailer just doesn't look that plausible or coherent. There are cases when you can't help but to think that the movie trailer looks lacking and that the story for it won't make much sense.

For example, when I saw the preview for the film 'The Early Man' some months ago, it wasn't difficult to predict that this wasn't going to be a good film. There were simply too many problems in the trailer that had to do with its story.

After all, when you have a movie about cavemen that culminates to them playing modern football, it just doesn't feel right. There's no way that the movie can be organic when it throws all kinds of stuff around that makes no sense at all.

What made the trailer especially disappointing is that previously the studio had come up with solid films like 'Shaun The Sheep' and 'Chicken Run'. All their earlier film productions had more or less been top notch and had delivered the goods.

Not surprisingly, even though critics did give 'The Early Man' fairly positive reviews for the movie, the audience score for it was much lower. Only 52% of the audience (compared to 82% of the critics) thought that the film was worth seeing.

My second example is the upcoming Robert Zemeckis film, 'Welcome to Marwen', starring Steve Carell. This movie is a psychological-biographical comedy-drama about an artist who gets assaulted by a group of violent neo-nazis.

The reason that I'm bringing up this film is because its trailer - that just got released a couple of days ago - wasn't good at all. It was really disappointing and I wasn't able to make any sense of its story when I watched it.

Especially considering that the film is a weird combination of live action stuff and animated parts, it was really hard to follow the preview. There was no clear narrative and it felt like the film had no clue what it was supposed to be about.

What made this trailer so disappointing is that Robert Zemeckis has been known for making solid films over the years. He's the guy who has directed classics like 'Back To The Future', 'Forrest Gump' and 'Contact' among other movies.

In this case though, it seems as if he's fallen in love with special effects and hasn't paid enough attention to the script. It seems as if there's way too many things going on in the trailer and that the parts in it don't fit together.

In the end, I obviously cannot say with certainty that 'Welcome to Marwen' is going to be a bad movie. I can't be absolutely certain that the film is going to be a mess and that it's not going to work when it gets released later this year.

At the same time, considering that the trailer so obviously lacks a coherent narrative, things don't look good here. Things don't look good and it's more than likely that the film is going to be a disappointment and won't be as good as it should be.