Tag: Film

New ‘Smurfs’ proves well-intentioned films can still bore viewers to tears

New ‘Smurfs’ proves well-intentioned films can still bore viewers to tears

Originally published at The Daily Texan.

The worst of the three terrible Smurfs films this decade, “Smurfs: The Lost Village” is a stale depiction of one-dimensional characters brought to life by celebrity voice actors.

As the first fully-animated modern Smurfs movie, “The Lost Village” does admittedly boast an impressive look, with bold visuals clearly inspired by James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Massive flowers, towering trees and magical plants surround the title characters, giving the world a majestic feel that the story fails to match, despite a hint of smart political commentary.

Demi Lovato leads the film as the voice of Smurfette, the outcast of Smurf Village. Other than Smurfette, each Smurf has two defining characteristics: they are male and they only have one personality trait. The early bits of the film would be more accurately titled “Snow White and the 101 Dwarves,” with a lone normal person surrounded by neurotic, gimmicky characters.

Much has been made of this “Smurfette Syndrome,” so much so that the concept has become a broad criticism of films with a single female cast member. When films such as those of the Smurfs franchise feature a single female character surrounded by men, it leads to an oddly creepy feeling, as though all the men are simply competing for the woman as a prize. “The Lost Village” carries elements of this issue, which distractingly leads to a question the film skirts around but never answers: How are Smurfs born?

Director Kelly Asbury obviously sees these problematic elements of the Smurf mythos, and addresses them by setting the plot into motion with some of the classic characters stumbling upon a village made up entirely of female Smurfs.

The new characters introduced in this village are highly-capable, generally-badass women that give the toon a refreshingly feminist twist. By turning the classic trope started by this franchise on its head, Asbury makes a strong statement about passive, “token” female characters that few animated movies dare.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie fails to match the boldness of its subtext, settling for a cheap, predictable plot padded with watered-down jokes and sight-gags that would fail to entertain even lifetime Smurfs fans for more than a few minutes.

The juvenile jokes not only waste the audience’s time, but also the skills of the dynamite voice actors, including “Magic Mike”’s Joe Manganiello as Hefty, “30 Rock”’s Jack McBrayer as Clumsy and “Community”’s Danny Pudi as Brainy. Each has a voice perfectly suited to their character, and they all deliver solid laughs upon their introductions in the film.

Following their humorous debuts, these characters inexplicably stay in the movie and become the supporting cast. Every five minutes or so, each one makes the same joke that introduced them, to an annoying and repetitive effect that makes the movie’s hour-and-a-half runtime feel like four hours.

Adding to the interminable experience of watching “Smurfs: The Lost Village” is its blindingly fast pace. The plot hops from place to place without any time to breathe, taking away all opportunity for character development.

With already flat characters, this prevents the viewer from developing any sort of emotional investment. In the end, it leads to a boring, unmemorable adventure where many things happen, but none of them mean anything.

After two disappointing outings, “Smurfs: The Lost Village,” looked to hit reset with a new aesthetic and the introduction of more female characters — but make no mistake, this is a bad, bad film.

“Smurfs: The Lost Village”

Rating: PG

Runtime: 89 minutes

Score: 1.5/5 stars

All-Star cast fails to save drab direction in “The Accountant”

Originally published on The Daily Texan.

Although Ben Affleck was recently on a roll with his directorial effort in “Argo” and well-chosen role in “Gone Girl,” his streak ends as he takes on the titular role in Gavin O’Connor’s “The Accountant.”

Affleck’s character is Will Hunting meets Jason Bourne: A man who is brilliant in math and invincible in a fight. He is joined by a dynamite cast of Anna Kendrick, J.K. Simmons, John Lithgow, Cynthia Addai-Robinson, Robert C. Treveiler and the deliciously evil Jon Bernthal. But aside from Affleck and Bernthal, their characters are underdeveloped and have minimal screen time.

“The Accountant” is overly long and convoluted, and a more detailed plot description might fill an entire page. It follows Christian Wolff (Affleck), an autistic mathematician with a hard childhood and a particular affinity for managing major criminals’ books. Wolff is called to help Lithgow’s company and bank accounts as two agents try to put Wolff behind bars. All the while, Bernthal leads some sort of private army hunting Wolff. The film has an unnecessary amount of subplots, including a treasury agent (Simmons) retiring, a new agent (Addai-Robinson) erasing a dark past, a father (Treveiler) struggling to raise an autistic child, the leadership and employees of a crooked company (Lithgow and Kendrick) and the leader of a private army (Bernthal).

Although the script fumbles with the high-concept idea, it remains somewhat engaging mostly due to Affleck’s performance as Wolff. He full-heartedly sells playful moments of awkwardness, as well as stone-faced action sequences or an occasional panic attack.

From a plot standpoint, Bernthal’s character only exists to remind the audience that Wolff faces an enemy with a similar violent skill set. Bernthal takes this role and runs with it, performing as a sort of dark mirror to Affleck’s socially awkward accountant. He fully sells the role of a southern-accented and somewhat charming murderer, making just as large an impact as Affleck in about one-fourth
the screen-time.

The other performances are lacking, with big-name stars delivering neither great nor terrible portrayals of two-dimensional characters.

The greatest problem with the film is not its hard-to-follow script or poorly-used cast, but its absolutely boring direction by O’Connor. The script deals with an interesting idea, and much of the cast is having fun, but the entire story plays out with no style at all. About 90 percent of the film is dialogue. This is not inherently detrimental to a film, but O’Connor fails to make these moments interesting. When Affleck is in a scene, the film has three possible shots: him talking, a reverse shot of someone else talking or a low-angle shot of Affleck looking angsty.

Recent action films such as “John Wick” or even “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” have specific stylistic elements during fight scenes. “Wick” uses clear, two-dimensional shots of the action, whereas “Captain America” uses quick editing and close-ups to disorient the viewer yet keep them informed. But “The Accountant” does neither, shooting the few action beats slowly as if they were scenes of Affleck and Kendrick discussing mathematical gibberish.

Although Affleck’s recent output has been strong, Gavin O’Connor’s “The Accountant” is a muddled, convoluted mess of a film, with decent elements that just do not add up.

“The Accountant”

Rating: R

Runtime: 128 minutes

Score: 2/5 stars

 

 

The Great Film vs. Digital Debate

What is the difference, who supports each side, and which is actually better?

A large debate rages on in the film industry as professionals take sides on whether to shoot movies with either digital film or “true” film.

What may appear to be a slight difference actually affects how filmmakers create movies and the way they appear in theaters. With new technology rising in popularity across the world, the film industry is searching for a way to keep up.

The Facts

Many facets of this debate remain rooted in subjective questions: What format do you prefer? What feels more “cinematic?” They can make approaching the situation daunting, but facts lay hidden within the conversation.

The History of Film and Digital Film

In the 1890’s the Lumière brothers invented the first projected film. Invented in France, it used strips of film to project pictures at 16 frames-per-second, creating the illusion of movement. After being captured, the strips of film had to be developed in a chemical process.

Over time, the industry standard became 24 frames-per-second, still projecting physical strips of film onto a screen. Cameras and projectors both developed and became higher resolution, as well as adding sound and color. Despite these changes, the fundamental tools which captured film and projected it remained largely the same.

Two primary types of film emerged, known as 35 millimeter film and 70 millimeter film. 35mm became the standard, with 70mm reserved for movies with a grander scale and larger budget, such as “Ben-Hur” and “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Once the 21st century came around, studios and filmmakers began looking into digital cameras and projectors. These digital systems took quite a while to catch up to the film industry, but George Lucas ushered in the “digital age” with “Star Wars: Episode II –  Attack of the Clones.”

Lucas was one of the first directors to ever shoot an entire movie on digital film, and “Star Wars: Episode II” helped it gain popularity. Movie theaters began take notice of the technology, and see it as a financially viable option.

By 2016, 98.2% of theaters have converted to digital projectors, according to technology.ihs.com. Many directors, like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, still shoot their movies on film and offer benefits to theaters which project film prints of their movies.

The Difference Between Film and Digital Film

The first distinction to know is between cameras and projection. The most “pure” experience is to shoot a movie on film camera and project it on film. However, movies can still be shot on film and converted to be shown on a digital projector, so the way a movie is shot does not impact how many theaters it will play in.

The objective difference between these formats comes down to two values: cost and resolution. In general, physical film costs more time and money to capture and project, but have a far superior appearance.

Both film cameras and digital cameras have a similar price, but film cameras require purchasing expensive film stock beforehand. Including processing costs, a 35mm 120 minute film with three takes per shot will cost about $25,713. On 70mm, the same film would cost $46,881.

Projecting a movie on 35mm film requires a projectionist dedicated to one to two projectors at a time. Projection of a 70mm film will require two dedicated projectionists on a single projector. Both also need time for preparation and setup of the projector.

Projecting a digital film requires only a digital server which an employee selects. A single employee can run every projector in a theater at once with little to no time between showings.

The debate itself does not revolve around the extra costs themselves, but whether they are worth it. Appearances and preferences can be deeply opinion-based, but also have factual components.

Movies shot on film can be stored more reliably, simply placed away rather than relying on a computer. On the flip side of this coin, film can sometimes age poorly, losing its color and acquiring an overly grainy look.

The resolutions of the movies themselves heavily favor film. The clarity of the projection quality is measured by how many pixels lay along the horizontal, measured in “K.” The average digital projector and HD TV show images in 2K. Higher-scale projectors such as those used at Alamo Drafthouse theaters use digital 4K projectors.

When using 35mm film, the projected images would translate to a 6K image, and 70mm translates to about 18K.

These facts show pros and cons to each side, but it can be hard to see which side has greater pros than cons.

The Sides

Many famous and popular filmmakers have taken public stances on both sides of the issue.

Pro-Film

The pro-film side argues that the authenticity and clarity of movies shown on film outweigh the costs required to capture and show them. The projectionist at Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse Ritz believes the work required is worth it to show such an “amazing” image.

Recently, famous Hollywood filmmakers Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino have come out in a very public support of the option to shoot and project on film. They offered incentives for theaters across the world to show their movies on film projectors.

“I’m not anti-digital in any way, but I’m absolutely committed to getting this choice back into the hands of the director,” said Nolan.

Others argue that film ought to be preserved for the sake of legacy. As the first movies ever made were on film, and continued that way for many decades, some believe it is worth continuing.

“Film has a history, and that history doesn’t begin with digital formats, it begins with film. So yes, I believe it is essential to preserve that choice,” said filmmaker Martin Scorcese.

In an official statement, the Directors Guild of America said they would be pleased if “film will remain a viable option for filmmakers for the foreseeable future.”

Overall, those who advocate for film do not wish for the entire industry to end digital film, but to keep the opportunity to shoot and show movies on film.

Pro-Digital

Advocates for digital film do not wish for the entire industry to shift to 100% digital cameras and projectors, but acknowledge the value of a digital industry.

Andrew Thomas, an AMC projectionist, supports the ease-of-use of digital projectors.

“I can just go up and press a button, or program them. It’s unbelievably easy,” Thomas said.

The cost of filming also opens up many opportunities for low-budget, student filmmakers. Recent UT graduate and local Austin filmmaker Joel Deeter plans to dedicate his life to making movies, but doesn’t believe he’ll ever receive a budget large enough to shoot on film.

Some Hollywood filmmakers even see little-to-no difference between what they can do with digital cameras and film. Academy Award Nominated cinematographer Roger Deakins sees nothing he can’t do on film with digital.

“Whether I’ll shoot on film again, I don’t know,” said Deakins.

The pros and cons of each format eventually outweigh one another, depending on the person.

My Opinions

This week, I saw Brian DePalma’s film “The Untouchables,” presented in a test screening on 70mm at Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse Ritz. The phrase “test screening” refers to the fact that the showing was a test, preparing to show it to the public.

Because it was a test screening in a hard format, the movie had three technical difficulties. While they do not expect to have these difficulties when screening for the public, it only underscored the difficulty of showing a 70mm film.

The projection of the film itself was absolutely gorgeous. Stephen H. Burum’s cinematography absolutely popped with a wider screen, darker blacks, and brighter colors.

A long tracking shot, following a person sneaking through shadows in a single take came to life when projected in 70mm. The foreground and the background appeared in perfect clarity as though it were seeking to singlehandedly prove the superiority of the format.

Some grain appeared on the screen, as well as lines and streaks which served to distract viewers every so often. These were not enough to detract heavily from the overall experience, but served as light distractions.

Having now seen modern and classic films in digital, 35mm, and 70mm, I have enough moviegoing experience to personally form a professional opinion.

Despite the extra money and effort required to capture, develop, and project a movie on film, it is absolutely worth it when a 70mm image is projected on a screen. The costs can be overwhelming, but given the proper budget, I believe the art justifies itself.

Full Disclosure for this section: I am an employee at the Alamo Drafthouse Ritz, which is how I was able to attend this screening. I am, however, only a food runner, and have no stake in the prosperity of the company and was provided no compensation for this article.

What’s Next?

Moving forward, the film industry will continue its general push further toward digital filmmaking. Some niche theaters in local markets will resist the trend and still show classic as well as modern movies on film.

Director JJ Abrams has headed up new “laser” projector technology, said to be indistinguishable from the appearance of film. With this, the ease of digital can combine with the beauty of film, but they are only in select locations.

As technology progresses and becomes more common, it is possible the film vs. digital debate will fade, but until then, it is worth looking into personally.

Sources: American Widescreen Museum, kodak.com, Cinelab, Directors Guild of America, The Austin Chronicle, indiewire.com, slashfilm.com