Remember Deadpool? Of course you do. After years of development hell, and even a botched attempt in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 2016’s Deadpool saw the fan favourite superhero finally translated to the big screen. The film exploded in popularity, not only because it was cleverly written and made with such passion but due to its self-awareness of how juvenile and absurd it was, something that rang true about the source material. Like all popular media however there was a faction of the internet outraged at the film, proclaiming that its overreliance on self-deprecating humour and fourth wall jokes made it childish and were an attempt to disguise its flaws by poking fun at them, even if it was faithful to the comics.
Since the start of 2015, I have seen 222 films at the cinema; that’s one every three and a half days give or take. I can count on two hands (and maybe a foot) the number of times I have been with another person. I have heard all of the archetypal queries and opinions on this habit and they usually boil down to “but don’t you like other people’s company? or “don’t you like to talk about the film afterwards?” Admittedly these have died down slightly as I have moved from school age through university, but occasionally I still encounter some raised eyebrows.
Movies are a grand form of escapism. They help us momentarily forget the problems or events of our current lives and offer us the ability to be entertained for their runtime. But sometimes movies can be pretty damn tough to sit through. Whether they deal with traumatic themes or they’re based off of a tragic event from history, some films seem less like light hearted pastimes and more like endurance tests in intensity.
Going to the cinema is and has been a joy for millions of people for about a century now. Even if the film you end up seeing turns out to be putrid, there’s something special about sitting down in your seat, whether you’re by yourself, with friends, on a date etc., watching the lights dim down and waiting for the film to start. But every so often, when you skip the current blockbuster and chose to see that indie film that you’ve been hearing whispers about, you find yourself unsure of what to think afterwards and pondering what the film meant.
The anticipated all-female Ghostbusters has recently garnered some unexpected results. Even though the trailer made it look like a monstrosity, the final reception was quite divisive. But one thing is for sure; whether you found it good, bad or merely okay it certainly wasn’t on Last Airbender levels of horrific. An argument against critics of this film is that they’re all raging misogynists. An unfair assumption to make, but all the controversy has begged the question; what’s the best way to make a movie feminist?
At the current moment, the film industry is full to the brim with visually impressive CGI, or Computer Generated Imagery. Love it or hate it, CGI has become the dominant medium by which films are produced. The likes of film directors such as Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit) and James Cameron (Aliens, Titanic, Avatar) make full use of the vast resources and skill-sets available today, pushing the visual boundaries of film to create senses of space or motion which would otherwise not be possible. The beginnings of mainstream motion capture in the late nineties (Jar Jar Binks anyone?) introduced a whole new horizon of opportunities for character portrayal by directors that was too tempting to miss.
“Nah, I didn’t like that bit. It was too… cliché.”
It’s a common complaint for all Creative Things – be they books, TV shows or films. But, as far as criticisms go, you’ve got to be careful when you throw around the big ‘C Bomb.’ It’s a bit like when a particular set of Amazon Reviewers grumble about a plot “not being realistic enough.”
Well, that’s a bit of a loose term, isn’t it? Who exactly are the ‘Realistic Police’? And surely a book that, say, delves into some strange post-apocalyptic-type scenario doesn’t care a jot about scoring ‘Realistic Points.’