Tuesday 30 July 2013

Framing Film - Simon Horrocks - Part 1

Hey everyone! Welcome to another edition of Framing Film, today we have an interview with Simon Horrocks. As usual we'll be splitting the interview into two, so make sure to check back for the second part!




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ferenc Igali: Hey Simon, thanks for agreeing to do this interview with us - first off, a public congratulations again on the project! But first, let's talk a bit about you; what did you do before Third Contact movie? 

Simon Horrocks: I was half of a composing duo, writing music for TV, adverts, corporate videos etc - plus I was a screenwriter and a househusband bringing up my son.

FI: How did you get into film making from the process of a directorial side? I noticed that you had mentioned previously that you had written for a while before penning the script for this?

SH: I had been involved in other people's shorts over the years, offering my time for free doing various things. As a sound engineer I was able to do location sound, for example. I focused my creative efforts on screenwriting, for over 10 years. I had had sold a few scripts and had an agent in LA, but nothing got made.

During one short production, the director was a very indecisive - which is pretty fatal for a director. I ended up pretty much directing the film and found that I was never short of ideas. Previous to that, I'd ended up directing a short with work colleagues which I was only down to write the script for. I just found that I was comfortable in that role.


FI: How was your 'movie-making' education before this? Did you have a lot of experience on sets? Any experience with shorts for example - which many people view as an almost requirement for going into features?

SH: I did have some experience with short films, one of which was a key learning experience - where we had to shoot the film twice over, the second time without any funding - a 12 minute film for probably about £200.

There's no excuse now for not making your film. I saw a lovely short by one of the kickstarter backers shot with her phone - the camerawork was great, imaginative, free - and better than a lot of other stuff people have been showing me. In other words, she'd used the fact it was a phone and she had no crew to her benefit.

It's not about 'oh well I'll shoot it with my phone as a make-do' - it's actually, 'why on earth would I shoot a film with all that machinery getting in the way of my creativity'. I think in the near future people will laugh at the amount of people and kit we used to use when making films.  The film industry is still very male dominated, and there's a very macho thing about the size of your equipment/budget/crew etc.


FI: Can you tell us a bit about the movie itself? What it's about, what it represents? Inspirations?

SH: It's about a psychotherapist who gets involved in a strange and obsessive investigation when two of his patients die in mysterious circumstances. The inspirations were many, from reflections on mortality from quantum physics theories such as  'many worlds', to Sophocles Oedipus the King, things that were happening in my life, including my own struggle with depression. But every time I answer this question I write something new. I'm still working what it is.


FI: Dealing with questions such as many worlds theory and quantum suicide, how hard was it to translate such revolutionary but exciting concepts to the big screen? 

SH: It all just came together in a rather organic way. I'm more interested in the philosophical implications than the detail of the science. As H.G. Wells said about his writing, the science is just there create a fantasy around. There's no real hard science in the story. Having said that, fiction did seem to mirror fact in a rather eerie way, after I'd written the script.

FI: We heard (and read on your site!) that it got great reviews - how did it feel to get those reviews for the initial screenings of it? 

SH: Incredible.

FI: Obviously, the big area with you will be the crowdfunding campaign - first off, how hard was it? Some say that running a kickstarter project is like a 24/7 job?

SH:Harder than making the film. But with experience I think next one could be a little easier.


FI: Why did you choose to go down the crowdfunding route and where can funders expect to see their money being used?  

SH: Most people who are looking for distribution money on kickstarter will tell you they thought it was 'right for the project'. The fact is they couldn't get distribution, but they probably don't want to phrase it that way in case you think they made a bad film. The truth is I couldn't get cinema distribution for my film - well, its shot on a camcorder and has no names in it, its not really a huge shock.

The money will be spent on PR and a cinema booker.


FI: Talk to us about a bit about funding the film initially and then the crowdfunding process - can you tell us about your experience of securing funding as a first time filmmaker? Is there any trials and tribulations that you could share with other filmmakers?

SH: I funded the film from my wages as a cinema worker (at the time about £7.50/hour). Don't waste your time looking for funding, or trying to get the industry to like what you're doing. Chances are, if they like it - its a bad sign, not a good one. If you want to be original and create something unique, work outside the industry. You will end up working harder then them and your lunches won't taste as nice, but you will end up with something far more rewarding. And you will have empowered yourself.

FI: If you had any tips for first time filmmakers, what would you recommend that they know or read up on? 

SH: Don't read any filmmaking or screenwriting 'how to' books. Use your phone or buy a camera from Argos for £50 and go and start expressing yourself and your stories and feelings and ideas. When I wrote Third Contact I'd been reading a book called The Seven Basic Plots by Christopher Booker (it was being thrown out by the BBC library and I got it). Its not about filmmaking or screenwriting specifically, but it does talk about stories, from Ancient Greece up to more recent action movies. Its not a bible, by any means, but it gave me a few ideas. But that just so happened to be what I had in my head at the time, I'm not saying anyone should read it.

And watch films. There's over 100 years of astonishing films to get inspiration from, so use them. Why would you need anyone's 'how to' book?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there we have it, the first part of the interview with Simon! Make sure to check back soon for the second part.

We just want to say thank you to Simon for taking the time to have an interview with us and a particular favourite comment of mine is not to read how-to books! I completely agree, it's all about trial and error (how else are we going to create new and exciting things?)

Make sure to check Simon out on Twitter and find out more about his movie right here!

But You Didn't Hear it From Us,

Mr & Misses

Saturday 27 July 2013

Framing Film - Pete Walton - Interview Part 2

Hey guys - sorry for the delay - here is the next in our series of 'Framing Film'. The first part of the interview can be found here.



This is the second half of our interview with the brilliant Pete Walton - links below as usual.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FI:     Just like us, you interview/contribute/write about filmmaking on indiesonar.com – what has inspired you so much to get into the indie film community?

PW: I learned a lot of things from making the movie that I wish I’d known beforehand, and wanted to share them. Also, a problem for most indie filmmakers is publicity so I started Indie Sonar as a means of giving it to them in return for them describing their filmmaking experiences and sharing tips from what they’ve learned. Seemingly mundane things like how a director got hold of a camera or found actors I think is of interest and useful to filmmakers out there struggling to get their first film made. I also don’t know many filmmakers in Belgrade where I live so it’s also been a good way to connect with the community on a regular basis.
FI:    How are you find directing actors (or in this case, your second cast member) on this other feature?

PW: It’s been a breeze directing the actors I have to say. This I think is because I was good at casting the right people. I looked for something in their showreels similar to what I wanted, so when they turned up on set, there was actually little directing needed from me for their performance. Everyone was a real pro; turned up and said their lines brilliantly.

FI:      Anything you’ve learned from this feature that you wish you had known before you started?

PW: The cost of feeding a film crew! Seriously, this can break the budget if not properly accounted for and done right. It hit me how much it was costing one day when 7 of us sat down for a coffee break during a shoot in Berlin – the bill was 25 euros! Multiply that over the course of a shoot and the numbers start to get scary. The 5-liter vacuum flask I then bought from eBay literally saved me hundreds.

 FI:  Right, technical questions – what kind of camera have you filmed on so far/what has gone on in the pre-production process/etc?

PW: The movie has been shot so far using the DP, Maciej Kwiecinski’s Sony PMW-EX3. Pre-production for Belgrade involved me videoing locations and sending the link to Maciej. I’d tell him the type of shot I was after and we’d decide if it was doable technically at the location. I’d location scout in some places using Google Street View which I recommend to others as it saves a lot of time and money.

FI:  We read about your audition process – quite an innovative push forward and does save on time/money – but are there any disadvantages to it?

PW: Not really I have to say. Another benefit from having someone audition over Skype or record a YouTube video is you’re getting to see them on camera.

FI:     Top 5 favourite directors of all time?
PW: Spielberg, Hitchcock, Tarantino, Wells, Lean.


FI:   We ask all directors this question – if you could have worked on any other film, in any other role, which one would it have been and why?

PW: For Your Eyes Only as assistant director to John Glen. The Citroen car chase would have offered a master class in directing and editing action sequences. It was the first Bond film I saw in the cinema and I’d watch it incessantly on video – and the car chase had me transfixed and I’d watch it over and over again – the shots, editing, music, Roger Moore’s perpetually raised eyebrow – perfect! I think Eon would be great employers as they seem to look after and reuse the same crew who have done a good job for them. I like how John Glen progressed through the ranks of the ‘Bond family’ from editor and second unit director on Her Majesty’s Secret Service to finally being given the reigns to direct 5 Bond films in the 80s. I’d like to do my own Bond film someday - I’ve already got the story mapped out in my head..

FI:      Our favourite reader question; your favourite film(s)?

PW: The Empire Strikes Back, The Usual Suspects, Reservoir Dogs, Memento, Pulp Fiction, From Russia With Love

FI:     How is it on set so far? Does all the travelling really impact the film and the crew?


PW: It’s been fine on set most of the time. The travelling itself hasn’t been a problem – I think the other guys who’ve travelled - David Masterson, Stephen M. Gilbert and Maciej - have looked at it as an adventure to some extent. However, I could have made it a little easier on everyone at times with a bigger crew and better catering, plus I was on some days juggling day job with shooting which impacted the schedule on a couple of occasions.


FI:    You must ‘wear a few hats’ so to speak on set – what other roles do you perform other than acting/directing when on set?

PW: I do most of the mundane things too like make coffee and packed lunches, and also book travel and accommodation. I’ve held the boom or reflector on a couple of occasions too.

FI:   How much have you learned through this process?

PW: A hell of a lot. The main thing is that you can make an international movie on a shoestring budget.

FI:    Despite any trials and tribulations, would you go through it all again?

PW: Yes I would, but with a bit more financing to make things more comfortable.

FI:    And finally – if you were to just give a quick pitch to anyone who hasn’t seen the video/the page – what would you say to them to get them to back your project?

PW: I’m a strong believer that a movie should be able to speak for itself, so I think I’d simply say: watch the clip from the movie I’ve added to the page – if it makes you laugh then I’d love you to be a part of helping me finish it!



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Link to Pete's Twitter.
Link to Pete's film's Twitter

And finally - Pete's Crowdfunding Page.

As usual guys, any shares/reads/recommends that we get, we thoroughly enjoy. Not just for us - we focus on indepedent films - it helps get the word out about great projects and filmmakers that can use a bit of help to finish their films or to gain more exposure for them. We hope you enjoy/find the interviews useful and we love our readers. We really do - we'd be nothing without you guys!

Even if you can't donate, do remember that every time you share this article with another filmmaker/fan of film - we can help gain another person a little bit more traction and exposure that gets them one step closer to realising their dream. 

It also helps us greatly obviously - and hopefully it gives a bit of insight into the trials and tribulations of first time filmmakers!

We would like to thank Pete Walton for joining us, and we hope you guys help him get closer to that finish line so he can get this movie finished!

More Framing Film interviews are lined up and should be appearing on this very blog over the next few weeks - we've loved having everyone on so far as they've all been brilliant. If you haven't read any of the other interviews, we'd highly recommend them.


But remember, you didn't hear any of this from us,

Ferenc and Georgia

Friday 26 July 2013

The Wolverine - Review

Directed by: James Mangold
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamato, Rila Fukushima, Hiroyuki Sanada, Svetlana Khodchenkova, Hal Yamanouchi, Brian Tee, Famke Jenssen,
Written by: Christopher McQuarrie, Mark Bomback, Scott Frank



Rating: 6.5/10


Another outing for the pivotal X-Men character that helped define a new saga in Marvel/Marvel Studios - launching their big way foray into the world of film back in 2000. But the big question is - how long can Jackman play the ageless hero for?

The production on this one ran into several hurdles - several large scale rewrites of the script, several directors (including an apparently pretty lengthy short list) as well as other smaller hurdles.

This film is a nice exploration into the darker side of Wolverine - taking cues from the 1982 mini-series of comics by Chris Claremont and Frank Miller. Mangold follows the major thematic schemes of this run of the comics by focusing on Wolverine's emotional side - the torture and pain that comes with living through what Logan has lived through. The film also stretches to great lengths to show Logan's animal side - drawing many metaphors. The film is set after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand.

The story starts out in a WWII era Nagasaki - just as the bomb is about to drop. Logan (Hugh Jackman) saves the life of a Japanese guard by the name of Yashida. This cuts forward to the present - Logan is living life as an outcast in the wilderness. But Logan being Logan, he can't help but step in when there's trouble and his isolated life is shattered. He is pursued by a stranger named Yukio (Rila Fukushima) - who takes him to Japan to meet an aged and dying version of that same fateful soldier, Yashida (Hal Yamanouchi).

The plot then derails into a plethora of structures that are a re-imagining of that mini-series. Logan gets a new love interest in Mariko (Tao Okamato) - a character that those who read the comics should be familiar with. While her story is slightly re-aligned, she provides a catalyst for Mangold's exploration of the vulnerability of this invincible character.

There's a slew of antagonists in this film too - from the Yakuza, to Mariko's own father Shingen Yashida (Hiroyuki Sanada), to the deadly-if-somewhat-boring Viper (Svetlana Khodchenkova). Jean Grey makes a return (Famke Jansse) - reflecting on one of the most important relationships that helped turn Wolverine into who he is. She appears as an ethereal other-wordly influence who flits between a range of emotions and responses to Logan's inner turmoils.

It's a big change from other comic book blockbusters of the summer - no cities were destroyed, the killing is 'relatively' tamer and it focuses more on the inner aspects of the character than the grand mythology it's building from. Some of the film's greatest moments come from Jackman's portrayal of a broken man - something that when you've survived for as long as Logan has, isn't easy. The sheer talent of Jackman raises the entire profile of the film - if someone else had played the titular role - blink and you might have missed it.

The Yashida clan also has mysterious ties to a a clan of deadly ninja assassins led by the enigmatic Harada (Will Lun Yee).

The music is underused and not powerful enough to fully flesh out the intimate feel that the film is hitting for. The cinematography helps create the-almost-claustrophobic atmosphere and helps the audience in the nightmare/dream sequence transitions - as well as creating a general sense of unease.

The generally 'un-epic' feeling of this 'epic' film is a great boost - it doesn't focus on Wolverine just killing the bad guy and saving the day, while being a troubled soul. It instead shows us the heart of a man who is undergoing a very turbulent maturation. It doesn't focus the violence needlessly - every act of violence is another step in the shading of the darker-side of Logan.

That being said - one of the biggest disappointments is the final cut. While there is a hefty amount of violence, very little of it is actual seen - and seen in any of it's full-fledged brutality. Bodies drop off-screen and rarely do we get to see the damage that those famous adamantium claws can inflict. It's like playing an FPS with the violence level turned down or watching an Old Western that's been edited for morning TV. It stops the film delivering the punches that it should.

We couldn't decide whether the CGI was brilliant or completely overshot. In the end, it came down to a bit of both. The fight that Logan has (which can be partly seen in the trailers) on top of a bullet train is, for a lack of a better term, spectacular. Later in the film, the CGI seems to weigh down on the film and almost becomes a burden, however.

For his sixth portrayal and his 13th year as Wolverine, Jackman looks as tough and toned as ever. His dedication to his role is nothing short of immense - and despite a previously lacklustre sequel in Origins, he keeps carrying the character forward.

It's clearly from the family-friendly cut to the way the entire film runs and feels that the studios have had a major input into this film. It feels like a film that's been through such a strong marketing team that what they wanted to portray was at odds with the main motifs of the film. I'm sure it was screened to focus groups, and there were surveys, and ideas about the overarching marketing strategies - but none of that fits in well with what Mangold and crew were trying to depict. Mangold's attempt, in itself, is impressive - he took a big scale budget and focused less on extensive special effects, and more on character development.

Stan-Lee didn't make his usual cameo appearance (unless we missed it!), but however, there is a reference to him early in the film for any eagle eyed viewers.

Jackman knows what he's doing - this has to be one of his best outings as Logan. The film, however, lets him down in that what we saw on screens around him. It felt like it was playing it too safe and pandering to what the studios wanted in creating a Wolverine that would 'sell'.

The film also makes a plot point that will have echoing effects in any future X-Men films in it's climactic finale. It's interesting to see how Marvel will play it from here on out.

In a similar vein to what the film tries to depict, the studios and fans would have much higher rates of return on money and enjoyment if -

Just let Logan loose.

What the Mr. Thought:
The entire film feels somewhat empty and restrictive. It aims for high moving drama, but then sees all the tropes and clichés of summer superhero movies start to creep in. While I admire Mangold's work, especially his run here, it feels like there could have been more. That there is yet a more intimate, more twisted and several shades darker side of Wolverine that is just waiting in the wings. In that sense, I suppose the potential and the celebrated areas of this film far outweigh the restrictions that you may feel.

I'm in two minds about this - but I'd recommend seeing it for Jackman's performance alone. It'll also set you up nicely for X-Men: Days of the Future Past.

Oh, and it's a Marvel movie - stay for the after the credits sequence to get a sneak preview of an upcoming film.

What the Misses Thought:
Hugh Jackman is certainly Wolverine (and he is just so good as this character!) 

The film overall I felt was lacking...something. It was paced well, the acting on behalf of Jackman was spot on and the fight scenes hit the spot! However the story lacked substance and I feel as if the new love interest didn't quite work as well as they wanted her to. 

Overall if you are a fan of Marvel (which we definitely are!) and if you love Hugh Jackman (which I definitely do!) then this film is just right for you!




But remember, you didn't hear that from us!

The Mr. and the Misses!

Thursday 25 July 2013

The World's End - Review

Directed by: Edgar Wright
Starring: Simon Pegg, Andy Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, Martin Freeman, Rosamund Pike
Written by: Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg




Rating: 8/10


A brilliant movie that sparkles to the brim with the type of British comedy that Edgar Wright and co have become masters of. Wright, Pegg, Frost and others have all struck out or made it on their own - clearly, they all love making films. They're all pretty great at making them too. But having all of these friends, who are genuinely friends, working with each other, provides a real on screen relationship that's hard to fake sufficiently. Look at Vaugh and Wilson - the reason they're good at all those buddy comedies is because they're exactly that - buddies. When you have an ensemble of people come together who are not only talented but also close friends - it can create something special. While this film will certainly not walked the hallowed halls of film classics, you would be doing yourself a disservice by not seeing it. It's offbeat comedy and constant twists will keep you entertained throughout.

The film itself cements Wright as a director capable of crossing genres and influences, which is something he's been noted for. Pegg and Frost, as well as the rest of the cast are on top form as a bunch of hapless and distant adults who return to their home town (some dragged back) to finish a legendary pub crawl that they couldn't complete. Gary King (Pegg) plays their adventerous leader, a man incapable of letting anything from the past go, who organises the trip. In tow, he brings Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan), Andy (Nick Frost) and Steven (Paddy Considine). Complete chaos ensues as the film's plot unravels.

Now Wright and the rest of the film's cast and crew have said they didn't want the entire plot or any potential surprises being given away - so we'll just focus on what we thought of the movie.

To put it simply, if you've seen 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'  - you'll know what that means. If you don't - go see them. Now.

This film, much like the others, is somewhat of an offhand social commentary. It looks at the loss of the individual - what happens to small towns when larger towns/cities have their influences spread and other issues concerning the constant change we encounter. It's a comedy - but it'll leave the thoughts swirling round your head for awhile about the uniqueness, the beauty and the eccentricity of some aspects of life that we lose as we march forward and grow older.

As the plot moves forward and the narrative becomes more and more far fetched, you'll find yourself immersing yourself even more. It's not a film where an outlandish plot acts as a detriment in any way - in fact, as it gets more absurd, the film becomes funnier and runs at a better pace.

There are moments though, when it drags - especially in the beginning and around what can be considered the second half of act two. But you'll be hard pressed to notice these moments as the special effects, the cinematography and the score carry you easily through it.

It's a fitting end to the 'Cornetto' trilogy as it's come to be known. Much like another famous trilogy from Kzrysztof Kieslowski's - The Three Colours - all three carried similar thematic ideas forward, as well as similar commentaries and having repeat performances from the cast in different roles.

Wright, Pegg and Frost have created a set of British comedies that include, while also paying homage to, a large variety of influences. This set of films also celebrates Britain and very particular aspects of British comedies - which is something that can be lost when filmmakers follow the Hollywood cookie cutter template for a comedy. Instead of avoiding their influences, their upbringing and their own lives - they take all of it and use it for inspiration to create something great.

Not only that, but it's a set of films that are willing to self

The locations, while different, feel eerily similar to the previous two films - and that's kind of the point. It's a mark on the increasingly homogenised towns and centres of Britain - mixed in with an unsettling feeling.

The World's End celebrates a time honored tradition in Britain - the pub crawl/the local pubs.

It champions the celebration of differences and of us using those differences to lead us and help us create.

It's no 'Shaun of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz', but it's a fitting finale for the boys.

What the Mr. Thought: 
I'll keep it simple - if you like parodies or any of their previous films or just good natured British comedy with a tinge of American influences - go see this.

What the Misses Thought:
In comparison to the previous films in the trilogy, The World's End was somewhat of a let down. While it was funny and I laughed at parts, it just wasn't up to par with its fellow films. The ending felt rushed (I hate rushed film endings, I love a thorough conclusion!) and almost lack lustre. 

The Mr said to me after we watched it, that they were almost trying too hard to be funny and current. That is something that I completely agree with.

So if you want a slight laugh, to finish the trilogy or watch an alright film, this one is for you. 




As usual - we don't always agree -

But remember, you didn't hear any of that from us!

The Mr. and the Misses

Tuesday 23 July 2013

Framing Film - Pete Walton - Part 1

Hey guys, welcome to our next interview - this one is with Pete Walton from Indiesonar. He's a first time feature director - and as always, we've got another great independent filmmaker to give us an insight into their process. As usual, we'll do our interview in two parts. Expect the next one on Thursday this week! (Two days from now!)



We really want to thank Pete Walton for joining us - he's a brilliant sport who gave us wonderful answers. We hope you return this favour by helping support his film!


Hope you enjoy!

(Links at the end!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ferenc Igali: First, how about you tell us a little bit about yourself? We know a bit from your crowdfunding video (link will be found later in article), but what about your story? What inspired you to go into the business of making movies?


Pete Walton: I’d always been a huge fan of cinema, but in recent years there’ve been fewer and fewer movies come out that I’ve actually enjoyed, so I thought it was high time I stepped into the ring myself.

FI:  What made you decide on doing a first feature as opposed to a series of shorts/documentaries/etc?

PW: I didn’t really have any interest in making or watching a short. People basically like to watch features so that’s why I decided to jump straight in and make one. Plus I believe that the effort involved in preparing for a feature isn’t all that greater in comparison to what’s involved in making a short. And being able to walk away with a feature under your belt at the end of it is worth all the extra effort.


FI: So, before we get stuck into anything too technical – talk to us a little bit about Inverted, what it’s about for those that are unfamiliar with it?

PW: It’s a comedy about 2 friends on the verge of middle age who, following tragedy in their lives, decide to self-medicate by going on a journey around Europe in an attempt to discover the meaning of life, and also themselves. The comedy is heavily influenced by shows like It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia, The Office and Peep Show, plus the movie This Is Spinal Tap.

FI: You’ve shot in a variety of locations – in several countries in fact – can you talk us through what that experience has been like?

PW: It’s been quite an adventure! I decided from the outside I wanted the film to an authentic international feel and felt that it was possible if I flew low cost and found most of the cast and crew at the locations.

Berlin was the easiest place as there’s a big creative community there and attracting talent was quite easy. I also used to live there so I know the place well in terms of locations I wanted to use. I slept on the couches of other people on the movie.

Maastricht was great in terms of getting around as the place we stayed in was within walking distance from the locations. I’d scouted all the locations first using Google Street View so when I got there I simply had to check them out the day before for noise etc. I found a place for the four of us stay on Couchsurfing.org. Ali, our host, was great and he and two friends of his even appeared in one scene as extras. We had one problem as it was November and the fountain in the main square had been switched off, which we needed for a scene, but with a little clever fakery we got round it – you’d never know from the finished film.

Belgrade, where I live, was good for the locations but finding actors was difficult as I didn’t know anyone in the business there. We had to abandon one location at short notice but I had a backup in mind so we didn’t lose much time. I’ll say to other filmmakers, always have a backup ready if you’re filming on location that you can get to quickly if you need to and not lose too much shooting time. The biggest headache of the Belgrade shoot was finding our car had been towed one day and having to pay the 150 euro fine!

Athens was ok too in terms of cost and getting around. I’d researched all the locations pretty heavily before deciding where to shoot in terms of cost – not just to get there but how much it would cost travelling around once we’d arrived. Athens was only 14 euros for a 7-day pass on the metro. We also stayed with couchsurfers here, who were both great and even appeared in a couple of scenes. Casting and crew were very difficult to get through. As I don’t speak Greek and had trouble finding any Greek talent on sites like Mandy.com and CastingCallPro the casting wasn’t completed until the last minute. My first host in Athens, Chrissa, had worked in the business and she took me to a party where I met a director who gave me the number of an actor. A few phone calls later and the parts I needed were cast. I have to hand it to Nikos Anagnostopoulos and Vasilis Christidis who both turned up at short notice and gave great performances – Nikos as a mugger, who after mugging the main characters apologizes for his poor English (this actually happened to someone I met in Sarajevo), and Vasilis as a shop owner who forces one of the characters, who’s desperate for the toilet, to buy a carpet before letting them use the bathroom.

By the time we hit London, I have to say funds were getting a bit tight – it was literally down to the penny. So much so that I had enough money to hire a taxi to transport the lights and C-stands we needed back to the hire firm, but I’d have to carry them on the Tube the other way myself. This was by far and away the toughest thing I had to do on the shoot: C-stands, I’m now convinced, were originally designed as some kind of medieval torture device – lol! The problem is not so much the weight but that they’re extremely awkward to hold and constricted my leg movements, but I somehow managed to hobble from Ealing Studios in West London across the Tube to the Docklands location in the East. I actually collapsed in exhaustion soon after leaving the hire firm. Luckily a passer-by offered to help me carry them to the station. I’m eternally grateful to them for that.
London’s expensive to get around with a crew so we made full use of the flat I’d hired on AirBnB.com and the nearby surrounding area. The flat interior and balcony, we faked as 5 different locations.

FI:   Obviously you’re a big advocate of crowdfunding – how have you found the process so far? It’s pretty much a 24/7 job, but with your stringent planning/dedicated work ethic, how has the overall experience been?
PW: Well, I have to say the campaign so far has not been good and I have to hold my hands up and saying I haven’t done a few things right on it. I’d read up a great deal on crowdfunding before the campaign and one thing kept cropping up and that was that people buy into the filmmaker rather than the project. My mistake has been to go overboard with the ‘filmmaker’ aspect in the video to the extent I’ve actually mentioned little about the movie itself. Also, technically the sound is very poor, but I’m in sort of a catch-22 on that as I need the crowdfunding to get the sound equipment. So for the video I was forced to use what I had, which was a Logitech headset suspended on a metal coat hanger just out of shot! I also didn’t have backers ready to fund on day 1 which is very important to give your campaign an early boost. Hopefully there’s still time for me to correct it, but if at first you don’t succeed..

FI:   Also – what do you think of the effect of crowdfunding on the film landscape?

PW: Very good! It’s going to give a lot of filmmakers the opportunity to make projects with their creativity unhindered by investors. If you’ve got a good idea you’re likely to get your film made a lot more quickly.

FI:  You’re very clear and concise with how you budget – any tips you can give first time filmmakers on overarching strategies to approach budgeting with?

PW: Plan what you think you’ll need, then add another 30% to cover all the things you didn’t foresee. List everything you think you’ll need, then go through each one and ask if it’ll really make an impact on screen. It’s surprising how many things you can do away with if you’re prepared to do more work yourself.

FI:   We’ve read your tips regarding buying off Ebay and Amazon – have you got any particular market searching strategies here that you found have worked really well for finding the all important pieces of equipment?

PW: In terms of buying, I check eBay first as it’s normally the cheapest, then Amazon then elsewhere. To identify the piece of equipment I read a lot of reviews on forums and Amazon.

FI:  You’ve come up with some inventive rewards, including giving away the camera that you are going to use to film the next part of the film with – how important is it to have such big/important rewards to the process of funding of a film?

PW: To be honest, I think it’s the person and the project that crowdfunders really buy into – with the rewards being a bonus. I did however try to think of something different from the norm by giving away the equipment. I just need the equipment to finish the movie so I thought why not give it away as a thank you to crowdfunders afterwards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to Pete's Twitter.
Link to Pete's film's Twitter

And finally - Pete's Crowdfunding Page.

As usual guys, any shares/reads/recommends that we get, we thoroughly enjoy. Not just for us - we focus on indepedent films - it helps get the word out about great projects and filmmakers that can use a bit of help to finish their films or to gain more exposure for them. We hope you enjoy/find the interviews useful and we love our readers. We really do - we'd be nothing without you guys!

Even if you can't donate, do remember that every time you share this article with another filmmaker/fan of film - we can help gain another person a little bit more traction and exposure that gets them one step closer to realising their dream. 

It also helps us greatly obviously - and hopefully it gives a bit of insight into the trials and tribulations of first time filmmakers!

Stay tuned on Thursday for the second part! 

And remember - you didn't hear it from us!

Ferenc and Georgia

Friday 19 July 2013

Flavour Of The Month - Edgar Wright - Neopolitan Ice-cream - Part 1

Hello, dear readers, and welcome to our latest new feature. It's the first in our series of 'The Greats', where we honour and discuss our favourite filmmakers. But being a funky, off-centre blog, we couldn't just write about the life of our favourites - we're going to pick one a month to focus on (we'll add periodically during that month to it in the form of follow-up articles).

We'll also compare them to a flavour of ice-cream that we feel represents them.


Purely because we can.






Make no mistake though - those who we discuss, we'll be looking at in a very serious manner as we explore their past work/current projects and future trials. We hope we can do them justice - and we hope we can shed a bit of light on people who you might also follow or admire.

This is in stark contrast with our 'Framing Film' series for a reason - that interview series, that is now mainly focusing on indepedent filmmakers, explores process - technical and artistic - from generally up and coming companies/individuals - whereas this looks at people with already established bodies of work and some of our favourites from that pool.




(Photo By: Gage Skidmore - Wikimedia Commons)

This entire series is predicated/inspired by one of our absolute heroes - Edgar Wright. In honour of the Cornetto trilogy's ending coming up soon, we've decided to go back over some of our favourite moments that were crafted by him. (The Cornetto flavours trilogy, as it's come to be known through a joke, has inspired this flavour of the month idea). He's one of our favourite directors and one that we take some cues on as we head onto writing/filming our own shorts. We'll look at 'Dead Right' (1993) today - then 'Fistful of Fingers' tomorrow - and onwards on our journey through his directing from there.

For this month - we'll be comparing Edgar to Neopolitan ice-cream. We hope he doesn't mind the comparison.



Much like the now famed dessert - he is able to bring many different styles and genres together. When he's interchanging between them, he handles them all with the same skill level. For the price of one director, you get a variety of skills and passions.

And, you know, it's three colours.

And flavours.

Or so we're told.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Early Years - 'Dead Right' (1993)

Edgar Howard Wright lived most of his early years in Wells, Somerset, which, from as much as we can gather from listening to him, is a great if slightly uneventful place. Like many other budding filmmakers, he was making shorts/films from a young age. But particularly, he was making spoofs. 'Dead Right' (1993), which can either be dug up on some backwater internet site or through the 'Hot Fuzz' DVD. 'Dead Right', in essence, is a film that explores the difference between American and British action films. It's never fun (or nice) to do critic's work on early films made to get into the industry as you're learning - they're made in a light spirit, and for fun. But the reason we want to look at some of his work is because the passion genuinely comes through. It's not a bunch of throwaway films - it must have been a brilliant learning experience and it works well. Edgar also shows humility here - he showed us where the stories that he works on now evolved from. Also - what better education can you ask for then to see a director at work?

It also starts to show signs of Wright's early favourites when working - the whip pans/swift transitions - that offbeat comedy style. It's also a basic precursor to 'Hot Fuzz' - which was filmed in the same place. In fact, it's like the prototype of that film - I highly encourage watching it before viewing 'Hot Fuzz' again - you can see the germination of the ideas as they take place. 'Dead Right' follows the rather brash Barry Stern as he tracks a serial killer and works with a new partner.

It's brilliant, because, despite being a video made with mostly friends and with low-grade equipment, you could tell it was a Wright film from watching it.

From almost a mile away.

It's that obvious - not to mention that as a writer, even aged 18, there's a lot of clever dialogue hidden around. The biggest reason we love this film; it's left more of an impact than other films I've seen from 18 year old directors. Now granted, I haven't seen that many, I have had the (dis)pleasure to sit through a lot of student film viewings where the students were clearly discouraged or just not in touch with what they were doing. It also is something that is critical to the rest of his work - it looks to examine bigger concepts than simply just putting a video onto a film print/tape.

Most importantly - their films didn't reflect the fun and joy of filmmaking.

You know that when you make a film like 'Dead Right' or a student film - you're not doing it for big money. You're doing it because you love it - because it's what you want to do with your life. When it's a very confined budget and a small crew doing many different jobs at once, stretching people, you have to be at the top of your game. Something along the lines of 'It's hard until it gets easy'?

But it's clearly someone who is passionate about filmmaking and someone who worked ahead of his time in terms of his education - this was before we had an overflow of media courses at high schools here, if you remember.

Most of our other favourite directors like Spielberg and Rodriguez, were doing the exact same thing. Cutting together shorts that used every available resource they had and showing signs of what they would later become.

Monsters U - Review

Directed by: Dan Scanlon
Starring: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, Nathan Fillion
Written by: Dan Glerson, Robert L. Baird, Dan Scanlon





Rating: 6/10

Is Pixar running out of steam?


Pixar - a brand name long associated with animated greatness - has recently started following up more of their eye-catching and fundamentally brilliant films with sequels. While not unheard of in the studio world, (or even for Pixar!), the sequels are slowly starting to creep out of the woodwork in larger numbers.

While Monsters U isn't specifically a 'sequel' - it is actually a prequel - it doesn't have the same charm and wit that the original carried. That's to be expected of course. However, what's unexpected is that Pixar - a company famed for originality and powerful storytelling would take your average tropes from a typical college comedy (minus the heavy amount of stoners/toned down drinking) and just pop their characters into that situation. It might have worked too, had the characters been so wildly different to their live-action compatriots.

As it turns out, Monsters U, while enjoyable, is nowhere near the 'Pixar Peak'.

It wasn't really meant to be - they have other original films coming out for that. It was meant to be a good addition to the Monsters universe and to flesh out the characters. Oh, and of course, make them a fair bit of change. All credit to Pixar, it seems to have worked.

Monsters U is the story of how Mike (Crystal) and 'Sulley' Sullivan (Goodman) met in university. The plot follows the typical college tropes - one eager, lonely but brilliant student doesn't know how to let loose. He doesn't understand that the best thing, in the most critical/clutch moments of his life, would be to just go with gut instinct and passion. The other is from a famous family but incredibly lazy - and he just coasts along. Most obviously - the two don't get along at first and it takes a team of misfits to bring them together to work for a common goal.

In a sense, it's a nice way to introduce a generation of children to the common tropes - they don't have to watch the terrible '21 and Over' for example to learn the basic characters in this film. For them, this'll be new territory. The underdog overcomes the arrogant-jock types story? Brilliant - welcome to the film world, kids.

But it is rather funny at times.

Endearing, too. You can't help but smile as the misfit Monsters learn to work together.

The real problem is not just a lack of originality that made us fall in love with the monsters in 2001 - it's also down to things such as pacing and direction. The story seems to wonder aimless in some early segments, filled with a frantic energy and then a sudden slow down - then head out in a wilderness only to be brought back by one of the common college film setups.

A lot of the praise for this film is for the score - it carries the film into places where it wants to go, without being overbearing. Which can be hard for some animated films. Credit must also go to Crystal and Goodman - their burgeoning friendship/friendly rivalry comes alive, in large part, thanks to their voicing abilities. Despite following a set script - the voice chemistry between the two make the film for easy listening.

The rest of the cast is brilliant too - but it's to be expected. The great finds, however, are Mirren as the cold and authoritarian dean - and Fillion as the 'braggadocious' leader of the campus' most coveted fraternity.

Trivia: Screenings of the film across the cinemas include Saschka Unfeld's 'Blue Umbrella' - a bittersweet short about love, hope and desperation - told through a wonderful story that's just like Pixar's heyday ethos - powerful, simple and dynamic storytelling.  Enchanting at the core - but a beautiful start to the film.

What the Mr. Thought:
Take your kids to see the film if you have any - they'll love it. If you've seen Monsters Inc, you'll enjoy this one too. Not a must-see recommendation, but a heartfelt and fun joyride none the less.

What the Misses Thought:
M U all the way! Perfect film to see if you have children, maybe not so much if you don't. However I personally love a good Pixar film and while this isn't one of the best (and doesn't quite reach the level of the first instalment) it was still heartwarming, funny and enjoyable. 

On a final note from me: put that thing back where it came from, or so help me, so help me, so help me, la la la (boom boom boom!) 

Nothing will beat that for me!




But remember, you didn't hear that from us!

The Mr. and the Misses

Sunday 14 July 2013

Pacific Rim - Review

Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kukichi, Rob Kazinsky, Charlie Day, Burn Gorman, Ron Perlman, Max Martini, Ellen McLain
Written by: Guillermo del Toro, Travis Beacham




Rating: 7/10

It's a Guillermo del Toro film.

Without much of Guillermo del Toro's touch in it.

Del Toro is like a kid let loose in his favourite shop in this film - it's obvious that his fanboy fanaticism for the creatures vs humans stories shines through here. It's like the monster of all monster flicks, seen through the lens of a director who has long been a supporter. It's a summer spectacular, one that is thoroughly enjoyable. Is it the best summer blockbuster you'll ever see? No, but it's not that far off. It's perfect for families to enjoy together, it has breathtaking visuals and an entertaining concept. The only downfall is the slightly jarring dialogue and pacing - but that doesn't seem to affect the cheers and claps coming from the audience in the film's greatest moments. There was a pretty loud reaction in our screen to the cancellation of this apocalypse. 

The ideas of the kaiju and the mechs are nothing 'new' - they've had a time long tradition of being featured in several publications before. But it's safe to say that none of them can compare in scale to this hulking $190 million behemoth.  

The story centres around the kaiju, large monsters, who have appeared from an area in the Pacific Ocean. To combat these monsters, humanity makes monsters of it's own in the form of the Jaeger program - giant mechs controlled by two pilots who are linked by a neural bridge. The story follows a brilliant pilot of such a mech - Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam), who is plagued by a tragedy that doesn't let up in the film's plot in what seems to be vaguely reminiscent of Top Gun. He's a rebel who does what he feels is right - which doesn't always make him so. He must learn to reign in control under the watchful eyes of his tougher-than-nails and strict commander Stacker (Idris Elba), while learning to work alongside other, equally brilliant but emotionally scared individuals - such as a pair of scientists (played by Burn Gorman and Charlie Day) that are both equally genius and ridiculous. Raleigh gets saddled with a wildly unpredictable (but completely predictable if you've seen any movie in this genre) co-pilot who has issues of her own in Mako (Rinko Kukichi).

The enigmatic del Toro has even stated that part of the film's aim was to recognise that it's always those individuals who are flawed who can come to our rescue - and that's all well and good, because where would these stories be without such flawed characters? The quintessential hero, ever since the popularisation of romantic Byronic heroes, has focused on being an essentially flawed character that has pulled it out of the bag at the last moment by turning their flaw into a strength. That's great - but did we really need the clichés and the offbeat dialogue to make this work? This film was never about the human aspect - it, like the audience, is just there for the ride. When going to see Pacific Rim, you aren't going to see it for brilliant and intimate portrayals of the inner turmoil of humanity - you'll go to see the giant robots beat the living daylights out of the monsters. The film knows and understands this - which is where the problem partly lies. It relegates the overarching plot - as energetic as it is - and puts it to the back burner at times for the large scale visuals. 

And it works.

A little bit - it's definitely a stunning piece. It looks beautiful, and you'll find yourself pumping your fist in the air silently every time one of the kaiju get decked in the face. But in the between moments, some of the story will leave you wanting more from the actors - who put in decent performances of the summer action flick stereotype variety. 

It's not a typical del Toro film - you won't find the chaotically enchanting/light touch he applies with Pan's Labyrinth - nor the haunting essence of some of his other works such as The Devil's Backbone. Or even anything like his run in with the Blade franchise of Blade 2.  In fact, it looks more Shawn Levy (of Real Steel fame) got his hands on a film and brought on del Toro as a consultant. 
His regulars all make appearances in the film or behind the camera, and they're all the better for it - the excellent production design can be attributed to Andrew Neskeromny - a long time stalwart. The brilliant cinematography goes to another Guillermo - Navarro. Even a main actor from Hellboy pops up for a brilliant, zany and carbon copy (from science fiction lore) cameo. It's still missing that typical del Toro stamp, however - but parts of his influence are still present.

That doesn't make it any less fun however - it's still well worth watching. 

It won't change your mind on the summer blockbuster genre typical outings, and if you've seen Transformers, Real Steel or any movie of the sort, you won't be in for anything new.

But it's still ingeniously fun to watch the enthralling fight sequences and to hear Elba recite a heroic set of lines and end with the now infamous line from the trailer.

Should you see it?

Definitely. 

What the Mr. Thought:
It's your run-of-the-mill monster mashup action flick - but it doesn't try to hide it, outdo competitors or to create something truly unique and original. In fact, it's something of like a giant homage - just paying tribute to those that have come before (despite the film's opening sequence including a poke at Transformers). It runs the gamut with an unflatteringly honesty and modesty - it doesn't shy away from the main selling points and it does them well. Not a must see - but definitely a worthwhile couple of hours on a warm summer's eve or afternoon.

What the Misses Thought:
Striking battle scenes, powerful machinery and characters you can connect with. Those are a few things I loved about this film. However some of the plot points I felt were predictable, but this didn't ruin the overall film for me! While this isn't the best film I have ever seen it is very much worth a watch!


Interesting bit of trivia - the woman who voices the Jaeger AI will be familiar to gamers. 

It's the voice of GLaDOS from Portal - voiced by the talented Ellen McLain. 


But remember, you didn't hear this from us, 

The Mr. and the Misses!

Sunday 7 July 2013

The Internship - Review

Directed by: Shawn Levy
Starring: Vince Vaugh, Owen Wilson, Rose Byrne, Max Minghella, Joanna Garcia, John Goodman, Dylan O'Brien, Jessica Szohr
Written by: Vince Vaugh, Jared Stern





Rating: 6.5/10



So many people, from my favourite critics, to fellow moviegoers, have absolutely slated this movie. Why? Because, at first glance, it appears to be the underdog comedy that Google basically used as a two hour advert for recruiting. To some extent, it does feel too long - the running time doesn't help, but the pace and the script all come under fire here. You'll realise about 3/4 of the way through that you are slightly numb from just sitting there. But it's not a terrible film - we've seen terrible films before. We've even seen terrible films this year - which we gave above average ratings for said films. This is not a terrible film - it's also nothing new. It's the typical buddy comedy mixed in with your straight forward underdog fight with the inevitable outcome. It's rare to see a great underdog film nowadays where the film makes you suspend your disbelief in the story and makes you believe that the underdog won't eventually win - experience trumps optimism for most cinema attendees.

But it's still not a terrible film. It's like Wedding Crashers but less amiable. The narrative is bloated and some of the gags feel forced - but the 'fresh' and 'new' faces alongside Wilson and Vaughn help create a  style of terrestrial comedy that mixes in multiple styles without missing too many steps. Wilson and Vaughn's characters do make many forced 80s and 90s references that seem deigned to help develop their character, but some of their moments do bring back fond memories of Wedding Crashers, or their performances from Shanghai Noon, and Dodgeball, respectively.

The story centres around focuses on two ageing salesmen who end up getting an internship at Google where they have to go through a series of games in teams to prove themselves. The winning team end up with jobs, the rest go home. The challenges range from finding a bug in a line of code to learning how to man the Google helpline. They get teamed up with the misfits, exaggerating their awkward situation and their outsider qualities.

Plus the fact that they do not understand anything that relates to tech companies, to software or any understanding or computers.

This film won't have you cheering like Flashdance or even a Footloose, but it'll bring a smile to your face and a few chuckles along the way.

Artistically, and from a critical stand point, this film is a giant advert for Google, for it's program and a terribly aimed comedy at two distinct demographics. At heart, and as an average movie going experience - if you're between the ages of 15-50, you'll probably get most of (if not all) the references, have a decent time and it will make you smile as it reaches the inevitable ending that all such comedies reach. There's some subtle racial and social racial stereotypes - but since the dawning of modern comedy, stereotypes and exaggerations have been the heart and fare of most mainstream comedy movies. The stereotype clashes are where the drama and the comedy are meant to come from - and while it doesn't flow, it ebbs.

It's not a great film. But it's not terrible either.

That's not a point of pride - but as far as summer blockbuster comedies go, it could have gone the route of Scary Movie 5. It didn't, and we're glad.

(Unless you dislike Google - in which case, you'll hate it.)

What the Mr. Thought:
I'd say to go see it, but I wouldn't recommend it as strongly as some of the other summer films that have hit us so far or will hit us. It's nice and will bring a decent warmth to an afternoon or evening. It's not a must see comedy by any stretch of the imagination and it does tax your reserves of patience/emotion at times. The pacing, the soundtrack and the cinematography that labours you with hundreds of shots of the Google logo will annoy. But the story at heart will warm to a fair few people.

What the Misses Thought:
The Internship is such a feel good film! Laughing and smiling the whole way through, it really was amusing and comical. I loved it! I would definitely recommend watching this if you need a few good laughs.


But you didn't hear that from us,

The Mr. and the Misses