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

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!

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

Now You See Me - Review

Directed by: Louis Leterrier

Starring by: Jessie Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, Melanie Laurent

Written by: Boaz Yakin, Ed Solomon and Edward Ricourt

Rating: 7.5/10

Today Murray won Wimbledon - we'll start this review on a completely unrelated note to the film and congratulate him on a well deserved victory! (Hey, we're a small time blog, not a big time newspaper!). In celebration of this, we'll have several articles being launched today - look for the next one in the next hour or so!

A terrifically enjoyable crime caper that doesn't reinvent the wheel but make sure it keeps spinning. Critics have hit it, but audiences have loved it - there's no doubt it's appeal. It's no 'Italian Job', sure. But it's frighteningly entertaining - even with a few patchy areas. 

The narrative is relatively sketchy - sure too. But you don't watch magic to follow a logical narrative plot - you watch it to get swept up in the action and to fall in love with the ride. 

The film sets a strong tone with the quartet of solo magicians who are brought together by a mysterious horse to become a performing troupe known as the Four Horsemen. There's Jesse Eisenberg, typecast as the usual nerdy/OCD type of character, played with meticulous attention and brilliant behavourisms. Then there's his old partner in Isla Fisher who plays a clever escape artist. Filling the last two spots are the brilliant and offbeat Woody Harrelson (who since his earlier films has improved dramatically but has always been in fine form) and Dave (the-brother-of-James) Franco, who each hold their own. The two main businessmen who get involved with the magicians are Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. 

Mark Ruffalo plays the-always-step-behind FBI agent Dylan who chases the magicians and tries to stop them from pulling off trick after trick. He's aided (in someway) by a French Interpol agent played by Melanie Laurent. 

The beauty of this film doesn't rest in the hollow story or the cinematography or the script - it's the actors who carry this film and who make it an enjoyable film. 

Does it attempt to discuss morality like any other film? Sure, it has Robin Hood-esque overtones. But instead of playing up to these, it plays up to the 'fun' aspect - something missing from a fair amount of films that try to deal with massive and grand concept. The score is gentle but non intrusive, and the cinematography helps enhance the journey. It's not the greatest magic film - doesn't even touch another film involving Caine, 'The Prestige' for example. But it's enjoyable.

As a summer blockbuster or even as a way to spend disposable incomes, there are many, many, many worse ways to spend your money. 

What The Mr. Thought:

Can't really say anything other than the fact that you should go and watch it if you want some easy-watching-blockbuster-fun.  We rate for films from a lay-man point of view - while we take professional level views and approaches to working, we look to see what a film wants to deliver and what it actually does - and this film simply delivers on most of the levels it runs through.

What the Misses Thought:

Seeing the advert for this film in the cinema, the Mr and I could not wait! And it certainly did not disappoint. Exciting and enticing, each trick better than the last! However the ending left me wanting more and a little more explanation.

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

The Mr and the Misses

This Is The End - review

Directed by: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson, Michael Cera, Emma Watson
Written by: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg

Rating: 5/10

Who would have known that humanity's most tender and lo....


Sorry. It seems that, in true Hollywood style, we don't just have one film about an apocalypse this summer and a ruined party; we have two. Just like the 'Oblivion' - 'After Earth' pairing, 'White House Down' - 'Olympus Has Fallen' pairing, (and the list goes on and on) - films are aping each other's plots/characters/ideas. In this version of the apocalypse, questions of morality, mortality and just plain stupidity are tackled in a light-hearted and aired out way. A thinly veiled stab at satire is thrown forward - and it succeeds, but only in a few brief scenes. It's a comical reflective look at what the world of the celebrity could become during the end of our time - but endearing doesn't garner enough. You'll see this film and want more - probably returning to other comedies that the cast are famous for afterwards.

It's a shame because we really love Seth Rogen, Franco, and Hollywood's latest round of the 'frat'-club. They've given us some great funny and offbeat moments that we can look back on fondly - Jonah Hill in '21 Jump Street' was brilliant, for example. But this inflated comedy seems like they want it to work too much - it has moments that shine through, especially a few brilliant scenes with Michael Cera and Emma Watson, but it never reaches a consistency. The actors all play themselves - or rather, a version of themselves where they play up certain characteristics that they are known for. Some of them are touching such as Jay, others are the typical-villains-we-love to hate such as Cera, but some feel like the boat has been pushed out a bit too far, or just left moored in a different bay.

The idea of the film was to avoid a large budget - something that Rogen and Goldberg wanted to distance themselves from after 'The Green Hornet'. So, they hired their friends, and companies/crew that were looking to prove that they could provide quality entertainment but at a fraction of the cost.

We've never gotten high or incredibly drunk - but we're betting the movie would have been that much more enjoyable if we had. The narrative, as expected, was completely shot.

It begins, indirectly, with a house party at Franco's house. Music blaring, art deco and just plain weird going on all over the house - with half the house in a drug fuelled state. Then the unthinkable happens as the apocalypse begins - which, unsurprisingly again, seems to affect the celebrities last in Franco's hyper-mansion. As the chaos begins, people are either left on Earth to die or sucked up into heaven - leaving those who are left on Earth to face grisly fates and have a good old reflective session. Those actors who survive the initial cull by God/Mother Nature/Physics (fire does get to some people, as do the wonderful powers of gravity), then barricade themselves in the mansion, using Franco's pieces to blockade the doors - which includes a giant phallic shaped object. Then, as the apocalypse wears on, they squabble, ponder and even resolve their differences.


It's not that the film is bad - it's just not that good. It's passable - the message it attempted to deliver, sending up the actors as well as the apocalypse blockbuster genre, wasn't a bad one. But it's been done before - and more importantly, better. The jokes provide some amusement and the plot, despite the weaker script, rolled forward. As the film wore on though, the only two bigger-than-life characters who got better were Franco and Hill, while the rest middled in the mire of the opening sequence's jokes.

One thing we fell in love with - the nature of the ribbing. None of the actors appear portrayed or dismayed at all to be sending up their lives, as well as others making fun of them. But they could have run the gamut a bit more - none of the actors push that ribbing further out than a few-not-so-deeply self deprecating jokes. The direction is also lacking - it seems as if Rogen and Golberg just wanted to take potshots at a film attempt and fill it with gags.

There's a few brilliant ones though - such as McBride and Franco arguing over an adult magazine. A few moments worthy of a chortle or a guilty laugh aren't enough to have you splitting your sides - but it'll carry you through the film with easy entertainment. It feels like the essence of the Larry Sanders show put into a film with current comedy 'tastes/etiquette' - but it never quite touches the same level of greatness.

Sharp biting satire it isn't - but, as we always look at here - it never really meant to be.

However, topical jokes and a slightly mistaken self retrospective relegate this to a rental only- but considering the closing of most rental places as we head into this next decade, I'll go with download/stream. Hey, maybe someone should do a send up of the rise of the internet streaming?


What the Mr. Thought:
It's not the worst film you'll ever see. That's a compliment, sort of. If you love the work of Judd Apatow (and I do mean, all of it and not just one or two films), chances are - you'll probably like this. But for the rest of us, this mash-up is a film to avoid - or see if nothing else is on. There's talk of a sequel - and I've got my fingers crossed that the guys find some safer footing and go deeper into their exploratory send up of themselves. It shines and it has moments - enough to warrant a sequel if the numbers come in. We love the actors themselves, however - a few of them really carry this film away from the numerous downfalls. But this, their finest hour, it is not.

At times, you will feel like you're watching a long joke that you may not be privy to - a lot of 'in' references that appear to make the cast react hardly gained any reaction from the audience. I suppose a lot of this comedy comes down to age - those below 24 might find this style of comedy more appreciative and would be more responsive. It's definitely targeted - it's not a film for all. We're going against critical/mainstream opinion here - but we're holding out hope for the future because as these stars mature, they seem to get better and better.


But you didn't hear that from us,

The Mr.

Framing Film - Two Guys and A Film - Interview Part 2

Hey guys - the second half of the interview with the two wonderful guys can be found below. In case you missed it and somehow stumbled onto this second half, the interview part 1 can be found here.

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

FI: We've heard great things from you guys about leads like Robyn Buck, as well - so what's it like on set? We see all the photos - but how is it directing your first feature length films?

C: Robyn has been amazing.  We saw so many talented women for the role of Ruth in Hard Sun, but when Robyn walked into the room I knew it was going to be her.  It’s been awesome getting to see her and all the other actors grow as artists through the process.  For most of them, it’s either their first leading roles, or first dramatic roles, so it’s been really fun.  As a director, it always feels great when you’re able to push an actor past their comfort zone and allow them to tap into something they didn’t even know they had.  I do that a lot with Ben Begley.  He works a lot as a comedic actor and so I’m always casting him against type in things.

J: Just like Hard Sun, Get Away saw a lot of actors stepping up to take their first leads. At the same time this was my first time stepping up into directing a feature, which is a very different game. I’ve learned a lot about myself as an artist and that’s really helped me understand how to work better with actors. I remember one shoot day on Get Away, we were already on hour 18 and we had a very heavy scene to do. And one of the actors was having some trouble connecting with the scene, so I sat with them and did take after take trying different techniques, tricks if you will. It took another 3 hours to shoot but when they nailed it, everyone felt it. That was probably one of the coolest moments as a director I’ve had.

FI: You guys are at the LA Film Festival - one which we hope to attend in the future - what's it like there? I know you guys have been Tweeting frequently - but what's it like meeting with fellow filmmakers who share a boat with you and seeing some of the 'bigger films' - talking to distributors, and networking with others in the industry?

C: I love film festivals and LA Film Fest is one of my favorites.  I think I’ve attended the last five or six years in a row.  It’s just an awesome energy.  You’re surrounded by people who either are part of the filmmaking process or just have a genuine love for film.  There’s always great parties and you never know who you’re going to strike up a conversation with.  Plus, I really enjoy the idea of going to see films that I know nothing about.  Sometimes, you discover an amazing film that you would’ve never seen otherwise.  And then sometimes you end up watching a film that is just plain awful.  But I always love those moments as well because it really makes me feel good about my own work.

FI:  How has the funding process been? You advocate places like IndieGoGo and Kickstarter - but you emphasise frequently the need to find other avenues of funding. Can you share some insight into this process and any recommendations you'd make to new film makers?

J: People always ask me how to raise money for their first film and I always start by asking what their plan is. Most people don’t have an answer to that question or they say they are going to crowd fund for their budget but they don’t even have an audience built yet. The biggest piece of advice I give them is to look at crowd funding as only a part of the budget, and to look at other avenues like equity investors and pre-sales as other viable and attainable parts of their budget. There are more ways to finance but these are just a few of the main ways you will raise money for your film. Also, I’ll note that the type of film you are making plays heavily into this because it’s easier to finance a genre (action, horror, sci-fi) than it is to finance a drama or comedy(comedy being the hardest).

FI: How has the forming of your own actual company been? An arduous process? 

J: Super easy.

C: The actual process was super easy, though next time we’ll structure things a bit differently.

FI: Favourite films and reasons why?

J: Gladiator – Ridley Scott did a fantastic job of combining story with action in a way that you don’t feel a lack of either in the film.

C: Braveheart is number one.  Say what you will about Mel, but that movie is perfect.  I think there’s an innate desire in the heart of every man to fight for the things you believe in and I think that film more than any other, speaks to that part of our soul.  Plus it has the best speech in movie history.  James always gives me crap about this one, but Titanic is also one of my favorites.  Technically it was years ahead of it’s time.  Same thing with Avatar.  I really enjoy the technical aspect of filmmaking just as much as I do the creative side.  So any time I see filmmaker’s pushing the boundaries it gets me really excited. 

FI: Top 5 favourite directors - and their 'best' films?

C: Wow, just five?  That’s going to be tricky.  Let’s see what I’ve got on Bluray here. Tarantino (Pulp Fiction), Kevin Smith (Chasing Amy), Baz Luhrman (Moulin Rouge), David Fincher (Fight Club), Peter Jackson (Return of the King)

J: Ridley Scott (Gladiator) Michael Bay (Bad Boys) Alfred Hitchcock (Where do I start?) Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) Yeah, I’m going to have to go with David Fincher (Fight Club) also.

FI: If you could work on any movie currently in production/already released (other than the two brilliant ones you guys have going already) - which movie(s) would it be/have been, and why?

J: You mean someone else’s project? Not sure I know how to answer that.

C: Man that’s a tricky one.  I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  I would’ve just loved to shadow Peter Jackson for two years.  I don’t think that guy slept the entire time.  Insane.

FI:  How's directing your first feature film going? Obviously you exercise a large amount of control (creative and literally) as the director - so how does that play out on the set of an indie feature?

J: Best experience of my life other than getting married, ha ha. Seriously though, it’s been the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do, but at the same time it’s been the most rewarding.

C: Yeah, its been an amazing experience.  As far as control goes, I’m learning with each thing I direct to learn to let go of that a bit.  Not to say that it’s not my vision.  It totally is one hundred percent from beginning to end.  But I used to try and control everything and get everything perfect and that was no way to live.  Too much stress.  Now I’m learning to just roll with it.  Plus I’m learning to listen to other people’s thoughts and suggestions.  My thing is this, if I’m the only one coming up with ideas and solutions, then the film will only be as good as me.  But by involving everyone, it becomes so much bigger and better than me and my capacity at the time.  Plus I get all the credit in the end anyway.  (laughs)

J: Yeah, that’s one I had to learn the hard way on GA.

FI: Obviously you guys are shooting two films, back to back. How did you/do you decide on the process of who got to shoot what where and in what order? Basically - how do the two guys in "2 Guys and a Film" get on? Is it hard splitting time between each other's films, as well as being producers? 

J: We chose to do Hard Sun first because it’s more of a festival film, so we wanted to try and get that one in the can and through post to hit some of the bigger festival deadlines. It’s rather easy splitting time actually, since we shot Hard Sun first it’s always in a different stage than Get Away. So for example while HS might be in sound design, GA is starting vfx.

C: Yeah.  Even though we were shooting two films back to back, we’re not like the Cohen Brothers or anything.  I directed Hard Sun and James directed Get Away.  That was always the plan.  We both were Executive Producers on both films and then we each acted as producer on the ground on the other’s film.

FI: Risks - how is it for independent filmmakers to take risks (obviously not ones dangerous to anyone's health!), but with things such as creative solutions or concepts? Obviously you need a notoriously good ability to adapt and improvise - but how far do you need to push your own work to get it to where you want? Or even perhaps to a place you never thought it could go?

J: I would almost go as far as to say if you aren’t willing to take risks, then you have no place making films. You have to be willing to put it all on the line for something as big as a feature, at least on the indie level.

C: I agree.  I’m to a place in my life where I trust those things that scare the shit out of me more than those things that don’t.  The things that don’t scare me keep me complacent.  It’s when I take risks and feel like quitting that big things happen.

FI:  Everyone's favourite topic - budgeting! How do you guys approach it? Any sagely advice to share that you've learnt from your first two features so far?

J: I would say the biggest thing is having a plan. Like I said earlier there are many ways to raise money, but you can’t just hope someone comes along and gives you a million dollars, you have to do the work to find it.

FI: Finally - the most important thing you wish you had known when you started out?

J: Budget more for post and deliverables.

C: Proper production sound.  We skimped here and it cost us a lot of time in post.  Luckily it all worked out, but I’m definitely going to have a full production sound crew from here on out.

Thanks for the interview guys, we’ve had a blast coming on.

FI: Thank you guys for coming on - we really appreciate all the people who have/do sit down with us for an interview to explore their process, especially when they are working on two feature films!

Right

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

Right, that ends our interview with these two lovely guys - I'll copy the text verbatim for you guys (not that we're skimping, or anything) from the last post about links and sharing! 

Stay tuned over the course of today/this week - we have several new reviews coming up, as well as our first addition to our greats line. As always, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you, dear readers! This blog would, rather obviously, be nothing with you guys. But you didn't ... you know the score!

Just another set of links, incase you guys missed it the first time round - remember to go and support these guys if you enjoyed the interview/want to find out more!


Link to their IMDb page.
Link to their Facebook page.
Link to their Twitter page.


Remember guys - if you liked the interview, share it with friends. ReTweet - share it on Facebook - shout it from the mountain tops, but just share it! As always, we welcome comments and feedback - but remember, the more exposure we get, the better it gets. Not just for us - but for the filmmakers themselves. More exposure leads to more interviews and more opportunities to be entertained/informed by (potentially) hidden/rising talent. Also - the more exposure we get, the more we can help out rising stars like Canyon and James, who heartily deserve it!

(Plus, you know, more interviews means more original content for you guys to read.)

As usual, our Twitter can be found at @bydhifu!

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

Ferenc and Georgia