The Heat - Review

Directed by: Paul Feig
Starring: Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock
Written by: Katie Dippold

Rating: 6.5/10

The archetypically good cop/incompetent cop buddy comedy has reached a new height with it's two entertaining female leads.

Buyer beware; this is nothing new.

It's exactly the same - if not slightly exaggerated - version of your typical buddy cop movie. The witty, antagonistic and pithy banter between two leads? Check. Ridiculous plot line involving many failed attempts at real policing and breaking laws? Check. And so on and so forth. In fact, it hits almost every buddy cop cliché in the book. That, in and of itself, makes it rather dull and tiring - as parts of this movie are. However, when McCarthy and Bullock get started, their comedy on screen chemistry cannot be doubted.

Using Bullock as the obvious foil and McCarthy as the eccentric and over the top and almost comically enraged joker is nothing short of your typical casting with type for this genre - but when the result is something magic. There were moments when it feels, somewhat like (but not in the same league) Lethal Weapon. 

McCarthy takes a turn as Shannon Mullins, a top Boston cop who does things her way. There's literally no other way - including abiding by departmental rules that she'll follow. She gets paired with the arrogant and everything-is-done-by-the-book FBI agent (Bullock).

The real problem lies not with it's entertainment value - it lies with the style of comedy. McCarthy's comedy (and in fact, Feig's direction) seems to want to ramp the vulgarity and outrageousness up to the bar set by the mismatched male couples. But where Lethal Weapon was truly funny because of those mismatched personality, a lot of the jokes The Heat rely on McCarthy's obscene sense of comedy - the joke involving the captain's balls is rather unfunny and drags out - which is a haunting feeling that returns several times throughout the film. Especially when she pulls a gun on a nurse - not McCarthy's funniest gag for sure. It's in her Mullins' character. Sure. But that character was too flawed from the get go.

The reason that this problem is so showing is because in those in-between moments, where it plays like the true mismatched police 'couple' going at it - they're brilliant. Bullock is a credible and well timed foil. McCarthy pulls out some wonderfully paced jokes throughout - and regularly rides roughshod all over others. It's this potential and this shame that is, perhaps, ultimately the most disappointing - it could have been so much more. Better than other male forces in this area.

But did we really expect a higher brow of comedy from the director of Bridesmaids?

What the Mr. Thought:
Entertaining and definitely has some laughs. It's a 'good enough' comedy movie - it had the audience in stitches during several scenes. The problem is that truly great comedic films don't denigrate themselves or their characters in such obscene fashions - and this film is always going to be, for me, as one that could have been great. Bullock and McCarthy play with a brilliant warmth together - it's definitely worth seeing if you enjoyed other cop movies.

What the Misses Thought:
What a hilarious film! The amount of laughter in the cinema was incredible and I must say I joined in too. While it wasn't the best film in the world, the sheer silliness and comedy made it such a good watch! If you are looking for a film that is easy to watch, easy to enjoy and so easy to laugh out loud too, then The Heat is a perfect fit for you!

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

The Mr. and the Misses

Framing Film - Simon Horrocks - Part 2

Hey everyone. Today we have the second part of our interview with Simon Horrocks! If you have yet to check out the first part make sure to read it first here.

Again a big thank you to Simon for taking the time to talk to us and also to YOU for reading!

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

Ferenc Igali: Can you talk to us a little bit about the actors/crew - how hard was it doing your first casting/how was it working on your first feature set with a crew?

Simon Horrocks: I didn't really have a crew. I had a sfx make-up artist and a great friend who agreed to try to do sound for me - he'd never recorded sound on set before. I did all the camerawork, despite never having shot a film before. We had 1 camcorder, 1 light, and one mic. So the whole thing was very small - which created a certain intimacy you would struggle very hard to achieve on a traditional film set. Casting was a mixture of traditional auditions and finding friends who I thought would work for the role. Finding Tim was a huge bonus - he's a great actor and really held the film together. We were very very lucky to get him. But all the actors and 'non-actors' were great - Jannica, Simeon, Cristiana, Kristina, Oliver, Geraldine, John, Andrew and all - they all did such a great job.

FI: Any particularly memorable experiences on set? SH: Loads ;)

FI: Top five favourite directors? SH: Orson Welles, Jean Vigo, Terrence Malick, Woody Allen, Hitchcock... uh oh, I only get 5? I've just started...

FI: Influences on Third Contact?SH: Most certainly...

FI: Some directors don't like answering this question but we ask it anyway - if there's any film that you could have worked on in the past, which one would you have wished to have the chance to work on? SH: Any Orson Welles film - you'd give anything to have been on set for one of those, right?

FI: Favourite film (or films) that really move or inspire you?SH: Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Third Man, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Vampyr, Eraserhead, Elephant Man, Le Jetee, Vertigo, Brazil, Sleeper, Manhattan, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire, L'Atlanta, Macbeth (Welles), Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, The Godfather, Jaws, Duel, Les Diaboliques, The Dark Knight, Up, Pinocchio, The Seventh Seal, Scenes from a Marriage, The Magician, Knife In Water, Repulsion, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Pledge, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Conversation, Point Blank, Don't Look Now, Performance, Bad Timing, Rosemary's Baby, If... , The Killing, 2001, The Shining, Kiss Me Deadly, Double Indemnity, Night of the Hunter, Memento, Blade Runner, Hunger, American Graffiti, Blowup, Psycho, The Snowball Express and all those other ones....

FI: So where's Third Contact going from here? SH: To the big screening at the BFI IMAX, streamed around the globe to our kickstarter backers. There will be a Q&A with me as well. From there, a cinema release, starting in London and hopefully spreading to the rest of the world.

FI: Obviously social media was critical in helping spread the word for the film to get backers - any tips on how to maximise the effectiveness of social media?SH: It's a full time job. Twitter I have found is by far the most effective - its seems to have the perfect balance of messaging, chat, and your profile is like your business card. Because of the way it limits the information you can provide, it makes it much easier to find the people you want to connect with. It also has big potential to spread your message, if you put the time in. The key is to engage people - you need to start a conversation. If you just spam your message, you'll mostly be ignored. It also helps to be yourself - if you hide behind a logo, or a film title, or made up identity, people won't engage with you as much.

You have to imagine it as a huge party. The boring people are the ones who talk about themselves all the time. Your eyes glaze over and you make your excuse and leave. If you feel someone is hiding something, you stay guarded and don't fully engage. You can see big, established companies struggle to use social media fully because of this. 

FI: Like many independent filmmakers - you clearly rely on networking to get things done. Any tips for first time filmmakers on how to make the most of networking?SH: Look for people with similar interests and who are agreeable with your style of working. In fact, I didn't do too much networking for Third Contact because I did most of the technical stuff myself. The film is self-funded and shot pretty much without a crew. I did most of the technical work myself or used friends who were happy to chip in. My old friend Justin Rogers did all the CGI work and kinda saved the film, really. To hire someone to do the work he did would, alone, have cost more than the budget of the film.

 FI: Can you tell us a bit about your production process - any favourite equipment? What was Third Contact shot with, for example? Did you have to hire a lot of the equipment or did you end up buying it? SH: I bought the most expensive camera I could - an HV30 Canon camcorder. It's not even semi-professional. It was designed pretty much as a high-end consumer camera to take on holiday or film your friend's wedding. It was never intended to be used to shoot a feature film on. But it had a bit of a cult following, so I chose it for that. The microphone was the most expensive bit of kit - £700. You can't really cut corners with sound equipment. For lighting I bought various lamps and battery powered strip lights from Homebase. Plus someone found a small redhead in a cupboard at the BBC which was about to be thrown away, so I nabbed it.

I didn't hire any equipment. I bought everything and spent about £1500.
FI: Post production - colouring, editing and such - what was your experience on this side of the filmmaking process? SH: As with everything, I hadn't done any of this before, so I had to learn as I went along. There are various issues you have to deal with when you don't have a pro set up. For example, for some reason the footage appeared darker in Final Cut Pro than it did as QT footage. As soon as I output it, it comes out lighter. So I had to edit dark footage, knowing it would come out brighter. I asked around - friends and online forums - but nobody came up with a solution.

FI: Experience of film festivals? Any tips or thoughts to share on this front?SH: I feel like film festivals have become very narrow-minded in recent years; very conservative. The film world in general seems to be in a transition and struggling to cope with new ideas. Festivals were set up to promote celluloid creations, in a certain way, and they don't seem to be in any hurry to change or adapt. How relevant are festivals now? We can make a film (feature film) without much of a crew and get it to millions of people online at the click of a button. Meanwhile, festivals are still working at the old pace of things. I mean, I think they're beautiful and fascinating, like old steam trains.

What you need to understand with festivals is that films are selected mostly back stage, out of the public eye. They charge you to submit your film, but what they don't tell you is they don't charge many of the people whose films they select. Most films are selected via the industry network, through contacts. Those people rarely pay submission fees. If you want to get your film selected, don't just download the submission form and send it off with that rather expensive fee. You're better off building up relationships with programmers. That's how you get your film selected.

FI: Finally, any words of wisdom that you can share with those considering to chase their dream and turn their idea into a fully fledged film? SH: Make your film the most creative way you can. Don't let funding became an obstacle.Make a film with your phone or a camcorder. Make it YOUR way. Then promote it yourself and have as little to do with the industry as possible.

Thanks again, and another big congratulations on your work - we really do look forward to seeing the concept driven Third Contact on screens soon - and fully expect to be blown away! Thank you for taking time out to join us! 

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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