R.L. Terry ReelView

A Scholarly Approach to Cinema and More

R.L. Terry ReelView

Tag Archives: Cinema

Universal Orlando’s Cinematic Celebration Nighttime Spectacular

Posted on by
Reply

Last night saw the first official Cinematic Celebration at Universal Orlando Resort. Although the show has been in technical rehearsals since the beginning of the month, the official debut was Monday evening. Fortunately, the biggest difference between the show in rehearsal and the official opening is the opening narration. An excellent touch! Replacing the previous version of this show, the new iteration focusses on intellectual properties that have a presence in the parks versus a tribute to Universal Pictures’ cinematic legacy. In terms of the show technology, water fountains, and special/pyro effects, the new show is a major win!

From the moment the show begins with an excellent narration setting the context for the show to the breathtaking dancing fountains, you will be awestruck by the sheer spectacle of it all! The combination of water, pyro, laser, and projection effects is outstanding. It truly feels like a cinematic experience! There is something for everyone in this show. My favorite parts were Jurassic World and E.T. the Extraterrestrial. You’ll also find clips and scenes from Trolls, Transformers (which includes scenes from the attraction), Fast and Furious, Despicable Me, Harry Potter, How to Train Your Dragon, Sing, Secret Life of Pets, and Kung Fu Panda. In addition to the water screen projections, the buildings on the opposite side of the lagoon are also integrated into the show. Incredibly immersive. My sister was impressed! Which was important to me because we have been going to Universal since the early 90s, and like to experience new attractions and shows together whenever possible. She lives out of state, so we try to time it just right when new offerings open! Helps to create lasting #UniversalMoments.

Beginning with last year’s Magic of Hogwarts Castle show, Universal Orlando has been stepping up its game in the nighttime spectacular competition amongst Florida theme parks. For years, it has largely been thought, and accurately so, that Disney World was the king of nighttime shows. With the introduction of the Hogwarts Castle show and the new Cinematic Celebration, Universal shows that it is a formidable opponent in the arena of nighttime shows. Not only is the show impressive from a technological perspective, the music is fantastic and the combination of water screens, projections, and pyrotechnics is top notch. You will certainly be wowed by the dazzling array of lights, movie clips, water effects, and more. Whereas the previous nighttime show had some water effects (and of course the water screens), this show makes the famous one in front of the Bellagio in Las Vegas look like something you put together in your back yard. The water fountains beautifully dance along with the music and accompanying images from the film selections. Whereas some shows with many fantastical effects and elements can feel like many separate parts thrown together in a tossed salad, so to speak, this show seamlessly blends all the elements together to generate one show, one experience. The manner in which the show is designed allows for Universal Orlando to update it with different films as the interests of the park guests change.

Of all that this show has going for it–and it IS a great show–I cannot help but wonder why Universal fails to include any mention of its history, the fact that it essentially birthed the American horror film, and other iconic properties of the entertainment giant. Obviously, the goal was to connect the show to the in-park IPs, but the show like it was nearly all spectacle and little narrative to speak of. Thankfully, the narration at the beginning does help to add context, but the experience of watching the show leaves me wanting more. Leaves me wanting more, in that I was looking for something with more emotion behind it. In my opinion, she shows lacks a strong ability to make an emotional connection with the audience. This is often the result of a themed attraction or show that focuses so much on the spectacle of the show, that it falls short of containing a strong narrative. One of my favorite quotes is, “the greatest art is the art of storytelling” (C.B. DeMille); but unfortunately, the new Cinematic Spectacular does not live up to the art of storytelling, but instead concentrates on the spectacle of show.

Although I have highlighted some elements of the show that I am disappointed in, don’t get me wrong, it is a fun show that is well-worth the time to find a great place from which to watch. You should definitely make the time to see the show during your visit to Universal Orlando. The best place to view the show is from the Central Park area of Universal Studios. I watched it from the waterside behind the big boulders. Presently, the show begins at 9:45 in the evening and guests begin to select viewing locations about 30-45mins before showtime. As the show just officially began, you may want to allow for an hour to find a great spot from which to watch the show. Definitely a show that you don’t want to miss.

For some highlights from the show, please see our video!

Now Playing: Netflix at a Theatre Near You?

Posted on by
Reply

After pioneering the streaming service, is Netflix aiming to revolutionize the multiplex experience? Recently, the Twittersphere and blogosphere has been all abuzz regarding Netflix’ possible acquisition of multiplex cinemas. But what does that mean for the customer and for Netflix? Those questions have prompted me to explore the idea of a Netflix-owned chain of movie theatres. Who would’ve ever thought that the DVDs delivered-to-your-home distribution company would go on to essentially invent the streaming service concept, produce wildly popular original programming, would now possibly be in a position to own and operate multiplex cinemas. The irony here is that the company that tore down the brick-and-mortar walls of Blockbuster and whose system of delivering content put a huge dent into the bottom line of movie theatres would now look to build the walls it so effectively razed to the ground. Perhaps in how it completely demolished the legacy way of home video and original television content distribution for a more efficient system, it seeks to build a more cost-effective model of movie theatres to truly create a big screen experience for a Web2.0 universe.

But, is going back to the brick-and-mortar model going to be lucrative for the entertainment giant? After all, Netflix virtually has no conventional overhead, in terms of how it now delivers content; but the addition of brick-and-mortar movie theatres would significantly increase the overhead cost of its business model. Just because there will be an increase does not necessarily mean that’s this may be a bad move for the company. However, it does beg for exploration of the effects of a decision like this. It’s no secret that fewer people attend the cinema now than before streaming became so prevalent. According to the Bloomberg Report citing a statistic from Box Office Mojo, movie theatre ticket sales have hit a 25 year low. After a high in the early 2000s, the number of ticket sales has overall been on a moderately steep decline. Although the the initial drastic drop could be contributed the tremendous growth of home theatre surround sound DVD systems and some recession from the aftermath of 9/11, the remaining downward trend from 2010 to today can be attributed to Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services. Furthermore, many TV channels began allowing subscribed users to watch current and recent content on demand over the last few years.

So, if the empirical data suggests that ticket sales will continue to fall, why would Netflix express a desire to throw its hat into the ring with established leaders AMC, Regal, and Cobb? Not to overly simplify it, but Netflix wants its chance at winning a Best Picture Oscar. In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Steven Spielberg stated in that Netflix should compete for Emmys not Oscars. It wasn’t long after this interview that Netflix stated that it’s considering buying cinema multiplexes. In addition to Netflix making the headlines, Amazon Studios has quietly been making maneuvers that suggest that it may also be interested in buying a movie theatre chain. In order to mitigate the cost of going into the multiplex business, Netflix is not looking to build from scratch, but buy up the Landmark Cinemas that has been on the market for quite sometime now. Landmark is known for catering to arthouse films in much the same way Alamo Drafthouse does.

Ever since the landmark Paramount Decision in 1948, for reasons of violating anti-trust laws, movie studios (extending to distribution companies) are not permitted to own and operate chains of movie theatres. There are rare exceptions to this–Disney’s ownership of the historic El Capitan theatre across from TCL’s Grauman’s Chinese Theatre (the most famous movie palace in the world) being one of those. Since it’s not a chain and does run other company’s films, it is an exception to the ruling because it is a venue that anyone can rent, for the right price. Prior to the United States vs Paramount, it was customary for the studio to own and operate a chain of movie theatres that exclusively shows its movies. So, to see a Paramount movie, you’d have to go to a Paramount movie palace, for example. It was this gross lack of competition that violated anti-trust laws and led to the decision. With ticket sales slumping, large studios or distribution companies with deep pockets may find the best way to combat this is to own and operate theatres (that will have to be open to competition in order to remain within the confines of the law) that can be integrated into the branding, marketing, and promotion of a particular film.

A relationship between a studio and a movie theatre would allow for the production company or studio to forge a deeper relationship with the movie patron much in the same way Disney and Universal do with their theme parks. Not limited to Disney and Universal, Warner Pros, Paramount, Lionsgate, and DreamWorks have major theme park investments in Europe and Asia. The end result of owning a chain of movie theatres is the creation of an entire experience for the guest. For Netflix, this could mean premiering its successful series like Stranger Things, Black Mirror, and others at a movie theatre before it lands on the streaming service. Just like a homeowner can retrofit, remodel, and customize his or her home to benefit him, her, or the family, a movie studio could best custom design a completely immersive experience for the movie patron that creates an emotional connection that is sure to last and earn repeat business.

Aside from the cost and concept of creating a comprehensive experience for the movie patron, the standardization of start times and run dates should also be considered. Now, you can watch your Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime programming whenever and wherever you so desire. No boundaries. After all, Netflix tore down those movie theatre walls and TV schedules. Is there a great enough interest from the typical consumer to buy tickets on a specific day at a predetermined time to watch Netflix original programming? Further research needs to be conducted in order to assess whether or not there is sufficient interest. Anecdotally, one can easily assess that Netflix’ original TV series are more popular than the original movies. But what does the empirical data show? According to a report at the Exstreamist, “the average rating on a Netflix original movie is markedly lower than what one finds with Hollywood movies.” Using IMDb ratings (note: Amazon owns IMDb), Toledo looked at a number of 2017 movie and TV releases across a variety of genres. Suffice it to say, Netflix consistently hits homers when it comes to original TV programming–their record is rather impressive at 8.1; however, their movies are ranked considerably lower than the TV series at 5.9. It would appear that there is sufficient interest in Netflix’ original series but not strong enough interest in the movies. And movies would be far easier to arrange into a schedule at a theatre than a TV series. Films win Oscars, series win Emmys. So, Netflix would have to rely upon its original movies in the theatre. Therefore, the quality has to increase significantly. Read my article on Best Picture criteria HERE.

Certainly, Netflix has proven that it can revolutionize media consumption and blaze new trails. Therefore, if Netflix makes the decision to acquire a chain of movie theatres, then reason stands that it must have a solid plan for success. While the data may suggest that this could be a risky venture for the entertainment giant, perhaps interested parties like Netflix and Amazon Studios know how to reinvent the multiplex experience to emerge as leaders of content creation and distribution. Who will the new owner of Landmark Cinemas be in the future? Only time will tell. But, it looks as if a Netflix or Amazon owned movie theatre chain may be in the near future.

“Red Sparrow” film review

Posted on by
Reply

Intense. Riveting. Spine-tingling, A masterful spy thriller crafted in a classical fashion with sex appeal. Red Sparrow will harness your full attention from the opening. Directed by Francis Lawrence, this spy movie is the level of excitement that 2015’s Bridge of Spies wished it was. Whereas many espionage movies fail to develop a plot that keeps you guessing from beginning to end–allowing you to feel like a covert operative or detective–this film delivers a mesmerizing story filled with intriguing characters and close calls. In many ways, this film contains elements that could be likened to a Hitchcockian suspense thriller with influences from Billy Wilder and David Fincher. Jennifer Lawrence displays an uncanny performance that truly shows the versatility of the Oscar-winning actress. With tensions rising between the US and Russia in real life, this films comes at a perfect time because we may find ourselves in a cold war that’s reminiscent of the latter part of the 20th century. Not for those who are weak in the stomach, this film contains cringy visceral horror that will get under your skin. Without the need to rely on science-fiction gadgetry to carry the story, this film provides well-developed characters and an intriguing plot that’s filled with twists and turns.

Prima Bolshoi Ballet ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) is faced with a bleak and uncertain future following a severe career-ending injury while on stage performing. Her high-ranking uncle persuades her to attend Sparrow School: an institution that trains seductive spies in order to pry information from targets by using extreme sensuality. Sparrows turn their minds and bodies into weapons for the state. Being determined to remain special, Dominika completes the sadistic training more quickly than the other students and is recruited for a covert assignment to track and report on an American CIA operative (Joel Edgerton) who Russia feels will lead them to the mole within their own ranks.

The beautiful opening of Red Sparrow is abruptly ended when Dominika suffers a horrific injury that instantly ends her ballet career. This acutely intense moment will cut you directly to the bone–you will undoubtedly wince or cringe, feel the break in your own legs. This is but a taste of what is to come throughout the movie. In an exquisite fashion, the gorgeous dance at the opening is juxtaposed against the alleged drug deal gone bad. Paralleling one another, the event that unfolds concurrently enable the plot to get a quickly paced fantastic start out the gate. Unfortunately, this excellent start does lead into a slower paced latter half of Act I. However, there is important background information that is revealed during Act I that foreshadows and sets up the remainder of the turning points in the plot. You will also notice the use of the color red in many places during the movie. Analyzing the shades of, and placement of the crimson hue has the potential to generate conversations between cinephiles.

The color red is not the only symbol in the movie that can be analyzed; there is a theme of your body belonging to the state. Essentially, this can be read as a commentary on celebrity. As a prima ballerina, Dominika’s body was weaponized for the stage and figuratively belonged to the Bolshoi and by extension to the public. Much in the same way her Sparrow weaponized body literally belongs to The State. It’s her body, but the Bolshoi and The State determine her career. But she is determined to not allow herself to become a commodity that can be abandoned, traded, or punished. This can be said about conventional celebrities and the public. In a manner of speaking, the public decides whether or not you are worth seeing on screen and how you should behave. Back during the days of the Studio System, this was a big problem because the Studio controlled your image, who you dated, slept with, when/if you had kids, your marriage, and more. There was mass exploitation in that system, and one of the reasons why it was ended. The empowering message of rebelling against The State, who is determined to own you and your body, can be witnessed through the covert actions of Dominika.

In the grand Hitchcockian fashion, there is a lot of suspense that increases tension but does not always provide a release. Though Hitch would have handled the level and pacing of the suspense more perfectly, you can read his famous bomb theory in Red Sparrow. Hitchcock knew how to take a two-dimensional situation and find a third-dimensional approach to impress the audiences and hold firm their attention. And to the film’s credit, there are a few times that the level of suspense coupled with the symphonic score channels Hitch. Unlike many spy movies that rely too heavily on a love story, the film brilliantly leaves you wondering whether or not Lawrence and Edgerton are in love or rather it is a facade employed in order to extract vital information for their respective allegiances. The level of romance and eroticism is just enough to add the sex-appeal to the relationship without the movie becoming about the romance between two individuals who serve two opposing countries.

Not for the faint of heart, there are some incredibly intense moments in the film that might make you queasy in the stomach. But the movie chooses to place more emphasis on the action, plot, and characters more so than that which threatens your eye. It’s certainly a new breed of spy movie, but it’s one that is incredibly interesting and will hold your attention for the more than 2hr runtime.

Oscars 90 | The 2018 Annual Academy Award Nominations

Posted on by
Reply

It’s that time of year again! The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced the nominees for the 2018 Oscars, now celebrating its 90th year. Here are my picks for each category! The Academy may vote for these or another nominee, but I just wanted to post the ones I would like to see win this year. For a complete listing of nominees, please visit VARIETY! I am pretty happy with this year’s list of nominees, there are only a few films, collectively, that I thought were overlooked in their respective category. Fortunately, I have seen most of the films on this list! If I have not seen the movies in a category, I have listed all the nominees. Who do you hope wins this year?!?

Best Picture: “The Shape of Water”

Lead Actor: Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”

Lead Actress: Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”

Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”

Supporting Actress: Allison Janney, “I, Tonya”

Director: “The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro

Animated Feature: “Coco,” Lee Unkrich, Darla K. Anderson

Animated Short: I have not seen any of these, so here is the list for you to decide

“Dear Basketball,” Glen Keane, Kobe Bryant
“Garden Party,” Victor Caire, Gabriel Grapperon
“Lou,” Dave Mullins, Dana Murray
“Negative Space,” Max Porter, Ru Kuwahata
“Revolting Rhymes,” Jakob Schuh, Jan Lachauer

Adapted Screenplay: “Logan,” Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green

Original Screenplay: “The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor

Cinematography:  “The Shape of Water,” Dan Laustsen

Best Documentary Feature: I have not seen these films, so here is the full list

Best Documentary Short Subject: I have not seen these films, so here is the full list

“Edith+Eddie,” Laura Checkoway, Thomas Lee Wright
“Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405,” Frank Stiefel
“Heroin(e),” Elaine McMillion Sheldon, Kerrin Sheldon
“Knife Skills,” Thomas Lennon
“Traffic Stop,” Kate Davis, David Heilbroner

Best Live Action Short Film: I have not seen these films, so here is the full list

“DeKalb Elementary,” Reed Van Dyk
“The Eleven O’Clock,” Derin Seale, Josh Lawson
“My Nephew Emmett,” Kevin Wilson, Jr.
“The Silent Child,” Chris Overton, Rachel Shenton
“Watu Wote/All of Us,” Katja Benrath, Tobias Rosen

Best Foreign Language Film: “The Square” (Sweden)

Film Editing: “The Shape of Water,” Sidney Wolinsky

Sound Editing: “Dunkirk,” Alex Gibson, Richard King

Sound Mixing: “Dunkirk,” Mark Weingarten, Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo

Production Design: “The Shape of Water,” Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin, Shane Vieau

Original Score: “The Shape of Water,” Alexandre Desplat

Original Song: “This Is Me” from “The Greatest Showman,” Benj Pasek, Justin Paul

Makeup and Hair: “Darkest Hour,” Kazuhiro Tsuji, David Malinowski, Lucy Sibbick

Costume Design: “Beauty and the Beast,” Jacqueline Durran

Visual Effects: “Blade Runner 2049,” John Nelson, Paul Lambert, Richard R. Hoover, Gerd Nefzer

Lin Shaye and Liam Neeson | January Box Office Gold

Posted on by
1

Both Insidious and The Commuter are gems in the graveyard that is typically true “January” release films. I say true because films like The Shape of Water, I Tonya, and The Post are wide-released in January but were originally released on a limited run during the Holidays in order to qualify for The Oscars. For those who follow cinema closely, it’s no surprise that months like January and September are typically referred to as movie graveyard because that is ordinarily where movies go to die that cannot stand up to Spring, Summer, Fall, or Holiday release times. However, the last couple of years have seen some very strong films in January/February. Last year’s examples are Get Out, Logan, and A Cure for Wellness. Last week’s Insidious: the Last Key and this week’s The Commuter are very much paint-by-the-numbers horror/action films respectively; but the cast–in particular, the leads–makes these films fun and even exciting to watch. From background actress to leading horror queen, Lin Shaye truly makes the Insidious films ones to be experienced on the big screen. Her flair for paranormal/supernatural films is uncanny, and take mediocre horror movies and transform them into movies you don’t want to wait until it comes to VOD. Likewise, Liam Neeson wowed audiences with his trademark character with a “particular set of skills” in the Taken movies, and has since played similar characters in other films. When you see his name, you expect that character-type and often times you get it! The Commuter may be a cliche action-thriller, but Neeson makes the film one that is a non-stop ride, one you don’t’ wanna miss when it leaves the station.

But why do both Shaye and Neeson draw the audiences the way they do? By all accounts, movies like the Insidious and Taken franchises or some iteration of the aforementioned are filled with horror and action tropes that seldom provide a truly new experience for audiences. However, their movies generally do very well at the box office and are consistently thrilling to watch. Placing Neeson in an action thriller or Shaye in a supernatural horror is essentially a guaranteed box office success for audiences and investors. In a manner of speaking, what we are dealing with here are legitimate movie stars. Truth be told, 21st-century cinema does not see movie stars in the same way that the early and mid 20th century did. In early days of cinema, films were built on the back of the studio system stars. It was a Betty Hutton film, a Humphrey Bogart movie, a William Holden picture, a Bette Davis film, etc. I’d argue that Tom Cruise is the closest to a contemporary era movie star in the traditional sense that we have. But by extension, you can apply the same attributes to Liam Neeson and  Lin Shaye by the cache that they bring to their films–they are a box office draw. Just their respective names are enough to invigorate audiences and generate ticket sales. At the end of the day, that’s when you know you have a true movie star. The name alone is enough to excite audiences and drive ticket sales.

Both actors are equally talented in their respective ways. The level of talent, entertainment, and thrill is consistent. You are never disappointed in their performances. If you remove/replace either of them in Insidious: the Last Key or The Commuter, the movies would likely not play out nearly half as well as they presently do. I’m not knocking the writing, directing, scores, editing, or cinematography, I am stating that the films are nothing remarkable in and of themselves; however, Shaye and Neeson bring a powerful screen presence with them that take the mediocre horror and action films to transform them into a cinematic experience that is incredibly enjoyable.