I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing. One thing drew me in and that was the flood of positive reviews that were coming out. And honestly, they could not be more accurate. Barbarian is one of the most tense and refreshing horrors I have seen. Its script is tight and keeps you guessing and glued to the screen from the opening shot. While the horror is genuinely scary, what made me love this movie was the mystery. It is such and intriguing plot that drip feeds you information. On top of this, every single performance in Barbarian was amazing especially Bill Skargard and Georgina Campbell. Barbarian may be my favourite film of 2022.
I watched X and Barbarian about a week apart and both made me realise how much of a return quality horror movies are making. X is a perfect blend of 70s style slashers like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and modern high concept horrors. It weaves a subtle core theme of fame and chasing dreams into a gruesome slasher. Also, this film has a very engaging characters that each have their own specific voice and feel. And obviously, Mia Goth is a incredibly talented actress who carries this movie.
When I first watched Nope, I didn’t love it. But after sitting on it for a few days, I realised how incredible it truly was. I think this was a consequence of how different the plot and structure were to what I was expecting. Nope honestly feels like the modern-day Jaws and had some of the most striking visuals in a film I have seen in a long time.
4. Scream (2022)
I loved Scream. Like Top Gun Maverick, it balances that old campy style with a new retelling. Obviously, the story is predictable because it’s part of this franchise, but it was still such an entertaining movie. I think this comes down to the world that is built. It’s filled with completely unrealistic characters that make the dumbest decisions. However, cause the writers create this 90s throwback world, these decisions make sense.
5. Bodies Bodies Bodies
Similar to scream, Bodies Bodies Bodies was just entertaining from the beginning. It didn’t necessarily bring anything new to the table, but it certainly kept me engaged. The plot kept me guessing and I never felt like I knew what was coming. This is an amazing feeling in a movie especially when you trust the director. In addition, the actors were perfectly cast and I am so happy they didn’t just go with big name actors but people who fit the characters. While this movie does drag a little bit, I am definitely glad I saw it.
These are just some of my favourite horros that I have seen this year. There are so many more I need to watch like Sissy, The Black Phone, Men and Pearl.
When you hear the term “Australian horror” not much usually comes to mind. Maybe Wolf Creek, The Babadook, Rogue and potentially even Picnic at Hanging Rock. And while these films have their merits, I truly believe there is one that constantly flies under the rug. It is a film that I have never stopped talking about since I was 16. A film that Martin Scorsese himself raves about. A film that makes you feel so uneasy and uncomfortable it is almost hard to recommend – Wake in Fright.
Since most people reading this haven’t heard of Wake in Fright, I will give a small recap (I would honestly go watch it first though). Wake in Fright is a horror/ thriller directed by Canadian director Ted Kotcheff. It is about John Grant, an English school teacher living in a small town in 1970s Australia. On the holidays, he attempts to leave the town to visit Sydney. However, he gets stuck in Yabba – a tiny mining town – after gambling and drinking away his money.
Now hearing that may make you think that this film does not belong in the horror genre. But I think that’s exactly what makes it so special. It is not your stereotypical horror story about a killer or monster. Instead, the horror lies in the town, the people, and the situation.
Upon John’s arrival at ‘the Yabba’, it is very clear how much of an influence gambling has over this town. From the two up games to the obsession with the pokies, Kotcheff displays this horrifying hold that gambling has over people. Like a ghost, it possesses this small town and keeps them hooked. And soon enough, it grabs John and takes a complete hold of him. John forgets his ambitions and dreams of making some quick money. But with any gambling addiction, the end is never pretty. John loses all the money he has worked so hard for and can no longer visit his girlfriend.
One of the smartest parts of this movie is the use of climate. In particular, the focus on Australia’s harsh and unforgiving heat. Every scene makes you feel like you are profusely sweating. The sun constantly beating down on our protagonist is draining both on John Grant and us. It effectively makes the audience constantly uncomfortable from the moment this movie starts.
Wake in Fright reveals one of the most fundamental flaws of Australian culture – toxic masculinity. As John starts talking to Jannette, a man around the table says, “he would rather talk to a woman than drink?” Every woman in this movie is either insulted, used for sex, or abused. It reveals to us this dangerous but very realistic misogynistic attitude that exists deep down in Australian culture. A deep-rooted and horrifying perspective of women being inferior.
But perhaps the greatest horror of Wake in Fright is the portrayal of alcoholism. From John’s arrival in Yabba till the end of the film, he is force fed this poison. Declining alcohol in this town is the equivalent of slapping someone in the face. The physical queasiness this had on me was something I don’t often feel in films. It was such an accurate portrayal of the Australian drinking culture that I completely understand why this movie didn’t do well – people don’t want to see the truth. They don’t want to see an outsider expose their country’s biggest faults.
The Yabba is not simply a small outback Australian town. Instead, it is a hell. All these themes display a horrible and dangerous outlook on life. John Grant is trapped in a place that has drained him of any ambitions. A place that has transformed him into what he once hated most. John has been infected with this nihilistic perspective on life. What Kotcheff shows the audience is that this way of life is the horror. These views and substance abuse can lead to a wasted and toxic life, whether you realise it or not.
How does one know thyself? When confronted by the realities of our station in life, how do we respond to them? Will we take advantage of what time we have left to fulfil the passions that burn within us?
These questions percolated in my mind as I read Tim Lucas’ novel The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes, a fictionalized account on the making of Roger Corman’s 1967 psychedelic opus The Trip – which first appeared in cinemas on this day 55 years ago.
By the mid-1960s, Roger Corman, a top-tier producer/director for B-movie studio American International Pictures (AIP), had become dissatisfied by the constraints of his series of Edgar Allan Poe adaptations starring Vincent Price. Endeavouring to make films that reflected the controversies of the times, his first attempt at such a movie, The Wild Angels (1966) – a biker drama starring Peter Fonda, Nancy Sinatra, and Bruce Dern – was a major box office success. For its follow-up, Corman turned his attention to a particularly hot-button subject: lysergic acid diethylamide, better known as LSD or acid.
Directed from a screenplay by a long-time member of Corman’s talent pool, Jack Nicholson – better known today for playing a certain Clown Prince of Crime! – the resulting film, The Trip, follows disillusioned commercial director Paul Groves (Fonda) as he seeks to gain personal insight through an LSD trip: the first of its kind depicted in a motion picture. Guided by his guru friends John (Dern) and Max (Dennis Hopper), Paul witnesses a parade of sensual and terrifying imagery throughout his hallucinogenic odyssey that forces him to consider his place in the world, and especially his relationships with women; he is torn by his feelings for his wife Sally (Susan Strasberg), who he is soon to be divorced from, and Glenn (Salli Sachse), an acquaintance of Max’s with whom he feels a mutual attraction.
Alternately confounding, nauseating, sexy and funny, The Trip remains a thoroughly engrossing watch, marked by its rapid editing and depictions of nudity, both of which were considered ground-breaking for the time. Although its style and subject matter reflect key interests of the hippie movement (LSD was made illegal across the United States soon after its release, and the film’s portrayal of it prompted the British Board of Film Censors to ban the movie for 35 years), the film’s thematic underpinnings still carry weight decades after the Summer of Love. As someone who doesn’t have any experience with such drugs, I was pleased that the film wasn’t an excuse for flashy imagery, and that it grounded the psychedelic experience in human drama through its focus on whether Paul can form personal connections amidst the emotional turmoil of a divorce. Among those The Trip impressed upon its initial release was a young film buff from Cincinnati named Tim Lucas…
A renowned film critic/historian with fifty years of professional writing experience, Lucas is best known for co-publishing (with his wife Donna) the pioneering home media review magazine Video Watchdog (1990-2017), and for writing the celebrated critical biography Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark (2007). He has provided audio commentaries on the DVD and Blu-ray releases of over 100 movies, covering not only most of Bava’s films and several of Corman’s, but works by directors as varied as Jean-Luc Godard, Alfred Hitchcock, Sergio Leone and Orson Welles. Lucas has also penned three published novels: Throat Sprockets (1994), The Book of Renfield: A Gospel of Dracula (2005) and The Secret Life of Love Songs (2021). A throughline that connects Lucas’ work is his focus on our capacity for experiencing and expressing love for each other. This is an appropriate motif, given the themes of Corman’s film and the story he has weaved about its creation.
In 2003, Lucas began writing a comical screenplay about the making of The Trip with his friend, writer/artist Charlie Largent. Their story was structured around Corman’s revelation that, despite not outwardly fitting in with the counterculture of the period, he prepared for the film by undergoing an LSD trip on the beaches of Big Sur, California, surrounded by colleagues who witnessed and recorded his observations.
Although The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes was soon optioned by Corman’s protégé, Gremlins (1985) director Joe Dante, and it is set to be co-produced by SpectreVision (Elijah Wood’s production company), the film has yet to see the light of day. The closest the project has come to being actualized was a 2017 script-reading at the Vista Theater in Los Angeles, billed as “The Greatest Film Never Made”; reviews of the reading unanimously praised Bill Hader’s portrayal of Corman. These aborted attempts to make the movie inspired Lucas to rewrite Kaleidoscope Eyes as a novel, drawing on correspondence with Corman’s wife/producing partner Julie, and his long-time assistant Frances Doel, to expand the story beyond what was in the script, which by this time had undergone several revisions, including contributions from writers Michael Almereyda and James Robison.
Lucas’ earlier novels are characterised by their unconventional approach to narrative structure. Primarily written from the first-person point of view of the protagonists, they frequently take unexpected turns into other modes of writing, including transcripts of film scenes and interviews (Throat Sprockets);diary entries, letters and commentaries written by characters years after the referenced events (The Book of Renfield, in the style of Bram Stoker’s Dracula); and songs (The Secret Life of Love Songs).
The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes continues this trend, albeit to a lesser extent than its forebears, by presenting its first four chapters out of chronological order, with chapter titles indicating the month and year in which the events take place: the story begins in November 1966, with Peter being awed by Jack’s script for The Trip, before flashing back five months earlier to Roger in the throes of post-production on The Wild Angels. It diverges from Lucas’ previous works by being his first novel to be largely written in a narratorial third-person style, with its only ventures into first-person occurring in Chapter 11, which chronicles Roger’s trip. As a reading experience, I would describe Kaleidoscope Eyes as Lucas’ most accessible novel, and appropriately his most cinematic.
As with his earlier books, Lucas demonstrates meticulous attention to detail: his vivid overview of the changing cultural landscape in mid-60s Hollywood in Chapter 2 (which he describes as “the Summer of Foreplay before the Summer of Love”) infuses the location with a sense of excitement, where anything is possible and change is the law of the land. His imagination is on full throttle in his renderings of Roger’s trip, which are appropriately thoughtful yet bizarre. Consider the passage where Roger’s musings over the grains of sand that comprise Big Sur’s beach evolve into the observation that “God was a surfer”.
Given the setting, comparisons to Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and its 2021 novelization are inevitable (Lucas has revealed that Tarantino was among the first to read Kaleidoscope Eyes’ script, and quickly voiced his desire to play the role of Roger’s friend, screenwriter Chuck Griffith). Like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which revels in its tributes to classic Hollywood TV shows, movies and Spaghetti Westerns, Kaleidoscope Eyes is full of references to Corman’s other films. These include his civil rights-themed drama The Intruder (1962) – the commercial failure of which makes Roger hesitant to make more “personal” films – and X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963), the poster art for which helps him devise an on-the-spot pitch for The Trip to his AIP bosses Sam Arkoff and Jim Nicholson.
I also spotted several funny references to The Little Shop of Horrors (1960): when Chuck tries to buy LSD from a dealer at Venice Beach, the dealer promises “Lots plants cheap”, a verbatim reference to a sign on Mushnick the florist’s wall, and Audrey Jr.’s catchphrase “FEED ME!” rears its head during Roger’s trip. The book is also packed with period detail (such as Metrecal, a predecessor to Sustagen that Roger drinks), and references to the music of such artists as Herb Alpert (“Spanish Flea”). As with the call-backs to Roger’s movies, these might throw off a reader unfamiliar with them, but Lucas’ fast pace allows 60s novices to get back on track to the heart of the narrative.
An advantage of the novel’s third-person approach can be seen in Lucas’ fleshing-out of the book’s cast. With a few exceptions, the supporting characters of his other novels tend to be abstract, in part due to the often-egotistical perspectives of the protagonists. Here, most of Roger’s friends and colleagues are clearly-defined, likable creatives who you want to see achieve success. Peter is a wide-eyed dreamer who wants to carve a legacy of his own, rather than simply being “Hank’s boy”. Jack is a hardworking, emotive artist who is frustrated by the bad hand life has dealt him thus far – his divorce from actress Sandra Knight inspires Paul and Sally’s split – but is determined to reward Roger’s friendship and trust.
Appropriate given her background and Oxford education, Frances is very much the Alfred to Roger’s Batman, a sounding board as much as she is a faithful assistant. Chuck – who recalls Harry Connick Jr.’s portrayal of Dean McCoppin in The Iron Giant (1999) – is a cool beatnik who happily guides Roger through his trip despite his initial 600-page script for The Trip being discarded in favour of Jack’s more streamlined take. Another of Roger’s protégés, Peter Bogdanovich – whose directorial debut Targets (1968) is prominently foreshadowed by Lucas – is a sharp-witted dandy keen to make the leap from critic to filmmaker. In their brief scenes, Bruce and Dennis are intellectual, curious thespians eager to give Roger their best work in their performances as John and Max, and while he does not turn her into a fully-fledged character, Lucas offers a nice appreciation of Salli and her portrayal of Glenn.
Whereas Lucas’ previous novels can be described as ranging between melancholic or tragic in tone, Kaleidoscope Eyes is the first to demonstrate his lighter side, imparting a sense of optimism that shines through the darkness. It shares a view with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood that, as long as you have friends in your corner and take risks, you can clear the hurdles Hollywood puts in your way.
What about Roger himself? Given the book’s generally light tone and its loving tributes to several celebrated talents, it might have been easy to make him an amiable everyman, a vehicle through which the story unfolds, but Lucas turns the maverick moviemaker into arguably his most complex protagonist yet.
In his audio commentary for Corman’s The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), Lucas notes that the heroes of many of the director’s films are truth-seekers. This is an attribute that also describes the leads of Lucas’ prior novels, and one which he applies to Roger, whose persona is defined by his incongruities: he has the dress-sense of an old fogey, the mind of a businessman, the heart of an explorer and the soul of an artist. Despite his personal tastes not lining up with those of his younger hippie colleagues, he is determined to accurately portray the psychedelic experience with as much realism as possible in the confines of a low budget, consulting Chuck and Jack about their experiences with LSD and extensively reading the works of such proponents of the drug as Dr. Timothy Leary in preparation for his trip and the film informed by it. Roger’s various faculties come into play in not only how he conducts his work – he views himself as a problem-solver who wants to work out “how to turn $300,000 into several millions” – but his love life.
Reading through Lucas’ books, I have been struck by his consistent focus on the relationships between his main characters and the women in their lives. His stories cover a wide spectrum of how men interact with “the fairer sex”, including seeking a partner with mutual erotic interests (Throat Sprockets); experiencing the pain of unrequited love and the danger of seduction (The Book of Renfield); and discovering the duality between spouses and muses (The Secret Life of Love Songs). Here, Roger is depicted as a 40-year-old serial monogamist; although courteous and deeply attracted to women (“The Earth is a woman… and I am HUMPING HER!” he screams during his trip), he has trouble allowing them to embrace his multifaceted makeup. Despite having three different girlfriends over the course of the story, Roger’s behaviour is carefully portrayed by Lucas as not creepy or predatory, but indicative of someone who ends relationships as soon as it is clear they are not long-term.
Paralleling Paul’s conflicted feelings for Glenn in The Trip, Roger is unsure about the deepness of his friendship with Julie Halloran, a researcher who shares his passion for problem-solving. He deliberately falls out of contact with her while preparing for the movie, fearing that she would not approve of his own “research”. The manner in which Lucas resolves this will-they-won’t-they dynamic not only does justice to the climax of The Trip, but the union they would eventually share together.
Lucas delivers two symbolic masterstrokes during Roger’s trip, which serve to convey his attitude to life: the constant, heightened ticking of his watch, and a “journey” into a giant rabbit-hole covered by screens showcasing every movie that has been, and will be, made. Unlike Paul, who is subconsciously ashamed of the commercialism of his chosen profession, Roger (in both the story and real life) has always embraced the artistic and commercial aspects of filmmaking. His determination to take advantage of what time he has left (in typically punctual fashion for Roger, his trip ends ahead of schedule!) has led him to not only push boundaries in his own movies, but also foster promising talents who might not have otherwise gotten the big break they needed. Indeed, numerous graduates of Roger’s informal “film school” would go on to become Oscar winners, including Bogdanovich, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Jonathan Demme and James Cameron.
And the ending? Well, although you can already find out about it online (Dante has already shot part of it as a form of “insurance”, and Ozploitation legend Brian Trenchard-Smith has told me that he was involved as a stand-in), I encourage you to discover its power – it’s a provocative capper that’ll leave you with those burning questions I asked at the start of this deep dive. Without giving too much away, it also neatly harkens back to both the ending of The Book of Renfield, and a phrase Roger may (or may not?) have uttered towards the end of his trip. This line, in turn, is a reference to a phrase claimed by Stephen King to have been uttered by Ray Milland’s character in an unedited version of the ending to X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes…
A fun, hauntingly beautiful tribute to one of the great craftsmen of the film industry and the power of his work, The Man With Kaleidoscope Eyes earns my highest recommendation. I only hope it’s a matter of time before the rest of the movie version is made…
Diving movies have always been done poorly. They have these one-dimensional stories, cheap budgets and almost always focus on a fake looking shark. I truly believe there is so much untapped potential here. Imagine a psychological thriller focusing on a single man diving to the depths of the ocean. A man who is slowly losing his mind – unsure what he is seeing down below. Then, I heard of the Underwater Welder…
If you haven’t heard of this book, let me give you a brief summary.
The Underwater Welder is a graphic novel written by Jeff Lemire. It focuses on Jack Joseph – an oil rig repairer off the coast of Nova Scotia. As he dives deeper and deeper, he pulls further further away from his wife and unborn son. Slowly, we learn about Jack’s past as mysterious and supernatural events start happening on the ocean floor.
This graphic novel is one of the most emotionally complex and moving pieces I have ever read. It explores some deep (ignore the pun) themes like grief, regret, birth, death, and fear. On top of this, it has this perfect mystery that made me finish the whole novel in one night. The Underwater Welder is the definition of a page turner and doesn’t resort to cheap tactics like some authors (Dan Brown, J.K Rowling I am looking at you). It keeps you glued to the book because of the characters not because of a lazy plot.
I know there is this boomer perception that graphic novels are for kids or just cheap imitations of books, but this novel proves how fucking stupid that is. It uses the art to display how lonely and dark our main characters life truly is. A man so filled with grief and fear he is trapped in a haunting and depressing world. Even the transitions are simply perfect. The book has this beautiful flow that feel as if you are watching the events right in front of you. Simply put, you can see the care and passion Lemire has put into each frame of this novel.
Rumours of a Film
In March 2017, it was reported by deadline that Ryan Gosling (from films such as Remember the Titans and uhhh… yeah that’s about it) and Ken Kao (Producer of the Nice Guys, Mid 90s and the Favourite) were bringing the Underwater Welder to the big screen. Since then, we have not seen or heard anything about this film so I can only assume its dead in the water (I know, another pun…). So as per usual, let me give you the 44clovers version of this novel.
The 44 Clovers Pitch
The Underwater Welder would be an incredible psychological horror / drama. For me, the ideal run time would be around 90 minutes, so it doesn’t drag.
The novel’s core story has to be kept the same. To respect Jeff Lamire, it has to focus on a blue collared character, grief and the fear of birth. All these elements already work so it shouldn’t be too hard. In my head, the film is a Western set on a coastal town (I know that sounds weird). Imagine No Country for Old Men or Hell or High Water but underwater. I think this is imperative to accentuate how horrible and depressing this town truly is. Also, I like how quiet these films are and their slow but delicate pacing.
As with the book, the diving scenes need to show how isolated Jack truly is. I would shoot the underwater scenes as if he is in space, a dark and harrowing landscape surrounding him. The lighting would be very simple to really highlight the nothingness around him. Everything must be done physically, or it just won’t work. Similar to Jaws or 13 Lives, I truly believe this film only works if it feels as real and dangerous as possible. A perfect example is Top Gun or Mission Impossible. The stunts have this incredible effect on the audience where you on the edge of your seat because you know it’s real. Imagine how horrifying seeing someone at the depths of the ocean in would truly be. Exactly
The film would need to focus more on the psychological horror then the book. I love the elements of him slowly loosing his mind and blacking out but feel this needs to be expanded. I think he should go on 3 dives and each one he is slowly seeing more shit. The watch, his father’s body, a diving mask etc etc. Each item getting more and more horrifying. As the film moves forward, it keeps building up until the audience is questioning if he is completely sane. Think Lighthouse, It Follows, I’m Thinking of Ending Things.
I would cast Sam Rockwell as Jack Joseph. I know he has done Moon and it is similar, but I think he would be perfect for this role. He has this scruffy chaotic attitude in films like the Way Way Back and Jojo Rabbit I think he can tap into very well. While I never love actors doing dramatic weight changes, I do think it is important he looks kind of scrawny and drained all the time.
For his father – Sam Elliot, he is built for this role (the moustache helps). Finally, his wife. I think Toni Collete would be perfect. On top of being an incredible actress, she always has a tired look that matches the wife perfectly.
Daniel Hart as always. My favourite composer right now who I believe can do absolutely any film perfect.
Director / Cinematography
I mean James Cameron would be excellent because of his obsession with the ocean but even in my dreams he is denying it. For my round 2 draft pick, I think Leigh Whannel would be incredible and probably better than James Cameron. His blend of horror and character development in the Invisible Man is perfect for this film. For cinematography, I would take Greig Fraser as my number one pick. I know he is now the biggest cinematographer in the world, but I love the colours and looks of Dune and Batman (plus hes Aussie).
Ultimately, I just think this is a film that hasn’t been made and should be. Since A24 is clearly the best production company in the industry right now, they should buy the rights to this film. It screams A24. The story, the characters, the horror – it is made for them. So hopefully, one day we will see this made and not just through a Hollywood production company but through creators who care.
The Batman is a film that I had on my watchlist for a very long time. Ever since The Batman’s initial test footage released back in 2020, I knew that director Matt Reeves and DC were crafting something special within the Batman mythos, something dark, violent and gritty.
The Batman’s trailers promised that the film would be something completely different and would bring something new to Batman’s cinematic identity, an identify that had been in filmic turmoil ever since the cinematic debacle known as 2017’s Justice League. The Batman also promised to take the superhero genre as a whole to new heights.
And after an excruciating 2-year wait and audience’s beginning to show superhero fatigue, The Batman would officially release to cinemas worldwide on March 4, 2022.
The Batman would not only open with widespread critical acclaim across the filmmaking world, but it would also provide a breath of fresh air to the superhero genre as a whole.
The Batman in my opinion is the perfect mixture of grit, action, noir, mystery, and thriller all tied together in a 2-hour and 50-minute package which is endlessly entertaining, engaging and thought-provoking.
Matt Reeve’s, The Batman, is a visceral, cinematic masterpiece, which has set the new gold standard for superhero filmmaking. The Batman is a film that not only breaks the mould when it comes to how we interpret/discuss modern superhero cinema but also, how much a film can invest its audience within it’s story, emotion and presented world.
A More Abrasive Batman Story:
“When that light hits the sky…it’s not just a call. It’s a warning…to them”
Taking cues from David Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’ and Roman Polanski’s ‘Chinatown’. The Batman isn’t your typical superhero story that relies on flashy action, characters, and jokey dialogue. Instead, The Batman takes a more methodical approach to the superhero genre.
The film takes its time to delve deep into each character’s thoughts and motives. Each element of The Batman’s narrative feels fully fleshed out and developed from introduction to conclusion, leaving the audience overall satisfied with the product.
The Batman’s narrative begins two years into Bruce Wayne’s career as Batman, stalking the decrepit streets and rat-infested alleyways of Gotham City which has been overrun with crime, gang violence and murder due to crime bosses like Carmine Falcone and Salvatore Maroni.
Matt Reeve’s incarnation of Bruce Wayne (as portrayed by Robert Patterson) is shown to be still traumatised by the murder of his parents. In the two years, Bruce has been patrolling the streets of Gotham, he has become consumed by rage, obsessed with becoming the embodiment of fear within the criminals of Gotham.
This obsession has caused Bruce to become a recluse, pushing away his only family, Alfred (portrayed by Andy Serkis) and distancing himself from his distinguished Wayne family name in order to allow his true self, The Batman, to fully become the personification of vengeance and finally uproot the criminal underbelly of Gotham City. The same criminal underbelly that took Bruce’s parents away from him.
It is clear that in Matt Reeve’s interpretation of the character, Batman isn’t the alter-ego of Bruce Wayne, but instead, Bruce Wayne is the alter-ego of The Batman. Bruce Wayne in the film, only serves as camouflage, a tool in Batman’s wide arsenal in order access information that The Batman typically wouldn’t be able to attain.
Meanwhile, the Batman is seen as a mythologic entity within the eyes of both criminals and citizens of Gotham, a ruthless, one-man army fighting against terror and striking fear into anyone who comes face to face with the mythical creature of the night.
During the opening of the film, it is revealed that Bruce has also created an unlikely alliance with GCPD Lieutenant James Gordon (portrayed by Jeffrey Wright). An alliance formed not only on mutual respect but also, formed over the desperation and the hope of finally driving the corruption out of Gotham, one broken limb at a time.
While investigating the mysterious murder of several high-ranking Gotham officials, the Batman and Lieutenant Gordon would begin to uncover several cryptic letters addressed; “TO THE BATMAN”.
The originator of these letters would be revealed as the cold, calculating, Zodiac-like killer, The Riddler (portrayed by Paul Dano). This discovery would unknowingly swallow Bruce Wayne whole, throwing him down a spiral of criminal conspiracy, family corruption, high-level murder, and uncovering the true actual effect that The Batman is having on Gotham City.
Along Bruce’s chase for The Riddler, he would also cross paths with the likes of Zoe Kravitz’s Catwoman, Collin Farrell’s Penguin and, John Turturro’s Carmine Falcone. Each one of these characters serving a crucial part in the wider conflict between The Batman and Riddler, whether they wanted to or not.
The story that Matt Reeves and Peter Craig presents to the audience is one that pulls no punches. Every character, subplot and action within the film is given plenty of time to flourish under the film’s almost three-hour runtime, and every single element that Matt Reeves and Peter Craig place within the narrative of The Batman serves its purpose.
The film is endlessly engaging and its dark noir-thriller take on the superhero genre is something that audiences haven’t seen since Batman’s previous solo outing; The Dark Knight Rises (2012), 10 years ago.
The story is so meticulously crafted that every element within the film has weight and only serves to add emotion to the film’s narrative.
The Batman’s Cinematography and Atmosphere:
The Batman’s cinematography and atmosphere accentuates the dark and gritty world which is presented to the audience. Cinematographer, Greig Fraser, who is notable for his work on Foxcatcher (2014), Last Ride (2009) and Dune Part 1 (2021), uses both camera and lighting to create a visual feast for the eyes, that harkens back to the noir films of the ’40s and ’50s.
Every shot in The Batman feels dark and cold because Fraser utilises heavy amounts of shadow and contrast. This consistent shadow mixed with the desaturated blue rain, the orange hew of Gotham city and the ever-present darkness that creeps its way into every shot, combines together to create a visual symphony that allows the film to look just that bit more grimy and akin to films produced by Alfred Hitchcock.
Greig Fraser’s cinematography shines brightly throughout The Batman, each frame bleeds character and uniqueness. Greig Fraser’s use of the ARRI ALFA anamorphic lenses creates a focal point in the centre of each frame. This choice of lens also created a severe falloff of resolution with the edges of the frame. This creates the effect that the audience is watching the film layout through a fish eye lens and gives The Batman a truly unique look.
The Batman is a masterclass in both cinematography and atmosphere, Greig Fraser’s use of Mise En Scene, lighting and ARRI ALFA anamorphic lense creates a visually stunning and unique piece of cinema with has the potential to inspire a new generation of cinematographers for years to come.
Not Your Typical Superhero Film:
The Batman feels unique when viewed in the same light as other superhero films that have been released in 2022. While the recent slate has begun to feel similar and generally formulaic over the last couple of years, The Batman differentiates itself from the norm of flashy action and jokey dialogue.
Instead of presenting The Batman as an MCU copycat (which has been the trend for most superhero films of recently), Director Matt Reeve’s instead opted to present a story that is more akin to the pulp noir films that dominated the box office almost a century ago. Instead of a fun, light-hearted, family-friendly superhero film that is appropriate for all ages, The Batman instead replaces everything audiences have come to expect from a superhero film with grit, grime and mature themes.
The Batman is through and through a slow-burn detective story that prioritizes’ s characters and story, over flashy CGI fights and comic relief. The film is cold, dark and violent, its characters are mature and given time to breathe over the film’s 2 hours and 50-minute run time. The film’s action is brutal and given weight by the character’s established beliefs and values clashing against one another.
The Batman feels like the breath of fresh air that the superhero genre needed after Avengers: Endgame. The film feels fresh and brings a lot to the table in terms of storytelling, character exploration and, how to tell a new, intriguing story with old, iconic characters that have been around for generations.
The Batman has raised the stakes when it comes to creating a compelling superhero drama. Matt Reeve and the entire production team have shown that innovation within the superhero genre is still possible and that not every superhero film has to follow in the footsteps of the MCU.
The Batman exceeds in telling an interwoven, complex story with characters audiences are already familiar with.
Greig Fraser’s use of the ARRI ALFA anamorphic lenses is a serious game changer in the realm of cinematography, the unorthodox use of these lenses grounds The Batman’s story in realism and creates an effect that general moviegoers have never seen before.
The Batman is one of the greatest films that I have ever seen, and I truly believe that this film has reinvented what moviegoers should consider to be quality superhero films. Not a flashy, high-budget mess of CGI and comedy, but, a meticulously crafted narrative that engages the audience not just through its story and characters, but also through its cinematography, world-building and use of Mise-En-Scene.
That’s what sets The Batman apart from the rest, that is what The Batman is the New Gold Standard of Filmmaking.
Trent Dalton. The most heartfelt, talented, and remarkable writer I have ever read in my 19 years of reading. The most beautiful thing about his work – it comes from Brisbane – his insight and knowledge into the Australian psyche, the idiosyncrasies of people and fundamental belief in love is something truly unmatched. You’ve probably heard about his debut book Boy Swallows Universe (now being made into a Netflix series!) or his most recent (and my favourite) book Love Stories, but I would like to pitch a case for his second book: All Our Shimmering Skies, and why in my opinion, it would make a fantastic animated movie.
The plot and its themes
A supernatural, mystic adventure amidst the backdrop of World War 2 and the Australian outback; the plot of this book translates onto the animated screen so well it is crazy. The protagonist of the story, Molly Hook, reminds me of so many strong female leads in animated movies like Coraline (in Coraline), and Chihiro in Spirited Away, who overcome immense struggle through finding themselves in a world that is actively pitted against them.
Both of those films would make a great template for the sort of movie this would be – a beautifully animated, dream-like mystery where the young main character finds themselves through a long and perilous journey, exploring themes of history, family, grit (quite literally), passion and hope.
Animated movies, like Up, Inside Out and Soul, all work on an emotional level because the medium enhances their messages, accentuating their themes of love, self-discovery and realisation through exaggerated, larger than life animations and characters. This would be perfect for All Our Shimmering Skie’s protagonist Molly, who develops and changes immensely throughout the novel, from a frightened girl to a strong and brave young adult. As well as this, with many different sublots intertwining throughout the narrative, the books’ non-linear structure works well for the animated medium as it allows for jumping around – being able to delve into backstories, past trauma, family and dreams without sacrificing continuity, similar in execution to something like Coco.
“Hearts don’t turn to stone, Molly,” Greta says. “But they do turn. One day your heart is filled with nothing but love and then something gets inside and mixes in with all that love and sometimes that something is black and sometimes it’s cold and feels just like stone because it’s heavy, and sometimes it gets so heavy you can’t carry it inside you no more.”
As we all know, the land is the fundamental jigsaw piece in the puzzle we call Australian existence. It provides us with culture, spirituality, language, law and identity – a tenet in Indigenous Australian culture – it is the place we all stand, love, and act. In the book All Our Shimmering Skies, Trent’s description of Australian landscape is stunning alchemy of light, colour, history, emotion and vigour, traversing the bomb exhausted streets of Darwin to mysterious deep caves in the heart of scrub and bush. It is honestly some of the best descriptions of landscape I have ever read, and I think it would translate beautifully onto an animated screen, something unachievable in the realm of live action.
“Purple sky with streaks of pink and red, streaks of fire. Three wanderers moving under and over sandstone ledges, around freestanding rock outcrops. A shifting landscape, stone country turning to brief rainbow-coloured of clusters of orchis and banskias…”
The choice of art-style to bring this to screen could go many ways. Personally, I think something like Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr Fox and Isle of Dogs is a good starting point, as they project beautifully rich, romantic and meticulously crafted landscapes to life, and you can tell genuine care and effort has been put into every frame.
Likewise, movies such as Fantasia, Kubo and the Two Strings, and pretty much anything Studio Ghibli are all great starting points to explore the vast expanse of the empty Australian outback through virtue of emotional thematic and aesthetic association.
Australian cinema is on the rise, which is fantastic. But alongside this rise should also come a focus on animated movies, and I think we can do better than Blinky Bill’s Outback Adventure. As the narrative is deeply entrenched the Australian mythos, the film would provide foreign audiences an insight into Australian culture; an homage to our way of life and what makes us tick. But most importantly, All Our Shimmering Skies pays its respect to First Nations history and culture and does so in a way that is not in your face or forceful – as I said, the land is a pivotal character within itself.
“…he said the land gives you all you need if you know the right way to ask for it.”
The exploration of Indigenous culture is something that can be done beautifully through the lens of film, and I believe adding an animated picture to the increasing amount of great Indigenous Australian movies would be an incredible milestone for our country. Stories provide all cultures with information about people, values and truth telling. If steadfast and committed to its visual style, All Our Shimmering Skies would be a visual tone poem beyond language, connecting to the spiritual ancestors of the land in a stunning visceral way whilst also paying homage to a momentous time in our nations history, and something I believe all Australian Audiences need to see.
From its very first line Damien Chazelle’s La La Land introduces the core dilemma of not only its characters, but countless creatives everywhere; the things we sacrifice for our dreams. This sacrifice is played out in the beautiful but heart wrenching story of a struggling jazz pianist and an aspiring actor, played by Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone respectively, who meet and fall in love while pursuing their dreams in Los Angeles.
And what a Los Angeles it is. Damien Chazelle paints a rich portrait of the city and its duality for those who pursue their ambitions there. La La Land’s Los Angeles depicts itself as a technicolour dream world right from the opening number, only for this illusion to come crashing back down as soon as the music stops, leaving behind a still beautiful, yet callous Los Angeles. Chazelle walks a fine line between romanticising the city and showing the reality of living there, never sugar coating how cruel Hollywood can be, but still managing to depict the beauty that the characters see in it when viewed through the lens of their dreams and aspirations.
For Sebastian, played by the always impeccable Ryan Gosling, that dream is jazz. Seb’s main goal in life is to open a jazz bar in the city where he can play whatever he wants, for as long as he wants, as long as it is pure and true jazz. The only issue – Jazz can never really be pure and true, even though Seb would never admit it. Seb is a firm believer in the idea that ‘Jazz is dead’, a saying common among jazz elitists who think that, unless you’re playing Miles Davis to a tee, you’re not playing jazz. For a genre where one its most influential pieces is literally called Giant Steps, this belief is a bit limiting to say the least.
Jazz thrives on experimentation and growth, and while they mightn’t sound like a Coltrane quartet, artists like Kamasi Washington and BBNG are proving with every new release that Jazz is anything but dead. Regardless, to Seb, Jazz is in need of saving and he is willing to face conflict and compromise and everything in between to be the one who saves it. To him, the dream of owning a jazz club and saving the genre, is beautiful, perfect and very, very exciting.
Doubtlessly, just as exciting for Damien Chazelle, was being able to include this reflection on Jazz into a film of his own. An ex-drummer himself, it’s easy to see how big of a role the genre has on Chazelle as an artist, with him and his frequent collaborator, Justin Hurwitz, including elements of the genre in every score they compose, from their breakout hit Whiplash to their earlier student film Guy and Madeline on a Park bench.
It’s not just a novelty either, as in every film they make, Jazz is the perfect choice for their soundtrack, style and setting; La La Land is no exception. Jazz is, in its DNA, inherently a genre about dreaming, moving forward from traditional forms of music, chasing improvisation and energy, following the emotion of what this sequence, what this half-second of music could be. It’s an electrifying genre that sets the perfect stage for the development of La La Land’s story and style. That is until something else joins the fray. A new tune, a new sound, a new player in the composition and a new dream for both Sebastian and Mia, love starts to blossom.
Who isn’t a sucker for love? It’s easy to act like a snob who hates anything that could be considered a rom com, but deep down, even if we never admit it, we’ve all watched that one trashy Adam Sandler film way too many times. Love in rom coms and the majority of films on the gilded Hollywood screen is perfect, heart-warming and entirely constructed. The romanticisation of ‘love’ as a concept is a well-known issue in cinema and narratives as a whole, with a large majority of movie going audiences at least unconsciously aware of the questionable reality of Hollywood love.
And yet, you’d be fooling yourself if you said you’d never found yourself wishing to find someone with a boombox outside your window, someone to tell you that ‘you’ll always have Paris’, that you ‘complete’ them. Everyone wants Hollywood ‘true’ love, whether they admit it or not. The reality is though, that ‘love’ only exists in the sometimes.
I don’t know whether I’m qualified to say it but sadly for those of us that dwell in the real world, happily ever after isn’t a possibility, hell even ninety minutes of enemies to lovers followed by a fade to black isn’t going to happen. In real life, love, as written by Hollywood, is harder to catch than that. But it can be caught, and that is what La La Land is so adept at doing.
In real life, that look, that touch, that kiss, are the only moments of Hollywood magic that make it into our mundane lives, and La La Land understands this, telling its viewers that if you want to find Hollywood love in reality, you have to look for the magic in the moments. By using old school Hollywood mainstays, musicals, tap sequences, Chazelle creates moments of acknowledged unreality to portray the reality of love. Love isn’t a rom com. Love is, walking past your car to get a few more minutes of chatting in, touching hands in a cinema, dancing in between shimmering stars. Love is a dream, shared by two people, and it is beautiful. But you can’t dream two things at once. So what happens when that love clashes with your dreams for the future? Cue the epilogue.
Five years after parting ways both Mia and Sebastian have made their dreams a reality, with Mia ordering coffees from her old work before being driven off to set in her own personal golf buggy, and Seb fine tuning the keys on his very own Jazz club’s piano. By a twist of fate, Mia manages to stumble upon Seb’s club and is dragged in by her husband to listen to just one song.
Seb spots Mia as she takes a seat and the two share a look that tells you everything about their past five years. You can practically hear the voices in their heads running rampant, going over every ‘what-if’ scenario, every scrap of connection, and conflict that brought them to this very moment. Seb takes a seat as his piano. He plays three notes. The world stops.
Suddenly we are rocketed back to Mia and Sebastian’s first meeting, to a different reality where a kiss starts the couple on a whole new dream, in a whole new Los Angeles that is just as stunning as a musical and everything that could go right, does.
A melody of every love motif, date song, and moment of musical passion from the film plays as Mia and Sebastian dance, hand in hand, from beautifully dressed sound stage to sound stage, each set depicting a defining moment in their relationship that, in this technicolour dream world, goes exactly the way they wanted it to. Mia aces her audition, leading to the two weaving in between waves of back up dancers as they make their way to Paris, kissing under the Eiffel tower. Seb opens up his jazz club ‘Chicken on a Stick’ and plays his heart out, while Mia gets made up for her leading role, coming back together at night to wander the streets of Paris, hand in hand, a portrait of true love.
After yet another dance in the stars, the pair sit down to watch their life together play out on a cinema screen showing their home movies. Moments of real-life magic, true love, flicker on the screen, the pair living happily ever after as a family, with all their dreams a reality. Finally the lovers wander the streets of Los Angeles, finding their way into a Jazz bar. And suddenly we are back to reality. Seb plays the tune out. He looks up at Mia from his piano. She knows exactly what he played. A song of dreams, jazz, love, and everything in between. Their song. Mia smiles. Seb smiles back.
Mia follows her husband out of the club and Seb starts on another song. They each return to their lives, their dreams made reality, knowing what could have been but still being happy in spite of it. That’s what the film has to say about the things we sacrifice for our dreams. That is the creative struggle. That is Damien Chazelle’s La La Land.
A follow-up to Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner was always a point of discussion and contention within the sci-fi community during the late 80s and 90s. With people wondering what happened to characters like Deckard and Rachael after the final credits rolled? How would Ridley Scott add to the Blade Runner continuity with a sequel? And, whether or not it was necessary at all to make a sequel to the cult classic?
And while the narrative did continue within the novelization version of Blade Runner, penned by K. W. Jeter (which ran for 4 books), a definitive cinematic sequel to Blade Runner would remain in development hell for decades to follow.
It wouldn’t be until director Dennis Villeneuve, notable for his work on Sicario (2014), Arrival (2015) and Dune Part 1 (2021), would enter the project. After a few more years in development, a sequel to Blade Runner, titled Blade Runner 2049 would be released to the public in 2017.
Despite its critical reception from both audiences and critics alike being extremely positive, the film was considered by Warner Bros as a box office failure, only raking in $259.3 million at the box office on a $185 million budget.
However, despite Blade Runner 2049 not being a financial hit. Many filmmakers, including myself, consider the film to be one of the greatest sequels of all time, not only due to its thought-provoking plot, immersive themes and its masterclass in cinematography and visual storytelling. but also, through the film’s respect and consideration of the 1982 original film’s themes and message of; Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
This is why many filmmakers consider Blade Runner 2049 to be one of the greatest sequels general moviegoers have never seen before, and here’s why.
Blade Runner 2049’s Plot
The plot of Blade Runner 2049 takes place 30 years after the original. Here, the audience is introduced to K (played by Ryan Gosling). K is a Blade Runner for the LAPD, acting as judge, jury, and executioner for replicants who need to be “retired”. It’s revealed to the audience that K is also a replicant, hunting his own kind so he may stay alive for a few years longer in the post-apocalyptic world of Blade Runner. However, when K discovers that a replicant named Rachael (the same Rachael from the first Blade Runner film) possibly gave birth to a replicant child with Deckard, K’s life and his journey are sent spiralling down the rabbit hole of truth. K is forced to come to terms with the sins of his past and consider whether or not he, himself is a replicant or a human. K’s journey of self-discovery would lead him to meet Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) and the two must band together to find the replicant child before it’s discovered by other replicants and instigates a war between humanity and replicants.
While I don’t want to spoil anything about the film and implore you to watch the movie yourself, it cannot be understated just how impactful the film is when it comes to portraying K’s journey of self-discovery. K is a ruthless, cold, and calculating Blade Runner at the beginning of the film, however, when his journey leads him down a rabbit hole of self-actualization and reality-breaking revelations, we are shown a broken, determined man fixated on nothing but uncovering the truth.
The film’s execution when it comes to the presentation of themes like identity, destiny and what it means to be alive is handled in a way that is not only subtle, but also is the focal driving point of the whole story. Never deviating away in order to service an unnecessary sub-plot. This, in turn, makes the film’s plot feel more focused and sharp, compared to a messy branch of sub-plots that ultimately never go anywhere and serve to only overcomplicate a story of this magnitude and importance.
Blade Runner 2049’s Cinematography
The cinematography of Blade Runner is something that is always been a major selling point for the film and even won the film an Academy Award back in 2018. The film’s cinematographer, Sir Roger Alexander Deakin (notable for The Shawshank Redemption, No Country for Old Men and, 1917) employed a single-camera set-up for the film. While this technique of cinematography is seen today as a relic of old filmmaking, in Blade Runner 2049’s case, this single-camera set-up only serves to straighten the creative vision for the film and strengthen what is ultimately chosen to be shown on screen and to the audience in the films final cut.
Each shot of Blade Runner 2049 feels important, needed, and symbiotic in telling this cohesive story. Every shot feels cold, dark, and dreary to match the films post-apocalyptic, cyberpunk aesthetic. Sir Roger Alexander Deakin uses each frame and shot to tell a story, no space on the screen is wasted or unutilized, which in turn makes the world feel more alive than ever for the audience.
Whether the camera is flying with K through the neon-soaked streets of 2049 Los Angeles, following K through the orange wastelands of future Las Vegas or, the bleak factories of future San Diego. Each shot, scene and cinematic angle has its own unique story, voice, and character. No shot in Blade Runner 2049 is wasted and every second of screen time only serves to further the plot that plays out on film.
Blade Runner 2049’s Voice
As previously touched on in the plot breakdown of the film, Blade Runner 2049’s themes of identity and destiny are given great gravitas throughout the 2-hour and 43-minute runtime of the film. K’s journey of self-discovery and metaphorical rebirth from a ruthless, soulless replicant to a human who feels compassion and pain for the ones he’s lost, feels natural and purposeful by the filmmakers.
The film does an excellent job of giving K’s story ample time to breathe and develop when compared to other Hollywood blockbusters, K’s relationships with his holographic girlfriend JOI, his friendship with Deckard and his battle against fellow replicant / Blade Runner, Luv, all feel natural and fleshed out by the end of the film.
The idea of what it means to be alive is a question that the Blade Runner series was built upon. And this idea of what it means to be alive is epitomized by K’s journey of self-discovery and destiny throughout the film. With Blade Runner 2049’s presentation of a replicant who can feel emotions (K) to its audience, the film openly challenges its audience to reevaluate their ideas and values when it comes to the definition of what it means to be alive/human.
That’s what makes Blade Runner 2049 the greatest sequel you have never seen before.
While Blade Runner 2049 may not have been the box office success many studio executives at Warner Bros were hoping it would be. Blade Runner 2049 in recent years has started to be recognized by filmmakers alike as one of the most impressive pieces of cinema to be released in recent memory. Every second of this film is purposeful and engaging, its cinematography and portrayal of K’s journey is both breathtaking and gorgeous in every way possible, the film showcases just how engaging both Dennis Villeneuve can be as a director and the world of Blade Runner can be when in the right hands.
And while the general movie-going audience wasn’t interested in watching this film back in 2017, I strongly encourage each reader of this article to put Blade Runner 2049 on their watchlist in order to truly experience what they missed out on 6 years ago.
That’s why Blade Runner 2049 is the greatest sequel you have never seen before.
It feels like there are so many big shows coming out right now that I cannot keep up. We got some Ozark, Obi Wan, Stranger Things, The Boys and most importantly Barry. I have been looking forward to most of these shows for a very long time. Maybe it’s just me but when they all come out at once I get this weird FOMO – like I’m missing out on something. So to help out any other people experiencing the same world ending issue here’s my take on which of these shows is slapping and why?
Ozark was definitely at the bottom of this list. I loved the first 2 seasons of this show but quickly lost interest at Season 3. Honestly, I have only watched a couple episodes of Season 4 and while it’s definitely good quality it didn’t grip me from that first episode – something I think is very important. Even if shows are slow paced, they should always get you wanting to come back from the beginning (True Detective is a perfect example).
Should you come back to season 4?
Yes, because it’s the last season and you may as well smash it out.
Obi Wan Kenobi (Minor Spoilers)
I may trigger a lot of Star Wars fans here but Obi wan has been the biggest let down of all of these productions (I am writing this before the fourth episode). The show feels like it’s completely filled with running. That is not a metaphor, I have genuinely seen nothing but people chasing each other in these weird closed off environments. Sometimes a character will literally just run into a tree so terribly its funny.
The whole plot of the story is kind of boring as well. I am not interested in Leia as a character (in this show) and thereby the whole story. I really thought they would go a different route with this show, but it just feels like another rushed and generic piece of Star Wars content. Maybe the show will drastically improve over the last three episodes, but it isn’t looking good. In my head, the show should have been a mix of Wake in Fright, John Wick and Terminator. An endless army of bounty hunters chasing Obi Wan through this horrible and disgusting desert. Instead, it just has no style, vision, or moments of dramatic tension.
The fight scene between Darth Vader and Obi Wan was also a letdown. I know it’s meant to be like that because he has no powers, but it was more the writing. How they made Kenobi escape from Vader is some of the dumbest and most cliché writing I have seen in a while. That’s essentially the summary of this show. Writing things in that feel forced just to move the show forward.
Should you watch Obi Wan Kenobi
It pains me to say it but unless you are a die-hard Star Wars fan you could probably skip it. Then again, we are only 3 episodes in.
Stranger things season 4 is truly incredible. I wont dive into it too much because everyone knows how good it is and I don’t really need to convince anyone but godayum is it slapping. Each episode just draws you in more and more and makes you addicted to these incredible characters. Before this season, I truly thought this show was extremely overrated – good but still overrated. After Season 4 I realised how wrong I was. The Nancy Drew detective aspect of the kids exploring mysteries is just so entertaining to watch. It is exactly what you imagine in your head as kid brought to life on the screen. Also, quick shoutout to Sadie Sink, she is the best actor in this show and should have got way more attention then Millie Bobby Brown. Sadie will be one of the biggest names in Hollywood in the next 5 years and that’s a promise.
Should you watch Season 4?
Fuck yes, go watch it now. However, I do recommend not binging it and spreading it out. The show is more designed for that.
The Boys Season 3 is consistent. And I mean that in a positive sense. It is equally as gory, weird, and gross as the other seasons despite having this much attention on it. After the ending of Season 2, I was kind of confused how much room there was left in the tank. But after finishing episode 2 I could see how much they had to tell. Also, the acting in this show is severely underrated (I think cause it’s a comic book TV Show.) Antony Starr, Karl urban and Jack Quaid are amazing in this show. These roles feel like they are made for them and that is a clear sign of a great performance.
Should you watch Season 3?
Yes absolutely. I think binging this show is a great idea because it does have a slower pace that you may lose interest in.
Barry is probably my favourite show of all time so I may be biased. Season 3 came out of nowhere and while I was excited, I definitely wasn’t as hype as I thought I would be (I think bringing people back for another season after 2 years is extremely challenging and not a shows fault at all). But Barry is entirely character driven. As soon as I saw the character development of Barry, I knew this season would be incredible. It is refreshing when you are surprised where writers take a character and that is exactly what they did with Barry. In addition, Anthony Carrigan is one of the best comedic actors currently on screen. He needs to be in more shit because even when he says a simple line it is just funny.
I will write more about Barry in the future because I would like to do a whole video about this amazing show.
Stories are the crux of every universal language. They take on many different meanings; providing a window into other people’s experience, their truth, and all help us figure out what the hell we are doing, because let’s face it, we are all just as unsure as each other.
Likewise, visual storytelling is one of the most powerful tools a filmmaker can use, I mean after all, a picture does tell a thousand words.
So, it came as an undeniable shock and blessing for an 18-year-old filmmaker struggling to make his first big video on YouTube, when I received a discounted scholarship to an online visual storytelling course from two of my favourite filmmakers – Johnny Harris and Nathaniel Drew.
For those of you don’t know, Johnny is one of the most renowned journalist and filmmakers working today. Johnny’s dedication to fact-based and impartial journalism is a breath of fresh air in the swamp of Murdoch media that poison social media feeds today. He is the creator of the Vox series Borders, and his increasingly popular YouTube channel creates high quality and professional explanation videos on just about anything – from travel, the war in Ukraine and why McDonald’s ice cream machine are always broken.
Nathaniel is another one of those rare talented YouTubers working today. His creativity, intuition and genuine passion for what he does bleeds into his videos about life, philosophy, the universe and living abroad.
So, without giving too much of their course away for free, I thought I would compile together a summary of everything that I have learnt from their course, and how it has helped my filmmaking.
Beyond Instagram Photos and Hashtags – Use Your Visuals to Engage
More and more people travel to places to take the same cliché Instagram photos. And while that may work for them, if you want to tell good, meaningful and memorable travel stories, Johnny and Nathaniel propose something different: tell stories that explore an idea, a personal theme, and do so in an artistic and creative way. I’m talking about utilising the sound of crunchy food, the architecture of a building, the motion of traffic – different visual moments to immerse your audience in your location.
Just from 60 seconds of watching this video, you feel as if you were in Switzerland.
This is infinitely more interesting than a cliché picture of the Sydney Opera house, or a mindlessly dull TikTok with cool visuals.
For my own story, I didn’t want to just do a visually engaging montage of my road trip, but rather tell a story of my ups, downs and lessons I learnt from travelling by myself. I am so glad I did this, as it meant I told a much more engaging story.
Film absolutely everything and anything
This is definitely a lesson I wish I took in sooner: that is, you are infinitely better to have captured the moment than to capture nothing at all. When you are travelling or filming anything, you often get that voice at the back of your head saying “ah, I’m not going to bother with filming that.” Even if you point your camera random things, it is infinitely better to have quality B-Roll to work with than nothing at all, because you never know when you are going to use it. So shoot close ups, establishing shots, action shots, low depth of field, grab all the details and put aside your expectations and self-judgments, and just film, remember to just keep going and focus on capturing.
Show Don’t Tell
Ah yes, we have all heard this one before, but this is a crucial element of telling great visual stories. If you have emotion you want to convey, a lesson, or any piece of dialogue, see if you show it, rather than tell it. This provides the audience an opportunity to use their brains; it respects their intelligence and their ability to recognise patterns and feelings within visual information. For myself, I actually went back and cut down around 30% of my dialogue and simply replaced it with visuals – this made the pacing quicker, more engaging and moved the story forward a lot better than my rude head blabbering away.
This one is mainly for post-production but goes so well for being on foot too. If you organise your folders to have specific categories for music, b-roll, a-roll, sound effects ect.. you get into a habit of staying organised and on top of all your work, which makes workflows so much easier and helps you locate the perfect shot for the perfect moment. When you’re on foot, Johnny and Nathaniel recommend equipment that helps you be nimble and functional – so a small camera is probably better. When you are capturing beautiful imagery, you want to have gear that is light and at the ready when possible. When you are on your trip, or on site for filming, you are hunting for visual evidence – pretend your eyes are the camera and immerse yourself in the moment.
Be nice to yourself
Developing a skill takes time, like anything. So, one of the biggest takeaways of this course is to be kind to yourself, and most importantly to be kind to yourself in the process of capturing visuals and creating a story. It is important to bring your personality into your work, it may be embarrassing but it gets easier, and I think it is more important to do what you love and get laughed at than miss the opportunity all together.
I tutor high-school English, and one of things I constantly say to my students is that your essay/story/body of work is like a ball of clay. It doesn’t just become a beautiful pot but takes time through constantly shaping and moulding it. Likewise, stories don’t naturally become masterpieces, they take constant re-adjustments and shifts until you finally create something beautiful. What you initially envision in your head never becomes the final product, and that is the beauty of it.