This changed my movie quite a lot. I self censored myself so much that it was no longer a movie that I had in mind when I was 15. I remembered what Christopher Nolan had to say about Dunkirk and the criticism that the movie wasn't R Rated. He argued that it was way tenser to make a movie like this. The horrible things are still happening. But they are never shown in too much details. This does two things. One: it opens the mind to invent things. And the mind is very good at scaring you. And two: it never gives you a moment where you close your eyes, or look away. And therefor you see more of what's going on. And therefor you are tenser, because what's going on is an utter catastrophe.
The premise of the movie is kind of weird. Because on one hand is a kind of mix between Oceans Twelve ( a less grandiose, more character driven movie about con artists ) and Wasabi ( a French movie about a tough French police man who finds out he has a teenage daughter in Japan ). But from a different stand point, it almost feels like a movie Christopher Nolan would do. But perhaps he would do it not chronologically.
Sir Kenneth Branagh! That's the end of the review. Just kidding. A Haunting In Venice is the new picture directed by Kenneth Branagh and starring Kenneth Branagh which is a kind of a sub-genre of films of it's own. Branagh started his directorial career by directing a movie where he played the main role. And continued directing movies where he played the main roles ever since. Of course sometimes he might make a movie where he plays not the main character, like the 1992's Peter's Friends where Peter is played by Stephen Fry. And Branagh just has a very big role in it. And sometimes he plays in movies where he is not the director. Like in Dunkirk, Tenet and Oppenheimer all directed by Christopher Nolan. Of course lately he got himself directing jobs where he didn't cast himself what so ever. Like in Marvel's Thor ( where the actor was cast by Marvel ) or Disney's Cinderella where for obvious reasons a middle aged man cannot play the main character. But most of the time he plays the main character in the films he directs. It kind of became a meme at this point that if Branagh directs a film, most likely he plays the main character.
I was fascinated at that point with the story about the making of Dunkirk, the 2017 Christopher Nolan movie about World War II. It was rated PG-13, while everything else about this subject matter was rated R and a lot of people got upset that Christopher Nolan was afraid to show guts. But Nolan himself explained that in preparation to the filming, he watched Saving Private Ryan ( a very violent Steven Spielberg film about that war ) and saw that other people tend to close their eyes in moment of absolute horror. So they don't actually see the movie. And they miss on tension, immersion and ultimately they are not scared in the end. So to scare the audience about the war, he needed to show death and suffering without the death and the suffering being unpleasant to look at on the screen. And for that kosher approach he got the PG-13 rating.
I'm Not Even Human was a mild success. It got a few thousand views on YouTube. And some people liked it. I thought that it was a nice stepping stone which I can use to start going into serious cinema. Right after the movie was done I was seriously trying to use its existence to justify a studio giving me money to make my next movie that would be an entirely my vision. I would not agree to some other asshole directing it. And I would show them I'm Not Even Human as a proof that I can do something. I got through one phone call with a studio in Israel. And they were quick to catch me on my bullshit. My only movie is not even a little popular. What is a few thousand views? A few thousand views from people that do not need to pay to see your stuff. Compare it to cinema, where people pay money for a god damned ticket! Yes Christopher Nolan's first film "Following" got a few thousand views too. But every single one of those views was paid by the people who came to see it in the cinema.
1941 was not received very well in 1979 when it was released. It was supposed to be a comedy. But it was a not very funny parody on World War II together with being perhaps the loudest movie ever made ( until Christopher Nolan said "Hold my beer" ). Being written by Robert Zemekys ( who would later direct such classics like Back To The Future and Forest Gump ) and Bob Gale the script was what the producer John Milius describes as "social irresponsibility". And what attracted Steven Spielberg to it was the fact that he could blow, break and destroy in multiple ways a bunch of stuff.
Often it is required of a storyteller to say less in order to say more. Steven Spielberg had to censor the most gruesome parts of the holocaust in order to make a movie that was actually watchable, and his intuition was arguably right. The movie ended up being a hit, exposing millions upon millions of people to the the holocaust. But it wasn't the horror. It was a watered down version, made so people would not be too upset watching it. The reality of the situation was so much worse that Spielberg didn't even think a movie showing the actual truth was possible. Nobody would be brave or masochistic enough, he thought, to actually see it. A similar story happened to Dunkirk, another World War II movie, this time by Christopher Nolan, who deliberately avoided the worst aspects of a war film to make a film which the audience could watch without taking their eyes from the screen, and as a result, a film that is arguably scarier because of that. Nolan's masterful management of tension is so good that the movie doesn't need violence and blood to be visceral. And yet, to some extent the movie is a watered down version of what war supposed to be. And some argue it is a lesser film because of it.
Mr. Humbert: So you are saying that there will not be any movie productions soon? Well wait a second there... The trend is now to shoot films back on film actually. Look at Christopher Nolan or Tom Cruise. Their whole business model is to make shit for real and not using computers for everything.
The movie is perhaps intentionally confusing. Some idiots on image-boards have a problem with Moria's Race not spoon-feeding them with all they need to know so the movie would make sense. They don't like to pay any attention. And they do not like to figure anything out. This movie is way more of a puzzle. And not in a Christopher Nolan kind of way. It's not about figuring out what happens. It's about figuring out what it all means.
6 Underground is Michael Bay's attempt at non-linear story structure. And this is perhaps the only movie he ever did where the story is non-linear to such an extend. There is some non-linearity in Transformers films. But there the non linear parts are mostly just stories told by characters. While in this movie, it's a stylistic decision. Perhaps Bay felt like he could try being Christopher Nolan for a bit. To be quite frank the first time I saw 6 Underground I was quite confused what is happening when. But if you pay attention of the text on the screen ( because unlike Nolan, Bay actually tells the audience what happens when and where with title cards ) you will be less confused about things.
Christopher Nolan had a very interesting joke about this. He told that he once showed the VFX supervisor on one of the films he made the screen of what he sees from the camera. And there was an object that he didn't want in the shot. A ladder if I remember correctly. So he asked the VFX supervisor is his team could remove that ladder. And the answer was: of course they can. And then he said: No, like now.