juanmuscle
I am here because of Quinn Shephard. I first saw her in 'Blame' not to tangent much, but she wrote it and the I have never seen a scene, firstly it was built up really well, the fake love scene, the pose for pose with the music the transposing of characters founded on desire coupled with the really cool backstory it just added so much to the effect, I mean that is what film is all about, a lot of different art forms congealed to really titivate the words on the page, make it come to life in a way that would otherwise fall pallid and flat. But back to 'Midnight Sun' I watched it and loved it, I mean what is there not to love, it told a story, only after did I find out that it was a remake, and Arnold had a son who was in Hollywood. All I can say about Patrick Schwarzenegger is, to me, he did the really sweet cool young lad character so well, that now I will see him as that guy who was in that really sweet guy who was in the movie with that chick who couldn't go outside, period. Don't ask me to compare him to Arnold because its like, could he do the big action hero, we have yet to see, but did Arnold ever play a multi-leveled , multi-faceted, having to dump line after line change expressions, run around without gun and express a large part of the human gamut of emotions with his face and speak volumes with his eyes, the answer is no, no he didn't. So its really cool to see that there is something there for writers and directors to really mold and work with. The movie, the tale, the writing, if I may? I wanted to see the original and then sort of speak on both here, firstly, this is what a remake should be, and what I mean by this, it was a dead set remake but yet was able to make its own, it had all the elements of the original, but it honed it down in an affecting way to exact feelings from the viewer, specific emotions were evoked with this storytelling and it was super taut, so that means from start to finish there was one contiguous thread that new exactly what it was doing, what it wanted to do and in between was interlarded with anything that might touch on those feelings in the way of set up, ancillary characters, specific remarks in discourse, wit, jokes, maudlin banter, whatever they wanted to do they did and it worked , the reason it worked was because it was not bold, it suppressed its boldness and maneuvered it self in a subtle tender way, sort of like verse, so this was poetry, whilst the first one, was raw, uncut, fun, funny, witty, bold and brazen as hell and it worked as well, it felt like a first write and boom , go with it, thusly more like prose. If I had to fully give my feelings with a metaphor, but yet keep it artistic , perhaps , like that band you love, think of their first album compared to the second. The first one is so nice, so awesome, so raw and sleazy and terrific , so in your face whilst the second is still very very good, but not quite as street sleazy why, its polished, well-thought out, the instruments are crisp and played with more style, the songs are a little more inclusive , the whole feel of the album is less alley cat sleazy and more ready to include your granma with some sweet power-ballad you know? That was what these two felt like to me, both I loved, and I can't tell you which I loved more, but I will say one thing, what we love so much about Asian films after watching the pristine classy, well-built, super-well-writen , taut, I hate to use the word but seemingly sterile Hollywood, like so clean, so perfect there are no holes but sometimes something can be so clerically sanitary that there are no little quirks, lil' fissures , sometimes in those little holes is where we find some of our favorite moments in a film. So yes, I think , when it comes to Asian art especially in storytelling, they seem to have something that we lack here , and that is, they don't take themselves to dang serious, they just let it flow , take it or leave it and what comes out is what goes to press - just let it go, lets have fun and let the characters live a little bit, and in doing so we get a different style of story-telling, a little more quirky, a little bit more zany, a little bit more eccentric and sometimes, sometimes when they play a bit loose, it can cause a massive rift in the writing wherein we get something we never expected before , and of course some might say lamo, but others might say 'Dang , I have never experienced anything like that in my life , loving every second of it, its a terrific variation, and you know what, THANK THE LORD FOR THE ASIANS , Hollywood and abroad rule!
sbocena
When I read the plotline "A girl who can't go out into the sunlight", I was so curious and excited. As in she has Xeroderma Pigmentosum and it's a love story so I thought it would be one of those deep, sympathetic stories . You know! the ones that characters struggles with their disease while trying to keep up with the normal life.An immediate mental image of "Fault in our stars" and "Me before you" came in my mind but the disappointment is this movie shy far away from these two masterpieces. It's just one of those shallow love stories where the writer has no regard for details and tells you whatever you wanna hear( cliche).1.In the beginning of the movie as the lead actress(Bella Thorne) narrates the story, there is part during elementary school when her future best friend knocks on her(Bella) door and her father opens up and he tells the little girl that her daughter(Bella) can't go out in the sun and little girl(future best friend) is like "Can she play at night?"....Who allows their elementary school daughter to go play at the strangers house at night?....and am using the word "Stranger" because there is no point during the movie where the best friend's family was shown, which is just shallow too if you ask me.2. The lead actress(Bella) goes to play the guitar/singing at the train station almostly every night and by some reason Charlie(the boy she falls for) has never seen her. I get it that they wanted to make the encounter of two lovebirds cute but stil that doesn't make sense at all.3. The movie story leans on the fact that the girl has skin disease so you would wanna see how she struggles with the disease and keeping up with her relationship. But almost 3/4 of the movie is about a perfect love story of two teenagers who basically goes out on dates at night.4. When Charlie takes her out on a date across the city on the day she gets exposed to the sunlight, her dad lets her off too easy. I was expecting he would have insisted on the time to be back, he would have been constantly checking on her. And even after she missed the curfew, they showed he texted her alot but never thought about calling Charlie, the guy she left with.5. When the disease if finally triggered, they didn't get the disease facts right. XP presents with skin blisters, engorged skin veins, eye ulcers but the only thing they did is make the girl look pale.6. The dad didn't look that "Broken" for a parent who is about to lose a child. A scene where she asks her dad to just let her go out in the day when she wanted to go to the boat with Charlie after they release she is gona die no matter what, he lets her off too ease. As parent I imagined he could have clinged to every bit of hope he could find and that was just like letting her go out there to die.7. Hanging characters, as connected as the two lovebirds were, we never got to see Charlie's parent. She had a best-friend whom we knew nothing about as in we never saw her family. Charlie's ex never put a fight when he came with a strange girl to her party. The movie has so many hanging characters.
