It occurs to me every once in a while to keep this thing updated with news and reviews, so, hello again.
Right, the Bachelor's Degree is in the bag with a 2:1, so that's 3 years of life well spent. It was a hard and at times downright weird slog, but it's done now. Time to see what the future holds.
Am into the new flat, and aside from Internet issues (i.e. not having any) it's good. Right next to the docks, but barely ever hear them, just down the road from work (no more paying for taxis on a close) and it's away from the raucous Polygon. Were it not a flat share I'd be sorely tempted to make it a permanent residence. That, however, is something for the future.
Right, back to the reviews.
Dances with Wolves.
As if Avatar wasn't long-winded enough.
Right, Civil War Hero John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is posted to the frontier. He finds his post deserted. He encounters a tribe of Sioux, including Mary 'I'm about as Sioux as JCVD's talking nipples' McDonnell, and that guy from Maverick (Graham Greene). Dunbar learns their ways, joins them and defends them from his own people.
That is probably the shortest synopsis of this film available that will do it justice. Make no mistake, this is a film of epic proportions. So much so that I had to watch it over 2 discs.
Anyway, this film is supposedly Costner's best, being not only his directorial debut, but the film in his filmography that won the most Oscars. Now, back then the Academy weren't quite so formulaic as they are now *cough* King's Speech *cough*, so it was a time when a film had to stand out even more than perhaps it does these days. Which leads me to my first point.
Why...why is this film so sodding long!?
Now I am a fan of long films, such things are no secret. Things like Amadeus, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur and Gandhi adorn my DVD shelf, and they'll all get a watch every now and then. But this? This film basically consists of Kevin Costner, a wolf and a horse. With some other people thrown in when you're about to be driven nuts with boredom. They make it interesting, but we're not around them enough to actually give a shite because we're too busy with Kevin Costner on his own (no giggity's please). My main gripe with this movie is that empty space where it's just him, the animals, and his flaming voice-over. It's unnecessary, time-consuming and at times bored me to tears. Not to mention probably the most annoying voice-over this side of Twilight. Did Kristen Stewart take acting lessons from the Costner? I leave that to you to decide. It was either him or Keanu Reeves.
Anyway, I do malign this movie, but for what it is, it's not bad. The development of Dunbar's relationship with the Sioux was good (if a little overdone) and Graham Greene, Mary McDonnell and the other support cast put in a very convincing showing. The sets were great, everything was put together very well. I guess I just have a massive problem with Kevin Costner. I reckon if this film were a script nowadays and it were sent to a studio they'd turn it down flat. If Costner didn't have half the influence he did back then, he'd have been laughed back to the drawing board. Instead he got to make it and for some reason it was Oscar-worthy. Probably because it was up against the likes of Ghost and The Godfather Part 3 (also Goodfellas, and that didn't win?).
To be fair, this was probably the first modern film to portray this type of story well enough. I just think that compared to this, The Last Samurai is more involved, more emotionally charged, and just better. Although, to be fair to the Costner, this monster of a film is still better than that one with blue people in it that used the same underlying storyline.Well done Kev! You fought off lanky Smurfs!
Next up - Hansel & Gretel.
Thursday 21 July 2011
Saturday 9 April 2011
"We are Gonna Lose some Paint in Here..."
So, we are now in the last month of the degree, final deadlines are starting to shift from 'in the distance' to 'looming', and there's still alot of work to do. Locks getting changed, rooms being renovated, houses being searched for, and oh, it's that bastard month again isn't it?
As I have said before and will do so in brief again, April is the month when alot of strange shit happens in the personal lives of human beings. People get together, break up, relationships change in their dynamic, and lots of other weird stuff, all because it's April.
Before we press on, special mention to Tina, who was awesome on the pin-up photoshoot. Really good sport when she was otherwise busy, so thank you for that! Also, the poster design so far is looking pretty good.
...SO...
Avatar.
Now this one will be by no means an easy review. It's surprisingly hard to stay impartial when a film holds a great deal of personal resonance, so I will do my best, because I have been fervently against this film and although my reasons I believe are valid, not all would agree. So here we go.
So, basic plot, a crippled marine takes his dead brothers place in a science mission on a resource-rich planet far from Earth. His mission is to remove an indigenous tribe from their home so that humanity can claim a precious resource from beneath it to save Earth. He joins the indigenous in an Avatar body, and eventually comes to join their cause and fight for their way of life.
Ok, now the first thing that will strike anyone when they hear of, speak about or watch Avatar is the budget. $237m. One of the largest ever budgets for a film. Now as the vast majority of this film is CGI, you'd think that nearly all of that budget was spent on making the film. Highly unlikely. More feasible would be to assume that a good portion of that money went on the advertising/marketing campaign. This film was plugged to high heaven when it was on the way. The interest generated was massive. This was also one of the major factors in its success, snatching over $2bn by the end of January 2010. Now yes, this makes it the most successful MODERN film of all time (accounting for Inflation, Gone with the Wind still takes the crown) but it doesn't necessarily make it one of the best. IMDb rates it at #161 in its top 250 of all time. No mean feat, but again, is this the be all and end all. Does this mean it's a good film, or just that people were persuaded by the massive marketing campaign behind it to go and pay their money to make it as successful as it was? I think only time can tell on that one, harking back to the longevity of films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather.
Okay, the next thing you notice is fairly obvious - it's Sci-Fi. Now Sci-Fi is firmly back in the public focus of late. Films like this and District 9 have proven to the modern audience that Sci-Fi isn't just a genre for quirky stories and actors who have passed their sell-by date (step forward Scott Bakula - my annoyance of this guy will be explained next time). Sci-Fi sells.
Now with regards to the film itself, I will admit there are a couple of aspects that make it an enjoyable experience. For starters, those visual effects. Everything is seamlessly put together in the CGI, everything seems to move naturally and it's all quite subtle. It can be easily forgotten that its not just all the odd animals with six legs that are animated, but also everything around them. Hat's off to the CG artists on this.
Next up for the plaudits are Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. At the start of this film, Weaver plays the perfect role - Ripley had she taken a Biology GCSE instead of one in Ass-Kicking. She fits the role of hard taskmaster really well. Ribisi? This guy is a wanker throughout the whole film, and it suits him. He needs to play more high profile, strong and flamboyant villains in his films, he's good enough to do it.
Now I normally go a bit mad with fandom when awesome actors turn up in films, no matter the quality, and Avatar is no exception. Step forward CCH Pounder and Dileep Rao. Okay, Rao may not have proven himself as awesome just yet, but he was in Inception and that'll do. But CCH "The Female Morgan Freeman" Pounder? Oh yeah. She had a fairly small role in this, which is a shame because she's so talented. But we can't have everything can we?
Finally, special mention must, must go to Stephen Lang. He's awesome. He should have been in Battle: LA, playing the same character he does in this. Hard-ass. Marine. Bastard. With scars down his face. I can't say much more, except whenever he was on screen it was fun.
So, now that I am done with the positive stuff.
My hatred of this film is justified. I do not like Avatar. It will remain so. Here is why.
For starters, the film opens with narration. Narration is a lazy tool of telling a story however you slice it. When the film starts we can see that the planet the story is set on is not Earth. We know that, we don't need telling. We know that this is a science fiction universe - there's a spacecraft floating about that looks nothing like any existing spacecraft. We can guess that the marine has been in stasis - there's a guy shouting at him and the others what to do after being in stasis - we don't need Sam Worthington sitting there with a big sign saying "I am going to read you this story". Worthington periodically talks to camera throughout the whole movie. I now despise the mans face.
Now I am well aware (working in a cinema as I do) that Avatar's marketing campaign was extensive and very well thought out. but christ, this is a motion picture that was advertised as brilliant, powerful and revolutionary. It's CGI. If it's revolutionary, the audience isn't going to see that revolution taking place. It's not powerful. It's a story that has been done 1001 times with different characters, different actors and different directors. The Last Samurai was the last version I saw before this. The point is, the marketing campaign seriously plugged the CGI, and CGI should never be the point of a film. The story should always come first. bad form Cameron.
FROM NOW ON THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.
There is a sodding tree in this film that can transfer the essence of characters from one body to another. That is crap.
Specifically, it can transfer the essence of humans into empty Na'vi bodies. Nifty, huh?
No. Not really.
Now I understand how James Cameron worked this out. The nature on Pandora is all linked, much like a computer, and the Na'vi can access that network. It's perfect to make the tree credible. The problem is, that's all it's for. There is no other feasible explanation for the presence of this network, other than to make Cameron sound smart.
WHY ARE THEY BLUE!? Surely he saw the Smurf references coming?
Now did anyone spot me mentioning Sigourney Weaver being good at the start of this film?
Yes, the START. In the rest she was rubbish. Her character was meant to hold the main protagonist with a kind of quiet malice, whilst at the same time helping him along. After ten minutes of wonderfully acidic barbs, she is practically licking his scrotum with helpful character advancements. In truth I'd much rather there be a Galaxy Quest sequel than seeing Weaver act in this crap.
Sam Worthington deserves dishonourable mention again. He's bloody awful in this. Wooden, monotonous and...well shit. The fact that he spends a great deal of this film opening his mouth and speaking only adds to the trauma.
One thing about modern Hollywood cinema that is becoming really tiresome right now, is the over-and-mis-use of Michelle Rodriguez. I recently saw Battle LA and she is actually ok in that (not to mention SHE LIVES!!!) but for the love of god, enough with the bullheaded attempts to re-stereotype Latin Americans by martyring her in every goddamn film. You can't do it. The only thing this is doing is making any role Rodriguez takes on incredibly predictable. It has the potential to ruin the movies she stars in.
Going back to the CGI for a moment, another real problem with this film is one of the 'locations' on the planet. Floating mountains. What are these floating 'mountains'? Boulders. In mid-air. No reason for it, they're just there, hanging around waiting for a set piece to happen. Hell, I use the program used to create those things, and so much more can be done with it than just having floating boulders. It's unimaginative. Just like the bloody story. The story should be the heart of every film, and the story in this film is really good. It's a tried and tested story, and if I'm honest I have no problem with the story in this film. It's about overcoming adversity, finding ones true self. But it's been deeply undermined by having such a mound of crap sitting atop it. In addition, I'm kinda tired of the whole "I will find myself by joining a tribal clan" angle. The Last Samurai did it, Dances with Wolves did it, now this has done it. The whole slant is getting a little old.
In retrospect, I am glad I bought this film. It gave me the chance to completely analyse it and see it without outside influence, and gleam some perspective off the back of it. I still despise Avatar with a passion. I can't watch it without it either boring me or annoying me because of its irritating flaws. But this films marketing was superior in so many ways to many movies. It made good use of the vast resources available, and ended up making a shedload of money. Unfortunately that vast resource wasn't also used to make a meaningful film. Good for sticking on in the background while you clean or write is Avatar, but watching it is not a pleasant experience.
Right, the review of doom is over. I am now going on writing mode until May 6th, so there will probably not be any more posts until then. I'll watch a film in due course, and the next review will be up when it's up. Until then.
As I have said before and will do so in brief again, April is the month when alot of strange shit happens in the personal lives of human beings. People get together, break up, relationships change in their dynamic, and lots of other weird stuff, all because it's April.
Before we press on, special mention to Tina, who was awesome on the pin-up photoshoot. Really good sport when she was otherwise busy, so thank you for that! Also, the poster design so far is looking pretty good.
...SO...
Avatar.
Now this one will be by no means an easy review. It's surprisingly hard to stay impartial when a film holds a great deal of personal resonance, so I will do my best, because I have been fervently against this film and although my reasons I believe are valid, not all would agree. So here we go.
So, basic plot, a crippled marine takes his dead brothers place in a science mission on a resource-rich planet far from Earth. His mission is to remove an indigenous tribe from their home so that humanity can claim a precious resource from beneath it to save Earth. He joins the indigenous in an Avatar body, and eventually comes to join their cause and fight for their way of life.
Ok, now the first thing that will strike anyone when they hear of, speak about or watch Avatar is the budget. $237m. One of the largest ever budgets for a film. Now as the vast majority of this film is CGI, you'd think that nearly all of that budget was spent on making the film. Highly unlikely. More feasible would be to assume that a good portion of that money went on the advertising/marketing campaign. This film was plugged to high heaven when it was on the way. The interest generated was massive. This was also one of the major factors in its success, snatching over $2bn by the end of January 2010. Now yes, this makes it the most successful MODERN film of all time (accounting for Inflation, Gone with the Wind still takes the crown) but it doesn't necessarily make it one of the best. IMDb rates it at #161 in its top 250 of all time. No mean feat, but again, is this the be all and end all. Does this mean it's a good film, or just that people were persuaded by the massive marketing campaign behind it to go and pay their money to make it as successful as it was? I think only time can tell on that one, harking back to the longevity of films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather.
Okay, the next thing you notice is fairly obvious - it's Sci-Fi. Now Sci-Fi is firmly back in the public focus of late. Films like this and District 9 have proven to the modern audience that Sci-Fi isn't just a genre for quirky stories and actors who have passed their sell-by date (step forward Scott Bakula - my annoyance of this guy will be explained next time). Sci-Fi sells.
Now with regards to the film itself, I will admit there are a couple of aspects that make it an enjoyable experience. For starters, those visual effects. Everything is seamlessly put together in the CGI, everything seems to move naturally and it's all quite subtle. It can be easily forgotten that its not just all the odd animals with six legs that are animated, but also everything around them. Hat's off to the CG artists on this.
Next up for the plaudits are Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. At the start of this film, Weaver plays the perfect role - Ripley had she taken a Biology GCSE instead of one in Ass-Kicking. She fits the role of hard taskmaster really well. Ribisi? This guy is a wanker throughout the whole film, and it suits him. He needs to play more high profile, strong and flamboyant villains in his films, he's good enough to do it.
Now I normally go a bit mad with fandom when awesome actors turn up in films, no matter the quality, and Avatar is no exception. Step forward CCH Pounder and Dileep Rao. Okay, Rao may not have proven himself as awesome just yet, but he was in Inception and that'll do. But CCH "The Female Morgan Freeman" Pounder? Oh yeah. She had a fairly small role in this, which is a shame because she's so talented. But we can't have everything can we?
Finally, special mention must, must go to Stephen Lang. He's awesome. He should have been in Battle: LA, playing the same character he does in this. Hard-ass. Marine. Bastard. With scars down his face. I can't say much more, except whenever he was on screen it was fun.
So, now that I am done with the positive stuff.
My hatred of this film is justified. I do not like Avatar. It will remain so. Here is why.
For starters, the film opens with narration. Narration is a lazy tool of telling a story however you slice it. When the film starts we can see that the planet the story is set on is not Earth. We know that, we don't need telling. We know that this is a science fiction universe - there's a spacecraft floating about that looks nothing like any existing spacecraft. We can guess that the marine has been in stasis - there's a guy shouting at him and the others what to do after being in stasis - we don't need Sam Worthington sitting there with a big sign saying "I am going to read you this story". Worthington periodically talks to camera throughout the whole movie. I now despise the mans face.
Now I am well aware (working in a cinema as I do) that Avatar's marketing campaign was extensive and very well thought out. but christ, this is a motion picture that was advertised as brilliant, powerful and revolutionary. It's CGI. If it's revolutionary, the audience isn't going to see that revolution taking place. It's not powerful. It's a story that has been done 1001 times with different characters, different actors and different directors. The Last Samurai was the last version I saw before this. The point is, the marketing campaign seriously plugged the CGI, and CGI should never be the point of a film. The story should always come first. bad form Cameron.
FROM NOW ON THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.
There is a sodding tree in this film that can transfer the essence of characters from one body to another. That is crap.
Specifically, it can transfer the essence of humans into empty Na'vi bodies. Nifty, huh?
No. Not really.
Now I understand how James Cameron worked this out. The nature on Pandora is all linked, much like a computer, and the Na'vi can access that network. It's perfect to make the tree credible. The problem is, that's all it's for. There is no other feasible explanation for the presence of this network, other than to make Cameron sound smart.
WHY ARE THEY BLUE!? Surely he saw the Smurf references coming?
Now did anyone spot me mentioning Sigourney Weaver being good at the start of this film?
Yes, the START. In the rest she was rubbish. Her character was meant to hold the main protagonist with a kind of quiet malice, whilst at the same time helping him along. After ten minutes of wonderfully acidic barbs, she is practically licking his scrotum with helpful character advancements. In truth I'd much rather there be a Galaxy Quest sequel than seeing Weaver act in this crap.
Sam Worthington deserves dishonourable mention again. He's bloody awful in this. Wooden, monotonous and...well shit. The fact that he spends a great deal of this film opening his mouth and speaking only adds to the trauma.
One thing about modern Hollywood cinema that is becoming really tiresome right now, is the over-and-mis-use of Michelle Rodriguez. I recently saw Battle LA and she is actually ok in that (not to mention SHE LIVES!!!) but for the love of god, enough with the bullheaded attempts to re-stereotype Latin Americans by martyring her in every goddamn film. You can't do it. The only thing this is doing is making any role Rodriguez takes on incredibly predictable. It has the potential to ruin the movies she stars in.
Going back to the CGI for a moment, another real problem with this film is one of the 'locations' on the planet. Floating mountains. What are these floating 'mountains'? Boulders. In mid-air. No reason for it, they're just there, hanging around waiting for a set piece to happen. Hell, I use the program used to create those things, and so much more can be done with it than just having floating boulders. It's unimaginative. Just like the bloody story. The story should be the heart of every film, and the story in this film is really good. It's a tried and tested story, and if I'm honest I have no problem with the story in this film. It's about overcoming adversity, finding ones true self. But it's been deeply undermined by having such a mound of crap sitting atop it. In addition, I'm kinda tired of the whole "I will find myself by joining a tribal clan" angle. The Last Samurai did it, Dances with Wolves did it, now this has done it. The whole slant is getting a little old.
In retrospect, I am glad I bought this film. It gave me the chance to completely analyse it and see it without outside influence, and gleam some perspective off the back of it. I still despise Avatar with a passion. I can't watch it without it either boring me or annoying me because of its irritating flaws. But this films marketing was superior in so many ways to many movies. It made good use of the vast resources available, and ended up making a shedload of money. Unfortunately that vast resource wasn't also used to make a meaningful film. Good for sticking on in the background while you clean or write is Avatar, but watching it is not a pleasant experience.
Right, the review of doom is over. I am now going on writing mode until May 6th, so there will probably not be any more posts until then. I'll watch a film in due course, and the next review will be up when it's up. Until then.
Saturday 26 March 2011
"The Sex is in the Heel..."
Okay, so thats that bastard of a pilot script done and dusted. Now to lock the fucker away and never look at it again!
Apparently I have become of late rather obsessed with all things World War 2 when it comes to film and TV. I'm watching Conspiracy, which is next on the review list. band of Brothers and sooner or later The Pacific will be hitting my shelves, and quite frankly anyone who hasn't seen the Great Escape at least 12 times needs shooting.
I think the main reason I love these types of film so much is because back then human conflict was at its height. The German's hated everyone (and that includes the Italians) and everyone else hated the Germans. It's probably the most simple avenue of conflict for the modern writer, going back to such a famous war, and quite frankly that'll do me for the time being. Obviously there are some seriously standout films in that category (Downfall probably being the foremost of them) but most of them are just jaunty action fun. No problem.
SO...next up.
Kinky Boots.
This film alone proves that I will watch just about anything, and that my taste is far from limited to events between 1939 and 1945. That and I am a whore for the Ejiofor. Write that down. Now.
So, Kinky Boots tells the story of a young man who wants to break away from his father's shoe factory, but ends up inheriting it after his father's untimely death. Forced to either close it, save it or sell it, he happens upon Lola (Ejiofor) a drag queen in need of a pair of boots to match her masculine physique.
So, I can never look at Chiwetel Ejiofor in the same way again.
Must be said, when the better half demanded I watch this film, I was a wee bit concerned, given her penchant for recommending rubbish movies (The Final). But this time, hats off to her, was a corker. This film is alot of fun and in all honesty quite unexpected. I thought it would be a bog standard comedy with a few funny moments but its actually got a fair bit of heart to it, and though it's by no means a masterpiece, its worth a slot on the DVD wall.
However. (Oh come on, you knew there had to be one!)
If I could change anything about this film I would have made the fiancee of the main protagonist even more of a bitch, and not someone who we could almost empathize with. In a way this is me being exceedingly picky, because the way we relate to her antagonistic nature is part of how this film stands out from bog standard rom-coms. She's real, not some plastered on villain that was born to be hated. That's why this film is good. It's a British rom-com based on a true story, and that shows all the way through. America, this is how you do rom-coms. Not with utterly oddball set pieces and things that quite frankly take willing suspension of disbelief and attempt to insert oddly-shaped things into it. Real, believable and natural. Like Chiwetel Ejiofor in a dress.
Right, that review is over. Next up is a film that I am VERY apprehensive about reviewing. Partly because it has played a role in my personal life, and now and then I hold on to things like that. Also because I saw it three times at the cinema (including the entirety of our largest screen to myself in its 3D debut, I might add with a retrospective chuckle) and didn't give it a fair crack of the whip because my attention was elsewhere. So, with a fresh set of eyes and as unbiased an opinion as I can muster(and this will not be easy, mind) my next review will be an extensive look at an extensive movie.
Avatar.
Apparently I have become of late rather obsessed with all things World War 2 when it comes to film and TV. I'm watching Conspiracy, which is next on the review list. band of Brothers and sooner or later The Pacific will be hitting my shelves, and quite frankly anyone who hasn't seen the Great Escape at least 12 times needs shooting.
I think the main reason I love these types of film so much is because back then human conflict was at its height. The German's hated everyone (and that includes the Italians) and everyone else hated the Germans. It's probably the most simple avenue of conflict for the modern writer, going back to such a famous war, and quite frankly that'll do me for the time being. Obviously there are some seriously standout films in that category (Downfall probably being the foremost of them) but most of them are just jaunty action fun. No problem.
SO...next up.
Kinky Boots.
This film alone proves that I will watch just about anything, and that my taste is far from limited to events between 1939 and 1945. That and I am a whore for the Ejiofor. Write that down. Now.
So, Kinky Boots tells the story of a young man who wants to break away from his father's shoe factory, but ends up inheriting it after his father's untimely death. Forced to either close it, save it or sell it, he happens upon Lola (Ejiofor) a drag queen in need of a pair of boots to match her masculine physique.
So, I can never look at Chiwetel Ejiofor in the same way again.
Must be said, when the better half demanded I watch this film, I was a wee bit concerned, given her penchant for recommending rubbish movies (The Final). But this time, hats off to her, was a corker. This film is alot of fun and in all honesty quite unexpected. I thought it would be a bog standard comedy with a few funny moments but its actually got a fair bit of heart to it, and though it's by no means a masterpiece, its worth a slot on the DVD wall.
However. (Oh come on, you knew there had to be one!)
If I could change anything about this film I would have made the fiancee of the main protagonist even more of a bitch, and not someone who we could almost empathize with. In a way this is me being exceedingly picky, because the way we relate to her antagonistic nature is part of how this film stands out from bog standard rom-coms. She's real, not some plastered on villain that was born to be hated. That's why this film is good. It's a British rom-com based on a true story, and that shows all the way through. America, this is how you do rom-coms. Not with utterly oddball set pieces and things that quite frankly take willing suspension of disbelief and attempt to insert oddly-shaped things into it. Real, believable and natural. Like Chiwetel Ejiofor in a dress.
Right, that review is over. Next up is a film that I am VERY apprehensive about reviewing. Partly because it has played a role in my personal life, and now and then I hold on to things like that. Also because I saw it three times at the cinema (including the entirety of our largest screen to myself in its 3D debut, I might add with a retrospective chuckle) and didn't give it a fair crack of the whip because my attention was elsewhere. So, with a fresh set of eyes and as unbiased an opinion as I can muster(and this will not be easy, mind) my next review will be an extensive look at an extensive movie.
Avatar.
Saturday 19 March 2011
"She is Not Supposed to Exist..."
Y'know, I am really looking forward to moving into a new flat. Now before I go on, I should say that this is in no way a reflection on my current housemates, who have all been awesome all year. I guess it's a feeling that's more to do with the fact that the next place I live in will be all off my own back financially, and it will feel more earned rather than borrowed from the student loans company. That and if I'm only living with one other person, the two of us will be able to personalise it more than four people can personalise a shared house.
Said future housemate and I looked at a flat the other day which was amazing. In a very quiet area, in a secure building, with its own residents only gym I might add, and it was an awesome flat. Just enough space for us to play with. What caught me about the whole day though was the estate agent. She must have been one of the rudest people I have ever met. When Will and I went into the estate agent she pretty much gave no eye contact, was incredibly short with us, and when we were done she didn't even have the common courtesy to say "bye". Bint. Not only that she kept asking annoyingly probing questions to find out if Will and I could actually afford what we were asking for. So, rude and judgmental. Way to get yourself a customer.
Once again I am inclined to agree with the Greenwell. Estate Agents are quite frankly evil people. They wouldn't quite make my seven mortal enemies list, but they would easily make top 20. Probably near persistent beggars and anything Madeiran.
Anyway, with my own judgmental mental outset aside, onto more judging, of the film persuasion.
And guess what? I've lied again. It's not Kinky Boots this time.
Splice.
Kinky Boots will be next time. I'm sure anyone who cares will have gotten over it by now.
So, Adrien Brody and Kate Polley star as two genetic scientists who go against the orders of their investors and splice together 13 different species - including a human being - and are forced to deal with the consequences of this act.
Having heard fairly mixed reviews on this one, my original outlook of "oh this can't be anything but awesome" was slightly swayed somewhat, I must say. It's a low budget film for an American release, especially one starring Adrien 'I could kick King Kong's arse now I've been bodybuilding for Predators' Brody. In terms of box office gross in the US this one could actually be considered a commercial flop, it only took $16m after costing $26m. This only goes to prove one thing.
When it comes to good quality drama, the American audience generally doesn't recognise a good film unless it drives through Texas in a pink truck.
This film is very, very well put together. It starts out well, with the two successful scientists being held back from the ultimate discovery, and then going behind the backs of those who pay them to do it anyway. It has a wonderful blend of thriller, family drama and horror that makes this film almost like the main character it portrays - a different entity made up of the parts of others - which is a refreshing thought. I loved so much about this film, from the way the characters slowly shifted in their allegiances, to the twists and turns at the end. There was only one thing that really irritated me about this film, and that would be that the Spliced being, 'Dren', was given a line. The whole film was more or less her learning about her existence and reacting to the world around her, and Delphine Chaneac was brilliant in that role. I got every single emotion she went through. And then, right at the end, she gets a line which breaks the mystique of the character. It jarred me and tarnished the film a bit.
That aside, this film is really good. I'm quite glad I bought it and now it can sit proudly on the shelf. Next up, promise this time, is Kinky Boots.
Said future housemate and I looked at a flat the other day which was amazing. In a very quiet area, in a secure building, with its own residents only gym I might add, and it was an awesome flat. Just enough space for us to play with. What caught me about the whole day though was the estate agent. She must have been one of the rudest people I have ever met. When Will and I went into the estate agent she pretty much gave no eye contact, was incredibly short with us, and when we were done she didn't even have the common courtesy to say "bye". Bint. Not only that she kept asking annoyingly probing questions to find out if Will and I could actually afford what we were asking for. So, rude and judgmental. Way to get yourself a customer.
Once again I am inclined to agree with the Greenwell. Estate Agents are quite frankly evil people. They wouldn't quite make my seven mortal enemies list, but they would easily make top 20. Probably near persistent beggars and anything Madeiran.
Anyway, with my own judgmental mental outset aside, onto more judging, of the film persuasion.
And guess what? I've lied again. It's not Kinky Boots this time.
Splice.
Kinky Boots will be next time. I'm sure anyone who cares will have gotten over it by now.
So, Adrien Brody and Kate Polley star as two genetic scientists who go against the orders of their investors and splice together 13 different species - including a human being - and are forced to deal with the consequences of this act.
Having heard fairly mixed reviews on this one, my original outlook of "oh this can't be anything but awesome" was slightly swayed somewhat, I must say. It's a low budget film for an American release, especially one starring Adrien 'I could kick King Kong's arse now I've been bodybuilding for Predators' Brody. In terms of box office gross in the US this one could actually be considered a commercial flop, it only took $16m after costing $26m. This only goes to prove one thing.
When it comes to good quality drama, the American audience generally doesn't recognise a good film unless it drives through Texas in a pink truck.
This film is very, very well put together. It starts out well, with the two successful scientists being held back from the ultimate discovery, and then going behind the backs of those who pay them to do it anyway. It has a wonderful blend of thriller, family drama and horror that makes this film almost like the main character it portrays - a different entity made up of the parts of others - which is a refreshing thought. I loved so much about this film, from the way the characters slowly shifted in their allegiances, to the twists and turns at the end. There was only one thing that really irritated me about this film, and that would be that the Spliced being, 'Dren', was given a line. The whole film was more or less her learning about her existence and reacting to the world around her, and Delphine Chaneac was brilliant in that role. I got every single emotion she went through. And then, right at the end, she gets a line which breaks the mystique of the character. It jarred me and tarnished the film a bit.
That aside, this film is really good. I'm quite glad I bought it and now it can sit proudly on the shelf. Next up, promise this time, is Kinky Boots.
Friday 18 March 2011
"Making a Killing..."
So, having a tidy up whilst munching on a ham and cheese sarnie and waiting for Crysis to install is my idea of a Friday night in. True writer. Or lazy student bum. With a job.
I have of late been trying to get into graphic novels and comic books in an attempt to broaden my horizons somewhat, and I must admit to varying degrees of success in this department. Taking the four examples of this medium that I have read:
Marvel: 1602
Nemesis (The first one)
The Killing Joke
Watchmen
Now the first three (especially Marvel and the Killing Joke) are wonderful. Nemesis is a brand new ( by the looks of it) story, and I must admit it's quite fun. But Watchmen is on the verge of putting me off again. It's long and dreary, and I must be honest, so far I prefer the film version. It's condensed, it's quick and its well portrayed. All harks back to that argument of convenience.
Anyway, next up on the list. Burke and Hare.
Now this is an important review for me personally. My first completed film screenplay contains characters in similar situations to the lead characters in this film, so it was important that I see it and get an idea of the competition, so to speak.
So, Burke and Hare are two down on their luck Irishmen in Edinburgh looking to make a decent wage and willing to do just about anything for that. They happen upon a somewhat lucrative local business selling corpses to scientists and scholars, and become undertakers to make a living out of it. Sounds great, right?
Yes, absolutely right! This film was amazing! From start to finish a total riot. Full of quality acting, excellent directing and by the sounds of it all taken from a really well written script.
...hands up who believed that?
This film was - and I shall say this as eloquently as I can - utter shit.
I know that I have a somewhat biased perspective on this film, considering how close it is to my own material, but for the love of god, really? Was Simon Pegg on such a high from being told "your half-arsed attempt at Scottish in Star Trek was amazing!" that he had to go and try Irish in this one?! Was there no-one else in Hollywood or on the British acting scene that would take the role of love interest apart from Isla sodding Fisher, who is nice to look at but for the love of god should never open her mouth unless its for oral or barbecue commentary!? And with all due respect, the less said about Christopher Lee in this film the better. That man must have signed on to do this film without his reading glasses.
Now don't get me wrong, the idea for this is really good and the potential is there for some real laughs and really meaningful dialogue. But it just isn't there. I honestly can't think of a single thing I don't hate about this movie. From Bill Bailey as an executioner who is totally unnecessary, to Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis putting in performances that make The Killing of a Chinese Bookie look Oscar-worthy, and finally to the supposedly awesome supporting cast. Tom Wilkinson. Tim Curry. Jessica Stevenson. RONNIE FUCKING CORBETT!?!?!??! Oh fuck off. It was all over the top 'brit-com', that just wasn't funny. Nothing about this film made me enjoy it. Nothing about it tried.
I just really hate this movie. I find it offensive. This is why I handed it to Kerry and told her to never let me gaze upon it again. In a way I sort of feel guilty for burdening her DVD shelf with its malaise. But I'll get over it. Until Avatar.
So, next up, Kinky Boots.
I have of late been trying to get into graphic novels and comic books in an attempt to broaden my horizons somewhat, and I must admit to varying degrees of success in this department. Taking the four examples of this medium that I have read:
Marvel: 1602
Nemesis (The first one)
The Killing Joke
Watchmen
Now the first three (especially Marvel and the Killing Joke) are wonderful. Nemesis is a brand new ( by the looks of it) story, and I must admit it's quite fun. But Watchmen is on the verge of putting me off again. It's long and dreary, and I must be honest, so far I prefer the film version. It's condensed, it's quick and its well portrayed. All harks back to that argument of convenience.
Anyway, next up on the list. Burke and Hare.
Now this is an important review for me personally. My first completed film screenplay contains characters in similar situations to the lead characters in this film, so it was important that I see it and get an idea of the competition, so to speak.
So, Burke and Hare are two down on their luck Irishmen in Edinburgh looking to make a decent wage and willing to do just about anything for that. They happen upon a somewhat lucrative local business selling corpses to scientists and scholars, and become undertakers to make a living out of it. Sounds great, right?
Yes, absolutely right! This film was amazing! From start to finish a total riot. Full of quality acting, excellent directing and by the sounds of it all taken from a really well written script.
...hands up who believed that?
This film was - and I shall say this as eloquently as I can - utter shit.
I know that I have a somewhat biased perspective on this film, considering how close it is to my own material, but for the love of god, really? Was Simon Pegg on such a high from being told "your half-arsed attempt at Scottish in Star Trek was amazing!" that he had to go and try Irish in this one?! Was there no-one else in Hollywood or on the British acting scene that would take the role of love interest apart from Isla sodding Fisher, who is nice to look at but for the love of god should never open her mouth unless its for oral or barbecue commentary!? And with all due respect, the less said about Christopher Lee in this film the better. That man must have signed on to do this film without his reading glasses.
Now don't get me wrong, the idea for this is really good and the potential is there for some real laughs and really meaningful dialogue. But it just isn't there. I honestly can't think of a single thing I don't hate about this movie. From Bill Bailey as an executioner who is totally unnecessary, to Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis putting in performances that make The Killing of a Chinese Bookie look Oscar-worthy, and finally to the supposedly awesome supporting cast. Tom Wilkinson. Tim Curry. Jessica Stevenson. RONNIE FUCKING CORBETT!?!?!??! Oh fuck off. It was all over the top 'brit-com', that just wasn't funny. Nothing about this film made me enjoy it. Nothing about it tried.
I just really hate this movie. I find it offensive. This is why I handed it to Kerry and told her to never let me gaze upon it again. In a way I sort of feel guilty for burdening her DVD shelf with its malaise. But I'll get over it. Until Avatar.
So, next up, Kinky Boots.
"Laugh, and the World Laughs With You..."
So, time for another session at the books.
The scripts progress well, I seem to be at a point in the major project where I can just sit down and know what I'm about to write and write it. I don't think I plan half as much as some of the other guys in our class, but so far my scripts have always been marked well, so I'm not going to complain.
Trying to push through getting a photoshoot or two done for the marketing portfolio as well. Oh I hope I can get all that sorted, the final outcome should be quite something.
Note: There will be no Japanese Tsunami jokes. Gilbert Gottfried got in trouble for it, and the internet is already swimming in them, so there won't be any.
Anyway, once again I have lied about which film I will review next. Burke and Hare is on the list, but I feel that as I have borrowed the DVD from Dave for some time now I should really get round to watching it. So...
Oldboy.
Now until the DVD was shoved in my lap I must admit to having never even heard about this film. It's Asian so this hardly comes as a surprise, but I thought I'd give it a go.
Basic story. Yeah, this is a Tartan Asia release, so I'm going to stop lying right now.
Story. Man is released after being in captivity for 15 years without ever knowing why. He is given only 5 days to find out who imprisoned him and why, before the woman he loves is killed. Cue shenanigans.
Now I am too tired to go onto IMDb and find the names of the cast members, so I will keep this one relatively simple.
This film is in the top 250 films of all time on said IMDb, and in my honest opinion only half of it deserves to be there. I get the feeling that if I were to sit down and try to watch Let the Right One In again I'd get the same impression from that as I did from this. This was mind-shatteringly boring in the first 45 minutes, which prompted Al and myself to switch off aforementioned Swedish film. The second half was delicious. The twist was also something special, and although the road to it was pretty convoluted, I can see why that road was there to begin with. It's existence is just annoying.
That said, the ending of this movie makes me want to watch it again. One, so I can see why they did what they did with the opening, and to see if I can understand/enjoy it anymore than I did. I don't quite know if I like this film or not. Next time I think will be the decider.
Right, seeing as I have finally got my arse into gear and watched it, the next film on my review list will actually be Burke and Hare.
The scripts progress well, I seem to be at a point in the major project where I can just sit down and know what I'm about to write and write it. I don't think I plan half as much as some of the other guys in our class, but so far my scripts have always been marked well, so I'm not going to complain.
Trying to push through getting a photoshoot or two done for the marketing portfolio as well. Oh I hope I can get all that sorted, the final outcome should be quite something.
Note: There will be no Japanese Tsunami jokes. Gilbert Gottfried got in trouble for it, and the internet is already swimming in them, so there won't be any.
Anyway, once again I have lied about which film I will review next. Burke and Hare is on the list, but I feel that as I have borrowed the DVD from Dave for some time now I should really get round to watching it. So...
Oldboy.
Now until the DVD was shoved in my lap I must admit to having never even heard about this film. It's Asian so this hardly comes as a surprise, but I thought I'd give it a go.
Basic story. Yeah, this is a Tartan Asia release, so I'm going to stop lying right now.
Story. Man is released after being in captivity for 15 years without ever knowing why. He is given only 5 days to find out who imprisoned him and why, before the woman he loves is killed. Cue shenanigans.
Now I am too tired to go onto IMDb and find the names of the cast members, so I will keep this one relatively simple.
This film is in the top 250 films of all time on said IMDb, and in my honest opinion only half of it deserves to be there. I get the feeling that if I were to sit down and try to watch Let the Right One In again I'd get the same impression from that as I did from this. This was mind-shatteringly boring in the first 45 minutes, which prompted Al and myself to switch off aforementioned Swedish film. The second half was delicious. The twist was also something special, and although the road to it was pretty convoluted, I can see why that road was there to begin with. It's existence is just annoying.
That said, the ending of this movie makes me want to watch it again. One, so I can see why they did what they did with the opening, and to see if I can understand/enjoy it anymore than I did. I don't quite know if I like this film or not. Next time I think will be the decider.
Right, seeing as I have finally got my arse into gear and watched it, the next film on my review list will actually be Burke and Hare.
Sunday 6 March 2011
To Start With...
Right, Hello.
Now those who are reading this have probably been re-directed from either Facebook or my old blog site from Wordpress, so formal introductions will not be carried out. All should know who I am, and for the future i.e. those that do not, introductory pages will be completed in due course.
So, why the change? Simple. Wordpress is a bit cumbersome and I've been using it for ages. Also seems to be more traffic on Blogger, so why not go where the traffic is. Easy enough.
Now upon my last blog post (http://adcaudle.wordpress.com) I stated that I would inform all of the next DVD review when I came to review it.
That occasion has swiftly arrived, seeing as the writing is coming along smoothly and Sins of a Solar Empire is pottering along nicely in the background.
Independence Day.
Okay, now I don't normally go out of my way to watch Roland Emmerich films (see 2012, The Day After Tomorrow etc etc) because the man generally makes mildly depressing stuff. That and most of it is crap. So why did I pick this one up? £3 for a 2 disc edition at HMV, that's why. Points for me, special features for me to peruse. Enough said.
So, aliens come to Earth, they start glassing the Earth with large lasers, humanity must counter attack and find a way around their shields or become extinct. It's fairly basic stuff, and what I think a great many people have come to expect from Emmerich. If anything I would consider this as the first of his more popular disaster movies. IMDb lists his four most notable as this, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and Godzilla (which by sheer comedy value deserves that spot) and since this he has more or less followed the same destructive pattern of escalating the amount of people that die in each of his films. Anyway, having spoken about Emmerich in a previous post, back to the film.
I am the first to admit I am not a Will Smith fan. I utterly hate the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, it irritates the shit out of me and as far as I'm concerned it's a low rent Cosby Show, which had bags more class. Of the films he's done, I didn't enjoy Hancock, I-Robot was entertaining but not brilliant, I Am Legend was boring, and although Wild Wild West was one of those 'so crap it's awesome' films, he was still godawful and most of the laughs came from Kline and Branagh. That being said however, Men in Black (The first one) was good fun, Bad Boys is always a good watch, and in all honesty, I can get along with Independence Day. It's not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not really offensive. It's good, clean, wholesome, All-American-and-slightly-Jewish fun.
Some of the ideas in this film defy belief, such as giving aliens a computer virus and having Brent Spiner in a role that makes him look like he can't act. But then you top it all off. Judd Hirsch and Jeff Goldblum as father and son. Whoever cast those two deserves an Oscar. That casting is brilliant. Never mind Bill Pullman as an understated, weedy President whose story progression involved him growing a pair. These two did not get enough screen time. They were well cast, well written and just so out of place that they fit. Wouldn't change either character.
So, overall ID4 is a fun watch, although I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again unless I have nothing else to watch, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Now, before I part ways with this blog I have a question to put to whomsoever happens to be reading this. I have purchased Burke and Hare against my better judgment, so that will be next on the review list when I get some time to sit down and watch it. However, a quandary has happened upon me of late. I am NOT a fan of Avatar. I hate it. I have hated it ever since I went to see it with my ex, and I still do. But I am tempted to buy it for not only the special features which are no doubt extensive, but also to give it a fair crack of the whip without having the distraction of a woman there to put me off. So, should I buy Avatar on DVD? I leave it to you.
Anyway, next up as I said, Burke and Hare.
Now those who are reading this have probably been re-directed from either Facebook or my old blog site from Wordpress, so formal introductions will not be carried out. All should know who I am, and for the future i.e. those that do not, introductory pages will be completed in due course.
So, why the change? Simple. Wordpress is a bit cumbersome and I've been using it for ages. Also seems to be more traffic on Blogger, so why not go where the traffic is. Easy enough.
Now upon my last blog post (http://adcaudle.wordpress.com) I stated that I would inform all of the next DVD review when I came to review it.
That occasion has swiftly arrived, seeing as the writing is coming along smoothly and Sins of a Solar Empire is pottering along nicely in the background.
Independence Day.
Okay, now I don't normally go out of my way to watch Roland Emmerich films (see 2012, The Day After Tomorrow etc etc) because the man generally makes mildly depressing stuff. That and most of it is crap. So why did I pick this one up? £3 for a 2 disc edition at HMV, that's why. Points for me, special features for me to peruse. Enough said.
So, aliens come to Earth, they start glassing the Earth with large lasers, humanity must counter attack and find a way around their shields or become extinct. It's fairly basic stuff, and what I think a great many people have come to expect from Emmerich. If anything I would consider this as the first of his more popular disaster movies. IMDb lists his four most notable as this, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and Godzilla (which by sheer comedy value deserves that spot) and since this he has more or less followed the same destructive pattern of escalating the amount of people that die in each of his films. Anyway, having spoken about Emmerich in a previous post, back to the film.
I am the first to admit I am not a Will Smith fan. I utterly hate the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, it irritates the shit out of me and as far as I'm concerned it's a low rent Cosby Show, which had bags more class. Of the films he's done, I didn't enjoy Hancock, I-Robot was entertaining but not brilliant, I Am Legend was boring, and although Wild Wild West was one of those 'so crap it's awesome' films, he was still godawful and most of the laughs came from Kline and Branagh. That being said however, Men in Black (The first one) was good fun, Bad Boys is always a good watch, and in all honesty, I can get along with Independence Day. It's not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not really offensive. It's good, clean, wholesome, All-American-and-slightly-Jewish fun.
Some of the ideas in this film defy belief, such as giving aliens a computer virus and having Brent Spiner in a role that makes him look like he can't act. But then you top it all off. Judd Hirsch and Jeff Goldblum as father and son. Whoever cast those two deserves an Oscar. That casting is brilliant. Never mind Bill Pullman as an understated, weedy President whose story progression involved him growing a pair. These two did not get enough screen time. They were well cast, well written and just so out of place that they fit. Wouldn't change either character.
So, overall ID4 is a fun watch, although I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again unless I have nothing else to watch, which is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Now, before I part ways with this blog I have a question to put to whomsoever happens to be reading this. I have purchased Burke and Hare against my better judgment, so that will be next on the review list when I get some time to sit down and watch it. However, a quandary has happened upon me of late. I am NOT a fan of Avatar. I hate it. I have hated it ever since I went to see it with my ex, and I still do. But I am tempted to buy it for not only the special features which are no doubt extensive, but also to give it a fair crack of the whip without having the distraction of a woman there to put me off. So, should I buy Avatar on DVD? I leave it to you.
Anyway, next up as I said, Burke and Hare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)