Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category
Posted on March 7, 2010 - by John
Alien prequel in 3D times 3?!
Yahoo Shadowlocked is reporting that Ridley Scott’s plans for the mooted Alien prequel include not just one film, but a whole trilogy, on top of getting the 3D treatment.
Original Alien Art Director Roger Christian is quoted as saying “Ridley told me some of his ideas when we were here in Toronto. He has a very clear understanding of where this should go. They kind of stopped dead one of the greatest horror franchises there’s ever been, and it had legs to go on. So I’m hoping he’ll revive another three. The world certainly wants it, and the fans want it—everybody.”
I am not sure where this could go but a trilogy would seem to point in the direction of a whole new cast and story arc, which would be a good thing in the hands of Scott.
UPDATE: Yahoo stole the story from Shadowlocked like a bunch of hacks. Shame on them. No linky for you.
Posted on June 23, 2009 - by John
Transformers 2 is not that bad…
I don’t know what everyone is getting het up about. Really….what do people expect TF2 to be? Some sort of intergalactic Shakespearean drama? I went to see it the other night and expected a few things:
- Robots. Big ones. Hitting each other.
- A straight forward narrative.
- A good laugh.
What did I get? All three. In spades. But for some people, this seems to be a problem and I am not sure why. I love Transformers…it is to all intents my childhood encapsulated and since seeing the first version of Bayformers, it is there. Has anyone actually watched the old cartoon series recently? Is the dialogue and plotline not truly appalling in places? I think so.
There’s only one animated TF which stands above the parapet as a solid piece of work that is the 1986 movie. I love that film and what I love about it is that it still has the heart of these characters, but in an ever so slightly serious setting. This is the same as the Michael Bay movies.
You cannot take this franchise seriously, it is by definition a big dumb movie, but that seems to embarrass people from going to see it and kicking back for a few hours. I crave more of this rubbish! Nay…demand it! It is a work of art at doing what big dumb Hollywood does best and should be regarded as such. These films will never be Lawrence of Arabia. Or Goodfellas. Or Jaws. They are what they are, and what that is they do that very, very well. The comparisons with “kids toys” making serious movies (a la The Dark Knight) are so way off the mark – Superman Returns in part bombed because people could not identify with it. Batman Begins was great because it set and identifiable tone. There is not such tone here – Transformers is like looking though a window into the House of Fun. People are tall and skinny and not at all realistic.
I think part of the problem is that some “critics” (e.g. Mark “Pompoused Windbag” Kermode) have to see this film to offer a critique. And they don’t want to. They know it isn’t going to be right for them; but they are not the target demographic. But they seem incapable of offering anything other than their own perspective. Some critics say stuff along the lines of “well…if you liked the first you might like this” while other basically cast you out of the sensible public peer group and point fingers. There is nothing abhorrent about TF2. Nothing over the top offensive; sure there’s a dash of misogyny there, and frequent use of certain stereotypes but some people claiming the Twins are racist is plain stupid. And even the fact that Shia Lebeof’s college class seems to be comprised of the most “attractive” people possible is nothing that High School Musical doesn’t portray anyway. I wish these people would get a grip and stop taking blatant stupidity seriously.
That’s the film in a nutshell: two and a half hours of blatant stupidity. And I thought my £6.90 admission was bloody well spent. If you want a good ride then see it. If you are offended by big dumb explosions…stay away. Roll on Transformers 3.
Posted on February 7, 2009 - by John
Benjamin Button Changed My Life
I know it sounds a little over the top, but The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has changed my life. Never in a million years did I think that a film could have such an impact on me. It is a little hard to define in words the true scale of this as both a motion picture, and a work of art but I am truly, breathtakingly staggered by it.
So, you guessed I liked the film? Well where do I start? Firstly, David Fincher has done a remarkable job and this film marks him as one of the truly great directors. It is visually stunning, from the lighting and colours that depict the warmth of Benjamin’s elderly childhood, to the brightness and clarity of the world as he grows younger in it.
The acting is superb, with both Pitt and Blanchett shine as the two age confused lovers, and we see an immaculate spectacle of virtually seamless special effects throughout. Literally, you are left wondering how did they do that? The film is the cutting edge of technology, but never once does it oppose the story telling. As a viewer you have to pinch yourself that you are not pointing out artefacts of digital processing – there is just very little to indicate that this is predominantly computer generated. Fincher’s shrewd use of light and shadow always leaves room for the audience’s interpretation, taking the pressure off the effects slightly, and making them all the more believable. But there is nothing I can say that hasn’t been pointed out by other reviews so Google them… (more…)
Posted on December 25, 2008 - by John
Twilight
I have been trying to get my head around the prospect of “Twilight” for some time. The movie which is based on Stephenie Meyers book, has received a huge amount of fanfare, primarily from its “target audience” (and I use that term loosely) of teenage girls. I will come back to the problem I have with this term later, but for now…
I have not read the Twilight saga but am intending to start on them tonight! So from my perspective, I am looking at the film on its own merits, and on the whole it was a very enjoyable movie. Not amazing or fantastic. But solid and very good.
The criticism that the film gets seems to be wholly misguided. As if the “target audience” is the only potential group of people who want to see a film that is to all intents a romantic depiction akin to Romeo & Juliet or A Room With A View. The plot is driven by the setting of the pacific north west being a haven for vampires, but this is a character device. One half of the main protagonists happens to be a vampire but this could as well be set 50 years ago and the male lead be black against a white middle class female heroine. If taken at face value, there is little to argue about.
Adaptations from mainstream books are always fraught with controversy, and by all accounts this is a fairly faithful example of source to screen translation. But it was readily apparent in some scenes that there was either an major glossing over, or a nod and wink to chapters of the book. After speaking with The Wife, if was clear that much of my objection to a small number of scenes were indeed pivotal chapters, and for those who have this “inside knowledge”, these seem to sit well. For myself, the aerial shots and spinning camera work while Edward and Bella lie in a very wet looking field seemed to drag. But who am I to know that this accounts for two whole chapters n the source material.
From this perspective, I would say that Catherine Hardwicke slipped up. Nods and winks are great when cracking a joke as to why the X-Men aren’t wearing yellow spandex, or that a VW Beetle is parked next to the 2007 Transformer equivalent, but they don’t carry so much weight when dealing with the build up of something so pivotal as two characters falling in love. In this respect, the major chink in the armour of the film is this “insider knowledge”.
But overall, a very enjoyable film.
Posted on August 23, 2008 - by John
Warner Bros. Pitch a Brooding Superman?
Ah….they don’t quite seem to get it do they? The WSJ is printing a story that Warner’s are trying to combat Marvel’s dominance in the comic book adaptation area with trying to formulaically copy the Batman franchise to other comic properties such as Superman and Wonder Woman. This just smacks of blatant stupidity.
“Like the recent Batman sequel — which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far — Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as “The Dark Knight.” Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.’ DC properties. “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,” he says. That goes for the company’s Superman franchise as well.”
This is plain stupidity – there is little “darkness” about Superman. The character is just dull. The fact that he got top honours in the recent Empire’s Top 50 Comics Characters indicates how little understanding there is for the creation. Incidentally, 83% of Empire readers voted Superman to be lower.
I am not a huge Superman fan primarily because he is dull. The few Superman comics I own are multicoloured tales that neither captivate nor offend. They are boring, and that pretty much sums up 2006’s Superman Returns; you enjoy it while it is on screen, but it is predominantly forgettable. And to think that Bryan Singer jumped ship from what was surely going to be a different beast with X-Men 3 to do that breaks my geeky heart.
You cannot reboot Superman and make him darker as there is little darkness there. The way to make Superman a success is to take the character driven elements of growing up in a difficult situation, having difficulty adjusting and yet trying to the right thing. In many ways, the original Richard Donner films covered that pretty well, although the first Spider-Man took the concept to a new level. Also, I think there is little for “humans” to identify with. He is an alien who can pretty much do whatever he wants, but doesn’t – there’s no spark to the character at all.
A Superman reboot could work well, but it ain’t Batman. You’d think they would know that, right?!
Posted on August 22, 2008 - by John
You Don’t Mess With The Zohan
I saw You Don’t Mess With The Zohan on the weekend, and really enjoyed it. Classic Sandler…rude, funny but with a real human touch. OK, it won’t solve the Middle East crisis, but it has a bloody strong point. What is the fighting for? Hate for hate’s sake? Anyway, if you don’t like Adam Sandler then this won’t convert you, but anyone after a comedy which is not overtly dumb like Get Smart should go see it. And yes, I am serious…I meant to say overtly dumb. Ignore the daft premise, just watch it and enjoy Sandler at his best.
There’s a great article in the Guardian about Adam Sandler. In the main I agree with it…although the vulgar side of his humour doesn’t bother me, but it makes a good point in that too many people take his films at face value without actually looking a little deeper. I am not saying they are works or art, but the majority of Sandler films have a genuine human quality which generally makes you feel good about the subject matter.
Posted on August 13, 2008 - by John
The Dark Knight
I have pondered over what I think about the latest Batman film for a couple of weeks now. I saw it the day after release, and have not been able to stop thinking about it. Firstly, is it a great film? Hmmmm. Maybe. It’s definitely a good film. But it leaves you with an odd feeling. Many people just rave about it, and most notably Heath Ledger’s performance, but it takes more than an immediate reaction to analyse what exactly Christopher Nolan has done with the Batman franchise.
The film is epic to say the least. From the opening shot over the skyscrapers of Gotham City, you get the impression of scale. The brief sojourn to Hong Kong gives you the impression, this is real. Gotham is real. Could Batman be…real?
Reality is the keyword, I reckon. At no point during this film do you have to suspend your disbelief for too long. They even open up the real world scenarios of what is and isn’t possible by name dropping the U.S. military Skyhook (actually called the Fulton surface-to-are recovery system). OK…so Bats is a little more flashy than your average stranded G.I. Joe, but there is still the possibility that binds the Dark Knight to the audience.
Each character is very well used, and notably not over used. Unlike many superhero films, the characters serve a purpose, and give us a sense of history. You know just enough of even the new characters for you to become involved in their drama, and this applies especially to Harvey Dent. I love what is done with this character from start to finish. I expected not to like him, and to relish his downfall into the Two-Face persona, but I wish it didn’t happen. Harvey is in many ways the emotional centre of this film, and not Bruce Wayne/Batman.
Posted on July 15, 2008 - by John
The Dark Knight – Ledger’s Legacy
I honestly cannot wait for The Dark Knight to get released. And these reviews aren’t helping! Rolling Stone called said the film “brings pop escapism whisper-close to enduring art”, while Time intrigued me further with comments on Director Christopher Nolan’s “subversive agenda”. I hope this is everything I think it will be.
For one thing, I want Heath Ledger’s Joker to firmly wipe away all traces of Jack Nicholson. For the time, Jack’s Joker was good, but it (and Tim Burton’s whole film) now looks dated and over the top. There’s just so much more to the “real” world that Nolan has placed this version of Batman. And yes, this is a comic book movie, but why can’t a comic book movie bring fantasy within a whisker of our day to day lives? I think this is by far a more positive thing than some would have you believe in Nolan’s Caped Crusader yarns.
With rumours flying around the Heath will get a posthumous Oscar, let’s hope his performance merits it. I’d hate to see him awarded for the tragedy that’s befallen him. That said, some relatively good news comes for his daughter, Matilda Rose, who will likely receive the majority of him $20 million fortune according to Australian state law.
Posted on July 5, 2008 - by John
Channel 4’s Kubrick Season
Looking forward to C4’s Kubrick season very much!
It’s a damn shame that Sky.com won’t let me remote record the whole think now…their listings only go 7 days in advance which is bloody silly! Regardless, the Guardian reports that C4 have recreated a 65-second promotional film which recreates the set of Kubrick’s classic horror film, The Shining.
Thinking about Kubrick’s career, I wonder in the future who we’ll be looking back on with awe at what they achieved cinematically? Certainly, David Fincher is a strong candidate. Maybe Guillermo Del Toro too.
Posted on July 2, 2008 - by John
Cronos
Can someone explain to me why Guillermo del Toro’s Cronos is in part English, and part Spanish? I dunno…weird. Enjoyed it though! Very much.
And Ron Perlman looks like a monkey.
