“I love you Dexter, I just don’t like you anymore”
So. I just saw One Day. I was a little apprehensive, but it wasn't that bad, I've seen some pretty bad adaptations and this one still managed to make me cry like a baby. The last time I cried like that was when I saw the final Harry Potter film.
As you may have seen across the media this book is treasured by every woman that has read it. It is beautiful and many will declare "its the story of my life". Whether they've married their Dexter, just met their Dexter, cut all ties with their Dexter, people adore Emma Morley and see a little bit of themselves in her.
Of course there were flaws in the film. The first obvious one being Anne Hathaway's accent, which at times jumped from middle-class English to American and even at times a rather good attempt at a Leeds accent. However, people have spent so much time criticising her ability to pull off a nothern accent they've forgotten her acting capablities. Even I did before seeing the film. She's pretty damn good, it must be terrifying taking on a role that is loved by thousands of people and she does give, in my opinion, an honest portrayal of Emma Morley, the girl desperately in love with an incredibly selfish man, but ultimately her best friend.
I would definitely recommend reading the book before seeing this film, because the end will leave you maybe slightly confused, disappointed and there are some emotions and relationships between Emma, Dexter and other characters that cannot be expressed quite as well in an hour and a half. Lone Scherfig did stick to the general layout of the book, chapter by chapter, just skipping a few things along the way e.g. the maze scene!
All in all though, not the worst film adaptation I've seen and a touching tribute to the book - I don't think any film would have been able to come close to it.
Everyone needs a Dexter in their lives, whether its forever or just for a little bit, it depends if they realise they have an Emma Morley before its too late.
(I'm aware this review is rather late and possibly not relevant, but after wasting nearly 3 hours on this film, I had to write something).I’ve always believed that if a film hasn’t captured my attention within 10 minutes, it’s not a good film. ‘Sucker Punch’ is not a good film. It’s garbage, pure and simple.
If you’ve not watched it yet, lemme talk you through the plot: SLOW MOTION POP CULTURE MUSIC REFERENCE x 6 GIRL IN ‘SEXY OUTFIT’ x 5 SLOW MOTION GIRL IN EVEN SEXIER OUTFIT
HEAVY HANDED ATTEMPT AT BEING AMBIGUIOUS SLOW. FUCKING. MOTION Seriously, that’s all I got. About 15 minutes in, after a laborious opening sequence, we’re treated to a huge musical number. It’s like Moulin Rouge, but somehow worse. It jars horribly with the film we've seen up to this point. And this is where the film totally lost me. The pace is completely non existent, the tone is all over the place and seriously, by the 30 minute mark I should know a little about the plot. All I got was ‘HEY!! HEY!!! ARNT THESE GIRLS SEXY? YEEEEEAAAAH SLOW MOTION SEXY GIRLS!!!’ It’s not that I didn’t ‘get it’, it’s more that there’s nothing to get. It tries to be like 'Brazil' crossed with a computer game, with some attempts to be all ‘Oh, is it in her mind…ooooh we don’t know….’ But the narrative just isn’t there. It’s pushed back to third place behind the ‘cool’ action and ‘cool’ music, so it becomes a big, bloated mess of CGI and fetish costumes. Things do pick up in the last 40 mins, but by then my mind had well and truly wandered off into a world of it's own fantasy where I fought massive dragons...
...dragons with Zack Snyders face. How a film about 5 girls fighting giant, demonic Samurai, Nazi Zombies and massive dragons could be this dull is a mystery way more complicated than the film itself (or more complicated than it thinks it is). If they cut all the badly placed, amateur psychology crap and just made this a straight action film about a team of girls who kick ass, it would’ve been great. It’s not that I don’t like depth, i love depth...bring on the depth. It’s just when it's handled with all the subtlety an skill of internet fan-fiction, it’s best left out.
The main problem I have with Zack Snyder is his over-use and relience on hyper-realism. It worked for '300' as the characters and plot were paper thin…the visuals were the main draw. But for films like 'Sucker Punch' and 'Watchmen', it detracts from the attempts at a deeper narrative and character. If everything looks like a orange and teal washed fantasy world, you can’t connect to the characters; you can’t care if they’re in peril because nothing has any weight to it. A little bit of restraint occasionally would do wonders. This is especially evident in 'Watchmen'. One of the levels the comic works on is because of the absolute real world it's set in. The film has supposedly normal humans with no powers flipping a guy 180 degress in mid air and punching him 20ft across an alley, stripping away any sense of 'the real' and placing the story firmly within fantasy...ultimately undermining the comics story.
Who says Hollywoods obsession with Orange and Teal has gotten out of hand? His other big problem appears to be the ‘it’s cool so it’s cool’ theory. Having a Bjork/The Pixies/Queen song into a film that is clearly set in the 1960’s just doesn’t work. It throws the entire tone of the film out. ‘Where is My Mind’ worked so well in ‘Fight Club’ because of the timing and the moment it was used. In this film, it jars terribly. Also, the song (well, a terrible cover version) seems to be Snyders idea of a subtle hint at the plot...and it's as subtle as being punched in the face. With a house. Oh, and special mention has to go to Vanessa Hudgens. Words cannot describe how much she fails to deliver a single line with any believable sign of emotion. (Though I doubt any of the girls were highed for their acting ability). On a slightly positive note, some of the action is very well shot, the moments that don't rely on S L O WM O T I O N flow really well and are fairly engaging, we just don’t get to see many of them. From a design point the film excells too, with a real nice Steam Punk/Retro Futurism look to the creatures/vehicles used. I fear for Snyders next project, Superman (or ‘Man of Steel’ as it’s tentatively titled). Hopefully, under Christopher Nolan’s guidance, he might hold back on the ‘HEEEYYY!! HEEEEYYY!!! LOOK HOW FUCKING COOL THIS IS’ moments and show some restraint, cut out the pop-culture music cues and just make a damn good action film. It’s obvious he has it in him, he just requires a hand to steer him in the right direction.But then, I read this quote by Snyder on the films title:
'There's a mechanism in the movie that sneaks up on you. We sort of plant the seed of this thing, and then at the end of the movie it kind of comes back around. I think that in some ways, that's what the Sucker Punch is.
It's like he thinks this film is actually really clever...like he's made his opus. Nolan's got his work cut out.
Seductivly dancing my way into a fantasy world of 140 characters...or...something: @GavWeir
Tonight I am going to see the final Harry Potter film, The Deathly Hallows (Part 2). For those of you who don't follow me on twitter or tumblr, I am more than a little bit excited about this. Since the first film was released in 2001, I have gone to see them all with my younger cousin, who was 7 when we saw Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone, and is now 17, so I have grown up with these films and this story, not only since the films were released when I was 11, but also from the moment I read the first book at the age of 7.
For many children, they found a love of reading and parents were amazed that they'd found a book their children actually wanted to read (this was the case for my brother, but he only stuck with it till the Prisoner of Azkaban) I however have always been a geek and fell in love with the story straight away.
I always forget that these books are from my childhood because they've always been there, but now I'm 21, myself and other fans feel we have grown up with Harry, Ron and Hermione.
I have to say I was always more excited for the release of the latest book rather than the latest film, they didn't blow me away and capture the emotions, images and story-telling as well as J K Rowling did in the books, I especially found this with the Prisoner of Azkaban, this was always one of my favourite books, but there was so much to cram into a 2 hour film, it was rushed, important scenes were left out and the epic story just wasn't reflected on screen.
This is why the decision to make the Deathly Hallows a two-parter was such a good decision. I saw the Deathly Hallows, part one, with someone who hadn't read the books, and found part one to be, long-winded, dull and not enough "blood and gore". I didn't go to the cinema with right person, they hadn't read the books and clearly don't expect much, by the way of story telling, from the films they choose to see. Part one was always going to divide people, the story of Harry's final fight with Voldemort needed to be told the way it was intended, nothing could afford to be left out and the emotions the characters experience couldn't be glossed over, otherwise Part 2 isn't going to be as brilliant as (I hope) it will be. Part one, was a bridge between the 6th and 7th book, laying down the foundations for the final battle, it was never going to be a Harry Potter film full of action and final resolve, those who read the books understood it was leading to the end and in my opinion David Yates directed the film perfectly.
I cannot wait to see the final Harry Potter film, I imagine there will be a lot of tears, all I can say is thank god David Yates took over the Directors chair for Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix because Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is going to be awesome.
I'd heard the rumours, the small, quiet murmuring in the dark...Stories coming from the West of a sacrilegious tome being written, one that should not see the light of day. With one (ok, two) tweet(s), my world was shattered:
Yup, an Evil Dead remake.
A film that should only ever be viewed on a worn out, low quality VHS (preferably a copy, to capture it in it's full 'Video nasty-you should not be watching this at age 12' glory) is going to get the Hollywood treatment. And it's wrong...Why? Well shut up and let me educate you, oh ignorant heathen.
The original is notable for 2 things: The insanely low budget and the incredibly corny, over the top acting. That's not to bash it, those things are what make it so great. Watch the trailer for a moment:That line at 0.22: 'No Ash! It was the woods themselves...they're alive!!' is both terrible and completely and utterly brilliant. That's what makes this film what it is, it's low budget, but at the same time made with a brilliant energy and competency that far exceeds it's subject and genre. Raimi introduces some fantastically timed slapstick to the horror. You can see it in the trailer: those crash zooms to Ash's face when those shutters start to slam at the window, the quirky angles and the quick, anamatronic-like movements of the Deadites (zombies to you ignorant people). It is, at it's heart, pure 'Ghost-house' style thrills and that's what makes it so compelling and undoubtedly is why it has stuck around for nearly 30 years and given it a huge, cult following.Of course, I can't go without mentioning the other reason for this film's cult status: Bruce Campbell.
He's the heart of it all, the every-man. A nerdy (yeah sure he's 6ft-something with a manly jaw...but in the Evil Dead world, he's the nerd...ok?) character who *SPOILER* has to rise up and become the unlikely hero when his friends start to become possessed by an unseen evil. It's a character trope that has been copied into numerous horror films (That's right, Hills Have Eyes remake, I'm looking right at you... don't' look at the floor and pretend you don't know what I'm talking about...*) but Bruce makes it real. He's got a great charisma about him that makes you root for him despite the corny lines, the cheesy sound effects and the wrestling with obviously rubber props. So, to my point: Without Raimi's brilliantly energetic direction and without the charismatic presence of Bruce Campbell, Evil Dead would not be Evil Dead. A remake is pointless (a pointless remake?? NEVER!**). One small consolidation is that Raimi is attached to produce, so hopefully he will be able to dictate the tone of the film. But that raises other questions: why would he want a remake? Evil Dead was his first major film, the one that started his career...why would he actively want this to happen? Maybe it's a lesser of two evils and it was going to happen with or without him, this way he at least gets some control over it. Now. I'm going to say something next that might shock you, disgust you and possibly make you want to call a mob together to chase me to the old abandoned windmill and burn me alive. (if you follow me on twitter...you know where this is going...)The only way I could possibly be interested in this is if they cast this man as Ash:
That's right. Matthew Lewis aka: Neville Longbottom.
Neville.
Longbottom.
Look at him. He's PERFECT. He's got the 'every-man' look the character needs, but with enough of an heroic streak for you to believe that he could fight off evil single handily. Go and compare him to that image of Bruce up above...it's almost like he was made to play second fiddle to Daniel 'I can't emote to save my life' Radcliffe so he could then go on to shine as a new hero of horror.
Cast him or GTFO. End rant. Reciting ancient Sumarian burial practices in 140 characters: @gavweir*I know the original HHE ended in a similar way, but you can't deny the remake was dropping 'Ash-style' symbolism all over itself. You can't. Trust me, I've tried. **I actually like the Dawn of the Dead remake, in many ways, I prefer it to the original. I mean, the middle section of that film is DULL. Everything slows to a crawl...wait a minute! maybe that was the point...to slow it down to a pace similar to the zombies! Nah..that would be awful.
Summer's here, thus bringing blockbusters. This year is packed full of ‘em.
We've already had Thor (brilliantly overblown and very good), X-Men: First Class (a few narrative issues, but neither the less, good) and soon sees Transformers 3, Captain America, Super 8, Harry Potter 7, Cars 2 and Cowboys & Aliens. In between all this we find Green Lantern.
I'll start off by saying I did enjoy the film, it's by no means ground breaking, but it is in places, fun. However, it's also heavily steeped in problems. The main brunt of these coming from the muddled screenplay.
When Hal (the always brilliant Ryan Reynolds) is in costume (which looks brilliant, despite a weak showing in early trailers), throwing around glowing green 'constructs' or when the action is on the Lanterns planet of Oa, the film is great. Big scaled sci-fi the likes that havnt been seen since 'Star Trek'. But almost every time the action is set on Earth (bar the CGI-laden finale) the film grinds to a halt.
This is mainly down to the fact that the screen writers (all 4 of them) fill the scenes with expository dialogue, making the thinly veiled supporting characters nothing more than faces regurgitating the plot. Add in he fact that Blake Lively may as well be made out of cardboard, rendering all the scenes between her and Reynolds laborious to watch.
There's just too many scenes where absolutely nothing happens. Ten minutes are spent at Hal's nephews birthday party early on in the film. This scene serves nothing to the overall plot, other than Hal's inspiration for his first public appearance in costume. Needless really, we don't need to see why Hal creates the race track...it reminded me of the 15 minutes of 'Wolverine' in which we learn where Logan got his jacket from...we just don't need that much detail, it sags the film down. This happens time and time again, just as the plot is gathering pace, it stops for 10 minutes so Hal can discuss his Daddy issues.
Directors need to learn that not every superhero film needs to be all dark and moody. You can do complex characters within a lighter toned narrative. Save the heavy character stuff for the inevitable 'dark and gritty' sequel.
It really is a shame as Reynolds is the perfect guy for a film like this. He oozes charisma when he's on screen and easily carries the film (as he does in pretty much every film he's in...Blade Trinity, I'm looking at you). Mention also goes to Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgaard who do great in their roles too.
This reads really negative, but I would happily recommend the film to comic book fans, I think there's definitely enough to keep you entertained, just a pity someone wasn’t more brutal with the editing, could’ve easily lost 25 mins and been a better film for it. Hopefully they'll get a chance at a sequel, so we can focus on the stronger (and no doubt more expensive) elements of this film: more of Oa and the other members of The Lanten Corps.Mainly Kilowog. He was awesome.Gav Weir Forming my will into 140 character constructs of wisdom: @GavWeir
I'll begin by saying, Colin Fith definitely deserves an Oscar for his performance in The King's Speech.
This has nothing to do with my massive crush on Mr Darcy from Pride and Prejudice or Mr Darcy from Bridget Jones' Diary. I've always thought Colin Firth was an amazing romantic actor, and was shocked to learn that he never saw himself as a romantic actor, almost turning down his famous role as Mr Darcy in the tv mini series. Until now I'd always regarded him as a very good actor, however there had never been a moment in a film where he had, had to do anything except look brooding and pretty.
I had expected a good performance in The King's Speech, but only because I'd heard about it from others, read reviews and obviously the Oscar nominations were some indication of the quality of his performance.
I was told by several people that I would feel somewhat patriotic after having seen the film, now I wouldn't go as far to say that, but it gave some understanding of the Royal family, the history and what happens behind closed doors - without being too over the top and 'flashy'.
The plot (from IMDB):
Tells the story of the man who became King George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth II. After his brother abdicates, George ('Bertie') reluctantly assumes the throne. Plagued by a dreaded stammer and considered unfit to be king, Bertie engages the help of an unorthodox speech therapist named Lionel Logue. Through a set of unexpected techniques, and as a result of an unlikely friendship, Bertie is able to find his voice and boldly lead the country through war.
Colin Firth plays a King who has struggled with the expectations of his father, his stammer and his brother's "carryings-on" throughout his life. He is only comfortable and without trouble when he is in the company of his wife and two daughters, present Queen Elizabeth II. As he exclaims in the film, he has never seen himself as a King, simply a naval officer, and when he is crowned King, the prospect of running the country, without really knowing his duties and being unable to address his public terrifies him.
It is refreshing to see Helena Bonham Carter, acting, not playing one of Tim Burton's carbon copy characters. She plays the King's wife (The Queen Mother) beautifully, portraying a woman with a sense of humour and an element of independence - not from her husband but from the formalities of the Monarchy.
Geoffery Rush plays the King's speech therapist, Lionel Logue, who is the complete opposite, from the start he addresses the King as an equal, calling him "Bertie" and questioning him about his family and personal life to get to the root of his problem. The relationship between these two characters is almost like two schoolboys, Lionel taking control and almost daring "Bertie" to come out of his comfort zone and take part in his unorthodox treatments.
Directed by Tom Hooper (The Damned United) the film is understated and beautifully shot, one particular scene to note is the opening scene, where we first see George's struggle with his stammer, the complete silence broken by the sound of thousands of people standing to welcome the, then, Duke, highlights the enormity of the situation for this character.
I would definitely recommend seeing this guys before they stop showing it! Callum, its not a period drama, so stop being a wimp and get to the cinema.
Sian
Oh! and may I just say, for those Pride and Prejudice fans, how lovely it was to see Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth on screen together again, even if it was brief.
'Re-Booting Spider-Man?!? So Soon?! This is an outrage!'...or words to that effect were uttered by myself one day back in January 2010. 'Re-booting' a series barely 8 years old just seemed like a ridiculous decision. The Spider-man trilogy had made in excess of $2,496,285,178 (I genuinely don't know how to say that number), so Sony deciding to re-boot these seemed like a 'Thanks for giving us all that cash, but those films you like? Yeah, in 5 years, no-ones gonna know the exisit'. On top of how much money they made, the first 2 Spidy films are loved by fans. Ok, so the Green Goblins costume in the first film was appalling. Why would you hire one of the most distinctive face in Hollywood for a villain, then cover his face in a plastic mask for 70% of his screen time?
Seriously...what the hell is that?
So re-booting this series seemed a little...extreme.
Until now. Over the past year, we've been through the obligatory drip feed of information, the 'Whos going to be doing this, who’s doing that?' blogs and articles and with each announcement, I've found a little bit of excitement slowly bubbling over inside me. First, it was the announcement of '500 Days Of Summer' director, Marc Webb would be helming it. If you've not seen it yet, '500 Days..' was a refreshing, smart take on the romantic comedy film (and included a little homage to Blade Runner...I'm easy to win over). So this wasn’t going to just be some studio hack-job. This guy has vision and talent. It was with the announcement of Andrew Garfield as Parker in July that my interest really peaked. Clearly, with the casting of a highly talented young actor means the film wasn’t heading down the rumoured 'High School Musical with spandex' route. And then, there was this:
The backpack won me.
Showing a battered, bloodied Spider-Man in a torn costume as the films first image is a brave choice. Also, the thing that excited me most....web shooters. Non-organic web shooters. Surely this means that we're sticking real close to the source material here? (I wont dwell on that, if you don’t know what that means, go read some comics). So now my opinion had gone from 'meh' to being ridiculously excited about the prospect this new Spidy brought and with that came doubts about the other films.Ok, Spider-Man 2 nailed it tone-wise. Doc Oc was great, the 'Go get em' tiger' ending was spot on but Spider-Man 3 was just on the complete polar opposite of that. Nothing was right, nothing worked. It was clear something was wrong in the Raimi camp. Creative decisions were either being made by the wrong people, or for the wrong reasons. I mean, how could a 4th film carry on from that mess? Could we really take Tobey Maguire as Parker again? He'd be nearly 36 by the time Spider-Man 4 was due, how could he possibly play a nerdy kid? Unless we wanted a Spidy film about him dealing with mortgages, the school run and tax returns, I really don’t think he could.
On top of this, there's the problem of Kirsten Dunst. I never liked her as Mary Jane, far too whiney and lacking in the strong characteristics that make MJ what she is. I never believed for a moment that this was the girl next door that Peter had obsessed about for years. She was just too cold, annoying and so damn whiney. I supposed this could be down to the writing more than Dunst, but she just never convinced me. Then there's Sam Raimi, his Evil Dead films awoke me to world of films I would have never saw other wise, but on these films he just felt...restricted. Look at 'Drag Me To Hell', the film he made after Spidy 3. Its a bag of insane set pieces, slap stick humour and gross out horror. you can almost hear Raimi giggling with joy on each scene. This is clearly his comfort zone. Making a big-budget action film just didnt seem him. He was clearly creatively squashed, very rarely did his usual filming style shine through. So for him to make a fouth after such a lackluster thrid probably would'nt end well.
As a friend said to me, the Spidy films seemed to have completely lost their way and much like the Batman films did, Spidy had to be re-booted to preserve his character. Peter is supposed to be a skinny little nerd, no charisma. But when he puts that mask on, he becomes alive, throwing out one liners as he beats thugs to a pulp. I want to see him deal with the duality of being an average high school kid who's been given these incredible powers.
Of course, there will be downsides. We will have to sit through 30 mins or so of origin story. Really, who in the world doesn’t know who Spider-Man is and how he got his powers? Couldn’t we just be shown a quick montage sequence at the start? I would even accept a 10 minute scene at the start with him in costume before we get the: 'It wasn’t always like this...' line, then onto a quick sequence that shows how he got bit etc. It would certainly save us from the 'Oh..he's got bit, whats going to happen? SHOCK HORROR he’s got the powers of a spider. Yawn'. But I digress. I'm genuinely getting excited about this now, everything seems to be heading in the right direction,thoughts solidified by this amazing picture of Spidy in a pose that looks like it was ripped direct from the pages of the comic. The second I get confirmation of snappy one-liners during combat, I'm 100% sold. You have my faith, Sony. Don't screw me like George Lucas did.Gav Weir Throw your Pumpkin Bombs this way: @GavWeir
Last night I finally got round to watching a film. I decided on Paper Man (2009), starring Jeff Daniels, Emma Stone, Lisa Kudrow and Kieran Culkin.
This had been recommended to me by Callum because he knows that I am a massive fan of Ryan Reynolds, so of course I decided to watch it.
The plot (from IMDB) :
"A coming-of-middle-age comedy that chronicles the unlikely friendship between failed author Richard Dunne and a Long Island teen who teaches him a thing or two about growing up, all under the disapproving eye of his long-suffering wife and his imaginary Superhero friend"
After seeing the trailer I was a bit unsure about the film, mainly because I didn't know if Jeff Daniels would be able to play anything different to Harry Dunne in Dumb and Dumber. I should probably add that I'm also NOT a fan of Dumb and Dumber. But that blog's for another day. So I was anticipating a similar sort of character, since he's supposed to be 'child-like'.
Some parts of the film are unconvincing - Richard invites Abby (Emma Stone) to be his babysitter, and on discovering there is no baby to look after she stays anyway to make soup, but it is easy to overlook their unlikely friendship. The main focus of this film is about two characters surrounded by people who misunderstand them; Abby's "chicken shit" boyfriend and Richard's long suffering wife (Lisa Kudrow).
It is a beautiful story of two people 'growing up' together in a short space of time. I think the film is cast incredibly well, supporting actors Lisa Kudrow and Ryan Reynolds don't take away from the leads and give a convincing performance of a struggling wife and the only (yet imaginary) friend. Emma Stone's performance is a million miles away from Superbad and Easy A, she is able to show that she can play a character that isn't supposed to stand there and look pretty where as Daniels shows he can play a character with heart, and make the audience sympathise with his situation - so much so I cried a teeny bit!
I've always found the smaller films Reynolds stars in are much better than his bigger 'Hollywood' ones. So I'd like to recommend Paper Man as well as The Nines, Adventureland and Chaos Theory.
Sian and Amy go head to head in a battle of the soundtracks on Vixen Radio. Each round is judged by a Vixen radio panel and eventually, a queen of the soundtracks is named.
