You're gonna need therapy.
Directors: The Russo Brothers
Writers: Christopher Markus
Stephen McFeely
Plot: The Avengers team up with Spiderman, Dr Strange, The Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther and the people of Wakanda and others to stop Thanos from getting his hands on all six infinity stones.
This is a BRAVE film guys, for real, this is a brave film. It's taken 10 years of build up, multiple different tones and styles, in multiple different films that are all connected in one huge universe. It's the franchise that has inspired the DCEU, the Star Wars extended universe, the wildly unsuccessful Dark Universe from Warner Brothers. This is the culmination of a huge plan and honestly, while it causes severe emotional stress and heartbreak and anxiety and you WILL need a therapist after, it's a damn good film.
This film blends every single film together as best as it can, I say as best as it can because from what I've seen of the Avengers films and the Spiderman (link it here) film, the Guardians of the Galaxy films and Dr Strange, they all have their own very specific style and atmosphere. Avengers seems more grounded in reality with strong sci-fi influence, as does Spiderman. Guardians still has a strong sci-fi influence but instead of it being bound to Earth, it's out in the stars, battling aliens and having sick dance-offs and Dr Strange is easily one of the trippiest films based on a comic, at least that I have seen while being based in reality but also focusing on the mystical elements of life. To break it down it's like a Harry Potter fan, a Star Wars fan and a Die Hard fan all hung out together, there's a disconnect but these people have connected enough with good chemistry that it works itself out a bit better.
The film is also brave because of how many heart attacks it gave me and a good few other people watching it, and most of that is down to the death count, it's mostly down to the fake out's. While I promise not to put in any spoilers and you've managed to avoid spoilers this far but want an idea of the pain you're in for, then I can help you with that. I can give you a survivor count, I can give you a fake out count. That's all. Just numbers.
Fake out count: 4
Survivor count: 10
Also, if you're new to this series or came in closer to the end or somewhere in the middle and haven't gone back and watched it all (like me), you don't need to. The story is surprisingly easy to pick up for people who came in late or just now and that's honestly such a good quality to have in such a big crossover. While the story has been built up over the past 10 years, it's involvement has been intertwined in a lot of the stories but there is a lot of backstory and exposition to catch people up and be it's own separate thing, while also being a continuation of multiple stories. It's good to see as a lot of big build up films like this could easily just isolate new audiences but this doesn't and I love it.
Finally, most of the CGI suuuuuuuuuuuucks. Whenever Thanos is touching something or someone it does not look at all like someone is there and touching something, it's terrible. I hope there's a Deadpool 3 that can just focus on reading films for their trash CGI. Please. Or, just a thought, make it look a little more convincing, I know it's down to budget and time but if some films can do it, a film that's had 10 years to build its brand and following can do it.
Anyway, I know I'm late to this party but some people probably haven't seen this yet so I've kept this as spoiler free as I can. If you've not seen it and want to go, then go as soon as you can, it's definitely worth it. If not, I hope you enjoyed reading this anyway, if you want spoilers you may have to go look elsewhere.
That's it from me today, I hope you have a good day, peace out, stay hydrated and I am Groot.
Thursday, 17 May 2018
Friday, 13 April 2018
The Simpsons Tree House of Horror: Mmm...Homer
Always showing up late as fuck to the party bitches.
Ok so I've only just heard about this, the latest instalment of the Tree House of Horror series brought to us by America's forgotten favourite, jaundice family, and it...well it lives up to its name in its 28th episode. The rest of the episode isn't all that much to talk about, the opening is a parody of the Seth Rogan animated comedy Sausage Party. It's cute, not anything to write home about but it's cute. The family are candy snacks that are put out for Halloween, one by one the inhabitants of Springfield (also candy snacks), are taken and eaten and the morning after they're put on a shelf to be forgotten about, they speak to a chocolate Easter Bunny and basically eat him. Like I said, it's cute and has a couple cute character jokes, such as Lisa being an apple, Maggie one of those sweet rings, and Bart got to be a Butterfinger, a type of candy he would religiously promote from 1988 to 2001, however, Bart couldn't be a Butterfinger, he had to be a Bart-erfinger. Either for the name joke or Copyright issues, I guess.
The first two segments aren't much to talk about, the first is just a parody of The Exorcist, entitled The Exor-sis which I knew they would eventually do ever since I saw their Shinning segment, it was just a matter of time that they'd do that. It sticks to the source material in a way and makes fun of it in others. Personally, I wouldn't dare make fun of that film, scares the hell out of me thinking about it and all the rumours that the set was cursed. Don't be tempting fates...or demon Kings my dudes. The upside to this is that it brings to light some information about this ancient demon and also mocks it...now that I've put that out there it doesn't sound like an upside. It's a side at the very least, whether it's up or down is up to you.
The second segment is a parody of Coraline, titled Coralisa and it's the most absolute bare bones basic excuse of a parody I've seen in my life. Lisa is sick of her family so goes through a tiny door, finds a perfect alternate family but they want to sew buttons on her eyes. She refuses so goes back to her old family who immediately drives her away so she goes and gets the button eyes. The rest of her family soon follows and...that's the joke. Hope you laughed at that simple plot reversal you could see coming a million years in advance.
Finally, our main talking point, the final segment: Mmm...Homer.
In short, the Simpson family go away without Homer, Homer eats all the food, instead of going out and buying food like any other episode, he accidentally cuts off his finger and eats it.
Disgusted? Horrified? Confused? Intrigued? Allow me to go on and blow the whole damn segment for you.
So it starts quite dramatically, in a similar way that Marge would walk onto a stage and warn viewers at the beginning of an episode that it's quite scary and you should put your kids to bed, however, in this case, it's Lisa who walks out onto the stage, dressed in a little suit and accompanied by orchestral music. She tells us that what we're about to see is "so disgusting you'll have to watch Game Of Thrones" to calm down. Now that our warning is out of the way we can move on to the true terror.
The episode starts out with Homer spouting exposition that the rest of the family is going away to stay with Marge's sisters, Pattie and Selma while he is stuck home having to work. Marge tries to make him feel better by saying they don't have to go but Homer's way too eager to get rid of them, pushing them into the car saying that it had heard them saying goodbye and you shouldn't disappoint it. He watches them leave and as soon as they're out of sight he undresses and heads into the house singing to the tune of Willie Nelson's On The Road Again. The lyrics are obviously changed to reference his current situation of being home alone.
During his little musical number, we see Homer eat the entire house out of its entire stock of food, that is except vegetables. He eventually starts throwing, throwing cupboard doors open and the fridge, screaming each time he finds one empty. Eventually, he finds a lone hot dog way in the back of the freezer and decides to cook it on the barbeque? I don't know, cartoon logic I guess, don't throw it in the pan when you can send shit loads of smoke into the atmosphere. The hot dog is on the grill for a good 5 to 10 seconds, all while being lathered with sauces and beer for extra nutritional value obviously. He takes it off the grill and tries to cut it, discovers that it's frozen still so tries harder to cut it rather than putting it back on the grill. He accidentally cuts through his finger which, while it is a horrific image, there isn't any blood. In an interview with EW (Entertainment Weekly) the producers basically said that they wanted to put the horror back into the series, but not have it too gruesome, which is understandable. We gotta take baby steps, guys.
The hot dog lands on the floor and Homer panics, first because of the finger being cut off, then a bigger reaction for the hotdog being on the floor and then in Santa's Little Helper's (the family dog) mouth. Homer then notices his finger on the barbeque, bulging and turning darker with the heat. Homer instinctively drools over his own finger, has a brief debate over eating the finger and then obviously eats it, and it seems to taste so damn good that even though he vows to not do this again, he thinks making it even on the other side doesn't count, then later when Ned Flanders invites Homer next door for some food, Homer is disgusted by it and then claims to be a "me-gan". Cue a fun little montage of Homer cutting himself up and eating away, I mean they tried to be funny with it but to me, it was just gross.
The family then comes home, Marge makes a note of it that Homer looks like he's lost "about 20lbs" and Homer makes a joke about cutting back and how it means something else to him, causing the family to look a little bothered but it seems to be dropped as it cuts to Marge in bed sleeping to be awoken by the sound of cooking. She gets up and goes downstairs while telling him he shouldn't be snacking in the middle of the night only to be cut off by her own scream at the sight of her Husband cooking his own whole leg in a tiny frying pan. In the background, there's a chart of Homer's body, similar to what you'd see in a butcher's of a cow's body. Pretty funny detail to add in and I only noticed it on my second time watching it. The couple look at each other for a couple of moments in total silence, Marge has no idea what to say or how to react and Homer just stares at her blankly. Eventually to break the quiet Homer gives the pan a little shake, prompting Marge to tell him that this is the worst part of their marriage.
The family then comes home, Marge makes a note of it that Homer looks like he's lost "about 20lbs" and Homer makes a joke about cutting back and how it means something else to him, causing the family to look a little bothered but it seems to be dropped as it cuts to Marge in bed sleeping to be awoken by the sound of cooking. She gets up and goes downstairs while telling him he shouldn't be snacking in the middle of the night only to be cut off by her own scream at the sight of her Husband cooking his own whole leg in a tiny frying pan. In the background, there's a chart of Homer's body, similar to what you'd see in a butcher's of a cow's body. Pretty funny detail to add in and I only noticed it on my second time watching it. The couple look at each other for a couple of moments in total silence, Marge has no idea what to say or how to react and Homer just stares at her blankly. Eventually to break the quiet Homer gives the pan a little shake, prompting Marge to tell him that this is the worst part of their marriage.
Marge takes him to see an addiction counsellor which is putting her enabling and door mat personality at the forefront for a second. If that was my husband, I'd be calling the police and every single mental health ward in the country. The therapist suggests that this new "diet" of his can be seen as him not liking Marge's cooking, and she admits that that's a part of it. Cute joke but honestly it's not needed really is it? You're in a segment of TreeHouse of Horror, come on, don't be cute be scary. The Therapist then excuses himself saying he's off to go be famous by talking about them. There's a short conversation where Marge essentially breaks up with Homer and he seems confused as to why.
Enter Mario Batali, a chef and writer from the States. Homer asks why he's in therapy, Batali replies that he got depressed because he ran out of exciting ingredients, that's a deep one that I don't want to go into. There's a dark joke made about them talking and Homer plays on the phrase "walk and talk" with "wok and talk" which, it's dark but also pretty cute. I like this joke because as soon as it's passed it cuts to a shot of Batali cooking Homer's whole head in a pan and Homer acting like he's in a hot tub.
The next scene is of the family sat in a small room with Marge's sisters, a not is slid under the door with "To My Family" written on it. Homer has written a note begging his family to come home and he has worked out how to get their forgiveness. They get in the car, minus Marge's sisters (what was the point in having them here?) as they get home they're surprised that their home has been turned into a restaurant. Batali reveals that Homer's final words to his family were that he had failed as a man but succeeded as an ingredient, a very Homer thing to say. Bart calls eating the brain which...is just fucking gross and the episode ends with a comment on the fast food industry, brands such as Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC and a couple others. Homer's up in heaven, back to his bulky weight having a chat with Jesus. The final joke of the episode is Homer ripping off one of his angel wings and Jesus commenting that you don't get any more of them.
And that's the episode.
Enter Mario Batali, a chef and writer from the States. Homer asks why he's in therapy, Batali replies that he got depressed because he ran out of exciting ingredients, that's a deep one that I don't want to go into. There's a dark joke made about them talking and Homer plays on the phrase "walk and talk" with "wok and talk" which, it's dark but also pretty cute. I like this joke because as soon as it's passed it cuts to a shot of Batali cooking Homer's whole head in a pan and Homer acting like he's in a hot tub.
The next scene is of the family sat in a small room with Marge's sisters, a not is slid under the door with "To My Family" written on it. Homer has written a note begging his family to come home and he has worked out how to get their forgiveness. They get in the car, minus Marge's sisters (what was the point in having them here?) as they get home they're surprised that their home has been turned into a restaurant. Batali reveals that Homer's final words to his family were that he had failed as a man but succeeded as an ingredient, a very Homer thing to say. Bart calls eating the brain which...is just fucking gross and the episode ends with a comment on the fast food industry, brands such as Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC and a couple others. Homer's up in heaven, back to his bulky weight having a chat with Jesus. The final joke of the episode is Homer ripping off one of his angel wings and Jesus commenting that you don't get any more of them.
And that's the episode.
Honestly, I'm so conflicted on this third segment because I've been so sad about the fact that the series had lost its edge, I remember being so afraid of these episodes as a kid that I wouldn't watch them after dark and I outright refused to watch the one with the segment parodying The Shining. Ya girl watched it once when I was like 6, took me another 4 years to able to watch that shit again. Another segment that scared me to death was Nightmare Cafeteria, it's such a logical progression in a twisted way, schools get too full, one kid has an accident and teachers discover that they're oh so delicious so they become cannibals and serve the children up as meat, turning the children into cannibals also. Those scared the hell out of me and I was sad to see in later years that this series of episodes lost it's creativity and decided that they would go more the comedy route than the horror route. Was it just me growing up and building an immunity to cartoon horror? Was it the writers for not writing something scary like we know they could do? Was it a combination of both? Maybe answers all of those questions. I'm glad to see that this segment, Mmm...Homer is scary and lives up to its predecessors.
On the other hand, while I really am glad to see this segment and its intensity, I'm just wary of the time it's aired and the age group most likely to watch it. In America, the show airs usually around 8:30pm which is fair enough, little tiny kids who only watch it to be entranced by the colours and kept busy for a while, these kids are safe from this episode. However, kids of about 6-7 and upwards are probably able to understand what's going on in this segment and possibly be afraid of it. It's something that, back in the day, parents would be fine showing their kids this sort of thing, but now? Boy, you best believe this shit won't fly on a 6pm airtime in the UK. We kick off when a channel airs a classic film about rabbits when we know exactly what this film is about, we let our kids watch it and then we complain that it's on the tv at that time and scarring and traumatising our kids. We don't think ahead and chose to turn the channel or make sure we know what our kids are going to be watching, we just put it on to shut them up and when they get scared well...that's televisions fault not ours. Either way, in this day and age I think it would be dangerous to show this to a child.
On the third hand, I personally think it's good for kids to be exposed to stuff like this, it's not as bad as it seems and yet...I grew up with worse. Granted I watched The Exorcist aged 8 but that's neither here nor there. Look at any of the classic Disney films and you'll remember being scared of something in them. Look at the rabbit film I mentioned earlier, Watership Down is a truly harrowing film to watch but I watched it and I turned out...fine, I guess. Most of my issues aren't because of what I grew up watching, they're because of lots of other contributing factors. What I grew up watching made me way stronger emotionally and intellectually than I would have been if my parents babied me and shielded me from any kind of fear or pain. Kids need this sort of fear to build them up, kids can tell you what they're scared of and what they're not and if you listen to them you can help them get past those fears at their pace. If you just shield them, like many parents are doing now, they're going to grow up entitled, wanting to completely avoid any kind of fear, wanting places set up for them to actively get away from something that even mildly scares them, they will allow the horror industry to die and that is something I am not here for. Fear is what makes us human, you cannot take that away from future generations.
So to close out, I both like and dislike this episodes final segment, I think it's a wonderful return to form for the cartoon series that's gone so far downhill that it's probably only salvation is the THOH series.
Have a good day kids.
Stay hydrated... just...don't self-cannibalise in order to do it.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Thursday, 15 March 2018
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Trailer
YOOOOOO
IT'S HERE MY DUDES
IT. IS. HERE!!!!!
Ya girl is so excited, I've waited forever for this to happen, well more like 2 years but it's been a stupid long couple of years. But it's here, the first official trailer for the second installment of the Fantastic Beasts series and I am so here for it I could explode. This has completed my damn life for a little bit. This has given me some joy in the midst of having a few pretty shit days and even though I've had the recent Christopher Robin trailer to keep me happy, it's not long enough to soothe me for as long as I needed.
However, the people over at Warner Brothers got my back and dropped a trailer for the trailer the other day which got me excited, then on Tuesday night when I got home I saw the whole trailer and I just about melted.
I'm not gonna talk about the whole thing like I did with the Christopher Robin trailer, I'm just going to talk about the best and worst bits. Y'all ready to go in on this? You should be 'cause you clicked on the post...
Highlights include:
Hogwarts in it's prime. Dumbldore isn't in charge of the school, children can get along with their lives like normal wizard children, Harry Potter isn't the centre of the universe. All is well. Although we do get to see the back of Dumbledore's head, similar to the introduction of Grindelwald in the first film, I'm pretty sure that this guy isn't the child sacrificing maniac he will soon become. We're all blessed to see this version of Dumbledore played by Jude Law.
My baby Eddie Redmayne shows up too...I mean obviously, he is the lead character. Turns out he's in Paris now (Paris looks gorgeous by the way in this film), allegedly following orders from Dumbledore, to which Dumbledore says "If you ever had the pleasure to teach him, you'd know Newt is not a great follower of Orders". Which fair enough, but you're not great at that shit either boo.
There's a moment, literally just about 2 seconds long where you see a whole room, which I'm assuming is either the Ministry or another Magical council just sat, and in the middle stands our blonde, terrible actor, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. This is easily one of the more powerful images from the trailer and you know in the film it's either already ruined by Depp talking or they might let that image sit for a second to let you feel the full impact of that image. It'd be nice but we know what will most likely happen.
Then we see little Newt's girlfriend, Tina looking a little shifty, she's only there for a second but it's nice to see her brought back. And before anybody says anything about spoilers because Newt and Tina weren't together in the last film, let's be real, even if you don't know your wizarding world family tree's, you can tell from the writing and chemistry that these two characters are going to end up together. You just don't root for them as hard as Jacob and Queenie.
Finally, the absolute best part of the trailer, you see Dumbldore and Scamander casting a spell toward the end and holy hell, if my life wasn't complete just from the rest of the trailer, that bit defintely just finished it off. It looks so cool and I swear if anybody wants to tell me otherwise I will fight you on it. I promise that.
Onto the Negatives which are...few.
Grindelwald looks a lot more like one of the Chuckle Brothers, the one that didn't age all that well, not a great look for the OG dark wizard is it? Of course not, but then again having Johnny Depp be a part of this franchise was already a bit of a risk and boy did it not pay off.
Jacob is back also, which isn't really a negative but I would have liked to have not seen him in the trailer. The last film left us wondering how much he really remembered when Queenie walked into his shop, a nice ambiguous ending. So to see him already in his next adventure is a bit too revealing. Like yeah he did remember everything and here's the proof before you see the film. I just wish we could have gotten a moment from the begining of the film, showing just him and Queenie together in the shop, reconnecting. I get that it had to be an action packed trailer but having something soft would have been nice.
The title of the film is a bother too. Like really think about it. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. Where is the connecting point for those two things? Is the film about the OG dark wizard? The murder and torture and the power and everything people had to do to stop this evil force from taking over? Or is it about a lovely Hufflepuff boy travelling the world and writing about the magical animals he comes across? I'd like to say that making this series the way it has been made was a mistake, I mean, when the first Fantastic Beasts film came out I was so excited to see all these magical creatures I'd read about come to life and what did I get? Some of the animal but a lot of talk of Grindelwald being back. That's not what we wanted from this series and now it's basically just using the animals as tools to fight a great evil, that's not what this should be.
Honestly, pick a lane writers, and that includes you Joanne. I love that you created this world for me to grow up with, and I admire the hell out of your strength for going through everything, however, your creative vision seems a little confused. If you wanted to make Hogwarts: A History and focus on the history of the first dark wizard then go for it. If you wanted to make Fantastic Beasts & Where to find them then do it! Don't splice the two and make nobody happy with the result. Well I'm sure it's not nobody that's happy, in fact I genuinely loved the first film, but it seems like you've taken it in a direction that isn't Fantasic Beasts and that's sad. Maybe someone else could give us the stories behind these animals while you continue to get ahead of yourself.
I really do love your work Joanne, but please, in the words of my tutor after handing in a terrible essay "Pick something to focus on and write about that."
That's all I've got to say about the trailer to the upcoming Fantasic Beasts film. The film is out November 16th this year and regardless of what I said before, I'm genuinely bursting with excitement to see what this film brings up. Hell, maybe there will be more animals and less Johnny Depp, but a girl can only dream.
Here's the trailer so you can have a look for yourself and make a decision on whether it's as good as it looks or not. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Trailer
Have a good day and remember, you can't apparate inside Hogwarts grounds.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray or paying for a ticket to see the film intheaters .
IT'S HERE MY DUDES
IT. IS. HERE!!!!!
Ya girl is so excited, I've waited forever for this to happen, well more like 2 years but it's been a stupid long couple of years. But it's here, the first official trailer for the second installment of the Fantastic Beasts series and I am so here for it I could explode. This has completed my damn life for a little bit. This has given me some joy in the midst of having a few pretty shit days and even though I've had the recent Christopher Robin trailer to keep me happy, it's not long enough to soothe me for as long as I needed.
However, the people over at Warner Brothers got my back and dropped a trailer for the trailer the other day which got me excited, then on Tuesday night when I got home I saw the whole trailer and I just about melted.
I'm not gonna talk about the whole thing like I did with the Christopher Robin trailer, I'm just going to talk about the best and worst bits. Y'all ready to go in on this? You should be 'cause you clicked on the post...
Highlights include:
Hogwarts in it's prime. Dumbldore isn't in charge of the school, children can get along with their lives like normal wizard children, Harry Potter isn't the centre of the universe. All is well. Although we do get to see the back of Dumbledore's head, similar to the introduction of Grindelwald in the first film, I'm pretty sure that this guy isn't the child sacrificing maniac he will soon become. We're all blessed to see this version of Dumbledore played by Jude Law.
My baby Eddie Redmayne shows up too...I mean obviously, he is the lead character. Turns out he's in Paris now (Paris looks gorgeous by the way in this film), allegedly following orders from Dumbledore, to which Dumbledore says "If you ever had the pleasure to teach him, you'd know Newt is not a great follower of Orders". Which fair enough, but you're not great at that shit either boo.
There's a moment, literally just about 2 seconds long where you see a whole room, which I'm assuming is either the Ministry or another Magical council just sat, and in the middle stands our blonde, terrible actor, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. This is easily one of the more powerful images from the trailer and you know in the film it's either already ruined by Depp talking or they might let that image sit for a second to let you feel the full impact of that image. It'd be nice but we know what will most likely happen.
Then we see little Newt's girlfriend, Tina looking a little shifty, she's only there for a second but it's nice to see her brought back. And before anybody says anything about spoilers because Newt and Tina weren't together in the last film, let's be real, even if you don't know your wizarding world family tree's, you can tell from the writing and chemistry that these two characters are going to end up together. You just don't root for them as hard as Jacob and Queenie.
Finally, the absolute best part of the trailer, you see Dumbldore and Scamander casting a spell toward the end and holy hell, if my life wasn't complete just from the rest of the trailer, that bit defintely just finished it off. It looks so cool and I swear if anybody wants to tell me otherwise I will fight you on it. I promise that.
Onto the Negatives which are...few.
Grindelwald looks a lot more like one of the Chuckle Brothers, the one that didn't age all that well, not a great look for the OG dark wizard is it? Of course not, but then again having Johnny Depp be a part of this franchise was already a bit of a risk and boy did it not pay off.
Jacob is back also, which isn't really a negative but I would have liked to have not seen him in the trailer. The last film left us wondering how much he really remembered when Queenie walked into his shop, a nice ambiguous ending. So to see him already in his next adventure is a bit too revealing. Like yeah he did remember everything and here's the proof before you see the film. I just wish we could have gotten a moment from the begining of the film, showing just him and Queenie together in the shop, reconnecting. I get that it had to be an action packed trailer but having something soft would have been nice.
The title of the film is a bother too. Like really think about it. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. Where is the connecting point for those two things? Is the film about the OG dark wizard? The murder and torture and the power and everything people had to do to stop this evil force from taking over? Or is it about a lovely Hufflepuff boy travelling the world and writing about the magical animals he comes across? I'd like to say that making this series the way it has been made was a mistake, I mean, when the first Fantastic Beasts film came out I was so excited to see all these magical creatures I'd read about come to life and what did I get? Some of the animal but a lot of talk of Grindelwald being back. That's not what we wanted from this series and now it's basically just using the animals as tools to fight a great evil, that's not what this should be.
Honestly, pick a lane writers, and that includes you Joanne. I love that you created this world for me to grow up with, and I admire the hell out of your strength for going through everything, however, your creative vision seems a little confused. If you wanted to make Hogwarts: A History and focus on the history of the first dark wizard then go for it. If you wanted to make Fantastic Beasts & Where to find them then do it! Don't splice the two and make nobody happy with the result. Well I'm sure it's not nobody that's happy, in fact I genuinely loved the first film, but it seems like you've taken it in a direction that isn't Fantasic Beasts and that's sad. Maybe someone else could give us the stories behind these animals while you continue to get ahead of yourself.
I really do love your work Joanne, but please, in the words of my tutor after handing in a terrible essay "Pick something to focus on and write about that."
That's all I've got to say about the trailer to the upcoming Fantasic Beasts film. The film is out November 16th this year and regardless of what I said before, I'm genuinely bursting with excitement to see what this film brings up. Hell, maybe there will be more animals and less Johnny Depp, but a girl can only dream.
Here's the trailer so you can have a look for yourself and make a decision on whether it's as good as it looks or not. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Trailer
Have a good day and remember, you can't apparate inside Hogwarts grounds.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray or paying for a ticket to see the film in
Tuesday, 6 March 2018
Disney's Christopher Robin - Teaser Trailer
Bet you've been waiting for this for a while.
So I've been missing for...a while really and that's because I've literally had no laptop to write with since November / December. But that doesn't matter, you've not waited for me to come back and waffle on about what I thought about the new Fifty Shades film or Early Man, you've missed me talking about Disney, and considering I've not done that for a while and I just spent the past ten minutes crying over a teaser trailer, I thought it only right that I come back with some Disney talk.
From the limited information we get in the trailer, it looks like our little friend Christopher is having a bit of a hard life, he's lost his childhood imagination and works for some sort of business, being an adult and all that. His boss has laid off a few of his co-workers and has asked Christopher to work during his time off, in which he was going to go on a trip with his wife and daughter. Of course, he ends up choosing his work and they go on the trip without him. He goes back to what I can only assume is where he grew up and he sits, puts his head in his hands and says "what to do" three times. That's when our favourite little ol' bear speaks up with "what to do indeed". This leads to the best part of the trailer, a grown man shouting "Pooh". This then leads to the sweetest thing I've seen in a while. Christopher says something about thinking he's cracked and Pooh Bear says "oh I don't see any cracks..." the little bear then reaches up, touches Christopher's face and says "...A few wrinkles maybe." Roll the "Coming Soon" card and the trailer is over and my heart has snapped.
The plot to this film seems like it might have a similar plot to Hook. Grown fictitious character spends too much time working and not enough with his family, meets up with something/one from his past and has to learn to have fun again. The only difference I can see in the storylines is that where Pan's thing was that he was a workaholic and that Robin's thing is that he either works or he gets fired.
The cast looks great too, with Ewan McGregor as the grown Christopher Robin, the intensely talented Jim Cummings as our lovable Pooh Bear, backed up by some...strange choices such as Peter Capaldi and Chris O'Dowd as Rabbit and Tigger respectively and...those are some choices I can't hear in my head but I really want this to work out so I'll bring my hopes down only slightly.
I'm genuinely so excited for this, I love Pooh Bear from the bottom of my heart, always have, always will and nothing will ever change that. I repeat, NOTHING. Not even the fact that Pooh Bears mouth barely moves which is kind of scary. I get that it's a live-action film and they want it to look realistic but it just kind of looks like something from a SAW game where you'd have to confess your sins in time before your mouth gets sewn shut. Regardless of that, this looks beautiful, like it looks like it could be funny but also like there's going to be a lovely yet heartbreaking...going off the trailer anyway. I mean I cried over little Pooh Bear touch his old friends face so God knows how I'm gonna be at the end of this film.
If what I've talked about with this so far doesn't convince you this film could be great...
Take a look at the poster
Are you not blessed to be looking at something so lovely? Is your heart not overflowing with love and joy at Pooh Bear in Christopher's hat? This should be the only convincing you need to see it?
What? Need more? Well here's the trailer.
Christopher Robin - 2018 Teaser Trailer
Go and support this bear in helping his old friend.
That would be it from me, have a good night and be careful of those heffalumps and woozles.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray or paying for a ticket to see the film in theaters.
So I've been missing for...a while really and that's because I've literally had no laptop to write with since November / December. But that doesn't matter, you've not waited for me to come back and waffle on about what I thought about the new Fifty Shades film or Early Man, you've missed me talking about Disney, and considering I've not done that for a while and I just spent the past ten minutes crying over a teaser trailer, I thought it only right that I come back with some Disney talk.
From the limited information we get in the trailer, it looks like our little friend Christopher is having a bit of a hard life, he's lost his childhood imagination and works for some sort of business, being an adult and all that. His boss has laid off a few of his co-workers and has asked Christopher to work during his time off, in which he was going to go on a trip with his wife and daughter. Of course, he ends up choosing his work and they go on the trip without him. He goes back to what I can only assume is where he grew up and he sits, puts his head in his hands and says "what to do" three times. That's when our favourite little ol' bear speaks up with "what to do indeed". This leads to the best part of the trailer, a grown man shouting "Pooh". This then leads to the sweetest thing I've seen in a while. Christopher says something about thinking he's cracked and Pooh Bear says "oh I don't see any cracks..." the little bear then reaches up, touches Christopher's face and says "...A few wrinkles maybe." Roll the "Coming Soon" card and the trailer is over and my heart has snapped.
The plot to this film seems like it might have a similar plot to Hook. Grown fictitious character spends too much time working and not enough with his family, meets up with something/one from his past and has to learn to have fun again. The only difference I can see in the storylines is that where Pan's thing was that he was a workaholic and that Robin's thing is that he either works or he gets fired.
The cast looks great too, with Ewan McGregor as the grown Christopher Robin, the intensely talented Jim Cummings as our lovable Pooh Bear, backed up by some...strange choices such as Peter Capaldi and Chris O'Dowd as Rabbit and Tigger respectively and...those are some choices I can't hear in my head but I really want this to work out so I'll bring my hopes down only slightly.
I'm genuinely so excited for this, I love Pooh Bear from the bottom of my heart, always have, always will and nothing will ever change that. I repeat, NOTHING. Not even the fact that Pooh Bears mouth barely moves which is kind of scary. I get that it's a live-action film and they want it to look realistic but it just kind of looks like something from a SAW game where you'd have to confess your sins in time before your mouth gets sewn shut. Regardless of that, this looks beautiful, like it looks like it could be funny but also like there's going to be a lovely yet heartbreaking...going off the trailer anyway. I mean I cried over little Pooh Bear touch his old friends face so God knows how I'm gonna be at the end of this film.
If what I've talked about with this so far doesn't convince you this film could be great...
Take a look at the poster
What? Need more? Well here's the trailer.
Christopher Robin - 2018 Teaser Trailer
Go and support this bear in helping his old friend.
That would be it from me, have a good night and be careful of those heffalumps and woozles.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray or paying for a ticket to see the film in theaters.
Wednesday, 10 January 2018
Top 10 worst films released in 2017
I did the best, now I guess it's time for the worst.
Alright so hopefully you've read my last list, of the 10 worst films I've seen this year in cinema's. Again, I would like to remind you that this is just a list based on my opinion and I'll only be talking about films released 2017 and to be honest...a lot of the films I saw this year suuuuuuucked. I don't know if it's becuase I'm a glutton for punishment or I just love trashy things or this is some of the "best" Hollywood thought it had but whatever, let's get to it.
Easily the worst films of the year and if 2018 decides to put out more of this, then cinema in 2018 is cancelled.
Anyway's, that's it for today, stay warm, stay hydrated, peace out, byeeeeeee.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Alright so hopefully you've read my last list, of the 10 worst films I've seen this year in cinema's. Again, I would like to remind you that this is just a list based on my opinion and I'll only be talking about films released 2017 and to be honest...a lot of the films I saw this year suuuuuuucked. I don't know if it's becuase I'm a glutton for punishment or I just love trashy things or this is some of the "best" Hollywood thought it had but whatever, let's get to it.
- 47 Meters Down Sharks are the villan, people suck at common sense, it's all Spielbergs fault...even though he had nothing to do with the film at all.
- Snatched Amy Schumer can't act, she isn't funny. This film isn't at all funny, it's terrible, all I could think about was slamming my head into the seat in front of me with as much force as I possibly could. A couple of jokes landed but for an established comedian...you're not doing good at the comedy sweetie.
- The Emoji Movie Is this terrible? Yes. What's worse than it being terrible? It being an hour and a half worth of ads, losely tied together with a very boring and very confusing story about an emoji that doesn't fit in. Easily the worst animated thing I've seen this year but not the worst thing at all.
- 50 Shades Darker What were you really expecting? Really?
- Pirates of the Carribean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales But the people who watched this do. This is arguably the worst of the Pirates franchise and it's easy to see why. It had next to no effort put in, Johnny Depps charm has well and truly worn off, his ecentric character is not ar all supported by any kind of story. Whatever story there is, isn't all that great and it's just too cheesy and strange to make anything good and honestly it wraps up what was wrapped up in the third film. There's just no need for it.
- Beauty & The Beast (2017) "Oh my God, praised the hell out of this film when you wrote about it, why is it on your worst list?" Because I was blinded by my love for Disney. I rewatched it, back to back with the original animated film and honestly...I might as well have just watched the cartoon again. At least the singing was better and there wasn't any needless backstory or any kind of LGBT representation pointlessly shoved down our throats. I said it before and I'll say it again; representation is important, but in the right places.
- The Mummy A poor attempt at starting off a "Dark Universe" and what's worse? Brendan Frasier did it better. Imagine that...doing worse than Brendan Frasier at acting? Man that must suck.
- Life I genuinely barely remember anything from this outside the fact that Ryan Reynolds was killed off so early when he was mainly featured in the marketing, and that it's ending was the most predictable thing ever. I remember it looking interesting and like it could be a new take on space movies but nope.
- Transformers: The Last Knight It's a Transformers movie, are you really that shocked it's on the list?
- Daddy's Home 2 What do I even say about this? I forgot about it until I was writing the end of this list and who can blame me? If you have a film that contains John Cena and mild (somewhat) incest between children and you DON'T make that memorable then you have totally failed my dudes. From what I remember of the film it is just a complete re-tread of the original but with the fathers of Farrell and Wahlberg. Unoriginal, try again please. "Well we could make it a Christmas movie!" Unoriginal, try again please.
Easily the worst films of the year and if 2018 decides to put out more of this, then cinema in 2018 is cancelled.
Anyway's, that's it for today, stay warm, stay hydrated, peace out, byeeeeeee.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Top 10 films released in 2017
Hella late to the party but here we are.
I'm more than aware I've not been doing this for the entirety of 2017, but, I have been watching films since...God, I don't know. Point is, just because I've seen a film in the cinema, doesn't mean I've written about it on here, why? It's either because I've not had the time or there wasn't much to talk about, or I saw it before I started this blog. I mean I only saw one film before I started this and yes it is going to be on the list.
So let's get to it, top 10 films I've seen this year, I've rewatched all (well...most) of them again and this is the best of what I saw, not that there was much of anything incredible that I saw but you know.
If this is the best that 2017 can give me then I'm so down to watch what 2018 can give us. I hope it's better but if it's not, we got some decent things so...it can't be that bad.
Stay warm in the cold guys, stay hydrated and I'm out. Peace.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
I'm more than aware I've not been doing this for the entirety of 2017, but, I have been watching films since...God, I don't know. Point is, just because I've seen a film in the cinema, doesn't mean I've written about it on here, why? It's either because I've not had the time or there wasn't much to talk about, or I saw it before I started this blog. I mean I only saw one film before I started this and yes it is going to be on the list.
So let's get to it, top 10 films I've seen this year, I've rewatched all (well...most) of them again and this is the best of what I saw, not that there was much of anything incredible that I saw but you know.
- Split & Get Out I know I shouldn't have put two at my number one spot but Split and Get Out were two of the biggest films from the start of this year and I just couldn't really decide which is worth the top spot more than the other. And don't be like "Well it can't be a top spot if there's two things in it." Yes there can. It's my blog, my list, I decide.
Back to the point, Split was an absolutely phenomenal return for the "king of twists" M. Night Shyamalan. Headed by the versatile James Macavoy and ended with the most prolific bald actor in Hollywood, Bruce Willis. Definitely have a peek at the multiple personality film that put Shyamalan back on top of his game.
Next it's Get Out and this is a fantastic horror film about race that is not at all pretentious and not slamming anybody of any skin colour. Brilliantly written and performed with some darkish humour in there too, keep in mind this was written, produced and directed by Jordan Peele who is most known for his comedy with Keegan-Michael Key.
***Edit: it's gross that Get Out was snubbed by the Golden Globes, in the words of good ol' Latrice Royale: Good God Get A Grip Girl!***
Both of these films are incredible and you should definitely go watch them where you can. - IT (2017) I watched this back the other night with Ben and it's as good as I remember it, but it's got it's problems. Maybe I'll do a Youtube series revisiting my old cinema reviews and be able to fully pick film apart. Regardless of it's problems, it's still good, except for when it's not, the story flows, except for when it doesn't, the CGI works, except for when it doesn't. It's a genuinely well made film with a lot of effort put in but it just feels like one of those films that is made specifically for the big screen. Also, after watching it back, I was able to get clarification on a few things and settle some of my thoughts on it. I have also read the beginning part of the book where Georgie is killed and it doesn't explain that Georgie was tormented by this clown like his brother and the other kids. Guess Pennywise was just starving. Overall, it's a good film and if you're down to watch it then you should, if you don't like clowns then I wouldn't bother.
- Detroit Another film based on race? Why? This one's based on a true story and when I watched it back I stopped breathing at some points. That's all you need to go check this out. If you need more convincing here we go:
It's intense
Based on a true story
Genuinely got me to stop breathing
Go see ittttt!!!!!!!!!
- Atomic Blonde
This one kinda flew under the radar for a lot of people and that's a shame. It's a good spy film with a couple of twists and turns you see coming and some that you don't. The film stars Charlize Theron and James Macevoy with a few appearences from Bill Skarsgård, Pennywise from IT if you're struggling to place him, and John Goodman. It's so so so good and you need to see it. - Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets Cara Delavigne can't act, the plot's kind of a mess but the rest of the film is great. The effects and designs and worlds and ideas are just so good that if that's all you pay attention to, you're in for a wild ride. It's worth the watch for the plot if you like messy plots that are full of nothing or if you like Cara but that's not for me. Go check it out though because a lot of critics slammed this film and it didn't deserve that. Go give it a cult following and sort that out. I've read a lot of things claiming this to be a passion project of director Luc Besson and it should at least be recognised and looked at for that alone.
- The Ritual
Why did nobody see this? I want answers damn it! This was barely advertised and barely watched and barely talked about and that is so stressful. Is it because it's not an action packed, gory, suspenseful horror? Is it because it's pretty calm and almost an homage to The Blaire With Project and M Night Shyamalan's The Village? Is it because it's an English cast? I hope not because that's just rude.
You really should watch this, it's so good and I can't even express how disappointed I am that nobody went to see this or talked about it. Shame. Shame on all of you. - Guardians of the Galaxy 2 I mean...obviously. It's Guardians 2. It's only so low on the list because of how predictable it was to someone who knows nothing about the stories or comics or anything.
- The Lego Batman Movie The Lego Movie was pretty sick and the best character from that film got his own movie? Of course that's on the list. It's only so low because at times it was predictable but wasn't fun in its predictablility. That's it, although it does get a lot of points for slamming Suicide Squad.
- Spider-Man Homecoming Another Marvel movie, another spot on the list. The reason this one is so low is because the villain, though portrayed by the best Batman, Michael Keaton, is a little boring sometimes and that's sad. I would also like some sort of short backstory as to how Spider-Man became Spider-Man. I get this one didn't want to harp on the backstory too much and pick up where it could but...some origin story for someone who didn't know anything would be nice. Don't make the whole movie about it, just maybe like a Previously in the Marvel Cinematic Universe... Y'know?
Should watch it regardless of that though.
- Jumanji Not as terrible as it looked and is a decent update on the Robin Williams classic. Very predictable and can run jokes into the ground, but a lot of the jokes are funny. It's got a really good cast of The Rock, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Nick Jonas and Karen Gillan. I don't think that this is a remake, or a reboot, more a sequel. A lot of people told me it was a remake and that was a lie. This is most likely a sequel but it could also stand on it's own as a decent film about a game.
Check it out in cinema's while you can, if not wait for it to come to DVD or Bluray.
If this is the best that 2017 can give me then I'm so down to watch what 2018 can give us. I hope it's better but if it's not, we got some decent things so...it can't be that bad.
Stay warm in the cold guys, stay hydrated and I'm out. Peace.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the films listed then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
An update
I suck and that's ok.
Honestly though, I really am sorry I've been so inactive lately on this blog and that's mostly because in the run up to Christmas my laptop had some issues so I took it to go and get fixed, which in all fairness, they have done. The problem with that is, they haven't sent it back to me, they sent it over to Ireland which...thanks for the acknowledgement of my heritage but y'know, ya girl lives in England not Ireland.
The only way I've been able to write anything was when I was at uni or when I had my friends laptop so I could do my essay. Since then I've not really been able to get my hands on anything to be able to write which means everybody suffers.
Ways we all suffer
Anyway, I'm sorry about all this, regular content will be coming, hope you all enjoy it.
I love you, stay warm in the cold and stay hydrated wherever you are. Peace out.
Honestly though, I really am sorry I've been so inactive lately on this blog and that's mostly because in the run up to Christmas my laptop had some issues so I took it to go and get fixed, which in all fairness, they have done. The problem with that is, they haven't sent it back to me, they sent it over to Ireland which...thanks for the acknowledgement of my heritage but y'know, ya girl lives in England not Ireland.
The only way I've been able to write anything was when I was at uni or when I had my friends laptop so I could do my essay. Since then I've not really been able to get my hands on anything to be able to write which means everybody suffers.
Ways we all suffer
- I have nothing to do with a full head of ideas
- You have no content
- My grades may go down
Anyway, I'm sorry about all this, regular content will be coming, hope you all enjoy it.
I love you, stay warm in the cold and stay hydrated wherever you are. Peace out.
Monday, 25 December 2017
Scrooge (Or Marleys Ghost)
A new tradition
Director: ???
Writer(s): ???
Run Time: 6 Minutes 42 Seconds
Plot: Essentially the plot of every Christmas Carol movie, except this is a silent movie from 1901.
I'm hoping to start a tradition, in which every year on Christmas Day I post a review of a Christmas Carol film, in chronological order. I don't know why but I just think it would be nice to see every version of the classic film, from 1901 to now. There have been so many versions of the story, each trying its best to be the definitive classic, word for word, scene for scene from the book, each however, adding something new and beautiful to the story without compromising the whole story.
This short film is a lot different. For example, it was made in 1901 and is the earliest known version of A Christmas Carol. It's silent and therefore unable to be word for word but still has the overall message of peace and good will to all. So let's get into it.
The film starts with Scrooge and Cratchit working late Christmas Eve, Cratchit asks Scrooge if he can have Christmas Day off to spend time with his family and Scrooge allows him, although he doesn't seem all that happy about it. Cratchit is bowing and bobbing away in thanks and Scrooge is waving at him dismissively, like he doesn't care. Which...he most likely doesn't at this point in the story anyway. Scrooge then throws down his quill, paces for a moment and then gets an idea, puts his hat on, blows out his candle and leaves.
Next, there is a title card with the words Scene II Marleys Ghost Shows Scrooge visions of himself in Christmasses Past. There is something white in the background of the title card that I can't really make out. I'm not sure what it is but it looks like a body so in this story I guess it could really be anybody's.
In this scene, Scrooge walks up to his "door". I put door in quotation marks because it is quite clearly a set piece, and not even a convincing one. Given the time period though they didn't really have much to work with and it works just fine. Scrooge fumbles around in his coat for his keys, finds the right one and goes to unlock his door when, part of the door disappears and a head pops through, kind of like that old John Cena meme that everybody green screened into other memes. It looks like a woman but if you know the story, it's not a woman, it's Jacob Marley's ghost. I'm going to take a minute to talk about the editing and effects here because even though they're terrible, they're impressive.
This is a 1901 film, the careful and precise editing that would have gone into this one short scene would have been immense. It would have taken a lot of time, patience and skill and honestly, even though it looks cheap, it looks good. Obviously it's nothing on today's editing and effects and stuff but for it's time period, it's not half bad.
Back to the story. Marley's face seems to spook Scrooge enough that he does the classic "hold your arms out in front of you and scream because you're scared" move and then the face disappears. Scrooge slowly goes up to his door and touches the knocker, relieved that he was only hallucinating what he had just gone through. He still backs his way into his house in an overly dramatic way but wouldn't you?
Scrooge then walks into a room that looks like a living room and seems afraid of the door separator. I don't know why, I don't even know if it is a door separator. Either way, Scrooge manages to get his jacket off and put it on the chair behind him. He takes his hat off too, puts that on a table or shelf, whichever it is and turns around to once again get scared by something, only to then continue with his routine. It looks like he's being pestered by a ghost as he picks up his dressing gown but it also kind of looks like he's just jumping at everything too. Both would be understandable, I'd be jumpy as hell if I saw my dead friends face on my door.
He finally gets his gown and night cap on, goes to his window, gets scared at absolutely nothing (unless it was snowing, that's a whole other story) and closes his curtains. On his way to his table, he seems to hear a noise, he looks at where it came from and thinks "ah fuck it" and sits at his table anyway. He eats a couple of spoonfuls of whatever it is in the bowl that was already on the table, stretches and yawns, puts his elbow on the table, his head in his hand and goes to sleep. This is Ebeneezer Scrooge right? Not a millennial teenager?
Marley comes out of the curtain with a white sheet draped over him to represent he's a ghost, 'cause how else are you gonna do that in this time period? He then points at him, Scrooge waves his arms back and Marley retreats into the table to show Scrooge some of his childhood Christmasses.
The first is, I think, Scrooge and his mother. They seem to be preparing the table for dinner. While this scene is layered over Scrooge and Marley, you can see Scrooges reaction to seeing this. He grabs his chest, and looks away, he then looks back and points at the scene before him in disbelief. As young Scrooge and the woman walk away, present day Scrooge can be seen holding his head in his hand in sadness.
The next scene shown is Scrooge meeting Belle, talking with her, falling in love with her and her leaving him. Not much is done to show why she leaves but this is a 6 minute film from the 1900's so you take what you can. While this is playing, Scrooge is absolutely hamming it up with his performance, it's beautiful to watch. He's screaming with his arms wide open and not looking at the scene playing out in front of him but he can't help but look at it. It's great. He even collapses to his knees facing away from the scene, that's how emotional he gets. As he does this, Marley's ghost walks over to the curtains. No attempt made at comforting his old friend, just a wave and a fade away, leaving Scrooge to throw open his curtain in search of his ghost pal.
Then, there is another title card. Scene III Visions of Christmas Present Bob Cratchitt and Fred drink "To Mister Scrooge!" In this scene, a family is fussing around a table with a sign hanging above them. On that sign is the iconic phrase "God bless us, every one". The sign looks like it came from a church which...honestly I don't know how to feel about that. If it is from a church then it shows the family as the religious type which is fine, but if that's the case, why is it in their house? Is it stolen? Was it gifted to them? I'm never even going to get an answer, why bother even asking?
A young woman enters from the left side of the screen and is immediately ambushed by everyone at the table for hugs, a fairly normal christmas tradition. Everyone then starts bussling around to either sit or get food on the table when Cratchit gets home. He is welcomed with love and someone popping out from under the table...another classic Christmas move? Bob then goes over to greet his young son, Tiny Tim, and picks him up looking like he's about to launch him across the room, (it's down to where I paused it not an actual point in the story.) Instead he carries him over to the head of the table, sits him down and goes to carve the food.
The ghost of Marley and Scrooge are faded into the corner of the screen while Scrooge continues his chest grabbing, although this time it's in disbelief. "Me? The toast of dinner? My goodness I just can't believe it." This sort of acting is my favourite. These days, it wouldn't fly, nobody would have it. At best you'd be called an amateur and at worst you'd be called a terrible actor adn to never grace the stage or screen again. But looking at it for the time period, it's not bad, even if it is a little hammy. Scrooge is just loving his moment, being the toast of the dinner...even though he isn't really there.
After Scrooge looking like he's thanked God for this, we're swept away into the next scene, at his nephew Fred's house, where there is another sign which says "A Merry Xmas" which...was Xmas a thing back then? Honestly I thought it was a recent thing in dealing with cultural sensitivity around Christmas and it's apparent prominence over other religious holidays that take place at the same time. Maybe there was a specific sensitivity at the time or maybe sign makers just got lazy, I don't know.
In Fred's house, they start their toast to Scrooge at the same time he and Marley's ghost pop onto the screen, almost as if it was meant to look like an accident, Fred and the others at the table do the world's fastest toast, Scrooge and Marley fade out and that's the scene. Apparently Fred didn't deserve as much screen time as Bob.
Next comes the best part of any version of A Christmas Carol adaptation, "Scene IV The Christmas That Might Be Marley's ghost shows Scrooge his own Grave and the death of 'Tiny Tim.'" Could have given us a spoiler warning pal, some of us haven't read the book. That weird white body thing is also floating around in the background of this title card again which is weird because it wasn't there for the last one. The scene itself opens up with a man walking across Scrooges grave, which is engraved with just his name. The man is then followed by Marley's ghost who is finding the need for that sheet in the cold wintery snowy graveyard. Scrooge walks onto the screen begging and praying and falling to his knees in anguish, he begins to cry and then the film ends.
This is the longest version I could find and apparently it must have been longer but for whatever reason, the rest is no longer available. It's quite a nice film and for the time period, it's really good. Even without speech you can follow the story which is fairly simple. Honestly, if you think you've seen all the incarnations of A Christmas Carol, you probably haven't because you probably didn't know this one existed. I'll leave a link so you can watch it and be amazed at the earliest known version of A Christmas Carol on film.
Scrooge (Or Marley's Ghost)
Anyway, that's it for today. Enjoy your day, peace and love to you all and may God bless us, every one.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: ???
Writer(s): ???
Run Time: 6 Minutes 42 Seconds
Plot: Essentially the plot of every Christmas Carol movie, except this is a silent movie from 1901.
I'm hoping to start a tradition, in which every year on Christmas Day I post a review of a Christmas Carol film, in chronological order. I don't know why but I just think it would be nice to see every version of the classic film, from 1901 to now. There have been so many versions of the story, each trying its best to be the definitive classic, word for word, scene for scene from the book, each however, adding something new and beautiful to the story without compromising the whole story.
This short film is a lot different. For example, it was made in 1901 and is the earliest known version of A Christmas Carol. It's silent and therefore unable to be word for word but still has the overall message of peace and good will to all. So let's get into it.
The film starts with Scrooge and Cratchit working late Christmas Eve, Cratchit asks Scrooge if he can have Christmas Day off to spend time with his family and Scrooge allows him, although he doesn't seem all that happy about it. Cratchit is bowing and bobbing away in thanks and Scrooge is waving at him dismissively, like he doesn't care. Which...he most likely doesn't at this point in the story anyway. Scrooge then throws down his quill, paces for a moment and then gets an idea, puts his hat on, blows out his candle and leaves.
Next, there is a title card with the words Scene II Marleys Ghost Shows Scrooge visions of himself in Christmasses Past. There is something white in the background of the title card that I can't really make out. I'm not sure what it is but it looks like a body so in this story I guess it could really be anybody's.
In this scene, Scrooge walks up to his "door". I put door in quotation marks because it is quite clearly a set piece, and not even a convincing one. Given the time period though they didn't really have much to work with and it works just fine. Scrooge fumbles around in his coat for his keys, finds the right one and goes to unlock his door when, part of the door disappears and a head pops through, kind of like that old John Cena meme that everybody green screened into other memes. It looks like a woman but if you know the story, it's not a woman, it's Jacob Marley's ghost. I'm going to take a minute to talk about the editing and effects here because even though they're terrible, they're impressive.
This is a 1901 film, the careful and precise editing that would have gone into this one short scene would have been immense. It would have taken a lot of time, patience and skill and honestly, even though it looks cheap, it looks good. Obviously it's nothing on today's editing and effects and stuff but for it's time period, it's not half bad.
Back to the story. Marley's face seems to spook Scrooge enough that he does the classic "hold your arms out in front of you and scream because you're scared" move and then the face disappears. Scrooge slowly goes up to his door and touches the knocker, relieved that he was only hallucinating what he had just gone through. He still backs his way into his house in an overly dramatic way but wouldn't you?
Scrooge then walks into a room that looks like a living room and seems afraid of the door separator. I don't know why, I don't even know if it is a door separator. Either way, Scrooge manages to get his jacket off and put it on the chair behind him. He takes his hat off too, puts that on a table or shelf, whichever it is and turns around to once again get scared by something, only to then continue with his routine. It looks like he's being pestered by a ghost as he picks up his dressing gown but it also kind of looks like he's just jumping at everything too. Both would be understandable, I'd be jumpy as hell if I saw my dead friends face on my door.
He finally gets his gown and night cap on, goes to his window, gets scared at absolutely nothing (unless it was snowing, that's a whole other story) and closes his curtains. On his way to his table, he seems to hear a noise, he looks at where it came from and thinks "ah fuck it" and sits at his table anyway. He eats a couple of spoonfuls of whatever it is in the bowl that was already on the table, stretches and yawns, puts his elbow on the table, his head in his hand and goes to sleep. This is Ebeneezer Scrooge right? Not a millennial teenager?
Marley comes out of the curtain with a white sheet draped over him to represent he's a ghost, 'cause how else are you gonna do that in this time period? He then points at him, Scrooge waves his arms back and Marley retreats into the table to show Scrooge some of his childhood Christmasses.
The first is, I think, Scrooge and his mother. They seem to be preparing the table for dinner. While this scene is layered over Scrooge and Marley, you can see Scrooges reaction to seeing this. He grabs his chest, and looks away, he then looks back and points at the scene before him in disbelief. As young Scrooge and the woman walk away, present day Scrooge can be seen holding his head in his hand in sadness.
The next scene shown is Scrooge meeting Belle, talking with her, falling in love with her and her leaving him. Not much is done to show why she leaves but this is a 6 minute film from the 1900's so you take what you can. While this is playing, Scrooge is absolutely hamming it up with his performance, it's beautiful to watch. He's screaming with his arms wide open and not looking at the scene playing out in front of him but he can't help but look at it. It's great. He even collapses to his knees facing away from the scene, that's how emotional he gets. As he does this, Marley's ghost walks over to the curtains. No attempt made at comforting his old friend, just a wave and a fade away, leaving Scrooge to throw open his curtain in search of his ghost pal.
Then, there is another title card. Scene III Visions of Christmas Present Bob Cratchitt and Fred drink "To Mister Scrooge!" In this scene, a family is fussing around a table with a sign hanging above them. On that sign is the iconic phrase "God bless us, every one". The sign looks like it came from a church which...honestly I don't know how to feel about that. If it is from a church then it shows the family as the religious type which is fine, but if that's the case, why is it in their house? Is it stolen? Was it gifted to them? I'm never even going to get an answer, why bother even asking?
A young woman enters from the left side of the screen and is immediately ambushed by everyone at the table for hugs, a fairly normal christmas tradition. Everyone then starts bussling around to either sit or get food on the table when Cratchit gets home. He is welcomed with love and someone popping out from under the table...another classic Christmas move? Bob then goes over to greet his young son, Tiny Tim, and picks him up looking like he's about to launch him across the room, (it's down to where I paused it not an actual point in the story.) Instead he carries him over to the head of the table, sits him down and goes to carve the food.
The ghost of Marley and Scrooge are faded into the corner of the screen while Scrooge continues his chest grabbing, although this time it's in disbelief. "Me? The toast of dinner? My goodness I just can't believe it." This sort of acting is my favourite. These days, it wouldn't fly, nobody would have it. At best you'd be called an amateur and at worst you'd be called a terrible actor adn to never grace the stage or screen again. But looking at it for the time period, it's not bad, even if it is a little hammy. Scrooge is just loving his moment, being the toast of the dinner...even though he isn't really there.
After Scrooge looking like he's thanked God for this, we're swept away into the next scene, at his nephew Fred's house, where there is another sign which says "A Merry Xmas" which...was Xmas a thing back then? Honestly I thought it was a recent thing in dealing with cultural sensitivity around Christmas and it's apparent prominence over other religious holidays that take place at the same time. Maybe there was a specific sensitivity at the time or maybe sign makers just got lazy, I don't know.
In Fred's house, they start their toast to Scrooge at the same time he and Marley's ghost pop onto the screen, almost as if it was meant to look like an accident, Fred and the others at the table do the world's fastest toast, Scrooge and Marley fade out and that's the scene. Apparently Fred didn't deserve as much screen time as Bob.
Next comes the best part of any version of A Christmas Carol adaptation, "Scene IV The Christmas That Might Be Marley's ghost shows Scrooge his own Grave and the death of 'Tiny Tim.'" Could have given us a spoiler warning pal, some of us haven't read the book. That weird white body thing is also floating around in the background of this title card again which is weird because it wasn't there for the last one. The scene itself opens up with a man walking across Scrooges grave, which is engraved with just his name. The man is then followed by Marley's ghost who is finding the need for that sheet in the cold wintery snowy graveyard. Scrooge walks onto the screen begging and praying and falling to his knees in anguish, he begins to cry and then the film ends.
This is the longest version I could find and apparently it must have been longer but for whatever reason, the rest is no longer available. It's quite a nice film and for the time period, it's really good. Even without speech you can follow the story which is fairly simple. Honestly, if you think you've seen all the incarnations of A Christmas Carol, you probably haven't because you probably didn't know this one existed. I'll leave a link so you can watch it and be amazed at the earliest known version of A Christmas Carol on film.
Scrooge (Or Marley's Ghost)
Anyway, that's it for today. Enjoy your day, peace and love to you all and may God bless us, every one.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Sunday, 24 December 2017
Deck The Halls
Matthew Broderick sucks but this movie doesn't.
Director: John Whitesell
Writers: Chris Ord
Matt Corman
Don Rhymer
Run time: 1hr 30minutes
Plot: The Finch family get some new neighbours who Steve (Matthew Broderick) sees as a threat to his perfect Christmas plans, especially when Buddy (Danny DeVito) decides he wants to be recognised for something.
Did you ever watch the live action version of How The Grinch Stole Christmas? Of course you have, for some reason that one is a classic staple of everyone's Christmas movie list, that's beside the point. Do you remember the scene where Martha May Whovier (Christine Baranski) is absolutely just one-upping Betty Lou Who (Molly Shannon)'s Christmas lights? So did the writers of this film. They remembered how truly hilarious that scene was, wrote a script around the idea and thought that this hilarity should be fronted by Matthew Broderick and Danny DeVito. Now I'm not a huge fan of Broderick, he's just boring to watch and hi voice does my head in, and I've got nothing against Danny DeVito, I'm just not a fan of his stuff, but this film actually isn't all that bad. If I'm flicking through the channels and I see it, I put it on. It's a fun little film, even if it is full of problems. What are the problems I don't hear you ask? I'm gonna tell you.
First problem, and it's a big one. There is only one person that cares about what's going on, and he's made out to be a complete dick, that guy, is Broderick. The film acts like he's being unreasonable about all these lights being shone at all hours but...he's not. He's an eye doctor, that shit's important, and if you blind your town's eye doctor 'cause you want to be seen from space, then who's the real loser here? Also, if you're constantly blasting out shit loads of light, you can damage people's sleep cycles, you can really mess with the birds and other night animals which is just fucking selfish, Personally, I don't care if you mess with other peoples sleep cycles (unless they're the few people I love in my life, obviously), but if you fuck up an animals sleep cycle, you're in the bad books kidda. I hate to say this, but I'm definitely on Brodericks side with this, don't be fucking obnoxious in the pursuit of someone elses dream.
Another problem, some of the humour just falls flat, it's either predictable or jokes don't land like, for example; the Finch's young son, Carter (Dylan Blue) is looking at an almost naked painting of Tia Hall (Kristin Chenoweth) from back when she was a model for live painting. Tia says something along the lines of "I was just so sick of dating boys" then waves her hand at Carter saying "no offence". I get that it's supposed to be a cute little joke but...it's not funny. There's another joke where the daughters from both families are doing a performance at the winter festival, a la Mean Girls, and Broderick and DeVito are just catcalling their daughters, shouting "Who's your daddy" at them. They turn around and of course the joke is the guys are their daddies. Hahahaha catcalling your daughter is hilarious. Comedy gold people, comedy gold.
Also, DeVito's character Buddy, what a stupid name by the way, is a complete dick. I really hate this kind of character in live action films, in animation it doesn't bother me as much because it's not as tied to reality, you don't see Mickey Mouse providing for a family and paying the mortgage do you? No, 'cause he's gotta teach those kids morals, so the follow your dream narrative is fine in a cartoon because it encourages kids to follow their passions and set kids up for the fall into the abyss that is adulthood. In a live action comedy, targeted mostly towards adults, this sort of behaviour doesn't fly. He decides that his family can survive off the attention the fairy lights are getting him, he gives up his job and does increasingly stupid things to spite his neighbour. It's a wonder his wife even went back to him after he pawned one of her most treasured posessions. If my boyfriend sold off one of my mum's rings, my dad's chain or hell, even got rid of little Ted, he'd be gone forever. Wouldn't have it, and Tia shouldn't have stuck around when he sold off her grandmothers vase. Maybe I'm just a bitch and won't take any shit from anyone but, that's just me, I couldn't forgive something like that, maybe she could with the spirit of Christmas in her heart and such.
Onto the good stuff now, the title is hilarious to me. Deck The Halls? Let me explain if you're not seeing what I think is so funny. There's the obvious meaning behind it, deck the halls, decorating the houses, the main characters are called the Halls, it's cute. What's cracking me up is the fact that "deck" is a word used for multiple things; wooden patio, a part of a boat, knocking someone out. Yeah, not in keeping with the Christmas spirit but in at least the North of England it means to knock someone out. So Deck the Hall's makes a pretty funny title considering all Steve wants to do is knock them out. I find it funny.
Another good thing is that it's not too full on with the message of Christmas which, y'know, it's not suble by any means, but it's nicely slid in there. It gets a little bit too tedious when Christmas films try to shove the message down your throat, when you can do that yourself at Christmas dinner. It's just a good thing.
The rest of...everything is pretty pedestrian, typical "neighbours at war" story but with a Christmas message. It's a good film though, I know I've not sung its praises or anything spectacular but that's because the film itself isn't anything spectacular. Should give it a watch though, it's on Netflix for the Christmas season which...is very short at this point, however you should still watch it, if you've not already.
Anyway, peace out, stay warm, stay hydrated, see you soon.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: John Whitesell
Writers: Chris Ord
Matt Corman
Don Rhymer
Run time: 1hr 30minutes
Plot: The Finch family get some new neighbours who Steve (Matthew Broderick) sees as a threat to his perfect Christmas plans, especially when Buddy (Danny DeVito) decides he wants to be recognised for something.
Did you ever watch the live action version of How The Grinch Stole Christmas? Of course you have, for some reason that one is a classic staple of everyone's Christmas movie list, that's beside the point. Do you remember the scene where Martha May Whovier (Christine Baranski) is absolutely just one-upping Betty Lou Who (Molly Shannon)'s Christmas lights? So did the writers of this film. They remembered how truly hilarious that scene was, wrote a script around the idea and thought that this hilarity should be fronted by Matthew Broderick and Danny DeVito. Now I'm not a huge fan of Broderick, he's just boring to watch and hi voice does my head in, and I've got nothing against Danny DeVito, I'm just not a fan of his stuff, but this film actually isn't all that bad. If I'm flicking through the channels and I see it, I put it on. It's a fun little film, even if it is full of problems. What are the problems I don't hear you ask? I'm gonna tell you.
First problem, and it's a big one. There is only one person that cares about what's going on, and he's made out to be a complete dick, that guy, is Broderick. The film acts like he's being unreasonable about all these lights being shone at all hours but...he's not. He's an eye doctor, that shit's important, and if you blind your town's eye doctor 'cause you want to be seen from space, then who's the real loser here? Also, if you're constantly blasting out shit loads of light, you can damage people's sleep cycles, you can really mess with the birds and other night animals which is just fucking selfish, Personally, I don't care if you mess with other peoples sleep cycles (unless they're the few people I love in my life, obviously), but if you fuck up an animals sleep cycle, you're in the bad books kidda. I hate to say this, but I'm definitely on Brodericks side with this, don't be fucking obnoxious in the pursuit of someone elses dream.
Another problem, some of the humour just falls flat, it's either predictable or jokes don't land like, for example; the Finch's young son, Carter (Dylan Blue) is looking at an almost naked painting of Tia Hall (Kristin Chenoweth) from back when she was a model for live painting. Tia says something along the lines of "I was just so sick of dating boys" then waves her hand at Carter saying "no offence". I get that it's supposed to be a cute little joke but...it's not funny. There's another joke where the daughters from both families are doing a performance at the winter festival, a la Mean Girls, and Broderick and DeVito are just catcalling their daughters, shouting "Who's your daddy" at them. They turn around and of course the joke is the guys are their daddies. Hahahaha catcalling your daughter is hilarious. Comedy gold people, comedy gold.
Also, DeVito's character Buddy, what a stupid name by the way, is a complete dick. I really hate this kind of character in live action films, in animation it doesn't bother me as much because it's not as tied to reality, you don't see Mickey Mouse providing for a family and paying the mortgage do you? No, 'cause he's gotta teach those kids morals, so the follow your dream narrative is fine in a cartoon because it encourages kids to follow their passions and set kids up for the fall into the abyss that is adulthood. In a live action comedy, targeted mostly towards adults, this sort of behaviour doesn't fly. He decides that his family can survive off the attention the fairy lights are getting him, he gives up his job and does increasingly stupid things to spite his neighbour. It's a wonder his wife even went back to him after he pawned one of her most treasured posessions. If my boyfriend sold off one of my mum's rings, my dad's chain or hell, even got rid of little Ted, he'd be gone forever. Wouldn't have it, and Tia shouldn't have stuck around when he sold off her grandmothers vase. Maybe I'm just a bitch and won't take any shit from anyone but, that's just me, I couldn't forgive something like that, maybe she could with the spirit of Christmas in her heart and such.
Onto the good stuff now, the title is hilarious to me. Deck The Halls? Let me explain if you're not seeing what I think is so funny. There's the obvious meaning behind it, deck the halls, decorating the houses, the main characters are called the Halls, it's cute. What's cracking me up is the fact that "deck" is a word used for multiple things; wooden patio, a part of a boat, knocking someone out. Yeah, not in keeping with the Christmas spirit but in at least the North of England it means to knock someone out. So Deck the Hall's makes a pretty funny title considering all Steve wants to do is knock them out. I find it funny.
Another good thing is that it's not too full on with the message of Christmas which, y'know, it's not suble by any means, but it's nicely slid in there. It gets a little bit too tedious when Christmas films try to shove the message down your throat, when you can do that yourself at Christmas dinner. It's just a good thing.
The rest of...everything is pretty pedestrian, typical "neighbours at war" story but with a Christmas message. It's a good film though, I know I've not sung its praises or anything spectacular but that's because the film itself isn't anything spectacular. Should give it a watch though, it's on Netflix for the Christmas season which...is very short at this point, however you should still watch it, if you've not already.
Anyway, peace out, stay warm, stay hydrated, see you soon.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Friday, 22 December 2017
Scrooged
A more cynical telling of A Christmas Carol
Director: Richard Donner
Writers: Mitch Glazer
Michael O'Donoghue
Runtime: 1hr 41 minutes
Plot: A TV Exec, who lives a parrallelI(ish) life to Ebenezer Scrooge, goes through a similar experience with the three ghosts.
I really like this movie. It's dark, it's funny, it's Bill Murray, it's a Dickens classic all dressed up for the modern world, it's just good. I don't know how else to praise it except for going into it so...here we go.
Let's get the bad out of the way first. There is a moment towards the end of the Ghost Of Christmas Present segment, where Frank (Murray) has come back after his experience with the Ghost of Christmas Past and is on his way down to see how the rehearsals are going for his show. This isn't just any rehearsal mind, it's the final dress rehearsal for a live TV performance. That's a stressful rehearsal, it's got to be perfect so that the people behind the scenes can feel comfortable that what they're putting out there is good. Now then, before Frank comes into the scene, we see how the rehearsal starts off. First with the words "Last dress rehearsal guys", then with the man playing Scrooge getting stuck on one of his lines and breaking character. BIG ol' no no. Don't do that in your last dress rehearsal. What happens after this? The cast is rewarded with an hours lunch. When this happened I just paused the film for a moment and thought "is this real life?" Is this really what writers think final dress rehearsals are? You fuck up a line and you get an hours break? No honey. In my experience with final dress rehearsals (I've not done any for TV but I've done for stage), you get your lunch when the final rehearsal is done. You mess up a line, you carry the hell on, you don't get lunch 'til your final run through is done. I don't know if they did things like this in the 80's but...I don't know, it just sounds weird to be that laid back.
Looking back on my notes, that's the only negative thing I wrote down worth making a point of, the rest are just easy jokes and aren't even that bad.
With that said, onto the good stuff, which amazingly, also has very few notes.
First good thing, the transitions between Frank and the ghosts in wherever they are and then Frank back in the real world are really good. They flow really well with the final moment of the previous scene and the start of the current one which...transitions should do really, but here they're almost flawless. Almost, because nothing is perfect, even in 80's Christmas.
Another cool thing is that the names aren't the same as the classic characters and I can think of two immediate reasons why. One, because in this universe, the story of A Christmas Carol already exists, it'd be a little too obvious to have your main character, who loves an almsot parrallel life to Scrooge, be named something similar. It's just easier to go with the classic Frank than...Edward or something. The other reason, so that you can separate this version from A Christmas Carol. Don't get me wrong, this is still a variation of the classic story, however, it's a very cynical version of the story and, honestly, I don't know how dark the original material is but everyone sees this as a warm story in which a man sees the error of his ways and comes to love Christmas as a time for Joy. This film kind of goes the same route, just not as family friendly, even with Bill Murray leading it. There are sex jokes, there are jokes about the temper of the Ghost of Christmas Present, there's a man holding a gun on an entire room to help Frank reinforce the ideals of Christmas. It's great.
Finally, I want to talk about the ghosts. They're not the classic versions of themselves and that's good, helps the film get more of its own identity rather than someone just going "oh the past ghost is a calm and patient being" "oh the present ghost is someone who just adores christmas" "well well well would ya look at that, the Ghost of Christmas future is dressed like death". The ghosts in this film seem to reflect Frank's experiences with people in the time periods he sees them in.
The first ghost, the Ghost of Christmas Past (David Johansen) is a very rough, New York taxi driver, in a reflection of his childhood and his father. His father was a dick and if you disregard the jokes about a 4 year old being unable to get a job...
Franks mother: Earl, he's only 4 years old
Franks father: All day long, I listen to people give excuses why they can't work. "My back hurts" "my legs ache" "I'm only 4"
This guy's a real dick, just how many people would see a New York taxi driver, looking the way he does, that's what you assume of him.
The next ghost, the Ghost of Christmas Present is hilarious in her representation. She represents the idea of Christmas hitting you in the face with it's happiness and love and joy and I know that happiness and joy are basically the same thing but she's just double happy. I wrote down in my notes that she was the "Ghost of Christmas abuse" which...really, Christmas is pretty abusive. Don't get me wrong, I was listening to Jingle Bell Rock back in August, I love Christmas, but the second it turns 00:00 on November first, Christmas is everywhere it gets fucking exhausting. There's just so much of it everywhere and it can feel like if you try to escape it, you get a slap from all the decorations or marketing people.
Finally, there's the ghost of Christmas Future. There's a scene after Frank gets dropped by the Ghost of Christmas Present and he almost immediately sees the costume of the Ghost of Christmas Future for the live show and has a bit of a breakdown, more than he already is. Which then transitions into him going into the elevator and coming across the actual ghost, who is dressed in a similar way. The costuming looks cheap but I promise it isn't. It's actually pretty clever, he's literally just seen something that scared him and because the future is uncertain, and the Ghost of Christmas Future is generally ambiguous due to the fact of it being uncertain. This being took the form that scared him the most and decided to take that form and run with it, scare the hell out of him and do what needs to be done.
That last paragraph felt like it should have been in an English exam, wow. Anyway, I really like this film, it's funny enough and dark enough for me to want to watch it again, probably if nothing else is on or if I'm just lounging about and bored. That does happen a lot though. So I'll probably watch this a lot over the next week or so.
Anyway, that's it for today, should get on it, it's on Netflix for now, I guess it will probably stop being on there after the Christmas period so go on. Peace out, stay hydrated kids. Have fun, love you. Bye.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Richard Donner
Writers: Mitch Glazer
Michael O'Donoghue
Runtime: 1hr 41 minutes
Plot: A TV Exec, who lives a parrallelI(ish) life to Ebenezer Scrooge, goes through a similar experience with the three ghosts.
I really like this movie. It's dark, it's funny, it's Bill Murray, it's a Dickens classic all dressed up for the modern world, it's just good. I don't know how else to praise it except for going into it so...here we go.
Let's get the bad out of the way first. There is a moment towards the end of the Ghost Of Christmas Present segment, where Frank (Murray) has come back after his experience with the Ghost of Christmas Past and is on his way down to see how the rehearsals are going for his show. This isn't just any rehearsal mind, it's the final dress rehearsal for a live TV performance. That's a stressful rehearsal, it's got to be perfect so that the people behind the scenes can feel comfortable that what they're putting out there is good. Now then, before Frank comes into the scene, we see how the rehearsal starts off. First with the words "Last dress rehearsal guys", then with the man playing Scrooge getting stuck on one of his lines and breaking character. BIG ol' no no. Don't do that in your last dress rehearsal. What happens after this? The cast is rewarded with an hours lunch. When this happened I just paused the film for a moment and thought "is this real life?" Is this really what writers think final dress rehearsals are? You fuck up a line and you get an hours break? No honey. In my experience with final dress rehearsals (I've not done any for TV but I've done for stage), you get your lunch when the final rehearsal is done. You mess up a line, you carry the hell on, you don't get lunch 'til your final run through is done. I don't know if they did things like this in the 80's but...I don't know, it just sounds weird to be that laid back.
Looking back on my notes, that's the only negative thing I wrote down worth making a point of, the rest are just easy jokes and aren't even that bad.
With that said, onto the good stuff, which amazingly, also has very few notes.
First good thing, the transitions between Frank and the ghosts in wherever they are and then Frank back in the real world are really good. They flow really well with the final moment of the previous scene and the start of the current one which...transitions should do really, but here they're almost flawless. Almost, because nothing is perfect, even in 80's Christmas.
Another cool thing is that the names aren't the same as the classic characters and I can think of two immediate reasons why. One, because in this universe, the story of A Christmas Carol already exists, it'd be a little too obvious to have your main character, who loves an almsot parrallel life to Scrooge, be named something similar. It's just easier to go with the classic Frank than...Edward or something. The other reason, so that you can separate this version from A Christmas Carol. Don't get me wrong, this is still a variation of the classic story, however, it's a very cynical version of the story and, honestly, I don't know how dark the original material is but everyone sees this as a warm story in which a man sees the error of his ways and comes to love Christmas as a time for Joy. This film kind of goes the same route, just not as family friendly, even with Bill Murray leading it. There are sex jokes, there are jokes about the temper of the Ghost of Christmas Present, there's a man holding a gun on an entire room to help Frank reinforce the ideals of Christmas. It's great.
Finally, I want to talk about the ghosts. They're not the classic versions of themselves and that's good, helps the film get more of its own identity rather than someone just going "oh the past ghost is a calm and patient being" "oh the present ghost is someone who just adores christmas" "well well well would ya look at that, the Ghost of Christmas future is dressed like death". The ghosts in this film seem to reflect Frank's experiences with people in the time periods he sees them in.
The first ghost, the Ghost of Christmas Past (David Johansen) is a very rough, New York taxi driver, in a reflection of his childhood and his father. His father was a dick and if you disregard the jokes about a 4 year old being unable to get a job...
Franks mother: Earl, he's only 4 years old
Franks father: All day long, I listen to people give excuses why they can't work. "My back hurts" "my legs ache" "I'm only 4"
This guy's a real dick, just how many people would see a New York taxi driver, looking the way he does, that's what you assume of him.
The next ghost, the Ghost of Christmas Present is hilarious in her representation. She represents the idea of Christmas hitting you in the face with it's happiness and love and joy and I know that happiness and joy are basically the same thing but she's just double happy. I wrote down in my notes that she was the "Ghost of Christmas abuse" which...really, Christmas is pretty abusive. Don't get me wrong, I was listening to Jingle Bell Rock back in August, I love Christmas, but the second it turns 00:00 on November first, Christmas is everywhere it gets fucking exhausting. There's just so much of it everywhere and it can feel like if you try to escape it, you get a slap from all the decorations or marketing people.
Finally, there's the ghost of Christmas Future. There's a scene after Frank gets dropped by the Ghost of Christmas Present and he almost immediately sees the costume of the Ghost of Christmas Future for the live show and has a bit of a breakdown, more than he already is. Which then transitions into him going into the elevator and coming across the actual ghost, who is dressed in a similar way. The costuming looks cheap but I promise it isn't. It's actually pretty clever, he's literally just seen something that scared him and because the future is uncertain, and the Ghost of Christmas Future is generally ambiguous due to the fact of it being uncertain. This being took the form that scared him the most and decided to take that form and run with it, scare the hell out of him and do what needs to be done.
That last paragraph felt like it should have been in an English exam, wow. Anyway, I really like this film, it's funny enough and dark enough for me to want to watch it again, probably if nothing else is on or if I'm just lounging about and bored. That does happen a lot though. So I'll probably watch this a lot over the next week or so.
Anyway, that's it for today, should get on it, it's on Netflix for now, I guess it will probably stop being on there after the Christmas period so go on. Peace out, stay hydrated kids. Have fun, love you. Bye.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Monday, 18 December 2017
Christmas!!
It's Christmas time guys and that means Christmas films.
Over this month I've not had any way of being able to post anything, my laptop has been getting fixed and the computers at uni are terrible. The whole atmosphere in that library is terrible and I just can't focus there. I recently had an essay and my friend was an absolute star in letting me use her laptop to do it, so I'm using her laptop to the fullest potential and blasting out all my December work.
I really am sorry I've not been able to get anything out but hopefully I'll get my laptop back by January and I can carry on as normal.
So the films I've got notes for this month and will post over the coming couple of weeks are...
Deck The Halls
Scrooged
Four Christmasses
Scrooge (Or Marley's Ghost)
The Nightmare Before Christmas
I'll see you guys soon then, peace out, stay hydrated, and stay warm.
Over this month I've not had any way of being able to post anything, my laptop has been getting fixed and the computers at uni are terrible. The whole atmosphere in that library is terrible and I just can't focus there. I recently had an essay and my friend was an absolute star in letting me use her laptop to do it, so I'm using her laptop to the fullest potential and blasting out all my December work.
I really am sorry I've not been able to get anything out but hopefully I'll get my laptop back by January and I can carry on as normal.
So the films I've got notes for this month and will post over the coming couple of weeks are...
Deck The Halls
Scrooged
Four Christmasses
Scrooge (Or Marley's Ghost)
The Nightmare Before Christmas
I'll see you guys soon then, peace out, stay hydrated, and stay warm.
Thursday, 23 November 2017
Hush
This is a fucking sick film!
Director: Mike Flanagan
Director: Mike Flanagan
Writers: Mike
Flanagan
Kate Siegal
Run time: 1hr
12minutes
Plot: A deaf woman
finds herself trapped in her secluded home, fighting for her life with a manic
trying to kill her.
Important issues first, there is a cute little cat in this
film but don’t you worry, it’s ok, it survives to the end so if you watch this
film after you’ve read this review then you won’t have a mini heart attack.
With that out of the way, let’s get to the other important thing here, the
film. Hush is in the critically acclaimed section of Netflix, and rightfully
so, it’s pretty damn good and is the film that spawned my love for John
Gallagher Jr. I may have mentioned before that I love this guy but I’m not
sure, either way I love this guy. He’s a good actor and it sucks that he’s not
in the mainstream eye all that much. Then again if he’s doing smaller films
like this maybe it’s best he stays out of the big ol’ spotlight. Besides the
point. The point is, this is a great film and I’m gonna tell you why.
It’s an almost silent film. How can nobody appreciate that?
It’s rare as hell, in fact the only thing I’ve seen lately that’s a quiet /
silent film and that’s the upcoming Emily Blunt and John Kraninski film (name
of movie here). The only thing you can hear in this is Maddie’s (Kate Siegel)
breath, the sounds being made around the house and John Gallagher Jr talking
every now and then. The almost absence of sound absolutely draws you in. You’re
listening out for Maddie as if you could help her and tell her where this
psycho is. You’re listening out for everything for her because...honestly
there’s no boring dialogue to sit through, no overly talked out exposition
giving us the characters backstory, their grandmothers backstory and a random
rocks ancestry. It’s a nice break. Genuinely.
Another pretty cool thing to do with this film was to make
the main character deaf. Everybody’s always talking about representation for
everybody and this is a damn good representation of a woman who will not be
held back by her inability to speak or hear. There are some crazy things this
girl does which is dumb but I won’t hold it against her because she’s a fucking
badass. At one point guys, she’s been shot in the leg with an arrow and she
carries the fuck on. Later on in the film she dips into her hole in her leg,
gathers some blood on her finger and writes on the window, daring her tormentor
to kill her, calling him a coward. If she’s not a character to look up to then
I got no idea who is.
"The Man" is also the smartest killer I've seen in
a long time in film. At one point, Maddie writes on her window that she won't
tell the police because she didn't see his face. So what does he do? He takes
his mask off and tells her that he's going to mentally torture her until he can
be bothered killing her. I love it. And his motives are never explained which
is the best thing about the character. It's scarier to leave things to the
imagination. It's scarier to believe that he's just doing it because he can,
not because he had a messed up childhood or whatever it is that films blame the
development of murderers on.
Finally, and this is my absolute favourite thing about the
film is that it's so realistic. You know how in horror films, if you've seen enough
of them, you're complaining that the characters are always doing the exact
wrong thing so that they don't get caught? Well in this, Maddie thinks through
her options, she tries her best to work out the best way to get herself out of
the situation. There are a few things that do mean she's following the ways of
the normal horror films, however, she still manages to come out the better
horror heroine.
As much as I've had to say praising this film, it does have
its drawbacks which, thankfully, there aren't many of.
First of all, the acting in this film is fantastic, I love
it...from almost everybody. Emma Graves who plays Maddie's sister, Max is
terrible. She's just so wooden in this and it's almost like she just doesn't
care because her role is filmed over a webcam rather than right in front of the
cameras. I don't know if this was her first film or not but hopefully, if she's
been in anything else she's gotten better.
Another thing that goes against the film is just general
things such as getting shot in the leg with an arrow and bending your legs back
to lie down. Then taking the arrow out of your leg while it's bent. Problem 1
with this, you probably wouldn't bend like that if you had just been
cross-bowed in the thigh. Problem 2, common sense dictates there is more risk
pulling out the arrow than keeping it in your leg, you could rip an artery
leading to a faster death, you could make the injury worse, if there was poison
on the tip you could risk moving it around your system faster than you would
just keeping the damned thing in your leg. Problem 3, if you do decide to take
out the arrow, don't take it out while your leg is bent in a way that would
push all your blood out.
Finally, there's a moment where Maddie tries to get the cat
to come to her by rattling the cats food. Fair enough right? My cat comes
bounding out of nowhere if he even hears me go to the kitchen. Problem being
she continually moves away from the cats eating place and from what I've seen
in cats, they hear their food they go to where their food usually is. They
won't play "find the dish" they'll sit there yelling at you like a
petulant toddler until they get their food. So in Maddie wandering about, she could
be losing the cat easily.
The absolute worst thing about the film, however, is that
Maddie names her cat Bitch. Poor baby, although I suppose it's a better name
than Shits (The real name of the cat my friend used to have until she recently
passed away. The cat not the friend.)
Anyway, that's it for today. This film is pretty fucking
cool and I love it and you should watch it and love it too. Pretty much
everything works in the films advantage and it's just so tense to watch this
deaf woman with basically no sensory or physical advantage take on a maniac who
is just determined to kill her. It's a great watch and it's back up on Netflix
in the Critically Acclaimed section so you go ahead and watch it. Stay hydrated
and have a lovely day. Peace out.
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Thursday, 16 November 2017
What do we know about the Fantastic Beasts Sequel?
It's officially out there, Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them has its sequel release date and a name and people into Harry Potter are going crazy for it, myself included. I'm already planning to get the 16th of November next year off from whatever I'm doing that day to go to the cinema and watch the hell out of it.
So what do we know?
We know it's not about the animals, the first one wasn't about the animals and that was quite upsetting, but this time it seems to be a lot more about the OG dark wizard, Grindelwald, played disappointingly by Johnny Depp. Hopefully, Depp can step his game up because from what I've seen him do in recent years in regards to his acting, he's not 100% been giving his all. If he does step it up then this is going to be interesting as hell because who wouldn't want to know about this guy in a film titled Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald.
We know who's going to be playing young Dumbledore and that honour goes to Jude Law who I've not seen in a lot of things so I can't really comment on the acting ability for this role. However, he definitely looks the part and if his looks are anything to go by for his ability to play Dumbledore then he's gonna be fine.
Eddie Redmayne along with Katherine Waterson, Alison Sudol and Dan Fogler will return as their respective roles which is awesome because even though I adore Eddie Redmayne and he can do no wrong in my eyes (as an actor obviously) Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as Jacob and Queenie are the cutest couple in current cinema and I'm so happy they're coming back so we can watch their relationship grow. (Hopefully). All I want now is for Colin Firth to come back and we got a good wholesome team.
All I've wanted since I first finished watching Fantastic Beasts, is for Ezra Miller to come back as Credence Barebone and honestly, even though the characters death looked fairly...final, I could see a way for him to come back. And it looks like he will come back. Yeah, according to an article by BookBub at least. If this is true I may cry. I loved Credence as a fairly developed character for how little screen time he got and I absolutely fell in love with Ezra Miller portraying the character.
Of course, there will be some little acknowledgements to the original Harry Potter films, this story predates that one so some "historical" things mentioned in the Potter series will possibly be part of the storyline or any future storyline. It'll be cool to find out some stuff in more detail, even if it's just more evidence that Dumbledore is a terrible, terrible character who shouldn't be admired in the slightest.
There were originally only 3 films planned for this series but now it looks to be 5 which...you know is great, and would be fantastic if the films were named in relation to the plot or if the plot had anything to do with the title. It seems to me that the Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them will definitely be more focused on the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald but, why? My guess is that there was a plan to have it be mostly centred around Newt Scamander and him finding these animals and trying to work them out and being all over adorable. But it's now not, and I get that the story of Grindelwald is way more interesting but it's one of those things, can't change the name now can you? No, you're stuck with finding beasts and trying to make it a metaphor for finding the beasts in your life and battling them. I'm onto you Warner Brothers, I see what's going on.
We now also know that this won't be a direct follow on from the previous film as J.K. Rowling has already confirmed on Twitter. We know it won't jump as far as 1945 because we all know that's when Dumbledore finally defeats Grindelwald so unless I was wrong about the title of the series and the plot not matching up then we can safely assume it'll take place way before that date.
The film won't just be set in America either, in fact it will jump around from London to Paris to possibly anywhere else in the world which will be cool. I mean, seeing other magical communities? Seeing which countries may or may not have them like England does? I just hope they're careful with it because too much jumping around leads to exhaustion and nobody wants to be exhausted watching a film.
Anyway, if I get more information on this I might do another post, I mean, it's fresh information and new things will be coming out pretty fast. Either way, I'm so super excited for the information we have now, the new information to come and obviously to binge watch everything again before going to see this about 40 times at the cinema. So cast aguamenti and stay hydrated kids, peace out.
So what do we know?
We know it's not about the animals, the first one wasn't about the animals and that was quite upsetting, but this time it seems to be a lot more about the OG dark wizard, Grindelwald, played disappointingly by Johnny Depp. Hopefully, Depp can step his game up because from what I've seen him do in recent years in regards to his acting, he's not 100% been giving his all. If he does step it up then this is going to be interesting as hell because who wouldn't want to know about this guy in a film titled Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald.
We know who's going to be playing young Dumbledore and that honour goes to Jude Law who I've not seen in a lot of things so I can't really comment on the acting ability for this role. However, he definitely looks the part and if his looks are anything to go by for his ability to play Dumbledore then he's gonna be fine.
Eddie Redmayne along with Katherine Waterson, Alison Sudol and Dan Fogler will return as their respective roles which is awesome because even though I adore Eddie Redmayne and he can do no wrong in my eyes (as an actor obviously) Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as Jacob and Queenie are the cutest couple in current cinema and I'm so happy they're coming back so we can watch their relationship grow. (Hopefully). All I want now is for Colin Firth to come back and we got a good wholesome team.
All I've wanted since I first finished watching Fantastic Beasts, is for Ezra Miller to come back as Credence Barebone and honestly, even though the characters death looked fairly...final, I could see a way for him to come back. And it looks like he will come back. Yeah, according to an article by BookBub at least. If this is true I may cry. I loved Credence as a fairly developed character for how little screen time he got and I absolutely fell in love with Ezra Miller portraying the character.
Of course, there will be some little acknowledgements to the original Harry Potter films, this story predates that one so some "historical" things mentioned in the Potter series will possibly be part of the storyline or any future storyline. It'll be cool to find out some stuff in more detail, even if it's just more evidence that Dumbledore is a terrible, terrible character who shouldn't be admired in the slightest.
There were originally only 3 films planned for this series but now it looks to be 5 which...you know is great, and would be fantastic if the films were named in relation to the plot or if the plot had anything to do with the title. It seems to me that the Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them will definitely be more focused on the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald but, why? My guess is that there was a plan to have it be mostly centred around Newt Scamander and him finding these animals and trying to work them out and being all over adorable. But it's now not, and I get that the story of Grindelwald is way more interesting but it's one of those things, can't change the name now can you? No, you're stuck with finding beasts and trying to make it a metaphor for finding the beasts in your life and battling them. I'm onto you Warner Brothers, I see what's going on.
We now also know that this won't be a direct follow on from the previous film as J.K. Rowling has already confirmed on Twitter. We know it won't jump as far as 1945 because we all know that's when Dumbledore finally defeats Grindelwald so unless I was wrong about the title of the series and the plot not matching up then we can safely assume it'll take place way before that date.
The film won't just be set in America either, in fact it will jump around from London to Paris to possibly anywhere else in the world which will be cool. I mean, seeing other magical communities? Seeing which countries may or may not have them like England does? I just hope they're careful with it because too much jumping around leads to exhaustion and nobody wants to be exhausted watching a film.
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.
I like this.
Director: Trey Parker
Writers: Trey Parker
Matt Stone
Pam Bradley
Runtime: 1hr 21minutes
Plot: The residents of South Park blame a Canadian R-rated film for their children using foul language. The children shouldn't have been admitted to the R-rated film but it's easier to blame Canada than the actual problem.
What can I even say about this? I mean, it's South Park and it's a film. There are good points and bad points and what the hell points and we're gonna talk about them today.
I'm gonna get the bad out of the way because...there's honestly not that much bad stuff in this really. First off, the animation sucks. I've said this to people before that I couldn't get into South Park for so long because the animation just sucked and it was nothing but, for lack of a better word, shit and unfunny jokes. The film does have terrible animation, both the 2D and CGI does look pretty terrible, over time it has improved, I mean this film came out in 1999 (alongside the absolute masterpiece Wild Wild West) so...the animation wasn't gonna be the best but I'm still not a fan.
That's it, no more negativity here, moving on to the what the hell stuff and there's so much "what the hell" in this. First off, there's a scene where Kenny is getting some sort of medical help after lighting himself on fire, the George Clooney Doctor (formerly George Clooney as Stan's gay dog) goes to put Kenny's heart in the microwave and there's already a spud in there which...is funny but why the hell is there a microwave in an operating theatre, why was there an uncooked spud in it? I dunno, just kinda messes with me. Another thing is the amount of fucks this film gives. Don't get me wrong, I love swearing, it's probably my favourite past time, love it, love all swears and apparently so does this film with 146 fucks given. Yeah, 146. I couldn't do that in a day...maybe 130 if I get up early but my lazy ass ain't gonna do that.
Finally, for a "what the hell" thing, you find yourself strangely rooting for Satan...not that plenty of people already do these days. Can you say Tories are still in power? Grim. But yeah, Satan is clearly in a relationship with Sadam Hussein that's definitely one sided and you just want him to get out. You root for Satan to get his ass out of this abusive relationship and it's just such a weird position to be in but...depending on each individual person's perspective of what they see in that, can probably speak volumes about the kind of person they are. If they think Satan should stay with Sadam who is just using him for his own gain because it's Satan and Satan's evil, get that person out ya life. (Don't listen to me, I'm not an authority figure on this subject.)
And now for the good stuff. The whole story and message in it is just great. If your kid manages to sneak into an R rated film that they're too young to see and picks up some language that you don't want them speaking, take it up with the cinema, or the kids or whatever. Do not blame the film makers because...it's not their job to protect your kids and stop them seeing films that weren't intended for them anyway. In an extreme situation like in this film, it could start a war. I like it because...it's so obvious and yet people don't think to blame the place where these kids saw these films, they blame the people who made it which is just so dumb.
This is also a musical which I love, I don't know why they decided to make this a musical and some of the songs are a bit bleh but that doesn't really take anything away from they story or the viewing experience or anything like that so it's all good. In fact, a couple of my favourite songs from this are Blame Canada (Academy Award nominated by the way), It's easy m'kay, and La Resistance. Also, while I was looking up the titles for these songs, I found out RuPaul sang Super which...I never would have guessed y'know?
Alright well...that's it, I wrote it longer before but I didn't save it and I just fucking suck so I'll just leave you with that because I don't remember what I wrote. I'm sorry. I will do better. Thank you for being patient. I'm gonna leave you with that and also a link to my absolute favourite scene in the film. Peace out, stay hydrated guys.
Kick the baby
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Director: Trey Parker
Writers: Trey Parker
Matt Stone
Pam Bradley
Runtime: 1hr 21minutes
Plot: The residents of South Park blame a Canadian R-rated film for their children using foul language. The children shouldn't have been admitted to the R-rated film but it's easier to blame Canada than the actual problem.
What can I even say about this? I mean, it's South Park and it's a film. There are good points and bad points and what the hell points and we're gonna talk about them today.
I'm gonna get the bad out of the way because...there's honestly not that much bad stuff in this really. First off, the animation sucks. I've said this to people before that I couldn't get into South Park for so long because the animation just sucked and it was nothing but, for lack of a better word, shit and unfunny jokes. The film does have terrible animation, both the 2D and CGI does look pretty terrible, over time it has improved, I mean this film came out in 1999 (alongside the absolute masterpiece Wild Wild West) so...the animation wasn't gonna be the best but I'm still not a fan.
That's it, no more negativity here, moving on to the what the hell stuff and there's so much "what the hell" in this. First off, there's a scene where Kenny is getting some sort of medical help after lighting himself on fire, the George Clooney Doctor (formerly George Clooney as Stan's gay dog) goes to put Kenny's heart in the microwave and there's already a spud in there which...is funny but why the hell is there a microwave in an operating theatre, why was there an uncooked spud in it? I dunno, just kinda messes with me. Another thing is the amount of fucks this film gives. Don't get me wrong, I love swearing, it's probably my favourite past time, love it, love all swears and apparently so does this film with 146 fucks given. Yeah, 146. I couldn't do that in a day...maybe 130 if I get up early but my lazy ass ain't gonna do that.
Finally, for a "what the hell" thing, you find yourself strangely rooting for Satan...not that plenty of people already do these days. Can you say Tories are still in power? Grim. But yeah, Satan is clearly in a relationship with Sadam Hussein that's definitely one sided and you just want him to get out. You root for Satan to get his ass out of this abusive relationship and it's just such a weird position to be in but...depending on each individual person's perspective of what they see in that, can probably speak volumes about the kind of person they are. If they think Satan should stay with Sadam who is just using him for his own gain because it's Satan and Satan's evil, get that person out ya life. (Don't listen to me, I'm not an authority figure on this subject.)
And now for the good stuff. The whole story and message in it is just great. If your kid manages to sneak into an R rated film that they're too young to see and picks up some language that you don't want them speaking, take it up with the cinema, or the kids or whatever. Do not blame the film makers because...it's not their job to protect your kids and stop them seeing films that weren't intended for them anyway. In an extreme situation like in this film, it could start a war. I like it because...it's so obvious and yet people don't think to blame the place where these kids saw these films, they blame the people who made it which is just so dumb.
This is also a musical which I love, I don't know why they decided to make this a musical and some of the songs are a bit bleh but that doesn't really take anything away from they story or the viewing experience or anything like that so it's all good. In fact, a couple of my favourite songs from this are Blame Canada (Academy Award nominated by the way), It's easy m'kay, and La Resistance. Also, while I was looking up the titles for these songs, I found out RuPaul sang Super which...I never would have guessed y'know?
Alright well...that's it, I wrote it longer before but I didn't save it and I just fucking suck so I'll just leave you with that because I don't remember what I wrote. I'm sorry. I will do better. Thank you for being patient. I'm gonna leave you with that and also a link to my absolute favourite scene in the film. Peace out, stay hydrated guys.
Kick the baby
This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)