Holy crap, has it really been this long? I mean, seriously, I've been gone for just over two months. TWO MONTHS. I must be ill. This feels awesome to writing random sentences about ridiculous topics that will most likely have no impact whatsoever on the person reading this but hey, we all love random shiz.
To the point people! Lots of stuff has happened in the two months I have neglected this blog. First and most imporantly, I'm moving out. I know right, things move fast. Its closer to Uni and it will mean lots of independance but I really can't wait. I know I'm still young but I feel its time to experience the world on my own than with my mum. Wonder what my dad would say......Oh too soon. Lol, just kidding; he's a twat but I would be intrigued by his thoughts. So, bitches, as of 1st August 2011, I will blogging from the spacial surroundings of my own house with three others. I am mentally preparing myself for the lack of sleep, copious amounts of alcohol, monster hangovers and the lack of any general awareness to reality whatsoever. I will look after myself well. I know I will. Something triggers when I have to look out for myself despite my mother's thoughts. I'm just lazy at heart. But aren't we all?
NEXT!
As a first year student, its important I tried my hardest this year since its only going to be more difficult in the two years ahead. When I passed my English exam, I was thrilled but then we got presented with a topic called Critical Theory for Semester 2. Safe to say, its bollocks. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. I wish it upon no one. It doesn't even have relevance to English per se and I genuinely don't remember picking it as a module. Being the cool cat I am, I didn't play the blame game and attempted to press on. 5 weeks of CT seminars and lectures later, I could take no more. I just didn't go for the remaining weeks like the majority of my Uni friends cause it simply meant nothing to the stuff we studied elsewhere. We hit what we all thought was to prove a stumbling block. A 2500 word essay on a critical assignment of your choice. I chose 'Death of an Author' by Roland Barthes, a French critical theorist who believe me is rather boring. He looks at the aesthetic of language, the value of language and how language is generally meaningless unless given a meaning. Therefore, a word like 'cat' wouldn't have a value if it didn't have the mental image of a cat attached to it. Yeah, I know. You're bored already. Imagine writing 2500 words on this shit. Anyhoo, we all got scared by the impending feedback session. Out of 100, I got 65. I apparently showed my lecturer there was a brain at work, with a decent argument and I did what many others didn't which was to write what the essay was about in the introduction. Surprised is an understatement. I was over the moon.
NEXT!
So, with a house in my name and a somewhat largely successful first attempt at an assignment for a subject that means fuck all to me, I pursued the next venture. My main passion of film and gaming. Too many films have been released in the last two months to talk about but some favourites have emerged. The Aujustment Bureau was a pleasant surprise, Your Highness was generally retarded but good fun, Scream 4 was simply incredible (watch the others to agree with this point of view otherwise you will hate it) and Thor is becoming the film for me to look forward to the most! Bring it Brannagh! I can't wait for the summer as too much stuff is out which brings me to gaming. L.A. Noire is by far the most anticipated game of the year for me. In fact, of the last two years. The moment I heard Rockstar we're producing a game based on the genre of film noir (my favourite film style), I was hooked. I've followed the game's progress for a long time and the new technology that is being made for it is phenomenal. It is literally the future of gaming. Bioware should use it for Mass Effect 3. That would be something. But I got my pre-order in at GAME for L.A. Noire and all the gameplay videos I see only make me want it more. 20th May, midnight opening, I will be there.
NEXT!
An interesting event occured last week involving a music festival and lots of alcohol. This year, since I'm moving out, I'm only going to the Download festival cause I couldn't afford anything else. Imagine my amazement when I get a weekend ticket bought for me to go to Leeds Festival and look after my cousin. Third year in a row for me and all I gotta do is look after my cousin, who by the way, is hardly a year younger and definately taller than me. He can chill with my mates and its honestly always the best time at Braham Park. But DL 2011 will be my highlight since I've never been for the weekend before and its a change of scenary. All my proper best mates are going and I know there will be a) no drama b) lots of general shennanigans involving fun rides c) a zombie ball on the Friday night d) a great line-up of music and e) the most important; the 5 day chill out session I get with my favourite people in the world. They all inspire me, my friends are the greatest. Thinking of life without them is a big ask, so don't do it. Appreciate what you got and live it to its potential.
NEXT!
Last but not least, my band is starting to get good. That's not a boastful comment in the slightest. We needed a great deal of practise at first but now the songs are gelling very well and a setlist is emerging from the sessions we have. We have a gig at the end of May which I can't wait for. I love writing music and its insane amounts of fun. Theraputic as well. Do you know the satisfaction you get from literally smashing your guitar around and playing nothing but noise. Its the best form of anger management. I wrote a song for the band and was very scared about it at first cause it seemed angry, emotionless and generally bitchy. Our vocalist made it his own and I'm proud of what we've made of it. Its kick ass.
ON THAT NOTE PEOPLE!
I'm signing out. That was a long one. But I said everything I could have. For now. I'll not neglect for as long as I did last time. That was bad of me.
BUHBAH!
About Me
- Tom Ward
- Sheffield, United Kingdom
- I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal......
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Why, in recent years, the Road to the Oscars has been so flawed and tainted.
Its the moment that the film industry awaits with eagerness and suspense. Its what all the other award ceremonies lead up to. What happens there, surely will happen at the Oscars. Its often set in stone, especially when it comes to the Golden Globes. But in recent times, hasn't the Academy Awards become somewhat of a gimmick? Maybe you think its harsh words but no more so than the nominations for the 83rd Academy Awards.
This year's ceremony will take place on the 27th February and will be hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway respectively. It has been described as the event that will honour the best and greatest films of 2010 which is exactly the purpose of these awards. But unless you're idle and the nominations fell on deaf ears, there is a slight uproar about this year's list of potential winners. And where do I start?
One of the crucial decisions for the Academy was when they decided to increase the Best Picture category from 5 films to 10 films, giving their verdict that it would broaden the ability of specialist films to enter the category. Big decision since this means there is more competition. And no surprise that this year hosts some of the biggest films of the last decade; Toy Story 3, Inception, The Social Network and the Kings Speech to name a few. Yet here's my issue: by increasing the chances of Best Picture, you're left with literally no competition. If you were to think about it, when there were 5 films to be chosen, there was roughly 10 stellar films out that year that could have made the cut and therefore 5 missed out. The 5 that were in the category were made to fight it out in a good old-fashioned fight. The problem now? The category accomodates everyone of 2010's best films which means even a nomination gains the film more attention and therefore more money. The Academy is supposed to pick on the genuinely great films of that year. Winter's Bone is not one of them. Hate to break the news but it just isn't worthy. I watched this last week; great performance from Jennifer Lawrence which didn't deserve a Best Actress nomination and the film as a whole doesn't retain a great quality nor are its filmic methods outstanding compared to that of Black Swan or Inception. This is where the politics enter....
Take the Best Director category. This is the category that has infuriated myself, and many others, the most. Christopher Nolan, quite frankly, is the shining light of contemporary cinema. His films are thought-provoking, dark, viscerally enchanting and his writing skills are phenomenal. He takes pre-existing products like the Batman franchise and creates a beautifully dark and brutal world for the character to inhabit. He creates worlds literally beyond your imagination in Inception but never EVER treats you like you're an idiot, despite the great amount of narrative layers the film has. He is, like Tarantino, a master of cinema. And what does he get.......nothing. Inception has a very respectable 8 Oscars nominations for many great categories but the gaping hole is that of Best Director. Knock knock Academy; his film made over $800million at the box office,
Friday, 21 January 2011
Out of Control: My review of Black Swan
It's safe to say that, to the best of my knowledge, Darren Aronofsky has rarely ventured into horror. Granted, he frequently presents the viewer with brutally visceral imagery such as Jared Leto's gammy arm and the ass-to-ass in "Requiem For A Dream" and the wrestling match with a few extra items in "The Wrestler" being a few examples. So, to approach this as a horror film is something new but hold on.....it's not exactly a horror film either. It's a psychological exploration into obsession, love, hate and perfection. And with Aronofsky's style, the exploration is brought to life in a grand manner.
So all you fanboys and fangirls of Aronofsky will know he has developed a few trademarks of his own over the years. Very similar to the Wrestler and Requiem For A Dream, Aronofsky shoots "Black Swan" with a muted colour palette and grainy style to achieve a look of desaturation; subsequently evoking themes of realism, entrapement and madness. Thats one of the things I loved about the film; its real. Or it was to me. It was strikingly vivid and never seemed to lack the balls of his previous efforts. Sorry for the slang term there! Not very professional of me I know!
Onto the story then. A prosperous New York City ballet company is using a revamped version of Swan Lake as their opening show of the season, with direction being given from Thomas Leroy (played by Vincent Cassel). They decide to choose a new lead over their previous Swan Queen, Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder). In steps Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) who is chosen to play the prestigous part. However, Leroy believes Nina lacks what it takes to play the White Swan's twin; the more sensual Black Swan and chooses newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis) to play the part. In a bid to convince him otherwise, Nina soon experiences erratic paranoid delusions and becomes convinced that Lily is out to steal her role in Swan Lake. With an overbearing mother treating her as a child and constantly over-reacting to her daughter's every word, Nina slips into an overwhelming obsession over perfection and ego.
That's the short sypnosis because obviously, I don't want to spoil it for you all. One of the central themes to Black Swan is sexuality. Of course, it would be since the Black Swan is supposed to be played as a sensual and promiscuous character but aside from the production, Nina's work is ruled by sex. She explores deeply (and rather graphically) her sexual side and these scenes are important to understand her ego. She's an innocent character, who is very much like a child because of her mother, who wants to perform as the Swan Queen. Yet her innocence hinders her ability to perform as the Black Swan and thus the more provocative scenes are used as a way of 'toughening' her up if you will. What Cassel's character wants from her performance, Portman simply cannot give. The sexuality of the piece therefore works as a catalyst for her decline into obsession.
Another central theme is mirrors. For anyone who doesn't notice this, well; I'm surprised since a fair majority of shots feature them and all when Nina is in frame. It shows the superficial nature of her work, becoming the embodiment of something she's not. It also casts the possibility of memory and what this means to us as humans. Aronofsky always deploys a little motif in his movies that create a submeaning and by using mirrors, he opens another door. To that of the horror genre. By manipulating stereotypical notions of horror, he essentials makes it easier on himself to portray Nina's obsession as one of psychological origins. Mirrors are the door to another world. Don't be surprised when things appear randomly; there for a reason. Oh and they're there to scare you as well!
And onto performance!! Natalie Portman is brilliant. Who knew Padme could act? I did always like her as an actress but she truly flourishes in this role. A gruelling year long schedule learning the ins and outs of the routines and toning her body to perfection, the effort really shows. The scenes in which she slips into her obsession are ones of great drama and high tension; via Aronofsky's visceral imagery, you really feel the pain of her character. One scene in particular I will not indulge too much, safe to say; its harsh on the fingers and proves that with good editing, performance and direction, you can make even the most brutal violence seem fascinatingly beautiful. I suggest the Academy give her the Best Actress Oscar since she's plain awesome and on the back of her Golden Globe win at the weekend, thoroughly deserves the acclaim.
I too would like to mention that Clint Mansell should be nominated once again. Sat in a packed cinema with surround sound is the only way to fully experience this movie. The juxtaposing sounds of Mansell's classical score combined with the raw vision of Aronofsky propel this movie to great heights and with the music, the film would fall flat. It keeps you on edge and prepares you for all the drama thats meant to come. Simply fantastic.
OK, verdict time. If you follow me on Twitter, you may know I have been rambling on about this for a long time. I've been awaiting its release date with enormous anticipation OK?! Is that a crime!? It certainly lives up to its hype. Aronofsky has created a beautifully visceral experience of obsession and perfection that genuinely looks like the Red Shoes got shot with adrenaline. Its evokative and memorable and so far this year, is my favourite of 2011. Brilliant stuff. Certainly gonna watch it again!
5 stars out of 5 (I don't give these lightly but after seeing two films in two days that I thought were worthy of this rating as staggered me)
I don't know what's next on the agenda to be honest!! Errmmmmm......OH.....I'm seeing the Fighter on Tuesday at an extra special preview screening but I might wait a while to review that. Its only fair to people since its still a couple of weeks from release. I think the Fighter and True Grit will be the next installments guys!
Thanks for reading!
Tward
So all you fanboys and fangirls of Aronofsky will know he has developed a few trademarks of his own over the years. Very similar to the Wrestler and Requiem For A Dream, Aronofsky shoots "Black Swan" with a muted colour palette and grainy style to achieve a look of desaturation; subsequently evoking themes of realism, entrapement and madness. Thats one of the things I loved about the film; its real. Or it was to me. It was strikingly vivid and never seemed to lack the balls of his previous efforts. Sorry for the slang term there! Not very professional of me I know!
Onto the story then. A prosperous New York City ballet company is using a revamped version of Swan Lake as their opening show of the season, with direction being given from Thomas Leroy (played by Vincent Cassel). They decide to choose a new lead over their previous Swan Queen, Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder). In steps Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) who is chosen to play the prestigous part. However, Leroy believes Nina lacks what it takes to play the White Swan's twin; the more sensual Black Swan and chooses newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis) to play the part. In a bid to convince him otherwise, Nina soon experiences erratic paranoid delusions and becomes convinced that Lily is out to steal her role in Swan Lake. With an overbearing mother treating her as a child and constantly over-reacting to her daughter's every word, Nina slips into an overwhelming obsession over perfection and ego.
That's the short sypnosis because obviously, I don't want to spoil it for you all. One of the central themes to Black Swan is sexuality. Of course, it would be since the Black Swan is supposed to be played as a sensual and promiscuous character but aside from the production, Nina's work is ruled by sex. She explores deeply (and rather graphically) her sexual side and these scenes are important to understand her ego. She's an innocent character, who is very much like a child because of her mother, who wants to perform as the Swan Queen. Yet her innocence hinders her ability to perform as the Black Swan and thus the more provocative scenes are used as a way of 'toughening' her up if you will. What Cassel's character wants from her performance, Portman simply cannot give. The sexuality of the piece therefore works as a catalyst for her decline into obsession.
Another central theme is mirrors. For anyone who doesn't notice this, well; I'm surprised since a fair majority of shots feature them and all when Nina is in frame. It shows the superficial nature of her work, becoming the embodiment of something she's not. It also casts the possibility of memory and what this means to us as humans. Aronofsky always deploys a little motif in his movies that create a submeaning and by using mirrors, he opens another door. To that of the horror genre. By manipulating stereotypical notions of horror, he essentials makes it easier on himself to portray Nina's obsession as one of psychological origins. Mirrors are the door to another world. Don't be surprised when things appear randomly; there for a reason. Oh and they're there to scare you as well!
And onto performance!! Natalie Portman is brilliant. Who knew Padme could act? I did always like her as an actress but she truly flourishes in this role. A gruelling year long schedule learning the ins and outs of the routines and toning her body to perfection, the effort really shows. The scenes in which she slips into her obsession are ones of great drama and high tension; via Aronofsky's visceral imagery, you really feel the pain of her character. One scene in particular I will not indulge too much, safe to say; its harsh on the fingers and proves that with good editing, performance and direction, you can make even the most brutal violence seem fascinatingly beautiful. I suggest the Academy give her the Best Actress Oscar since she's plain awesome and on the back of her Golden Globe win at the weekend, thoroughly deserves the acclaim.
I too would like to mention that Clint Mansell should be nominated once again. Sat in a packed cinema with surround sound is the only way to fully experience this movie. The juxtaposing sounds of Mansell's classical score combined with the raw vision of Aronofsky propel this movie to great heights and with the music, the film would fall flat. It keeps you on edge and prepares you for all the drama thats meant to come. Simply fantastic.
OK, verdict time. If you follow me on Twitter, you may know I have been rambling on about this for a long time. I've been awaiting its release date with enormous anticipation OK?! Is that a crime!? It certainly lives up to its hype. Aronofsky has created a beautifully visceral experience of obsession and perfection that genuinely looks like the Red Shoes got shot with adrenaline. Its evokative and memorable and so far this year, is my favourite of 2011. Brilliant stuff. Certainly gonna watch it again!
5 stars out of 5 (I don't give these lightly but after seeing two films in two days that I thought were worthy of this rating as staggered me)
I don't know what's next on the agenda to be honest!! Errmmmmm......OH.....I'm seeing the Fighter on Tuesday at an extra special preview screening but I might wait a while to review that. Its only fair to people since its still a couple of weeks from release. I think the Fighter and True Grit will be the next installments guys!
Thanks for reading!
Tward
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Broken Home: My review of Blue Valentine
Romantic dramas, due to contrary belief, are NOT simply boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy marries girl etc.....no, that's what happens in Hollywood. Unfortunately, Derek Cianfrance's "Blue Valentine" is not Hollywood. Far from it. This is real. Love, marriage and children all carry their own individual burdens. Put bluntly, romance just got hardcore.
The concept is simple. A contemporary married couple recolate how their relationship came to be over the course of 24 hours. This necessitates temporal shifts and a non-linear narrative, that describe the happy pre-marriage couple and the deeply unsettled present married couple. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams start as the married couple to great effect. Not only is it believable; its passionate and brutal, sweet and emotional, heart-wrenching and unnerving. All of these words describe exactly the kind of experience you should expect from seeing Blue Valentine.
In order to see this movie, I had to go to the Sheffield Showroom; my local independant cinema (thank god its there) since the big megaplexes like Cineworld are far too mainstream for this kind of indie flick. Therefore, the attention the film has received has been minimal compared to say, The King's Speech. Frankly, this is a good thing. I wouldn't have wanted to see this on a big screen. Its not that kind of movie. You have to embrace its quality and it really came to life on a small screen; most of the audience I was with definately reacted a great deal to some of the more emotional scenes than I thought they would. Independant cinema holds some brilliant gems, this being one of the more recent ones. So, like I say, I'm lucky to have a cinema that can get hold movie prints such as Blue Valentine. It will have disappeared by tomorrow, so I caught it when I could!
Stylistically, director Cianfrance uses Super 16mm for the pre-marriage sequences to create a grainy filter across the lens. Like the guy who introduced the film to me before the screening, I agreed with him when he said this adds authenticity and acts as fading memories of a once happy couple. Its genuinely powerful stuff, cause once we shift back to the present, he uses crisp stark imagery that really emphasises the declining relationship between Gosling and Williams. Along with vibrant colours of (guess what!) blue, it sets a unsettling tone that never lets up once. The tension is ever-present and it really hurts you as an audience member to see what the couple were once like. These pre-marriage sequences only serve to make the emotion of their decline worse. Its a brilliant and original technique; something I'm sure other filmmakers will pick up on. If its not original, so be it but Cianfrance uses it in a stylish way to compliment his own film and it works.
Performance-wise, you got Ryan Gosling giving ANOTHER Oscar worthy nod. I loved Colin Firth in The King's Speech. ALOT. He was fantastic and definately deserves the Award. However, I wish the Academy would recognise Gosling again after the brilliant Half-Nelson. He's one of the best of his generation and for once, I wish they didn't ride the hype of one performance and give it someone who exerts raw passion and emotion the way in which Gosling does. I know he won't get the Award or probably a nomination, but in my eyes; he's a worthy winner. Michelle Williams is also on fine form; her quiet, shy nature forms a conflict between her and Gosling that re-inforces the uncertainty of their future. The moments when she breaks under the pressure are wonderful pieces of acting and absolute credit to her performance. Without her, Gosling wouldn't have excelled the way he did.
I'd tell you to go catch this movie but I doubt you'll be able to. That is unless you have an independant cinema close by or God forbid, your actual cinema is showing this. I get the feeling its had a limited release but thats the way I want it. I like to feel that this was a special experience. It really really was and I know the whole audience felt that.
A simple concept executed to perfection, "Blue Valentine" went beyond my expectations and is already in my Top 10 of 2011. Maybe by the end of the year Top 5. I will not be forgetting this anytime soon and neither should you. Remember the title. You'll want to watch it when its on DVD.
A rare 5 out of 5 stars.
Thanks for reading!
Tomorrow, I will be seeing Black Swan (arugably my most anticipated so far this year) and therefore a review will emerge sometime tomorrow. Look out for it!
Peace out!
Tward
In order to see this movie, I had to go to the Sheffield Showroom; my local independant cinema (thank god its there) since the big megaplexes like Cineworld are far too mainstream for this kind of indie flick. Therefore, the attention the film has received has been minimal compared to say, The King's Speech. Frankly, this is a good thing. I wouldn't have wanted to see this on a big screen. Its not that kind of movie. You have to embrace its quality and it really came to life on a small screen; most of the audience I was with definately reacted a great deal to some of the more emotional scenes than I thought they would. Independant cinema holds some brilliant gems, this being one of the more recent ones. So, like I say, I'm lucky to have a cinema that can get hold movie prints such as Blue Valentine. It will have disappeared by tomorrow, so I caught it when I could!
Stylistically, director Cianfrance uses Super 16mm for the pre-marriage sequences to create a grainy filter across the lens. Like the guy who introduced the film to me before the screening, I agreed with him when he said this adds authenticity and acts as fading memories of a once happy couple. Its genuinely powerful stuff, cause once we shift back to the present, he uses crisp stark imagery that really emphasises the declining relationship between Gosling and Williams. Along with vibrant colours of (guess what!) blue, it sets a unsettling tone that never lets up once. The tension is ever-present and it really hurts you as an audience member to see what the couple were once like. These pre-marriage sequences only serve to make the emotion of their decline worse. Its a brilliant and original technique; something I'm sure other filmmakers will pick up on. If its not original, so be it but Cianfrance uses it in a stylish way to compliment his own film and it works.
Performance-wise, you got Ryan Gosling giving ANOTHER Oscar worthy nod. I loved Colin Firth in The King's Speech. ALOT. He was fantastic and definately deserves the Award. However, I wish the Academy would recognise Gosling again after the brilliant Half-Nelson. He's one of the best of his generation and for once, I wish they didn't ride the hype of one performance and give it someone who exerts raw passion and emotion the way in which Gosling does. I know he won't get the Award or probably a nomination, but in my eyes; he's a worthy winner. Michelle Williams is also on fine form; her quiet, shy nature forms a conflict between her and Gosling that re-inforces the uncertainty of their future. The moments when she breaks under the pressure are wonderful pieces of acting and absolute credit to her performance. Without her, Gosling wouldn't have excelled the way he did.
I'd tell you to go catch this movie but I doubt you'll be able to. That is unless you have an independant cinema close by or God forbid, your actual cinema is showing this. I get the feeling its had a limited release but thats the way I want it. I like to feel that this was a special experience. It really really was and I know the whole audience felt that.
A simple concept executed to perfection, "Blue Valentine" went beyond my expectations and is already in my Top 10 of 2011. Maybe by the end of the year Top 5. I will not be forgetting this anytime soon and neither should you. Remember the title. You'll want to watch it when its on DVD.
A rare 5 out of 5 stars.
Thanks for reading!
Tomorrow, I will be seeing Black Swan (arugably my most anticipated so far this year) and therefore a review will emerge sometime tomorrow. Look out for it!
Peace out!
Tward
Sunday, 16 January 2011
That Green Gentleman: My review of the Green Hornet
In production for as long as 2 years, adapated from the popular radio series of the 40s as well as the renowned TV series of the 70s, featuring Bruce Lee as Kato and written by Seth Rogen, you'd think the Green Hornet was hot property. Sadly, the latest adaptation falls flat. Having had time to recolate my thoughts, I can publish them with what I hope is the most sincerce and honest opinion.
Taking a pre-exsisting property is notably all the rage in Hollywood, yet it rarely pays off. We have been treated to exceptions such as Christopher Nolan's reboot of the Batman series and Zack Synder's Watchmen (yes, I thought it was great) but most of the time, the film falls flat yet frustratingly takes in a shit load of money at the box office, prompting tireless sequels that are a) not needed and b) are there to take advantage of people who don't know what a good film is if it slapped them in the face. It may sound arrogant of me and perhaps it is, but if you're paying good money to go watch Michael Bay blow shit up with robots for 2 and a half hours, your idea of a good film differs GREATLY from mine. And with the recent explosion of 3D (thank you Mr. Cameron), we can be treated to action spectacle in fantastical 3 dimensions!
And so we get to the Green Hornet of 2011....
Famously a project whereby Seth Rogen shed his weight to play the titular superhero, he wrote and stars as Britt Reid, a young playboy whose wealthy father runs the Daily Sentinel, one of the biggest newspaper chains in Los Angeles. Upon his father's death, the reckless Reid inherits his father's company as well as his father's car mechanic (and coffee maker) Kato, played by Taiwanese singer Jay Chou. During a (completely illogical) discussion where they decide to go do something ridiculously stupid, they unwittingly defend a vulnerable couple from a gang of thugs and decide to become superheros, with Reid taking on the persona of The Green Hornet. Using his power as Chief Editor of the Sentinel, he pushes for more coverage of his superhero alter-ego that only attracts the interest of the city's crimelords, particularly Chudnofsky (I know, I can't say it either but apparently that's the point) played by Inglourious Basterds Christoph Waltz. Cue mindless action sequences, utterly dreadful dialogue and a terribly miscast lead performance by Seth Rogen..... Let the reviewing commence!
Honestly, I left the cinema satisfied. It was nothing brilliant obviously, but for a bit of escapism entertainment, i was satisfied. However, as I munched my lunchtime Subway before the far superior The King's speech (my previous blog), I got thinking. Specifically, I got thinking what the hell were they thinking. Seth Rogen is so boring as the Green Hornet that you literally wanna fall asleep. He rehashes the characters that he's known for and basically plays the Hornet as the stoned, wise-talking hero of Pineapple Express; an arguably better and more rounded film.
The plot goes absolutely nowhere with the characters a part of ridiculous situations that you are suddenly aware shouldn't be there. How did we get from there to here?!?! It's beyond me. One minute, Rogen's partying. Next minute, he's engaging in high-speed pursuits with police and enjoying it. This all comes down to one important factor and above all, the most important part of a film: Characterisation. Does the Green Hornet have any? Not. One. Bit. As a result, the characters are weak, lack any enthusiasm and play it off as if they are utterly hilarious. No. You are not. Sorry team!
The mind boggles as to why someone as talented as Michel Gondry chose this as a potential project. For one, it has none of his quirky trademarks or any notable camerwork that he is known for. Expecting Eternal Sunshine with a superhero twist? Sorry, you won't get it. This is such a mainstream fim you won't get any originality from it at all. The same goes for Christoph Waltz, my (and many others too) favourite actor of 2009 thanks to his wonderful performance in Inglourious Basterds. He was menacing, brutal, funny and unforgiving in that. Here, he doesn't have an ounce of the wit or sadism that he included in the character of Landa. In fact, to say he's the films main villain, he really is hardly in it. And if you want a scary villain, you have them in it. Otherwise, you just have Seth Rogen giving himself too many lines then blowing stuff up when he runs out of things to say. Unfortunately, this is the case with The Green Hornet.
I wish to say as little as possible about 3D cause I despise the format. With the exception of last year's Tron: Legacy where it genuinely worked, there is absolutely no need for it. So why it is included here where it enhances nothing and often distances the audience from the action, well; it just serves to confirm that this film is a dud. Enough said.
Overall, it is fun in parts. There are a few notable exchanges between Rogen and Chou but with a story that is ridiculously unfocused and with no time for Waltz to establish what could have been a great villain, the film has no direction and as a result, is splendidly unfilling.
I expected alot more from all involved. Just do me a favour Hollywood. Make your money from this and DO NOT greenlight a sequel. However, that plea looks to fall flat too......
2 stars out of 5.
Next up; It's a toss between Blue Valentine and Black Swan. DEPENDS which I see first, most likely the former. I have a screening of it on Wednesday or Thursday before Black Swan on Friday. Lots of activity. Very exciting times!
Speak laters!
Tward
Taking a pre-exsisting property is notably all the rage in Hollywood, yet it rarely pays off. We have been treated to exceptions such as Christopher Nolan's reboot of the Batman series and Zack Synder's Watchmen (yes, I thought it was great) but most of the time, the film falls flat yet frustratingly takes in a shit load of money at the box office, prompting tireless sequels that are a) not needed and b) are there to take advantage of people who don't know what a good film is if it slapped them in the face. It may sound arrogant of me and perhaps it is, but if you're paying good money to go watch Michael Bay blow shit up with robots for 2 and a half hours, your idea of a good film differs GREATLY from mine. And with the recent explosion of 3D (thank you Mr. Cameron), we can be treated to action spectacle in fantastical 3 dimensions!
And so we get to the Green Hornet of 2011....
Famously a project whereby Seth Rogen shed his weight to play the titular superhero, he wrote and stars as Britt Reid, a young playboy whose wealthy father runs the Daily Sentinel, one of the biggest newspaper chains in Los Angeles. Upon his father's death, the reckless Reid inherits his father's company as well as his father's car mechanic (and coffee maker) Kato, played by Taiwanese singer Jay Chou. During a (completely illogical) discussion where they decide to go do something ridiculously stupid, they unwittingly defend a vulnerable couple from a gang of thugs and decide to become superheros, with Reid taking on the persona of The Green Hornet. Using his power as Chief Editor of the Sentinel, he pushes for more coverage of his superhero alter-ego that only attracts the interest of the city's crimelords, particularly Chudnofsky (I know, I can't say it either but apparently that's the point) played by Inglourious Basterds Christoph Waltz. Cue mindless action sequences, utterly dreadful dialogue and a terribly miscast lead performance by Seth Rogen..... Let the reviewing commence!
Honestly, I left the cinema satisfied. It was nothing brilliant obviously, but for a bit of escapism entertainment, i was satisfied. However, as I munched my lunchtime Subway before the far superior The King's speech (my previous blog), I got thinking. Specifically, I got thinking what the hell were they thinking. Seth Rogen is so boring as the Green Hornet that you literally wanna fall asleep. He rehashes the characters that he's known for and basically plays the Hornet as the stoned, wise-talking hero of Pineapple Express; an arguably better and more rounded film.
The plot goes absolutely nowhere with the characters a part of ridiculous situations that you are suddenly aware shouldn't be there. How did we get from there to here?!?! It's beyond me. One minute, Rogen's partying. Next minute, he's engaging in high-speed pursuits with police and enjoying it. This all comes down to one important factor and above all, the most important part of a film: Characterisation. Does the Green Hornet have any? Not. One. Bit. As a result, the characters are weak, lack any enthusiasm and play it off as if they are utterly hilarious. No. You are not. Sorry team!
The mind boggles as to why someone as talented as Michel Gondry chose this as a potential project. For one, it has none of his quirky trademarks or any notable camerwork that he is known for. Expecting Eternal Sunshine with a superhero twist? Sorry, you won't get it. This is such a mainstream fim you won't get any originality from it at all. The same goes for Christoph Waltz, my (and many others too) favourite actor of 2009 thanks to his wonderful performance in Inglourious Basterds. He was menacing, brutal, funny and unforgiving in that. Here, he doesn't have an ounce of the wit or sadism that he included in the character of Landa. In fact, to say he's the films main villain, he really is hardly in it. And if you want a scary villain, you have them in it. Otherwise, you just have Seth Rogen giving himself too many lines then blowing stuff up when he runs out of things to say. Unfortunately, this is the case with The Green Hornet.
I wish to say as little as possible about 3D cause I despise the format. With the exception of last year's Tron: Legacy where it genuinely worked, there is absolutely no need for it. So why it is included here where it enhances nothing and often distances the audience from the action, well; it just serves to confirm that this film is a dud. Enough said.
Overall, it is fun in parts. There are a few notable exchanges between Rogen and Chou but with a story that is ridiculously unfocused and with no time for Waltz to establish what could have been a great villain, the film has no direction and as a result, is splendidly unfilling.
I expected alot more from all involved. Just do me a favour Hollywood. Make your money from this and DO NOT greenlight a sequel. However, that plea looks to fall flat too......
2 stars out of 5.
Next up; It's a toss between Blue Valentine and Black Swan. DEPENDS which I see first, most likely the former. I have a screening of it on Wednesday or Thursday before Black Swan on Friday. Lots of activity. Very exciting times!
Speak laters!
Tward
Poetic Tragedy: My review of the King's Speech
To determine the life of a Royal has been, assumed, as a hard task. But with more recent cinematic endevours such as the Queen (2006) proving to be successful in box office results and awards, its a dead cert that the trend can continue. Lets face it, us Brits are suckers for a Royal drama. The BBC's most recent adaptation of Bleak House was critically well received and who can forget Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy back in the late 80s, emerging from the pond and certifying his role as a posterboy for a Royal generation? It's his latest film, The King's Speech, that has been drawing all the attention of movie-goers and to be honest, rightly fucking so.
Posting a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and enduring all the pre-Oscar buzz for literally what has felt like months, The King's Speech depicts the story of Prince Albert, Duke of York or "Bertie" as his family know him, in his attempts to cure his stammer and recover his flawed reputation. Beginning with the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, director Tom Hooper establishes the story immediately. Faced with a huge crowd as well as the listening ears of the nation, Bertie breaks down as his stammer overcomes him and visibly unsettles the crowd.
Upon the insistence of his wife, soon-to-be Queen Elizabeth played amazingly by Helena Bonham Carter, he visits Lionel Logue, an Australian speech therapist living in London played by Geoffrey Rush. Logue is known for his somewhat unusual and often controversial techniques and much of the films humour derives from the conversations that occur between Firth and Rush's characters. Attempting to embrace a friendship and understand Bertie's issues, the two continue to make amends as Bertie faces many problems such as the death of his father, King George V and the womanising ways of his brother, David, who would become King Edward VIII.
As previously stated, awards buzz for this film has been rife for months since its premiere at the Telluride Film Festival on 4th September and focus greatly upon the performance of Firth himself. This, I can say having now seen it, is totally justified. Firth embodies the troubled persona of Bertie wonderfully, in his body language as well as his mannerisms which lead to his stammer. There are many heart-wrenching moments that Firth truly makes believable such as his reluctancy to tell his daughters a bedtime story due to his stammer and the moment where he reveals the pressures of his childhood; his strict father, his natural left-handedness and his neglection at the hands of a nanny who greatly favoured his brother David. Its truly heart-breaking and Firth handles the subject matter with authenticity and care. I will be immensely surprised if he doesn't walk away with the Best Actor this year as its thoroughly deserved.
That said, without Carter and Rush's character, Firth wouldn't have an emotional core or at least one the audience can relate to. Not only was I convinced Carter was the Queen Mother, but I couldn't believe this was Bellatrix Lestrange from the Harry Potter series or Marla Singer from David Fincher's Fight Club. She embodies the role of any character shes wishes to play, evil or good, better or worse. She is, I believe, one of the best actresses of her time and I really wish the Academy acknowledge this with a Best Supporting Actress nomination come the announcement.
Onto Rush, whom without the film would not be humourous in any form. He is the comic relief, if you will, for the film's otherwise strong and topical subject matter. I'm not trying to play the film off as a comedy. Far from it. But at times, films such as the King's Speech need a relief from the hardship that occurs on-screen and Rush is simply brilliant. Often engaging in dialogue-orientated sparing matches with Firth, the two create a fabolous chemistry that excels into humour; a scene worth mentioning involves Rush's character persuading Firth to swear in an attempt to make him relieve some of the pressure on him. I gotta say, I was genuinely laughing at this scene and so was most of the cinema, who were of the older generation and wouldn't be caught dead repeating the words that coming from Firth's mouth. But in the context of the scene, the audience understood the humour behind and it works splendidly.
On a different note, I can easily see Tom Hooper receiving a Best Director nod because of the films great success. I urge the Academy to think otherwise. This is a performer's film. No doubt, a greatly directed period piece by Hooper, I just don't feel there is anything artisticly different or something that stands out that he has placed in his film. Maybe some other time, Hooper but not just yet.
This is Firth's film. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Up next, The Green Hornet in (not-so) spectacular 3D!!!
Posting a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and enduring all the pre-Oscar buzz for literally what has felt like months, The King's Speech depicts the story of Prince Albert, Duke of York or "Bertie" as his family know him, in his attempts to cure his stammer and recover his flawed reputation. Beginning with the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, director Tom Hooper establishes the story immediately. Faced with a huge crowd as well as the listening ears of the nation, Bertie breaks down as his stammer overcomes him and visibly unsettles the crowd.
Upon the insistence of his wife, soon-to-be Queen Elizabeth played amazingly by Helena Bonham Carter, he visits Lionel Logue, an Australian speech therapist living in London played by Geoffrey Rush. Logue is known for his somewhat unusual and often controversial techniques and much of the films humour derives from the conversations that occur between Firth and Rush's characters. Attempting to embrace a friendship and understand Bertie's issues, the two continue to make amends as Bertie faces many problems such as the death of his father, King George V and the womanising ways of his brother, David, who would become King Edward VIII.
As previously stated, awards buzz for this film has been rife for months since its premiere at the Telluride Film Festival on 4th September and focus greatly upon the performance of Firth himself. This, I can say having now seen it, is totally justified. Firth embodies the troubled persona of Bertie wonderfully, in his body language as well as his mannerisms which lead to his stammer. There are many heart-wrenching moments that Firth truly makes believable such as his reluctancy to tell his daughters a bedtime story due to his stammer and the moment where he reveals the pressures of his childhood; his strict father, his natural left-handedness and his neglection at the hands of a nanny who greatly favoured his brother David. Its truly heart-breaking and Firth handles the subject matter with authenticity and care. I will be immensely surprised if he doesn't walk away with the Best Actor this year as its thoroughly deserved.
That said, without Carter and Rush's character, Firth wouldn't have an emotional core or at least one the audience can relate to. Not only was I convinced Carter was the Queen Mother, but I couldn't believe this was Bellatrix Lestrange from the Harry Potter series or Marla Singer from David Fincher's Fight Club. She embodies the role of any character shes wishes to play, evil or good, better or worse. She is, I believe, one of the best actresses of her time and I really wish the Academy acknowledge this with a Best Supporting Actress nomination come the announcement.
Onto Rush, whom without the film would not be humourous in any form. He is the comic relief, if you will, for the film's otherwise strong and topical subject matter. I'm not trying to play the film off as a comedy. Far from it. But at times, films such as the King's Speech need a relief from the hardship that occurs on-screen and Rush is simply brilliant. Often engaging in dialogue-orientated sparing matches with Firth, the two create a fabolous chemistry that excels into humour; a scene worth mentioning involves Rush's character persuading Firth to swear in an attempt to make him relieve some of the pressure on him. I gotta say, I was genuinely laughing at this scene and so was most of the cinema, who were of the older generation and wouldn't be caught dead repeating the words that coming from Firth's mouth. But in the context of the scene, the audience understood the humour behind and it works splendidly.
On a different note, I can easily see Tom Hooper receiving a Best Director nod because of the films great success. I urge the Academy to think otherwise. This is a performer's film. No doubt, a greatly directed period piece by Hooper, I just don't feel there is anything artisticly different or something that stands out that he has placed in his film. Maybe some other time, Hooper but not just yet.
This is Firth's film. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Up next, The Green Hornet in (not-so) spectacular 3D!!!
Thursday, 13 January 2011
WE ARE SEX BOB-OMB!!! ONE TWO THREE FOUR!!: My review of Scott Pilgrim (Comic/Movie)
OK, sooooooo this blog is about both the comics and the movie adaptation of Scott Pilgrim so bare with me. Let's start with the awesome comics which got delivered two days ago along with the Walking Dead (check yesterday's blog)
So the comics of Scott Pilgrim began in July 2004 and ended recently in August 2010, just after the release of the movie. The story is split into six black-and-white volumes that follow Scott Pilgrim, a 23-year old Canadian slacker who plays bass guitar in the band Sex Bob-Omb. He falls in love with Amazon delivery girl Ramonna Flowers but in order to win her heart, Scott must first defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends.
Greatly inspired by Japanese manga artwork, the characters emotions are often expressed through seemingly simple lines. The story itself is incredibly strong; with convincing dialogue that is quite literally a nerd's delight. Frequent references to video games and over-the-top action are rife throughout the volumes, which is dominated by Scott and Ramonna's attempts to stay together despite the numerous battles Scott faces. This aspect of the volumes is surprisingly serious. The love story is cute and honest, something I didn't expect to see in a graphic novel. As an 18 year old guy who loves comics, I was amazed by how much I dug this story and the connection between Scott and Ramonna. What enhances its quality is its quirky and kinetic energy; often cutting away to random events that relate to the present or even creating video-game style fight scenes in the same vein as the Street Fighters series that are just plain bizarre. I mean, no one has super powers (with the exception of vegan Todd) and thats established but somehow the fight scenes transcend into surreal fantasy. Its really cool how there is not one drop of blood in all the fight scenes. Its all very PG which brings me to the movie.....
The film adaptation of Scott Pilgrim combines all volumes of the graphic series with the exception of Vol. 6 since it was released after production began. It was directed by Edgar Wright of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame which means that the film was already guaranted to have a quick paced editing style, that was reminiscent of the novels. The great thing about the film (apart from it being totally awesome) is that its a more than faithful adaptation; it retains the edge, the quirkiness and even the comic book style. Many images in the film are the exact same as the ones from the comics and as someone who has read half of the series, its greaat to notice these little details.
As Scott Pilgrim is Michael Cera, the bass playing jobless slacker who fights for Ramonna. As many people may know, Michael Cera plays Michael Cera in every Michael Cera movie. Just something I thought of. He is a good comedic actor, I love Superbad and Juno. I now love this equally but Michael Cera plays the same character. Geeky, silly, rather idiotic. Just like Scotty P. Which makes him perfect for the role.
Artistic license is taken though. To condense six graphic novels is tough. Therefore, storylines are changed to fit other characters or are omitted completed. However, this does not change the final quality of the film. I'm gonna stop now cause I really can't be arsed to keep writing. Simply put, like the Walking Dead, read and watch kids! Its awesome stuff and I would like to make a change to my Top 5 of 2010. I stupidly omitted Scott Pilgrim in favour of Kick-Ass. WRONG DECISION. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is now Number 5 in my Top 5 of 2010. RESULT!!
Peace!!!
Greatly inspired by Japanese manga artwork, the characters emotions are often expressed through seemingly simple lines. The story itself is incredibly strong; with convincing dialogue that is quite literally a nerd's delight. Frequent references to video games and over-the-top action are rife throughout the volumes, which is dominated by Scott and Ramonna's attempts to stay together despite the numerous battles Scott faces. This aspect of the volumes is surprisingly serious. The love story is cute and honest, something I didn't expect to see in a graphic novel. As an 18 year old guy who loves comics, I was amazed by how much I dug this story and the connection between Scott and Ramonna. What enhances its quality is its quirky and kinetic energy; often cutting away to random events that relate to the present or even creating video-game style fight scenes in the same vein as the Street Fighters series that are just plain bizarre. I mean, no one has super powers (with the exception of vegan Todd) and thats established but somehow the fight scenes transcend into surreal fantasy. Its really cool how there is not one drop of blood in all the fight scenes. Its all very PG which brings me to the movie.....
The film adaptation of Scott Pilgrim combines all volumes of the graphic series with the exception of Vol. 6 since it was released after production began. It was directed by Edgar Wright of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame which means that the film was already guaranted to have a quick paced editing style, that was reminiscent of the novels. The great thing about the film (apart from it being totally awesome) is that its a more than faithful adaptation; it retains the edge, the quirkiness and even the comic book style. Many images in the film are the exact same as the ones from the comics and as someone who has read half of the series, its greaat to notice these little details.
As Scott Pilgrim is Michael Cera, the bass playing jobless slacker who fights for Ramonna. As many people may know, Michael Cera plays Michael Cera in every Michael Cera movie. Just something I thought of. He is a good comedic actor, I love Superbad and Juno. I now love this equally but Michael Cera plays the same character. Geeky, silly, rather idiotic. Just like Scotty P. Which makes him perfect for the role.
Artistic license is taken though. To condense six graphic novels is tough. Therefore, storylines are changed to fit other characters or are omitted completed. However, this does not change the final quality of the film. I'm gonna stop now cause I really can't be arsed to keep writing. Simply put, like the Walking Dead, read and watch kids! Its awesome stuff and I would like to make a change to my Top 5 of 2010. I stupidly omitted Scott Pilgrim in favour of Kick-Ass. WRONG DECISION. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is now Number 5 in my Top 5 of 2010. RESULT!!
Peace!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)