Hey everyone! So starting this month I'll be doing something new. Serialised creative stories, a chapter a month (hopefully more once I switch to part time for my paying job). Once the story is then finished I'll be bringing them together into a novel. So be ready for the first Chapter of Bed of Thorns; a sci-fi re-telling of Sleeping Beauty. But speaking of fairy tales, lets look at Cinderella.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a fan of the Disney Princess genre, there are very few films in that genre that I will skip, even the ones that are Disney knock offs rather than actual Disney. So I went into the new live action Cinderella with decently high expectations, I wasn't expecting anything ground breaking but I also wasn't expecting to leave disappointed.
Rather than just going through the movie we are actually going to do a compare and contrast, with the animated Disney Cinderella and the live action Ever After staring Drew Barrymore with the new Cinderella film. Which is a straight remake of the animated one and yet tries to ape the strides that Ever After took and falls woefully short.
Let's look at the environment first; Cinderella of all of them most looks like it takes place in a fairy tale world. It's bright colours and flawless costumes, it has a world that looks remarkably clean. The Animated movie in contrast is very contained, there aren't any scenes of the outside world from her house until she goes to the ball; and Ever After is a fair dirtier movie. Pledging itself to some degree of historical accuracy... some.
The environments: set up clearly the tone each one is going for, the animated movie which focuses more on how Cinderella is contained to help contrast how special it is when she goes to the ball; the live action which is more interested in setting up a world where magic is possible and characters that are archetypes rather than characters. Ever After however is far more focused on character and making the fairy tale more like a possible event than a parable.
Speaking of characters lets really look into the meat of the issues here, the characters.
The Prince: I'm a little torn if I like the Prince in Ever After or the live action Cinderella more; Ever After's prince was a tad more flawed. Vulnerable to pride and making the mistakes that come with it, so his relationship feels more deserved, the both have flaws they need to get over. The live action prince is torn between love and duty but we don't see much more of him beyond that; however Rob Stark (Richard Madden) does play a whole hearted charming prince who any Game of Thrones fan will be happy to see finally wind up happily ever after.
The animated price is the least developed prince of all the Disney princes; and that is saying something.
The Step-Mother: This is one of the closest races there is; each of the portrayals have their own strengths. The animated step-mother is straight up evil, it's an incredibly menacing performance there is no effort made to try and humanise her. The animated step-mother gets points for simply being the most memorably evil. Ever After and the live action both try to show the step-mother as being evil from hurt caused by their new husbands never giving them love and instead showing Cinderella as his only family. However nether really does anything with it and Cate Blanchett turns evil far too quickly for there to really be any chance of understanding. Anjelica Huston on the otherhand, has over a decade to turn Cinderella into a slave and displays occasional moments where it's suggesting her own pain is causing her to inflict this pain on Cinderella.
They try a similar thing with Cate Blanchett, however Blanchett is playing it as evilly as the animated movie and every attempt at humanising her comes off as shallow. There is a moment when things really could have been tied together; Blanchett's character says that she married to give a chance to advance her daughters and there is this implication that she resents Cinderella for being this idea women who could marry a prince while her daughters are too inadequate to get advantageous marriages. But no, they don't tie it in with this sub-text of how society places restrictions on women, she destroys any chance of having her character ever be redeemable by saying she is cruel to Cinderella as Cinderella is good an innocent... And that's it. That is her motivation. Blanchett really is far too good for this role.
The animated movie, like most Disney animated movies of the past, is not interested in humanising the step-mother. She is cruel and evil because some people are just cruel and evil. While this villain could have slipped by, they did such a fantastic job animating her; really the animated movie really is just incredibly powerful in it's small moments. Especially with Cinderella, however we'll get to more in a moment.
A poorly humanised villain is simply more frustrating than painting a villain with the broad brush of saying evil because evil. So even though I do love Anjelica Huston and Cate Blanchett it simply has to go to the animated step mother. Brilliantly drawn, classically cruel and controlled giving a fantastic subdued but constantly threatening performance, Eleanor Audley is the best evil step-mother.
The supporting cast: Wow, I spent a lot of time on the step-mother, let's speed through some of the supporting cast. The step sisters are usually just comic relief, although occasionally effort is made to humanise Anastasia/Jacqueline, although usually it is just done by making her more of a push over by her mother and step-sister. It doesn't excuse what she does, just makes the audience feel bad for her as well. We'll give this to Ever After for having the two sisters actually act differently and not being unbearably annoying.
The fairy god mother, it's surprising that this character is usually the least interesting character, they really are only there as living deus ex fairy. A plot device to get Cinderella to the ball. Da Vinichi from Ever After is our stand in fairy god mother and is the most developed... but that isn't saying much. Have to go with the animated one for some bibbidi-boboidi-boo action.
The animals; no one wins on this one. The animals are either way to prominent in the movies, just there to reference the animated movie or not there are all.
Cinderella: Now Cinderella often gets a lot of flack for being a problematic character; she's one of the most passive Disney Princess's. Tying with Sleeping Beauty as the most passive in fact. So a lot of modern interpretations seek to address that; they give her character and chances to prove himself. Ever After is perhaps the clearest example of this, making Cinderella well learned, and keen to escape the situation she's in but without any means to; she suffers through the movie but when she is given a chance to rescue herself she does. Animated Cinderella is a kind and caring person, still totally good hearted despite the abuse she has suffered.
The new Cinderella attempts to marry these two concepts and ends up being the weakest part of the movie and why the movie ends up failing as a whole. The motto of the live action movie is have courage and be kind. This motto is repeated endlessly and is why the prince falls in love with Cinderella before the ball and why she is able to talk to animals and why the fairy god mother shows up for her. Cinderella is never courageous however, she is a doormat. Cinderella is well learned in the new movie, she has skills and intelligence that would allow her to find a life outside of her step mothers control and became a servant when she was old enough to escape, and is shown to have friends who could assist her living outside of the house. In fact she does try to escape, but decides it is cowardly to run away from the abusive situation she is in.
It was cowardly for her to run, because she says no doubt many people have it worse than she does.
... ... ... oh movie... no.
Contrast this with the animated movie, again in this Cinderella never escapes, however we are given no evidence to suggest that she could. Cinderella has lived like this since she was a child, we don't know that she has ever been outside the house. She also doesn't take the abuse in the same way; again I have to praise the animators who managed to give a lot of quiet dignity. Cinderella carries her head high at all times, its a small little sign that she isn't broken; it isn't until her dress is ripped that she finally breaks down. The dress tearing scene is chaotic and emotional; I've heard some refer to it the closest Disney has ever gotten to depicting a rape scene. And it was, until Maleficent and the scene where she wakes to find her wings removed. In contrast the live action scene has a sleeve ripped, that's it. Just one small rip; the scenes just can't compare in emotional weight. Movies have a simple language, which is 'show don't tell'. The animated movie never needs someone to exclaim the moral as 'have courage and be kind', Cinderella shows it through her actions alone and is rewarded for it.
It is really just hollow in the live action Cinderella movie; Cinderella claims to be endlessly kind and the film ends with her forgiving her family for the abuse. Yep; she forgives her abusers. Not gains some understanding about their motives, or any appreciation for the difficulties the Step Mother might face as a single mother in this time period. Nope, forgiven without question... they still get banished from the kingdom along with the duke who dared to stop the King marrying a peasant girl to protect the Kingdom. So, justice is served?
The live action movie really doesn't bring anything new to the table, although some great character work is done with the Prince and the King, it just adds nothing to the 'canon' of Cinderella. It is inferior to the animated movie it tries to improve upon. Meanwhile I love the hell out of Ever After and the animated Cinderella film; both are different however and each do succeed in what they are attempting.
I'll be updating again on the 20th as I turn the other passive fairy tale princess Sleeping Beauty into a sci-fi heroine.
I was very much on the fence about seeing Citizen Four; I think it shows how badly informed on the topic I was since I kept getting Edward Snowden and Julian Assange confused; I'm also concerned about how uncaring I was about the revelations that were coming out.
However we'll get more into the politics and why it's so important right now in Australia; but for now let's review the documentary itself. I haven't seen the two other documentaries by Laura Poitras, the three together are considered a trilogy on post 9/11 America. I can say that it isn't required for you to have watched the others to really enjoy this documentary.
The atmosphere is designed to feel intense from the beginning as they go over the security measures that Snowden was introducing to try and release the information. Perhaps it is because I didn't know enough about his reveals going into it but from a film point of view the danger felt to sudden and didn't match with the visual and audio tone. Things however pick up very quickly and once we finally meet Snowden the documentary really hits its stride; the footage all feels incredibly natural. Helped by the fact the subject Snowden is fairly charismatic. There is an ongoing sense of tension that makes the documentary seem like another world from the one we live in, but then it keeps grounding itself to remind us that the tension is real and exists in our world. The only real criticism I have is that the soundtrack doesn't really fit, often feeling the only artificial aspect.
So, if you are a fan of the documentaries, then definitely check this one out. And if you aren't, still go see this movie.
We are way to cavalier about how about our privacy and rights in exchange for a little bit of ease; however in Australia, the Labour Government recently said it would fold on the issue of data retention. No I've not been blogging in a while so I'm not going to jump straight into a political rant but I would strongly advise anyone to look up the issue and if you feel as strongly about it as I do. Speak to your local member and let them know.
Next time, just a review without the political rant...well... actually I make no promises!
Whelp, in the spirit of new year resolutions and goals, I guess it's time to dust off my old blog. Keep it active for 6 months and then dust it off again in 2016.
The system works.
So for those of you who were wondering, by which I mean my ten facebook friends I force to visit this blog, the reason I have been so inactive here is I have in fact been writing for other places!
I'm writing for The Australia Times - Games Magazine, and Media Hype101. You should check them both out!
I have however been staying on board with films, having seen over 40 movies this year. Most of which I was in fact glad to see; so let's award some some Good Whine prizes!
The Instragram award, for movie with the best food! - Chef
Simply mesmerizing food that I am still drooling over, combined with a hot soundtrack and some brilliant acting. A great movie if let down by an ending that was a little too happy.
The 1984 award, for inevitable human destruction! -TIE between Hungergames Mockingjay pt 1 and Snowpiercer
I was torn between the two movie as both are dealing with similar issues, namely can we live in a society which depends on the suffering of some. Both are class-ist revolutionary films with strong action. Hunger games probably deals with more additional issues with its display of the media while Snowpiercer is more focused.
The Taylor Swift award, for a movie that was better then it had any right to be! - The Lego Movie
Lego has proven itself incredibly subversive in it's game adaptations, and that anarchic humour combined with reverence for classical story telling led to an amazing move. The Lego movie was the biggest surprise of the year, based of a simply plastic toy it manage to capture what Lego's truley are for most kids. An opportunity to build any story you want.
The Ripley award, best film about fighting aliens! - TIE between Guardians of the Galaxy and Edge of Tomorrow
The summer music award, for film I haven't been able to get out of my head! - Her
I've already done a full review of Her so you can check out my feelings there, however it's great to see a hopeful look at the singularity.
And the Good Whine award for my personal favourite film of 2014 goes to Captain America 2 - The Winter Solider.
The Lego Movie want's you to be a kid again, and is the best version of Batman in a while. Spoilers.
These day's it seems like a month doesn't go by where I am not brought to a mouth foaming, red haze level of rage by the news that some old franchise is getting a big budget Hollywood remake, as the Nostalgia dollar seems a far safer bet than trying to float an original thought. However I wasn't brought to this frenzied state by the news of the Lego movie, partially because unlike the old T.V shows or mobile apps that will be coming out in the next few years, Lego doesn't have a story. It has an aesthetic, it is a canvas. As such there were plenty of stories that could be told, plus Lego had built up a lot of good will from me for it's continued success in making great games off of popular franchises.
When the first trailer came out, I became excited. When the first reviews hit the stands from America (due to Australia getting fucked over with release dates... again), I avoided spoilers but my expectations were set even higher. People loved this film.
So when I finally sat down in the theatre did it meet my expectations? Was the incredibly high bar set reached? Yes, pretty much it was. It's always more fun in reviews to disagree with popular opinion than to heap more praise or scorn on a properly already buried under it. However the Lego movie just holds up, it's creative, it's vibrant, it's fun. And oh how I have been missing fun in movies.
We enter spoiler territory now, so really, if you haven't seen it yet. Back out now and come back after the movie.
I said that Lego was a canvas, that it could be used to tell any story. And that's true, what at first appears to be a chosen destined narrative which we've seen a hundred time but subverted with anarchic humour turns out to be the story of Lego. It's the narrative of creating, of not always following instructions and just doing. It's the narrative of anyone who ever played and was told to stick to the rules.
The chosen one narrative we see is that Emmet, the most unremarkable man in the Lego world is in fact destined to defeat the evil Lord Business who has a plan to end the world with his special weapon, the Kragle. A group of Master Builders, those who can build beyond the instructions given, are there to help him. In particular the resident wild girl love interest but has a boyfriend character... aptly named Wyld Style.
This is worked both into the destined narrative and the twist. The whole story we've been watching is a child at play, and certainly hints are dropped throughout the movie, still the reveal was nice and the scenes in the real world worked well. A father has been collecting and building Lego sets, his son sneaks down and puts the Lego worlds together, mixing pieces and creating new works. That the father is taking the toys of youth and rigidly confining them to the 'correct' way of enjoying them is the heart of the movie, and the reason that Batman is so central.
The Lego movie is saying that perhaps...
A gritty, dark, reinterpretation...
Of something as joyous as a child's toy...
Isn't a good thing.
Batman is after all the character most readily portrayed as the gritty face of superheros, the dark brooding loaner, and the one who always seems an inch away from snapping and killing everyone. Despite the fact he has perhaps the largest network of immediate allies, friends, and what is essentially family in the Robins, Alfred, the Batgirls, the Bird's of Prey, and his international network of Batmen. To the point where his gritty-titus has crossed over and affected his best friend Superman...yes you read that right, not enemy, not ideological opposite... Friend... AHHHHDJHSILJD DC STOP IT!!
Sorry... Back to Lego
Another thing the film does is to completely subvert the 'chosen one' narrative, the prophecy... completely made up. Our resident, Morpheus/Dumbledore/Gandalf/Obi-Wan Kenobie (even though some of those are present in the movie) is Vitruvius... played of course.. by Morgan Freeman. In what is clearly a last ditch effort, he has made a prophecy, because it can be the push to cause those needed to believe in themselves, rather than guarantee any one person can do it. While it's fairly obvious this ties more into the idea that everyone has the spark of creativity in them, everyone at times plays. I'd like to believe that is a bit of a dig at how many movies have begun using 'Destiny' as a narrative crutch because it's easier to explain.
I MEAN COME ON... WHY DID YOU NEED TO MAKE HIM MORE LIKE JESUS??!!
Right... Sorry... The Lego Movie...
A thing I've heard a lot from people having seen this move, 'this was my childhood'. Mostly from those who Lego and a parent threatening to glue it was actually present, but it still touches what seems to be a fundamental aspect of childhood. That desire to break the rules and see what can be made in place.
That most kids, will just wing it..
It' s a Bat Pun.
Captain America 2 - go see it... now... just go... why are you reading this when you could be seeing the movie??? -also *spoilers*
To say Marvel Studios has an ambitious plan, is at best, an understatement. Business Week's interview with Kevin Feige revealed that they have a movie continuity map that extends into 2028 with a planned two releases a year. So around another 27 films are planned after Captain America 2.
I... I just, I am boggled by a plan like that. And having now seen The Winter Soldier, I am completely excited about it. The reason Marvel's plan sounds like it might just be pulled off rather than saturating the market with to many superhero films is because they are embracing secondary genres to their films. The Winter Soldier is a superhero film, but it is also a political thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy (if you don't know what it is, look it up and get pumped) is a superhero film but also a giant space opera in the veins of Firefly.
Now we begin to enter spoiler territory, let's do a quick run down of the plot.
Cap is now working for the security agency Shield, going on covert missions with Black Widow. We see Shield is building an air fleet to take out threats before they arise. Nick Fury is suspicious and suddenly assassinated by the Winter Soldier. Cap and Black Widow go on the hunt whilst being chased down by Shield and the Winter Soldier, only to discover that Hydra; the agency dedicated to peace through 'cleansing' and control, is not dead but in fact alive and well within the walls of Shield. From then on it is a large third act as our five heroes, Cap, Black Widow, Maria Hill, Nick Fury (oh come on, you didn't think he would actually die did you?), and the new hero Falcon have to infiltrate Shield and take down both Shield and Hydra.
At the heart of this film it's asking what measure of freedom are we willing to sacrifice for protection? The film's position is about as subtle as a superhero but it doesn't hit you over the head with it; it's also a nice reversal of The Dark Knight. While that movie is amazing,the sacrifice of personal liberties is how Batman defeats the Joker. In contrast Captain America 2 is all about not sacrificing personal liberties for security, while still making a genuine case for why people would do so. Yes it is the science Nazi's Hydra who makes the case, but their reason is still very human. 'If your daughters were being taken out, about to be shot by terrorists, and you had the power to stop it, instantly without other casualties. Wouldn't you do it?'
I've heard this film touted as a brilliant spy political thriller. For those who are use to political thrillers they'll find the plot a little simple and easy to work out, the twists are pretty easy to pick with the exception of the decision to take down SHIELD as well. The strength is in the characters, we have a strong arc for Cap 2, Black Widow and Nick Fury as well as a weakish one for the Winter Soldier. Falcon doesn't have much of an arc, however we do get a strong sense of his personality and an incredibly bad-ass introduction to his wing suit and his humour as the 'I'm not cut out for this shit' person is played well and not overdone. If they end up giving a main character status to him in his own movie, Falcon could easily become one of my favourite Marvel Heroes.
The stand out however, was Black Widow. A friend of mine mentioned, 'Hello Captain America, and awful lot of you in my Black Widow movie'. While Cap is the emotional anchor for most of the story Scarlett Johansson really does steal the show. So it is unsurprising that there is such a call out for a Black Widow film to be made.
Yeah... I just wanted to include this image... for reasons.
The Marvel Stingers, so now I'm going to quickly run-down the things that are in the film that will most likely return in other Marvel movies. Please note, speculation and comic book geekery follow.
The Winter Soldier - In case you didn't stay till the end of the second after credits scene, we have a shot of the Winter Soldier, formerly Bucky Barnes looking over the history exhibit of himself, giving a pretty clear indication that rehabilitation is in the future for this character rather than tragic death. The other thing that suggests this, Bucky Barnes is important in the comic for a number of reasons. He had a romantic relationship with Black Widow, and more importantly he took the mantle of Captain America after Steve Rodgers death. Now, in a film universe the idea of killing a character like Captain America when there are plans going into 2028 seems strange. However there isn't a chance that the entire cast of the Avengers will be interested in hanging around for ever. In fact the first two to suggest they are ready to move on is Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans. Iron Man 3 gave a strong suggestion that Iron Man is ready to retire, while now it looks like Cap might pass on in the near future (Avengers 3 would be my guess).
The Carters - Peggy Carter was Captain America's best gal in the first movie. Cap 2 finally gives a bit of resolution on that having them talk. It also introduces Agent 13, Sharon Carter. Originally Peggy's sister in the comics and then her niece, Sharon is Cap's on and off girlfriend. I also have heard rumours of Peggy getting her own film or tv show, considering she was the creator of Shield. There is certainly a lot that can be done there. However, that is very much only a rumour at this point. And I have heard a lot of rumours.
Dr Steven Strange - Steven Strange gets name dropped twice in this film. For those who aren't familiar with the comic, Dr Strange is the sorcerer Supreme and one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel universe. He serves as protector of the earth from Magical and Mystical threats; and is one of those heroes where you have to conceive reasons for them not to be able to win. Much like the common complaints about Superman, Dr Strange is very possibly too powerful. So while I would put money on his film being the second movie for 2016 along side Captain 3 to be announced. I very much doubt we will see him in the line up of the Avengers.
The Twins - The first after credit scene shows a Hydra fort that has a set up for Avengers 2. The introduction of Quick Silver and Scarlett Witch. If you're familiar with the X-Men franchise you already know these characters. However due to Fox owning the rights to X-Men and the concepts of Mutants don't expect this to be a lead into a cross over. Their powers are unlikely to be explained and daddy Magneto will definitely not be mentioned, probably in favour of an orphan back story.
And... Oh so much more but I've wasted enough of your brain cells for a day, come on back later and expect far more musings on Marvel as well as my predictions on who characters we will see in Phase 3 and 4 of Marvel Studio's ambitious plan.
When I had first heard of Noah, I like most of my friends, was immediately thinking of The Passion or the more recently Son of God. Films that pander to extreme demographics in an attempt to draw funds from the hardcore Christians. Suffice to say, I didn't plan on seeing it. However, a review I frequent made a video explaining why he was excited for the film. Saying that Darren Aronofsky was using the Christian myths as a canvas for creating an epic more in the veins of Ten Commandments. MovieBob got me willing to give it a chance, this is the video in question.
I still was cautious, having dispelled the fear of a propagandist film I now began to question if the epic was in fact aiming a bit too high with all the ideas it wanted to explore. On this count the movie does suffer a little, but there was still a lot in this to make me suggest it.
Firstly I should note that I don't personally have anything against a movie which does chose to represent religious stories sincerely, even though I know several of my friends do. I find Prince of Egypt, a Dreamworks film to be incredibly beautiful, moving and heartfelt. It doesn't skirt around including God nor does it spend its time trying to force it upon you. The religion matters to the story because it matters to the characters in it.
That said I found that the increased presence of pandering Christian films in this past decade has left a slight social dissonance within Noah. I kept expecting the worst of the medium and was left confused when it didn't happen. But enough about Christianity and this movie, lets talk about the film itself.
Noah is a very ambitious film, a large scale epic with huge spectacle. If you like seeing films with big moments there is plenty here to get you excited. So much that a few aspects got left by the wayside to my disappointment. Such as Methuselah's fire sword... yes, you read that right. There are also incredibly creative creatures in The Watchers, a group of fallen angels who had decided to help man after they were cast out by the Creator. Ok, sorry, back to religion real quick. This film skirts around a full representation of Christian religion because, it's not what it want's to be, and it appears to not want to offend or alienate audiences. As such there is only mention of a 'Creator' and the description of the creation of earth by the Creator is a montage from Big Bang through evolution.
And now, back to the plot.
The sons of Adam and Eve were three, Cain, Able and Seth. Cain killed Able and his descendants serve as our bad guys. While the descendants of Seth act as shepherds to the world caring for the creatures. The sons of Cain are numerous, greedy and selfish. They are post/pre-apocalypse versions of any Captain Planet villain. Although Noah and his family would suggest to be passive, as the last remaining descendants of Seth, Noah frequently kills in this film, a small hint to what will be the massive turn for this film.
During the building of the ark and the flood the movie has already been good. But once the ark is afloat is where things suddenly become dark. Noah believes that all man must be purged; including himself and his family. So they shall die off as the only women young enough to bare children is barren; however she becomes pregnant and Noah realizes that if it is a girl than mankind has a hope of continuing and all those he sacrificed, all those he killed have died for naught because the world is still not clean of the sin of man.
Noah, seemingly suffering from both sever post-traumatic stress and cabin fever, has said that he will kill the child if it is a girl. And they live in a constant state of fear for months as the baby is carried to term, it is tense to see how far Noah has slipped and to see his family unable to escape him.
What this movie does right it does amazingly well, however it is probably a bit to ambitious and some parts could have been cut as I get the impression that part of some sub-plots was already removed for time. While the remains feel disjointed.
Still, you should see this one. As I bitterly complain about another nostalgic property from the 80's, or a mobile phone game receiving a blockbuster treatment, I will always try to reward ambition when it does emerge.
For those unaware the quote above is from the new Wachowski siblings film Jupiter Ascending and I have a few problems with it.
Firstly I should make clear I was really looking forward to this film when I first heard of it, I like Channing Tatum, I like Mila Kunis and I like Sean Bean but I really like big epic space opera's from talent who can create something as revolutionary as the Matrix was. After the first trailer came out I was pumped for how new everything looked, although I thought the plot sounded a little lack luster but I will still ready to see what they did with it.
And then the second trailer came out. Mila Kunis who appears to be unknowing space queen of Earth quips that they wont believe what she does for a living as it shows she appears to be some sort of maid/cleaning laid cleaning a toilet. This isn't really the problem, poor person didn't know they were actually the most special snowflake stories can be good, they can be done well. Harry Potter is the prime example. But the line Sean Bean says after this annoys me for two reasons, 'It's not what you do, it's what you are.' And no, I'm sorry, but no. I understand they are saying that she isn't defined by her job but a characters actions are what is important to the plot and the more I see the more I realise that she doesn't take any action. At no point in the trailers does she do anything.
On top of that I have no idea who she is, that one little quip is the closest thing we get to any character from her. I can make a reasonable guess as to Channing's character as well as Sean's but other than the fact she seems to have such a problem with gravity I've started calling it Jupiter Descending.
I am still keen to see the film, huge visuals are a guarantee while the Wachowski siblings are often able to raise questions that give a film depth. However thinking back over the Matrix I remember that character, was never their strong suit. A fact made worse to me that the title character, the main female character appears to be a human macguffin or sexy lamp.
But hey, it seems to pass the Bechdel test, so those who consider the test the value of an actual individual movie rather than as a way of examining the entire industry (which is meant to be)... yay.
P.S. Is it just me or does that poster look really similar to the posters from Oz the Great and Powerful... just me? Fine.
White House Down -
This movie suffered from coming out at the same time with Olympus has Fallen, a movie with a very similar premise but generally a much worse film. However White House Down is every the insanity and tension of an 80's action film with the politics of left wing America today. The closest comparison is Die Hard, battling a force greater then you in an enclosed space with a loved one in the balance. The difference being, the rather lofty task of being as charismatic as young Bruce Willis is split between President 'No I swear it's not Obama' Jamie Fox and the every man, ex-service man Channing Tatum.
If you are an action movie fan, rent it and give them some money cause this is Roland Emerich's most enjoyable film since Independence Day.
Beautiful Creatures -
Time for the YA romance adaptations... and there were a LOT in 2013. I still haven't managed to catch up on them all yet. However Beautiful Creatures was the stand out for me. It's, not without it's problems. The climax in particular is, rushed and awkward. The idea that men area able to chose their path while women are chosen for light or dark by... something... the moon, I think? Irritated me, however the movie does it so they can deal with the concept. It's always difficult to criticise the 'we are using misogynistic ideas for tension... but we keep pointing to them and saying they are misogynistic, that makes it ok right?' Still, this is a beautiful film. I hadn't considered how seenic that area of America was before. On top of that it gets bonus points for having the couple TALK about their problems and agree to work it out together.
The Host -
So... here's the Stephanie Meyer drinking game. Take a shot every time:
- A female character tries to Martyr herself
- A male love interest is physically or emotionally abusive (or becomes the love interest after doing so)
- A far more interesting plot/character/idea is brought up briefly only to be glossed over
- Finish your drink after 15 minutes of characters doing NOTHING
That all said... I was actually hoping for something more terrible than what the Host was, being a connoisseur of bad movies. The Host's biggest crime is being dull, being very safe with a concept that is crying out for a better writer. That said, I think there is a dramatic improvement between the Twilight Saga and the Host... so hey, at least she's learning.
Dhoom 3 -
How have I lived my life for so long without seeing a Bollywood film?
The sheer campish brilliance of a film that will mix genres depending on scene, have actors give their all in every moment with the occasional musical interlude. Dhoom 3 is the first fully Bollywood film that was made and marketed with a clear goal of an American audience. The villain is amazing while the hero's fill the typical buddy cop roles of straight guy and funny guy. If you are looking for a well made, utterly shameless movie in its enjoyment.
More quick bits will come later, in the mean time get yourself to a TV and put in a copy of White House Down or Dhoom 3.
Ok, I should explain where I am coming from with this film.
I did not want to see this, I'd heard good things but personally can't stand a lot of movies that focus on the issues of AIDS, homophobia and drug dealing. I always feel uncomfortable when these issues are explored. I don't have a great frame of reference, I have a few friends who are in the LGBT community and have experienced homophobia but never when I've been around. I am too young to have lived through the massive AIDS scare and even though I know it still exists, it just doesn't affect my life. On top of that, when I heard drug dealing I pretty much shut down, I hate the way the movies moralize and are rarely anything more than a PSA.
However, my boyfriends family had tickets to the moonlight cinema so, I decided to give it a go.
I have never been so glad I gave a movie a chance. Everything that I usually hate about these kinds of movies is skimmed over for a well built character drama and a battle against a failed system.
Honestly, it reminds me most of Erin Brockovich as a film. Which I did like although
I feel it was quiet flawed, you were also always aware you were watching a movie.
Dallas Buyers Club's strength is how real it feels, everyone is believable as a person not just a character. Matthew McConaughey has been having a fantastic time in films of late, the last few years he seems to have been able to break away from his type cast as 'past boyfriend you probably broke up with for very good reasons, but you'll get back together with by the end of the movie'. And I am glad because he was fantastic in this, I've also heard amazing things about him in Mud (2012), and his brief role in Wolf of Wall Street. Both of which I haven't seen yet.
Jared Leto was also amazing as his transgender business partner, McConaughey was able to stand out more because his character had an arc, it was his story. The weakest role was probably Jennifer Garner, she was the one most obviously acting.
I'd heartily recommend seeing this, I can't say how accurate a true story it is, after all every film based on a true story has to be changed to some degree.
The acting is excellent, the cinematography great and the script tight.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.