What a laugh ... back in September it was the Teacher's birthday and the four of us (myself, the Teacher, the Daughter and the Boy) went out for a meal at a very nice local Indian Restaurant.
This was before we shot Monsters and before the Boy was on Bamzooki (and no, I haven't forgotten, they made rather more episodes than I expected - he hasn't been on yet, I'll let you know).
The discussion got on to the subject of shooting schedules - who was doing what and when - then we suddenly realised what we sounded like, all this TV and schedules and so forth, and burst out laughing.
However on to the main course:
We've been having a bit of a Bruce Willis Christmas.
We have a tradition: Boxing Day involves closing the curtains and watching a set of films from a series. For two years we did the entire Lord of the Rings extended - needs 12 hours - last year we did all four Indiana Jones (not entirely satisfying), and this year we did the Die Hards. (Next year we'll be doing LotR again.)
The Die Hards are good satisfying fun - you almost never see the third one nowadays since it involves bombs in New York - and we enjoyed them (the Boy had only seen 4.0 until then). EDIT: Die Hard 3 was on this very evening. Typical.
The Teacher was also very pleased with her gifts, since she got one of her all-time favourite films on DVD: Hudson Hawk. This is a very silly film and it was a box office disaster - but it has a certain charm. The Teacher loves it. And it's a Bruce Willis film. From a screenwriting viewpoint there is an awful lot wrong with this film - it doesn't know its genre for a start - and yet it still manages to please.
In the great video cull of 2008 we lost a lot of films we liked to watch - though by then we did not have a video player that worked properly (except one integral to a very small TV). So we've been replacing with DVDs - we've seen Blu-ray on a big TV and yes, it is fantastic, but we won't changing in the near future.
We have now also re-acquired The Hunt for Red October which we watched. Quality stuff. Other DVDs we've newly received but not yet re-watched: Galaxy Quest to go with our brand-new copy of Star Trek, and Practical Magic, as a family we're big Sandra Bullock fans and the Teacher and the Daughter adore this film.
TV has been mostly irrelevant, as it tends to be at Christmas. We watched Dr Who, of course, and were suitably impressed - bearing in mind it was a "part 1". I'll talk about the new "Day of the Triffids" tomorrow when we've seen part 2. However the fact that it had almost zero promotion may give you a clue - John Wyndham knows how to spin a terrifying yarn in novel/short story form, adaptations are always hard.
Oh, and the DavidTennant/PatrickStewart/RSC "Hamlet", of course. Overall we think it wasn't as good as the Brannagh one, but still damn good. Brilliant writer, of course.
And I got a telescope for Christmas, I was absolutely stunned and delighted - I've always been interested in astronomy - unfortunately there is a problem and it's not focusing. We are in discussions with the UK distributor.
What's on the turntable? "Your sister can't twist (but she can rock and roll)" by Elton John
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Misfits
Did you watch it last night? I did. I enjoyed it enough to want to watch the next episode (which is more than I can say for Defying Gravity). Misfits is a 60-minute dramedy, and the balance was good for the first episode - I hope they can keep it up.
The next section isn't really spoilerific but if you don't want to know anything you better not read it.
I imagine Misfits has been described as Heroes for the UK: Small scale and very real. What we have is a bunch of loser kids on community service for various misdemeanors who find themselves with superpowers after a freak accident.
Note, there are four ways of being super: natural (it's in your genes), freak accident (radioative spider anyone?), gimmicks (Iron Man) and magic (Dr Strange, Juggernaut).
What was interesting from a screenwriting viewpoint is the type of powers the characters have. In Heroes the powers are pretty random but in the Fantastic Four movie the writers linked the abilities gained by each character to what they were doing, or trying to do, at the point they were zapped with gamma rays. (So Reed Richards is trying to reach for something - his ability becomes elasticity.)
In Misfits they have done almost the same thing but from a more writer-ly perspective: all the characters have been given powers related to their external wants - which, in each case, is the opposite of their internal need. (Well, I say "all" but there is one character whose power has not yet been revealed - though we ought to be able to work it out from what we know of his character.)
I think this is a pretty good start, and offers lots of character development opportunities - some of which are already manifesting.
What's on the turntable? "The Long March" by Vangelis from "China"
The next section isn't really spoilerific but if you don't want to know anything you better not read it.
I imagine Misfits has been described as Heroes for the UK: Small scale and very real. What we have is a bunch of loser kids on community service for various misdemeanors who find themselves with superpowers after a freak accident.
Note, there are four ways of being super: natural (it's in your genes), freak accident (radioative spider anyone?), gimmicks (Iron Man) and magic (Dr Strange, Juggernaut).
What was interesting from a screenwriting viewpoint is the type of powers the characters have. In Heroes the powers are pretty random but in the Fantastic Four movie the writers linked the abilities gained by each character to what they were doing, or trying to do, at the point they were zapped with gamma rays. (So Reed Richards is trying to reach for something - his ability becomes elasticity.)
In Misfits they have done almost the same thing but from a more writer-ly perspective: all the characters have been given powers related to their external wants - which, in each case, is the opposite of their internal need. (Well, I say "all" but there is one character whose power has not yet been revealed - though we ought to be able to work it out from what we know of his character.)
I think this is a pretty good start, and offers lots of character development opportunities - some of which are already manifesting.
What's on the turntable? "The Long March" by Vangelis from "China"
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Up
So..... I saw Up today. It is an exceptionally good movie.
But I have to say that this is not a kids' movie. Really.
This is not to say that child from, say, 8 up isn't going to enjoy it, they will. But this is not a kids' movie. There were a lot of children in the auditorium who were under 8 (of course! It's Pixar, it's about an old man, a kid and balloons).
I'm not going to say a lot about it, so much has been said by others, I will say that if you haven't seen it then I recommend taking tissues, you'll need them in the first 10 minutes, and maybe a couple of times after that. I did.
The imagery of this movie is so powerful that I can't even think about those first 10 minutes without welling up again.
This is a film about character, every one of them is beautifully drawn, and every one of them, even the animals, have their needs and goals. It's also a perfect example of how to build conflict into every scene naturally (even into the stair-lift scene). It has excellent set-ups and pay-offs throughout.
And, the Teacher and I agree, this is a devastatingly sad movie.
If it hadn't been Pixar this would never have been made.
Absolutely not for kids.
See it.
What's on the turntable? "Chanson d'amour" by The Manhattan Transfer
But I have to say that this is not a kids' movie. Really.
This is not to say that child from, say, 8 up isn't going to enjoy it, they will. But this is not a kids' movie. There were a lot of children in the auditorium who were under 8 (of course! It's Pixar, it's about an old man, a kid and balloons).
I'm not going to say a lot about it, so much has been said by others, I will say that if you haven't seen it then I recommend taking tissues, you'll need them in the first 10 minutes, and maybe a couple of times after that. I did.
The imagery of this movie is so powerful that I can't even think about those first 10 minutes without welling up again.
This is a film about character, every one of them is beautifully drawn, and every one of them, even the animals, have their needs and goals. It's also a perfect example of how to build conflict into every scene naturally (even into the stair-lift scene). It has excellent set-ups and pay-offs throughout.
And, the Teacher and I agree, this is a devastatingly sad movie.
If it hadn't been Pixar this would never have been made.
Absolutely not for kids.
See it.
What's on the turntable? "Chanson d'amour" by The Manhattan Transfer
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Watchmen
Went to see it at the Manchester IMAX this evening with the wife.
I read the trade paperback (it's not technically a "Graphic Novel" because it was first issued in parts) back when it was first released. I got it for Christmas this year and did re-read it, I have also read lots of blogs and reviews about the film. My wife, who also read it 20+ years ago had been avoiding trailers and Watchmen discussions.
Having said that neither the wife nor I are big comic fans, we might read a comic leant by a friend but almost never buy one ourselves.
So, the film: I liked it. I liked it a lot. So did the wife.
People said "it's too long": Sorry don't agree, there was one place where it felt a teeny bit slow, then it speeded up again. It did not feel like 2.5 hours.
People said "it should have been more like the comic": Nope, it was incredibly close anyway with sections and dialogue lifted wholesale, I don't think it could have sensibly been more like the comic. And, I'm going to commit comic heresy, I thought the film ending was more logical than the original. Though the comic is logical on its own terms. (They might have been talking about the sub-story with the boy reading the Pirate comic, I didn't even like it in the original comic; it would have been insane to add it, and lengthened the movie by at least 30 minutes.)
People said "it should have been less like the comic": It could have been but I don't think that would necessarily have made it better.
People said "You have to have read the comic to understand it": Difficult to answer, but my wife was happy with it. Thing is, you really have to pay attention, this is a film for thinking, it's not "just entertainment". There is a reason why it's in the NY Times Top 100 Books of the 20th Century.
People said "Dr Manhattan's doo-wangle hanging out all the time is distracting": This is important, because it isn't out "all the time" (in fact just a tiny fraction of the film) and the "distraction" actually says far more about the people writing these comments than the film.
People said "The watchmen seemed superheroic in the fights": Yes they were a bit, which is wrong as they were just ordinary people - except Dr Manhattan who is off the super scale. I can live with it.
People said "But they weren't really heroes": That is the point.
People said "the music should have been 80s not 60s": This is because they weren't listening to the words which was the reason for the choices. There was however one music choice that was just silly, though it could have been argued there was a deeper reason for the choice ... but it was just silly really.
All the acting is good, but Comedian and Rorschach are outstanding.
The visuals were stunning and modelled almost to perfection on the comic. Rorschach's mask was wonderful.
Would I recommend it? If you want a film that will make you think, then this is a good film to see, if you want to be a mere zombified spectator, don't bother.
What's on the turntable? Nuffink
I read the trade paperback (it's not technically a "Graphic Novel" because it was first issued in parts) back when it was first released. I got it for Christmas this year and did re-read it, I have also read lots of blogs and reviews about the film. My wife, who also read it 20+ years ago had been avoiding trailers and Watchmen discussions.
Having said that neither the wife nor I are big comic fans, we might read a comic leant by a friend but almost never buy one ourselves.
So, the film: I liked it. I liked it a lot. So did the wife.
People said "it's too long": Sorry don't agree, there was one place where it felt a teeny bit slow, then it speeded up again. It did not feel like 2.5 hours.
People said "it should have been more like the comic": Nope, it was incredibly close anyway with sections and dialogue lifted wholesale, I don't think it could have sensibly been more like the comic. And, I'm going to commit comic heresy, I thought the film ending was more logical than the original. Though the comic is logical on its own terms. (They might have been talking about the sub-story with the boy reading the Pirate comic, I didn't even like it in the original comic; it would have been insane to add it, and lengthened the movie by at least 30 minutes.)
People said "it should have been less like the comic": It could have been but I don't think that would necessarily have made it better.
People said "You have to have read the comic to understand it": Difficult to answer, but my wife was happy with it. Thing is, you really have to pay attention, this is a film for thinking, it's not "just entertainment". There is a reason why it's in the NY Times Top 100 Books of the 20th Century.
People said "Dr Manhattan's doo-wangle hanging out all the time is distracting": This is important, because it isn't out "all the time" (in fact just a tiny fraction of the film) and the "distraction" actually says far more about the people writing these comments than the film.
People said "The watchmen seemed superheroic in the fights": Yes they were a bit, which is wrong as they were just ordinary people - except Dr Manhattan who is off the super scale. I can live with it.
People said "But they weren't really heroes": That is the point.
People said "the music should have been 80s not 60s": This is because they weren't listening to the words which was the reason for the choices. There was however one music choice that was just silly, though it could have been argued there was a deeper reason for the choice ... but it was just silly really.
All the acting is good, but Comedian and Rorschach are outstanding.
The visuals were stunning and modelled almost to perfection on the comic. Rorschach's mask was wonderful.
Would I recommend it? If you want a film that will make you think, then this is a good film to see, if you want to be a mere zombified spectator, don't bother.
What's on the turntable? Nuffink
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)