How much will they dull The Edge of Tomorrow?

The first trailer to go with the stills for The Edge of Tomorrow has arrived.  The question is, how visceral will it be?

With Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise cast in the lead roles, The Edge of Tomorrow is a cinematic adaptation of a 2003 short novel called 'All You Need Is Kill' by Hiroshi Sakurazaka.  The story tells of a soldier called Keiji fighting a war in the near future against an invading alien race called 'Mimics'.  It is a battle that humanity is desperately losing.  Keiji has no experience of war going into his first battle, and he is killed only to find himself transported back to the day before.  This time loop continues as he is forced to fight and die repeatedly.  Trapped in this loop Keiji learns to fight better and smarter each time, in a desperate attempt to escape his repetitive demise and maybe even turn the tide of the war.  The book is fantastic, and I would recommend it to anyone.  You get a real sense of Keiji's drive and desperation to escape his deaths.  He painfully recounts his demise numerous times, none of them pleasant.

The film has yet to receive a rating, but the BBFC website lists the trailer as 12A.  I can imagine that the film will follow suit, trying to reach as large an audience as possible.  Will the film, who's source material contains graphic, adult content, be compromised as a result?

Tom Cruise is a pretty safe bet for your lead role if you want to stay family friendly but have a dramatic edge.  I also can't wait to see what Emily Blunt does with the role of The Full Metal Bitch.

Out in June 2014, we'll just have to wait and see.

Jupiter Ascending gets it's first trailer...

Before The Wachowskis brought Cloud Atlas to our screens, Jupiter Ascending was in development.  We finally get our first glimpse in the form of the following trailer.

Written, produced and directed by The Wachowskis and due for release next year, I believe this will be a welcome return for two directors responsible for some of my favourite science fiction cinema.  Having read Cloud Atlas I can only admire directors brave enough to try and bring such a work to life on screen.  I personally found the book a challenge at times, and can understand some peoples distaste of the film.  The things I loved about Cloud Atlas were the visuals, and the scope of the thing.  It showed me The Wachowskis to be fearless directors, not afraid to challenge and be challenged.

Jupiter Ascending looks to continue on this theme of visually stunning story telling of intergalactic scope.  As a huge fan of The Wachowskis, this is something I cannot wait to see.

Steer clear of the Carrie remake...

I'm not usually one for ranting.  Having seen a bad film I don't write about it, or I wait until I have calmed down and can constructively criticise it.

I am a fan of the original version of Carrie, and a big fan of Stephen King's writing.  The story of Carrie is a great allegory for puberty and adolescence that has been retold in many forms in books and film over the years.
The book was published in 1974, was and still is an exceptional work of literary fiction.  Hard hitting both in it's content, child abuse, religious fanaticism, bullying, teenage pregnancy, abortion, murder, and for the fact that it was an epistolary novel.  The subject matter combined with it's portrayal as actual events that took place would have made for something very powerful at that time.
Two years later, in 1976, a feature film adapted from the book was released.  Whilst I don't feel that the film was able to convey the full glory of the writing, it did a stand up job.  The film hasn’t aged well, and watching it now may not have as profound effect.  The subject matter at that time was very edgy.  As a result it was critically acclaimed and earned 2 oscar nominations, lead actress and supporting actress.

Fast forward to 2013.  In our current age, with the internet, information sharing and social media the way it is, the topics mentioned above aren’t taboo.  Because of this a Carrie remake would have to think outside the box a little.  How do you make the film relevant to this generation.  I’m sorry to say that happy slapping and video sharing via social networks just don’t cut it.  They in themselves are now tired gimmicks.  Used and reused many times before.  So with that said an almost frame perfect (in some places) remake of the original just becomes woefully dull.  There isn’t anything there to wow the current generation.  No shocks, no edge.  It just doesn't feel like there was any need to remake the film at this moment in time.

If you have yet to see Carrie at the cinema.  I wouldn’t waste the money on a ticket.  Wait a few months for your on demand service to pick it up.  Or better yet, steer clear of the remake all together and just watch the original.

The Hunger Games grows up...

Out of the shadow of an enjoyable, but half baked first film, steps a much more mature offering in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  The second film in the series joins Katniss and Peeta following their victory in the 74th Hunger Games of the first film.  This film explores the social and political impact of their joint victory within the land of Panem.

We get to further explore the devious contempt of Donald Sutherland's character, Snow.  Something sorely lacking from the first instalment.  We also get a great performance from Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  His character adds gravitas to proceedings.  The 'things that go unsaid' nature of his story arc adds a very thoughtful element.
The first film was very much about survival.  You could also liken early adolescence to survival too.  Your life is rapidly changing.  You are plucked from the safety and security of primary school, thrust into the harsh dog eat dog world of secondary school.  Much in the same way as the Reaping sees Pledges taken from their homes and put into The Hunger Games.
Moving onto Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and the journey continues in much the same way.  During your early years, from the safety and security of your family home, you have but to think about yourself.  That is not to say that we are all selfish, just that we have yet to be fettered with the responsibilities that are a natural part of adulthood.  Now as The Hunger Games moves into it's second instalment, we start to see these more responsible, adult elements start to appear.
This starts with the scene between President Snow and Katniss.  Snow immediately acknowledges the deception of Katniss' relationship with Peeta, and asks that it continue.  Snow insists that Katniss do whatever it takes to convince him that it is real, otherwise Katniss’ family will be at the mercy of Snow.  So not only are we dealing with the concept of deception, but also the idea that Katniss is having to do something that she does not enjoy in order to keep others safe.  A very grown up concept, and signs that we are moving out of the comfort of childhood and into adolescence and young adulthood.
Then we are introduced to the Mockingjay symbol for the first time as a symbol of rebellion and propaganda, spray painted on the tunnel wall during the train journey to District 11.  An introduction to the politically charged element of this second film.  Having arrived in District 11 on their victory tour, Katniss and Peeta are expected to give a speech.  Effie has prepared these already and hands them cards that they need only read from.  After only a few words Peeta abandons the cards and speaks from the heart.  With the image of fallen tribute, ally, and friend Rue looking down upon her, Katniss is compelled to follow suit.  

     “Everything beautiful brings her to mind.  I see her in the yellow flowers that grow in the meadow beside my house.  I see her in the mockingjays that sing in the trees."

After these heartfelt words from Katniss, an elderly gentleman in the crowd raises a silent, three fingered salute, a symbol of the growing rebellion.  Members of the Capitol's police force are quickly on hand to put a stop to it by shooting the elderly man.
A distraught Katniss gets a very real lesson on how her thoughts, words and actions have very real consequences on everyone around her.  Like I'm sure all parents will agree however, there are still some things that are kept from Katniss.  In much the same way parents protect their children from some of the harsher realities of life for as long as possible.  This becomes apparent in the final scenes when we find out that a plot to start a rebellion was happening all around her during the 75th Hunger Games.

As the first film introduced us to the concept of The Hunger Games.  It focused mainly on the mechanics of the games survivalist nature.  In this way it was likened to films such as Battle Royale, meaning that those unfamiliar with the books were coming to watch the film with expectations that were skewed from the start.  Being compared to such an adult themed and violent film made the first Hunger Games seem perhaps more childlike than it actually was.  Throughout the second film we get glimpses of rebellion.  People talking about hope.  Unrest in all the districts, and silent salutes in respect to the two main characters that add much more.  This comes to a dramatic climax at the end when we are brought to the precipice of a full scale uprising.  When we also find out that District 12 has been flattened and Snow has followed through with his earlier threat, Katniss' steely look tells us that we have crossed a threshold and there is no going back.  A fine ending that left me wanting immediately to see the final instalment of this franchise.

As the final credits began to roll, I turned to a friend who I was watching the film with and jokingly bet that the final film would be split into two parts.  An annoying trend with such franchises.  It appears the trend will continue with The Hunger Games, where we can expect to see 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1' on our screens just before Christmas next year.  My only hope is that it isn't a case of all the action being shoe-horned into part 2.

Is anything sacred in Hollywood?

With the number of franchises growing all the time, and remakes and reboots coming at us from every angle.  The question is, is anything sacred?  Will anything ever be spared the sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, re-imagination treatment?  If so, why?

That was the question that was discussed between myself and a friend after the release of the latest trailer for the Robocop reboot, due in February 2014:

Initially we were both very much against the idea of a Robocop reboot.  The original is without doubt a classic.  A film I could sit down and watch right now without thinking, "if only they were able to do this, or change that?".
Having seen the second trailer I'm warming slightly to the idea of a new Robocop.  Why?  It's becoming clear from Samuel L. Jackson's character's speech that the angle will be global unmanned warfare/policing.  This has grabbed my interest, and I would like to see where they go with it.  This 'finger on the button' style of disassociated warfare isn't new.  Whether it's warfare or just everyday living we've explored the idea of removing the human element.  We only have to look to Surrogates or I, Robot as examples here.  What I hope it adds to the Robocop reboot is a broadened horizon.  A more globalised element to the narrative that can only mean one thing, more spectacle.  For me, the simplicity of the story is what gives Robocop it's timeless quality.  So a global, 21st century facelift gives them somewhere to go with the reboot without having to tinker with the winning formula of the original.

When it comes to the question of what makes anything sacred?  Who knows.  In a time when we see Total Recall remade with nobody going to Mars, it's looking more and more like the answer is nothing.

Gravity...A force to be reckoned with...

After weeks of positive press and media attention.  Including a slew of glowing reviews over the last week, I finally got to see Gravity.  With a current Rotten Tomatoes rating of 97% expectation was high.

If you've yet to see the film, don't read ahead.

Wow.

Gravity tells the story of Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), and Matt Kowalski as disaster strikes their routine spacewalk to service a satellite orbiting the Earth.  Seemingly stranded in space, will they make it back?

The only thing that I could consider to be negative about the film, or even the experience itself, was that it highlighted how unused to great, original screenplays I had become.  For a few brief moments during the beginnings of the film, I thought I was feeling underwhelmed.  At first I was inclined to equate it to the hype surrounding the film.  Then I realised I had grown accustomed to coming into the cinema expecting either mediocrity, or a franchise that I was already very familiar with.  The caveat to this being Prisoners and Captain Phillips, but I'm sure that anyone who has seen either will agree that they are paced and shot in a very different manner.

First you have the stunning cinematography.  There's no snappy, nauseating edits here.  The length of some takes must have been very intimidating for the actors.  Under any normal circumstances, long minutes of Sandra Bullock hyperventilating would make Speed look like Oscar bait.  In Gravity's case, it only serves to add to the aesthetic.

Then you have the soundtrack, or lack of.  As you would expect in space, everything is very quiet.  Space debris shredding through the spaceship and space station in near silence is incredibly unsettling.  Especially after we get to see first hand what the result of getting struck by even the smallest piece could mean.  The only music we hear is that played by George Clooney's character.  Firstly to Ryan's annoyance, and secondly to her comfort.

Finally you have Clooney and Bullock.  That's it.  The only other credits go to voice actors.  Check out this screen shot from IMDB:

Even with the main body of the dialogue between two characters, it never seems superfluous.  You have the nervous chatter of Ryan Stone, first time space explorer, and the distracting patter of Matt Kowalski, veteran commander.  The latter trying to keep the former focused and together.  The type of behaviour you would expect between the two characters in this situation.

All of this adds up to something scarily like space.  I've never been to space, but I'm pretty sure that's what it would feel and sound like.  I can't remember the last time I had sweaty palms watching a film, and I can safely say that I won't be writing out my application to NASA anytime in the future.

Even in the closing scenes of the film, Ryan Stone splashes down in the ocean and has to escape from the burning landing pod.  She pops the hatch and the water comes rushing in.  At this point, I'm almost on the edge of my seat, biting my tongue so I don't shout "how much more is she going to have to endure!".  Even after escaping the pod, she finds her suit too heavy to let her swim to the surface.  I had no trouble believing Ryan Stone's desire to live by the end.  The turning point being a wonderful scene, perfectly scripted between Stone and Kowalski within the Soyuz.

All in all, Gravity is one hell of a film.  One might even say it's out of this world...

I'm sorry.  I couldn't resist.

Captain America comes of age...

We've had the new trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier for a few days now.  In case you haven't seen it yet though, here it is...

You may notice the new outfit worn by Steve Rogers.  There was always going to be a certain amount of redesign going on for the new film.  Though for me it signifies something of a theme that I feel to be running through the trailer.

Think back to Captain America: The First Avenger with Rogers sporting the red, white and blue of his nation's flag.  Some found the film as a whole jingoistic, and whilst I'm one for finding patriotic chest beating in films nauseating (the flag against the building in The Amazing Spiderman being a prime example), if you can't do it in CAPTAIN AMERICA when can you?! 

Now back to The Winter Soldier trailer and Rogers' new outfit.  Gone are the patriotic colours, replaced by more muted, darker colours.  Only the silver star remaining across his chest.  We also have Robert Redford's character telling Rogers, "to build a better world, sometimes means tearing the old one down...and that makes enemies".  Immediately following this we cut to Nick Fury walking into a room.  This may well be a completely different scene, but add this together with several shots of Rogers looking pensive, thoughtful and uttering the line "I joined S.H.I.E.L.D to protect people" and it looks like you have Rogers considering who his enemies really are?  We know that Rogers had concerns with S.H.I.E.L.D and their development of Hydra weapons in Avengers Assemble, so we already have an element of distrust there.  Gone are the days of World War 2 when it was everyone vs. The Nazis.  The Winter Soldier I hope gives us chance to further explore the complex modern day world of technology and terrorism that Rogers now finds himself in.  A time when the enemy isn't so clearly defined.  All of this will ultimately bring to the fore the characteristic of Captain America that I love best.  He's just a man.  He remembers what it's like to be the little guy, and that's who he's trying to protect, regardless of who that puts him up against.

We haven't even said anything about The Winter Soldier himself yet!  It remains to be seen how true to the Winter Soldier storyline they keep.  The basic idea is straight forward enough to not necessarily need much tinkering with.  If you keep watching until the very end of the trailer, you'll see one thing's for certain.  The Winter Soldier is a bad ass.  In pursuit of The Winter Soldier, Captain America throws himself out of a window onto a rooftop.  He then follows it up with his signature shield throw, and The Winter Soldier simply turns round and catches it out of the air.

April 2014 can't come quick enough...

Pirates invade Hollywood...

...Only this is the kind of piracy that Hollywood, and the rest of us for that matter, won't mind seeing more of.

**Spoilers ahead**

It seems like a strange thing to say, but for those of you who have seen Captain Phillips, it's a sentiment I'm sure you'll agree with.

This is in no small part down to a truly magical performance from Tom Hanks.  Who once again shows us why he is one of Hollywood's greats.  The sequence at the end once Captain Phillips has been saved and is aboard the Navy ship is one of the most moving pieces of cinema I have seen for quite a while.  Add to it the way the medic is continually talking to him to keep him focused, it adds a visceral level of realism to proceedings.

This feeling of realism stood out from the very beginning with the distinct lack of title music and opening titles.  Follow this up with some Paul Greengrass signature close camera work, and a brilliant supporting cast alongside Tom Hanks, and I was immersed.

The real beauty of the film though, comes after the end credits.  It may be 15 minutes later, in the bar sharing a drink with friends.  Maybe it's an hour or two, after the drive home.  Sat on the sofa with a cup of tea and a biscuit.  For me it was the latter.  I was marvelling at the themes of the film, and how they changed and shifted from character to character.  Was it really possible to feel sorry for the pirates?

There's a point in the film when Captain Phillips, in a conversation with Muse, says, "we all got bosses".

This quote is one that got me thinking the most.  It's also one that signifies the films intention to not paint the Somali pirates with the 'axis of evil' brush.  Something that I think it does very well.  There are scenes on the Somali pirate boat, that with the addition of a big glass table some suits and ties, could take place in any number of corporate offices around the world.  The real evil in the film is the one we don't see.  Or the one you only hear on a radio, or a telephone, issuing commands.  Distantly disconnected from the situation and in relative comfort.  The Somali Warlord who isn't getting his hands dirty, or the commanding officer instructing the warship captain to take any means necessary to stop the pirate vessel from reaching the shore.  The film is full of people facing a morale struggle with choices that aren't their own.

Captain Phillips is a superb film.  Relevant and allegorical, with some brilliant acting.  I look forward to watching a film that contains a lead acting performance to threaten Tom Hanks for the Oscar.

Die Hard in The White House...

Or to use it's alternative title, White House Down.

For those of you concentrating, it may have been obvious from the very beginning.  I'm tempted to use the excuse that I was giving the film chance, in reality I was just enjoying myself.  When you get 30 to 40 minutes into the film however, if you hadn't already made the Die Hard connection, you get a big fat 'I'm just Die Hard set in the White House' slap in the face.

**If you haven't seen the film yet, spoilers lay ahead**

Let me set the scene for you.

A techno-geek by the name of Tyler is brought into the White House secure bunker by the bad guys.  Here he proceeds to get himself set up, opening up laptops, logging into systems, laying out a cup holding several lollipops (one of which he unwraps and puts into his mouth).  All the while getting giddy with excitement, much like a kid at Christmas.  A triumphant crescendo of well known classical music (when I say well known, I mean that I recognised it but couldn't tell you the name) volumes up in the background.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you...

Hopefully for those of you who have now seen Die Hard in the White House, you will know which seen I am relating this to.

Even though the Die Hard link has now been made in my mind, my enjoyment of the film has not been diminished at all.  I am, however, now entering into a game of which White House Down character relates to which Die Hard character.  I came up with the following:

Let's get the most obvious one out of the way first.  Where would Die Hard be

without a variant shade of white vest clad Bruce Willis?

White House Down comes complete with Channing Tatum.  Don't worry,

although he starts off looking dapper in a suit.  He soon discards this for every

heroes favourite, the white vest.  What better way to single handedly take on a

group of highly trained paramilitary types?!

Next up we have our vision of Aryan perfection, fan favourite Karl.  His failed attempts

at killing McClane frequently reduced him to a gun toting rage.  Impervious to pain,

practically indestructible.

Our White House Down replica is Jason Clarke's 'Stenz'.  Equally tough, equally angry.

The only thing we're missing is a final hurrah whereby Stenz rises from the rubble of

the White House in one final attempt to kill Cale.

That brings us to Sgt. Al Powell, whose final act is to overcome his fear of firing his gun.

Thereby saving McClane and finally killing Karl.  His plucky, witting, and sometimes

heartfelt radio chatter keeps our hero going through some of his more difficult moments.

White House Down sees Sgt. Powell replaced by the glamorous Finnerty, played by Maggie

Gyllenhaal.  And whilst a radio is replaced by a satellite phone, you can expect the same

plucky, witty and sometimes heartfelt chatter.

Holly Gennero McClane, hostage who is then discovered to be our heroes significant

other.  Then dutifully used as bait to draw McClane into a trap.  Holly and John have a

frosty relationship at the beginning of the film to say the least.  But the events at Nakatomi

Plaza bring them back together.

....Surely you're starting to get the picture by now?!

Don't worry it doesn't stop there.  Die Hard's antagonist Hans Gruber, is replaced in White House Down by James Woods' Walker.  The villainous techno geek Theo seen in the video clip above is replaced by Tyler.  I'd even go as far as to say that limo driver Argyle...

(you know, the guy who spends all his time with the teddy bear?)

...is re imagined as Donnie the Guide.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I loved Die Hard.  So they could do far worse than to flatter such a great film.

They'll be no Oscars, but you'll enjoy it.

If it was good enough for The Avengers...

I'm a fan of Marvel, and have a great deal of love for what Disney, Marvel Studios and everyone involved has done in creating MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe).  I'm also a fan of Joss Whedon.  I'd be lying if I said Buffy the Vampire Slayer wasn't a part of my teenage years, and I love Firefly.  So imagine my excitement at the knowledge that these 2 loves were being brought together for Avengers Assemble.  Picture a kid at Christmas, then times it by a very large number.  As well as being an annoyance for Family, Friends and Colleagues, I kept a close eye on how much longer I would have to wait to see Avengers Assemble by using a countdown app on my phone.

So after watching the latest Iron Man 3 trailer (below, for any who haven't seen it yet),

I decided to fire up the old countdown app:

Because where would we be without Iron Man?  Undoubtedly the catalyst for the MCU as we know it today.  Marvel had had big screen outings in the past, as far back as Howard the Duck in 1986.  But even the more notable and recent entries, Spiderman, X-Men, and the Fantastic Four, were insular at best, and only just palatable at worst.  The arrival of Iron Man in 2008 changed the landscape for Marvel completely.  Understandably there were things going on behind the scenes to help things along.  The creation of Marvel Studios new base of operations, the appointment of Kevin Feige, and the systematic recuperation of the rights to all it's now stable characters, among others.

For me, the fan, Iron Man was the signal of a new beginning.  A beginning that has now lead us to this, Iron Man 3 and the start of MCU Phase 2.  Let the count down begin.

p.s. since starting to write this post, the countdown is down to:

6 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours, 38 minutes, 15 seconds

Ant-Man just keeps getting better...

A lovely post appeared on my Twitter feed recently from @SciFiNow.  They'd found an article on IFC.com about Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

http://www.ifc.com/fix/2013/02/spirit-awards-mary-elizabeth-winstead-edgar-wright

Having worked together with Edgar Wright on Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (as Ramona Flowers, pictured above), Mary Elizabeth Winstead expressed her desire to work with him again at a recent awards ceremony.  In particular when asked about his upcoming work on Ant-Man.

Now that Ant-Man is slated for a 2015 release as part of Marvel's 'Phase 3' and post Avengers 2, we're still a long way off getting anything like concrete casting at this point.  But with Marvel being hot property at the moment, they'll be no shortage of interest in the lead roles.  Knowing Winstead's name could be in the mix makes it all the more interesting.

I could see Mary Elizabeth Winstead as The Wasp, couldn't you?

Next on my wish list is Ultron....

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

This is certainly the motto employed by the writers and director of Broken City starring Mark Wahlberg and Russell Crowe.

Wahlberg plays the part of Billy Taggart, ex Police Detective turned Private Eye, with Russell Crowe as Mayor Hostetler.

At the beginning of the movie we see Taggart up in court on a murder charge, having been involved in a shooting whilst trying to make an arrest.  Taggart has killed someone suspected of raping and murdering a 16 year old girl.  A technicality sees the suspect cleared of the charges, whilst everyone knows he was actually guilty.  The implication being that Taggart deliberately shot the man to see justice done.  Taggart himself is cleared of his charges, before being hauled into an office to meet with the Mayor and the Police Chief.  Here he is told that new evidence has come to light that will surely convict him.  The evidence can be made to disappear, but he has to resign.

After Taggart leaves the office we flash forward 7 years where he is now a Private Eye.  Struggling to make ends meet due to his good nature, he gets a call from the Mayor and is offered a large amount of money to follow the Mayor's Wife (played by Catherine Zeta Jones), as the Mayor suspects her of cheating.  As you can imagine, this is just a ploy for a far more sinister scheme that is being orchestrated by the Mayor against the backdrop of his re-election campaign.  The Mayor's Wife turns out not to be cheating, but trying to bring the Mayor down, with Taggart used as a pawn by the Mayor to prevent this from happening.

What ensues is some nice drama, suspense, with gunplay and scuffles.  In the end it boils down to a duel between Mark Wahlberg's and Russell Crowe's characters.  Both have hidden secrets and dirty hands, and when Crowe's Mayor tries using Taggart's skeleton in the closet against him, Taggart finds his shot at redemption by calling his bluff, sticking to his guns and taking the Mayor and himself down in the process.

It's pretty standard stuff as far as plot goes, complete with slow motion exit by a redeemed and triumphant Wahlberg at the end.  Good performances by the leads, and a good supporting turn by Zeta Jones make it above average and good entertainment.  If you're at a loss for what to go and see this week before the big blockbusters start to drop down, you won't go far wrong here.

Silver Lining and the Oscars...

With The Oscars done for 2013, I looked back on the winners and found no surprises, other than that of Best Actress. This year it went to Jennifer Lawrence, and up to that point my main knowledge of her came from The Hunger Games.  When initially offered the part of Katniss Everdeen, Jennifer Lawrence said she needed several days to think about it. Even though she was a fan of The Hunger Games novels, the scope of the part and the project could potentially go on to effect her future career.  As we know, she took the part, and I must say that it definitely seemed a part that didn't quite sit comfortably with her on screen. It will be interesting to see if that changes in the next instalment, now having one under her belt.  As a result of that performance, I couldn't imagine her sinking her teeth into a role that went on to land her the Best Actress Academy Award.

I missed the initial run of The Silver Linings Playbook at the cinema.  It was a time when I was still suffering the effects of an awkward and unintentional 'man date' situation.  Myself and a friend went to see Ruby Sparks together, not really knowing what it was all about.  As the credits began to roll, we looked across at each other knowing exactly what the other was thinking. What we had seen could only be described as a date movie.  Because of this, and an inkling that Playbook could be another potential 'man date' situation in the offing, Playbook passed me by.

Luckily, due to it's Oscar success, it was brought back for a select few showings.  So off I went, making sure I didn't miss another opportunity.  I had to get over my initial frustration at my local cinema not putting any trailers in before hand (something I've only experienced once before), which lead to me missing Bradley Cooper's opening monologue.  Once I had done this, I knew from the start I was watching something that I wouldn't find entirely comfortable.  In part due to the brilliant performances by Lawrence (Tiffany) and Cooper (Pat), and in part because they are so well supported by the likes of Robert De Niro (Pat Snr.), Chris Tucker (Danny) and Jacki Weaver (Dolores).

Pat and Tiffany are both Bi Polar sufferers.  Pat begins that film in a mental institution, where he has admitted himself to avoid jail time for beating his wife's lover to within an inch of his life.  Tiffany has lost her husband, and subsequently started sleeping with everybody she can.  The mental problems suffered by the main characters are so well executed, and between them Cooper, De Niro and Weaver create a home that is so exquisitely dysfunctional that you can see where Bradley Cooper's Pat has come to suffer from his own demons in the way that he does.  Pat's then dogged refusal to believe that his relationship with his wife is over, and his and Tiffany's using of each other to get what they want, is played out well enough to make you wonder why this would ever be considered a romance of any kind.  So that in the end, I was so convinced that their happy ending wasn't going to happen that I found myself fighting the urge to shout at the screen in frustration.

I enjoyed the film that much that it left me wondering not whether Jennifer Lawrence was good enough for her Oscar, but whether her own amazing performance was verging on being swallowed up by the strength of the supporting cast.  If you haven't seen this film already, get in there while you can for this limited post Oscar run.  You won't regret it.

And the Oscar for numbest bum goes to....

With the Oscars just around the corner, there are a lot of very good films hitting the cinemas.  Most of my free time has been spent watching these films, and I've found it difficult to find time to blog my thoughts on them.  There's little surprise why, here's the last four films that I've watched and their running times:

Lincoln - 2hrs 30mins (150 mins)

Django Unchained - 2hrs 45mins (165 mins)

Flight - 2hrs 18mins (138 mins)

Zero Dark Thirty - 2hrs 37mins (157 mins)












The average running time of the four films above is 152.5 minutes, so even if we generously don't round that up to 153, that's a 2 hour 32 minute average running time.  I can't imagine that cinemas vary greatly in the amount of advertisement they show before the start of the film.  At my local franchise, we are made to endure at least 30 minutes.  The only exception to this being when we went to see Total Recall in IMAX, when for some unbeknown reason the film started immediately with no advertisement before hand meaning we missed the first five minutes whilst enjoying a burger.  This means that my last 4 visits to the cinema have seen me spend on average over 3 hours in front of the screen.  As I'm sure any Father will be able to testify, that's a lot of time!

So, sat as I am, filtering through the swirling thoughts, emotions, and questions posed by the films above I thought 'does a films length, determine it's Oscar worthiness?'.

Rule 2 of the Oscars states that a film must me more than 40 minutes in length to qualify as a feature film, thereby qualify for the Oscar for Best Picture.

It would be amazing and hugely interesting if a 41 minute film had won Best Picture, however, the film with the shortest running time ever to have won is Marty (1955) at 94 minutes.  In a write up for the film during the time, it was said,
"Don't expect that record to be broken anytime soon, either.  Oscar winners are gettin' longer, not shorter."
After doing a little digging, I came across a great piece of work on collider.com (http://collider.com/oscar-best-picture-statistics/) which gives a breakdown of running times for the Best Picture winner.  The graph plotting the initial data makes it look as though the running time varies a lot, showing that a long running time doesn't always mean Best Picture winner.  Further study from this site shows that for the individual concerned, the average running time of films they have watched (which is a lot) is between 90 and 120 minutes.  It also shows that 80% of Best Picture winners after 1960 are longer than 2 hours.

So if you're planning on a trip to the cinema at the moment, beware of a numb bum.  There are a lot of potential Oscar winners out there at the moment, and as I've found, that means you'll be in for the long haul.

If you haven't bought a copy of Dredd...

The theatrical release of Dredd was met with a lukewarm reception at the box office.  It didn't recoup it's $45 million budget, making only $36.4 million.  Many who have seen it were left scratching their heads.  How could such a good film pull in such poor box office numbers?  Many speculated that it was the hard boiled, unyielding nature of it's action.  Gruesome, ultra violent, in an age where more and more films water down to achieve box office acceptance (Taken 2 is the most recent, and notable example of this), Dredd took off the gloves and swung away with knuckles bared.

Mistake?...

Most certainly not.  Doing anything but what they did would have been a disservice to the source material.  What Pete Travis and Alex Garland (with the help of many others) have created is, in my opinion, the most faithful, and downright best, comic adaptation of recent memory.  Although the film is greatly self contained, with no annoying 'wait until the next film' loose ends, I would dearly love to see more of this world and the characters within it, we know there are plenty more to introduce.  Little touches like the 'Chopper' graffiti tag, and an interview here with Alex Garland http://whatculture.com/film/alex-garland-interview-dredd-3d-slo-mo-sequel-ideas-more.php gave me hope that this would happen.

Then came the box office numbers...

Shortly followed by the reviews and articles saying that a sequel now would not happen.  Dredd had one more card to play, the DVD/Blu-Ray release.  We've come a long way since the days of Shawshank Redemption and VHS.  A film that also had a disappointing box office run, only to receive several Oscar nods and become the top rental film of 1995.  I can't see Dredd getting any Oscar nominations, and piracy is rife, but I've got everything crossed that home sales can elevate Dredd from box office disappointment to cult classic, and if the stars align a sequel.

So far so good?...

In the first week of sales, Dredd has shifted over 650,000 physical copies alone.  As well as topping the digital sales chart.  If this trend continues, and doesn't prove a flash in the pan, who knows?  So if you haven't bought a copy already, what are you waiting for?!

I'll even put the links here for you...

Physical:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dredd-Blu-ray-3D-Karl-Urban/dp/B008OGHUFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359059898&sr=8-1

Digital:  https://itunes.apple.com/gb/movie/dredd/id588738013

DO IT!!

Hold off on the Nolan box set....

If you, like me, think that Christopher Nolan has the midas touch when it comes to the big screen, then this could be good news.

In the void following the release of the last of the Dark Knight Trilogy, all eyes (ears, and digital equivalent) have been on what direction Nolan will take next.  And it looks like we might not have to wait long to find out.

Interstellar, a time travelling, sic-fi epic penned by his brother Jonathan may well be next on his list.  Originally tipped to have Spielberg at the helm, rumours are rife that the recent 'indefinite' postponement of Robopocalypse may have caused Nolan to make a move on this project before Spielberg officially put his name to it.

Let's hope there's more to follow on this soon.

Ringing in the New Year....

....the wrong way!

During the latter part of 2012, I had the opportunity to watch a reasonable amount of good films including Seven Psychopaths, The Hobbit, Argo, and even Jack Reacher.  Overall, 2012 was a great year for film in my opinion, so towards the end I got a little frustrated that I didn't have more chance to blog about the films I was watching.  It was during time spent reviewing the films that I had been to see most recently, that the picture above becomes relevant.  I was idly scanning the movies listings to see if there was anything on worth watching.  Now you might argue that Underworld: Awakening (don't forget the colon), is not worth watching, but I have to admit a soft spot for the first two films of the franchise.  I'm also entertained by the way Len Wiseman parades his wife Kate Beckinsale around in his films, and fair play to the guy, who wouldn't?

So last night, I found myself watching this fourth instalment to the franchise, and I was disappointed.  With the return of Beckinsale, and the potential for Charles Dance to add a Bill Nighy style gravitas to proceedings, I was hoping for more.  I felt nothing for any of the characters, the story was throw away, and came to no real conclusion.  The final shot, panning out from the roof top where the characters are standing, with Kate spewing forth a monologue about the war not being over, was cringe worthy.  I'm sure that the intention was to leave the door open for future Underworld films, if they decide the horse hasn't been flogged enough later down the line.

Imagine my shock then, to find out that it was the most successful Underworld at the box office.  I appreciate that the first film was poorly received, and relied on a slow burning cult following to open the door for a second.  But for it to be pulling in bigger crowds 4 films down the line, I do find a surprise.  Even as an unlimited cinema card holder, this would be at the bottom of any potential watch list I might have.  It opened alongside Red Tails, Haywire, and Coriolanus, all of which I would have rather seen at the cinema, and it took more at the box office than the 3 of them combined!

I suppose the silver lining to this cloud is that there's always the chance that we'll see Kate don that infamous skin tight outfit once more.