Yes, it may well come as a shock, but I am still alive, and am functioning on some levels. As you can see, I've been really great at updating this lately, but for some reason, I feel like I've been so busy lately. I think so far this year, (keep in mind that this is the fifth week of term) I've done more work than I did in my whole first year.
So, what's new? Well, I've been baking a lot more, and I've been more varied in what I make. I find it quite relaxing so it's nice to do after doing research and coursework, etc. I've also come quite a long way with the plan for my dissertation screenplay, so hopefully it won't be long before I actually start writing it. It's got a long way to go yet....I have so many ideas for stories/films/TV shows running around in my head right now so I'm pretty optimistic for the next few months. Can you believe I only have about five months left of uni? Me neither. In addition to this, I'm going to be applying to do my Master's degree in January, so I'm very excited, and also very, very terrified about that.
I'm hoping to resume normal scheduling on here soon, even though I probably won't be able to review any newly released films for a while. I'm thinking Tuesdays can be more of a mish-mash of things for the time being, (maybe I can do some recipes or something) and I'll hopefully slip back into writing creative stuff for you on Fridays. If there's anything you want to see on here on Tuesdays, feel free to leave me a comment; I do read them, and get very excited when I get one that isn't offering me products to build my muscles.
Anyway, I'm about to wrap this up, I just suddenly missed blogging and had an opportunity to post at last!
I'll (hopefully) be back on Friday with more of Seasons! Lots of love, and thanks for sticking around.
I don't even know what happened last week. This was my thought process last Tuesday: 'I've not done anything this week, I don't have anything to review today. I'm going to see The Conjuring tomorrow though, I'll just post tomorrow!' That obviously didn't come to fruition though.
So, last Wednesday I went to see The Conjuring. I'm not going to lie, I saw the trailers when I saw Evil Dead all those months ago and since then I've wanted to see it but have also cowered at the mere mention of it. I'm THE jumpiest person in the world, and I actually scare pretty easily when it comes to ghost films/TV shows. Anyway, the poster is kind of creepy but doesn't give away that much about the film, but oh, dear lord I just noticed the shadow of the person underneath the noose, *shudder*. Anyway, if you haven't seen them, there are a couple of trailers, but this is the 'official main trailer';
I still jump at the trailer. So, The Conjuring is directed by James Wan (Director of Saw and Insidious) and came out in UK cinemas on the 2nd of August. Before that, it was shown at the Edinburg film festival in June. (Its first showing was at 'Nocturna' -Madrid International Fantastic Film Festival on the 8th of June) It hasn't been released in cinemas everywhere yet, so if you're in one of the countries where this is the case, check here for your release date.
As far as horror films go, this is a pretty good one. The build up is great; as the audience we know that paranormal things are occurring, but they're not big enough instances that the family immediately jump to the conclusion that their house isn't entirely theirs. In the beginning, there are tiny things like clocks stopping, bad smells and cold rooms. These occurrences build up through a child sleep-walking in strange ways, games being joined by disembodied hands and something playing the old piano in the basement.
I wanted to include this trailer because although it starts off being all cute, it makes my blood run a little bit cold each time. It takes 25 seconds to actually start, so you might just want to skip a little bit:
This game looks really fun, but since this film, I don't want to blindfold myself or clap, so I guess it's out of the question. Anyway. Something else which I particularly thought was good about this film, was that aside from meeting the family who are experiencing the phenomena, we're introduced to the paranormal investigators - Lorraine and Ed Warren (Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson, respectively) so that we kind of empathise with them, and not just the Perrons. (Lili Taylor played Mrs Carolyn Perron, while Ron Livingston played her husband, Roger Perron)
In addition to this, some of Ed and Lorraine Warren's investigations were shown being carried out, in which they show a family that their 'supernatural' occurrences are merely creaky floorboards echoing through the pipes, and they state that most paranormal investigation turn out to be similarly simple to explain logically. I felt like this was something that really set this film apart from other horror films with this type of storyline, because so often, the screenwriters/directors/producers want to get going with the haunting so soon that we end up with a whole cast full of people ready to believe they are being haunted by something terrible because they hear a few noises or a door opens slightly.
Something else I have to mention is how much I thought of the acting. Now, I am quite a fan of Vera Farmiga anyway after watching her in The Orphan, but I have to really hand it to the child actors in this - I usually really hate kids in films but I genuinely liked all of these kids, especially the youngest, April who was super cute, but also really believable and a great character, she was played by Kyla Deaver. The other girls were Andrea, (Shanley Caswell) Nancy, (Hayley McFarland) Christine, (Joey King) and Cindy (Mackenzie Foy).
I don't necessarily have any negative things to say about this film; normally I'd comment on how seeing the 'monster' ruins the effect a little bit, but honestly, this thing is pretty much as hideous and creepy looking as the hell it crawled out of. I liked the back story of why the place is haunted, and the explanations of different types of hauntings and spirits, etc.
As much as I enjoyed this film and don't really have any negatives, other than I watched most of the film from behind my fingers - (which I can't entirely blame on them, but it wasn't entirely something I could control either) I don't think I can actually give this the full five pandas. It's not something I can put my finger on and say 'this is why I'm taking away a panda', I just don't have the same kind of excitement about this as I have for other films, so purely based on that, I want to give this four pandas.
This film may not be scary to everyone, but it's certainly not for the faint-hearted!
I'll be back on Friday with part (your guess is as good as mine) of Seasons. (Is it five? It feels like five.) Until then, have a really great week!
Well hello, haven't I been great at this lately? So I said a couple of weeks ago that I had writer's block, plus a distinct lack of motivation to actually force myself to write anything at all. That really peaked last week, so I decided to just give myself some space by not blogging last week. (The Friday before I just straight up forgot to post and was busy the whole weekend.) Anyway, I went to see Despicable Me 2 on Friday, it was very spontaneous and probably made more fun because I was with two of my best friends, who are pretty much as mentally juvenile as me.
As with The World's End and Monster's University, I included a trailer for Despicable Me 2 here, but I will include another one, being as there are so many and they're all really cute.
Despicable Me 2 was released in the UK on the 28th of June this year, and opens with a top secret Arctic research base being stolen by a giant magnet. Cut to: Gru's mansion hosting a birthday party for Agnes - probably the cutest kid in any film ever. There is fancy dress, there are minions, there is a costume change which tugs at the hearts strings. There are evil minions, there are cupcakes, there is a Cinco de Mayo party complete with a tortilla hat with guacamole in the rim.
The film is colourful, vibrant, has a very different and engaging storyline and some new characters which compliment the familiar characters perfectly. The minions are just as adorable and get up to even more shenanigans. This clip isn't included, but if you haven't seen it, you need to - and if you have, well you should just watch it again:
Ahem. So, I read on a few social media sites etc. that some people felt like a sequel wasn't needed, or they should have just made a film with the minions (which apparently they are considering, but I didn't actually read that anywhere credible so they might not be at all) but in relation to a sequel not being necessary - it did have some good character development, and personally, I found that it was a nice extension to the narrative in the first film. As to the film only being of the minions - who wouldn't miss the sarcastic quips from Gru, and perhaps, even more than that, just how cute Agnes is? Every character in that film contributes and a second film was a smart move. I think a third film of all of them might feel a bit contrived, so perhaps in that instance, maybe the best scenario would just be a minion film. Honestly though, I can only the minions being in shorts, rather than a feature film. (I wouldn't mind being wring at all though)
Anyway; I don't really have any negative points about this film, in fact one of the big positive things about this film is that the villain isn't as teeth grindingly irritating as Vector. I don't know if I enjoyed it the whole pandas, but that was definitely affected by the stupid woman just in front of me who was texting on her iPhone the whole time. I'm excited for this film to come out on DVD so I can watch it again. For now, I think I want to give this four stars, but perhaps when I watch it again I'll add an editor's note or something to say that actually, without someone sending pointless, distracting texts and looking up directions, the film is worth more.
Oops, added half a panda.
So, once again - I'm sorry for being away for three posts, I'll be back on Friday to tell stories. Thanks for sticking around (or for dropping in on the off-chance I'd pulled my finger out) and thanks, as ever, for reading.
Hello! Today, I was going to do two book reviews, (they often end up shorter than film reviews because I just don't do them as often/don't have as much to include in terms of characters etc.) but I saw a film yesterday that I just needed to talk about.
Now, this film isn't even on IMDB under the same name, it's on there as 'True Bloodthirst', which, A) should be an indication of how good it is, and B) should ring some of the same alarm bells that it did for me, that it's a bit too similar to True Blood in some ways.
It was also shown on SyFy channel, which may also lead you to the fair assumption that it's not going to be great, being as they've shown films called 'Sharknado' and 'Jersey Shore Shark Attack'. I did find a trailer for it on YouTube though, so you get to enjoy nearly two minutes of this: (I'm not even sorry, I sat through two hours of it)
Even the trailer for this was difficult - I usually put it on here by just putting in the YouTube URL, but that wouldn't work, would it? No. Anyway. This trailer actually makes the film look action packed and exciting, but it wasn't. I can't even fluff around the issues - it was a bad film; for so many reasons. I can appreciate that this is a low budget film, far lower of course than all of the other films I've reviewed on here, but that's not excuse. Honestly.
So what was wrong with it? Well, like I said, it's very similar to the opening of True Blood, with all the news reports of Vampires existing, and how they're in conflict with 'humans' and all that jazz. Also, they seem to have lifted at least one instance of dialogue, which is something along the lines of 'You're saying that (something that isn't a vampire) exist?' 'You didn't know vampires existed until (a short time ago), how do we know what else is out there?'. That's not a massive issue for me, it's just something I noticed having watched True Blood.
Anyway; without going into massive amounts of detail - the special effects are terrible given that it was released in 2012 (fair enough, it's low budget) but I swear more can be done in that respect. The 'storyline' (we'll call it that for argument's sake) was contrived, and didn't really make a great deal of sense. I'm not going to even bother with not revealing spoilers, because you can guess everything that happens from the off, and I might just save you two hours of your life. The basic premise is that vampires have always existed but haven't come out, so then they do, and then 'humans' segregate them, and force them into their own quarantined area. Fine, that's all in the first ten minutes anyway. Then two vampires and a 'blood dealer' are killed by some...thing with snappy teeth and a 'scary' prosthetic/CGI face that can fly. Cut to - the office of Kovaks (Roark Critchlow), where he informed of the deaths of the afore mentioned vampires and dealer, by Derricks (Neil Jackson). Then a bunch more characters are introduced very vaguely and then they have guns out of nowhere, then they aim them at some vampires for... some reason, they they all work together to take down the 'scary', flying, vampire eating 'things' which turn out to be vampires who have been infected by a virus which has turned them into primal, zombie-like vampire being things. As you can see - very 'thrown together', 'let's give these hot chicks some guns because then it will be a great movie!'
There were a few little things that happened which made me wonder who threw this together:
- It's set in Bucharest, Romania (obviously because that's where vampires live) but nearly everyone had an American accent, then there's the guy who worked for Kovaks (who I think was Jonathon Hargreaves, playing Innes-Dunchley, but it might not have been - I don't remember anyone's name, I've literally had to look up everything. I'm not even going to pretend I knew) who has a Manchester accent (northern England) and sticks out like a sore thumb.
- When the vampire/zombie things die, they disintegrate. That is something which is shown in detail. Also, one of the female vampires - who I think we were supposed to feel empathy for - goes into the sun without her ninja hood on, she turns to dust. That's all fine, because that's what vampires have always done through the ages. What bothers me here, is that seconds later, one of the vampire zombies flies out of the underground den they've just blown up with lots of fire and explosions, (yes, 'how'? that's not the bit which bothered me) it burns a bit in the sun, then leaves a perfectly preserved skeleton - complete with charred flesh. I understand that this is so that we can find out that the vampires are getting the virus which is turning them into these undead weird things, but if that's what you want to do, then don't turn other vampires into dust. It's a weird double standard that doesn't work.
- Derricks' vampire wife just happened to be where the boss vampire lives. Just by chance. Completely out of the blue. Boss vamp doesn't even ask her name. Just sends her out. By chance. Chance.
Finally - and I could go on for longer, but let's not - there are too many characters. I've mentioned four, then there's Johnny Harker (Andrew Lee Potts), his sister Katya (Claudia Bassols), Harker's girlfriend Celeste (Heida Reed) who is, and I quote; 'not a prostitute, she a dancer, the hours are better' - which I think was meant to be a joke, but it really missed the mark due to all round terrible acting. Anyway, they team up with Nikolai (Ben Lambert) and some of his vampire friends who weren't named (to my knowledge) or characterised. And there's the guy who was let out of prison with Harker. (For whatever reason.) Now, I appreciate that they have a 'team', but when it comes to screenwriting, or writing stories in general, we're taught that you should have three strong main characters, four, maybe. They should be well characterised with their own voices, and storylines and whatever. Then some extraneous characters, who we like, but don't necessarily care about, nonetheless, we should be sad when they die. With this, there are so many characters, that it's not clear whether they're meant to be main characters, or supporting characters, and it all gets confusing. Also, Harker - who is definitely meant to be a main character - is so unlikeable. He's whiney and bitchy and doesn't learn from his errors and only thinks about himself and he's poorly acted which just doesn't help.
To be fair to Ben Lambert and Neil Jackson, their acting wasn't bad. In other words, they did a really good job of acting out what they'd been given. I liked their characters and if it weren't for them, I just don't know if I would have stuck it out. Claudia Bassols wasn't bad either, she was given a pretty vacuous character to play. As for every other person in the film. I cannot say the same. The acting was bad. Really bad.
I've really got to wrap this up now, because this has gone on for far longer than I intended it to, and in all respects, it's been more of a rant than a review. I just needed to get this off my chest, and maybe save some people two hours of their life. Now, I think, moreover, I hope, that this is a 'mockbuster', but I'm just not sure. I can't tell if it's meant to be a long winded pun, or if it's intended to be serious. All in all, I have to give this one and a half pandas. That might be generous, it might be tight, I don't know how anything works any more.
Thanks for reading! Sorry about everything that just happened. If you have seen this (you poor soul) what did you think? If you haven't, are you going to based on this? Or will have I really, really not sold it?
I'll be back on Friday with part 3 of Seasons, which will hopefully turn out marginally better than Vampyre Nation did. :)
Hello! Like I said earlier, today's review is actually two reviews, if you didn't see it already, I reviewed Monster's University here earlier today. Without too much waffling, (I did that already) here's what I thought of the final instalment of the 'Cornetto Trilogy'.
Put simply, The World's End is a film about a pub crawl. This pub crawl began 20 years earlier and didn't go according to plan. Cue Simon Pegg as Gary King - keen to relive the glory days with the same four friends; Andy, (Nick Frost) Peter, (Eddie Marsan) Steven, (Paddy Considine) and Oliver 'O-Man' (Martin Freeman).
The film was released on the 18th of July, 2013; six years after the second instalment of the trilogy - Hot Fuzz, and nine years after the one that kicked it all off - Shaun of the Dead. I was pretty excited that I was able to see the film at midnight on release day - for a while, I didn't even know if I'd get to see it. I do wish I'd been able to see the whole trilogy at once, but I wonder if maybe it would be a bit much in one sitting.
Just in case you haven't seen it, here's one of the trailers:
I had really high expectations of this film - I love the first two parts of the trilogy, and I generally like Nick Frost and Simon Pegg's other projects (and we're all aware how much I adore Martin Freeman) - and I can honestly say I was not disappointed at all. The jokes are just as funny, the characters just as quirky, and I liked that there was a role reversal between Frost and Pegg's respective characters. In addition to this, it was great to see some cameos from other British actors, such as Mark Heap, Bill Nighy, David Bradley, and Pierce Brosnan.
I was so ready to give this film five pandas - I loved it while I was watching it, I laughed out loud on more than one occasion and thought that the storyline (if you can call it that) was simply brilliant. However, I had a conversation with my friend Callum - whose opinion on films I tend to share, and he felt that it 'relied too much on Simon Pegg's character calling people c**ts' and also, that his character 'wasn't likeable'. For how much I laughed, I have to say I did notice the massive increase in swearing. In the two films preceding this one, there are a few instances of very strong language, and because they are infrequent and surprising, it adds to the comedy - this film was somewhat inundated with them.
That being said, I still laughed each time, and one of the best lines in the film includes that word, (and without any spoilers - also includes Legoland; for anyone who's seen it - you'll know which line I mean). I also agree with him that Simon Pegg's character wasn't as likeable as his others; I found myself feeling quite sorry for him on a few occasions.
With all that in mind, I still really loved the film, and I cannot wait for it to come out on DVD so that I can have my own Cornetto Trilogy night. I give this film four and three-quarters of a panda, only because I wish I loved Simon Pegg's character a tiny bit more, but I couldn't bring myself to take off a whole half of a panda.
So, that concludes our 100% extra free Tuesday review! Have a great week, I'll be back Friday with part 2 of Seasons.
Thanks for reading! Laura
xoxoxox
**Editor's note**
Initially, I really loved this film and was so happy to give it almost the whole five pandas. However, upon further reflection, and conversations with so many people, I think I may have been a bit generous. I already mentioned what Callum said, and I agree with him. But it has also been said by more than one of my friends, and other people who review films a lot, that it felt a tiny bit rushed. It felt like it wanted to get all the jokes in and wasn't as gritty as Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead, and not as much time was dedicated to making us care about the characters. These are fair points and I agree with them wholeheartedly. I don't want to penalise the film too much because I still really enjoyed it and will definitely get it on DVD and watch it again. All things considered, I think I'm going to take away the three-quarters of a panda. This is now a four panda film.
Hey everyone, did you know I nearly posted this yesterday because I was convinced it was Tuesday? I stopped myself, don't worry. The twosday/Tuesday pun wouldn't really work on a Monday. Anyway, on Thursday, I was fortunate enough to see both Monster's University, AND catch the midnight premier of The World's End. I was going to save one for next week, but MU has been out for a few weeks now so I didn't want to drag that review out for much longer, and then seeing as I actually saw World's End at the stroke of midnight on its release day, I didn't want to wait to post that. I'm going to get started with MU, just because I saw that one first.
There are quite a few trailers for this around on YouTube, and seeing as I already put one in this post, so I thought I'd put a different trailer, hopefully without ruining too many moments from the film;
First of all, let me just say that baby Mike is the cutest thing I think I've ever seen. Anyway. I was ridiculously excited to see this film, and I had such big expectations for it. While I can't honestly say that the film surpassed my expectations, it certainly met them.
Monster's University was released in UK cinemas on the 12th of July, 2013 (the same day as Pacific Rim) and so far, hasn't had the same level of stupendous reviews from critics on Rotton Tomatoes, or IMDB: on both, it has received around 70% positive feedback - which, attached to any other film would be a great score, but Pixar Generally receive ratings in the high 80's, sometimes even in the 90's. Of course, this isn't generally something I even consider when going to see, or even when I review a film for myself, and I only mention it this time, because I wanted to consider for a moment whether critics - and the public - are reviewing Monster's University as a film in its own right, or in comparison to Monster's Inc.
Based on that, in its own right, MU is a really great stand-alone film. It's cute, it's funny, the colours are bright and it appeals to an audience of all ages. The storyline is gripping and really has you rooting for Mike. This film shows a completely different side to both Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and Sully, (John Goodman) and also Monster's Inc. bad guy Randal. (Steve Buscemi) This makes for some really great character development, where the audience can see the unfolding of the relationship between Mike and Sully, as well as how they learn from each other and grow, as well as seeing all of the things that makes their adult friendship so strong.
I don't really have any negative things to say about this film as a separate entity, and I've read reviews from other people which question whether Monster's Inc. even needed another film to support it, or add to it in any way. And I really don't think it does. Monster's Inc. is such a great film - great jokes, great storyline, cute characters who don't need much explanation or development. I do, however, love MU as backgrounding to the MI storyline. While there may not be a need for a second film, it doesn't ever feel like they made it just for the sake of it.
I also have to say - without any spoilers - that I was so glad the film didn't end how I thought it would, and wove such a lovely narrative of how Mike and Sully got to be in the positions they're in during Monster's Inc.
Based on this, I give Monster's University four pandas.
In a couple of hours, I'll have a review of The World's End posted on here for you. Until then, thanks for reading!
Hello! Today was my dad's birthday, so happy birthday to him! <3
Let's get right on with this - before I do begin though, I will mention that any spoilers will be clearly marked, and will be in red, so if you haven't seen this yet and plan to - avoid red.
So, as I said on Friday - I went to see Pacific Rim. It was release day, but being as it was still sort of during school hours, there were very few people in the cinema, which I tend to enjoy, being as I hate crowds. I'm not sure if that affects how I view a film or not, but I thought I'd add that, just in case it did. I also had the BIGGEST bag of pick'n'mix, so I was having a great time before the film even started. If you haven't seen it yet, here's the trailer:
Now, I was only vaguely aware of this film happening before maybe, last Tuesday, which is why it wasn't in my post with all the mini pre-emptive trailer reviews. When I saw the trailer, it didn't even immediately strike me that it would be my sort of film, but I went with a group of guys and we all know I much prefer massive bad-ass robots to emotional chick-flicks with sappy dialogue.
Pacific Rim, dirercted by Guillermo del Toro, was released in the UK on Friday 12th of July 2013, and is rated 12A. (which I guess is a PG13 in America, basically - if you're under 12, you need a parent) I think it should be said, that if your kid leans towards being a bit more sensitive - the depiction of the Kaiju in the first 15 minutes or so of the film is pretty intense, especially as they look so realistic, - so they might find it a bit frightening. That being said, the fight scenes are epic, and that fear will likely dissolve pretty quickly and be replaced with awe.
As I said - the fight scenes are so awesome, which is helped by the fact that the graphics are pretty much flawless - I never once sat there and thought 'such obvious CGI' or 'they could have rendered that better.' On the contrary, I continuously found myself thinking 'holy sh*tballs' and at one point - 'Jesus Christ, that things can fly.' My point, is that for a good deal of the film, my jaw was on the ground.
The three main stars of the film are Raleigh Beckett, (Charlie Hunnam) Stacker Pentecost, (Idris Elba) and Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), As far as character and storyline go - this film doesn't offer much. We're made to feel sympathetic towards Raleigh in the beginning, but then he's pretty standard, apart from being a good guy and a great fighter. As for Mako, her story was actually pretty heart-breaking in a way that demands you're empathetic, and if you don't really have it in you to feel on behalf of others (and that's not a bad thing - some people just aren't wired that way) then that's basically just explanation in picture form, which is pretty handy because it's not a film which relies heavily on words. In fact, the only line I remember from it (and I normally store a good few quotes from films after the first watch) is some thing like '...or we can take these ray guns and do something really stupid' which was funny, and really awesome, given the circumstances.
I know I said there isn't much in the way of characterisation - and I did not mean that to come across as negative in the slightest - it's not a film which requires you to really care about the characters or even be aware that they have back-stories. But they did do a really great job of making me absolutely detest Chuck Hansen (Robert Kazinsky) -
Which, A) made it so, so cathartic when Raleigh punched him square in the face, and B) meant he died more of a hero's death, accepting what was coming with courage.
Something which I haven't mentioned yet, is the 3D element of this film, and that is simply because I didn't watch it in 3D. What I will say though - and this is in contrast to my general opinion of 3D films - is that I can really see how this would look great in 3D. I think it'd be best to sit further back, as everything is so huge, it may give you a slight headache as I can imagine it being pretty intense.
I don't know for sure, but there is a very vague page on IMDB for Pacific Rim 2, so perhaps that will happen. I'm not really sure how it can happen, but let's just see where that goes.
All in all, I'd say this deserves at least four pandas, for being really awesome, but if you go to the cinema looking for a storyline, you'd be hard-pushed to find one here. Saying that, I would recommend it, and I would watch it again when it comes on the TV later in the year. What I will say finally, is that I really want a Jaeger suit. No joke - those things are bad-ass.
So, I'll be back on Friday to make something up for you. I have no idea what yet, but when do I ever? I hope you liked this review - if you've seen the film, do you agree or disagree? What were your thoughts about the film? Have a really great week!
Hey there! Today, I'm sort of winging the post a bit, fear not - it's still a review! However, I've seen nothing new, I've read a book or two, but I've already gushed about how much I adore James Herbert, so I don't suppose those would be of much interest to you. So, I love films, but am not likely to see a new one for a couple of weeks, so I thought, with so many coming out recently and in the near future, I'd put up a few trailers, and then review those. Then, when I see the actual film and review that, I can refer back to these mini reviews and say whether or not the trailer did the film justice.
Before we begin, all of the videos I'll be putting on here are from YouTube: I do not own any rights to them and do not gain anything for actually posting them or talking about them, apart from a warm fuzzy feeling inside when the post gets viewed. So, without further ado...
300: Rise of an Empire - I didn't realise until I watched this trailer a week or so ago that I remember very little about its prequel. However, I have to say that this looks pretty great. I love an action movie and I know I loved 300, even if I don't remember a lot of it. I'm likely to go and see this, but I'll have to rewatch the first one before hand.
The Hangover: Part 3 - I had my reservations about this, I really did. I wondered if there was even a point to making a third part of something that had two very similar prequels, how they'd go about not repeating the same jokes that were in the other two. However, I saw the full trailer when I went to see Star Trek, and I was actually really pleasantly surprised. It seems like they've got a different kind of storyline but still have some genuinely funny jokes. I only hope that they haven't put all of the funny bits in the trailer, making the actual film a let down.
Scary Movie 5 - I know this has been out for ages, it came out in April. But I can't get over how terrible it looks. I know the acting in the Scary Movie franchise has always been overstated and that's not my issue with it. My issue is that they should have stopped at two, three at a push. There is no need for this, and parodying Inception goes against the grain a little for me, being as it's not a horror movie. You can make reference to Scary Movie 1 having references to The Usual Suspects, but really, that was just a nod, and was done quite tastefully. I won't pay to see this film, it's likely to be the kind of thing I go on a Twitter rant about rather than review on here, although I may, now I've mentioned it on here.
The World's End - I can't wait for this. I really like the other Simon Pegg/Nick Frost films. I love the British humour, the sarcasm, the way it goes from being a relatable film about a group of guys going on a pub crawl, to including what look like robots/aliens/cyborgs. I love the nod to the fence jumping in Hot Fuzz, I love Martin Freeman, and I love that Mark Heap (Green Wing, Saturday Night Dinner) is in it, if only for a little while. I will definitely see this film, and I'm certain I will love it for all of its quirky charm and humour.
The Hobbit 2: The Desolation of Smaug - Yes, yes, yes. I am excited about this, I love the Lord of the Rings films so much, and I loved the first part of this trilogy too, so I'm so excited for this instalment. Initially, people were questioning whether there needed to be three Hobbit films when there was only one book, when LOTR is a trilogy, taken from a trilogy. My argument - there is a lot of content that was not included in the LOTR films, and if Peter Jackson had included every damn song that the hobbits sing throughout, there would have likely been nine films instead of three. Also, if there is enough material to warrant three films, then I say go for it. How rushed would The Hobbit have been if all of this had been in it as well? You'd never get to know the characters and empathise with their plight, and it would be really confusing as there would be way too many people and too much jumping around. Let's not forget that this is Tolkien. Anyway, I think this trailer is great, and I can't wait for this film.
Despicable Me 2 - This looks so cute, I love the minions and thought the first film was great. It's a film which is engaging for kids and funny to adults. I think there's a longer trailer out there somewhere, which has more to do with Gru and the girls, but this was one of the best ones I could find on YouTube. It's very, very likely that I'll go and see this film when it comes out.
Monster's University - The prequel/sequel to Monster's Inc. looks great. I like that some of the monsters other than Mike and Sully from the original are present - it gives it a really nice dynamic. Also, the fact that Mike and Sully do not immediately get along and are rivals is particularly nice, as there is room for some really great character development. I have to say, the part which depicts their halls experience reminds me so much of my first year at university, just socialising and generally causing havoc. Again, this is a film which can be enjoyed by the whole family, at any age group. I'm hoping to go and see this with my dad, as I saw the first one with him when it came out all those years ago.
Overall, I give the films of summer 2013 4 pandas.
And that's it from me for now. Thursday will be a creative piece as per usual, it may be a bit later in the day, however, as I have a busy busy day planned! Have a great week! I'll see you on Thursday.
It's a bit later in the day than I would have hoped, but I have mitigating circumstances. My computer decided yesterday at 7pm that it would be really really fun to have a complete meltdown, with constant crashes and 'bluescreens' and all sorts of other fun computer-based activities. It culminated in my losing everything, basically and I have since spent the day putting things back onto my computer. So - as promised, and only just after Tuesday - my review of Evil Dead.
Originally released in 1981, Evil Dead once again took to cinema
screens on the 18th of April 2013 (UK) Directed by Fede Alvarex and
featuring a not-so-well-known cast, my initial reaction to this film was simply
that I didn’t have much of a reaction to it at all, and if someone were to ask
me what I thought of it, I actually found it difficult to verbalise my
thoughts. (Short of ‘meh.’)
I didn’t review it straight away, as generally if I come out of a
cinema feeling underwhelmed, I find that the film grows on me, and I end up
thinking it’s great – or alternatively, I come to the realisation that the film
was just bad in itself and I don’t agree with critics or the general public in
such a case. However, after a significant amount of time, I still had no
positive or negative adjectives for it, something which I noticed was a trend
both among the people I saw the film with, and the general population of the
internet.
Almost in desperation, I watched the 1981 original, directed by Sam Raimi. This changed my opinion of the 2013 remake considerably. In 1981,
cinematic effects were just not what they are today, and it makes the most
tense moments of the film almost laughable, with its genuinely terrible ‘possession’
make-up, and poor acting. (Actually laughable – I laughed) With regards to the
possession make-up and general effects, the 2013 version wins hands down, with
the demons being extremely creepy – moving into scary. However, the acting
still leaves a little to be desired, with over-exaggeration of lines and all of
those other horror movie tropes. (Exaggerated
screaming, making lots of noise when they could clearly benefit from being
quiet, someone reading an ancient language which awakes demons despite glaring
scribbled messages which state DO NOT SEE THIS, OR SPEAK IT OR HEAR IT, which
would be some level of a deterrent to the average human being, especially one
who is supposed to be intelligent, like Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) is, but that’s
a different rant. Then there’s the strong-willed individual calling the demon ‘motherf***er’
before brandishing a chainsaw, etc. etc. etc.)
One thing which is a massive improvement in the 2013 version is the
back story of the characters. Although I came out not knowing any of their
names, and not really caring either; after watching the original, I can
honestly say that Mia (Jane Levy) – the new version of Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss)
– as the initial unfortunate soul who runs into the wrong demon is far more
logical in terms of the storyline. For one thing, she is a recovering drug addict,
which makes her erratic behaviour more understandable, and of course makes it
more logical that she’d not be taken seriously when she is terrified of what
she has witness and been through.
Something else which I really thought was a great touch with the remake
is the inclusion of a sort of prelude, in which we are introduced to the book
which outlines the possession process and how to get rid of the demons. This
was effective to me simply because it starts the film with an element of
tension, which seemed to come out of nowhere in the original.
Despite these comparisons, I’m still not prepared to say that the 2013
remake is good; it absolutely is
better than the original on many levels; however as a single entity, it still
left me feeling distinctly underwhelmed. I found the blood too much - it made
it all seem slightly less serious when it appeared to be a film which does take
itself seriously. Overall, I’d give it two and a half pandas, maybe edging
towards three if I really compare it to the original. I may watch this film
again, and next time I may appreciate it more, however for now, I just don’t
think it’s for me.
Next Tuesday I'll be reviewing a book which is about 30 years old, but I love it and I think it needs to be spoken about, especially since the author is one of my biggest literary heroes and he died a couple of months ago.
Anyway! See you Thursday (which is technically tomorrow by now) and sorry for being late,
+-+Copy.png)
.png)
.png)
+-+Copy.png)
.jpg)
+-+Copy.png)
+-+Copy.png)
+-+Copy.png)
