Detroit
Posted: Wed 9 August, 2017 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »In a weirdly – and unintentionally – connected thing to seeing the Soul Of A Nation exhibition over the weekend, I also ended up seeing “Detroit” last night.
“Detroit” is a new film from Katheryn Bigelow (the director of the original Point Break, Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty, and many others) about the Detroit (unsurprisingly) 12th Street race riot, and in particular the Algiers Motel incident.
That incident is (yet another) one I didn’t really know anything about until seeing the film. I don’t believe it’s one that has gone into ‘common knowledge’ – while I’m no expert on these things, it’s not one I’ve ever heard even mentioned, and I don’t honestly think it’s even left a large imprint on American history.
Anyway, the film is an interesting one – but (in my opinion) tries too hard, telling too many stories in one film. There could have been a film about the riots themselves, the causes, the people, the effects. There could have been a film about just the Algiers incident – although I suspect that the conclusion of that would’ve been deeply unsatisfactory. And there could’ve been one about the aftermath, the court case(s), the people, and what happened to them afterwards.
But trying to do all of those within the scope of one film – admittedly, a bloody long film at 14o-odd minutes – is difficult, at best. It starts with the riots, and we don’t even really meet any of the “main” characters for a good half an hour. Then we go to the Algiers, which is as bad as it could be – and probably pretty truthful, as one of the people involved was on set every day, advising and providing input. And then for the final half hour or so, we’re in the court case, the details, the results, and the aftermath.
If the film had been longer, it might’ve gelled better, become a whole story. As it is, it feels overly-edited, almost like a ‘greatest hits’ rather than a full story. It’s still a good film, and a story that should be told. It’s just that the story deserves to be properly told, not in a hodge-podge of setpieces.
King Arthur, Legend of the Sword
Posted: Fri 19 May, 2017 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Single Life Leave a comment »Last night, I went to see the new Guy Ritchie film, “King Arthur – Legend of the Sword“. It is, to be charitable, a bit of a mess.
I wasn’t expecting high-art, or a high-brow version of the Arthurian Legends – it’s a Guy Ritchie film, so anyone expecting that would be sorely disappointed anyway. But I was expecting a Guy Ritchie film – a significant portion of silliness, snappy and smart dialogue, and some impressive visuals/shots. This is the man who brought us “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”, “Snatch”, “Sherlock Holmes” (and its sequel) and “The Man From Uncle” – all of which qualify on all those things, and all of which I like.
But this one… well.
It’s got silliness – but in this case it veers more towards the ridiculous. Yes, ridiculous even within the pantheon of Arthurian stuff. The mage-driven war-elephants larger than mountains were a particular “high” point in this. But at least they were visually impressive. Which leads me to…
Visuals – it’s got some gloriously shot scenes and set-pieces. But the rest is a mess. Even some of those setpieces, there’s just too much going on for it to make sense. It needs to convey the speed and fury and chaos of battle – and in some ways I guess it does that, as no-one has any fucking clue what’s going on. But it’s also a film, and you should be able to at least see what’s happening. There are bits that are visually brilliant, but then the rest just detracts from those pieces.
Dialogue – it’s got it. But again, like the silliness, it feels forced, and it doesn’t fit with the characters, or the time. There are a couple of larger pieces that are definitely meant to be “Lock, Stock and Broadsword”, but they simply don’t work, even with snappy camerawork to accompany them.
Some of it may also be down to the cast – I like Charlie Hunnam in most things, but he does come across as being more of a supporter than a star. So having him as the main character doesn’t necessarily help things – but it does seem far more like the script is a complete dog-egg, and they’ve all just done what they can with it. And if that’s the case, then it’s really Guy Ritchie who’s primarily responsible, as he’s the writer of the original screenplay too.
All told, the nicest I can say is that it’s a mess. Not one I’d go and see again, it’s fair to say.
PIDU : Missing the Main Attraction
Posted: Mon 8 May, 2017 Filed under: 1BEM, Cinema, Gigs, I Don't Understand, London, People, Seeing Films, Sweary, Thoughts 1 Comment »[PIDU = People I Don’t Understand]
There are many, many types of people I don’t understand – or at least whose thought processes are beyond me. That’s the theme of the PIDU posts (as mentioned here, although I’ll probably repeat this a few times) and may also become a bit of a throwback to the rants of yore. It may also just fade out. We’ll see.
Anyway, one of the many things that are beyond me are the people who turn up for a concert – indeed, a performance of any kind, really – or a film, and then keep on going out, or chatting, or really doing anything that doesn’t involve focusing on that main act.
In the cinema, it boggles my mind. People will rock up late, when the film’s already started. They’ll sit for a bit, eat their sodding popcorn, slurp their bastard drinks, and before you know it, they’ve got to go to the toilet. (I assume. They never come back having purchased more food or drink, anyway) Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people, that they can’t manage to control their bladders for a couple of hours so they can sit and watch a film they’ve paid good money to see? Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever had to walk out of a film in order to have a slash. Even in the five-ish hour Alien/Prometheus double-bill the other week.
I get it, some people have bladder issues, or continence issues, and there are other complaints along the way. But I haven’t been to a film in years where no-one walks out at some point in the showing, and then comes back. Yes, those issues exist, but a) so do preventive measures and things to cater for those issues, and b) I truly don’t believe that the issues are so prevalent that it affects that many people in Milton Keynes.
And then, of course, we get to the fuckknuckles who go to concerts and performances, and chat to their mates all the way through – a lot of the time barely even looking at the stage. If they are looking, these self-absorbed vacuous twatwoggles are filming the performance/act on their bastard phones and tables, and screwing things up for everyone behind them.
What’s the point? Why would you pay £20-50 per head to go to a concert and then not bother watching/listening? If all you want to do is drink beer and talk bollocks, you might as well save the ticket money, and fuck off to the pub. Let more people in that want to see the actual gig, rather than making them listen to your braying laugh and piss-awful “banter”. (speaking of which, anyone who uses the word “banter” or “bantz/bants” to describe their interactions with friends is a fuckwitted jizzwizard by definition) Just cock off and spend your money on lukewarm piss at a Wetherspoons round the corner.
At some point, it’s all going to annoy me enough that I walk up to one of these spaffbuckles and just ask what went through their minds, why they decided to go to a gig and then ignore it all, and just chat. It’s happened before, and all I got in return was a look of blank incomprehension (I’m pretty sure it was their default expression, in fairness) but it fascinates me, I want to know why they’ve decided that those actions are a good plan.
Maybe one day I’ll find out. But I can’t see it being any time soon, because those doing it don’t have the introspection or self-awareness to be able to explain those processes.
Logan
Posted: Mon 6 March, 2017 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »As expected (and hoped-for), Logan turned out to be bloody good – and succeeded in all the aims that the writers and director had gone for.
It’s a superhero/comic-book film that doesn’t work to the normal stereotypes. Most importantly, it’s one where you don’t need to have seen any of the other X-Men or Wolverine films before seeing Logan. It’s more a stand-alone film that just happens to occupy the same space as some of those movies.
In many ways it’s actually more of a Western than a superhero film, and that’s no bad thing in my book. They make a lot of connections with Shane, but it could just as easily have been Unforgiven. There’s a kind of bitterness to the whole film, both an anger at getting old, and an acknowledgement that it’s happened – and also a huge sadness about it.
In the case of both of the major characters, age is hitting the things they’re most valued by – Charles Xavier, always valued for his intelligence/genius, is suffering from dementia (among other things), and Logan’s regenerative ability is fading, leaving him sore, scarred, and hurting in ways he’s never had to get used to.
The next generation is ably served by Laura (AKA X-23), played by Dafne Keen, who is frankly awesome. She doesn’t speak for the greater part of the film, but the emotion and feeling she conveys in a glare and an eyebrow is nothing short of stunning.
Obviously, if you hate superhero and comic-book films, Logan won’t change your opinion. If you’re open to them, it’s one that is well worth seeing.
X-23
Posted: Tue 28 February, 2017 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Geeky, Seeing Films Leave a comment »Tonight, I’m off out seeing a preview of the new X-men film, “Logan“, which is apparently the last of the X-Men films to have Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.
It’ll be interesting, as pretty much all the films starring Wolverine have been rotten, but I’m still willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt- it’s being sold as more of an independent film, looking at how these heroes have aged, how they’ve been treated by time, and the like. So yeah, I’ll be interested to see how it works out.
On a geekier note, the preview starts at 22:23, which is amusing. Why? Because it works out as 10:23(pm) , which works out as X:23 (we’re being geeky, so one roman numeral will have to do) because the X23 programme is the programme/code for one of the successors to Wolverine
I’ll probably write more about it in the next couple of days.
Wicking Away
Posted: Wed 15 February, 2017 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »So yes, last night I went to see John Wick Chapter 2 at the cinema. If nothing else, it amused me that they were putting on the preview release of this on Valentine’s Day, as it’s just about the absolute antithesis of a romantic film.
I really liked the first John Wick film, which was a bit of a sneak hit that people hadn’t really been expecting. It’s exceptionally violent – as you’d kind of expect from the basic premise of “a retired killer comes back to avenge the death of those important to him” – but also highly stylised and stylish, with stuff shown in ways that hadn’t really been done before. It was also helped by the fact that the directors ( Chad Stahelski and David Leitch ) are both ex-stuntmen, who know what works and what looks good. They brought that experience and energy to the original, and continue to do so for the second chapter. It also made a decent amount of money ($86m from a $20m budget) so a sequel was always likely to happen.
Wick 2 is written and directed by the same primary people (although no David Leitch this time) and managed to keep all the same primary cast, while also adding in some pretty high-powered names along the way.
Happily, it is just as insane and violent as its predecessor – if you’re not into that type of film, just don’t even contemplate going. I have no idea how it got away with being a 15 certificate, but it did, so there we go.
Again, it’s also hyper-stylised, with an individual style and look, as well as building up an ample mythology that will (I suspect) take it into a third (and probably fourth) film with ease. It also looks like it’ll do better than the original – at the time of writing it’s already made $44m on a $40m budget, and that’s before the UK release. Indeed, it only came out in the US on 30th January, so it’s had two weeks there, and made its money back already. Not bad going.
So yeah, worth seeing, assuming you like the same sort of ridiculous rubbish as I appear to…
Valentinage
Posted: Tue 14 February, 2017 Filed under: Cynicism, Domestic, Films, Milton Keynes, Seeing Films, Single Life, Valentine's Day Leave a comment »And here we are, once again, on February 14th, Valentine’s Day – one of the most pointless ‘special occasions’ known to man.
In a break with tradition, I’m being good this year. The last few years, I’ve been an absolute dickhead, but not this year.
What I have been doing is booking a table for two at a restaurant for the evening of Feb 14th, and then going on my own. It really messes with people, to be there, looking sad and abandoned on Valentine’s Day.
If I’m in a particularly cruel mood, I’ve also taken along a ring-box, putting it on the table. That really gets to people.
This year though, I’m not doing it. Instead, I’m off to see John Wick 2. Which will be mental, ridiculous, and hugely entertaining.
Attention Span
Posted: Thu 5 January, 2017 Filed under: Charm School, Cinema, Cynicism, Domestic, Films, People, Seeing Films, Technology, Thoughts, Weirdness Leave a comment »Yesterday, there was a bundle of news coverage about Apple’s supposedly-upcoming “Cinema Mode” for iPhones and iPads as part of the next iOS release.
This will (again, supposedly) allow people in cinemas – and other darkened environments, one assumes – to check their phones without disturbing those around them, mainly through use of a ‘dark’ colour-scheme, so the display doesn’t glow like a lighthouse.
In fairness, this annoys me on a regular basis at the cinema – there’s always some fuckknuckle who wants to check stuff while ‘watching’ a film, leaving their phone’s volume up, or some other piece of vacuous self-centred idiocy. But really, a phone mode to cater for that?
It irritates me that so many people now seem to be utterly incapable of sitting for a couple of hours and watching a film. There’ve been a couple of films I’ve seen recently where it seemed like everyone else was eating popcorn (or sweets, or both) from rustling paper bags throughout the film, and/or then sodding off out to the toilet and whatever else.
As has been noted before, I really don’t understand people. I don’t get why someone would pay to see a film, spend even more on food and drink, then either not be able to sit through the film without breaks, or without checking their phones. If you’re going to do all that, why not wait til it comes out on disc/download/TV and watch at home, where you can pause, rewind etc., and not worry about missing bits while you go to drain your microscopic bladder?
Mind you, I also don’t understand why cinemas insist on putting all their food/refreshments in noisy paper bags. Surely there must be another option by now? A fabric version or similar? Or larger bags/tubs that allow hands in and out without touching the sides?
Birthday Weekend – Aliens
Posted: Fri 11 November, 2016 Filed under: 2016/17, Cinema, Do More, Domestic, Films, Five Year Plan (now Ten), London, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »For the birthday weekend, once I’d done Le Manoir on Saturday, and Dinner for lunch on Sunday, it was time to make my way down to the Royal Albert Hall, which was showing Aliens on a big screen, accompanied by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra performing the soundtrack.
Aliens is one of my favourite films, and one I’ve seen far more times than I’d care to admit – both the original release and the Director’s Cut / Special Edition. But I hadn’t seen it on a big screen for a proper cinema-style presentation, and definitely never with a live soundtrack!
And it was great. I’d wondered how they’d do soundtrack/music from the orchestra while keeping the dialogue and other sound-effects, and there’s obviously been a fair amount of work involved in doing this. I assume that the music soundtrack is on a different channel (or whatever) from the other bits of audio, so it’s more a case of ‘not playing’ one track, but I don’t know.
Regardless, hearing the music live enabled me to notice bits I hadn’t appreciated before – subtle in the recorded version, obvious live – such as the drum roll that’s used for all the more militaristic scenes, and other small thematic pieces along the way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing – well, except for the seats, which were some of the most uncomfortable in Christendom – and now really want to see other films show in the same way. It’s bloody brilliant.
Swiss Army Man
Posted: Thu 6 October, 2016 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »Last night, I went to see Swiss Army Man – and it’s definitely the strangest film I’ve seen in a long time. I’m glad I got to see it, though.
The first five minutes tells you pretty much everything you need to know – Hank (Paul Dano) is a man alone on a deserted island, trying to commit suicide, and a corpse (Manny, played by Daniel Radcliffe) washes up on the beach. The corpse is loudly deflating, which disturbs his final moments, until he realises that he can use this farting corpse as an escape from the island, and rides him like a jet-ski out to sea.
And that’s just the start.
It’s worth pointing out that if you’re easily offended, just don’t even contemplate seeing this film.
But it’s not just gross-out fart jokes and weird stuff with a corpse. That would be too simple. There’s a *lot* more to this film. It’s strangely emotional, and says quite a bit about modern manners and squeamishness as well as about solitude, loneliness, and how people are.
In truth, I came out wondering what the hell I’d just seen – but also glad I’d seen it. Even having seen as many films as I have, I really have no valid reference points for describing what it’s like. And that’s an even harder task when also not giving anything away about the film.
I liked it, but I didn’t. I could see it again, and I’d come out just as confused as I currently am about it. There’s a lot of good stuff, and certain images will definitely last longer than they perhaps should.
I think it’s too much to call it ‘thought-provoking’, but it’s also not dumb, and there is stuff that keeps echoing back afterwards.
In short, I just don’t know about this film. I’m hard-pressed to recommend it, because it’s just *so* odd. But it’s also not bad, and if it weren’t so odd I’d say yes, go and see it.
A very Marmite “love it or hate it” film, I think.
Filmage
Posted: Tue 13 September, 2016 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Write More 2 Comments »I don’t normally bother writing about films – although maybe I should, it’d certainly provide a significant increase in posts here – but last week I saw two that I rated really highly, so there we go, some thoughts.
Hell or High Water
First of them was (as you may’ve guessed already) Hell or High Water, starring Chris Pine and Jeff Bridges. Honestly, I think it’s about the best film I’ve seen this year.
The story is basically two brothers who are robbing banks to raise money, and the old retiring Texas Ranger who’s trying to catch them. So far, so cliched. But it’s well written, the dialogue is excellent, there’s a dry humour through it, and there’s also larger motivations.
The film focuses a lot on debt, low income, Evil Banks and the like. Many of the shots show roadside ads and hoardings for loans, debt relief and so on. The pair are robbing the banks – all of which are branches of Evil Bank – for a reason, and in many ways it’s hard to see them as being “bad”.
Jeff Bridges as the soon-to-retire Texas Ranger is a crusty, grumpy joy, an old fat man who’s done his time, and sort of wants to leave, but worries about what he’ll become without his job. The way he talks to his Ranger partner has to be heard/seen to be believed – but it is believable.
All told, I loved it – I’d happily see it many more times. There’s way more layers than you expect from the basic summary, and a moral ambiguity to it that I enjoyed – the “bad” people aren’t really bad (kind of doing bad things for good reasons) and the “good” people aren’t above playing with the lines and limits either. Totally recommended.
Morgan
Morgan, on the other hand, is a very different film – except, in some ways, it’s not. Where Hell or High Water is massively masculine, all the major characters in Morgan are women (which I think is nothing but a good thing) At least two of those characters are pretty bloody terrifying in their single-mindedness.
Basically, Morgan is a genetically-engineered being, with the appearance of a late-teen/early-twenties woman. You’re never actually told what she’s been engineered for, but it becomes pretty clear. But it also raises questions – if you’re going to create something with human-level intelligence, what happens when you keep that thing locked up? Answer – the development isn’t the same as a human. (File under “Sherlock, Shit, No”)
The other primary character is Lee, sent in by “The Company” to assess the risks around Morgan after a particular incident.
Needless to say, things don’t work out well.
It is, in parts, very violent , with a couple of scenes that are gory, but in context with what’s happened. At least one is surprising and shocking. But again, it makes sense in the context of the film. It’s action, but with some thought and some big ideas hiding inside it.
Again, I loved it – although from seeing the reviews etc. afterwards, I appear to be in a minority. It hasn’t done well at cinemas, and only lasted the one week at my one. Some of that is because it just hasn’t been promoted by the cinemas and studios, some of it is that a lot of people and reviewers didn’t like it. I hope it sees a bigger audience on TV, Netflix, download, disc, whatever – because I think it should have done far, far better than the current figures are showing.
I love that it’s so women-led as a film, and I want to see more like that. It has its flaws, don’t get me wrong – I’d figured the final ‘twist’ by about the third scene, and there are holes and questions throughout. But those can be set aside (or could by me, anyway) until afterwards. I thought it was dark, different, and brilliant.
Cinema Seating
Posted: Sun 27 December, 2015 Filed under: Cynicism, Domestic, Films, People, Seeing Films, Stupidity, Weirdness 2 Comments »This year, my local cinema has started a process where people book specified seats, rather than just “first come, first served seated” I don’t mind it at all, it makes sense and should make life easier for everyone.
Except, well, people.
Every film I’ve gone to see, there’s been a noticeable percentage of the people who either don’t sit in their booked seats (for whatever reason) or just seem to be confused by the whole concept of how the seats are organised into rows.
It’s a simple process – or is to me, anyway. If you stand at the front, with your back to the screen, the seats go from row A at the front to row Z (or whatever) at the back, and from 1 on the left to 100 on the right. It’s simple, but it confuses so many people, it’s really quite scary.
Really, is this concept so difficult to comprehend?
The Weekend of Quiet
Posted: Wed 1 July, 2015 Filed under: Domestic, Getting Organised, House Work, Milton Keynes, Seeing Films, Sleep - or lack thereof Leave a comment »As planned, last weekend was fairly quiet – and much needed.
The only booked thing I had in was to get someone from nPower’s third-party partner company in to look at my electricity meter. I’m going to write about that in a different post, because it gets long-winded, and slightly farcical. (As do all things nPower)
Other than that, I didn’t do much. The total of activities was
- Visit the cinema (twice)
- Keep up my walking targets, so I did wander round Milton Keynes etc.
- A bit of shopping
- Sorting out the back yard, including buying new pots and plants, and getting them installed/planted.
- Other very small odds and sods.
So it was decent. It would’ve been better if I’d actually been able to sleep well too, but there we go, that’d be pushing my luck too far.
2014 Media – Films
Posted: Sat 3 January, 2015 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Media, Seeing Films Leave a comment »In 2014, I saw 64 films at the cinema
As for the film count, I kept track. I do get a summary count from Cineworld – but they operate on May to May, which is the anniversary of when I started the account with the Unlimited Card. So I keep track for the calendar year instead. It’s a bit geeky (I know, who’d have thought, with me) but it’s of interest to me, if no-one else.
I won’t list them all – that’s definitely of interest to no-one else, and my film taste is frequently bloody awful.
Anyway, of those 64 films, only one wasn’t at a Cineworld (as usual, taking Father to see the Hobbit film at the closer cinema, which is an Odeon) because of that Unlimited Card.
Currently, that Unlimited card costs me £16.40 a month, which makes just under £200 a year. (£196.80, if we’re being accurate) A single adult ticket to my local Cineworld cinema is £10.30. Seeing two films a month means the ticket pays for itself.
Now, it’s hard to work out the true savings, because obviously without that card, I would most likely have not gone to see as many films as I have. I’d have still gone, but only seen maybe half as many, even a third as many.
But even if we go right down to seeing a third as many films at full price as I have with the Unlimited, that’d be 21 films at Cineworld. So that would still be £216.30 – and that means that even at the most basic level, I’ve still saved at least £20 on tickets. Looking at seeing half the films, that would be 31 films – which at full price would’ve cost me £320 – and the Unlimited ticket would’ve saved me £122.50.
As with the book target, I don’t know if I’ll see as many films in 2015. I’ll still see a fair amount – and as we’ve shown, as long as it’s more than two a month, that card is paying for itself. That’ll do me for the moment.
Chef
Posted: Fri 4 July, 2014 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Food, Media, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Writing Leave a comment »Last night, I went to see Chef at the cinema. It’s brilliant – if you get the chance, go and see it.
Lots of films (or their reviews/pimps) bang on about being “the feel-good movie of the season/year/decade” – Chef doesn’t, but bloody well should. It’s ace.
The basic premise is simple – talented chef gets bored by humdrum menu/restaurant, has a meltdown at a restaurant reviewer, loses his job, goes off and launches a food van doing what he loves. But the acting, the script – and the food – all raise it up a level. I’ve never been in a film where you hear the audience groan with lust/envy at the presentation of food in the film. They did in Chef. Sure, it’s – kind of – a film for foodies, but it’s not just that. It’s one of those films where you can see that they had fun doing it, that it was an enjoyable thing to work on.
It’s funny, it’s sweet (without being mawkish, cloying, or any of the normal American emotional guff) and it’s just good.
Go and see it. It’s worth it.
The Imposter
Posted: Mon 7 April, 2014 Filed under: Films, People, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Weirdness Leave a comment »Over the weekend, I finally watched The Imposter, a documentary about a man who impersonated Nicholas Barclay, an American teen who had disappeared four years previously.
It’s a fascinating – and very creepy – film, which would be dismissed as unrealistic and impossible if it were a fiction story/film.
The Imposter himself, Frédéric Bourdin is a very strange character, and (in my unprofessional opinion) probably about as much of a pure-bred psychopath as it’s possible to be. The family of Nicholas Barclay are also extremely strange – and yes, I know, editing etc. – and make you wonder just why a family would accept in a stranger that could not possibly be their child/relative.
I don’t know the full story – I doubt anyone ever will – but the documentary makes you think of alternatives, of options, and of coincidence. Maybe it was Bordin’s bad luck to pick Barclay as a person to impersonate – it certainly leads to a much bigger story, and a whole different set of possibilities.
Totally recommended, even if documentaries ‘aren’t normally your thing’
CGI
Posted: Mon 10 March, 2014 Filed under: Cinema, Films, Photography, Seeing Films, Technology, Thoughts Leave a comment »Over on Twitter this morning, I saw this image, a behind-the-scenes photo from Pirates of the Caribbean, showing the actors in their motion-capture suits, that allows CGI stuff to be added afterwards and move the same way the actor does.
Now what interested me the most was that the entire outfit – clothing etc. – was also all applied in CGI. And that had never actually occurred to me. I got that the various faces/tentacles/prosthetics were applied by CGI, but for some reason I’d never clicked that the clothing was all computer-generated as well.
Ain’t progress grand?
Giving The Game Away
Posted: Mon 3 March, 2014 Filed under: Advertising, Cinema, Domestic, Films, People, Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »Yesterday, for want of anything better to do, I went to see Ride Along at the cinema. I expected it to be bad – but screw it, it was free (although if it hadn’t been, I’d have been wanting my money back. Hell, I considered asking for a refund anyway)
It’s definitely an early contender (in my opinion) for the Worst Film of the Year (Mainstream / ‘Comedy’) category, but (as said) I pretty much expected that. Hated it. Although others in the audience at least laughed, so I guess that’s something.
What did surprise me though was how many of the key ‘jokes’ and scenes had been given away in the trailer – but also how many people still laughed at them.
It made me wonder if they’d actually seen the trailer before going to see the film, and if so, had forgotten them in the intervening time.
All very strange.
12 Years A Slave
Posted: Fri 10 January, 2014 Filed under: Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films Leave a comment »On Tuesday, I went to see the new film “12 Years A Slave” at the cinema. It’s been reviewed as being harsh and unforgiving in its view of American Slavery, but also reported that some members of the audience have walked out, shocked and horrified, and even felt ill and faint.
The film is the story of – well, more accurately it’s based on the story of – Solomon Northup, a free-born ‘African American’ from New York, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1841. In many ways it’s a remarkable story, and a remarkable film.
No-one walked out of the showing I was in – well, none in shock/horror, more just bloody-awful bladder control – but it’s an uncompromising view of slavery and the attitudes towards slaves. It’s another of those films that’s worth seeing, but it’s not one you’ll enjoy, if that makes any sense at all? A couple of the scenes in it are very unpleasant, leading you to wonder how it got away with a 15 certificate – but for me the real horror is in the perception and treatment of slaves.
I know I’m not the most charitable soul – file under “Sherlock, Shit, No” – but I find it truly horrific to see that belief that a slave isn’t human, is just a possession that the owner can do with as they will. All they’re ‘worth’ is the price paid. Nothing more, nothing less – and even seeing them exchanged as commodities, a way of passing on that debt. I know it happened (and probably still does in places) but it’s a vile attitude to have about anyone, regardless of skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, belief, or anything else.
It’s a grim film, and hard to watch in places, but it should be seen – and seen by lots of people – almost as an essay in how people shouldn’t be treated.
Bladder Control
Posted: Thu 9 January, 2014 Filed under: 1BEM, Cinema, People, Seeing Films, Thoughts, Weirdness Leave a comment »Last night I was at the cinema – of which more tomorrow – but I was reminded of something else that I’ve been meaning to write about for a while. And that’s this – why are so many people incapable of controlling themselves and sitting still for a couple of hours?
OK, in this case it was a viewing specifically for Unlimited Card holders at the local Cineworld. This meant that the viewing was free, and so perhaps there’s not that same “perception of value”. I don’t know. Mind you, this is something that’s been bugging me for a while, and not just at Cineworlds, so I assume that it also happens even when everyone’s paid to see the damn film.
I wasn’t actually counting, but in that two-and-a-quarter hour film, there must’ve been a good thirty people who went out and then came back in. I assume a fair number of those were toilet breaks – potentially a couple got calls, or had messages they needed to reply to, I suppose. (I’m in a semi-charitable mood today) And I’m also open to believe that a couple might’ve had medical conditions that meant they had less control over their bladders.
But really – how has this become a thing? If you can’t sit and watch a film without taking a break, or needing a piss, then surely there’s something wrong? Even if you’ve consumed that whole bucket of Coke you purchased, surely you can still contain yourself for a couple of hours?
My Films of 2013
Posted: Wed 1 January, 2014 Filed under: Cinema, Films, Geeky, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Thoughts, Words, Writing Leave a comment »Yesterday, Karen made a comment on a previous post, and asked for my top five films from 2013. And I thought “Well, why not?”. Although be warned, my taste in films is rotten.
5. Gravity – Probably the smartest sci-fi film (albeit with some bugs still, mainly around orbital mechanics – and the fact Sandra Bullock doesn’t bloody die) of the year, Gravity is short and powerful. Worth seeing in 3D (which is saying something – I’m no 3D fan at all) although I can well imagine it could kick off a dollop of illness in those prone to motion sickness. But that disorientation is almost key to the film, it manages to convey some of how it must feel to be weightless and with no idea what your orientation is.
It also gets a lot of the tech stuff right (although a fair amount wrong, as well) as well as keeping the story tight. I was in two minds about seeing it, if I’m honest (not being a massive fan of Sandra Bullock at the best of times) but I’d say it’s probably the best thing she’s done – in my opinion, anyway.
4. Elysium – Another smart sci-fi, with a dark ‘them and us’ premise that seems to be becoming all the more feasible. Hell, even Jodie Foster was good in it – which is a real revelation, as usual I can’t abide her in films.
The basic premise – that as the majority of the world’s population get poorer, the rich opt to take off to a space environment/station, where they carry on their lives, with the best of technology, medical care etc., effectively leaving the poor to their own devices – is pretty dark, but also (I found) very believable, even though you know the required leaps in technology would be huge. I’m a fan of the director’s previous stuff (particularly District 9, another near-ish-future scifi) and also looking forward to his next film.
3. Iron Man 3 – Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man, written and directed by Shane Black? I’m *so* there. IM3 lived up to its premise, far more than 2 did. Indeed it pretty much ignores 2 for the heap of crap it was. Smart snappy dialogue, some great action scenes, a glorious twist (that again seems ever more feasible in reality) and Robert Downey Jr just being himself. You can usually tell when people had fun making the film, and that comes across in this one.
And yes, I’ve even ended up watching it again on TV over the Festering Season. And it’s still fun, even when you know all of how it works out. Besides, just how damn good an actor is Guy Pearce?
2. Pacific Rim – I never expected anything more from Pacific Rim than what was in the trailers – big robots fight big monsters. If you expected more than that, you were – at best – frighteningly optimistic. But going in with no expectations more than that, I loved this film. Yes, it has some epic bugs and plot holes – the biggest being “if they’re clones, how can one be pregnant, FFS” – which rankle more on repeated viewing. (And yes, I’ve seen it rather more than once!) But still, epic effects, an absolutely cracking soundtrack – which I also bought – and it’s just ridiculous, fun, and probably the most entertaining film (for me) of the year. So why isn’t it at number one?
1. Mud – And the answer to that is ‘because Mud is’. I don’t know why this appealed to me as much as it did, but it’s probably the film that stuck with me the most through 2013. Matthew McConaughey has really grown on me as an actor since he’s stopped doing all the rom-com shit, and he’s really pretty versatile. This one’s more ‘American Mythology’ than anything else, I suppose – matched up with a doomed love story, coming-of-age stuff, and a whole lot more. For whatever reason, I just really liked this one.
And just for fun (and I won’t even credit them with links!), my five worst films have been…
5. White House Down – I was aiming for brainless entertainment. I got brainless.
4. I Give It A Year – I have no idea why I even went to see this. Romcom tat that was about as funny as infected piles.
3. The Counselor – Great expectations from a great trailer, but the film just wasn’t what had been expected. Beautifully shot, and some great set-pieces, but all told a real disappointment of a film.
2. Ender’s Game – One of the few this year that left a really bad taste in the mouth – the whole child-soldier thing, with some very dark morality (and no, I hadn’t read the book, so didn’t know what to expect) and again that feeling that somehow it’s not a concept that America would have any great issues with in the future. All-told, really quite unpleasant.
1. Only God Forgives – In a similar vein to Counselor, a film that didn’t live up to it’s trailer, and turned out in truth to be a very different film from that portrayed. Very arty, beautiful, but utterly up itself. Probably a good film when you’re in the mood for an art-house essay about violence, vengeance and [whatever else] but I wasn’t, so I really didn’t like it.
But bear in mind, there’s a lot of others just outside that list – including Last Stand, Man of Steel, Pain and Gain, and The Paperboy…
Cinematics Followup
Posted: Tue 31 December, 2013 Filed under: Business, Cinema, Customer Services, Domestic, Marketing, Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »Following on from yesterday’s post about this year’s Cinema viewings, a couple of things were explained to me outside of D4D™ about how Cineworld make their money on Unlimited Tickets.
The main profit-engine – and one I’d never even thought about – is based on attendance. As I understand it, Cineworld pay [whichever movie distributor] based on a percentage of gross ticket sales per week. However, Unlimited card-holders mean there are bums-on-seats that never show up as ticket sales. That £16 per month is pure gravy for Cineworld, and significantly reduces the amount they have to pay to movie distributors.
Apparently, a Cineworld cinema only needs to have 1,000 Unlimited card-holders to break even for the year. It’s that cost-effective.
Then there’s the secondary profit-engines…
- They get customer data – linked to specific customers – of viewing preferences, linked sales, attendance etc. That’s useful for many many reasons
- The extras (as I’d always suspected) – even with the discount from the ticket, you’re still paying much more than you would anywhere else for drinks etc.
There’s probably others as well, but they’re the main ones. It gives an interesting perspective on business etc.
Cinematics 2013
Posted: Mon 30 December, 2013 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Finances, Seeing Films, Thoughts 2 Comments »This time last year, I wrote about the number of films I’d seen in 2012, thanks to that Cineworld Unlimited ticket.
Last year, in six months I saw 26 films.
This year, I ended up seeing 65 films – and all for the princely sum (over the year) of £192. Cineworld raised the price of the card to £16 per month – from £15 – but that still means that seeing more than one film a month means the card pays for itself. And that doesn’t include the extra discounts (now 25%) on any food/drink I happen to buy at the cinema. (not that I bother in general, but still, it’s the spirit of the thing) That’s a pretty sweet deal for someone as geeky as me.
When you work it out per film, that means I paid £2.95 per film. That’s ridiculous. Hell, I don’t even pay for parking at the Milton Keynes Xscape one – if you go during the day and pay for parking, you tear off one part of the ticket, and they refund that too.
I really don’t understand how Cineworld makes money off these tickets – except, I suppose, that it’s guaranteed income for the year. One assumes that they hope that the majority of card holders come and also pay for food/drink/popcorn (sorry, but popcorn just isn’t food) which boosts it up. It’s either that, or they hope it’s like gym membership, and people sign up for the year, then don’t come as often as they expect/plan to.
Reduced Interest
Posted: Fri 13 December, 2013 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, People, Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »I don’t quite know why it is, but this last couple of weeks have had a severe reduction in the number of films I can be bothered to see.
Indeed, I haven’t even been to the cinema in three weeks – which is noteworthy this year. That Cineworld Unlimited card has certainly been worth the money – I reckon it’s saved me at least three hundred quid this year. (I’ll do the final figures at year-end, but that’s a conservative estimate)
And yet this last two or three weeks, there’s just been nothing that I’ve thought “Oh yeah, I fancy seeing that” – and bear in mind that on this one, my quality-control can be remarkably low.
I’m taking my dad to see the new Hobbit one this coming weekend, which’ll be good. But even then, that’s the only one coming out this week that I’ve wanted to see.
Hopefully things will improve again – although I’m guessing that’s not likely to be before the Festering Season at this rate. As in Summer, the next couple of weeks appear to be primarily loaded with child-friendly fodder for while they’re off-school, and the usual inane set of ballbag romcoms and guff. Always a joy.
End Credits
Posted: Fri 8 November, 2013 Filed under: 1BEM, Domestic, People, Seeing Films, Weirdness Leave a comment »Last night I went to see Thor2 with a friend.
It’s crap, but watchable crap – I’ve never been a massive Thor fan (well, not the comic-book version anyway) but it’s OK.
However.
It’s a Marvel film, and (to my recall) all Marvel films are known to have at least one ‘during-the-credits’ extra scene, which is usually worth hanging around for. Thor2 actually has two – one mid-credits, and one right at the end. Which is fine – it’s (I thought) a known thing, or at least should be to regular cinema-goers, and fans of Marvel films. I know a lot of people on Twitter have mentioned them, so I figured they were well-known.
But it amazed me how many people started leaving as soon as the credits started. I reckon a good 60% of the audience had gone by the time the first ‘during-the-credits’ scene appeared, and probably 95% had gone by the time of the final one. OK, the scenes aren’t essential to the main film or anything like that, but they’re fun additions – I’m just surprised by how many people apparently still don’t know that these things happen.
Automated Projection
Posted: Mon 28 October, 2013 Filed under: Cinema, Customer Services, Domestic, Media, Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »Until recently, it had never occurred to me that most multiplex cinemas have now automated their film projection rooms. I still envisioned it as either being one-projectionist-per-screen, or (at worst) one-projectionist-per-[x]-screens. The only reassuring fact from this is that I’m obviously not the only one to have not realised. (As opposed to being (apparently) the only one to never click that James the Red Engine was ‘reddy for anything’)
But no, it turns out you’re very lucky if there’s a projectionist at all. It’s all programmed, automated, and generally human-free. They have been for (at least) five or six years now, apparently.
I don’t know why it hadn’t clicked for me, because looking back it makes total sense. If you’ve got a 16-screen cinema that is (apparently) only staffed by four spotty teenagers and a manager or two, why on earth would you expect it to then have 16 projectionists? (Or even 2, one per eight screens)
What this does mean though, is that if there’s a fault in the showing, no-one knows about it unless you go out and tell someone. There’s no-one in the room at the back, checking the quality. It’s all done automagically.
I’ve been in a couple now where the projection/showing has gone a bit tits-up – one with no sound, one where everything had a weird pink overlay to it. Both times the rest of the audience has sat there bitching, but still done nothing else, assuming (I assume) that the projectionist would “just fix it”. I just go out and let a member of staff know it’s kippered, which gets things fixed.
I wonder if the cinemas should actually do more to let people know about those changes though?
Sweary Hypocrisy
Posted: Sun 14 April, 2013 Filed under: 1BEM, Charm School, Cinema, Cynicism, Hypocrisy, Offensive Repetition, People, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Sweary, Thoughts, Weirdness Leave a comment »I’ve found a new source of amusement – the “Parental Guides” for films on IMDB.
A perfect example is here, for the new Tom Cruise film “Oblivion”
Why is it so amusing? For wondrous things like this…
bitch used 2 times bastard 1 time ass 4 times shit 6 times 1 use of fuck. Son-of-a-b***h is used once.
It’s the hypocrisy of it all – coupled with the tweeness. In the example above, it’s OK to write bitch, bastard and fuck, but son-of-a-bitch gets asterisked out? Fuck me.
Cinematics
Posted: Sun 30 December, 2012 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Finances, Seeing Films Leave a comment »Looking back at the list I’ve kept it looks like I’ve seen 26 films this year, since May. Yeah, yeah, I kept a list – mainly because I wanted to make sure I was getting value for money from the Cineworld Unlimited ticket, but also because well, I’m a geek.
There’s probably a couple I saw pre-May, but all the same, 26 isn’t bad going. It’s been eight months since I joined Cineworld, at £15 a month, adding up to £120. 26 films would’ve cost me in the region of £260, which makes it pretty worthwhile.
In the course of 2012, I even had a couple of months where I didn’t go to see films – primarily July / August, when it was all really dire shite (in my opinion) with nothing I really fancied. So that total probably means that I really should get out more, just not to the cinema.
I won’t bore anyone with the list of films – I know I’ve got dire taste in films, but I like escapism.
2013’s going to be a year for more of the same, I’m sure. The ticket is worthwhile – it would’ve taken only 12 films to pay for itself, and I doubled that – so it makes sense to keep on with it. And that’s exactly what I’m going to do.