Category: Film

Rock of Ages

By إبن البيطار (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsAfter failing to get to see a film during the week (partially courtesy of Cineworld and their decision to only have one showing a day of the 2D versions of films), we managed to find the time at the weekend for a second attempt. Sadly, only the one film as Abe Lincoln is still only on at 13:30 at our local.

Rock of Ages

“I’m a stripper.”
“I’m in a boy band.”
“… You win.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy and girl bugger it up, boy and girl sort it out again at the end. With rock.

See it if you like: stage musicals, proper music, guilty pleasures

In honesty, I wasn’t sure what to expect with this one, other than “nothing like any musical you’ve ever seen before” or something, as declared by the trailer. Well, just for the record it is exactly like most musicals based around the music industry you’ve ever seen (one look at the “plot-in-a-nutshell” above will give that away). What it does have going for it is a kick-ass soundtrack, some of which I assume is taken from the stage play on which the film is based.

OK, so I’m biased. I like proper music and this is my primary reason for taking the chance and going to see it. There’s no doubting the supporting cast are strong enough – Tom Cruise as the flaky rock god, Catherine Zeta-Jones as the sexy wife of the mayor who is trying to rid the town of evil rock ‘n’ roll, Alec Baldwin as the club owner, Russell Brand as a prick (OK, not actually but he is).

Our leads are relatively new to the big movie game. Diego Boneta‘s history seems to be in dodgy Spanish-language soaps and a 90210 remake whereas Julianne Hough has worked her way through Disney-style musicals and the remake of Footloose. She also has an incredibly nasal voice which got on my wick from the first song.

Oh, yeah. Songs. This is a musical. Not just a film with some songs thrown in around the plot,  but the type of film where crowds of random people break into dance routines randomly. So more Showgirls (to which is has been compared in some reviews) than School of Rock.

That was jarring, I have to admit. Mentally, I expect that kind of thing on a stage rather than a cinema screen. But once I got over that little brain hurdle, I started to settle in and enjoy it more – mainly as the choice of songs was so good, even if the vocal performances were somewhat lacking at times.

As well as the aforementioned Hough, Cruise should stick to abseiling down stupidly tall buildings. Kudos to him for having a go at expanding his acting range, but he’s taken one step too far outside of his comfort zone here. He’s not awful but he’s not very good either. His performance is superb as Stacee Jaxx, washed-up drunk mentalist rock star – but it’s let down by his singing performance. A shame as that’s kind of key here.

Off to the side, Baldwin and Brand play very well off each other though their little twist in the story is telegraphed very far in advance. Anyone who didn’t see that coming really needs to get out more. I still can’t stand Brand, but he fits in well here as the comedy relief, and annoyingly gets many of the best lines. Oh, and Baldwin can’t sing but at least he had the sense to not even really try.

Is this a great musical? Probably on stage. I loved the couple of times where a pair of songs were intertwined – it worked incredibly well and I can just see this being so much fun in a theatre. That’s missing with a cinema setting, which is a shame. It’s an enjoyable film, but a live cast whooping it up in front of you would be hugely superior. Something like the grossly under-rated Bandslam is far better suited to the big screen.

Is it the best rock-n-roll-based film ever made? Nah. Off the top of my head Detroit Rock City and Airheads knock it for six, both for story and laughs.

Importantly, though, it doesn’t care. It’s not a film that remotely takes itself seriously and this is where it wins. It’s debauched, fun, silly and entertaining with some great songs – and you end up thinking “I could have been a rock star, dammit” by the time the credits roll.

Worth taking a chance on. There’s not much else out at the moment. At least not unless you mind being rail-roaded into paying extra for bloody 3D.

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Dear @cineworld …

Cineworld
Ah, we used to love you so much…

After a disappointing evening and some wasted time trying to see a film, I want to make some feelings clear with Cineworld that are hard to fit into a tweet. They’re good at replying to them – whoever monitors their Twitter feed does a good job – but too many things are bothering myself and Gillian these days.

First up, we’re heartily sick of 3D films. We don’t want to see them, they’re a rubbish novelty that exists only to rake in money for cinemas showing them. I have it from various sources that the prints for films cost the same for a cinema to obtain regardless of whether it’s a 2D or 3D print. The same projector is used. So why is there a surcharge to watch the film in 3D? As far as I can tell, the only expense lies with the film-maker who’s decided to shell out thousands to turn a perfectly good film into a blurry, dull, migraine-inducing mess.

3D film technology should have been kicked in the head until it started to go cross-eyed and drool, dragged into the forest and left to die slowly of exposure.

It’s not the fact that you have to pay extra, per se. Assuming a film gets a 2D showing you can at least opt to go and watch that instead of being ripped off £1.50 plus extra for the eyewear if you’ve not already got some. Well, you can… sort of.

The 2D versions very much come second fiddle as far as both number of performances and actual performance times are concerned. To whit, the issue we had this evening.

Our preferred cinema is the Cineworld at Parkhead. It’s got free parking right by the door, is easy to get to while avoiding most traffic and the staff are lovely. OK, so it’s a little poky compared to the Renfrew Street behemoth but it’s far more convenient. The parking, right now, is quite important as Gillian’s 8 months pregnant and we have two other kids. Plus, parking in Glasgow before 6pm is bloody expensive.

Thing is, Parkhead only have one showing a day of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. And it’s at 13:30. Therefore, we can’t see it. Conversely, there are four screenings (three on Thursday) of the 3D version. This is incredibly annoying. We’re essentially being told that, despite paying a monthly fee for an Unlimited Card each, we don’t have the freedom to choose which films we want to see.

I mentioned this on Twitter and they recommended going to Renfrew Street who had a showing at 6pm. Initially we thought “nah”, but relented and drove through. After battling through traffic and forking out for parking, we made it to the cinema to find that the 2D showing had sold out.

What a waste of time and money.

And it brings me to my second major point: not being able to pre-book using an Unlimited Card. More than once I’ve been in the queue, listening to someone who’s arrived with their friends or children and can’t get in to see a film. The others had pre-booked online, the Unlimited holder couldn’t and the showing has sold out.

I have “discussed” this over Twitter, as have others, with Cineworld and I can understand their one over-riding concern: people booking tickets online and then not showing up, thus depriving other paying customers of seats. I absolutely agree, this is something that shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

So I suggest the following. Allow Unlimited holders to book online. Give them the same restrictions as are already in place (although this actually varies from cinema to cinema) in that they can’t book another ticket until the showing for the one they’ve reserved is finished. In addition, if they do not collect their ticket, they get a “strike”. Each card-holder gets one free strike per month. The second time they fail to collect a pre-booked ticket in a one-month period, they lose the ability to pre-book for 3 months.

The one strike seems fair. Sometimes things just happen – the bus doesn’t come, the kids start to projectile vomit just as you’re leaving the house, whatever. But it should stop people being frivolous.

Alternatively, if a pre-booked ticket isn’t taken then the card-holder is charged for it at the standard rate, a debit/credit card being required to make the booking but not being charged otherwise.

Surely the technology is pretty much in place to manage this?

I just feel like a second-class customer despite forking out a reasonable sum each month of guaranteed income for Cineworld.

As things stand, Gillian’s likely to cancel her Unlimited card when baby SkullKrusher arrives. I was going to keep mine, but I’m thinking more and more about just cancelling it. I love going to the cinema, especially for big action films. But it’s reaching the point where it’s inconvenient finding a showing that we can guarantee seeing and which isn’t in 3D.

With the advent of the likes of NetFlix etc., we could be paying a lot less just to watch them on the telly at home when it actually suits us – and for less each month. Sure, it’s not the same, but it’s cheaper and less stressful.

Don’t get me wrong. On the whole we like Cineworld, the staff, the experience. We just feel we’re getting a raw deal right now and we’re, frankly, pissed off at the time wasted this evening compounded by the two issues highlighted above.

So there you have my points:

1) Give some respect to those of us who don’t want to watch 3D films.

2) Let Unlimited holders pre-book

3) Find out what’s making that awful stale piss smell in the gents’ loo at Parkhead (and has been for months) and sort it out. Please. It’s minging.

Just thought I’d throw that last one in there while I’m on a roll.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Snow White and the Huntsman

By إبن البيطار (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsTime to take Little Miss to the cinema and this retelling of a Disney-fied classic seemed ideal.

Snow White and the Huntsman

“Lips red as blood. Hair black as night. Bring me your heart my dear, dear Snow White.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Evil stepmother takes over a kingdom while the king’s true offspring tries to win it back

See it if you like: dark fantasy flicks which focus as much on story as spectacle

Gillian had been wanting to see this since she eyed the poster in the cinema. Little Miss had, I think, seen a trailer on the telly. I was pretty much just along for the ride. Funnily enough it was the second film in two days we’d seen with Charlize Theron in it (after yesterday’s Prometheus) – and it very almost has Michael Fassbender as he was considered for the role of the Huntsman.

Now this is a story that all of you will have heard before, and which virtually everyone will have enjoyed in its cartoon form. There are certainly parallels to this version (Snow White’s costume early in the film and her relationship with wildlife, for instance), but the tale twists and turns in different ways. The scriptwriters had a very different vision and some excellent ideas for bringing the tale to life. A shining example is the evil stepmother’s magic mirror which melts and appears in humanoid form that only she can see.

The effects, in fact, steal the show. They’re imaginative and seamless. From the creatures in the magical forest sequence to the dwarves (of which there are actually eight…). Rather than taking the easy route of hiring eight people of diminutive stature, the director has opted for some very well known names and some fantastic jiggery-pokery to make them appear very realistically miniaturised. I was sat there for a good few minutes trying to convince myself that it was actually Bob Hoskins up there. And Nick Frost. And Ray Winstone. And Ian McShane.

Visually, then, it’s great. The story is well enough known in one for to be easy to follow, and all the better for the fact that it’s a new (to me at least) version. If there’s one thing that lets it down it’s the pacing. I found things to be a little drawn out at times. While the action sequences, and there are a lot of them, were bursting with excitement, the dramatic scenes were a little slow and made the film really feel like all of its 127 minutes. Having said that, Little Miss enjoyed the whole thing and it must have been good for an 11 year old to sit right through without complaint.

Certainly the cast give it their all with Kristen Stewart being perfect as the titular character and Chris Hemsworth convincing as the man sent, at first, to hunt her down. Feminists will appreciate that Snow White is no shrinking violet saved by a handsome prince in this version, instead being more of a Joan of Arc character gaining strength as the tale progresses.

I tend to find myself agreeing with the current average score on IMDB – around 7/10. With a little better pacing, it could have jumped up to an 8, but it’s still pretty good and shouldn’t disappoint. The 12A rating is spot on, too. The violence isn’t grisly, it’s very much a fantasy piece, and there’s no real nudity (a bare back is about as much as you see).

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Prometheus

By إبن البيطار (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsAfter a bit of indecision, we decided to save £25 and skip the IMAX version. Probably for the best – no pointless 3D and more money to spend on the Burger King we wolfed on the way to the cinema to see Ridley Scott‘s latest:

Prometheus

“My God, we were so wrong…”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: In the near future, we discover a message from the stars… and head off to see what lies on LV 426.

See it if you like: the first two Alien films

It’s been a while since the last Alien film. Thankfully, as Resurrection was dreadful. Also, Ridley Scott hasn’t had much to do with them since the original back in 1979. A long time to wait for the creator to revisit his work.

Thing is, was it worth the wait? In my personal opinion, yes. Not because it’s an “Alien film”, but precisely because it really isn’t. It just happens to take place in the same universe and, despite what anyone says, it is a prequel to that 1979 classic. However, it’s not told as an Alien film but more from the point of view of the human race. It sets up the first film wonderfully well (I couldn’t spot any inconsistencies), yet still leaves questions unanswered.

That’s been the beauty of the franchise to date. Alien was a tense horror. Aliens was a balls-out action film. Alien 3 straddled the line and, once the studio got their bloody hands off it and let Fincher re-edit it the way it should have been, ended up being more than watchable. Resurrection, as mentioned, is best left forgotten. Variety has been key in keeping it interesting.

Prometheus continues this trend with a film that probably has more in common with the first instalment, but on a different scale and with quite a lot of expectation sitting on its shoulders. It bears this well.

Kicking off in the not too distant future, a group of archaeologists led by Doctors Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a series of cave paintings, murals and the like which all contain a similar pattern. After some research, they realise they are effectively a map pointing to a planet that’s reachable using space travel of the day and argue that it’s a chance to meet whoever created the human race.

Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), or at least his globe-spanning company which plays a fairly major part in the earlier/later films, funds the expedition out there where the group discover… well, I don’t want to give away any more than the trailer.

The film has all the familiar aspects of a member of the franchise: an android (this one called David and played by Michael Fassbender), an untrustworthy “company (wo)man” (Meredith Vickers played by a rather sexy Charlize Theron), huge sets (Scott prefers to build in real life rather than digitally), great Chris Foss-like spacecraft, tension, a strong female lead, and so on.

The story moves quite slowly, in honesty, but when the action kicks in it’s with a shock factor. There’s definitely a horror element, both because of the tension followed by a jump, and in the gore stakes. While not as outright violent as the second movie, and not as edge-of-the-seat scary as the first it manages to have elements of both while focussing on a very good story that tries to give a sound basis for what was to follow.

Performances all round are excellent, though I’d pick out Fassbender in particular as what is effectively the first Weyland android. Quirky, cool and mysterious you wonder if the Alien universe has ever been party to Asimov’s Laws of Robotics.

Visually, it’s a treat from the gorgeous sets to the costumes and creature effects.

It seems to have been getting some mixed reactions which is to be expected. I, personally, think it’s a great slice of classic science fiction. It takes a core question – “where do we come from” – and drops a nice little dollop of “what if” in there. The technology may be a little too advanced for the era during which it’s meant to take place, but that’s the only real slip I could see… and one I’d love to have proven right as it would mean there’s a possibility of me just about seeing the beginnings of it in my lifetime!

I can understand why some people won’t have liked it. On the other hand, I’d recommend it highly because I enjoyed it and Gillian reckoned it was pretty good also.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Men In Black III

By إبن البيطار (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsSequels and remakes seem to be all the rage right now. Will Smith’s obviously in need of a new swimming pool given this sequel to a 14 year-old original and a third Bad Boys instalment also on the horizon.

Men In Black III

“Is there anybody here who is not an alien?”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Bad alien guy escapes and starts changing the timeline. Enter “J” and a ton of gadgets and effects

See it if you like: the original, and silly time travel films which raise more questions than they answer

Ah – sequels, adaptations, remakes and reboots. The seeming life blood of Hollywood these days. MiB3 is yet another in this string, and a good ten years since the disappointing sequel to the original. The good news, though, is that 3 does what 2 didn’t – adds in a new twist.

The original sequel (is that a weird phrase?) was very much the first film all over again, but with bigger aliens. What we have here, though, are new ideas and a very entertaining back-story which actually develops the characters. The humour, however, is lacking at the start and some of the laughs are very forced. Partly this is due to predictability, and partly as some of the lines just aren’t funny.

After the half-way mark, roughly, things pick up. The pace increases, the laughs come more readily and the action is actually quite tense. The effects are, as ever, superb. Tons of different aliens, but some excellent set pieces as well.

Don’t bother paying extra for 3D though. I say this all the time as it’s an expensive, pointless novelty. I’d reckon there’s maybe a minute of footage in the entire movie with enough “depth” to make 3D worthwhile. I guess it’s up to you if you think this is worth paying more for.

I’ll try not to give away any more than is in the trailer (some of the scenes from which, incidentally, aren’t in the final cut). A nasty bad guy alien called Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) escapes from a prison on the Moon. He sets out to get revenge on Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) by wiping him from history. Only Agent J (Smith) remembers history as it was before the change was made and seeks out a time travel device to go back and fix things.

Josh Brolin is excellent as the younger, slightly less miserable Agent K. Just by the voice alone, you could be forgiven for thinking you were watching a younger Jones. What made K interesting in the first two films was how morose he was. The main focus of this third instalment is why. And the answer is a superb one which really helps wrap the trilogy up.

Any complaints I have are minor and two of them involve a lot of spoilers. The other is the gross under-use of K’s relationship with “O” (Emma Thompson in the modern day, Alice Eve in the past). Things are hinted at, and it’s obvious there’s something there… but so little that it makes virtually no difference to the plot. In other words, it may as well not have been brought up in the first place. It’s hard to tell if it’s just a red herring or a side-story that was left to wither. A shame either way.

The important thing is that both Gillian and I enjoyed it. Not just a third outing for the same story, but a good tale in its own right.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta