TINTIN

Today I watched Tintin.

 (A little late – I know, but it was on at kids club AKA listen-to-your-film-with-bonus-child-screams-club…but, hey, it’s cheap.)

Anyway, let’s get to the actual film. There’s a pirate with a drinking problem, a ruthless kidnapping, and a robbery – and, yes, this is a children’s film. Surprisingly this cocktail for the next Pirates of the Caribbean film actually works as a children’s film; aesthetically with its CGI it becomes far more child-like, and of course Tintin with his sidekick dog Snowy provide slapstick humour for the children this film is a good’n - to some extent.

Yes, Captain. It's called a computer screen. You're not real - I thought I should let you know.

It evolves around Tintin with his desire for a new story as a budding journalist, after purchasing what he thought just to be a toy replica of the Unicorn ship he finds himself in a spot of bother. Yes Tintin, ‘GREAT SNAKES!’ indeed. He then goes on to solve the ever complex mystery. And this is where the film with a young audience could fall short…

The storyline turns dramatically from one similar to an episode of Mickey Mouse Club House, to one that wouldn’t be turned down from the intricate thoughts of Christopher Nolan. This small purchase he makes turns out to be (SPOILER) one of three small ships that each hold a scroll that lead Tintin, Snowy and Captain Haddock (Other guy that got kidnapped by the bad guy – keep up.) use to get the co-ordinates to the treasure before the bad guy (Sorry, but I can’t be bothered to Google his name – let’s call him Dave.). So the Dave repeatedly tries to kill Tintin and co, but then Tintin traps Dave and Dave is all like ‘boo hoo’. Tintin, Snowy and Captain Haddock then find that the ‘treasure’ is a hat full of jewels hidden in a globe at his old home with (Yep, you guessed it…) another scroll.

So, you can imgaine the confused face on my 5 year old cousin when we saw the film today. (Much like the confused face you’re experiencing after my misspelling of the word ‘imagine’ – no you don’t have dyslexia.)

So if you like Tintin go see it. If you know who Tintin is then go see it. Finally if you don’t like Tintin then go see it – Steven Spielberg’s interpretation might just sway you.

Fun game alert! ... – every time I confused you have a carrot stick. Let’s be healthy, it is the oh-no-I-never-stuck-to-my-new-years-resolution time of year after all.

LOVE IN FILM - REALISTIC?

Love. Anyone seen it? Because I haven’t found it yet.

Love in films and TV never show the difficulties of love, or the awkward talking…or the creepy staring. They never show the one person upset, after an argument, without the pair resolving their issues with a passionate snog.

In real life this is how it goes (for me at least) =

1) Start talking to a hot guy.

2) Accidentally piss of that guy.

3) Try to resolve with awkward chat.

4) Ruin all chances.

(Probably because I talk an awful lot and rarely make sense.)

This has happened many times, and that’s not the only thing that differs film and real life…appearance differs. In films everyone looks stunning at every second (above) , like a walking L’Oreal advert. In reality we get knotted hair from the wind, ill-fitting clothes and make-up that really will not improve our looks...



(I live in England so my chances of me having the same hairstyle as I leave home with to the one I arrive at school with are very slim.) (The picture above is not me...just saying. :P) (Not that the lady has anything wrong with her...I should stop talking.)

Also, people in film make sense. Of Course this is because there is a well thought out script that is thoroughly checked, but when I watch a film, the couple in the film are completely clear, I know that he likes her and she likes him. Real life…not so simple.

You can say you do not fancy this boy and tell people you hate this boy, and then OBVIOUSLY you’re in love with them. What the fuck? If I said I hate this boy, then how, please tell me, does this mean I want to date him???

And then, there are the awkward, ‘should I tell him I like him?’ moments, which I never do, as after a few minutes of deliberation I figure that if this boy liked me back then he would have said so – right? WRONG. Because chances are (Having not been a boy, or having a penis, this information could be wrong.) he is probably thinking the same thing – I don’t want to be rejected.

AND FINALLY…

In film the hot male protagonist only has eyes for his one girl, this one girl that he is so in love with that he wouldn’t wish her any different. In reality guys fancy A LOT of girls. This could make a relationship awkward knowing that he fancies every breathing female. But it gets worse. He could fancy your sister – unfortunately (For me, and not for her.) my sister is at a similar age to me and is stunning, I’m pretty sure people question if we are sisters, or I’m just there to make her look better.

So are moral is this: Films portray love as destiny, easy, and exciting. The reality is: Love is shit until you find someone.

(Every time I made you depressed grab a drink.)

(P.S I wrote this after getting 'smashed' on Nesquik.)

(You can see how people find me annoying)

:D

ROM TO THE COM

PRE – WARNING FOR THE GUYS:

This post may be just a little girly. Or a little critical of girly films… the dreaded… (Deep breath.)

Rom-coms.

There are a great ton of them out there – The Break Up, Bridget Jones, A Cinderella Story, How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days and Pretty Woman – to name a few. So let’s ask ourselves what do these all have in common? A guy. (Check.) A girl. (Check) Fall in love against all the odds. (…Check.)

So the point I’m trying to get across is that Rom-coms are predictable. Really predictable. For once I’d like the girl to look that guy in the eye (Who obviously has returned to confess his undying love for her.) and say “No, thanks – I’m off for a beer with my lesbian friends.”

Another thing about rom-coms – and the guy who ‘has returned to confess his undying love’ – that I’m not too keen on…is the believability. What guy do you know chases a cab on a busy New York road to confess his love for a girl he knew for 10 days? (Little dig at ‘How to Lose A Guy In 10 Days’ for y’all.) It doesn’t happen – Donnie Darko has more realism (Watch it if you haven’t – trust me. It's great.)

HOWEVER

There are some good rom-coms – yes. ‘Love Actually’ – I’m looking at you.

For all of you that haven’t heard of the film ‘Love Actually’ then here you go…

The characters fall in love – through affairs, mourning, social class, and through meeting each other. Love is the main theme of the film, but not necessarily the aspects that a big American cheesy blockbuster will show you. ‘Love Actually’ includes the good and bad aspects of love. It shows how love can connect people for different reasons and it shows different types of love – whether it’s between a married couple, colleagues, or best friends. It’s a film where you can sit down and think – ‘Yeah, I believe that, I understand.’

Oh - and it's christmassy.

So our moral of today’s post is this – love in films is usually overused, we, as an audience need realism, we don’t need a film that makes us believe that love is all chocolates and flowers, we need more films like ‘Love Actually’ (‘Valentine’s day’ and ‘New Year’s Day’ are not what I meant – do not COPY the whole concept of ‘Love Actually’.). What I mean is this: we need a rom-com that makes us think of all that love has to offer – a film that we can believe and relate to…

Not a load of cheesy bullshit.

(I love you all.)

 

MISFITS

FUCK.

Asbos, dead social workers, a gritty council estate – oh, and super powers.

So in this series so far the powers have included the your-penis-will-fall-off-if-you-play-me-erer, the bring-dead-people-back-to-life-and-then-shit-goes-down-erer, and the classic two-people-inside-me-erer.

...but I LOVE MISFITS – and I’ll tell you why…

It has a sense of realism (Okay, I know super powers aren’t real, but I’m getting to the point.), what I mean is the cast aren’t ‘perfect’ looking – they don’t look like they’ve been photo shopped a thousand times – they look like real people.  

Secondly the language isn’t…how should I put it…the language used isn’t commonly seen on TV – here’s a Misfits quote to give you a taster – ‘ ”it sounded like you’re planning on robbing a bank”, “No, no, no. I said, uh… “Let’s have a big wank.” Communal masturbation. The ol’ circle jerk” ‘– Yep, I told you it was a little…. (And that was a PG rated quote compared to the rest.).

Finally – It’s FUNNY! Like, really funny. Each episode is jammed packed with innuendos, one liners and ironic super powers (Each power they originally have will have a relation to their personality – for example, Kelly was paranoid so she got the power to mind read – get it?).  Another funny aspect of the series is the characters – it’s like chocolate and peanut butter - it shouldn’t work, but it really does (TRY IT). One of my favourite characters of the current series is Rudy. He’s pictured below – SPOILER – he’s watching zombie cheerleaders getting battered with baseball bats by his friends – Yes. My mum lets me watch this.

 

 So, the moral of this post is: if you don’t watch Misfits… THEN WATCH IT. Unless you are too young…like that will stop you. Pfffftttt.

(Re-read and for every time I write something do nothing.)

THE FOLLOW UP

Okay - so I guess I was a little* too critical on my last post.

(* - I'm stubborn. A 'little' is alot to admit.)

TAKE TWO

I know I said that sequels and prequels wern't really my thing - but I lied. Sometimes they're exactly what I need. (I'm a girl - I'm aloud to change my mind.)

After a year passes from a films first release you will sometimes find yourself watching that same film, again, again...and again, and then the news of a sequel is released and the feeling is great.

It sometimes feels like a catch up with an old friend. (Yes. I just got deep.)

So in many ways a sequel can leave us feeling like this...

AS LONG AS IT'S MADE FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.

Personally I can't watch a film knowing the only reason it's been made is to take my money. (I said I was stubborn.) I can however watch a film if the reason it's been made is to please the fans and to enjoy (I know I'm probally not making sense...I'm getting there.). So if the sequel is something new and exciting and hoped for by fans - then go ahead - MAKE THAT SEQUEL. BUT if a film has been made with no originality and to merely cling onto the success of the first then jog on.

CUT

I do hope this made sense - for every time I confused you - yep, you guessed it - have a drink - or eat.



2011 : THE YEAR OF SEQUELS AND PREQUELS

AND ROLL CAMERA…

So by the end of the year, the cinema would have shown a record minimum of 26 sequels (I say minimum because that’s all I could find – there could be more. I'm pretty sure there are 28. Show yourselves number 27 and 28!).

These include: (prepare yourself – again – there are 26! You can skip the list in fear of headaches.)

Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (Big mistake.)

Scream 4 (Have you EVER screamed at a ‘scream’ film?)

Fast five (Did you know Vin diesel is 44!- He looks it.)

Hoodwinked too! Hood vs. Evil (Why, oh why? Not even the lead actress – Anne Hathaway – enjoyed the first one.)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (I ENJOYED THIS SEQUEL!)

The Hangover Part II (Original story line.)

Kung Fu Panda 2 (The day that no one enjoys seeing an overweight panda doing Kung Fu and voiced by Jack Black will never come. Actually after seeing the sequel…it probably will.)

X-MEN: First class (Yes, it’s a prequel, but it’s pretty much the same as a sequel – they have similar names and everything.)

Cars 2 (I will NOT be mean about Pixar.)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Okay, okay, I haven’t seen it – but it’s unlikely to be as good as the first.)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (I’m British – I’m obliged to enjoy Harry Potter.)

Final Destination 5 (Anyone else unsure why there are five? Surely a ‘final destination’ means it should be ‘final’? For the benefit of my eyes it should have been.)

Spy Kids: All the Time in the World (Have not seen it – will not see it.)

The Human Centipede 2 (WHO THINKS OF THESE IDEAS?)

Paranormal activity 3 (Scary.)

Puss in Boots (Another prequel, but let’s be honest, Puss isn’t the same without Shrek to sprinkle some Scottish anger on him.)

Happy Feet Two (…)

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (DON’T JUDGE ME…but…I like it!)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (I NEED to see this film. Only to tear it apart. Positively of course.)

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (Tom Cruise = No.)

Don 2: The Chase Continues (Nope, me neither.)

Winnie the Pooh (Super awesome! If you’re four.)

The Muppets (You go Miss Piggy!)

Rise of the Apes (Oh Ahh Ahhh Ah.)

Mean Girls 2 (WHY? I can quote the first until I die. The sequel…I wouldn’t quote it unless I was in a world where this was the only film shown EVER.)

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (Ha. Ha. Ha. No.)

BREAK

Give yourself a clap – we made it through the list! If you took my advice and skipped the list then… shame on you.

So as you may have noticed I’m not a massive fan of sequels or prequels – admittedly there are a few really GREAT sequels, but for other films I feel a sequel ruins the magic behind it.

Let me explain…

When I watch a film I gain a connection with the characters and imagine their life stories and how they came to the situation they are in (You don’t? Just me? Oh. This is awkward.), so for me a prequel or sequel can sometimes tell us TOO much. As an audience we should (If the film is well made.) be interested enough to think up what we don’t see.

Plus sometimes a sequel will RUIN the novelty of the original film. For instance (sorry Todd Philips…) The Hangover. When it first came out it was witty, entertaining, a great cast and a GREAT plot. HOWEVER, the plot was so great that it should have been left as just that – a great plot. Instead it was recycled into a new film – a film purely made on the basis of how much money it will make (admittedly I didn’t sit in on the meeting about The Hangover 2, but it’s a little obvious.). I’m not saying it wasn’t a good sequel – it was, but for me it ruined the element of surprise the first film had to offer.

Now to balance out my sequel criticism on the scales of life –

I LOVE HARRY POTTER AND THE TWILIGHT SAGA.

(I’m aware of your reaction – Boys: sigh, Girls: WOO.)

So to recap, 2011 was the year of money making, magic ruining films. However it was also the year many nerds alike sadly huddled at the loss of hope for a new Harry Potter film (J.K Rowling -remember you can change this!)

CUT

(Let's mix it up, re-read the post and drink every time I used a bracket – or eat.)

(Check out my twitter too - http://twitter.com/RFandTV.)

SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD

POWER UP… ‘I have the capacity to geek’.

(For your pleasure, mainly guys – yes I’m stereotyping - all things nerd have been underlined - don’t say I don’t spoil you all.)

The film (we’ll call it SPVTW because we all know I love acronyms.) itself is one big nerd referencing soup. We have each characters profile popping up at each new face, the comic-book intertextuality (From the original Bryan Lee O’Malley Scott Pilgrim series), and the love for ‘Zelda and Tetris’.

Not to mention the plot line. Scott is faced with the challenge of beating all Ramona’s seven evil exes – without the dreaded GAME OVER. The exes are played by an array of actors (and actresses – yes guys – there are lesbians.) It's safe to say looking at the exes that Ramona isn’t fussy. Chinese guy with white hair? Why not? Chris Evans with an unusual eyebrow dysfunction? Absafrickinloutly.  A byfurious ninja-looking funeral-clothe wearing blonde? Marry me.

 It’s directed by Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) which leads us to presume it’ll be a success, but the uniqueness (MADE FOR NERDS) of SPVTW makes it a project for Edgar that was not ever presumed he would face, when making the film his approach was simple – he “wanted to embrace the pop art culture of comics”. Edgar also has a great British humour that Americans are forced to laugh at for fear that they will not be considered cool – even if they don’t know what the fuck is going on.

NEXT LEVEL …

So, what about the actual film?

It was okay, I mean, it was fine I guess. LIAR. (Between you and me my conscience really winds me up.) It was a visual feast that left me wanting more, funny, witty dialogue, and minor roles that added SO much to the film. For instance Kim (Kim Pine, Drummer, 23 years old.).  She is one sarcastic bitch – but equally hilarious. For instance (Yes, I repeated myself.) at the party she stands alone with her red cup looking just…well… Just look for yourself below.

Secondly, one of the films main appeal to those people who sit at their computer, yearning for an interlectual spark *cough* NERDS *cough* are the gaming references. In an opening scene to the film (in the kitchen) Neil is using his NDS, and faintly the Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past music is heard, this is because, as a big fan of games, Edgar said the music was the ‘nursery rhyme of his generation’ so he wanted to incorporate it. When the door then opens for Knives Chau the Zelda “fanfare” sound effect is played – yes, we get it Edgar, you’re a BIG Zelda fan.

Another reference is about Scott’s sister – Stacey Pilgrim. When her character profile pops up she is rated as ‘T for teens’, this rating was used to rate the games in America and Canada by the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB).

Also Scott’s band is called the ‘Sex Bom-omb’, again this is another reference – this time to the Bom-ombs in Mario – you know, the wind up bombs that waddle.

So, overall, the film is really good, maybe I’m rating it higher than others because I’m overly impressed with the work put into the film, and the thought Edgar has put in it. However, if I didn’t know about the thought and detail I would still love it, and be impressed by Ramona’s ever changing hair colour and the quick editing.

GAME OVER.

(Now re-read the whole post and have a drink every time I’ve underlined something – I guarantee you will not feel okay. However if you don’t drink then eat – preferably cake.)

BATMAN

When I discuss Batman I'm referring to the films, and obviously that means I'm referring to the Batman films directed by Christopher Nolan. Duh.

Next year the third, and final, installment of Batman is released. Will it be good?

To be honest...it doesn't bother me, I don't care.

Whether Nolan decides to blow Batman up, freeze Gotham City or give Comissioner Gordon an STD, I don't mind because since the first Nolan-directed Batman film there came about a following - not just over batman - but for Christopher Nolan.

He can direct a Punch and Judy show and make it look like it had a complex, deep, interlectual thought behind it, whatever he decides to put in the film will be acclaimed as genius, whereas if I were to say it to my mum, she may question my sanity.

(Just figured I should have warned this may turn into a Nolan love fest...)

His films like Memento (if you haven't seen it then this is for you : -__-) and Inception make us question ourselves, A.K.A they mindfuck us, and I don't know about you, but I enjoy sitting there thinking about a films hours and even days after I've watched it.

Surely that's what film is meant to do (a reason why rom-coms are just...), they should leave us with a thought to grow and develop into an idea (*cough* INCEPTION *cough*), that's why we should all look crazy and clap at our computers for Mr Christopher Nolan.

P.S Mum if you ever read this - I'm sorry for swearing.