There's a new Night At The Museum movie coming out. Here's a review of Night At The Museum 2 that I wrote for Staffordshire University's One Media Group after the DVD release:
"The first Night at the Museum was passable family fare and one could imagine
this franchise being made by Disney in the 1970s. But as I say it was merely passable and had
Dick Van Dyke doing Ninja moves. The
sequel takes a similar root to Toy Story
2 by taking our characters and transplanting them in a new location – the
Washington Smithsonian – with other characters of the same ilk, but now it’s
not only the exhibits that come to life but also pictures. Here, a villainous Pharaoh (an at times
amusing be-lisped Hank Azaria from The
Simpsons) seeks the life-giving tablet to unleash his army from the
Underworld. Ex-night guard Larry teams
up with Amelia Earhart (Enchanted’s
Amy Adams) to stop him, while the cast from the first film spend most of this
one in storage formulating a plan. Now
one problem I’ve noticed is that when they enter the room containing more
recent aircraft including NASA material, the exhibits only then come to life,
which should mean that meanwhile the main cast stay lifeless. Also the space backdrop doesn’t suddenly
become a vacuum threatening to suck our heroes into oblivion, whereas all the
other pictures come to life. I’d
estimate two to three laughs and a giggle."
TITLE: Get Santa YEAR: 2014 WRITER AND DIRECTOR: Christopher Smith
After previous works in horror (e.g. Creep, Triangle, Black Death), Christopher Smith goes for a universal audience with a U-rated family film that, until at least the third act, enjoys the creative freedom that Ben Wheatley seems not to have had so much of in the two episodes of Doctor Who that he directed (despite going for a more "Classic Who" style). Whereas Wheatley took on the Doctor, Smith offers a take on Santa Claus that fuses British realism (cinematographer Christopher Ross's back catalogue includes Eden Lake, 2008) with Christmas fantasy in a manner that suggests he has what it takes to author a future Who movie. The film even opens with a scene not unlike a Who episode from the Russell T Davies era, with news coverage of reindeer being rampant in London. And on the evidence of a scene involving a model railway, perhaps Smith and Ross can work on rebooting Thomas The Tank Engine.
The film takes a setpiece from Ernest Saves Christmas (1988) and making it the premise of the whole film - Santa is imprisoned and the protagonist has to break him out. The protagonist in question is the just-released getaway driver Steve (Rafe Spall) along with his son (Jodie Whittaker appears as the boy's mother and, as with Black Sea released in the same year, plays the protagonist's ex), who discovers Santa in a garage. After Santa is imprisoned, the unbelieving Steve is taken along by his son on a quest to find reindeer Dasher as part of the rescue mission to save Christmas (cf. Ernest Saves Christmas and Elf, 2003). Whereas Ernest has the prison inmates seem to believe Santa's claim to his identity pretty quickly, Get Santa has him hired out as the Santa for a family Christmas get-together.
As suggested before, it is essentially a British realist take on the "Santa-is-real" family fantasy (the least believable thing in the film is that an episode of the BBC's Porridge is being rerun on Channel 4) although at one point it is suggested that this is not the first time that Claus had been in trouble with the law, putting his identity in question but it does not really go anywhere (perhaps a more "realistic" film to compare this to is Danny Boyle's Millions, 2005). Apart from references to adult films The Godfather (1972) and The Shawshank Redemption (1994) there are also references to similar fantasy-meets-domestic films Mary Poppins (1964) (a letter to Santa flies up and out of a chimney) and Matilda (1996) (Steve has a Miss Trunchball-like parole officer). And as with Arthur Christmas (2011), Jim Broadbent gets to play Santa. And despite the somewhat disconcerting trailer (featuring the scene in which Channel 4's Jon Snow reports no presents from Santa), the film does manage to be occasionally amusing even if it isn't gut busting (it's not on the level of Aardman). Perhaps the subtlest gag is that fantasy actor Warwick Davis is not playing an elf (but does get to dress up as one) while the most overt is that the Reindeer communicate by breaking wind.
Interest does dissipate after a trip through a vortex to the North Pole and it's much more preferable when we are in home territory and perhaps it might have been more interesting to play it more ambiguously. As a Warner Bros. release, it's not entirely free of American influence - apart from the Father Christmas figure being referred to as Santa, at least two songs on the soundtrack are from Home Alone movies (Bobby Helms's 'Jingle Bell Rock' and The Drifter's 'White Christmas'). There is also a distracting moment in which a scene in a car which evidently suggests that the HD video had not been put through the "filmising" process. It might not merit repeat viewing and if it did attain some sort of cult-ish following, it could in the company of Santa Claus Conquers The Martians (1964) and Jingle All The Way (1996).
Director: Robert Zemeckis Writers: Robert Zemeckis, William Broyles Jr. (based on the book by Chris Van Allsburg)
"Two things always look good in a film - a train and snow." - Federico Fellini
A visual blending of storybook imagery and video game graphics which - arguably like a secular, spiritually-lobotomized take on Christmas - is more style than substance with the road trip story occasionally interrupted by a roller coaster ride (complete with POV shots for the 3D experience) - at least one highlight is the train skidding along a large area of ice and the snow in 3D is one of the things that "looks good". A young Santa skeptic - the religious analogy was brought by by Doug Walker in an episode of his Nostalgia Critic series (http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/nostalgia-critic-christmas-list-top-11-2999174) - finds himself on a journey to the North Pole by travelling on the titular transport in a story that is not dissimilar to 1982's The Snowman. Once he gets there, he finds a North Pole that is Mont St Michel meets Tracy Island (an underground facility includes television screens showing rolling CCTV footage of sleeping children. Er....) with a Vatican Square where masses of elves gather for an audience with Pope Santa, one of the adult male roles played by Tom Hanks - the other key role being the train conductor whose annoying quirk is that he can punch letters into tickets at supernatural speed.
Apparently not done with the Transformers series, Michael Bay gets behind (this time as a producer) another franchise spawned in the 1980s, this one inspired by comics and "bad television" and Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) sits in the director's chair (Stephen Sommers or Jon M. Chu of the G.I. Joe series might have been more preferable choices). Transformers deportee and subsequent quisling Megan Fox leads the cast in the role of TV reporter April O'Neil and plays against a set of motion-captured titular heroes-in-a-half-shell (if they had employed rubber suits and animatronics as the '90s flicks had done, this would perhaps be the closest we'd get to a XXX parody featuring Sasha Grey). Fox is rubbish for almost the entire film and would be better suited to staying in the likes of the genuinely interesting horror Jennifer's Body (2009) or the really disposable fantasy Western Jonah Hex (2010), both of which would find a place for a stay-up-all-night boy's sleepover party - which is also the best place for this ultimately could-have-been-worse, fairly innocuous fare. The presumably Bay-sanctioned sexuality is reined in (there is brief voyeurism of Megan Fox's albeit clothed derriere and a product placement for Victoria's Secret - cf. Transformers: Age Of Extinction, 2014) and the PG-13-rated "sci-fi action violence" shows that we are a long way from the days when Turtle violence had been reduced after parental feedback and the fight scenes were all about the choreography. The villains' masterplan also bears much resemblance to both Avengers Assemble (2012) and The Amazing Spider-Man (2012).
TITLE: 'Horns' YEAR: 2013 DIRECTOR: Alexandre Aja SCREEWRITER: Keith Bunin (based on the novel by Joe Hill)
IN BRIEF:
An offbeat dark comedy not dissimilar to Jennifer's Body (2009) and could serve as an extension for pubescent graduates of the Twilight films (the setting is pretty similar) but now with gorier, sexier (well, there is a bit of sex and nudity in it) and swearier. Harry Potter fans might feel old now that a child actor is required to portray Radcliffe's character in a flashback sequence and the film might just be oxygen to the flames of the more conservative Christians who think the "boy wizard" is of the Devil.
Radcliffe's character is accused of a crime he insists he has not committed but one day wakes up with horns sprouting from his forehead and soon people around him are revealing their inner most thoughts and are easily led by his supernatural power of suggestion (a "Fuck yeah!" moment is a fight accompanied by Marilyn Manson's cover of Depeche Mode's 'Personal Jesus'). As his character progresses in his quest to find out the truth behind the crime, we see flashback sequences that show circumstances that help build up to said crime.
There is an interesting theme about "becoming" the Devil and there is notable use of the colour red in the mise-en-scene. Besides the depiction of two closeted gay characters that some may find politically problematic, things kind-of fall apart when a bit of Hell and quite a bit CGI breaks loose in a final showdown. Not perfect, but perhaps serviceable as a DVD horror night rental and one to revisit for further dissection.
TITLE:Before I Go To Sleep YEAR: 2013 DIRECTOR: Rowan Joffe SCREENWRITER: Rowan Joffe (based on the novel by S.J. Watson)
IN BRIEF:
There's a good idea behind the otherwise predictable twist (although to be fair, another predictable twist is in itself turned on its head). You have to buy that Nicole Kidman is able to keep a camera hidden in her wardrobe and that at no point does Colin Firth find it. It clearly wants to evoke Hitchcock, from the hysterical shrieky strings in the trailer to the Norman Bates peephole from Psycho while the central premise recalls both those of Memento and 50 First Dates (admittedly at time of writing, this author has only seen bits of the latter but ones gets the gist of it). It is really only went the predictable twist occurs that the suspense ramps up and after things go a bit Tom & Jerry, the closing coda seems like a quiet fading, wrap-up. Good performance from Colin Firth though.
TITLE: Sex Tape STUDIO: Columbia COUNTRY: US DIRECTOR: Jake Kasdan SCREENWRITERS: Kate Angelo (also Story), Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller BBFC RATING: 15 (Strong sex references, sex, very strong language, drug use)
IN BRIEF:
Pretty poor but not entirely without amusement - three audible laughs, which is three more than Diaz's previous "comedy" out this year, The Other Woman. It's easy to see at least the first half as an advert for the ipad before it shifts into a weird chapter about 'YouPorn' (strange to think this is considered appropriate for 15 year-olds), including an uncredited surprise cameo. Rob Lowe provides some value as a coke-using Metal fan with a curious collection of Disney-inspired paintings (a gag that wears thin after picture #2). It may be vaguely sexy at the start but by the end it's somewhere from 'meh' downwards. It's evenly lit (not necessarily a bad thing) and pretty cheap looking in places (you can pretty much tell when it's a body double simply by the absence of the star's face and even when you can, it's possible that some photoshopping was employed).
SERIES: Doctor Who EPISODE: Deep Breath (Series 8, Episode 1) REGULAR CAST: Peter Capaldi (The Doctor), Jenna Coleman (Clara) SCREENWRITER: Steven Moffat DIRECTOR: Ben Wheatley TX: 23/08/2014, 19:50, BBC1*
*also presented in cinemas
In Brief:
This is the second (albeit feature-length) "episode" of Doctor Who to be featured in the cinema (and the fourth Doctor Who theatrical presentation if you count the two 1960s Dalek movies adapted from their first two serials) and it's perhaps the best that Doctor Who has looked on the big screen since the trailer for 2007's Voyage Of The Damned (which accompanied the film adaptation of Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass).
The production team have more-or-less delivered on the promise in slowing down** with this new Doctor Who that actually manages to feel new, rather than a continuation (some of last year's efforts may now seem dated in comparison). There is still some phasing out to do (Murray Gold has, with some exceptions, managed to calm down in his scoring), such as some choice slapstick (a scene in which Sontaran butler Strax performs an examination of Clara that, unless it hints at something yet to come later on in the series, should have been left on the cutting room floor. One pretty good gag though, is based around the revealing of a map. They have also touched on previous more possibly romantic tensions between the Doctor and Clara, such as with the new, much older looking man declaring "I'm not your boyfriend."
**although in this case, that may have been due to the extended running time and it will be interesting to see how the pacing goes in the remaining 45 minute installments.
A sequel-ish to 2006's The Girl In The Fireplace and featuring cyborgs with human faces (whom may reminded old-schooled fans of 1976's The Android Invasion) that harvest human body parts (perhaps not an intentional callback to the Aunt and Uncle in Neil Gaiman's The Doctor's Wife), this is perhaps the grimmest episode since, say The Unquiet Dead (also a Victorian-set episode) and the climax isn't too far off from Mark Gatiss' The Crimson Horror meeting Russell T Davies' The Next Doctor, with a hot air balloon made from human skin launching out of a Victorian restaurant. It is also a debut episode for a Doctor that doesn't dwell too much on post-regeneration trauma - Capaldi's Doctor has a fuzzy memory rather than outright amnesia, for instance). There are hints laid out for the series ahead (the apparent existence of 'Heaven' in the Whoniverse, one where cyborgs go when they die, even if by 'suicide') and mysteries brought up that reference (or at least hint at) previous episodes - who was the woman in the shop that gave Clara the Doctor's number last year in The Bells Of St. John? Why does the Doctor now look like Capaldi's Roman character from the David Tennant story The Fires Of Pompeii? And will the answer also explain by the Sixth Doctor looked like the Time Lord security commander Maxil (c.f. The Arc Of Infinity, 1983).
This is, as far as I can tell, the first debut episode in which the new Doctor's features knowingly become a plot point. With perhaps the exception of Troughton, each 'new' Doctor's face didn't seem noticeably aged (due in part to the actors they cast). Jon Pertwee's case is understandable as his face was perhaps selected for him by the Time Lords (his response was, after all, "Oh no! That's not me at all!"). It is interesting to note that the latest regeneration was technically bestowed upon the 'last' Doctor (Matt Smith, who makes a lovely cameo in what will most likely be his last appearance in the series for at least another nine years) by the Time Lords and perhaps there is some vague literary connection. Would it be too much to theorize that he is being punished for his absence in Torchwood's Children Of Earth (perhaps due to running from death after his actions in The Waters Of Mars) by taking on the face of Capaldi's character Frobisher (who, perhaps coincidentally, shares the same name as the comic strip companion, a shape-shifting penguin), who ends up killing himself and his family?
And in most cases, with a new Doctor, comes a new title sequence and theme arrangement. The visuals in this intro were based off the work of a fan (must have been a Blue Peter competition I missed) and the latest theme tune is more stripped down than previous efforts by Murray Gold. The oo-ee-oo (not, oo-ah-oo as in some arrangements) now has a more shrieking, alien-y sound to it. The visual elements focus on the theme of travelling through time (a counterbalance to Sid Sutton's early-to-mid 1980's flights through space). This is also the first series since 1989 to present the end credits in a "slideshow" format rather than by scrolling.
When I rewatch this one, I'd look to look more at Capaldi's performance, particularly towards the end. His confrontation with the "half-face man" is quite Bond-like and him and Coleman seem to make an interesting odd couple (not in the same way that Tennant and Catherine Tate were). His Doctor admits to not being the "hugging" type (the scene, by the way, calls back to Eccleston's first "date" with Rose in The End Of The World) and I like how awkward it seems at first. There is something of Troughton about the area around his now-famous eyes and for the first time since Eccleston (or John Hurt if you want to be picky) here is a more grown up Doctor, and one that one can look up to at that, and isn't simply your "space pal".
Limitless (2011) meets Altered States (1980) then 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) with a possible bit of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) as well. Basically, when Scarlett Johansson's brain capacity reaches 100%...
Title: What If Year: 2013 Director: Michael Dowse Screenwriters: Elan Mastai (based on the play Toothpaste And Cigars by T.J. Dawe and Michael Rinaldi Country: Ireland/Canada Rating: 15 ("frequent crude sex references") (UK); PG-13 (US)
Premise: Boy meets girl. Girl is already taken. They decide to be "just friends".
There is a lot of likeable material here and it's beautifully played by the two leads. Daniel Radcliffe plays the very decent, likable guy and you need to see Zoe Kazan in the very likeable Ruby Sparks (which she writes and stars in) if you haven't already. It also manages to be funny, both acerbic and crude (but not obnoxiously so). One and ask whether the more slapstick humour has a place (one plot point featured in the trailer featuring Radcliffe sending Rafe Spall out the window doesn't seem to do much for the story except to perhaps suggest an underlying attempt to break him up with Kazan). Some may also question the conclusion the film takes but it at least can bring up a discussion opportunity. There is also one perhaps slightly suspicious line of dialogue that I may well have misheard. The main problem though, is with the editing. There are scenes in which Zoe Kazan's Chantry talks to her sister about what's going on in the film while Radcliffe's Wallace's own family interaction more or less bookends the film with his own sister played in an entirely unexpected (but entirely welcome) appearance by Jemima Rooper. It would be interesting to read the script for the original play on which the screenplay for this film is based, and indeed to read the screenplay itself to compare with the finished product. It would also be interesting to watch any deleted scenes that end up on a home release. But if you're looking for a youth-targeted, witty, feelgood romantic (or is it?) comedy that is actually funny, this is serviceable enough. One to seek out for Valentine's Day if it's available by then.
There are two things - or rather people - to be cited in this film's defense. One is Angelina Jolie, who is pretty much perfectly cast (even if sometimes it looks like a primary school production of "Sleeping Beauty" somehow managed to afford an A-list celebrity - basically, she's too good for this) in what is made clear from the outset, a "retelling" of the story we know as Sleeping Beauty and made familiar with the 1958 Disney "animated classic", which is evoked throughout the film, namely in Jolie's costume and headgear. If Disney ever planned on a dark, "gritty" reboot of Mary Poppins, Jolie would be ideal for the lead role. The other contributor of note is Lana Del Rey, who provides a cover of the original film's love theme, "Once Upon A Dream":
These two are pretty much the only elements of the previous film that survive what is essentially a remake that is kind-of the Disney equivalent of the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre "retelling" (even the ending somewhat resembles where 2013's Texas Chainsaw 3D took what was previously established as a classic movie villain).
After making her own contribution to the Disney "canon" with Beauty And The Beast (1991) and The Lion King (1994), writer Linda Wolverton penned the Tim Burton-directed Alice In Wonderland (2010), which was more of a sequel that acknowledged the original story via flashback rather than a simple remake. With this film, Wolverton develops a theme and takes a massive step down from the "prestige" of "Classic Disney" (rather than the other way round) by writing a film that, over a decade ago, would have been produced with animation fit only for the Disney Channel and sent straight to video (and would have stuck closer to the original film, too). Here though, we have a film that is a a dark, "gritty"(ish) retelling of a classic children's story that fits somewhere between Universal's Snow White And The Huntsman (2012) and Warner Bros.'s Jack The Giant Slayer (2013), but dressed in what Peter Bradshaw described in his review of Enchanted (2007) as "a cellophane shrink-wrap of corporate Disney plastic-ness" (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/dec/14/family.animation) and presented in optional (in this case, avoid) 3D.
As mentioned, this is a remake of-sorts but not merely the "Sleeping Beauty" story, nor the events of the 1958 film shown from Maleficent's perspective, but an origin story whose origin could be traced to the line in the animated film where one of the fairies suggests that Maleficent is "not all THAT bad" that gives some backstory to Maleficent, who is no longer the incarnation of evil but an orphan fairy and jilted lover of king-to-be Stefan (whose own character assassination sees him beg Maleficent not to curse his daughter, rather than order his guards to "seize that creature" and going mad. He ascends to the throne after drugging Maleficent and hacking off her wings in order to pretend that he killed her - understandably, she now seeks revenge as that is quite a cunty thing to do), which recalls the "wicked" Witch of the West's origin in Disney's don't-call-it-a-prequel, Oz, The Great And Powerful. It is during the first act that we are introduced to the concept of the "true love's kiss" on the 16th birthday (perhaps as Maleficent's inspiration for her own birthday gift for Aurora, which is now revised so she'll go into a sleep rather than death seeing as Maleficent is nice now so Merryweather doesn't have to come up with a counter-spell). Other references to the original film include the three "guardian fairies" (the true leads of the original, here reduced more to comic relief) being dressed in green(ish), pink and blue, and their leaning-tower birthday cake.
After the curse, we have the whole fairies-take-Aurora-into-the-forest thing and here, any tension of whether she will be found by Maleficent is thrown out the window as the film moves to focus on their "relationship" - Aurora (Elle Fanning, who is worth seeing in JJ Abrams' Super 8 and Sofia Coppola's Somewhere) grows up to assume this woman she met as a child is her fairy godmother and earns the "affectionate" nickname, 'Beastie' (as far as revisionism goes, especially with the ending, it's not far off the near-bestial romance of Catherine Hardwicke and David Johnson's post-Twilight take on Red Riding Hood but without the romance). During Aurora's growing into not-quite-womanhood, Maleficent sits by and plays magical pranks on the real godmothers. No, seriously. And in this version of events, her crow companion is granted the ability to shift shape (sometimes at Maleficent's command) so he can resume the human form of Sam Riley because reasons.
There is, perhaps, an interesting idea at the heart of the film, of having some connection between Maleficent (now more of an anti-heroine than a clear-cut villain) and Aurora (whose gift for singing is passed to Del Rey and replaced with the gift of never being sad - it didn't work) but only the idea itself is the really the interesting thing rather than the execution. Maleficent even tries to revoke the curse but, having bound it so no power could undo, she finds herself unable to take it away so even while she tries to rescue Aurora before it's too late (yes, really), whatever power works its magic works of its own accord and manifests a spinning wheel for Aurora (who is shown to have an irritation with her finger) to make the required prick to be sent into a coma. Furthermore, Philip (who here, is presented as even duller than the original and doesn't get to say "No carrots!") is proven pretty useless when it comes to being a "true love" (again, a somewhat interesting take on the story) and it's up to Maleficent to ultimately save the day and Stefan is dealt with in a shot that reminds one of Die Hard, of all films.
If the intention is to turn elements of the original story on its head (such as the prince being useless and setting up a bond between Aurora and Maleficent) then sure, but my concern is more to do with simply making the villain "nice". Another thing to point out is that Maleficent's fairyland of origin, The Moors (situated between two kingdoms), is initially set up without a monarch and by the end, Aurora is their queen. Go royalty.
And one or two more comparisons I shall make with the original film. The scene in the original where Aurora is drawn to the spinning wheel is actually quite creepy and the film pretty much turns into a horror movie whereas here, despite the CG monsters, there is nothing particularly scary (only one shot of Maleficent standing in silhouette warrants some merit). And talking of CGI, none of it is as impressive as the '50s-era design of the original's backdrops, which look very impressive in a bang-up restoration job on the latest Blu Ray release.
*Possible Spoilers* TITLE: Postman Pat The Movie DIRECTOR: Mike Disa PRODUCER: Robert Anich Cole SCRIPTWRITERS: Annika Bluhm, Nicole Dubuc, Kim Fuller YEAR: 2014 COUNTRY: UK UK DISTRIBUTORS: Icon Film Distribution, Lionsgate PLOT: Postman Pat enters a talent show and gets famous. REVIEW: Your liking of this film may depend on how you like your Postman Pat served. If you like it with scary robots and slapstick violence (and you do not mind it being computer-animated as opposed to using the traditional stop-motion), then this should provide sufficient entertainment. Made in 3D but seen in 2D, the main bit that I would have liked to have seen in an "immersive" third dimension is the lovely opening establishing shot that takes us into the digitally-recreated world of Greendale. The 1981 Postman Pat TV series was of no particularly noticeable genre (co-creator Ivor Wood's previous work dabbled in fantasy, e.g. The Magic Roundabout and The Wombles) but the film is perhaps surprisingly film-literate, make references in particular to Science-Fiction and fantasy classics in film (The Wizard Of Oz, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator) and television (Lost In Space, Doctor Who). One can even look to the voice cast, which includes performers from Harry Potter and Doctor Who. There is also a key point of introducing (actually quite creepy) robot duplicates of Pat ("PatBots") and Jess, brought in by evil corporate-type Carbunkle as part of his take-over plot. The writers (including Annika Bluhm, who has worked on Special Delivery Service incarnation of the series) demonstrate their screenwriting knowledge by setting up a goal for Protagonist Pat by having him enter a talent show in the hopes of winning a trip to Italy to take his wife Sarah for a "proper Honeymoon", and introducing perhaps the series' first antagonist (someone correct me on this) in Carbunkle, who wants to replace all the SDS workers with robots. The key family film-friendly theme looks at how Pat's fame costs him his family time (interestingly, due to his popularity as a result of being in a TV talent show) and the subsequent attempted take-over plot with robot doppelgangers leads to Pat's friends and co-stars being alienated from him in a case of mistaken identity. The humour is also actually quite witty, although not quite on the level of Aardman. It is also somewhat interesting what the filmmakers actually managed to put in and get away with, free of whatever restrictions would have been place for the television series, albeit played down so there is very little to be concerned about. There is at least one suggestion of gross-out gag where Carbunkle introduces a bring-your-own-toilet-paper policy to the Special Delivery Service and an employee is worried, having recently eaten a curry. And the insinuation that Pat's glasses make him look "a bit dodgy" may not sit too easily in a post-Savile world. Another plus is that the dialogue and performances rarely, if ever, feel like they are patronizing the audience, although if I had a bone to pick, it would be that this version of Jess seems rather overly anthropomorphic, whereas the TV incarnation seemed to have not-quite a deadpan expression. Perhaps something more akin to Gromit would have been preferable. There is also quite an amount of slapstick violence, ranging from the PatBots delivering mail, to David Tennant's character Wilf trying to foil Pat in scenes resembling a Wile E. Coyote short. Anyone objecting that Postman Pat was never violent should look to the 1981 episode Pat Takes A Message. Claiming to be "based on the original television series" co-created by Ivor Wood and John Cunliffe, 'the Movie' is fairly ambiguous in its place within the Postman Pat canon. IMDB lists it as a "remake" but having 'the Movie' in the title suggests a spin-off of some sorts. The main cause of head-scratching comes when Pat's fame spawns a franchise that includes a TV show "with puppets" and we hear a sample of Bryan Daley and Ken Barrie's theme song, thus putting into question whether this is the "real" world of Pat and that the TV series is retroactively a product of this world, or whether it is just pure meta and a way of the film poking gentle fun at the franchise that spawned it, before it even sends itself up (villain Carbunkle's plan suggests a "computer-animated film"). There is also the suggestion that Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay are involved in a film (something to watch, even if just to see how things could have been worse). The animation is fairly faithful to the original design and there are cameos and supporting roles from familiar characters (although Sam Waldron is nowhere to be seen, like Edward was missing in Thomas And The Magic Railroad). Perhaps if this is successful enough, how about the filmmakers consider adapting other Woodland Animations shows (Gran, Bertha, Charlie Chalk) before an Avengers-style team-up?
UK Title: 'Bad Neighbours' Director: Nicholas Stoller Screenwriters: Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O'Brien
Having not yet really seen any of the apparent auteur Stoller's previous work ('The Five Year Engagement', 'Get Him To The Greek', and 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'), I could not really take any proper artistic preconceptions in (and had not watched a trailer, besides glimpsing a TV commercial).
However, after an amusing opening scene, there is eventual laughter to be had. It's not filmed in a particularly disciplined style (possibly almost cine-verite-ish in places but that's not to say it's like 'Project X' in that regard) and certain sequences even recall Gaspar Noe (c.f. 'Irreversible' and 'Enter The Void').
I should not give away what did make me laugh (and I would even have to sit down and write from memory what some of those moments were). I would say that if you were thinking of watching it, laughter can be guaranteedbut I'm not sure I would go out of my way to recommend it in the same way I might for, say, 'Muppets Most Wanted' or 'The Lego Movie'. But for this kind of comedy, it's perhaps above 'The Heat' (which I did find quite funny in places) if one was to go purely by the number of laughs but I may prefer 'This Is The End'. It's certainly funnier than '21 And Over'.
Zac Efron is an interesting actor to watch and I'm not quite settled on what I make of him. But if you want to see a film in which he tries to shed his 'High School Musical' image, I'd suggest 'The Paperboy' (in which he gets stung by a jellyfish and Nicole Kidman wees on him).
I’ve had some of the best days and nights of my life in 2013. Since December 2012, I have stepped into a new world, made new friends and, for a time, shared something very special with one of them. It’s been a life-changing and inspirational experience that I am grateful for, during which I have known acceptance, hospitality, courtesy, patience and grace and I have memories to cherish for the rest of my life.
New Year’s is a time when people set out to make new resolutions, often in the form of a list (e.g. lose weight, giving up things). But I don’t want to make a new YEAR’s resolution, so much as a new LIFE’s resolution. I know people get told they should love themselves and be proud of themselves/who they are but as I’m the one who spends the most time around me, it’s pretty clear I need to change. It’s been observed (or I’ve been told that) I over-analyse, think too much, been over-apologetic, that I need to build my confidence, and that I don’t give a straight answer. It’s possible some of these stem from my upbringing and living circumstances (and maybe also 3 years at university) and maybe sometimes it’s just me. Myself, I’d say that I’ve been lazy and procrastinate (namely by spending way too much time online). I want to get back into my interests such as watching movies, TV shows and get back into reading and writing. There are also aspects of my past that have played a part in how I have been as a person over the years and want to change.
A lot of my friends are probably aware that I had a religious – to be specific, Christian – upbringing and while I don’t have an overall problem with religion, my own personal problem is that I want to follow a particular set of beliefs out of my own choice rather than simply because I was raised on them. But I shouldn’t be entirely ungrateful for my upbringing. Without it, I wouldn’t be interested in the things I’m into and it may well help with my creativity (e.g. storytelling). Some of my “problems” may have stemmed more from studying Christianity when on my own in my more adolescent years and maybe the problem is more with me in how I think and choose to act. In terms of how I interacted with other people, I apologise to those who have been on the receiving end of a misguided, naive youth who tried to share a faith without knowing about other people’s beliefs and backgrounds (not to mention his own). I tried to be “better” (i.e. not being preachy) as I grew older and moved away to university but I reached my lowest point in 2012 and it was then that I realised I wanted to follow this religion out of my own choice but I won’t deny I have had doubt-type thoughts. But it wasn’t just the sense of duty to evangelise, I had also developed fears over certain issues. I remember as a child saying I didn’t want to go to Hell and being told to ask for God’s forgiveness when praying. When I was 14, I was worried I might miss the Rapture for some special purpose (thank-you, “Left Behind”). I was worried about my salvation and re-prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” more than once. At 17, I was baptised and have since had regret over it.
If I am to continue in this line of belief, I want to see change in how things are being done right now. I want to see a Christianity that lives up to the name it’s named after and will repent of the harm it’s done over the last 2000 years and continues to do today.
Fear and worrying have been common in my life of late. It’s been said/suggested that the way I went about trying to lose weight has affected my thinking and I have been told by friends that I don’t need to lose weight (my goal has been a healthy BMI). It also doesn’t help that, having learned screenwriting at university, I have been making up scenarios in my head based on what I think or worry about. It’s often been a cyclical thing where I worry about something and imagining something bad going to happen, only to find I was worrying for nothing. For over two years, I’ve been aware of having thoughts I don’t want to have and have tried to block out in the past. This may’ve stemmed from when I went to a Christian holiday camp during summer when I was a teenager and first encountered what I have described as a voice in my head (the kind that “speaks” like it’s a thought). When I was at university, I would worry about referencing so I could avoid plagiarism. At work, I’d use hand sanitizer too much. I also don’t want to let my emotions get the better of me, as happened in 2012. Speaking of emotions, I’d like to be able to cry properly again, having not done so in over a decade. I don’t want to bottle my feelings and emotions up. I haven’t been diagnosed with anxiety or OCD but maybe it’s worth pursuing further than I’ve already gone. I just want to be able to stop worrying. And to stop putting my foot in my mouth.
Similarly to the fantasising/scenario thing, speculation is one of the things I want to put behind me. For example, a year or two ago, a Church I had been going to for years separated and it was said by someone that the there was a “satanic attack”. Maybe it wasn’t? Fear of the occult is something I want to put behind me. From now on, rather than speculate on something, I only want to think about what I know to be true (OK, that might contradict the whole religion thing or vice versa but, whatever helps).
From now on, I want to be able to live a life that is rooted in love, rather than fear and prejudice. I want to have conversations and learn from other people. I want to learn about other faiths, beliefs, cultures and subcultures. As I mentioned, I’ve been told I over-analyse and think too much. Perhaps talking to people will help and maybe blogging will help so I can get my thoughts out.
But whatever happens, I want to thank my friends for the times we’ve spent together, for putting up with me, for the conversations and for being there for me.
Peace, love and hugs to you all both this year and forever more.
