Long time, no see.
I've changed the blog from "Media Engagement" to a more general one, based more on myself where I will post thoughts on subjects of my interests etc.
However, this will include from time to time an attempt at bridging my faith and my big interest (movies mostly but going to expand into other media).
Friday, 6 May 2011
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Why the new "Star Trek" movie will be... (Spoilers)
I haven't seen the new "Star Trek" film yet so of course I cannot judge it yet. My main worry about it has come from mostly positive reviews regarding (spoilers) the 'alternate timeline' plot. Now, I don't mean to come over all fanboyish, but is this the only explanation as to why everything looks different? Do we even need an explanation? Anyways, here's my expectations about why the 2009 Star Trek film will be...
a) ...Good:
Leonard Nimoy liked the script: And if you've read his autobiography 'I Am Spock' or listened to him read it on tape, you'll know his concerns for story, which I think he's really good at.
Simon Pegg is in it: Then again he was also in "Run, Fatboy, Run" (Meh) and "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" (OK). Since this is Sci-Fi, I think it's safe to assume this is the "Shaun of the Dead"/"Hot Fuzz" Simon Pegg. Even his co-writer Edgar Wright has had a positive view of the film, hinting that it may be even better than the Star Wars prequels.
Kevin Smith gave it a 'Thumbs Up'
Positive Fan Reaction: This comes from the surprise screening and as far as I know, fan reaction to The Phantom Menace was negative, despite the hype.
b)...Bad
Alternate timeline: That is my only concern. Can you really make revive a franchise in its original 'canon', put it in an alternate timeline and still call it "Star Trek"? Isn't that the same as dumping the main cast up in space for 80 minutes while a bunch of kids fly their ships and still call it "Thunderbirds"?
a) ...Good:
Leonard Nimoy liked the script: And if you've read his autobiography 'I Am Spock' or listened to him read it on tape, you'll know his concerns for story, which I think he's really good at.
Simon Pegg is in it: Then again he was also in "Run, Fatboy, Run" (Meh) and "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" (OK). Since this is Sci-Fi, I think it's safe to assume this is the "Shaun of the Dead"/"Hot Fuzz" Simon Pegg. Even his co-writer Edgar Wright has had a positive view of the film, hinting that it may be even better than the Star Wars prequels.
Kevin Smith gave it a 'Thumbs Up'
Positive Fan Reaction: This comes from the surprise screening and as far as I know, fan reaction to The Phantom Menace was negative, despite the hype.
b)...Bad
Alternate timeline: That is my only concern. Can you really make revive a franchise in its original 'canon', put it in an alternate timeline and still call it "Star Trek"? Isn't that the same as dumping the main cast up in space for 80 minutes while a bunch of kids fly their ships and still call it "Thunderbirds"?
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Contact is made...
Bit late (shame on me), but I sent an email to Simon Mayo's BBC Radio 5 show (the Mark Kermode film review slot), regarding a recent episode of The Culture Show showing Mark and director Bill Forsyth chatting during a public screening of Local Hero, breaking his own rule on not talking during films ("You wouldn't do it in Church").
Turns out (I listened to it later on iplayer) that Simon actually read my email out ("Joe, Film Student in Staffordshire") and Mark actually went on to admit his error and apologize! I wasn't even complaining - but I think I went mad with power!
Anyways, Mark remains my favourite critic, him and Simon being my 'Siskel and Ebert'
Turns out (I listened to it later on iplayer) that Simon actually read my email out ("Joe, Film Student in Staffordshire") and Mark actually went on to admit his error and apologize! I wasn't even complaining - but I think I went mad with power!
Anyways, Mark remains my favourite critic, him and Simon being my 'Siskel and Ebert'
Thursday, 30 October 2008
My Day is Made
Woo. Haven't been here in a while. I am now doing Film Studies at University and I was surfing the Internet today (worst. pasttime. ever) and I came across this article by America's most famous film critic Roger 'Thumbs Up/Down' Ebert on Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). I hadn't read the article in full but I recognised the name "Steven D. Greydanus" as one of the ChristianityTodayMovies gang with Jeffrey Overstreet (author of Through a Screen Darkly) and Peter T. Chattaway.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081029/REVIEWS08/810309993/1023
I informed Jeffrey of this and I come home this evening to see if anything came of it and not only did I get a RESPONSE but also this!:
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/roger-ebert-remembers-the-last-temptation-of-christ/
All I need now is to get a career in writing and hopefully Mark Kermode will mention me and I have nothing to wait for except the Second Coming (look, I had a pint tonight, OK?).
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081029/REVIEWS08/810309993/1023
I informed Jeffrey of this and I come home this evening to see if anything came of it and not only did I get a RESPONSE but also this!:
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/roger-ebert-remembers-the-last-temptation-of-christ/
All I need now is to get a career in writing and hopefully Mark Kermode will mention me and I have nothing to wait for except the Second Coming (look, I had a pint tonight, OK?).
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Monday, 3 March 2008
Film Diary: February 2008
I have decided to start a film diary (commencing 18/02/2008).
18/02/2008
Total Recall (1990) d. Paul Verhoevan
20/02/2008
28 Days Later (2002) d. Danny Boyle
21/02/2008
A History of Violence (2005) d. David Cronenberg
22/02/2008
The Princess Bride (1987) d. Rob Reiner*
Eastern Promises (2007) d. David Cronenberg
27/02/2008
Saw IV (2007) d. Darren Lynn Bousman*
28/02/2008
Cloverfield (2008)* d. Matt Reeves*
29/02/2008
One Hundered and One Dalmatians (1961) d. Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton S Luske, Wolfgang Reitherman*
Brazil (1985) d. Terry Gilliam
*Source: IMDB
18/02/2008
Total Recall (1990) d. Paul Verhoevan
20/02/2008
28 Days Later (2002) d. Danny Boyle
21/02/2008
A History of Violence (2005) d. David Cronenberg
22/02/2008
The Princess Bride (1987) d. Rob Reiner*
Eastern Promises (2007) d. David Cronenberg
27/02/2008
Saw IV (2007) d. Darren Lynn Bousman*
28/02/2008
Cloverfield (2008)* d. Matt Reeves*
29/02/2008
One Hundered and One Dalmatians (1961) d. Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton S Luske, Wolfgang Reitherman*
Brazil (1985) d. Terry Gilliam
*Source: IMDB
Saturday, 16 February 2008
Transformers (2007) Review
Note: This review may contain spelling errors. Also this is one of my early reviews and I should hopefully improve my writing (I'm going to be doing a Film Studies course) so bear with me as I am somewhat of a beginner.
Today, I watched Michael Bay's 2007 blockbuster movie "Transformers", based on the Habro children's toys of alien robots that could turn into different vehicles. And with something of this scale, it could have been a great kid's film right? It may or may not surprise you to know that this is NOT the first “Transformers” movie. The first one was a spin-off the TV animated series released in 1986 and while the action scenes went on and on with a hint of the storyline, it had GREAT theme song.
Basic storyline, two races of alien robots are at war and come to Earth to seek the all-powerful pre-existent Cube that can spontaneously create life. The Autobots (the good guys) led by Optimus Prime are trying to destroy it* before it falls into the hands of the Decepticons who want to use it to control the universe. When they land on Earth, the Decepticons destroy stuff while the Autobots make contact with Ebay user “Ladiesman 217” aka Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) in a plotline out of a “Herbie” film. Meanwhile, the Government is investigating the Decepticon stuff with the aid of an underused Australian [[ex-]student?]. Sam is needed because his grandfather discovered the Decepticon’s leader Megatron buried in the arctic in the 19th century and stuff was put on his glasses that pointed to something important in the plot. Girl-next-door what’s-her-name (Megan Fox) ISN’T needed much at all except for adolescent eye candy.
*(Is that an allegory of “killing God” so that the humans can live up to their potential goodness?)
Now for the goods – the CGI is spectacularly intrinsic in detail and the action scenes are mostly watchable. The general story works well with an interesting premise. The story moves along and intertwines the two or three plotlines in a “Lord of the Rings”-king of watchable way. The Autobots are a likable bunch with a charismatic Optimus Prime. I’m also glad that this film explained their origins, unlike the 1986 animated feature.
And now for the negatives: This film is based on a children’s toy and yet the BBFC had to rate it as 12A. While I said that the action scenes are mostly watchable, they are also occasionally violent (soldiers hit people in the face with their rifle butts; bodies fly about etc.). Also – a mistake made in many films with “teenage” characters – 20-somethings are employed to play 17-18 year olds. Shia LeBeouf may just pass it, but Megan Fox is DEFINETLY there as just eye candy. The underused Australian [[ex-] student?] played by Rachel Taylor would have made for a better female lead. As with Megan Fox’s role, the film is inappropriately sexist to be based on a children’s toy (even the M word is used in a scene played for comedy). Now I am not one to complain about a film based on “offensive” content, but it seems the producers forgot about the younger kids in the audience and went straight for blockbuster-swallowing adolescents who are looking for nostalgia and not interested in good art, instead of introducing the Transformers to a new generation (something the BBC did rather well with the new “Doctor Who”). The film is also slightly too long, with the action scenes eventually getting tiresome.
Which is a shame, because most of the film is generally rather enjoyable as a blockbuster and could have been a great kid’s film, in a year of disappointing sequels (SOMEONE STOP MAKING THESE!!!) – “Shrek The Third”, “Spider-Man 3”, “Evan Almighty” (I haven’t seen “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” yet). This film had potential, but letdown.
Rating: * * (Fair)
Today, I watched Michael Bay's 2007 blockbuster movie "Transformers", based on the Habro children's toys of alien robots that could turn into different vehicles. And with something of this scale, it could have been a great kid's film right? It may or may not surprise you to know that this is NOT the first “Transformers” movie. The first one was a spin-off the TV animated series released in 1986 and while the action scenes went on and on with a hint of the storyline, it had GREAT theme song.
Basic storyline, two races of alien robots are at war and come to Earth to seek the all-powerful pre-existent Cube that can spontaneously create life. The Autobots (the good guys) led by Optimus Prime are trying to destroy it* before it falls into the hands of the Decepticons who want to use it to control the universe. When they land on Earth, the Decepticons destroy stuff while the Autobots make contact with Ebay user “Ladiesman 217” aka Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) in a plotline out of a “Herbie” film. Meanwhile, the Government is investigating the Decepticon stuff with the aid of an underused Australian [[ex-]student?]. Sam is needed because his grandfather discovered the Decepticon’s leader Megatron buried in the arctic in the 19th century and stuff was put on his glasses that pointed to something important in the plot. Girl-next-door what’s-her-name (Megan Fox) ISN’T needed much at all except for adolescent eye candy.
*(Is that an allegory of “killing God” so that the humans can live up to their potential goodness?)
Now for the goods – the CGI is spectacularly intrinsic in detail and the action scenes are mostly watchable. The general story works well with an interesting premise. The story moves along and intertwines the two or three plotlines in a “Lord of the Rings”-king of watchable way. The Autobots are a likable bunch with a charismatic Optimus Prime. I’m also glad that this film explained their origins, unlike the 1986 animated feature.
And now for the negatives: This film is based on a children’s toy and yet the BBFC had to rate it as 12A. While I said that the action scenes are mostly watchable, they are also occasionally violent (soldiers hit people in the face with their rifle butts; bodies fly about etc.). Also – a mistake made in many films with “teenage” characters – 20-somethings are employed to play 17-18 year olds. Shia LeBeouf may just pass it, but Megan Fox is DEFINETLY there as just eye candy. The underused Australian [[ex-] student?] played by Rachel Taylor would have made for a better female lead. As with Megan Fox’s role, the film is inappropriately sexist to be based on a children’s toy (even the M word is used in a scene played for comedy). Now I am not one to complain about a film based on “offensive” content, but it seems the producers forgot about the younger kids in the audience and went straight for blockbuster-swallowing adolescents who are looking for nostalgia and not interested in good art, instead of introducing the Transformers to a new generation (something the BBC did rather well with the new “Doctor Who”). The film is also slightly too long, with the action scenes eventually getting tiresome.
Which is a shame, because most of the film is generally rather enjoyable as a blockbuster and could have been a great kid’s film, in a year of disappointing sequels (SOMEONE STOP MAKING THESE!!!) – “Shrek The Third”, “Spider-Man 3”, “Evan Almighty” (I haven’t seen “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” yet). This film had potential, but letdown.
Rating: * * (Fair)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)