This is a post I really didn’t want to have to write.
As I mentioned in a recent post, my blog activity has been much diminished from what it used to be. This was primarily because I had shoulder surgery and so was laid up for a while with pretty much only one arm. I’m out of the sling now and doing much better, by the way.
However, work was also a major factor. A few months ago I got a new job and it’s been a hell of a lot busier than my old one. I’m a copywriter and spend pretty much my whole day writing, sometimes spilling out in excess of 4,000 words a day. This takes up a lot of my time and also means that pretty much the last thing I want to do when I get home is sit behind a computer.
Now, let’s be clear from the off – I AM NOT QUITTING BLOGGING! I simply enjoy it too much and enjoy chatting with all of you amazing people. All I’m saying here is that I probably won’t be around as much. Work is hectic and looks like it will only get busier (which is no bad thing really).
I will still post when I can and I will still stop by as much as I can, but I just won’t be able to come by daily as I usually do. But you will definitely still see my floating round the place!
I also hope you’ll still stop by here when I do post something. I know a lot of bloggers don’t like it when commenting isn’t reciprocated, but I still hope to see some friendly faces around from time to time.
Well that’s pretty much it. As I say, I’ll still be around but just maybe not as much as I have been. But there’s no way I’d walk away completely from you lovely lot.
I don’t cry at films. That might make me seem like an emotionless monster, but it’s true. Some people sob the moment they see a small kitten or when the girl meets the guy of their dreams or whatever, but not me. You could drown a sackful of defenseless puppies and a tear would not roll down my cheek. It’s not that I don’t get upset or get a lump in my throat, but the physical act of crying during a film is not one I’m familiar with.
However, there are some films that push me right to the edge and very nearly make me cry. Here they are:
E.T. is one of the films I grew up watching and is one of my all-time favourites. It’s got everything; it makes you laugh, it’s scary at times but it’s also one that still make me all sad and that when he finally climbs aboard his spaceship and buggers off home. It’s emotionally manipulative, sure, but it works (actually more so now than it did when I was younger).
Sati’s awesome debut blogathon asked us to choose a peripheral character we’d like to see become the lead in their own film. This caused somewhat of a problem for me, in that I have a rubbish memory. Therefore, trying to recall the smaller, less celebrated characters in a film was going to present a problem. I’m lucky if I remember who the lead was, let alone the lesser characters. So I had a good think and the only minor character who really stuck out was the legendary Jesus from the Coen Brothers’ The Big Lebowski. This guy…
Now, there have been rumblings ever since The Big Lebowski came out in 1998 that Jesus could get his own spinoff film, but it hasn’t, as of yet, materialised. So why Jesus?
Well he’s just such an enigma; you could do practically anything with the story. We know that he loves bowling. We also know that he spent 6 months in prison for exposing himself to an 8-year-old and had to go door to door telling everyone he was a pederast.
For my story, I’d start at the beginning showing him as a child and how he developed his obsession with bowling. His father will also have been a keen bowler trying to win some kind of championship, and one night a group of no-gooders turn up to the bowling alley and kill his father. Standing there looking at the corpse, his father’s personalised bowling ball (with a cross on it) rolls towards him. He picks it up, looks at the cross and there and then Jesus is born. Or something like that.
Despite that very serious sounding beginning, the whole thing would be laced with the same dark, stoner humour that is rife in The Big Lebowski. We would be privy to the incident in which Jesus exposes himself to a young boy, but it would be as twisted and disgusting as it sounds. In fact, I’d make it so that he didn’t actually do it at all, but the whole thing was a misunderstanding or the boy was making it up.
After he gets out of prison, we’d see Jesus going around the houses in his neighbourhood telling people he’s a pederast. We’d see him getting beaten up a few times, but then come across a woman (maybe a younger Bunny) who’s so stupid she doesn’t know what a pederast is, so he lies to her and makes up something impressive and the two strike up a relationship.
He starts to rebuild his life, getting a job somewhere like a deli. Or maybe has a school janitor, which would be pretty twisted considering his conviction. It’s in his job that he meets Liam, who becomes his bowling partner and the two become focused on winning the championship his father was trying to win when he killed.
Spending so much time bowling, Jesus has no time for his girlfriend and she leaves him, although he’s so focused on the bowling that he barely notices. It’s suggested that Liam has a Waylon Smithers-style thing for Jesus and is happy at this news. This is all shortly before this story and The Big Lebowski intersect, although there could be a few more crossovers. Perhaps the thugs who killed his father are somehow related to those who do the Dude over.
The beauty is that this could go in a million and one different directions. It could take this form, as a part prequel, or it could run in tandem with The Big Lebowski, or it could be a sequel of sorts featuring the ‘little Lebowski’. The possibilities are endless.
And remember – no-one fucks with the Jesus.
So that’s a pretty specific story in places, and very basic but it’d be a start. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what you’d do with the character…
So there we go, it’s all done and dusted for another 12 months, and it was pretty good. It all went pretty much as expected but I don’t think there are many who can argue with most of The Academy’s choices. Here are some of my thoughts about the 86th Academy Awards…
Ellen Degeneres is pretty well liked throughout the entertainment business, and I thought she did a great job of hosting. The actors like to have their ego stroked, whilst we at home like to see a bit of fun being poked, and Ellen did a fine job of balancing the two. Still not a patch on Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, though.
Pretty much every award was reasonably easy to call, whether you thought it was the correct choice or not, and there have been the usual calls that the whole thing is too predictable. However, if we make predictions and The Academy also makes those choices, surely they’re worthy winners? Some people may have thought they got the odd award wrong, but I think most will concede they were generally on the money this year. It might be nice for them to choose a slightly leftfield choice once in a while, but predictable doesn’t mean undeserving. Maybe the huge number of other award shows dulling our appreciation of the Oscars.
Every year the Oscars has a theme, and this year it was ‘heroes’. You didn’t notice a theme? Well that’s because it was such a token effort that it was totally pointless. All we got was a couple of montages about film heroes and that was it. Either go all out and have hosts dressed as superheroes or do away with the theme altogether.
I thought the live performances would be a bit naff but they actually worked really well. The performances were varied and really added something different to the show. I hope they do the same again next year.
Leto, McConaughey and Nyong’o were worthy winners for Best Supporting Actor, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress respectively, and their speeches were arguably the best of the night. Leto spoke passionately about his mother, who was there with him, whilst McConaughey spoke of what motivates him and keeps him trying to better himself. Nyong’o was absolutely over the moon with her win and that clearly showed in her heartfelt speech.
12 Years a Slave’s screenwriter John Ridley and its director Steve McQueen seemed to completely snub each other, neither thanking the other in their speeches. Also, when John Ridley won his Oscar, he wasn’t congratulated by a single member of the 12 Years a Slave cast or crew. McQueen was also caught on camera doing some kind of weird fake clap. What’s the deal fellas?
It seems that a few of the award categories could do with being altered slightly. I might get shot down here but do we really need separate sound editing and sound mixing awards? Surely an achievement in sound award would suffice? I also feel that we change the name of the Best Foreign Language Film award to Best Film Not in the English Language, and that we should do away with the whole actor/actress thing, instead having male actor and female actor. Might sound a bit pointless but I’d prefer it.
A few other things jangling round my head:
Jennifer Lawrence was a bit of a tit, as was Jamie Foxx
Liza Minnelli jumping on Lupita Nyong’o was weird
Kim Novak’s plastic surgery is horrendous
U2 really are the most middle of the road band in the world
Why are there only 3 nominees for the hair & makeup award?
So those are some of my thoughts from this year’s Oscars. What did you think about the awards? Let me know below in the comments.
Once upon a time, all actors did to prepare for a role was to don a suit or slip into a dress and step in front of the camera ready to go. Look at Jimmy Stewart, for example; it was pretty rare to see him look anything other than absolute perfection with nary a hair out of place. Sure, actors used to wear elaborate costumes or cake themselves in make-up for a role, but all that is just window dressing; the person underneath is still the same.
However, gradually over the years there’s been a growing trend for actors to go the extra mile for a role, whether that be physically or mentally. There’s no doubting the commitment, but is there a danger that those actors who do push themselves to their limits are going too far? Or should the fact that they get paid absurd amounts of money dictate that they should do whatever necessary for the role?
It’s difficult to pinpoint when this trend began, but Marlon Brando could be partly responsible. Brando was one of the first to bring method acting to popular cinema after studying under Stella Adler at her Studio of Acting in New York City. This form of acting required an actor to completely immerse themselves in the role, even when the cameras weren’t rolling. This Stanislavskian approach was considered to be a much more realistic form of acting and has since been adopted by some of Hollywood’s most revered actors. Brando never really changed his appearance all that much during these years but the attitudes towards what was required for a role had definitely changed.
One of the first high profile instances of an actor physically transforming himself into a characters was a certain Robert De Niro, a staunch proponent of the Method style, when he gained 31lbs to play an overweight Jake LaMotta in Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull in 1980. Filming was shut down for around four months whilst De Niro ate his way around Italy and France to gain the weight. He also trained as a boxer, winning two out of three fights in which he entered.
Over the past few years, a trend has emerged for creating minimalist film posters, and some of them are absolutely fantastic. In fact, a lot of them are better than the official posters for the films. Most are just done by movie and graphic design fans but some, such as Olly Moss, have forged a career from such posters (as well as some pretty awesome other stuff). So here are just a few of some of the amazing minimalist movie posters out there that I take absolutely no credit for whatsoever…
As is customary at this time of the year, most people put together their ‘best of the year’ lists, and so here’s mine. Of course, there are plenty of films that came out in 2013 that I haven’t seen yet and there are some that have already come out in other countries that we haven’t had in the UK yet, but these are my 10 favourite films of 2013…
This was a real surprise for me, as I’m sure it was for many others. There are plenty of coming of age stories knocking around but fantastic performances from Steve Carell, Alison Janney and, in particular, Sam Rockwell ensure this one stands out from most. Read my review here.
Tom Hanks gives a brilliant performance in Paul Greengrass’s dramatisation of the real life hijacking of the Maersk Alabama. Mention should also go to first time actor Barkhad Abdi who is superb as lead pirate Muse. Read my review here.
Inspired by a heartbreaking true story, Philomena may not be the flashiest film of the year but it’s without a doubt one of the most affecting. Dame Judi Dench gives a wondeful titular performance, whilst Steve Coogan is also excellent as the standoffish journalist Martin Sixsmith. Read my review here.
This is one for the Alan Partridge fans, of which I am one, rather than the everyday filmgoer. A big screen appearance for Norfolk’s finest has been on the cards for some years but it was only in July 2013 did it finally materialise. Granted, the character may be slightly better suited to TV but there are still belly laughs a-plenty here. Full review here.
This may well be a lot higher in some other ‘best of’ lists, and if this list was purely based on visuals then this would be right at the very top. However, some story and dialogue issues prevent it from being any higher, although an excellent performance from Sandra Bullock should be noted. Full review here.
A near perfect conclusion (maybe?) to Richard Linklater’s ‘Before’ trilogy. Before Midnight takes a slightly different direction to its predecessors, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset and reveals some chinks in the armour of Jesse and Celine’s relationship. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are astounding in the lead roles as usual. Read my full review here.
Not a particularly easy watch due to its rather emotive subject matter, but one you can’t tear your eyes away from as you root for Mads Mikkelsen’s Lucas to clear his name after he’s accused of being a paedophile. A fantastic performance from Mikkelsen and one that fully deserves any awards attention it receives. Full review here.
Matthew McConaughey has gone from rom com laughing stock to Hollywood hot property in no time at all and Mud shows exactly why. A brilliant performance on his part, as well as from youngsters Tye Sheriden and Jacob Lofland, added to gorgeous cinematography and rattling soundtrack make Mud one of 2013’s underrated gems. Read my review here.
Definitely not the most uplifting film of the year, but undoubtedly one of the most unique and important. The Act of Killing is a documentary telling the story of the genocide of millions of Indonesians in the 1960s at the hands of the military. However, the story is told by the killers themselves as they recreate their atrocities in the style of American films they love. Truly shocking. Full review here.
By no means technically the best film of the year, but no other film got my heart beating as fast as Rush. Dramatising the rivalry between Formula 1 drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda, director Ron Howard perfectly captured the sound and speed of F1, whilst also telling the story of two characters who were equal amounts loveable and loathable. Chris Hemsworth’s beautiful face gave a great performance but it was Daniel Brühl who really stole the show and could be a dark horse for an Oscar nomination. Read my review here.
So there we have it – my favourite films of 2013. Disagree? Want to shower me with loving praise? Either way, leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts.
This post is part of the Not-So-Secret Santa Review Swap being held over at The Cinematic Katzenjammer, in which participants ‘gift’ a film for another blogger to watch and write about. You can check out the full list of entries here. Here’s my post on the film that was gifted to me, Lovely Molly.
I knew I’d end up with a horror film.
Lovely Molly is the story of Molly (Gretchen Lodge) and her new husband Tim (Johnny Lewis) who, following their wedding, move into Molly’s childhood home. However, painful memories soon surface for Molly and a powerful force soon envelopes her.
Now it’s not that I don’t like horror films (I love The Shining and Halloween), it’s just that they scare me. I know that’s the point but I’m not a massive fan of being scared. Even the worst horror films that most people sneer at will probably have me weeping like a small child.
However, the only thing that scared me about Lovely Molly was the streaming quality on my laptop.
That’s being slightly unfair. The first 20 minutes or so had me on edge a little, although that may well have been simply my expectation that I was going to be scared. After that, however, it did little to raise the hairs on the back of my neck.
See, there’s a bit too much going on with Lovely Molly. It’s part home invasion, part slasher, part supernatural horror, part possession horror, part found footage; it just doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be. There’s also some stuff about horses it seems. It does most of these parts admirably enough, but put them all together and it’s somewhat of a mess.
After that promising first act, the film just gets a little boring and I found myself really not caring what happened to Molly. As she seems to go more and more insane, she turns into more and more of a douchebag and I just wanted one of the other characters to do her in. Whether or not I was supposed to identify with her or not in some way I’m not sure.
There are also some of the most pointless sex scenes ever created in the history of film. As far as I was concerned, they served absolutely no purpose whatsoever. I have no problem with a bit of sexy time, but here it just stood out like a sore, naked thumb.
I did think that certain parts of the film worked quite well, however. The more supernatural side of things was probably the most successful, and the film’s climax was pretty interesting, taking a rather leftfield turn of events. However, in this film it seemed a little too leftfield and didn’t really fit well with that had gone before. Good climax but in the wrong film. It’s also one of those films that lets the audience decide how much is actually happening and how much is in Molly’s head. Sometimes that seems like a cop out but it works reasonably well here. The denouement, however, can be seen coming a country mile off and is massively cliched.
So, going into Lovely Molly I was a little wary that I’d need new pants but that was not to be. Not totally sure if that’s a good or bad thing. Lovely Molly isn’t a horrible film; it does flirt with some good ideas but just never really follows through with any of them.
Gravity is a fantastic film. Sure, it may have a few issues here and there but it’s an experience few other films can match. Visually it’s an absolute masterpiece and made me realise why I love the cinema so much. However, this also made me a little depressed.
After I watched Gravity, I realised that once it disappears from cinemas in the next month or so (it’ll have already disappeared in most other countries), it will likely never be experienced in quite the same way.
As we all know, some if not most films are better at the cinema, especially action films with big set pieces. They can still be immensely enjoyable at home on a smaller screen but nothing quite beats an enormous cinema screen with full surround sound. So much of Gravity is about becoming completely immersed in the experience and being in the cinema allows that. Put the film on a small screen and it will lose much of what makes it what it is. Sat in a dark cinema, you’re effectively there with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney floating miles above the Earth but sat at home with various other distractions, that level of immersion is a lot less likely.
In the future, cinemas may well dust it off and give it another run as part of a showcase or anniversary of something or other, but for the most part it will be relegated to DVD and Blu-ray viewings, and I suspect it simply won’t be anywhere near as good.
Of course this can be applied to pretty much every film, and there are many that I’ve watched at home and can only imagine how much better it would have been on the big screen. For example, I’m very jealous that I wasn’t able to see Kubrick’s 2001 or Ridley Scott’s Alien at the cinema; those are just two films that I imagine would be unbelievable when seen on a huge screen.
It just hit me with Gravity that much of what makes this film so great will soon be lost, and that’s a little sad.
Are there any films that you think really only work at the cinema or that you really wish you’d have the opportunity to watch when they first came out?