Take Over: Change of Schedule: Movies In September

Hey Guys,

I'm going to change the schedule around a little, seeing as I couldn't get away in time to do my blog yesterday and been rather busy, too busy to find a guest, I'm going to focus on up-and-coming films Today instead. This is my Take Over Tuesday.

Well it's 4th September, the new academic year is starting, so what does September hold for movie lovers?

First off we have the amazing new comic book film: Dredd (3D) Directed by Peter Travis:

Dredd is based in futuristic, violent city of America,  It has become a waste Land. Criminals have begun to rule the chaotic streets. The only force of order are Police have authority to act as judge, jury and executioner.  Known as 'Judges' who combine all three powers, they team up with a rookie, to try and take down a gang of drug dealers and stop the chaotic streets.

Dredd stars the lead actor out of Star Trek, Karl Urban, and got an out standing review at this years comic con. I've seen some trailers and it looks like a dark, futuristic comic, come to life.

This is a great movie for all the comic book geeks, and even the fans of comic films.

UK Release: 7/09/2012

Trailer (plus more info): http://www.totalfilm.com/news/first-full-trailer-for-dredd-watch-now


Secondly we have a brand new Stop-Motion picture: ParaNorman (3D) Directed by Chris Butler and Sam Fell

I a quite town of Blithe Hollow, Norman Babcock is a misunderstood boy who discovers he can communicate with Zombies and becomes the town's only hope.

This looks like a funny, fabulous family film with a lot of laughs and great moments for all to enjoy.

UK Release: 14/09/2012

Trailer (plus more info): http://www.totalfilm.com/news/new-trailer-arrives-for-paranorman-watch-now


Finally, the saga continues. One film that might make or break the whole franchise: Resident Evil: Retribution (3D) Directed by Paul W.S Anderson

Now I'm slightly wary about this film, I love the other films, even though they are rather over-the-top and sometimes a little unbelievable, they are still worth a watch, but I was unsure if they would bring another one out.

The Umbrella Corporation's deadly T-virus continues to destroy earth and effect the people, transforming the globe into masses of Undead, flesh eaters. The only hope is Alice, who awakens in Umbrella's operation facility, she unveils more of her complex, mysterious past.

UK Release: 28/09/2012

Trailer (plus more info): http://www.totalfilm.com/news/first-full-trailer-for-resident-evil-retribution-watch-now

If there are any movies you are excited about in September then let me know underneith in the comments, any other information you have on any of these films, or any comments, let me know

If you would like to be a guest on my film blog let me know: https://www.facebook.com/MattThomFilm?ref=hl

Stay Safe:

Matt

Take Over Tuesday: Cassie May; Are Sequels Smart

Hey Guys,



Tuesday is the day I introduce a guest onto my blog and let them write me a post. They will be posting something about their area of knowledge and each week I will try and have a different area.

Sometimes I may post a response to what the guest has written.

The first Take Over is by Cassie May; she is nineteen years old and is a studying teaching at University. Here is her post: (edited)

What I don’t seem to understand with some films, and even a few books, is why there are sequels. It makes no sense at times. For instance, someone could resolve everything, or at least leave one not-quite-so major plot-line dangling, in one film/book, but the director/writer decides Let’s bring up everything in a sequel.

This is a bad reason to have a sequel.

(I apologise in advance if it seems like I struggle to stay on track)

It's okay if it's a good film that people actually care about, or a story that is continuous, but if the film is riddled with plot holes, surely it counts as a cheap ploy on the part of the writer/director to get the audience back for a sequel. Those who don’t care enough to find out what the resolution to the plot is, like me with one such film, and I couldn't be bothered to pay much attention to it. I didn't care to find out the resolution to the plot, but in an argument with a friend found out that the sequel resolved the plotline. What I didn't say was that a.) this surely alienates the people who didn't care enough to see the sequel and b.) doesn't really do the plotline justice, full of holes or not.

But it's true. It just doesn't.

A good reason to have a sequel is if the film is based on a book, and there is more than one book in the series. The original book obviously won't offer any resolution to the plotlines and it wouldn't do the series justice if the whole thing was condensed into one film. So sequels for this reason equals good thing.

Then there's the film that's got so much intrigue that you can't quite resolve the plotline, thus demanding a sequel to resolve the plotline and do the film justice. Of course there's always the time-honoured solution of the epic film, but then you have a problem: how are you supposed to keep the audience awake if they get bored of the film, short of some loud dramatic music/explosion to keep the audience on their toes? Having the music/explosion has to be credible. A sequel would avoid this problem.

Then there's the worst reason to keep making sequels: people like it. There's only so long you can keep going on the same plotlines before people get bored of it, or the actor who plays a popular character refuses to do any more sequels, which I'm sure doesn’t do wonders for the sequel's popularity. It would be more interesting if the writers wrote something unrelated to the film series, so audiences can see what if they can do anything else.

I'm not saying that sequels are a bad thing; in the right place they can be good. But there is a time and place for everything including sequels. Use them in the right place and you'll get another great film. Wrong place and you could mess things up. The sequel is a film in its own right, too.

If you have any comments or views on what has been discussed then please place them below. If you would like to appear on my Take Over Tuesday blog then let me know.

Stay safe,

Matt

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Scribd | GoodReads |

Movies for Monday: Religion and Crime

Hey Guys

This is the part of the week where I will be looking into films and reviewing certain aspects or even a whole film. I will be viewing my opinions whilst also asking what you feel about it.

The films I look into may be new releases, or films that I have just watched on DVD.

This week I’m going to look into things with a deeper meaning to them. This might be a little tricky and may get me into a little trouble, but we all like to play the risk game once or twice.

So this week we are going to talk about a film that I watched awhile back, then thought of re-watching last night. The film is Se7en (1995) directed by David Fincher and starring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, is about two homicide detectives, a ‘rookie’ and a ‘veteran’ who are desperately searching for a serial killer who uses the seven deadly sins as justification towards his crimes, killing each person by ‘the sin they commit.’

Now the reason I said this was risky is because first of all I’m a born Baptist turned agnostic. So I know quite a bit about Religion, but tend to get annoyed at the contradictions most religious people fail to pay attention to.

In movies like these the aim of it is not just to show how cruel ‘The Big Cities’ are but also to show the conflicts between religion. First of all I would like to say that for people, not as extreme as our murder, say that people commit a sin should be punished. Well doesn’t the bible say ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

Therefore when I see movies about people killing for religion, or hear stories of Marta. I think back to the Ten Commandments and think; well you are not allowed to break any of these ten?

Let’s focus back on the film, as I feel I’m heading off the tracks, and it may get risky. The film itself is showing us the methodical tactics of this murderer, the time he’s taken to select his victims, the research done, even the torture he has place upon some of his victims, leaving Sloth victim for a year to ‘rot’ in bed.

With the use of sound and cinematography it is also showing us that no matter if the detectives are on duty or off, the city never sleeps. In one scene Detective Somerset (Freeman) is travelling in a taxi to a library, he hears sirens and screaming and when he looks out of the window he sees a body spasm whilst paramedics try to cover the body up.

There also seems to be some sort of siren in the background of scenes, where close or far away in the distance. Showing that there is always crime and sin in such a city as this.

Overall this film is a clever in the fact that it is well thought out and deep, the killer thinks that this is his calling from God whilst the detectives think he is crazed and psychotic.

If you have any films or film topics you would like me to look into the comment below. If you have any views on what has been discussed this week, also let me know.

Stay safe,

Matt 

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Scribd | GoodReads |

Welcome Wednesday: Siân Thom: Can music make or break a film?

Hey Guys,

Wednesday is the day I introduce a guest onto my blog and let them write me a post. They will be posting something about their area of knowledge and each week I will try and have a different area.

Sometimes I may post a response to what the guest has written.

This week I have Siân Thom guest staring on my blog.

Siân is my fifteen year old sister; she is going into the second year of her GCSEs. Afterwards she wants to go to college and focus mainly on acting and drama. Her ambition is to end up as a well-known actress.

This is her guest blog and underneath is my response:

There isn’t one film that I’ve watched that hasn’t had music in it, when films were first created as silent movies they weren’t really silent, yes there was no speaking but there was music and depending on the music you could tell the mood change in the film, even though the music had no lyrics or that it was just a pianist sat under the scene with a sheet of music that he had to play all the way through the film, the tempo and the pitch would change to notify the audience that the scene is meant to be funny or sad. In modern day films, there is speaking in the scenes but it still boils down to the music chosen by the producer, director, music producer or whoever puts the music in. A film would not be a film without music it would just be words and pointless actions with the audience not fully understanding what is going on in one scene to the next.

The right music makes you feel more for the characters, it makes you believe what the characters are saying, and even if the acting isn’t great you can still feel happy, sad, angry or excited by the right chose of music in that scene.

When I’m watching a film and a sad scene starts to play out, it’s not the acting or the words that make me cry really, it’s the music, the slow sad music that emphasises that it’s a sad scene and that is what sets me off crying. The other night I was watching Life as we Know it [(2010) Directed by Greg Berlanti and staring Katherine Heigl] and [slight spoiler] when the little girl calls holly mummy there are little chimes in the background, and I know that isn’t that much of music but just that little can make a scene, I think if the chimes weren’t in that scene I would of cried as much or realised the full extent of her calling holly mummy. I always listen to the music in films, if the music is right for the scene and connect with the film then it will make the audience feel like they are part of the film. But there are other cases where the music does not suit the scene what so ever and if it’s an important scene then the whole film is ruined in my opinion.

I watched a film a few years back with my brother and the music starting playing in the background and both Matt and I cringed because the music didn’t suit the scene or the film. So for the rest of the film we couldn’t get into the film or relate with the characters because, it was an important scene that explained what the whole film was about and it was ruined by a few minutes of music played quietly behind it.

Also sometimes in a film they can play the music too loud so you can’t hear what the characters are saying, this mostly happens more on the television in series or one-off shows. If a pilot is coming on T.V and you watch it and the music is too loud so you can’t hear what the characters are saying so you don’t know what is going on in the whole episode then it is unlikely that they are going to get a series because that pilot determines whether they get their series and if the public aren’t getting into because of the music then it won’t be back on our television screens for another 6 episodes.

So in conclusion if the music isn’t right for the scene the film is over. I mean don’t play an upbeat song if someone on the screen is crying and don’t play a slow sad song if someone has just received some really good news. The music has to flow with the words and actions of the film otherwise it’s doomed from the start.

My Response:

Well My response is going to contrast rather a lot in comparison to my sister’s views, but this happens quite a lot so I’m sure she will understand.

First of all, there is a guest post I wrote quite a while back discussing music and mood.

http://malikagandhi.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/a-film-director-in-the-making/

So my response to what Siân said.

Music and sound works in two different ways in film, there is diegetic and non-diegetic.

Diegetic: Music or sound that the character can hear. It is happening inside the scene and effects the character in a certain way

Non-Diegetic: Music or sound that is placed over the top, almost like a score. It tells us, as an audience, how to feel in that scene.

My argument is why, as an audience, should we be told how to feel? As my sister said it does add to the tension to a scene where the monster is about to jump out. It adds to the sadness of that part where the guy breaks the girl’s heart.

I agree with my sister when she says that some films and TV shows over-use non-diegetic sounds/music and it can cause the show/film to lose believability, the audience start to lose interest. Some films even get to the point where there is only non-diegetic music and too much action. The action therefore means nothing; the audience does not know how the characters feel.

My belief is there should be more diegetic music and sound so the audience know how the character feels which shows that when something bad happens to the character, they are affected more because they understand that character fully.

I’m not saying the use of non-diegetic music is wrong and it should not be used because I have seen some good films that use non-diegetic very cleverly and leave the audience in suspense a lot of the time, but my question is: could you do this with diegetic sound and music?

My final point is that music affects us, just as it does a character in a film and people who say music is not important have not had the experience of discovering what it can do for you. 

If you want to know more about Siân, then check out her Twitter: @Ginger_Thom

If you can think of any films where the music does complete the whole film let me know. Also if you can think of any films where there is not much music but the film is still brilliant then please comment. I really want to know all your opinions on this one.

If you have any comments or views on what has been discussed then please place them below. If you would like to appear on my Welcome Wednesday blog then let me know.

Stay safe,

Matt 

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Scribd | GoodReads |

Movies for Monday: A bit of Rock & Roll

Hey Guys,

This is the part of the week where I will be looking into films and reviewing certain aspects or even a whole film. I will be viewing my opinions whilst also asking what you feel about it.

The films I look into may be new releases, or films that I have just watched on DVD.

I thought I would focus mainly on music and how it affects people. What better way to focus on music than a film about rock stars, right?

This week’s film is Almost Famous (2000) Directed by Cameron Crowe.

Based in America in 1973, this film is about a high-school boy who is excelling in life. His mother is an over-protective teacher who has lied to her son and made him skip grades. His sister walks out and rebels against the mother because she felt that music was ‘speaking to her’.

The story follows the boy, William, and his story. He gets a chance to write an article for The Rolling Stone Magazine about an ‘up-and-coming’ rock band, Stillwater. William accompanies them on their concert tour, confronts life and befriends ‘the enemy’.

This was a rather funny, feel good movie about a band, their fans and how they connect. It is also about the tensions between the band members, as they reach their big moment of fame.

This film focuses on the raw talent and characteristics of a band, looking into the way they tour and focusing on how ‘The man’ (record companies, etc.) is trying to change rock and roll and make things much more mainstream.

William’s adventure goes further than he first expect, with him travelling the full tour and seeing things nobody else would ever see. Listening to the same music that was inspiring this band to tour and perform.

The long list of songs used as both diegetic and non-diegetic is endless. I was originally going to place the full soundtrack on here, but that would have made the blog go on for quite some time. I mean it is a film about a rock band. What do expect?

There is mention of some great names such as Iggy Pop, David Bowie, Black Sabbath (who Stillwater are touring alongside.), Neil Young, Lou Reed and many more (check out the amazing soundtrack at the bottom).

So this story, based on true events is one of charm and classic rock music, but what makes it so intriguing? Why do we watch these films telling us about how a certain band or person became famous?

Take Walk The Line (2005) directed by James Mangold and staring Joaquin Phoenix, for example, the story of Jonny Cash and June Carter; about the darker side of fame and of love.

We want to watch these films because they are real life stories. Stories where people have a raw talent, whether it be singing like Cash or Stillwater, or it be Journalism, they have a talent and they want the world to see this talent, they find difficulty in their journey and also might find love but eventually the bright lights of fame get too much for them and they stumble.

So do we watch these films for the stumble and the good music? Not at all, we watch them because it gives us courage to get out there and show our talents and skills, because no matter how bad they stumble, Cash ending up in Prison and Stillwater almost breaking up, they always seem to pull through and it’s their dedication.

This is why the music in films that are based on real stories are so important, because each band, each singer, has a story to tell. They will all inspire somebody in a different way, so overall it’s more than just the music. It is about inspiration.

Almost Famous (2000) Soundtrack: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181875/soundtrack

If you have any films or film topics you would like me to look into the comment below. If you have any views on what has been discussed this week, also let me know.

Stay safe,

Matt

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Scribd | GoodReads |

Welcome Wednesday: Tim Popple: Moon, Monsters, and Money

Hey Guys,

Wednesday is the day I introduce a guest onto my blog and let them write me a post. They will be posting something about their area of knowledge and each week I will try and have a different area.

Sometimes I may post a response to what the guest has written.

The major theme running through this week seems to be Sci-Fi, and why break the running theme? This week we have Guest Star, Tim Popple who will be discussing the thrills of British and Low Budget Science Fiction. Make him welcome:

Tim lives and works in Bristol, and spends his spare time living and breathing cinema. He runs http://the24thframe.co.uk/, a website dedicated to film reviews and features (one current feature involves looking one Star Trek film a month, until the new film is released next year!). The site has a Facebook page, www.facebook.com/the24thframe, and you can follow Tim on Twitter @VoxPopple.

Low budget SciFi has often been something of a contradiction. Take an idea that seems like it ought to need a big budget, and craft something unique and wonderful with a tiny budget. Use that budget’s limitations to focus your creativity. From films like Silent Running – directed by 2001: A Space Odyssey’s effects guy, Douglas Trumbull – through James Cameron’s classic The Terminator, and on past oddities like Shane Carruth’s Primer (an altogether different take on time travel to the Schwarzenegger film) across different countries like Spain’s Timecrimes, and South Africa’s District 9, and on to recent times with the one-two Brit SciFi punch of Duncan Jones’s Moon and Gareth Edwards’s Monsters, and the US’s grunts’-eye view of an invasion with the underrated Battle: Los Angeles.

With Nir Paniry’s film Extracted getting good press at festivals, I wanted to look at these most recent British SciFi low budget films which are not only sterling examples of low budget SciFi done well, but are actually two of the best films of recent years. Indeed Moon topped my list of films of 2009. Sam Rockwell is the sole occupant of a base on the moon, mining precious fuel discovered there to help an ailing planet below. Coming to the end of his “shift”, slowly he realises things are not entirely as he thought. With nods to 2001: A Space Odyssey in the Kevin Spacey-voiced ship’s computer, as well as the solitary life of Silent Running, it has fine SciFi as its touchstones. Yet even without that historical layer, Moon still works as an astonishing piece of SciFi. It takes a futuristic setting – a realistic futuristic setting, no less – and posits the age old question of what it means to be human, how human is human? The struggled relationship between man and machine is brought to bear most succinctly, and man’ resilience, his fight for survival, is made frightfully real. Tonally, Moon has heart, pathos, and in a lovely touch to the wake up call, humour. It is, quite simply, one of the greatest debut films since an upstart 20 something decided to make a little film mocking the most powerful newspaper magnate in America, with snowglobes, pleasure palaces, and a mystery called ‘Rosebud’.

Gareth Edwards’ Monsters is a kind of road movie. It takes the familiar set up of an alien invasion, and fast forwards to the end of that film. The aliens have arrived, we’ve become accustomed to them, and they live in a specific area. So far, so District 9. But while District 9 was a thinly-veiled nod to apartheid within South African history, Monsters looks at a more specifically American concern: border control. Trapped with no option but to travel through the area infected with the mysterious aliens, a photographer and his boss’s daughter struggle with each other as much as they do with their environment. It’s a SciFi road movie buddy movie, if you will. People turning up expecting Independence Day 2 were always going to be disappointed. Of course you see the aliens here – to not do so would have been a huge cheat on the audience, micro-budget or not – but it’s about the situation, the interactions, and the relationships. And surviving a potentially hostile environment. Monsters is a brilliantly realised vision that, like Moon paints a painfully realistic future. That is its strength. By framing the unbelievable within a believable structure, it improves the suspension of disbelief.

Throwing money at a film can often do it a disservice. Necessity begets invention, and it is necessary with a smaller budget to be inventive in one’s portrayal of the fantastical in a way that remains believable. Monsters, by its overt necessity to visualise creatures of another world had a harder job than Moon which required a Moon base, and shots in space. Both achieve, both excel, and both show how much is possible, even on the tiniest of budgets.

If you have any comments or views on what has been discussed then please place them below. If you would like to appear on my Welcome Wednesday blog then let me know.

Stay safe,

Matt

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Scribd | GoodReads |

Talk Tuesday: That Can't be the End, Can it?

Hey Guys,

We all need something to talk about and discuss, we just like to gossip.

This is the part of the week where I choose a topic to discuss over and talk about; I view both sides of the argument and then place my opinion.

Anybody can join in with the discussion, just post a comment and tell me what you think.

This week we are going to discuss the climax of films. So a slight note before we start.

THIS BLOG WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS THROUGHOUT.

Last night I watched Gone (2012) directed by Heitor Dhalia and staring Amanda Seyfried. All together this is a very well thought out and planned film. The Character Jill is a very troubled individual and has obviously gone through a lot.

The story is about Jill and how she is convinced her kidnapper has returned when her sister mysteriously disappears without any trace. The police think that Jill has gone crazy, as she was sectioned and the fact they the first time round they did not find any evidence that backed her story.

So if it was such a good film why are we talking about it today? Well today we are talking about the climax of films and how some can be unexpected and others are not so climatic.

For example in Gone we go through a journey of people that the kidnapper could be, at one stage we believe it’s a neighbour, maybe it’s the cop, she can’t be making it up, etc. but at the end the man is only some guy who saw her in the coffee shop once. This film has taken all this time to build up to the reveal of this kidnapper, and after all that, we’ve not really seen him much or know anything about him.

An example of a good climax, even though not the one I wished for when watching the film, was in Buried (2010) directed by Rodrigo Cortés and staring Ryan Reynolds. This film is about a U.S truck driver, Paul who is working in Iraq. His team get attacked by a group of Iraqis. He wakes to find he is buried alive in a coffin. He does not have many items and it's a race against time to escape.

All the way through the film we think that maybe he might get out, a few times we think it is unlikely, but drawing to the end it is a very close call. The rescue team are on the phone to Paul, they believe they are close and for a moment we feel as if he has been rescued, not for the first time, and then suddenly they tell us they have found somebody completely different. By this time it is far too late.

The suspense and tension that this film builds from beginning to end is outstanding, and they follow it through to the end, there is no anti-climax for this film. It shocks and surprises and I did not see it coming at all.

The point Todays blog is to discuss which films we think are Climatic and worth watching, and which films lead us on but, unfortunately, let us down at the last hurdle. If you have any films you would like to talk about then leave a comment below.

If you agree or disagree with anything mentioned then please comment and share your views.

Stay safe,

Matt

| Follow | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Scribd | GoodReads |