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 |