*Immature chuckle*
See, you can have some fun when researching university assignments.
(This is a real screen grab from La Haine. Give yourself a gold star if you guessed right.)
[2/5] Cinema Review: The Amazing Spider-Man
The Spidey saga gets a reboot only a decade after it started. Rich finds out whether Marc Webb's new take manages to justify its existence...
[3/5] Cinema Review: Prometheus
Ridley Scott reaches for the stars as he returns to the Alien universe. Does he bite off more than he can chew?
Your Mother Sucks Bears
*Immature chuckle*
See, you can have some fun when researching university assignments.
(This is a real screen grab from La Haine. Give yourself a gold star if you guessed right.)
Dear Bryan Singer
I liked Superman Returns. It wasn't brilliant, but it was better than the film we could have got. Have you seen the designs for the intended Tim Burton/Nicolas Cage version? They're utterly terrible. And Cage as Superman?! Thank the movie gods that it never happened.
Anyhow, Superman Returns, as adequate as it was, still disappointed me in several areas. So here I'm going to list what I didn't like about it and what I would like to see in Superman Returns II/Superman Returns Again/Superman Reborn/Superman VI/Superman: The Man of Steel/whatever it's called. Note inevitable spoilers lie ahead.
Wow, that was a long post.
P.S. I would still definitely prefer a sequel to Superman Returns than a Justice League movie.
Anyhow, Superman Returns, as adequate as it was, still disappointed me in several areas. So here I'm going to list what I didn't like about it and what I would like to see in Superman Returns II/Superman Returns Again/Superman Reborn/Superman VI/Superman: The Man of Steel/whatever it's called. Note inevitable spoilers lie ahead.
- Have a good villain who is a physical threat to Superman. This is the obvious one that everyone wants to see. Lex Luthor can be a good villain if used correctly, and Kevin Spacey is a great choice to play him, but he's run his course in the Superman films. I'd be happy with him returning as a secondary villain, but Superman needs a nemesis that seems stronger than him. The reason a lot of the proposed scripts for Superman Returns were essentially remakes of Superman II is that General Zod and co were awesome enemies and really made Superman the underdog. The super-powered ruckus in Metropolis could be quite something with today's technology. Having said that, I don't think a simple rehash of the second film is called for, just effective villains would be nice. My personal pick, with a little tweaking from the comics: Doomsday from the Death of Superman comics arc.
- Ditch the kid. It's not the actor's fault (I thought Tristan Lake Leabu was pretty good for a child of his age) but the idea of giving Superman a son, especially this abruptly, was not a wise one. Still, they can't really just ditch the whole plot strand between movies. I've got two suggestions for this: firstly, it could be revealed that Jason isn't actually Supes' son as it was fairly ambiguous; or secondly, have him killed as soon as possible in the next film. I don't see the latter option happening in a million years as it's way too dark, but I just like the potential for Superman to go nuts from grief.
- More action scenes. This kind of relates to point 1, but it would just be nice to see Supes doing more heroic-type stuff (obviously the budget is an issue here). Also, and this is probably going to sound weirdly nitpicky, but show Superman taking off more. In Returns you mostly just saw him as Clark, then in the sky as Superman. There was only one costume change shot as well. I loved those bits from the Reeve films.
- A more light-hearted tone. I liked that the whole Superman mythos was taken seriously, but it didn't mean that the film had to be as cheery as a funeral. Follow Donner's example from the first Superman or Sam Raimi's with the Spider-Man films (I think Raimi has got the seriousness/humour balance pretty spot on so far). More snappy dialogue would help; the script for Superman Returns was bashed out in a few days and it showed.
- Better flying shots. I'm not talking about effects, because they were generally good in SR. Mainly I'm talking about the positioning of the camera. In the original films a lot of the flying was done with Chris Reeve in close up. It was primarily due to technological restrictions but it worked well, especially with Reeve's stellar acting. In SR most of the time we saw Superman flying he was a small speck on the screen. The most promising part was the flying through the clouds shot at the end.
- Replace Kate Bosworth, or make Lois more likeable. I don't really favour messing with continuity unneccessarily, but Chris Nolan has replaced Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal for Batman: The Dark Knight. Bosworth was a bit bland in SR, not to mention too young. And what was with the costumes and make-up being so unflattering? It seemed they were trying to make Lois look unattractive, and to me they pretty much succeeded. I think Bosworth might be able to pull it off next time, but give her a more interesting and feisty character.
- Improve the suit. Although this is the seventh point, to me it's one of the most important. The new suit was controversial when it was first revealed, and I'm still not very happy with it. Basically, the colours need to be brighter, especially the reds. The suit worked and did not need changing. I'm OK with some updating - the raised chest symbol is fine, if a little small - but get the colours right next time.
Wow, that was a long post.
P.S. I would still definitely prefer a sequel to Superman Returns than a Justice League movie.
Budget, Schmudget
The budgets of the biggest blockbusters have been getting absolutely insane in the last few years, to the extent that studios tend to do their best to hide what a film cost. Gone are the days when a film's poster would boast that it was the most expensive movie ever made like it was a good thing.
There's no real way to know any more just what the most expensive film ever even is. Titanic held the spot for a while, but now its $200 million budget doesn't seem that shocking. Rumours are that Spider-Man 3 cost $300 million, although the producers deny it was that much. Not only is that an unbelievably huge figure, it doesn't make good business sense either.
Budgets have skyrocketed in the last decade or so, exponentially more than inflation. It's mad that Spider-Man 3 is predicted to be one of the most popular films of the year but will probably barely recount its costs with the US gross. I love big budget spectacle, but I'm not convinced that the increased expenditure is worth it.
George Lucas said a few months back that he predicts average movie budgets will fall to less than $30 million in the next few years because they're just not making their money back. I think that prediction is a bit extreme, but it would make sense to see budgets lessen somewhat. In the current climate, a film that makes $200 million can mean financial disappointment, which is just crazy. Generally less than 20 films make even $100 million in any given year.
You may be thinking, what do I care? I don't run or have a stake in a studio. That's true, but I do love movies, and I'm always pleased to see films make money whatever they are (well, with the odd exception). But when an average blockbuster starts to cost more than even the most anticipated ones expect to make back, that's just madness. Madness, I tell ya!
There's no real way to know any more just what the most expensive film ever even is. Titanic held the spot for a while, but now its $200 million budget doesn't seem that shocking. Rumours are that Spider-Man 3 cost $300 million, although the producers deny it was that much. Not only is that an unbelievably huge figure, it doesn't make good business sense either.
Budgets have skyrocketed in the last decade or so, exponentially more than inflation. It's mad that Spider-Man 3 is predicted to be one of the most popular films of the year but will probably barely recount its costs with the US gross. I love big budget spectacle, but I'm not convinced that the increased expenditure is worth it.
George Lucas said a few months back that he predicts average movie budgets will fall to less than $30 million in the next few years because they're just not making their money back. I think that prediction is a bit extreme, but it would make sense to see budgets lessen somewhat. In the current climate, a film that makes $200 million can mean financial disappointment, which is just crazy. Generally less than 20 films make even $100 million in any given year.
You may be thinking, what do I care? I don't run or have a stake in a studio. That's true, but I do love movies, and I'm always pleased to see films make money whatever they are (well, with the odd exception). But when an average blockbuster starts to cost more than even the most anticipated ones expect to make back, that's just madness. Madness, I tell ya!
Editorial: The Music Maketh the Movie
I've been thinking of my favourite movies lately, and I've noticed a striking correlation: nearly all of my favourite movies have superb soundtracks. I really think that film music, for me at least, has a considerable bearing on whether I like the film in question, and it is an area of filmmaking that sometimes can be overlooked.
I tend to be partial to orchestral scores but a good compilation of songs can also add to a film considerably. One of the reasons Tarantino is known so well is because of his instantly iconic soundtracks, generally comprising of obscure hits from the 80s or earlier.
Just looking at the last couple of years, I could identify numerous soundtracks that really added to a movie. In some cases they were the difference between a complete dud and an acceptable way to spend a couple of hours, Eragon being a case in point. I was pretty satisfied with Superman Returns mainly because they used John Williams' classic theme. Indeed, the opening credits of that film are the best part of it, and I have put the DVD on just to watch the start several times.
Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette split audiences somewhat, but I'm a big fan. I was curious to see how modern pop music would work in a period context, and the answer was "very well indeed". Of course, the choice of songs was hugely important, and somehow they all suited it so well. Who'd have thought that The Cure would be perfect for a scene of 18th century Versailles? Sofia Coppola, apparently.
Another one that I loved but was not hugely well received generally last year was Miami Vice. Michael Mann's films generally have expertly selected soundtracks and his latest movie was the same. I went and bought Mogwai's Auto Rock on iTunes straight away after seeing the film.
So I see a trend has emerged. I fairly often seem to like films that have been critically panned or poorly received by the public, and in those cases I generally like their soundtracks. Perhaps I value film music so highly that it distorts my perception of a bad film? Or maybe that's precisely film music's job.
Try to imagine Star Wars without the music. See?
EDIT (3 May): I recently watched Danny Boyle's Sunshine for the second time, and there are moments in that which are just a sublime fusion of stunning visuals and excellent music. That's pure cinema, folks.
I tend to be partial to orchestral scores but a good compilation of songs can also add to a film considerably. One of the reasons Tarantino is known so well is because of his instantly iconic soundtracks, generally comprising of obscure hits from the 80s or earlier.
Just looking at the last couple of years, I could identify numerous soundtracks that really added to a movie. In some cases they were the difference between a complete dud and an acceptable way to spend a couple of hours, Eragon being a case in point. I was pretty satisfied with Superman Returns mainly because they used John Williams' classic theme. Indeed, the opening credits of that film are the best part of it, and I have put the DVD on just to watch the start several times.
Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette split audiences somewhat, but I'm a big fan. I was curious to see how modern pop music would work in a period context, and the answer was "very well indeed". Of course, the choice of songs was hugely important, and somehow they all suited it so well. Who'd have thought that The Cure would be perfect for a scene of 18th century Versailles? Sofia Coppola, apparently.
Another one that I loved but was not hugely well received generally last year was Miami Vice. Michael Mann's films generally have expertly selected soundtracks and his latest movie was the same. I went and bought Mogwai's Auto Rock on iTunes straight away after seeing the film.
So I see a trend has emerged. I fairly often seem to like films that have been critically panned or poorly received by the public, and in those cases I generally like their soundtracks. Perhaps I value film music so highly that it distorts my perception of a bad film? Or maybe that's precisely film music's job.
Try to imagine Star Wars without the music. See?
EDIT (3 May): I recently watched Danny Boyle's Sunshine for the second time, and there are moments in that which are just a sublime fusion of stunning visuals and excellent music. That's pure cinema, folks.
Don't Split Grindhouse!
Grindhouse, the new collaboration between Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, has been a resounding flop in the states. It's essentially a movie double bill - you get two movies for the price of one! With some made-up comedy trailers in between! Go see it, Americans!
Well, inevitably, its failure has prompted a lot of people to say that it was too long (about 3 hours). Length is always the first thing to be highlighted if a long-ish film flops, but come on. The top two films of all time, which have both been released in the last ten years (Titanic, LOTR: Return of the King) are both well over 3 hours themselves.
Anyway, the latest development is that Momentum have deleted the release date from the film's UK website. It looks likely that the Weinsteins, who financed it, are now going to release the two films which constitute Grindhouse separately. If this happens, it sucks. The main appeal for me with Grindhouse is that it should be a unique cinema experience, with the double-bill aspect adding to it immeasurably.
Put it this way. Rodriguez's Sin City is basically 3 stories, but if you watch those stories separately it's nowhere near as good. It's more than the sum of its parts.
Which brings me back to the title of this post: respect the filmmakers' original intentions, and don't split Grindhouse, please.
Well, inevitably, its failure has prompted a lot of people to say that it was too long (about 3 hours). Length is always the first thing to be highlighted if a long-ish film flops, but come on. The top two films of all time, which have both been released in the last ten years (Titanic, LOTR: Return of the King) are both well over 3 hours themselves.
Anyway, the latest development is that Momentum have deleted the release date from the film's UK website. It looks likely that the Weinsteins, who financed it, are now going to release the two films which constitute Grindhouse separately. If this happens, it sucks. The main appeal for me with Grindhouse is that it should be a unique cinema experience, with the double-bill aspect adding to it immeasurably.
Put it this way. Rodriguez's Sin City is basically 3 stories, but if you watch those stories separately it's nowhere near as good. It's more than the sum of its parts.
Which brings me back to the title of this post: respect the filmmakers' original intentions, and don't split Grindhouse, please.
Sony Pictures Hate You
I was expecting to be able to see Spider-Man 3 on the IMAX screen next week. There was even a trailer for it before the IMAX showing of 300. But no, apparently Sony aren't sending any IMAX prints at all to the UK. Thanks a lot, corporate cronies.
Anyway, that got me thinking. Of all the big studios, Sony seem to be the most soulless to me. I know Hollywood works just to make money from people, but Sony's output generally seems so bland. I do give them credit for hiring Sam Raimi to direct the Spider-Man series but even those films have too much of a moderated, mass-produced sheen if you ask me. It's also reflected in their DVDs, which tend to have slick but unpersonal extras.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. All the studios are now owned by big multinationals these days. Warner Brothers seem to have the right idea though: they give big-budget films to talented young directors and seem to give them fairly free reign, for better or worse (Batman Begins, Superman Returns, The Matrix) - they make generally satisfying DVDs, and, importantly for me, THEY PUT THEIR FILMS ON IMAX OVER HERE.
Anyway, that got me thinking. Of all the big studios, Sony seem to be the most soulless to me. I know Hollywood works just to make money from people, but Sony's output generally seems so bland. I do give them credit for hiring Sam Raimi to direct the Spider-Man series but even those films have too much of a moderated, mass-produced sheen if you ask me. It's also reflected in their DVDs, which tend to have slick but unpersonal extras.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. All the studios are now owned by big multinationals these days. Warner Brothers seem to have the right idea though: they give big-budget films to talented young directors and seem to give them fairly free reign, for better or worse (Batman Begins, Superman Returns, The Matrix) - they make generally satisfying DVDs, and, importantly for me, THEY PUT THEIR FILMS ON IMAX OVER HERE.
Welcome!
Welcome to the Filmverdict Blog, revealing to you the inner thoughts of a film geek. In this blog I will post whatever random film-related things come into my head as a sort of stream of consciousness. And when I say random, I mean random.
I also run an attempt at a 'proper' film website, at www.geocities.com/filmverdict. Sorry for the cheap plug, but this is my blog after all. From time to time I'll probably mention site updates on this blog, so you might want to subscribe to the atom feed and get automatic notification of a new post.
Also, feel free to post comments! Feedback is welcome.
I also run an attempt at a 'proper' film website, at www.geocities.com/filmverdict. Sorry for the cheap plug, but this is my blog after all. From time to time I'll probably mention site updates on this blog, so you might want to subscribe to the atom feed and get automatic notification of a new post.
Also, feel free to post comments! Feedback is welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
