Due to various issues with Cineworld and their direct debit collection, I ended up paying for the entire year, after which my card will be cancelled (I may or may not reconsider this). They also gave me a month free.
So, as things stand at the moment, I've paid £148.50 for my card, instead of £162. I've seen £71.40 worth of movies with it.
I'm down £77.10, but my card is good till January fifth, and I take the final exam of my course tomorrow (so a ton of free time after that). Let's see how fast we can make that gap shrink.
A reprint of an old review. I wrote it before Ledger's death, so it's quite weird re-reading it.
This film is hilarious. Loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew", 10 Things I Hate About You tells the story of two sisters, Bianca and Kat. Their overbearing father, who works in a maternity ward, and therefore has an immense fear of getting pregnant does not allow them to date. This does not bother Kat, who tends to keep herself aloof from her peers. It does, however, bother Bianca. After much pleading, her father changes the rules; Bianca can date when Kat does. This opens the doors for Bianca's many admirers, one of whom comes up with the plan of paying someone (Patrick Verona) to date Kat.
At times, this film almost comes across as a parody of itself. It's not believable, in the sense that you can see it actually happening - it's a little too out there, for that. However, the acting is good (with an extraordinarily young Heath Ledger, and an equally youthful Julia Stiles), and the characters are endearing. There are so many great lines in the film, i had trouble choosing just one for the title of this review. The music is amazing (the first CD I ever bought was the soundtrack to this film), and although the film does come across as slightly dated, it has some of the more classic moments of romantic teen comedy (ie, Patrick serenading Kat in front of their classmates, a scene which was parodied in 'Not Another Teen Movie'). To be quite honest, the film's worth seeing just for the guidance counsellor and her trashy novel.
In summary, this film is a must for anyone who likes romantic comedy. Or Heath Ledger, the little cutie.
Peckham Finishing School for Girls is a three-episode show for BBC3, in which four home counties "posh girls" are dropped into Peckham. They are mentored by four Peckham girls, and given the odd job or task to do, while, hopefully, seeing the other side of things. All three episodes are currently up on the BBC's iPlayer. There's also a rather good overview of the general idea of the series in the Metro.
There are clashes from the start. One girl compares her routine of getting up at 5am, ice-skating and modelling to that of being a cleaner. They all, when given £30 to spend on Peckham clothing, decide to waste the money and arse about, something that greatly angers the Peckham girls who rarely get new things. One of them, on hearing about a Peckham girl's experiences in care, starts crying. I paraphrase; "Oh-em-gee, your experiences have upset ME so much, everyone crowd around and comfort ME, because it's just so hard for ME hearing about how tough your life is!".
And so on.
I love train wreck TV. I also rather like Serena, although she's not really getting as much screen time as that irritating Cat.
BBC3 seems to be trying a lot of new comedy-drama shows recently. Stanley Park's currently on. Quick review; painfully self-referential, and incredibly clumsy in execution. It plays like a dreadful parody of Sex and the City crossed with Two Pints crossed with Hollyoaks.
I did rather like Peckham Finishing School for Girls, but more on that once I've been responsible and finished studying.
The Bechdel-Wallace test is - you know what? I'm just going to quote from TV Tropes here;
The Bechdel Test or the Bechdel-Wallace Test is a sort of litmus test for female presence in movies and TV. In order to pass, the film or show must meet the following criteria:
it includes at least two women,
who have at least one conversation alone
about something other than a man or men.
Now, by limiting yourself to shows/movies that pass the test, you'd be cutting out a lot of otherwise-worthy entertainment; indeed, a fair number of top-notch works have legitimate reasons for including no women (e.g. ones set in a men's prison or on a military submarine or with no conversations at all or with only one character). You may even be cutting out a lot of works that have a feminist tone. But that's the point: too little fiction created today, particularly in TV and movies, has independent female characters. Things have improved since the test was first formulated (the strip in which it was originally suggested was written in 1985), but Hollywood still needs to be prodded to put in someone other than The Chick.
The Bechdel test, or Bechdel-Wallace was first suggested in the webcomic Dykes to Watch Out For, and you can see the specific strip here.
After reading that page, a question began to torment me. Just how many of my movies (as in, the ones I own on DVD) pass?
Well, let's see. Below is a list of the movies I own - in alphabetical order, because that's how I role - with comments as to how well they do on the Bechdel-Wallace test. What I'm going to do is, watch all of these films over again, in alphabetical order, and add in comments as I do (I have a lot of knitting/rugmaking/studying to get done, and movies help a lot). Fail will be a sharp red colour, while a pass will be green. When the film only just scrapes through, it will be a lilac-y blue shade. I generally include conversations about children as being "about men", but I'll normally note when I've done this. If you disagree, comment, and we can discuss it.
I did not realise that I owned this many films. This isn't even including TV series'.
Title
Comments
Pass/Fail
10 Things I Hate About You
Passes within the first ten minutes, when Kat and the guidance counsellor talk about Kat's attitude. If that's not enough, Bianca and her friend manage a talk about being "whelmed" before Joey interrupts.
Later, Kat and Bianca have a talk about their respective attitudes and their mother.
17 Again
Failed miserably.
No, wait! I just remembered that little conversation at the beginning, with the girls congratulating Wendy on her promotion! Half-pass, since they weren't main characters and Mike was standing just behind them.
America's Sweethearts
I was only half paying attention, but I'm pretty sure this failed, unless you want to count Kiki haranguing the waitress about butter (she doesn't reply, so it's not really conversation).
American Pie
Well, Vicky and her friend do talk about orgasms, but they're also talking about Kevin, so I'm going to call it a fail.
American Pie 2
---
---
American Pie 3
---
---
American Beauty
---
---
Anastasia
---
---
Another Cinderella Story
---
---
Battle Royale
---
---
Battle Royale II: Requim
---
---
Before Sunrise
---
---
Big Daddy
---
---
Bridge to Terabithia
---
---
Bruce Almighty
---
---
The Butcher's Wife
---
---
Children of Men
---
---
Cruel Intentions
---
---
The Dark Crystal
---
---
Definitely, Maybe
---
---
The Devil Wears Prada
---
---
The Doll Master
---
---
Drop Dead Gorgeous
---
---
East is East
---
---
Enchanted
---
---
Evan Almighty
---
---
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children
---
---
The Ghost
---
---
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time
---
---
The Handmaid's Tale
---
---
Happy-Go-Lucky
---
---
Hard Candy
Hailey calls her friend to discuss plans for after her "date". Although she does mention Jeff in that conversation, it may just scrape through.
He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not
---
---
Heathers
---
---
Howl's Moving Castle
---
---
Into the Mirror
---
---
Juno
---
---
The Lake House
---
---
Legally Blonde
---
---
Life or Something Like It
---
---
Love Me If You Dare
---
---
Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium
---
---
Mean Girls
---
---
Memoirs of a Geisha
---
---
Minority Report
---
---
The Mummy
---
---
The Mummy Returns
---
---
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
---
---
Mona Lisa Smile
---
---
Not Another Teen Movie
---
---
The Orphanage
---
---
The Other Boleyn Girl
---
---
The Others
---
---
The Parent Trap
---
---
Persepolis
---
---
Priscilla
---
---
Saved!
---
---
The Shawshank Redemption
Instant fail - there aren't two female characters.
Shrek
---
---
Shrek 2
---
---
Shrek the Third
---
---
Sister Act
---
---
Sky High
---
---
Sliding Doors
---
---
Slumdog Millionaire
---
---
South Park
---
---
Son of Rambow
---
---
Strings
---
---
The Swan Princess
---
---
The Truman Show
---
---
A Very Long Engagement
---
---
Where the Heart Is
Passes when Sister and Novalee talk outside the Walmart.
I've seen up the Madonna episode (15/22), so there may be spoilers for anything up to that point. We're taking about Glee, by the way.
So, Will Schue. Here are the facts as I know them, to illustrate exactly why I believe Will Schue has never grown up.
Will Schue stills work at the High School he attended during his own school days. He (presumably) left to obtain a degree and Qualified Teacher Status, and then came back - as if he'd never left.
He took control of the Glee Club in a self-confessed attempt to bring them back to the glory they enjoyed when he was a student. He often joins in with the students while rehearsing, rather than taking more of a back seat as a director.
For much of the series, he was still with his high school girlfriend.
When she wished to distract him from her non-existent pregnancy, she knew that the best way to do that was with a replica of the car he owned as a teenager.
In his new relationship, he used the exact song as he had at the beginning of his old one.
He is currently having essentially the same relationship as Rachel Berry, a student more than a decade younger than he is (with regards to new partners and virginity issues).
Some of you may have noticed the lack of a set of Unlimited stats for this month. It's not that I've forgotten to record which films I've seen - it's that I haven't seen any.
April's been an interesting month. I got a new job, worked crazy hours for just over a week, then quit. It was a wonderful atmosphere, the coworkers were brilliant, but when it came right down to it, it wasn't a job I wanted to do. On the other hand, it left me enough confidence to walk away, knowing that I can find a job I'll love. At the moment, I'm still clearing tables once or twice a week, as well as mystery shopping, which is turning out to be awesome.
Anyway, I haven't really had time to visit the cinema, not with uni as well. I've barely had to watch my Lovefilm stuff - I've had a copy of 500 Days of Summer sitting on my desk for well over a week, and I only just got around to watching it. I did finish watching all thirty-seven episodes of Death Note. I don't think the ending was as good as the beginning, really.
I just watched 500 Days of Summer, as I think I mentioned, although it's now several hours after I wrote the first few paragraphs.
Honestly, at the minute, I'm a little bit of afraid of reading or watching anything that will make me really sad. That will make me care about the characters, and then hurt them. I just don't want to feel that way. I don't want to rewatch My Sassy Girl or read anything by Jodi Picoult. I don't want to get too involved with these characters.
I really couldn't tell you what's up with that.
So, in short, I watched 500 Days of Summer while concentrating on my Welsh textbook.
One thing that did strike me is just how much Joseph Gordon-Levitt looks like Heath Ledger now. The first film I saw him in was 10 Things I Hate About You (with Ledger), and he was tiny then. He still had a baby face, and was quite physically small. Now he's filled out a little more - although he's still very lean - and looks like an adult. In fact, he looks like a cross between Ledger and Keanu Reeves.
See? Maybe not around the eyes, but around the jawline and the cheekbones.
Don't agree? How about this?
This?
Honestly, I think the major difference is in the ears. It's not as apparent in still pictures, but sometimes, while he's moving, Gordon-Levitt looks exactly like Ledger.
Over the last week, I saw two films - Edge of Darkness and Precious. Precious is generally listed as 'Precious - Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire', but I'm not going to type that out every time so let's just pretend I did.
For the sake of comparison, Edge of Darkness had a budget of $87,000,000, and has made $21,029,253 at the box office since opening. Now, I only just got up, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that pretty much means it didn't open. Precious, on the other hand, had a budget of $10,000,000 and has since grossed $46,896,564 in revenue. According to IMDB, it holds the record for averaging $100,000 per screen in fewer than 50 US cinemas.
Edge of Darkness, which stars Mel Gibson, opened in US and UK cinemas on the 29th of January. Precious, which had no advertising budget and starred the unknown Gabourey Sidibe in the titular role, premièred at Sundance and Cannes in 2009, after which Oprah Winfrey's production company began to promote it. It's currently on limited release in cinemas throughout the UK.
I saw Edge of Darkness because...well, it was a Sunday afternoon in Southampton, and at the time we got there, it was that or Astroboy. I had pretty much no idea of what it would be about, and, to be honest, didn't really care.
For those who do care, it's about a policeman whose daughter is killed. His coworkers assume that he must have been the target. He starts searching for whosoever might have wanted to murder him. Trailer below.
I saw Precious because I was in the mood for a film. I checked out what was on at Birmingham Broad Street, read a few descriptions, and remembered that we'd seen the trailer for Precious before Edge of Darkness. I also remembered that I thought it seemed interesting, so I decided to go see it.
Precious is the story of an obese sixteen-year-old, pregnant by her father for the second time, and living with her abusive, manipulative mother. Again, trailer below.
The two are very different films. Edge of Darkness is an action film, based on an old British TV series. Precious is more of a drama film, and was based on a novel. You can see the difference in the production budgets, too. Edge of Darkness is very slick, very well put together, while certain scenes in Precious seem to have been filmed on a handheld.
The important difference, however, is in how much one cared about the characters. You know the way you flinch when something horrible happens to a character in a film? You clutch your throat if theirs is slit, or you place a hand on yourself wherever the bullet hit them. That happens because you're empathizing with and caring about the character - people don't usually get that reaction from watching a plate of meat being sliced. So, it probably says quite a lot that I giggled at most of the violence in Edge of Darkness. It's not that it looked bad - it was, I suppose, technically rather gory and well-orchestrated. I just really couldn't bring myself to care.
Several of the actors have wandering accents in this film, too. Plus, the relationship between Gibson's character (*googles*) Thomas Craven and his daughter (I'm not even going to bother to look up her name, actress or character) looked creepy and incestuous. To be quite fair, so did the one in Precious, but, on the other hand, that one was supposed to be creepy and incestuous. I think here, they may have been going for caring. It didn't work. It was creepy and incestuous. I got hysterics at the bit where he was holding his daughter's body and breathing heavily. Creepy and incestuous.
While watching Precious, on the other hand, I flinched at every tiny blow. I wanted to take all the characters home with me, and take care of them. Or beg someone to impregnate me, so I could have my own child, to raise in a loving and safe environment, and never ever expose them to anything so horrible. And that's not like me at all.
Although Precious did have some famous actresses in it, that didn't distract me at all - unlike in Up in the Air, Sherlock Holmes and 17 Again, which got very odd at some points - Chandler Bing turns into Zac Efron and tries to seduce the Hooters doctor from Big Daddy while fending off Dawn from Buffy?
Anyway, yes. With Precious, I actually cared about the characters, instead of just coming up with triva about the actors. I didn't even recognise Mariah Carey, in her role. I had to double check it was the same Mariah Carey, then find a youtube clip of her scenes to compare with her pictures.
One criticism levelled at the original book was that it seemed unrealistic for one character to face so much hardship. I haven't read it, but although Precious' life does seem to keep hitting her with the trauma stick, I didn't find it unrealistic at all. Probably because it all kind of went together - if her mother hadn't also been abusive, her father's abuse wouldn't have gone on for so long, and so on. It's not like a series of unrelated unfortunate events.
In short; Precious made me cry. Edge of Darkness made me laugh. To be quite fair, I'm not a huge fan of action films, so maybe someone who is wouldn't find it quite so hilarious. However, I'm not the only one who prefers Precious - the average ratings on review sites such as Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and even IMDB is around 7-8 out of 10 for Precious and 5 out of 10 for Edge of Darkness.
Edge of Darkness has yet to be nominated for or to win any awards. Precious, on the other hand, has been nomated for six Academy Awards, four BAFTAs, ten Black Reels, five Critics Choice Awards, two Chicago Film Critics Awards, one Costume Designers Guild Awards, one Directors Guild of America Award, one GLAAD Media Award, two Golden Globes, one Golden Trailer, ten Image Awards, five Independent Spirit Awards, one ALFS, two Online Film Critic Society Awards, one PGA, three Satellite Awards, two Screen Actor's Guild Awards, one Bronze Horse from the Stockholm Film Festival, five WAFCA award, and one WGA. That makes sixty-four.
Precious has also won two BSFC Awards, one Critics Choice Award, one Capri Award, one CFCA Award, one Chicago International Film Festival Award, two from the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association, one from the Deauville Film Festival, two from the Florida Film Critics Circle, one Golden Globe, one from the Hawaii International Film Festival, one from the Kansas City Film Critics Circle, one from the Las Vegas Film Critics Association, one NBR Award, one NSFC Award, one PGA Award, one from the Palm Springs International Film Festival, two from the Phoenix Film Critic Society, one from the San Francisco Film Critics Circle, two from the San Sebastián International Film Festival, one from the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, two Satellite Awards, two Special Achievement Awards, one Screen Actors Guild Award, one SEFCA Award, one from the St Louis Film Festival, two from the Stockholm Film Festival, three from the Sundance Film Festival, one from the Toronto International Film Festival, and two WAFCA Awards. That makes forty.
Again, to be completely fair, remember that Precious was actually released in 2009, so Edge of Darkness still has a chance in the 2010 awards.
Also remember that those awards won't make you personally more or less likely to enjoy either film. I just really like it when the world shares my opinion.
Jason Reitman directed Juno, and if you didn't know that before you saw Up in the Air, you'd have a sneaky suspicion after the second or third familiar face.
I'm exaggerating a bit. On second thoughts, I can only remember two actors who were in both Juno and Up in the Air. However, those two are Jason Bateman, who played Mark Loring, and J. K. Simmons who played Juno's father, which made it that much more jarring when they popped up here (as Clooney's character's boss and a random extra named Bob, respectively).
You'll notice that I said 'Clooney's character' and not (googles) Ryan Bingham, and that's the other problem with casting famous actors.
Well, technically it's the same problem. It's that much harder to fully enter a state of suspended disbelief.
Anyway, moving on to the actual film. Honestly, I expected it to be far more of a romantic comedy kind of thing. This was before I knew who directed it, incidentally - it's generally not something I look up beforehand. That's why I'm recording director's names on my stats page, so I can see if there are any accidental patterns.
So, yes. It looks like it should be a romantic comedy, but that's not entirely the case.
Ryan Bingham (Clooney, who looks much younger clean-shaven) is in the job of firing people. Other companies hire him and his coworkers to do their dirty work for them. Honestly, I find that that automatically makes the film more interesting. It's a little harder to find a character in that line of work sympathetic, although Clooney does quite a good job of remaining likeable. Reitman's on record as saying that Clooney's charm is the reason he was cast, as the film wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm inclined to agree.
Ryan Bingham has no ties, and he speaks at seminars teaching other people how to cut loose from their own. His goal in life is to reach ten million frequent flier miles, so it certainly helps that his job requires him to fly all over the country. But then, a young ambitious coworker (played by Anna Kendrick, who also looks rather familiar, although a glance at her imdb page doesn't pinpoint why) comes up with a way to completely revise how his job works, and he's threatened with being grounded. Arguing that she doesn't fully understand the job, his boss tells him to teach her, and Bingham is forced to take her along.
...yes, the film does delve into "your way of life is wrong and lonely, let's teach you about family". Bingham is happily childfree and relationship-free (incidentally, Clooney is childfree too, so there's another bonus to the entirely purposeful casting), but, despite being happy, he's obviously wrong to feel this way. Don't you know that the only way to be happy is to surround yourself with people you care about and support? No? You obviously haven't seen enough films.
There's nothing really bad about this viewpoint, I guess - I just hate the way it's forced down everyone's throat, constantly, as being the only right way to live.
Incidentally, the film never really does answer the question of "what's the point?". Unless you want to count "because everything's better with someone else there", that is.
I do like the non-traditional way the Ryan and Alex's relationship unfolds. Not at the beginning, Scrooge McDuck and Goldie did the whole "too alike" thing years ago, and much better at that. No, the ending. It was unexpected, it was new (as much as anything can be), and it was interesting. To be honest, I spent the last half an hour or so of the film (I don't know exactly how long, I lost track of time) praying that it wouldn't be traditional, that it would be something new, that Ryan wouldn't end up renouncing his entire personality with a "one year on" clip of him and a pregnant wife. I may have seen too many romantic comedies, because I was sure that was how it was all going to go down. But, I was wrong. Yay!
That said, many other aspects of the ending - such as Natalie's arc - were very traditional and predictable. But I didn't mind, since they'd managed to surprise me a little with the ending, and not sell out the character quite as far as I'd feared.
I saw Alvin and the Chipmunks - the Squeakquel too, the other day. Really, it's not worth its own post, so I'm shoving it in here.
Now, I liked the first movie. I saw it when it came out, it was fun, it was entertaining, I spent weeks youtubing up Witch Doctor.
This one, however...well, the songs weren't as good for a start. It requires an even bigger suspension of disbelief, since everybody now seems not to bat an eyelid at the existence of not one, but two sets of singing chipmunk siblings. And it seems to be all set-up and no plot. In short, despite the length, it doesn't feel like a movie. It feels like the pilot episode of a new TV series.
A bit 'meh', really. Although I am very disturbed by the blatant sexualisation of small furry animals. I'm sure that's illegal.
Sherlock Holmes is iconic, that can't be denied. Since his first publication back in 1887, there have been four novels and fifty-six stories by his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and countless other works featuring the character. He is Doyle's most famous work, to the extent that Doyle began to resent and then hate his character, eventually pushing him off the Reichenbach Falls, with a cry of "at last, I've killed the brute!". Holmes, however, wouldn't stay down, and public outcry brought him back for another twenty-five years and a 'peaceful' retirement to the countryside.
Basil Rathbone was, arguably, the most iconic of Holmes' portrayers. He appeared in fourteen films between 1939 and 1946, all starring opposite Nigel Bruce as Dr Watson. He gave us the deerstalker hat, the cape, and, if I recall correctly, the specific kind of pipe Holmes liked to smoke. It's possible that this is where the line "Elementary, my dear Watson!" first appeared - it's certainly not in any of Doyle's original works.
I first read the Sherlock Holmes stories when I was about twelve-years-old. I'm fairly sure that I've read all of Doyle's original stories, although I haven't picked up any of them in two or three years.
Those three paragraphs do have a purpose - I went to see Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes earlier. Starring Robert Downey Jr as the titular character and Jude Law as Watson, the film features an entirely new story, rather than, like most Holmes films, being an adaptation of one of Doyle's works.
The film avoids most of the canon created by other film adaptations, and seems to have gone back to the original stories. It includes many things referenced, such as Holmes' experiments with chemistry, his shooting the initials 'V.R.' into a wall, and his skill as an amateur boxer. These things weren't often used as plot points in the stories, or frequently mentioned, but they did exist there. The violin playing is in there too, although the cocaine abuse is sadly missing.
Holmes' personality has changed, too. This take on the character is slightly more emotional, and seems more impulsive than Doyle's Holmes. Doyle's character was always asexual, while this one has a romantic history with Irene Adler, played by Rachel McAdams.
Irene Adler does appear in the original stories, and, yes, she is one of the only people to ever outsmart Holmes. However, they were never romantically involved...at least, not in Doyle's version. And she wasn't a master criminal, either.
That's the thing about this adaptation. It goes back to Doyle's original Holmes stories, and gives them a twist. Think of it as an alternate dimension version. The characters are basically similar, but there's no way the plot could fit into the original canon, despite the references, and the similar exposition near the end.
Once you get over the canon issues, it is a pretty good film. The action sequences are good, and it doesn't feel like it's over two hours long. I got really into it. The mystery doesn't quite have the same feel to it as a traditional Holmes' mystery, although it does use many of the same elements - there are clues that you can pick up throughout the film, for instance, but not quite enough, not as many as there would be if the film were meant to be a detective film. Instead, it's an action film, and not a bad one.
Interestingly, a trailer for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was shown before the film. I do want to see that film, but, aside from that, I think you could quite fairly call this film "Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes". Anyway;
None of the characters look quite right, but I'll forgive that, since I'm basing that idea on other adaptations, and it's hardly fair to criticise Downey for not resembling Rathbone. Downey does look a little too old for the part, especially playing opposite McAdams and Law. However, a quick look at their wiki pages shows that he's only about fifteen years older than the former and seven years older than the latter - not a huge jump.
At one point, it did bother me that McAdams needs rescuing or saving every so often. The whole point of her character is that Holmes respects her as an equal, not as a damsel in distress. Then I noticed that Watson and Holmes need help or saving just as many times as she does - it's just more noticeable to me when it's a woman chained up, apparently.
The film plays around with time and camera angles a lot. Holmes will plan out a sequence of events in slow-motion, and then perform then more quickly. Or, at times, a scene will flashback to show us something we missed the first time. It's quite effective.
Another technique Ritchie utilizes is to play with the sound when the characters are temporarily deafened. There's muffled or slow-motion speech, ringing noises...it works very well as a way of bringing the audience into the action.
A couple of scenes mention Professor Moriarty, possibly just as a nod to the original stories, but, probably, given the current atmosphere, a nod towards a sequel. Personally, I feel that the film stands well on its own, but I suspect a sequel may well be released should it do well - and I feel it will.
One thing really bugs me though - who paid for and organised Lord Blackwood's funeral, and why did they not need their permission to go opening his coffin?
On a final note, it feels really weird to hear someone address someone as 'Sherlock' completely seriously, because it's their name.
On another final note, I have never in my life been so tempted to scream out "stop, drop and roll!" in a cinema. Watch it, you'll know the bit I mean.
So, I checked up on Glee. The new episodes will be shown on E4 on Mondays, if I recall correctly, then the following Sunday on Channel 4. After that, they'll be uploaded to 4oD, where I'll be watching them, since I work Monday and Sunday nights.
I'm ashamed to say that I've yet to use my shiny Unlimited Card. Admittedly, I don't have it yet, but I could use the code on the email they sent me if I really wanted to. To be quite honest, I don't fancy going out in the snow unless I have to. I'm sure I'll make up for it once my bus pass kicks in, on the 1st of February. I'm really looking forward to Disney's latest, The Princess and the Frog. That's out on the 5th of February in the UK, and you can see the official trailer here. I grew up on Disney films, and I much prefer the traditional style to Pixars.
Perhaps unusually, I have no interest in Avatar. I'll watch it on DVD. I feel happier about having to sit still for over two hours if I have control of the pause button.
I don't usually watch programs on TV. I prefer to rent the DVDs, and watch every single episode in one long marathon. It's been a while since I've felt the anticipation of waiting for a new episode every week.
The last time was with the repeats of the first series of Being Human on BBC1. I'd missed the first showing on BBC3 (in my bedroom I can only get the five main channels - I'm thinking of getting Sky Plus in here soon, if I can afford it), so it was pure luck that I spotted the description. I don't recall exactly what it said, but the show's about a werewolf, a vampire and a ghost sharing a house. How can that possibly fail to be interesting?
Being Human is slightly more dramatic than you might expect just from that description, but it also has a hilarious kind of gallows humour, and really likeable characters. The three leads are played by Lenora Critchlow, who played Sugar in Sugar Rush, Aiden Turner, who appears in The Tudors and Desperate Romantics, and Russell Tovey, who starred in The History Boys. I'm very much looking forward to the second series, which starts on BBC3 this Sunday, the 10th, at 9:30pm. I'm hoping they put it up on the iPlayer right away, since I'll be at work then.
Another show I'm going to miss is Glee, which starts this Monday at 9pm on E4. The pilot's already up on 4oD, so I'm praying the other episodes go up too. It reminded me of nothing so much as a cross between High School Musical and Teachers, only much better than either. I am enthralled.
I have another Unlimited Card. The price has gone up a bit - it's now £13.50 a month, with an extra £1.30 charge for 3D films - but, getting back into my old habits should mean that, once again, they'll be losing out on this deal.
When you get an Unlimited card, you're contracted to keep it for a year. You can choose to pay monthly (£13.50, as I said), or annually (£162). To save you doing the maths yourself, I'll just point out that 162/12 = 13.5. There's no difference in price, however you pay.
This may not be the best time to get a card - I'm just catching the tale end of the Christmas releases, and summer isn't for a while - but it's now that I feel like watching films. Two or three a month and it will easily pay for itself, and I love the freedom of just popping in on my way past, and seeing if there's anything on.
You can apply for an Unlimited card here, if I've caught your interest.
Because I like statistics, I'm going to keep track of what I use it for in the table below. I may put each month in a separate post, I may not. We'll see.
'Number' is just to keep track of how many I see, 'Name' is the name of the film, 'rating' is the (BBFC) classification, 'date watched' and 'directed by' speaks for itself (one would hope), and 'price' is the price I would have paid without the card.
17 Again is about as cliched as you might expect. And I still loved it.
17 Again is about a man who, having given up his chance at a scholarship in a sudden decision to run after his (just revealed to be) pregnant girlfriend, in what is, incidentally, an extremely well-played and directed scene, then holds it over her head for the next twenty years.
Seriously though, that scene's great. It assumes that the audience has seen the trailer, and so doesn't fuck about spelling out things we already know. It just jumps right in there, and it's just so clean and edgy...
In some ways, that scene could have been the end of another kind of film - and this is what happens after happy-ever-after. 37-year-old Mike O'Donnel, as played by Matthew Perry, is disappointed and miserable in his life, and he blames his wife for that. It's no wonder she's divorcing him.
His transformation back into a teenager is one of the most cliched things I've ever seen (complete with the wise old janitor), but the first meeting with his ex-best friend was funny, original and a bit insane (there was an axe and some lightsabers. It was awesome).
So far, I've only seen Zac Efron as Troy Bolton, the basketball-playing male lead of High School Musical. This role is, in some ways quite a departure from Disney. He says "douche" for a start. And his hair isn't stupid (at least, not until it gets slicked down again). Matthew Perry, I'm more familiar with as Chandler Bing.
Alright, I'll be honest here. I started writing this review about six months ago (maybe longer - how long has this film been out?), and I'd gotten as far as what's written above...and then I stopped. For no apparent reason.
I did get 17 Again on DVD for my birthday. The film could be described as, in many ways, bits of awesome interspered with plot. This is not a bad thing. That isn't to say that it isn't sweet and touching (it is). Just that light sabers, swords, basketballs and the word 'pwned' makes everything better. Everything.
Incidentally, I might be going to see Sherlock Holmes in a few weeks - it depends if Mattie gets his act together or not. You can view the trailer for it here.
I'm intrigued. I like the things they've included, like the boxing - canonically, Holmes is quite a good amateur boxer - and references to violin-playing at 3am. It's clear that someone involved has read the originals, and that's a start. I can live with the steampunk victorian streets, too. They're very shiny. There seems to be quite a lot of action in this, and while Holmes was quite fit, I seem to recall that he was rarely involved in direct fights. More often he was running away.
This brings me to Irene Adler. Although I do love Rachel McAdams, as I recall, Adler was a woman Holmes deeply respected because, yes, she did get the better of him. They certainly never kissed. Holmes was asexual. If they had to include a love story, why not Watson's? I found the description of how he met and married his first wife quite romantic, personally.
Speaking of Watson, Jude Law doesn't look like him. I realise that I may well be thinking of film portrayals of Watson, rather than the actual canon, so I'll let that one go. I'm also willing to give Robert Downey Jr a chance. The man is a fine actor, and he has much of the voice and manner of Holmes 'right' to my mind, even though I always pictured him as being rather thinner and better shaved.
I wonder if they're going to include the cocaine abuse, the shooting practice at the walls of their flat, or that time Holmes decided to beat up a corpse?
