Films You SHOULD Have Watched : Trilogies

Alright, surprise surprise -  we're all still here.  

Evidently the world did not end today. But since we have all had a traumatic near death experience, what more appropriate means of celebrating our beautiful lives than by watching more films?

I was shocked and appalled to hear from a ridiculously large number of people that they haven't seen certain films I deem to be impossible to live without having watched. Yes, films are entertainment but they also influence how we think, act and go about our lives on an unprecedented level.

So, don't thank me yet, but I have compiled a list of films you should stop what you're doing and watch right now if you already haven't. So here is your Christmas present, I'll be reeling off the mandatory list in a series of categories. Yes I am that nice.


Part One:

Trilogies

- THE LORD OF THE RINGS  -

The Fellowship of the Ring (Peter Jackson, 2001)




The Two Towers (Peter Jackson, 2002)

The Return of the King (Peter Jackson, 2003)



I shouldn't have to explain why these utter gems are on the list. If you haven't seen them - or worse don't like them - you need to rethink your life.





-THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY-

Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005)
The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012) review here

Nolan here rewrote the superhero genre to an extent it was no longer deemed lame. This superlative series, like Lord of the Rings, has a long running time. But what could you possibly be doing that is more interesting or important than saving Gotham? If you're really not into superhero stuff, fail, but at the very very least check out The Dark Knight for Heath Ledger's stunning performance as the Joker, which frankly put the films on the map.




- THE MATRIX TRILOGY -

 (although I'll forgive you if you just watch the first )


The Matrix (Andy and Lana Wachowski, 1999)
The Matrix: Reloaded (Andy and Lana Wachowski, 2003)
The Matrix: Revolutions (Andy and Lana Wachowski, 2003)

I could have put these epics in the 'epic' or 'mind fuck' category, but they're here so suck it up. The Wachowski's deserve a pat on the back for their dynamic action sequences, groundbreaking mind orgasm of a storyline and their peculiar dedication to the colour green throughout the franchise.





That's all for now, folks! Next time I'll be listing the 'golden oldies' you should catch up on. Lemme know if you think I should add any more. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

First things first, I have to apologize for not writing a post in way too long. I have no excuses I am just a loser. Please forgive me?


I think I speak for every Lord of the Rings fan when I say that the marriage of Peter Jackson's filmmaking and J.R.R Tolkein's stories is not something I thought I would witness again in my lifetime. So when I heard he was making The Hobbit, it was like a thousand Christmases squidged into a paradisaical film-formed present. I prayed it wasn't too good to be true.

And I am as jubliant as Father Christmas on crack, riding a roller coaster into a ball pool of chocolate, to announce that Jackson, as ever, does not disappoint.

Of course what we're all here for is that Middle Earthen feel. There is an utter escapism which the franchise encapsulates to an extent other films have not been able to even scratch the surface of. I consider the Shire my second home. Also like LOTR, this is a walking tourism advertisement for Kiwi-land. There are sumptuous sweeping heli-shots of snow dusted mountains, Elven valleys, rugged cliff peaks, rolling hills, snow dusted mountains... yeah you've seen Fellowship of the Ring.




The soundtrack plays a lot on the nostalgic hobbit theme, as well as other familiar LOTR hits and its own original music. Character wise, they've also chucked in a jumble of your old favourites, including good old Saruman (two laughs a minute, as ever), a less severe Elrond, the enigmatic has-she-been-on-the-pipeweed Galadriel, and of course Gandalf, who seems to get involved in the midst of everything, like, all the time.

Oh yeah and this beautiful geezer may have a role to play.

Additionally, The Hobbit has a new feel to it. Jackson was adamant this was not just a prequel to LOTR but a story in its own right, and this one does have its own distinctive feel to it. We're not about Mordor here, no one cares about Gondor or the return of the I'd-rather-be-a-hobo King, it's all about the Lonely Mountain guys. Basically, the dwarfs, led by Richard Armitage's bewilderingly attractive Thorin, used to live there until they were kicked out by a cranky dragon called Smaug, and now they want it back. Somehow Gandalf ropes a reluctant youthful Bilbo Baggins into joining in on the quest.

Here dwarfkind gets more of a look in in the narrative, with the gang of dwarfs providing energy and amusement aplenty. From the moment Bilbo sets his hirsute foot out of his front door, there is non stop action and suspense. There are encounters with trolls, to entrapment in goblin's layers, to riddle games with sociopathic Gollum, to battles with wargs and fat white, handless orcs. To be crass, you really get bang for your buck here, which is what I particularly liked about this film as oppose to the first LOTR, which is (despite, and not detracting from, its masterpiece) a little slow paced at points. This is a different, less atmospheric, but more of a guns-blazing, bustling, vivacious action-sandwich.

Does anyone else get what I mean by the peculiar allure of Thorin?

If I had to pick between the two, life or death style, I'd still go with Lord of the Rings. It is the more epic story, through no fault of the The Hobbit (blame J.R.). Nonetheless, a feast for the eyes and imagination, The Hobbit is pretty damn swish. 

Star Whores

By now you've all heard that this week it was announced that George Lucas has sold the rights to the Star Wars franchise to Disney for no less than £2.5 billion.

Disney plans a new Star Wars film in 2015 and one every couple of years afterwards, and assuming from their ambiguous statement, until the END OF TIME.

So, thoughts? There are no fences to sit on here people, you either:

are excited that Star Wars will go on into eternity with a 'new generation', as Lucas himself suggested

or

are horrified.

This party as such believes Star Wars should have ended with Return of the Jedi and the saving of the Galaxy and that should have been that. A collaboration with Disney in their eyes would only result in corruption, disaster and apocalypse as bad as mixing Twilight with The Hobbit. As for making like a million more movies, shouldn't it be quality over quantity? We've experienced tragedy before when Dreamworks couldn't let go of Shrek, and look where that got them...

Across the internet people are taking sides, battle lines are being drawn - empire or rebels? This has accumulated into a number of interesting specimens:

I personally would like to see this. 

and all of these. (except the Little Mermaid one, bit weird)

and, perhaps most creepy:











Has Lucas sold out? Or is he simply passing Star Wars to the next generation? Will Disney manage to make LucasFilm as successful and consistent as Pixar?

Is our lack of faith disturbing?

Taken 2

From the get go I was disappointed that they were going to sequelize the almighty film that is Taken. Firstly because it seems a bit dubious that the poor bloke would be that unlucky to have another family member kidnapped. But secondly because sequels are, in general, shit. And I'm afraid I was disappointed with the rushed and run of the mill result.

Taken 2 (Oliver Megaton) shares a lot of the techniques which made the original edgy and exciting: choppy editing, melodramatic sound effects, and a handheld camera that shakes like the cameraman was doing the gangnam style. This contributes to and is accompanied by a fast-paced, thriller aesthetic.

Narratively the flick focuses on the same theme as before - the awkward line in a parent-child relationsip between keeping your child safe from abduction and forced prostitution... and being overprotective. Liam Neeson takes the role of the concerned father and Maggie Grace is the daughter who the viewer must decide is either deserving of more independence or as being too dumb to survive on her own. From watching the first movie alone I'd choose the latter, but in this sequel Kim actually is of some use, frolicking around Turkish rooftops with grenades as a means of locating her kidnapped dad (don't ask).

But what seems to me to have been Taken from this film, or probably was never there to begin with, is an engaging plot line, the suspenseful, keep-you-guessing-and-in-complete-awe-of-Liam-Neeson which was the essence of the first. Instead the narrative seems to have edged into the very much safe area of the archetypal Hollywood action thriller nowadays.

The basic plot is that the people Neeson pissed off in the first film have now come back to bite him in the ass and 'claim revenge' for their deceased and beloved human trafficker family members. But the unfolding of events here are much less complex than the predecessor and much less fun to watch. I also noticed a number of moments the audience is expected to suspend their belief, like when Neeson is captured by the baddies, and they literally just stand there politely and watch as he rings up his daughter and has a natter, 'Oh hey there how's it going? Yeah I'm good, just about to be dragged away by some crazy Albanians and was wondering whether you fancied popping to the American Embassy.' Really?
























                                                                                                                                                               
Complete with a lame two-dimensional villain and his gaggle of Eastern Europeon expendable morons, the film subtracts from another element of the first which made it so much more of a challenge, and therefore more satisfying to watch - the overwhelming sense of a unity of opposition against Neeson's character Bryan. For instance, in Taken the film builds the impression that Bry has unearthed a can of worms with the intricately corrupt Europeon institutions. He can't trust anyone, the police, not even his own old friend and this makes him truly alone which ultimately sets up his success as heroic.

But in this second the bad guys seem a lot more meek and ineffectual, far less daunting than the first. This is only enhanced by the fact that we know the film is a 12A and therefore nothing too bad or un-P.C. can happen. Another big fat mistake by the filmmakers, this move was obviously a stab at widening the film's audience but in doing so has taken a hacksaw to the project's integrity and the sense of terror and realism which was so tenable in the original.

Don't get me wrong, Liam Neeson is still cool as ever, and there are some intense fight scenes in which I actually found myself worried the sixty year old would rupture a hip or something filming, but then I remembered he is a perpetual bad ass (and has a stunt double). Still, there is less of the:



























and in its absence drab screenwriting and a dodgy plot. I'm sorry Liam, Taken was always going to be a tough act to follow, however Taken 2 really is average at best.


But what do I know? Since its release the film has already grossed over $86 million worldwide, clearly people like it. Once again Hollywood proves its ability to make money by throwing money at a previously successful concept, yet in doing so simultaneously proves its increasing inability and indifference to making good films.

Sex and Alien

Halloween's on the horizon so I thought I'd topically freak you out.

What I found quite interesting  (and slightly unnerving) was that apparently Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979) - here I'm talking the original, but I'm pretty sure this applies to the entire pervy franchise - is loaded with sexual imagery. 

Yes, I was once like you. 'No way, it's just a science fiction film about an alien! Next you'll be telling me Animal Farm isn't just about the farm animals!'. How innocent I was. 

This is a direct quote from the film's screenwriter, Dan O'Bannon:

"One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"

But once I had it pointed out to me, once I began to see it, I could not then unsee it...

1

2

3
yeah.

4

5

The crashed Alien space-ship is modeled over an enormous hermaphroditic body. The skeletal inner workings resemble bones, blood vessels, etc. This creates the impression that the team are entering the 'belly of the beast', which of course could not be more true as this is the start of all their troubles (euphemism, anyone?). The ship also appears to have both phallic and yonic-connotative structures; the latter being significant as, shown in picture 2, the unfortunate astronauts enter this figurative anatomy into the 'womb' (4), if you like, and one of the team (poor sod) unwittingly plays a key role in 'fertilizing' an alien egg (picture 3, and picture 6 as the 'birth').

  

6
gutted.

If this scene (picture 6) doesn't make you feel sick you are a cyborg. And if you haven't seen it John Hurt, the guy who became impregnated by the Alien infant, finally experiences the horrific and ultimately fatal birth of the hideous sprog. This scene really plays upon what the screenwriter was saying about the male fear of giving birth, because obviously it is an entirely alien (ha) concept to the sex (bar Tom Beattie...) which makes for an inability to empathise with the experience. 

Rewinding back a bit in the 'pregnancy' to pictures 3 and 5, these instances are subsequently an allusion to the masculine fear of rape, specifically orally (5). That is not to say that a women wouldn't freak out if that absolute abomination was attached to their face, but the fact is that the filmmakers actively chose a male character to incubate the verminous organism because it would specifically ignite these fears. This was, and still remains, a particularly subversive idea in horror film, a genre which archetypically punishes the female audience by, for instance, terrorizing a slutty female character until she encounters a highly sexualised death. Take Paris Hilton in House of Wax, who is impaled through the head by a noticeably phallic pole. By contrast, Alien making the men victims of sexual destruction was different and all the more shocking because of this.

7

8

Meanwhile, the fully formed Alien itself is pretty blatantly phallic, what with the shape of its head (7) and that thing it does with its mouth (8), which only serves to enhance the rapey vibe. 

Where does this leave us? Unfortunately, most people who study film find themselves in these messed up analytical situations. But it's like in that film, The Ring, you have to pass on this weird knowledge, otherwise Samara gets you.

Hitchcock

Genius, bad ass, perfectionist, misogynist, weirdo... Alfred Hitchcock remains one of the most iconic and highly debated film makers of the history of the art.

Considered in his time a popular film maker - ie not an indie, artsy, you-need-to-prepare-your-Oscar-speech type - Alf's films have aged to be considered the greatest ever made. Psycho (1960) is his most famous, scandalous piece, probably something do with that dischordant string motif which sounds like you've walked in on a junior school violin concert; or the poor sod that gets stabbed to death in the shower (no way is this a spoiler, everyone knows about that scene); or that lovely young man Norman and his controlling but well-meaning mother. But his lesser known, more critically acclaimed films include Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959) and The Birds (1963). 

Hitchcock didn't want a shot to just be a shot, he wanted it to be creative, expressive and entertaining. For example, the opening of Psycho starts like an ordinary film. You have your establishing shot of the city, then we focus in on the first two characters in a hotel room. But instead of cutting between these two scenes, Hitchcock integrates them by taking a fantastic sweeping long shot of the Phoenix skyline, before gradually zooming in to a particular window and continuing this impossible zoom through the window and into the room, simultaneously establishing the location and two main characters in a single exquisite take. 

Moreover Hitchcock was one of the most effective filmmakers to use cinematography to infer meaning. If Psycho is a film about male sexuality, the camera frequently implies this through, for example, shooting Marion languishing on a bed while her lover stands over her, with only his bottom half in the shot.

A boundary-pusher, the shower scene of the same film induced a frenzy of outrage against Hitchcock because viewers were sure it contained nudity. Furthermore, although the scene shows little physical violence, the expertise displayed in its use of intercutting and rapid editing (the short scene apparently two an entire week to film), including the final fatalistic shot of the blood swirling down the drain, create a strong impression that we as viewers have witnessed a horrifically violent act -disturbing now, and groundbreaking at the time. The film was also the first to ever show a toilet being flushed on screen (shock horror). All of this contributed to Hitchcock's status as the Master of Suspense and the further attribution of the adjective Hitchcockian to any modern filmmaker who attempts similiar terror-inducing techniques.

And it is evidently Psycho which the new semi-biographical flick Hitchcock (set for release in the UK early 2013) has centred its plot around. Anthony Hopkins, accompanied by an assortment of prosthetics and possibly a fatsuit (unless he actually has put on weight, which would be awkward), plays the man himself, accompanied by Helen Mirren as the sidelined wife and Scarlett Johansson as muse Janet Leigh.

I've got mixed feelings about the premise of this new film. I thought the trailer was cheesy, and the narrative spiel seems to want to focus on the 'cutesy' romance between Hitchcock and Alma Reville when word is old Alf was a bit of a ladies man. If by ladies man you mean someone who, in order to encourage a greater peformance from his actresses, allegedly terrorized them on set. One example of this being his ordering a live bird to be tied to Tippi Hedren in the filming of The Birds and obliterating her career when she (shockingly!) refused his advances.

Suddenly the birds in her hair seem less symbolic...

So, what do you think? The sneak-peeks certainly look promising - there's a definite sense of deserved praise to be awarded to the makeup team, but I'm not going to go Pscyho to get a ticket.

The Graduate

Since I'm just starting uni and Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) has just left, I already felt an abstract sense of duality with The Graduate (1967) from its quiet opening.

Everyone should see this film. Firstly, because it's hilarious. The screenplay, direction (Mike Nichols), and acting here are really second to none, Hoffman makes Ben so cringe-inspiringly awkward in almost every scenario he faces. Inspired directly by the Charles Webb novel of the same name, the dialogue itself is fast, witty and unexpected. The resulting form of the film is comedic yet realistic, laughing at life but with a sense of self consciousness and intelligence.

Ben's character, played flawlessly by an (almost oxymoronic) youthful Hoffman, is the indelible anti-hero who reminded me of directionless Holden Caulfield from J.D Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. Ben Braddock has, at the risk of stating the obvious, just graduated from university, with seemingly excellent prospects, and accompanied with a mountain of expectation from his well-to-do parents. However our protagonist seems to have lost all his drive and has no idea what to do with himself. We come across Ben in this indecisive state when he is preyed on by his parent's friend and apparent cougar Mrs Robinson. The narrative becomes even more conflicted when Mrs Robinson's daughter Elaine shows up and suddenly Ben decides he wants to marry her.

"Are you trying to seduce me, Mrs Robinson?"

Set and released in the late 60s, The Graduate was one of a number highly influential pictures released in this time period, which would dramatically change the concept and subject of film for future audiences. This film reflects upon the upheaval of the swinging sixties, satirizing the upper middle classes as corrupt and ignorant  but also embodying the sense of experimentation and psychedelia that is of course associated with its time.

Graduate's narrative plays with a number of binary oppositions, most potently between youth and age, innocence and experience. This is embodied perfectly by Elaine Robinson and her mother Mrs Robinson, and conflicted by Ben's somewhat incestuous relationship with both. It has been argued that this stark generational juxtaposition represents the collapse of the old Hollywood studio system and its subsequent metamorphosis into a more youthful system, an aforementioned revolution which changed Western cinema indelibly.

Cinematography here elevates Graduate to a higher platform, with the pool scenes accentuating Ben's listlessness and disorientation with corporate life as he lazes around on a lilo. In one of the opening scenes Ben is shot close up against his fish tank, appearing submerged amidst the fish. These water references throughout the film are perhaps connotative of the protagonist's chaotic and isolated mindset throughout. Moreover the garish burst of 60s colour, incepted from the first meeting with devilish Mrs Robinson, is expressive of Ben's submersion into a more radical, dangerous way of life. Framing throughout the film is experimental and quirky, shots are pushing boundaries constantly, such as a shot from inbetween Mrs Robinson's legs. What this adds to the look of the piece is a dynamic aesthetic, maintaining the audience's interest but also applying a subjective and suggestive character to the camera which often results in humour.

Finally, what I feel wraps this work up, is of course the chilling soundtrack produced by Simon & Garfunkel. You'll have no doubt heard the unintentionally iconic 'Mrs Robinson', referring to the film's character of the same name, but it is 'The Sound of Silence' with its bittersweet, ethereal acoustics which is the film's motif and masterpiece.

The Graduate closes on this shot, at once absurdly humorous and bleak, which I feel completely encapsulates the randomness, uncertainty and turbulence of both the film and its contemporaries.

Total Recall: Schwarzenegger

With Total Recall's release this month it seems appropriate to reflect on the original 1990 blockbuster. Starring none other than the iconic Austrian bodybuilder-come-actor-come-politician Arnie Schwarzenegger, and directed by Paul Verhoeven (Robocop) this is not a nineties disaster.

The plot does a bit of a Shutter Island on the viewers ass, with ideas of the fragility and subjectivity of memory and dreaming screwing with your mind to the extent you feel as paranoid as its protagonist. Set in a vision of the distant future, the sci-fi narrative centralizes Douglas Quaid as a dude who gets 'more than he bargains for' when he seeks artificial holiday memories. It's hard to explain without confusing everyone involved, but basically Quaid discovers (or does he?) that his entire reality is an implanted memory (or is it?) and that he was originally a spy seeking to undermine the corrupt government (or is he?).





What's great about Recall is its collaboration of a sci-fi/action genre with humour and a clever plot that doesn't seem to exist in films these days - you either have the mind-blowing, but let's face it, comically serious Inception style films or a flat out comedy.

Total Recall is, surprisingly, extremely violent. Originally X-rated due to this, but with grizzly bits cut out to slim it down to an 18, it's darkly and shockingly brutal throughout. What makes this possibly more disturbing is the use of miniature effects rather than CGI. In undoubtedly the most impressive effects committed to screen without computer animation, solely sets, robots and miniatures were used. This creates especially eccentric aesthetics when, most memorably perhaps, peoples eyeballs explode due to exposure to Mars' atmosphere. The look of the film is brilliantly wacky in general, with a plethora of weird and wonderful characters - from mutants, to siamese twins to women with three boobs.

Moreover, Schwarzenegger surprises by bringing emotion to his stereotypically robotic acting palette, delivering numerous one liners in an effortless zeal which reflects the cheesy but self-mocking tone of the new Expendables in which he stars.

"If one more person tells me they'll 'be back'...!"

And with the majority of the film set on Mars, what could be more of a suitable time to remake this bizarre classic than in 2012, with Curiosity pumping Will.I.Am tunes into space?




Coming soon: Total Recall: Farrell

BRAVE

Disney/Pixar's newest instalment, Brave fiercely continues the legacy of witty, not-just-for-kids films with prominently superior animation.

Brave evokes Britain's ethereal Celtic past, with ancient runes, barehanded battles with bears, and a hell of a lot of red heads dominating its insular world. We also get the indistinguishable sense of the Scottish that evokes such films as Braveheart and Highlander, where haggis, kilts and bagpipes are never amiss, as well as that rapturous, heart-tugging music that beautifully encapsulates the wilderness and promise of the highlands. And what's a Scottish film without Billy Connolly?

Sumptuous is an adjective that is thrown around critically concerning a film's look, but this Brave is. The juxtaposition between Merida's fiery corkscrewed mop and the verdant greens of the rugged Scottish landscape is visually arresting on its own. Attention to detail has reached such acute levels with the animation on this project, with backgrounds and settings intricately composed, and the textures and movements of its characters - from people to horses, dogs and bears -are authentic and striking.

The story of Brave itself is truly a breath of fresh air, particularly for a film whose ancestry lies in Disney 'Princess' realms. I've read criticisms of the film for being predictable, un-engaging and not as good as vintage Pixar.

In terms of predictability, Brave is anything but. I went to see the film with a completely (unsettlingly, perhaps?) open mind because I wasn't sure what it was going to be about. All I could guess from the posters was a red-haired girl that shows...bravery? I don't want to give anything away because the main plot point unfolds midway through the film, but basically Merida (Kelly MacDonald) is our female protagonist who is told forcefully by her mother (Emma Thompson) that she must follow tradition and choose a suitor in order to stabilise her kingdom. Merida, ever the teenager, wants to be free to choose her own identity. This clash of parent-child - and particularly Mother-daughter - relationship is rarely central to a film's narrative; it is here. There's no Disney Princess-esque romance present. Thematically Brave's focus is on identity and destiny that both reflects its protagonist's diegesis and that of its creators: Pixar. Brave seems a statement of mixed compromise and independence from the genre stereotypes of the Disney machine.

In terms of being un-engaging I don't think the film or its makers should apologise for Bravely breaking convention. I found it very engaging! I was completely convinced by Merida and her mother's frustrating relationship; it was funny throughout, with plenty of underneath-the-kilt gags and the three miniature triplets are delectable; the plot was also alive enough to surprise.

In terms of not being up to Pixar standard, this is subjective but I have three words for you: Cars? Cars 2?

Glorified Bob the Builder?

What's more, in terms of the 'Disney Princess' cliche honestly I can't see a wisp here for feminists to complain about. This film is a feminist's dream. It's the best thing since we got to wear trousers, or even vote. (jk) As with great satire, Brave undermines the Disney Princess archetype from the inside-out. Yes, Merida is a Princess. Yes, Disney is the parent company of Brave's producer, Pixar. But this is where the similiarities end. This chick loves riding around bareback on her shire horse through the Scottish highlands, shooting arrows at impossible homemade targets and abseiling pitchy waterfalls.

 

There are a couple of sweet moments such as when the scottish lass decides she is going to compete in the contest for her hand in marriage, burying the suitors at an archery contest. Beforehand, she literally rips the constraints of her maiden's dress (accompanied undoubtably by cheers and ker-chings from women across the land) --- what better symbol for breaking the seeming necessity for a female protagonist to find romance in a film? Especially when Disney Princesses are all, what, sixteen? Should you be getting married Ariel I'm-sixteen-years-old-I'm-not-a-child the Little Mermaid? Disney neglected to mention that after her ride into the sunset she featured on sixteen and pregnant.

Without wanting to sound preachy this shouldn't be the example young and impressionable (!) children are being bombarded with. Brave's heroine Merida is more what I think youngsters should be like - feisty, opinionated and pro-active.


So, do I give Pixar's latest a double thumbs up? Och, yes.

P.S. The notorious Pixar short before the movie is SO CUTE

P.P.S. If you found this interesting click here for a review which I found very helpful in reflecting on Brave.

50 Shades of Suggestions

Whether you haven't read it, think it's written like someone faceplanted on a keyboard, or think the concept's creepy, E. L. James couldn't give less of a toss because 50 Shades of Grey is the fastest selling book on record.

Accordingly, Hollywood spots an unmissable green print for making money via movie adaptation. And everyone's in a furor.

Will Spielberg direct? Tarantino? If only Hitchcock was still around!

No.

For some inexplicable reason Bret Easton Ellis, author of American Psycho, didn't want to write the script.

More importantly, of course, is the lineup for who will play Christian Grey, the BDSM-fanatic/attractive millionare main man. So far Ryan Gosling is at the very pinnacle of the salivatory list, and I have to say that he might actually pull the role off. As we've seen in The Notebook and Half Nelson Gossers can play tortured very, very well. And I happened to notice he's not bad to look at.

 

 

Michael Fassbender, Robert Pattinson, Alexander Skaarsgard (Eric in True Blood) and Henry Cavill (Immortals) are other actors who have been tipped as suitable for the role.

As for taking the position of the first person narrator and central female in the book, Ana Steele, a wealth of actresses have been suggested. This includes: Mila Kunis, Amanda Seyfried, Alexis Bledel (Gilmore Girls), Anne Hathaway, Emma Watson and Michelle Trachenberg (Euro Trip, Buffy the Vampire Slayer), among others.

Finally Kim Cattrall (Sex and the City) has been foregrounded to play kinky cougar - so, pretty much Samantha Jones? - and Christian's former love.

 

What do you think? Who would play who best? Do we care? Frankly, I haven't been this excited for a film since at least yesterday.

ted

Ted is a hilarious film about the battle for supremacy between boy and man. If you live under a rock and haven't seen this advertised, you may not know that the film centres around the miracle of a boy's teddy bear coming to life, only for it to become awkward when he becomes an adult (Mark Wahlberg).

Notably starring, written and directed by Seth MacFarlane of "PEETAA" Griffen recognition, the distinct Family Guy style is moulded by the comedic genius into feature film format here. We have the same outrageous comedy, obscure cultural references, cheesy subjective sequences (there's a scene where John meets his childhood hero Flash Gordon, and the windmachines are out); MacFarlene even includes a Peter Griffen v.s. Giant Chicken-style bust up in there. But I must say there's something about an animated teddy bear beating the shit out of a fully grown man in live action that goes very much beyond that in hilarity.

The "FUCK YOU, THUNDER!" song

Yes, we have the hallmark crude humour - understatement? - consisting of the usual sex jokes, your-wife sex jokes (if you've seen it you'll know what I mean ;) ), farting, racial 'banter' (there are Jew related gags crawling out of the proverbial woodwork), more farting, and even excrement makes an appearance. Even excrement. As with Family Guy, the film is pretty homosocial, with the bond between Ted and Jon reaching an almost 'bro's before hoes' status, but Mila Kunis (FWB, Black Swan) does well to steer this in a more healthy direction.

Giggity Gig?

I was very impressed with Ted's CGI - the way Ted moves, cuddles, walks just looks like he's a real life walking/talking cuddly bear, and the transition sequences when he metamorphoses from toy to magical talking toy is done seamlessly without any evidence of a change of digital state.

In terms of plot-work there's nothing groundbreaking here, but that's not what Ted is about. This is a facetious, viscerally entertaining piece by Seth MacFarlane, which can stand deservedly next to comedy hotshots like The Inbetweeners Movie and The Hangover.

Let's just say it had me in stitches. I'm not even sorry about the pun.