Edward Norton and Kevin Spacey are without a doubt two of my favourite actors. So, I thought it might be interesting to pit their films against each other and see who really is the king of the silver screen. I'll be doing a part by part series of either a Norton or Spacey film for the next few weeks starting this week with Academy Award winning American Beauty.
This film came out in 1999 when I was all of about five years old. I remember seeing it at the video store and in my little five year old brain thinking that it was some documentary about beauty pageants or something. Well...it wasn't. I watched it for the first time twelve years later in 2011 when I selected it to be one of my film studies for my English scholarship exam. Needless to say, I was completely blown away by the complexity of it, the social commentary, the phenomenal camera work and of course, the stellar performances by Annette Benning, Thora Birch, Meena Suvari, Wes Bentley and most of all, Kevin Spacey.
by Daniela Studio: Walt Disney Pictures Release Date: March 13 2015
Disney has started having a knack for taking their classic tales and creating live-action retellings. Earlier this year we had Maleficent, a retelling of Sleeping Beauty from the perspective of the villain, and we also have future projects like The Jungle Book on the horizon. If we take Maleficent as an example, the main issue that a lot of Disney fans took from it was its disregard for a lot of the "source" material (the 1959 animated film) and completely rewriting a lot of what we already knew. So, is it a good idea for Disney to reimagine the story of one of the most iconic princesses?
It's really no surprise that Disney has decided to Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo around with the story of Cinderella. Aside from their animated film from 1950, there have been many adaptations of this Grimm tale. One that I hold close to my heart is the Rodgers and Hammerstein's versions, this includes the Broadway show and the Brandy TV special. I grew up with In My Own Little Corner and Ten Minutes Ago was one of the first songs I learned on the ukulele. With all these different adaptations of one classic fairytale, it does make me wonder how far away Disney is willing to veer away from their version of the story of which they established.
by Justine
As I delve deeper into the Tarantino sphere I find myself watching the strangest, craziest films in existence. One such film is vampire cult classic, From Dusk Till Dawn. While Mr. Quentin Tarantino both wrote the screenplay and starred in the film, he did not in fact direct it. It was directed by Robert Rodriguez. You may be wondering why the name of this film sounds familiar. It's probably because Robert Rodriguez has decided to remake the classic into a TV series by the same name which aired this year. Admittedly, that's how I heard about the film in the first place.
This isn't your typical complex storyline, genius art that we normally see from Tarantino. In fact, it may be the complete opposite. While the dialogue certainly has that Tarantino-esque flavour to it the actual plot of the film is very much "let's slay some vampires". It's frequently labelled a B grade film and for good reason. It's sloppy in terms of storytelling. There's no character development (unless you count Kate becoming a badass) and there seems little purpose to it at all.
The film stars George Clooney (I know right...) as recent prison escapee Seth Gecko who along with his unnecessarily violent and rape-y brother Richie (played by Tarantino) robs a bank and tries to make it across the border into Mexico with the help of a travelling pastor (Harvey Keitel) and his two children. All appears to be going well until the Gecko brothers are instructed to meet drug lord Carlos with their money at a nude bar called "The Titty Twister", tasteful, I know. Unbeknownst to the brothers, the bar is actually a haven for endless blood-thirsty vampires who feast on the truckers and bikers that wander in. The second half of the film is predominantly staking and killing vampires. And no, not the sparkly, Edward Cullen kind, I'm talking grotesque, horrific THINGS. I don't know if it's just me but somehow I feel like that's how vampires are supposed to look.
The most iconic scene, and perhaps the films only redeeming quality, is Santánico's snake dance. She's played by a very scantily clad Salma Hayek who dances with a snake wrapped around her neck. She saunters over to an awestruck Richie Gecko and does the whole "I'm going to pour whiskey into your mouth using my foot" thing. Not quite sure what that's about but other than Clooney's "Be cool" line, it's probably the most memorable moment in the film. I'm not going to post a clip here but you'll find it on YouTube no doubt.
I have a few questions regarding this film:
1. Why, when writing the script for a character you are playing, would you make him a violent rapist? I know Tarantino's twisted and everything but yikes.
2. Why does no-one explain why Richie is so psychotic? Fortunately, this is something that is explored in the TV series so kudos to Mr. Rodriguez.
3. Why are the vampires so easy to kill? Now I'm not saying they didn't put up a fight but Seth pretty much dropped a chandelier on Santántico and boom, dead.
Rodriguez sort of has a second chance with the TV series. From what I've seen of it so far, it certainly takes its time around character development and backstory which I think is incredibly important. If drawn out and re-written properly plot-wise, I think this film could have some real, solid, material. However, as it stands, the film doesn't seem particularly impressive or special to me.
If you're not easily offended by violence and nudity then I'd check it out but it's definitely not a must-see. In fact, if you're going to watch anything, I'd watch the TV series. I've only seen two episodes thus far and it's already better than the film. No offence Tarantino! I still love you!
As the years go on, the quality of movies seem to decline. When we look at iconic years like 1994 that produced world renowned classics like The Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction or even Forrest Gump, what we have begun to produce in the 20 years following seems trivial and completely unoriginal. I'm tired of being able to sit in a movie theatre and be able to predict the entire plot from start to finish based solely on the first five minutes (*cough cough* Pitch Perfect). We've all seen the oh-so-predictable girl meets boy, boy screws up, girl hates boy, boy redeems himself and boom, happily ever after. I am NOT a fan. I'm also not such a great believer in happy endings, somehow I feel that more realistic endings have a greater appeal.
Psychological thrillers are one of my favourite genres of film. Why? Because in order to totally mess with your mind, the writers actually have to sit and think of clever twists in the plot. They have to find a way to lure you into a false sense of security and then turn everything upside down. Admittedly, it has been a LONG time since Hollywood produced a good psychological thriller. Standouts for me have definitely been Primal Fear, Fight Club and of course the unforgettable Silence of the Lambs. It's pretty much impossible to dislike Anthony Hopkins. That being said, Hollywood finally decided to prove to itself, and the world, that they still have it in them to produce something original and hence, Gone Girl.
Now for those of you who are more sensitive viewers, there is a certain amount of nudity, sex and violence so be aware. If you're easily offended by this kind of thing, you're probably not going to want to watch this.
I went to see this film in the theatre with my family. I had high expectations given the hype surrounding it and the fact that David Fincher was the director, myself being an unaware fan of his work (Fight Club (duh!), Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - all of which I only recently discovered her directed). Given my experience with Fight Club I was expecting some kind of crazy twist and the film did not disappoint. I'm going to try my very best here not to give away any spoilers!
On the night of the October 27th I was going mad. Why you may ask? Because I didn't realise that 1989 was going to be released on iTunes that night, the 28th was the official NZ release date. So I spent that night listening to the three tracks I already had on a loop to mentally prepare myself. But a few hours later, on the 28th, I woke up early and walked in the rain to go get my physical copy of the deluxe album. You see, I really wanted those Polaroids, bonus tracks and songwriting voice memos. Did I overreact? Probably. But here I am, having listened to the album for about a week, and ready to tell you dear reader, if it was all worth it.
The two year mark since Red has passed and Taylor Swift is back and ready to start the 1989 era. Which means it's time for me to put the fangirl glasses down (but keep my regular glasses on) and get ready for a new track-by-track review. Bear with me because I'm still figuring out how I like to do these. I like to rate the songs individually based on what I like and what they are like musically (instrumentation, rhythm etc.). Also, bear with me as it's hard to find unpitched versions of new songs.
1989 is Swift's first official pop album, no matter how much iTunes tries to label it as country. For some reason mine was categorised as Country & Folk... okay iTunes. It's a massive gamble for someone to switch genres but Taylor has been toeing that line between country and pop for a long time. If you take a look at Red (2012) there were still some elements of country with twangy guitars but the same record toyed with elements of dubstep. So I guess it was only natural for the official switchover to happen. But let's see if it paid off. Hold on tight people, it's a long one!
