Oh to be Great: Cinematography and Editing

Once again I feel the need to apologise for the delay. I've been enjoying the new uni life too much, writing essays and taking my first lot of assessments. I totally ran out of time. I should be writing an essay now, but I feel more inspired to write this.
Finally I present to you. Oh to be Great: Cinematography and Editing.

The importance of cinematography and editing in a film tends to be taken for granted because the audience is more interested in what's on screen and the story (which is fair enough). But, if you think about it, they are some of the most important things when it comes to a film.

The cinematography has to be right for a film to be great because it's what we see the story through. No camera means no film. There are different kinds of camera shots that can mean a wide range of things and if they don't work the audience can easily get confused, not understand what is happening or have an unintended reaction to the film. There are hundreds (maybe exaggerating, but there are loads) of shots, but the main ones are;

• Extreme Long Shot
• Long Shot
• Medium Shot
• Close Up
• Extreme Close Up

 

I won't go into all of them because I think you can guess what they look like. I will just mention the two shots that need to be right to make a film great. An extreme long shot tends to be used to establish where the film or scene is set. These can be some of the most beautiful shots you will ever see in a film. My favourite establishing shots come from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

I love these because they really show off the picturesque setting and they draw you into the scene.  If the establishing shot isn't right, then the audience won't know where the film is set. Great establishing shots leave the audience with a sense of familiarity because they know where they are in the film world. A close up is used to show a characters emotions. I tend to call it a reaction shot. These (in my mind) are extremely important when it comes to great films because they take you closer to the characters physically and emotionally. A film is there to entertain and provoke emotions. If you don't come out of a film feeling something, then the film has failed. Directors try to create certain emotions in audiences through close ups; someone crying makes you sad, someone laughing makes you happy etc. The master of this is Steven Spielberg. It's hard for me to explain so here is a video… It's long, but please watch at least 2 minutes into it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5W4RxGv4s Spielberg can manipulate an audience into feeling certain things. It slightly freaked me out at first because it's so simple and yet so effective. I now appreciate that it is an amazing technique that can really make you enjoy a film. 
The movement of a camera can make or break a film. Too much and an audience will be left feeling sea sick. Too little and an audience will get bored. The majority of big budget films will use mounted cameras to keep them still. The movement comes from turning (pan) and tilting the camera or in editing. Some films use hand held cameras and this can make a film good or bad. Cloverfield is one of the most renown films for using a hand held camera. I liked the use of a hand held camera because it made the film (if possible) more realistic. However, some people (my mum included) didn't like the film because it made them feel ill because there was too much movement. It comes down to personal taste.

Editing is also very important in making a great film because it's what links the separate shots and scenes in the narrative of a film and it's what keeps you interested in the film. Editing tends to be invisible ( We don't notice it), but there are some directors who use different techniques making it more noticeable.
Alfred Hitchcock, one of the most famous directors, produced one of my favourite pieces of editing in Psycho. In the exceedingly famous shower scene the shot of the shower drain dissolves to Marion's eye, while the camera zooms out, spinning in the same direction as the water was running to the drain. This is a beautiful piece of editing that was different for the time it was made.  I love this film and think the cinematography and editing really do make the film great.
Editing is really how we (the audience) are interested in a film. The faster the cuts (changes) between images, the more interested we are. This tends to be used in action/thriller films. The cut rate has to be right and keeping an audience interested is key to a great film. If they aren't interested, then the film isn't great.
However there is a shot that contains no editing that keeps the audience interested. This is the long take and my favourite example of this comes from Atonement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXTnRdMdZXA With these kinds of shots, you only really have one chance to shot it because it takes a long time to reset it all. They're rare and that's what makes them so amazing and wonderful. These can make a film. Atonement is now famous for this long take and it is a great scene.

So,  in terms of cinematography and editing, this is what makes a great film for me. Next up Sound and possibly a review of Skyfall (Depends on whether I can get to see it again :D).

Oh to be Great

My friend Kat recently asked me to answer some questions for her new website (she wants to be a journalist). One of these questions was, 'What makes a movie good for you?' and it got me thinking. Not one thing makes a movie great, but there tends to be one good thing in a film, in my opinion. I very rarely hate a film. So I thought that I would look into what makes a film great or bad (for me). This will be broken down into separate sections because this would turn in to an extremely long post because I can get very excited when writing about films in this way. I'll try not to go into full analysis mode because that could bore you, but I apologise if I do.
First port of call will be Cinematography and editing, so look out for it.
If you'd be so nice as to look at my friend's website I'd be much obliged: http://thebrokenbiscuitcompany.weebly.com/index.html

That's all for now :)

Sorry!

I would like to apologise for the long delay in posting. It's been a hectic few weeks preparing and moving into uni. After this week, I will hopefully be able to get on and continue writing for you.
Sorry :)

The Disney Princess Opinion

With the release of a new Disney (teamed with Pixar) Princess film Brave I thought I would talk about the Disney Princess films. Over the decades there has been a lot of criticism thrown towards these films. These criticisms mainly concern the 'unrealistic' portrayal of love and relationships, and the representation of women. I explored part of this in my A Level Media Studies coursework and I found it to be a really interesting subject to delve into, especially as I watched and adored them when I was a little girl.  People tend to find that they form very strong opinions concerning these subjects and I thought I would point out the issues and put forward my opinion, so that you can form your own.

Disney's apparent 'unrealistic' portrayal of love and relationships has left parents questioning whether they should let their children watch the films.  Personally, I am in love with the idea of true love, soul mates, the happily-ever-after and I think it stems from my viewings of the Disney Princess films. They promote these ideas about relationships to little girls and in a way I think that these little girls (me included) always hope for it. Who wouldn't? The perfect relationship. However, I'm also a pessimist and I find it hard to believe that everyone will have a happily ever after and meet their true love. Your soul mate could have already found someone they're happy with and the divorce rates don't exactly help the idea of true love. But, that doesn't stop me hoping. I'm an optimistic pessimist. I know that some parents don't let their children watch the Disney princess films because they don't want them to have false expectations about love. I would happily let my children watch the films because I know that (as my mum did) you can educate them yourselves about relationships.

I will admit that women on a whole aren't represented very well in the Disney Princess films. They're always slim, beautiful and have no flaws. Up until Pocahontas the Princess were all white with blonde/brunette hair. Even when Disney diversified, the women were still unrealistically beautiful. It leaves the little girls aspiring to look like them. There are reasons for why women were represented in this way. First of which is they were originally constructed by men to appeal to men. This explains the low cut dresses and flawless beauty.  The animators had to base the images of the princesses on real people and they found the easiest people were ballerina's. This explains the original images of Snow White; Slim and elegant.
All of the princesses are vain. I think the majority of them look in the mirror to make sure they are presentable for the 'prince.' This implies that to the little girls that they need to look perfect to impress a man. The evil villains tend to want to stop/kill/imprison the princesses because of their beauty. The films are obsessed with the idea of beauty. There are only two instances that I can think of off the top of my head where Disney suggests that beauty isn't about image, but about what is on the inside. This can be seen in Cinderella II (Die-hard Disney fan here) with the ugly sisters and the Princess and the Frog. I think the Princess and the Frog is a great example because the prince falls in love with the frog version of Tiana rather than the beautiful human version.
All of the princesses are domesticated, even the most recent, Rapunzel (sorry I haven't seen Brave yet...out next week). They all clean and cook. You never see men doing the chores. If you take these films by when they were made, then it can be seen as a fair and realistic representation. But, Rapunzel was released in 2010 and this isn't a fair or realistic representation now. Women are more equal to men and men have started doing more chores. I know women who don't cook. Their husbands do it for them.
However, the Princess are changing. They have become more independent and less girly. The earlier princesses waited for their Prince Charming's to save them from their dreadful fates. Where as, Pocahontas refuses to marry her father's choice and Mulan runs away from home to join the army as a man to save her father. They have also become less interested in domestication and more interested in reading and playing chess.

Even after all of these points which are valid and they do disturb me slightly, I still love these films. They were the best films of my childhood. Every little girl wants to feel like a princess and these films make you feel like this.  You have to take these films with a pinch of salt and take into account when they were made. They are wonderful films and you can see that Disney are trying to change their representations of women. Brave looks really good, an independent, strong princess who can kick butt for little girls look up to (It's about time). I can't wait to see it and I hope it's everything they promised. Now I leave you to make your own verdict.

3D: You Either Love It Or Hate It

3D, the newest craze in the film industry. I neither love it or hate it. I know many people who are fascinated with 3D. They will go and see 3D versions of films and will complain when films aren't in 3D. However, I also know twice as many people who don't like 3D and I understand why.
The first 3D film I saw was Spy Kids 3-D. As a child this was one of the most amazing films ever. You got to wear the retro glasses and objects came flying out at you, making you jump. This is what I loved about 3D. It was great before it became all stylised and techno-dependent. I will also admit to liking Avatar in 3D and that was the main reason I wanted to go and see the film. In 2009 we were drawn to the cinema to see Avatar because of the 3D and I feel that if it hadn't been in 3D, it may not have had as large a box office takings as it does.
However, now I feel that 3D is being over used and in the wrong kinds of films. Avatar, for example, was just as good in 2D. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger's Tides was better in 2D for me because I found it really hard to concentrate on certain action scenes when it was in the 3D format. This goes for the majority of live action films. I still enjoy seeing animations in 3D, but once again they're just as good in 2D. You can obviously tell when watching a 2D film that it was made for 3D, but that doesn't take anything away from the film.
3D has become a gimmick to make money in my opinion. Cinema prices shot up when 3D was introduced to pay for the new equipment that they needed to play the films, but after 3 years these prices either haven't change by much or have risen. You have to pay extra for the glasses and the luxury of seeing the film in 3D. The price for a 2D ticket alone is ridiculous for an adult, but then add the 3D charges on top and your spending a small fortune, especially in a recession. As I said in a previous post, the film industry is there to make money by entertaining us and this seems to work, but at a small, extra price(A large one if you have a big family).
Recently James Cameron re-released Titanic in 3D for the 100th anniversary of the ship's sinking and I don't agree with this. The film was perfect in 2D and it would have made just as much money in the re-release if it was left like this. I don't understand what 3D adds to a film like that...a little bit of depth, but that's all. The film wasn't made to be in 3D.
This doesn't apply to everyone, but the glasses do annoy me. I have to wear glasses to the cinema anyway and it's not comfortable wearing two pairs of glasses and frankly you look like a bit of an idiot. I think this puts of many people because they cant wear the two pairs of glasses. I think if they really want 3D to catch on they need to do something about this. Today, I went to see Ice Age: Continental Drift and my friend and I had chosen to see it in 2D. The screening before ours was in 3D and our film was 30 minutes late because they seemed to be having problems with the screen after the 3D showing. This is another issue they need to sort out if they really want the craze to catch on.
Overall, I do enjoy 3D films to a certain extent, but I believe that it is being over used and should be kept to certain genres of films because it's hard to watch certain films in 3D and it isn't always necessary.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I have been looking forward to this moment for four years and it did not fail to impress. I was seriously expecting The Dark Knight Rises to be nothing compared to The Dark Knight, but it was just as good. The Dark Knight Rises is set years after the previous film. Bruce Wayne has become a recluse, but he must come out of hiding when Bane threatens to rip Gotham City apart.
Note: I do not recommend reading this without seeing the film.

In my opinion it's the characters that really make this film great. The film contains the usual characters Bruce Wayne a.k.a Batman (Christian Bale), Alfred (Michael Caine), James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). But, it also boasts some new characters, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Selina Kyle a.k.a Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), Bane (Tom Hardy) and Miranda Tate a.k.a Talia al Ghul (Marion Cotillard).
Bruce Wayne has in some ways gone back to Batman Begins. He is no longer Batman, so lives a life in the shadows. He refuses to see anyone and his company is falling apart. But, when he goes back to being Batman he sees only two options; Kill Bane or die doing it. I liked this version of Batman because he started to fear death and seemed more relatable. I also liked the fact that some characters had guessed that Wayne was Batman and that others were told. It was nice ending. Taking off the mask as it were.
Wayne has many father figures in his life and I like the fact that you see a part of all of them acting like one. Alfred disappeared for a large chunk of the film and I seriously missed him. Batman isn't the same without Alfred. He couldn't watch Wayne destroy himself because he wanted him to have a life and a family. James Gordon, now Commissioner was struggling with the lies he had told about Harvey Dent and I felt really bad for him because he had lost everything because of those lies. I like his character because he will stop at nothing to rid the city of crime, but he needs the help of Batman and he believes entirely in him. Lucius Fox looks after Wayne's company in his absence and he continues to gather weapons/tools to aid Batman. He will do anything to help Wayne and this is why I like him. They're all loyal to Bruce Wayne and believe in Batman.
John Blake is an everyday police officer that rises up the ranks dramatically to detective during the conflict with Bane. I really liked that he had a similar but less privileged past to Wayne and that he knew that Wayne was Batman. The twist at the end made everything better, when you discover his real name is Robin. It leaves Christopher Nolan with a chance to do a sequel (Please :'( ).
Selina Kyle is a new character in Nolan's trilogy, but she had to compete with Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. There was no competition really because they were different. In this film, she was stealing from the rich because there were so many in need in Gotham City. A twisted Robin Hood. I liked her because she didn't even know what she wanted and when it came down to it, she wanted to help rather than run. I also liked that she was never referred to as Catwoman in the film and that her goggles were cats ears when on her head.
Right, Bane...I have mixed opinions about Bane. I liked him and thought he was a good villain. He looked amazing, I hardly recognised Tom Hardy. He looked an awful lot better than the Bane in Batman & Robin (1997). He was different kind of villain to the Joker. I do prefer the Joker, but Bane was one of the better Batman villains. However, I found him really hard to understand at times and that was a bit off putting.
Miranda Tate is at first the love interest of Bruce Wayne and I liked that I was never sure if she knew that he's Batman or not. I thought that her being the true villain behind Bane and being Ra's al Ghul's daughter were great twists. I had heard about her being his daughter at the beginning of the production, but I dismissed it. I also liked that her and Bane seemed to be in love. It made Bane seem more human rather than beast.
I have to mention the little appearance made by Jonathan Crane a.k.a The Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) because it made me giggle because he was the judge and jury against the privileged members of Gotham's society.

There is a lot I can say about the setting because it's exactly the same as the other films and it's New York City renamed as Gotham City. I love that it is used in Banes plan as he cuts off a large part of the city. I also liked that it was set during the day for the majority of the film because it was like the Batman was rising from the ashes and he couldn't hide in the dark anyway due to Bane's ability to see the him in the dark. I also liked Batman's new form of transport, The Bat. Batman was flying.

I really enjoyed the narrative because it was full of twists and turns that you do not entirely expect. Which is always good when it comes to watching a film that is nearly three hours long. However, it is really worth sitting through it. I liked that in a way the film had gone in a full circle because it was similar to Batman Begins. I also liked that the Nolan brothers had kept close to the comics by having Bane break Batmans back. The ending is slightly predictable, but it is great all the same. I walked out of the cinema and would have happily sat and watched it again straight away. I don't want to say a lot because I find it hard to describe. I read a review in a paper that said the film took too long to get into the action, but I felt that it was good because if you had just lost the woman you love and turned a city against yourself, it'd take some time to get back into the game. Plus, you really follow Bruce Wayne's journey. I really enjoyed it.

It is rare for me to leave a film with a massive grin and this film is still making me smile just thinking about it. It was a great ending to a great trilogy. I applaud Nolan on breaking the bad sequel issue. He is a great writer and director making these films great. I am really sad that it's over, but I will always have hope for another Nolan Batman. It will never be the same again. I'd like to see someone try and top these films. Good Luck.

Top 10 Greatest Villains

I was thinking about my favourite villains the other day and I found it really hard. I started off with my favourite films, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) and was sat there thinking the villains aren't massively amazing in the films. So, it got me thinking who my top 10 greatest villains.
I would like to point out these are my greatest villains from the films I have seen. You may have different ideas.

10. T-Rex Jurassic Park (1993)
Ok, it's not the greatest villain ever, or a person, but he is scary. He's a dinosaur with massive teeth. I put him on my list because as a child I refused to watch it because I was so scared of the T-Rex.

9. Loki Thor (2011) and Avengers Assemble (2012)
I felt obliged to include Loki because I love his character. I think he's a good villain because you understand his motives.

8. Scar The Lion King (1994)
He kills his own brother, makes his nephew watch and will stop at nothing to hold onto the throne of Pride Rock, including the attempted killing of his nephew. He's evil.

7. The Evil Queen Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Her motives explain why she's on my list. She wants to kill an innocent girl just because a mirror has told her that she is more beautiful than her.

6. Alex DeLarge A Clockwork Orange (1971)
The boy enjoys drinking drugged milk, brutal violence and sexual assault. Enough said.

5. Norman Bates Psycho (1960)
Not only does he kill his own mother, but he proceeds to dress up in her clothes and kill other women and this is all because he hates women. Plus, he made my friend scream like a little girl.

4. Agent Smith Matrix Trilogy (1999-2003)
The computer system that loathes humans and will stop at nothing to leave the Matrix (He hates the smell). He is an unfair fighter as he creates multiple versions of himself and to stop one man and this is why I have included him.

3. Darth Vader Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (1977-1983)
The bringer of the Emperor's wrath, the man who can kill with a look and his determination to corrupt his own son get him on my list and into spot number 3. (He is also slightly cool)

2. Amon Goeth Schindler's List (1993)
His character I believe is the definition of evil. His emotionless, cold and callous attitude to the inmates of the camp and his enjoyment at shooting them and their suffering make him truly evil.

1. The Joker The Dark Knight (2008)
I really like the Joker and I feel he is the greatest Batman villain, if not the greatest villain of all time (so far). He is different because he has no plans for world domination, revenge or personal game. He just enjoys playing his little game with Batman and killing others. He enjoys the idea of the world burning and him and Batman the only two left in an endless battle. He is a great villain and it will be hard to top him (Good Luck Bane).

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

Snow White and the Huntsman is the second film to be released this year based on the Brother's Grimm fairytale. This version is classed as a twisted fairytale and is very unlike the images I have seen for Mirror Mirror (2012). When the Huntsman is ordered to kill Snow White, he instead becomes her protector and mentor in her quest to defeat the Evil Queen.

Snow White is packed full with stars and is one of the best parts of the film.
I wasn't expecting a lot from Kristen Stewart as Snow White because I was basing her performance as an actress on Twilight (I do not like Twilight). However, I was surprised because she was quite good. Unlike the other versions, Snow White wasn't waiting for her one true love to come and rescue her. Instead, she took an active role in her liberation.
Chris Hemsworth plays the rugged, drunk Huntsman and I thought he was really good because he was just as good as the Knights and I wanted to give him a hug because he has had a hard life (As you've probably gathered I want to give many characters hugs). I also liked the fact that he featured more in this version of the story because you understand why he lets Snow White go. Plus, he's a bit of eye candy for the ladies.
The 'prince' (he's not really a prince), Snow White's childhood friend, William is played by Sam Claflin. The first film I saw Claflin in was Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger's Tides and I thought he was good, but I think he's better in Snow White because he's more, use a bow and arrow and less preachy. He was more active in Snow White. I also found his character slightly adorable because he felt awful for leaving Snow White behind and he's obviously in love with her.
Personally I think one of the best scenes is when the dwarfs are introduced. Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Toby Jones, Johnny Harris, Eddie Marsan and Brian Gleeson play the most amazing dwarfs I have ever seen (minus Gimli). The dwarfs are great because they are grumpy, caring and very handy to have in a fight. They can also sing and dance. They are also great because as you slowly realise who is playing the dwarfs, you sit in a state of 'Oh my God,' and 'that's epic.' My favourite dwarf is Gus (Brian Gleeson) because he is so happy and lovely.
Chalize Theron plays the evil Queen, Ravenna and I love this take on the character because she wasn't just vain. the obsession ran deeper. I also thought the idea that it was men's obsession with female beauty cause her obsession was inspired. I also liked that we saw her use a range of cool powers.
Sam Spruell plays Ravenna's brother, Finn and he was also surprisingly good because he was really creepy. I was slightly disappointed that the cut across his face made by Snow White didn't leave a nasty scare. That would have added to his creepy personality.
Now, the magic mirror is no longer cheesy. There is no actors face pasted onto a mirror. Instead, it's a golden disc that melts and morphs into a caped man with no face (this is the best way I could describe it, sorry). I liked this because it was slightly scary as the queen was the only one who could see him.
I was annoyed by the changing accents of Kristen Stewart and Chris Hemsworth because they weren't necessary in the first place.

I had expectations of the settings in Snow White from the posters. Initially, I thought they had copied Alice in Wonderland (2010), but once again I was surprised.
It is no secret that I love the Disney princess films and I was happy to see that the Dark Forest looked exactly like the one in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. All of the dead, twisted trees made the forest that bit creepier. I also liked the idea that the forest played with your fears and the troll at the bridge because he looked like part of the forest.
The Fairy Sanctuary was amazing and I wish it was real. The tall trees, green grass and sunshine was a beautiful change to the dark, dull settings featured earlier in the film. The weird and wonderful plants added to its beauty. My particular favourite were the mushrooms with eyes.
The Castle was just how you would imagine an evil fairytale castle to be and I loved that it was surrounded by the sea because it made it seem impenetrable.

The story followed a similar layout to the previous versions of Snow White. All of the key scenes were there; Snow White escaping, the Huntsman being sent to kill her and failing to do so, Snow White biting the apple and a kiss waking her up. But the twists, in my opinion, made the story better. The Huntsman taking care of her makes more sense than the previous versions where he leaves her to wonder into a dangerous forest. My favourite twist was the Huntsman's kiss waking Snow White rather than the prince's (William) because it plays with your expectations.
However, I do have some issues with the story. My friends and I felt that the magic needed explaining more because you never understand it entirely. For example, you don't know why only the Queen can see the man in the mirror. I also feel that as an audience, we are left without closure and that is infuriating because you don't know who Snow White ends up with. The Huntsman or William? We can't expect closure either because it is very unlikely that a sequel will be made as they have killed the villain and left a happy-ish ending. My friends and I came up with multiple endings that would have left us feeling a bit happier because we would have had closure. But, alas it is too late.

Overall, I found the film to be a happy surprise and I quite enjoyed the twists and turns. I also enjoyed the humour because it was added at the right moments.

Lets Reboot the Remake

The film industry seems to go through phases of chucking out hundreds of rebooted or remade films. We are currently experiencing one of these phases. Spiderman, Total Recall, Robocop and superman
are just a few of the more recent films in the process of being remade/rebooted. But, why do this?
There are different answers to this question depending on whether the film is classed as a reboot or remake. So to answer the question you have to understand the difference between the two. I'm not trying to patronise you, but I know that lots of people don't know the difference and I didn't until a little while ago.
A reboot tends to involve a franchise like Batman, Star Trek, Superman and Spiderman. These are more common than remakes. Batman has undergone four reboots since 1989 and Star Trek has undergone three reboots.
A remake involves a single film like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Total Recall. You only ever really see one remake. It seems silly to remake a remake.

So, back to the question...Why do they do this? Reboots tend to be made due to demand. I love the fact that if, as an audience, we moan enough we can get a film rebooted. Remakes tend to be made for two reasons, the first being out of love. A producer/director might want to make it because they loved the original and wanted to see what they could do with it. These types of remakes never really live up to expectations. The other reason could be because the original was awful and a producer/directer thinks they can do better. The main underlining reason for reboots and remakes is money. The film industry is here to make money by entertaining us. If they find something that works, they will keep making it until it stops working. The film industry in a nutshell. (Independent films are the exception to the rule)

There is a case where I feel that a film has been falsely branded a remake. The large majority of people who saw the 2003 film The Italian Job thought it was bad because it wasn't as good as the original and I agree. It's nothing compared to the 1969 Italian Job, but I don't see it as a remake. In the film they clearly state they're going to do the Italian job when their original plan fails. It's a film where the characters are inspired by a film.

There are also some cases where I don't believe films should be rebooted/remade. I recently read that Lionsgate had no immediate plans to reboot the Twilight franchise. This implies that they are thinking about it and it'll probably be sooner rather than later. I beg you not to do this, it's had its time and I wish to forget it (sorry Twihards). Let it fall into history.
While I'm begging, I ask that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings not be remade. They were truly wonderful films and nothing will ever match them, so don't try.

Image: The after and before shots of recent reboots/remakes.

(note: When 'twihards' is put into spellcheck it suggests twats and twits :D)

Avengers Assemble (2012)

...And it all leads to this. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye. One of the greatest superhero movies to date and probably of all time.

*Major Spoiler Alert* I recommend seeing the film before reading on.
When Loki and his alien army threaten to take over the world, Nick Fury and his tam of 'supers' must come together to save us from disaster.

We've met the characters before, but are they any different or better? I think so.
Captain America/Steve Rogers, leader of the Avengers didn't really leave a major impression on me as I found him forgettable. However, he has improved. He'd moved away from the sickly man to the empowered super soldier that he is supposed to be. He was more leader like and in control.
Iron Man/Tony Stark was his usual cocky self, but he underwent some character development. He went from being a self-obsessed genius to someone who would give his life to save others. Although this was somewhat predictable, I did like it. It made him more loveable. Beneath that metal suit is a mushy man.
Thor seemed to be going through a rough time, which made he a bit down. This could be due to the fact that he can't see his true love and his brother is trying to take over the world he loves (again). I just wanted give him a hug. He did have some great moments, godly moments.
You learn a lot about Black Widow in the Avengers. She hasn't always fought on the side of good, but she's trying to make up for it. You discover her weakness and that if you tried to hurt them she would go all kick-ass on you like in Iron Man 2.
Hawkeye encounters a few problems  in the film. It's a bad day for some when Loki takes over your mind and makes you kill people. You don't really see much of him in Thor, but in this you really see his skill set. Give the man a bow and arrow, and he could probably hit an apple on top of a moving vehicle, whilst abseiling down a building. I think he's awesome for a 'normal' person.
Loki, my favourite Avengers villain returns to reap some more havoc. He seems slightly like a stroppy child because he's not getting enough attention. I got the feeling that I didn't really know what was going on inside his head and i don't think he knows either. All you know is that he wants us to obey him. He looked ill and tired in the Avengers and this makes him seem more human. I also wanted to give him a hug.
Finally, the most impressive character of all, Bruce Banner a.k.a Hulk. The previous interpretations in my opinion weren't very good, but Mark Ruffalo's was brilliant. I liked the fact that Banner was portrayed as having accepted the fact that he had a 'problem' and that it didn't entirely rule his life. I also liked that he referred to the Hulk as The Other Guy. The CGI Hulk was also an improvement on the previous because he actually looked like Mark Ruffalo.  My favourite scene of the entire film involves him and you have to look out for it. the other Avengers have been fighting for a while and then he turns up. Best scene.

The majority of the Avenger's is set on Earth. The focus of the battle is New York and what I assume was the CGI destruction of the city was amazing. Although you knew it was CGI, it actually looked real, unlike the New York in Captain America. Stark Tower was an impressive looking building. I liked the fact that it was at the centre of the battle and it seemed to be practically untouched. There were only a few windows smashed. I also like the fact that the letter A(vengers) was the only one remaining from the Stark sign...coincidence I think not.
The sky ship has been used in previous films before (Sky Captain of the World), but this is the first that could really disappear. There could be one hovering over your house right now and you wouldn't know. I probably wouldn't go up there myself, but it is a good idea for a secret government agencies hideout.
Lastly, the most impressive 'set' of all was the alien home. It was really dark and mysterious. You couldn't see very much, but it looked like a place you wouldn't want to stay because it was stark and mountainous. It also looked like it was floating on clouds.

The narrative was slightly predictable, but great all the same. In terms of forming the Avengers it followed a similar structure to other films. At first all of the members don't get on and then someone (Loki) kills someone (Agent Coulson) that they all care about. So they form a team to defeat the murderer. I particularly liked this because Agent Coulson had been in all of the films so we were all emotionally attached to him and wanted them to avenge his death. It was truly a sad moment when he died. I had hoped that he wouldn't die :(
Obviously being a superhero film there had to be some fighting, but it wasn't just between the goodies and baddies. The battle between Iron Man, Thor and Captain America was both great and funny because neither one could get the upper hand and they ended up destroying more of the island than each other. The funniest fight was between Loki and Hulk. Loki states, 'I'm a God.' Hulk reacts in a Tom and Jerry fashion by bashing Loki back and forth into the floor.
As I've already said there are some funny scenes. A lot of the humour comes from the dialogue, but there are some scenes were the action makes you laugh. For example; just after the Hulk and Thor have defeated the flying whale things, Hulk punches Thor. I personally think that the humour is what makes the film great. A large part of the humour revolves around the 'bromance' formed between Bruce Banner and Tony Stark. They're perfect for each other. Two geniuses that are in love with each others scientific work.
The good thing about Avengers Assemble is that it answers all of the questions left over from the previous films. You discover what the cube is actually for and how Thor can return to Earth. You also find out what happened to Red Skull.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film and it definitely deserves to be the third highest grossing film of all time. I was amazing to have all the superheroes in one film and I hope there is more to come. Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 are due to be released next year and Captain America 2 the year after that.

Beautiful Blogger Awards



Until yesterday I had never heard of the Beautiful Blogger Awards and I'm amazed that I was even nominated. I wasn't expecting anyone to read my blog, I just wanted to write about my love of Film. I've only just started and I feel that I have a lot more to say. So, thank you for showing me that someone reads my blog.
Seven amazingly, probably mundane facts about me.

1. I have an evil name and there are stories behind the different choices that parents had. My name is Emily Rose Lindsay. Firstly, my dad is a gardener and ironically there is a rose named Emily. It's a peachy colour and it's rare. Secondly, having the last name Lindsay is not fun. Every two seconds someone calls me Lindsay and every time I have to correct them, 'No, that's my last name.' :P Plus, there are about six hundred (over exaggeration) spellings of Lindsay. It's the Scottish way. Not SEY, LYN. It's spelt properly. Final, my parents thought it would have been funny to call me Lynsey Lindsey Lindsay. Thank God they didn't.
2. I have hyper-mobile joints which means I'm more flexible that you normal people. It's not as severe as others, but I like to see it as I'm next step in evolution and it seems to have failed.
3. I'm a geek. I can quote some films and TV programmes word for word. I remember hundreds of facts about TV and film. Ask me a question and I can probably answer it. I have a t-shirt with a wookiee on it.
4. Apparently the worst thing I did was learn to talk (according to my mum). In our family it's known as verbal diarrhoea. I will talk and talk and talk. It annoys everyone and even me. I'm doing it right now in this blog post.
5. I have a fear of many things starting with the letter S. Steep Stairs, Spiders, Snakes and Sports I don't enjoy.
6. I have two cats, if that's what you can call them. Poppy, who is more like a dog and her sister Lily, who is grumpy. They're nearly 10 and they're both totally mad. I think we may have done something wrong.
7. I am quite tall for a girl. I'm 5ft 10 1/2inchs (the 1/2 counts) and I have six 9 feet.

Now for the my favourite blogs.
http://curiositything.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/beautiful-blogger-award.html This is the first lovely lady to nominate me. She writes a variety of blog posts that are funny, meaningful and brilliant.

http://thegirlwiththegreenumbrella.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/i-just-got-nominated-for-beautiful-blog.html This  is the second lovely lady to nominate me. She wants to be a journalist and this is her platform. She writes about life in general and she is one of my closest friends.

http://lightsoutwordsflow.blogspot.co.uk/ Although my friend hasn't written for a while I would like to nominate him because he is an amazing writer and deserves to be noticed. :)

http://highlyamusingurl.blogspot.co.uk/ I would also like to nominate this lovely lady. She's totally random when it comes to writing her blog and I can guarantee that you will enjoy reading her blog.

This is what to do now:

Put down seven facts about yourself,

Link to the blog of the person who nominated you,

Link to blogs who you think deserve the award,

Let these bloggers Know,

Simple as that.

Avengers Assemble: Captain America

I would like to apologise for the lateness of this blog post. I have exams to revise for and I got a new job. I blame the Avengers for coming out in the middle of my exams. I shall post this, but you may have to wait for my Avengers Assemble review.

///

The final avenger to be created for our viewing pleasure, but the first to assemble. Captain America: The First Avenger was released shortly after Thor in 2011.

Set during World War II, the film follows Steve Rogers transformation from a sickly man to super-soldier, Captain America. To aid the war effort Rogers must stop Adolf Hitler's head of weaponry, Red Skull and his attempts at world domination.

Unlike the other Avengers, Captain America is packed full with British stars. The first of which plays the strong and independent Peggy Carter. Hayley Atwell depicts the character having two sides; the caring woman and the strict British agent (to the surprise of the male characters). Dominic Cooper players super genius, Howard Star, the father of Tony Stark. They have very similar characteristics (cocky, big headed, rich and smart) and they actually look quite similar. Another British Star is Toby Jones who seems to pop up in lots of American films. The recent Hunger Games star, plays Dr. Amin Zola, Red Skull's kind-of sidekick. He doesn't seem very evil, but I personally get the feeling that without Red Skull he would have taken over the world.

Now onto the THE American. Captain America, Steve Rogers is played by Chris Evans. His character is very unlike the other avengers as he is shy, caring and quite. It seems like he doesn't believe what is happening to him and you want to give him a big hug. The only minor problem I have is that Chris Evan has already played a superhero (Human Torch in Fantastic Four) and I feel that there is a slight expectation that the two characters will be similar. But, as I said, only a minor problem. Finally the villain, Red Skull played by Hugo Weaving. There is no doubt that Red Skull is evil as he is the head of weaponry in Adolf Hitler's regime. I personally feel that the character is lacking something and I don't think he is evil enough.

There are both good and bad points in terms of the setting. I loved the fact it was set in Brooklyn during World War II because I love that era and city. I also liked the use of Flushing Meadows because it links nicely to Iron Man. The bad point was that Brooklyn didn't look very real. you could easily tell that it was CGI and it made it hard to focus on what was happening.

The narrative followed the similar superhero story. You see what Steve Rogers was like before and how he becomes Captain America. This part of the narrative I found really interesting because you could see why they needed him and what they do to him. To cut a long story short, Steve Rogers ends up fighting in the war where he meets Red Skull and has to defeat him. Out of all of the avengers film, I found this to be the most forgettable in terms of narrative. (Sorry Captain America fans)

As per usual there are links to the other films. The most obvious being Howard STARK as I mentioned earlier, but there are some more subtle links. When Red Skull grabs the cube, the world of Asgard appears in the air (I had to point this out to my brother on multiple occasions) and Nick Fury makes an appearance at the end.

Over all I did enjoy the film, but it didn't really stand out for me. I would happily sit down and watch it again and I will pay money to buy it, but I personally prefer Iron Man and Thor.



Avengers Assemble: Iron Man

With two of his own films, a third in the works and a superhero collaboration film, Iron Man is undoubtedly a popular avenger, if not the most popular. In 2008, Iron Man was introduced, closely followed by the sequel in 2010 and calls from comic book fans for an Avengers movie.
The Iron Man films follow genius Tony Stark, his technically advanced armoured suit and the problems he encounters with technology and those who wish to stop him.

Just like Thor, Iron Man stars some big names. Jeff Bridges and Mickey Rourke are just two from a long list. however, unlike Thor, a well known actor was cast to play leading man, Tony Stark and the armoured superhero, Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr played the cocky, big headed, playboy, genius to a tee and I can't imagine anyone else in the role. He's the kind of character you want to hate because he has everything (he's smart, good looking and has loads of money), but you can't help loving him. you want to be his friend and help him, especially in Iron Man 2. I love Robert Downey Jr in this film because he is both funny and serious. He likes to joke about. Two films means two villains, the first  being played by Jeff Bridges. Obadiah Stane is a character that you expect to be a villain because of the way he looks, with his shaved head, bushy beard and expensive suit. I personally hoped he wasn't evil, just out of love for Jeff Bridges. But, alas he couldn't be good and as the villain, I think he did quite well. The second villain, played by Mickey Rourke, is seriously pissed off Russian Ivan Vanko. Out of all the avenger villains he is my least favourite because he seems to annoy me. I don't know why, I just don't think he's a great villain. He is covered in tattoos and harnesses Iron Mans power in whip form. I must applaud Rourke on his Russian accent because it couldn't have been easy loosing the American and learning a new language in a short space of time. The women of Iron Man are great role models because they are independent, smart and strong. Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) must also be applauded for putting up with Tony Stark for so long. the best part about her character is seeing her interact with Stark. Her refusal to flirt back with Stark, gives you a reason to laugh at him because he doesn't get everything he wants. The multiple names S.H.E.I.L.D agent, Natasha Romanoff (Scarlettt Johansson) shows that women can kick any man's butt (women 1-0 men). I do have to quickly mention the director's cameo as Happy Hogan. Jon Favreau plays Strak's bumbling sidekick in a way. He is Strak's driver and without him he would be lost, especially at the race in Iron Man 2.
There's not a lot you can say about the setting of the Iron Man films as they are set in the real world. However, I like the use of Flushing Meadows for the Strak Expo and the role it plays in the narrative of Iron Man 2.
The majority of Iron Man is spent building and improving the suit, whilst kicking some evil butt along the way. You're practically taken step by step through the changes of the suit. The suit itself took me back to when i was a kid watching the animation. They look so similar. Improvements are made throughout the narrative of Iran Man 2 as well. Once again, just like Thor, there was comedy, action, sci-fi  and a little romance. the films seemed more real than the other avenger films because they were set in the real world and the stories seems more achievable. Maybe the Iron Man suit will exist in the future. If it does, I nominate Robert Downey Jr to control it.
There are obviously links to the other Avenger films. The S.H.E.I.L.D agent (Clark Gregg), Natasha Romanoff and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) are present. The Stark Expo is similar to the one held by Tony Stark's dad, Howard Stark in Captain America: The First Avenger.
Overall, I think the Iron Man films are my favourite avenger films because I like the character of Tony Stark and the way Robert Downey Jr plays him. I also like the relationships he has with Pepper Potts, Natasha Romanoff and Happy Hogan.

Avengers Assemble: Thor

Thor, son of Odin, Norse god of thunder and comic book hero came to screens near you in 2011. The film tells the story of Thor, a god exiled from his homeland of Asgard to Earth by his father Odin, King of Asgard. Whilst on Earth, Thor forms a relationship with Jane Foster. However, he must stop the person who threatens to destroy Earth, Asgard and the home of the Frost Giants, Jotunheim.

From Anthony Hopkins to Natalie Portman, Thor starred some big names. But, lead character Thor was played by a less established, Chris Hemsworth. This lack of star typecasting made his character more relatable for the audience, than other superheroes. The cocky, big headed attitude and being brought down to Earth (literally in Thor's case) has been experienced by most people at some point in their lives. Thor is one of my favourite superheroes and in my opinion this has to be attributed to Hemsworth's performance. his cheeky smile, caring but, serious performance gave Thor's personality depth that doesn't tend to exist in superheroes. Where as Thor's brother, Loki, shows very little emotion which adds to your suspicions of which side he is on. Tom Hiddleston (Loki) creates a 'mask' to hide all of Loki's emotions behind. This can also be seen in Anthony Hopkin's portrayal of Odin, but to a lesser extent. Odin  is quiet, responsible and level headed. However, you feel that if you get on the wrong side of him the full force of the gods anger will be released on you. A rarity appears in Thor. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is smart and for lack of a better word 'normal.' This doesn't tend to happen in superhero films. Women who are smart tend to be glamorous. After watching Black Swan it was nice to see Natalie Portman playing a 'normal,' relatable character. The only character that I didn't rally like was Young Thor. He's only in a small scene, but in that time I just wanted to tell him to go to his room for being so full of himself. What else can you expect from a boy born to be a god and a king?

Set across three worlds; Asgard, Earth and Jotunheim, Thor is a prime example of how to create worlds using CGI that are, for the most part, believable. Thor's home, Asgard, and Jotunheim were constructed with amazing detail. Asgard's gold buildings, glass rainbow bridge (The Bifrost) and extravagant decorations, all showed off the wealth and power of the gods. The beautiful setting makes it the ideal place to go on holiday (minus the conflict, of course).Whereas, you wouldn't want to be taking your holiday snaps in the cold depths of Jotunheim. Inhabited by the Frost Giants the once great city is shrouded in darkness and falling apart. You feel cold just looking at it.

The costumes of the humans and Frost Giants aren't spectacular, just plain (the Frost Giants don't wear much). But, the costumes of the gods are just as amazing as the detailed Asgard. Each god has an individual style; rich colours, gold, metals, capes. Another way to show off their wealth and power.

In terms of the actual story, what was there was good. I particularly liked the mixing of myth and reality, science and magic. My favourite quote is "Your ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same." Thor contains action, sci-fi, comedy and romance. One of my friends complained that there wasn't enough action, but personally I liked the fact that there was less action because it was more like storytelling. It's what you expect from a film based on a comic book that is based on a myth.

Being an Avenger, Thor is linked to the other films. It features Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and Nick Fury (Samuel L.Jackson). It also references Tony Strak (Iron Man) in the destroyer scene.

Overall, I really like the film because of the mythical content and it was different to your usual superhero film. Plus, Chris Hemsworth walks around topless in one scene and I feel that is a good enough reason to watch the film. :D

Note: I will remind you to do this in each post. Please watch to the end of the credits.

Avengers Assemble (Soon)

Calling all Avengers (fans), Avengers Assemble is released on the 26th April 2012; the long anticipated movie bursting with superheroes. In the run up to the release I will review the movies leading up to the Assemble (except The Hulk movies because they have no link to the others and in my opinion they're not as good as them either), ending with the review for Avengers Assemble.
So, stay tuned.

Note: If you decide to watch the films please watch through the credits to the end because there is a scene that links to the next/other films. 

The Hunger Games (2012)

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!

Sorry if I sound like a raving fan girl, but I finally had enough money to go to the cinema and see The Hunger Games. I had recently read the books by Suzanne Collins and my expectations couldn't have been higher. As with every film adaption of a book, I was expecting it to totally destroy the book, but to my surprise it didn't.
There is so much I could say about this film and I apologise if I seem to be rambling on.
I had already visualised the characters when I read the books and I wasn't entirely sure about their choice of some actors. My first concern was with the main character Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence. I could only imagine her playing the strong, hunter side of Katniss and I found it hard imagining her in the 'star crossed lover' scenes with Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson. But, I have to say now that I've seen the film I can't imagine anyone else playing Katniss. She palyed both sides of Katniss, the caring and the strong, really well. Another character I wasn't sure about was President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland. Snow wasn't exactly how I imagined the character to look, but his personality was perfect. You could really sense that he had an evil side hidden behind a mask. The rest of the cast was amazing. I expected a lot from Josh Hutcherson and his portrayal of Peeta was exactly how I'd imagined the character. He was my favourite character in the books and now the films. I also liked Amandla Stenberg as Rue because she seemed innocent.
The costumes for the tributes and the people of the Capitol were out of this world. Odd dresses, wigs, make up, but it was the girl on fire dress that made renowned designers get out their drawing pads, designing their own versions of the dress that was 'on fire'. The actual dress was amazing, bright orange with matching jewels and the effect that it was on fire. It was beautiful.
The most surprising part for me was the narrative. As I had read the book, I wasn't expecting to be surprised. Along with excellent cinematography, the director actually managed to make me jump, even when I was expecting it to happen. This is something that most film adaptions of books have failed to do. I was also surprised by something new altogether. Before I saw the film I had heard that they had added something to the narrative that wasn't in the book. You never 'see' the people running The Hunger Games, the Gamemakers. I'm glad that they added it because it made the games seem more horrific as it highlighted the fact that it was supposed to be an entertainment show for the people of the Capitol.
I did have one issue that isn't really with the film. The BBFC gave the film a 12A rating and some gore had obviously been cut out of the film to achieve this rating. But, parents are complaining about the rating being too low and I agree. It should have really been rated a 15 and they could have kept all of the gore. I know this throws up issues for some teenagers who aren't quite 15, but there were children in the cinema that I didn't think the film was really appropriate for because they were too young and probably didn't understand what was going on.
The Hunger Games met my expectations and exceeded them. It was a truly great film and I would happily watch it over and over again. It was an amazing adaption and I can't wait for the sequel.

The Three Musketeers (2011)

This was recently released on DVD and I have been waiting to watch it since it was release in the cinema (I had no money to go and see it). I knew that lots of people didn't want to go and see it because they loved previous Musketeer films. This just made my expectations extremely high. Personally, I love 'The Man In The Iron Mask' and I couldn't really imagine anyone else playing the legendary characters.
The film features many big name stars, making my expectations go through the roof. I actually liked their portrayal of the Musketeers. They were witty, drunkards that would do anything for France. They also offered light relief in some seriously tense scenes, especially Porthos (Ray Stevenson). Matthew Macfadyen's portrayal of Athos was particularly my favourite because he was serious and funny at time. Orlando Bloom played the Duke of Buckingham and I think he may be typecast  to sail ships on the sea, under it and now in the clouds. It was a nice change to see him playing someone you're supposed to hate.
Although it wasn't my favourite film of all time, I still enjoyed it. The costumes and sets were amazing. A lot of detail was put into creating them. I applaud the costumes department for the amazingly, elaborate costumes that popped out of the screen.
The most surprising part of the film is the flying ships. Some people love them, others don't. They certainly annoyed my Dad. I personally thought they looked beautiful and I love the idea of them. However, I feel that the CGI let them down a bit in the long shots. They weren't as believable as you'd imagine with the technology we have today.
You're personal opinions will be varied in terms of The Three Musketeers, but I think you will all find a part of the film that you love, be it the flying ships, the costumes or the characters. It is really worth watching, even if you just want to moan about it not being as good as previous Musketeer films. I would happily watch it again and would welcome a sequel (Especially if Logan Leerman is i it).

It's Happening!

In 1984 audiences were introduced to the world of The Terminator. Set in 2029, humans are at war with a computer system (yes, a computer system) called Skynet. In this world they battle cyborgs and other computer based 'beings'. In 1984 and even now, audiences sit back and relax, believing this would never be their fate or their loved ones fates. Well, I'm here to show you otherwise.
This both amazes and scares me...
In order to create the huge battle scenes in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson (director) and WETA Digital built a computer programme. This programme, MASSIVE can create entire CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) armies and each CGI soldier can 'think' and 'fight' independently of the other soldiers. The software taught the soldiers how to fight. This is called Artificial Intelligence and it had to be repeatedly dumbed down because the soldiers were determined to run away from the battles in order to survive. This suggests that a machine is just as clever as a human is, when it comes to survival. For me, the worst part of MASSIVE is that the controllers (us) only have to input a few lines of data and it does the rest on it's own. It thinks for itself (more than your average computer).
Through FICTION films like The Terminator we create a future that we don't want to believe will happen. But, we create programmes increasingly like that of Skynet to make these films. Filmmakers are subconsciously predicting and creating our future and it's not looking great.
MASSIVE has a long way to go before it becomes Skynet, but it's closer than you expect. All we need is a decent robot and we're on our way to the world of The Terminator.

Black Death (2010)

I know this isn't a new film, but I feel it's worth mentioning. Very few people have heard of this film and I'm not surprised. There was very little, major marketing campaign. Only a few trailers/posters here and there. I only discovered it because I was surfing the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) and happened to stumble across it. I then only watched the film because Sean Bean stars in it. I've loved him ever since Lord of the Rings. At this point I wasn't expecting much from the movie.
The story is of a young monk (Eddie Redmayne) who chose to lead a Knight (Sean Bean(A Pious Boromir!)) and his mercenaries to a village to learn the truth about the reports of people being brought back to life and their lack of faith in Christianity. Expect some true questioning of the Christian religion within the film.
When I came to watch it, I found it surprisingly good. I'm not a major fan of the horror adventure genre, but I enjoyed this. The historical content made the horror more believable. I especially enjoyed the ending as it was misleading. Director, Christopher Smith created an unexpected, but believable ending. He leads you to think one thing and does the complete opposite. Genius.
The title Black Death obviously suggests there is a lot of dying, but the majority of death isn't from the plague. If you are squeamish or don't like to see limbs flying about the place, then this isn't your film. There had to be some horror.
I would happily recommend this film to anyone. I would also recommend watching it in a dark room because some scenes are hard to see.
A truly surprising film.

Stupid Ratings

Imagine you're 12 years old again and you really want to go an see a film you've been dying to see for months. The rating is 'To Be Confirmed' and you still hold the hope that it will be rated 12A, just so you can go and see it. But, alas your hopes is dashed when it is given a 15 rating. This repeatedly happened to me, but I never realised how lenient the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) rating system was.
A PG film that is supposed to be suitable for children aged 8 and older can contain sex and drugs references. It can also contain moderate violence, but it has to be justified by the content (e.g. fantasy). A 12 film can contain discreet sexual activity. 15 films are allowed to contain hard drugs and; 18 films can contain real sex and strong violence.
There is also an R18 rating. I didn't even know the UK had this rating. Films with these ratings can only be shown in ADULT cinemas.
What annoys me is how do you decide what is moderate and what is mild? That means something different to everyone. It depends where you've grown up and how you've been raised. No two people have the exact same view of what is moderate and mild. For this reason I'd be scared to have the responsibility of deciding because of all those parents complaining as the PG they took their children is too violent or the language was too strong. I commend those that do, I wouldn't want to fight off all those parents.
Personally, I've been watching 18 films at home since I was about 12. My parents didn't mind because they knew that I'd have to watch them at some point as film was my career choice.The fact I've seen them hasn't badly affected my personality, but I can understand why they have to rate films. It could probably affect someone badly; teaching children swear words. I was just grateful for the 12A rating.

Hello Bloggers!

Well I'm literally here to talk about my one true love, films. I hope that you enjoy reading this blog because I'll enjoy writing it (I hope :P). I'm currently an A level Film Studies student and hope to study it at University. So, I thought I'd start my critical career early. I will review films, probably not new releases (I can't afford to go to the cinema). Most of the films I have had to watch recently are pre-2000 and I hope to bring new kinds of films into your world. I will also write about the technology used in films and maybe ask you some questions about my coursework (expect extensive moaning about 3D). I hope you enjoy and read on.