A second trailer for Scott Pilgrim vs The World came out this morning and it looks awesome! It might not be everyone’s cup of tea, with a bit too many video game and comic references, but I love the look of it.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World is coming out in the UK on August 6th and in the US on August 13th.
Video game movies… the bane of every video game geek. So many turn out to be terrible movies and they fail to capture what people loved about the games in the first place. The latest gamble is Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time based on the 2003 game of the same name.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Dastan, the titular prince. Dastan was originally an orphan, growing up on the streets and rooftops of the empire’s capital city, until one day after standing up for a friend on the marketplace, the king notices him and takes him in. Years later Dastan and his brothers are sent to the holy city of Alamut, ruled by the stubborn princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton). After being blamed for a crime he didn’t commit, Dastan is forced to flee the city with Tamina and prove his innocence.
I really enjoyed Prince of Persia, although it’s not without its faults. From the trailers, I was expecting a fun entertaining action movie, similar in vein to Pirates of the Caribbean or The Mummy (if you haven’t seen the trailer, check it out here). And it pretty much lived up to those expectations. If you didn’t like either of those movies, chances are you’re going to hate Prince of Persia too. If you loved those movies (which I did), I think you’ll be in for a treat.
Jake Gyllenhaal is great as prince Dastan. I had my doubts about him when his casting was announced, but he was exactly what I had imagined the prince to be. Charming, but at the same time rough and mischievous. Gemma Arterton is much better here than in Clash of the Titans, showing that with a decent script she can actually deliver. I loved the banter between her and Dastan!
The story is similar to the Sands of Time video game with Dastan finding a dagger with which he can travel a few seconds back into time. While not used frequently within the movie, it gives us a couple of gorgeous scenes where Dastan falls apart into sand while ‘traveling’ back. The rest of the plot is pretty okay, although a little bit on the predictable side and at times not as polished as it could have been (like bad guys suddenly appearing without any explanation). I like that they added the orphan backstory, giving a reason to why a prince would be jumping from ledges and rooftops.
And those action scenes where Dastan is jumping all over the place are fantastic. Both Gyllenhaal and the kid that played the younger Dastan did most of their stunts themselves, having trained closely with Parkours legend David Belle. I didn’t like the way most of these were filmed though: an overuse of slow-mo and angles that didn’t really work for me. Still the stunts were amazing to watch!
Is it a good video game to movie adaption? Yeah, I think it is. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a fun summer action movie with great action sequences that harken back to the video game. The plot is a bit simple, but it’s a good 2 hours of fun entertainment. And want to bet we’ll get a sequel soon?
The last time I saw a movie in 3D was 4 years ago at some cheesy theme park attraction, where you got visually assaulted by biting snakes and roller-coasters. I’ve been meaning to see a “proper” 3D movie for some time now, but some of the produced stuff still looks pretty gimmicky (like Journey To The Centre Of The Earth). Coraline, however, was something I was really looking forward to and it was only on the day of the screening itself that I realized it was in 3D. Cool!
Coraline is about Coraline Jones (Dakota Fanning), an adventurous girl who moves with her parents to a new village and into a weird, creaky old house, called the Pink Palace. Both her parents (Teri Hatcher and John Hodgman) don’t have time for her and Coraline keeps herself busy by visiting the Pink Palace’s other inhabitants. Downstairs is taken by an eccentric duo of bickering old performers, Miss Spink and Miss Forcible (Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French),while upstairs is the amazing Bobinsky (Ian McShane), a Russian circus star with performing mice. But then Coraline finds a door to a parallel world, where everything is strangely idealized with doppelgangers of everbody she knows.
I’ll start things off with the 3D. So far all 3D movies (and photos) I’ve seen have all used the standard one-red-glass-one-blue-glass type of glasses (from which I always got pretty dizzy). This movie however was in RealD; you get a different type of glasses (polarized, light beige for both sides) and the projection feels way better. There were some shots in the movie that just looked amazing! And unlike what I saw from Journey to the Centre of the Earth, the 3D effects in Coraline weren’t for the sake of 3D (as in: the writers didn’t go: “ooh, let’s add a dinosaur, cause that would look so coool in 3D!”).
Coraline is directed by Henry Selick, who previously directed The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. The style looks pretty similar to those two, yet still having very much an ambience uniquely it’s own. While it looks animated, everything is stop-motion, but shot in 3D. There are quite some beautiful scenes, but my favourite’s got to be the trapeze scene; it just seems like a dream sequence (which it kind of is).
The strength of the movie mainly comes from it’s great ensemble of characters. Coraline is an interesting and likable character, and you understand the reasons behind everything she does. Her normal parents are boring and have no time for her and you can see why she’s so charmed by the attention of the Other parents. The Other parents are creepy from the start, with their button eyes and eerie perfectness. Mr Bobinsky, Miss Spink and Miss Forcible are all weird characters in the real world and their Other world versions are even stranger.
Story wise I wasn’t too impressed. I know it’s meant as a kids film, but I wish there was a bit more depth and explanation to the story. I loved the whole set-up; the weird characters, the other world and it’s inhabitants, but I would have loved to see a more satisfying wrap-up.
Coraline is a beautiful movie and definitely one you’ve got to see in the cinema in 3D. The characters are all intriguing and different than anything you’ve seen before. Tip: stay seated until after the credits, there’s a little tidbit (really tiny) after it.
Coraline – Release Date: 8 May UK
Week 2: Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
I’m running way behind with these 52 Movies blog posts. I have been keeping up with watching a movie every week, I just haven’t found the time to blog about them too (plus the internet connection here is still sucky; fingers crossed it’ll be solved tomorrow). Hopefully I’ll manage to write the reviews for Week 2, 3 and 4 this week, and then next week I’ll do Week 5 and Week 6.
The movie for week 2 was The Shawshank Redemption, currently ranked as the number 1 film on IMDB. I’ve been meaning to watch it for at least the past 10 years, but every time it appeared on TV something managed to get in the way of watching it. Exams, delayed trains, or just plain forgetting what time it was on. It was a movie I knew I had to watch from start to finish, so I really didn’t want to jump in after missing half an hour. Frankly, I have been quite successful in avoiding seeing or hearing anything about this movie and not being spoiled at all (a rare feat considering the amount of movie blogs I read; I think I know at least the endings to half of the 52 Movies we’ve chosen).
The Shawshank Redemption tells the tale of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), a man who is convicted and sentenced to life in jail for the murder of his wife and her lover. He’s sent to Shawshank Prison, where he learns how to deal with prison life.
So what did I think of The Shawshank Redemption? To be honest, I wasn’t that impressed by it. I mean, I can see and understand why it would be ranked so high; it’s a movie with not a lot of faults, and the type of movie almost no one can not like. That being said though, I don’t see it as “THE best movie ever” and that’s what this list of 250 Movies should represent, right? Especially the number one.
It is a good movie though and for those of you who haven’t seen, it definitely is a movie you should see. It’s full of hope and the lengths that we can go to when we have hope in ourselves, in our futures, and in others. The acting is superb; both TIm Robbins and Morgan Freeman are great in their roles. Personally though I just didn’t find it deserving of that number one spot.
Next week: Psycho
I’m a big movie fan, so you’d think I would enjoy going to the cinema. To be honest, I kind of still do. Where else can you see the newest movies on a nice big screen with great sound? But a part of me sees the actual experience as a chore. Yes, I want to see movies in the cinema, but there are so many things wrong with the cinema experience that I wonder if it is actually worth it. If you have a big enough TV set at home, what is the added value of going to the cinema? The traditional concept of the movie-going experience desperately needs a complete reinvention (FourStarters did a post about this a while back).
This is the first in a series of posts where I want to focus on how cinemas should be (and in some cases are) adapting to the altered demands of cinema visitors. Before we actually come to that though, I want to identify the common problems that occur with today’s cinemas. Keep in mind that these are 10 general problems; it doesn’t mean that all cinemas have each of these problems, although most of them will have more than one problem. Some of these problems also have very simple solutions, but none the less they keep occurring.
Raise your hands if you’ve ever been to a cinema where the movie was out of focus or had too many scratches on it. I’m hoping a lot of you just raised your hands (or at least nodded in agreement) and are annoyed by the fact that this happens so often, but the truth is most movie audiences don’t care about the projection quality. Poor projection quality is purely caused by incompetent projectionists, who mishandle the reels and don’t adjust them properly [FirstShowing]. If movie goers would complain about this, something might be actually done, but the fact is most people don’t complain.
I’ve had a couple of times that we were the only ones during a crappy showing that stood up, left to find an employee and complain about the quality. Some people might just be plain lazy or don’t think it’s something worth complaining about (which I find ridiculous, you’re paying to see this movie here, right?), but most people just don’t know what good projection quality is [FirstShowing]. They’ve never experienced how it should be done the right way; this bad projection quality is all they’ve ever known. It’s a problem, which has a simple solution (train/force the projectionists to set-up the movie properly), but if people don’t see it as a problem nothing will be done about it.
With bad volume I mean that the movies in cinemas are too loud or too soft, or something a bit in between, where in the same movie the action sequences are too loud and the dialogue is too soft. I always thought this was again simply a problem with cinemas, but after doing some reading, I found out it’s a bit more complex than that and not always the cinema’s fault.
Some times the cinema does turn up the volume way too loud, but that’s not always the case. Nowadays a lot of movies are actually made too loud (as in containing segments above 90 db) and cinemas show them as they are meant to be shown, meaning it is often the fault of the studio that produced the movie. Other times the cinema chooses to lower the volume, so that too loud parts are under the allowed limit, but which causes the rest of the film to be too soft. This same thing can occur when the sound is adjusted for trailers in front of the film. This article gives a good example of an action movie trailer in front of a romantic comedy. The volume is turned down, because the trailer is too loud and the volume stays this way for the entire movie.
People often complain that some cinema screens are too small and that a bigger screen means a better experience. I disagree. In my eyes it’s all about the relative screen size (I’ve touched on this before in Why Expensive Cinemas Are Not Necessarily Better). It doesn’t matter how big the screen is, if you’re sitting far away from it. I’ve been to the Empire and the Odeon cinemas at Leicester Square and both screens (and auditoriums) are huge. The seats though, are placed on a not so very steep slope, so you’re sitting either A) quite far from the screen, or B) too low and have to stare upwards. Compare that to the Vue at Shepherd’s Bush or the Pathe Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam. Those are smaller auditoriums with smaller screens, but the seats are placed on a much steeper slope, so it feels like the screen is much bigger. Cinema auditoriums should be designed to give the movie goer the best view, preferably no matter where you sit.
Auditoriums are filled with as many seats as possible, not thinking at all of giving the optimal experience to the movie goer. Most of the time the seats are uncomfortable and small with not enough leg space. Then you have the theaters where all the rows are on the same level (no slope); if it’s busy, chances are somebody is going to sit in front of you and block your view. Of course this is all because they want as many seats as they can in one auditorium.
This is completely silly though, cause more often than not most of the seats will be empty. Yes, Friday and Saturday night might be packed, but the rest of week? It’s never, ever busy. Cinemas should discard the idea of filling as much seats as possible and try to cater to the ultimate movie experience. Get nice big comfortable seats and place them in such a way that from every seat you have a good view.
Question: you’re already stuck in a crappy seat with no leg space, so what do you with your coat and bags? Answer: you put it on the chair next to you. Nobody really wants to admit it, but everybody does it. If you’re with the two of you, you’re most probably taking up at least 3 seats (maybe even 4 sometimes). Doesn’t matter that you haven’t actually payed for those chairs, you’re going to put your stuff there. And if it’s busy? Well, then you’re forced to sit on your coat in your already uncomfortable seat and put your bags amid your already limited leg space. Why, oh, why can’t they find a solution for something as obvious as this?
Cinemas are always ice freakingly cold. Now I understand why they do this; they’d rather have cold people, then sweaty, smelly people, right? But does it really have to be that chilly in there? It also wouldn’t be too bad, if you could snuggle up to your significant other. But no, the seats are too crappy to be able to do that (btw why are love seats always right on the back?). Turn down that air conditioner, please, we’re not popsicles.
Okay, now I know this point really depends on the cinema; some cinemas handle it pretty well. I’m just ticked off by a couple of irritating past experiences. With seat selection I mean how the cinema deals with people picking their seats. A lot of cinemas still gives tickets with specified seat numbers, but you never really know if they’re going to abide to these seat numbers or not. I’ve had a couple of times that I reserved certain seats on opening night, only to show up and find out you can sit anywhere you want (one time for 13 people). Other times I’ve had it the other way around and you’re forced to give up your seats. While I really don’t mind one option over the other, I want to know before hand which of these rules to abide by. What always seems to work is tickets with no specified places. You just show up and claim your seats, first come, first serve, no hassle.
Photo from Flickr by ninjapoodles
Again this depends per cinema, but most don’t have a proper waiting area. Some of you might argue that it’s also completely unnecessary, but again I think it would add value to the whole cinema experience. Nobody ever arrives right on time when the movie’s about to start and most of the time you can’t go into the theater right away. There should be some area where you can sit down, get a drink and wait. I also see such an area not only being used before the movie starts, but also after it, a place where you can sit down for a moment and talk about the movie.
While some cinemas have solved the problem of queues by using terminals, there a still a lot of them that don’t use them yet. Almost all cinemas I’ve been to here in London have terminals and this significantly cuts down the queues. But even without terminals, there’s a way to do smarter queue management. One particular cinema springs to mind, where even though you had reserved for a movie, you still had to pick up your reserved tickets in the same queue as all the people trying to buy a ticket for the same show. I hated this because all they had to do was scan my reservation and my discount card (you could buy a set of 6 tickets in one go on one card). Instead I had to stand in line with these people who hadn’t taken the time to reserve tickets. On busy nights these people often had a slim chance of getting in anyway, so they were wasting my and their precious time. You would think there would be a way to process reservations separately?
Then you also have the horrible queues at the concession stands, prompting me never to get anything cause it just takes too long (plus side: it’s cheaper and healthier). What I find the most exasperating innovation: the combined tickets and concessions booth? Yes, let’s make people wait even longer in line!
Problem number 10 is just a minor problem, but honestly “9 problems” doesn’t seem as catchy as 10. So my last problem with cinemas is that in some it is very unclear for what (often very short) period of time a movie runs in the cinema. This problem really depends on where you live and how big your town/city is. I understand the “why” behind it: for smaller cinemas it is sometimes not worthwhile to have a movie play for a longer amount of time. This doesn’t lessen the irritation though when you come to the realization that a movie was only playing for 1 week in the cinema and you missed it.
Copyright 2012 Miss Geeky. All Rights Reserved.
