Filed under: Opinion Pieces
Typically, vampires are bloodsucking, bat turning, coffin sleeping, scary monsters in capes. Even Montgomery Burns made a nice looking vampire in The Simpsons Halloween Special, with the typical bee high hive hair and blood dripping from his fangs.
But the latest vampire flick to come out of Tinseltown, Twilight, has given a new spin to the cannibal image. Not only is the vampire family vegetarian (or at least as vegetarian as a Vampire can be – they only suck the blood of animals) but also they play baseball, go to school and have lewd, very taboo relationships.
Twilight is the film version of Stephenie Meyer’s widely successful novel that has been wooing teens since 2006. Now on film the Twilight phenomenon, with Robert Pattison as the dreamy Edward Cullen, has reached fever pitch.
And when I think about it, I’m not really sure why?
Twilight is a story about Edward, a ‘good’ vampire who falls for Bella, a girl who has just moved to the dreary town of Forks. Just your simple story of boy meets girl: boy finds girl so irresistible that he wants to suck her blood. The pair become lovers, not in a physical way, and all is peachy until another vampire sets out on a hunt for Bella. The Cullen family defends her and their love is saved.
The film is brilliantly corny and overdone. It has fabulous un-dead stereotypes like the incredibly white skin of the Cullen family that forced me to shield my eyes from the glare.
These hero-come-vampires also have a fully functioning kitchen, even though they don’t cook and the patriarch of the family is the town’s best doctor. Do his patients not notice his 18th Century vibe?
And where are our leading lovers fangs? And why doesn’t he perish in the sunlight? It is these simple vampire character changes that have made the Twilight a success. It’s this corniness and the unrequited love between the ever pale, yet very good looking lead characters that make this film work.
Edward and his love Bella swing from the trees in the corny flick, Twilight.
Filed under: Opinion Pieces
The 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still should possibly be renamed The Day this film stood still.
Another flick where the general public (i.e. us) are berated over our existence. And that’s not to say that I do not agree with the general message of the film, but during this movie, it is drilled into the viewer like algebra in Year 9.
Keanu Reeves plays the creepy alien with a conscience in The Day the Earth Stood Still
The Day the Earth Stood Still, staring Jennifer Connelly and Keanu Reeves is about an alien vessel landing on Earth to save the planet from its destructive species, humans. The fairly peaceful alien invasion is met with American hostility, confirming the alien’s (Keanu Reeves) opinion of people.
The major messages of climate change, violence and kindness are thrust upon the viewer from the onset of the film. There are many more troughs than peaks, especially during America’s constant barrage of violence on the ‘friendly’ ETs.
The climate change and violence issue is a common one in Hollywood of late. Even animation is getting in on the message with films like Wall-e using it as a draw card for its audience. Notice the trend yourself by watching Knowing, The Day the Earth Stood Still and even Transformers to gain a Hollywood conscience.
Zac Efron, who tantalises the screaming masses, can make a potato sack look positively delicious. But could this teen heartthrob make the Easter rom-com 17 Again shine?
Zac Efron in 17 Again
For a movie that is full of eye candy (including the several shots of a shirtless Efron playing hoops) may only please a very few, with miss cast characters, too many sappy moments and the comic highlights coming from a Star Wars nerd playing Efron’s surrogate uncle.
The movie begins with Mike (Efron) as the school basketball start in 1989 who has the promise of a college scholarship, but gives it up for his pregnant girlfriend Scarlett (Leslie Mann).
The film then jumps to 2009, with Mike now craggy Matthew Perry as a disappointed separated dad, whose children thoroughly dislike him. Perry looks incredibly tired and his jittery acting style doesn’t work for the fatherly role.
When Mike longs to be 17 again, a weathered old janitor (his ‘spirit guide’) uses the twinkle in his eye to sweep him back to his pubescent self.
Mike returns to school as the positively gorgeous son of his best friend Ned (played by Thomas Lennon), a Star Wars loving nerd who found riches after being tormented in high school.
Lennon gives the film a great comic relief, with his attempted courting of the high school principal and when they speak in their native Lord of the Rings tongue, Elvish.
The film has some big highs and lows, but is broken by large sappy moments where the camera zooms in on Efron’s concerned and pensive face. His courtship of Leslie Mann, whilst he is 17 and she is 37 is slightly creepy.
17 Again is a great film for a very, very light hearted watch and perfect for the tweeny age group. Another tick against Zac Efron’s name.
Hopefully you were lucky enough to survive a viewing of the latest instalment of the 007 mega series, Quantum of Solace – because most of the characters didn’t. Daniel Craig’s dashing good looks couldn’t even rescue the top of his finger that was sliced off during filming.
Quantum begins an hour after the end of the widely successful Casino Royaleplot, but sees a much colder and darker Bond seek the revenge of his lover, Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green). Nothing is difficult, including killing, for this new Bond that survives and wins a car, boat and plane chase.
From the opening few scenes, Bond’s character is developed in a fresh way. He has little regard for others life and seems even less for his own. As he smashes his way through a small Bolivian hotel, stabs an informant and sits over him whilst he slowly dies, a new Bond emerges.
Even Bonds long time boss and wannabe mother, M (played by Dame Judi Dench) tries to control his recklessness when she says,
“Bond, if you could avoid killing every lead there is, that would be appreciated.”
His blasé and ever so dry reply creates an atmosphere of untrustworthiness around our long time hero.
007 leaves a trail of blood across the picturesque European and South American continents where the film is set. His trail is long enough to anger the CIA agents in the film who have interests in Bolivia, who put out a ‘capture or kill’ on Bond. Huge gun battles and blistering fist fights show the true might of this new 007.
Director Marc Forster has attempted to steer the latest Bond flick away from its tradition predecessors and create a broodier and unruly 007, but the traditional elements of women, sex and elaborate fight scenes are still present in this 21st Century James Bond flick.
It is true, that 007’s do have a ‘licence to kill,’ but Craig’s Bond should have his revoked.
Daniel Craig in Quantum of Solace
Filed under: Opinion Pieces
David Letterman summed up movie star Joaquin Phoenix’s recent attitude change when he said to his late show guest, “I’m sorry you couldn’t be here tonight, Joaquin.” This quip came after the pair shared an uncomfortable series of grunts, inaudible answers and semi nods on Joaquin’s behalf all hidden behind chewing gum and Ray Ban sunglasses.
Joaquin Phoenix on David Letterman
But where exactly has the ‘Walk the Line’ movie star gone (some could argue he has been swallowed by his unruly beard) or more exactly, what exactly what has he done to himself?
With a film career that spanned over 2 decades, Joaquin Phoenix firmly made his mark on Hollywood as one of the most dedicated and influential actors. His movie star mystique and media broodiness has treated him tremendously, with no obvious agenda on his particular film genre.
But what should Hollywood say when their fav method actor suddenly decides to quit the silver screen? With his apparent announcement that he is moving into the world of hip-hop and rapping has come as a major shock to the Hollywood world and to his fans. Rumours are flying that shadow of a brother-in-law Casey Affleck, is filming Joaphin’s move to produce a documentary.
Mockumentary more like it.
Joaphin’s list of oddball moves is growing longer than his beard but it is common belief now that is a ridiculous PR stunt. If it is, its about time he went back to his straight and narrow (if you could call it that) ways before we loose all hope in the waning superstar.
The attempted extermination of the Jewish race and their beliefs has irrevocably changed the world and it’s thinking. But as a wider community, where do we currently place the personal blame for the mass killing of the Jews, gypsies, gays, disabled and countless others in Nazi Germany?
Do we look upon those horrific events as the intentional and calculated murder by thousands of Germans, united by the ideology of a single political party? Or do we believe these deaths were the result of indoctrination, from years of brainwashing by a few unrealistic Germans, at the helm of a nation?
It isn’t easy to see where the world places the blame for the historic minefield that was Nazi Germany, but this sentiment has been beautifully portrayed in the wake of Oscar winning film, ‘The Reader.”
Film critics, opinion pieces and reader reviews are opening the Pandora’s Box of blame, with many stating they do not want a character (Kate Winslet’s Hanna Schmitz) to be romanticized when she was an obvious SS killer.
With good reason too.
In his article reviewing the post-holocaust film, journalist Tom Bower discussed a past interview done with SS General Karl Wolf. Here, the former Auschwitz killer admitted to Bower that murdering was just a “regrettable part a Nazi ideology.”
With this blasé attitude surfacing across the world, it is understandable that a real life comparison in Hanna Schmitz would spark much controversy. Developing your own thoughts, feelings and opinions on the film and the history is an important part of learning why our world will never be unified again.
Kate Winslet and David Kross in The Reader
A Film Affair 