Win a Copy of Hotel Transylvania

Frost has copies of fun family comedy Hotel Transylvania to give away. Adam Sandler plays Dracula, who operates a high-end resort away from the human world, goes into overprotective mode when a boy discovers the resort and falls for the count’s teen-aged daughter.

 

To win follow @Frostmag on Twitter. Alternatively, sign up to our newsletter.

 

Fun Facts about Monsters

 

Monsters are more scared of you than you are of them; they can be very friendly and are often just misunderstood!

 

Frankenstein 

 

Doctor Frankenstein is the name of a mad scientist who created a monster and gave it life

 

Doctor Frankenstein made his monster by stitching different human body parts together, and made it come alive by giving it an electric shock

 

The monster is commonly called “Frankenstein,” but he was never actually given a name

 

Dracula 

 

Dracula has studied magic and can vanish and re-appear somewhere else

 

Dracula can turn into a bat and fly!

 

Dracula lives in a big castle in the mountains in Transylvania

 

Werewolves 

 

A werewolf is a human who sometimes turns into a wolf

 

Curved fingernails, red hair, eyebrows that meet, hair that grows beneath the skin are all signs of a werewolf

 

Werewolves are very active during a full moon

 

Mummies 

 

Mummies come from Egypt

The word “mummy” comes from an Arabic word for a black gooey stuff

Did you know mummies have been found wearing hats?

If you broke your leg it would be wrapped up like a modern mummy

 

Hotel Transylvania is out on Blu-ray 3D, Blu-ray and DVD now. 

 

If you’d like to win some amazing Hotel Transylvania goodies, check out the MONSTER ME Facebook App https://www.facebook.com/CheckInToHotelT/app_327244267386693  You and the children could win a Micro Scooter by uploading a video of them doing monster impressions from the film, enter if you dare!

 

 

 

Zero Dark Thirty Film Review

News travels fast and the arts, arguably, just as fast. It seems that little time passes between major news, political and cultural events occurring and their portrayal in mainstream media. At time of writing a Julian Assange movie is well into production and Bradley Cooper has just been cast as disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong. Barely eighteen months have passed since the death of Osama Bin Laden and now Kathryn Bigelow’s thriller about the hunt for the Al-Qaeda leader arrives on these shores amidst both critical adulation and a storm of controversy. Bigelow was already well into production on a project about the failed hunt for Bin Laden when real world events forced a rapid change of focus for the film. Hopes were high following her historic Oscar win for Iraq war thriller The Hurt Locker. Can her return to familiar theatre hold up to scrutiny?

 

Following the September 11 attacks, newly recruited CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain) is deployed to Pakistan where she joins a covert team dedicated to seeking out Osama Bin Laden’s couriers in the hope it will lead to his location. The narrative then follows Maya and her colleagues across a grueling decade of dead ends, shifting political landscapes, assassination attempts and haunted obsession before arriving at the inevitable outcome of May 2nd 2011.

 

Bigelow is a master of crafting a tough, machismo drenched world through her camera lens. Her past work has traded in different genres and protagonists from different walks of life. Her aesthetic here is similar to that of The Hurt Locker; lots of handheld camerawork, extended close ups and disoriented framing have a powerful culmanitive effect. What’s fascinating this time round is how much of the drama she chooses to show through screens within the frame. The protagonists of Zero Dark Thirty are shown poring over lengthy intelligence data, hours of interrogation footage, news reports of major terrorist attacks and the frighteningly familiar overhead sights of CIA drones. A good chunk of the final raid is viewed through the first person viewpoint of the SEAL’s night vision goggles. Where The Hurt Locker and films before it portrayed a war fought on the ground side by side with the ‘grunts’, Zero Dark Thirty portrays a unique 21st century attitude towards combat. This is  a war fought through intelligence, data and statistics. It is a cold and stark view that matches our 24 hour media mainlined view of contemporary warfare. That’s not to say that the film branches out in all directions; political figureheads are glimpsed briefly and major events (Invasion of Iraq, Obama’s election) are alluded to but never directly mentioned. There’s a cool and clinical air of detachment over the proceedings.

 

Without a backstory or even a surname, the central character of Maya is presented to us as a decidedly single minded individual with little to no life outside her hunt for Bin Laden. A child’s hand drawing reading ‘Mommy’ is glimpsed but never brought up and she shoots down all questions about her private life from colleagues. Such a portrayal could be viewed as unengaging but a fierce performance from Chastain makes it anything but. Pale, ethereal and with a thousand yard stare Chastain dominates every scene she’s in, her evolution from rookie to veteran wholly believable. While there is a whole other ideology hanging over the films head, it is also possible to see one aspect that attracted Bigelow to this specific take on the story. Maya is one of few female characters in the film operating in what is seen as a  predominantly male environment (read:Hollywood) and she spends just as much time butting heads with her colleagues than she does hunting her prey. ‘I’m the motherfucker who found him’ she cooly intones to a room full of indecisive superiors in what is probably the closest the film comes to a ‘victory’ moment. In many ways Maya’s journey reminded me of David Fincher’s superb Zodiac, another exhaustive, fictionalized account of the hunt for one individual and the havoc it wreaks on those who search for him.

 

Anyone heading into see Zero Dark Thirty will be no doubt aware of the controversy surrounding its alleged depiction of torture of detainees and the suggestion that such methods worked and led to Bin Laden. American senators have written letters to the production company criticising such a depiction whilst author Naomi Wolf wrote a scathing article comparing Bigelow to Nazi propaganda filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Certainly Bigelow and script writer Mark Boal do not shy away from the fact that ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ occurred at American forces hands and the opening scenes showing a detainee being stripped, humiliated and waterboarded are horrifying to watch. However the film portrays the brutalisation of detainees yielding no or useless information. It is when the characters re-examine existing evidence that they eventually wind up on the road to Bin Laden’s compound. I personally don’t agree that the film condones torture and prefer such a brutal stark portrayal to that of the likes of 24 where Jack Bauer’s relentless torture of characters become both repetitive and repellent. I certainly won’t pretend to be smarter than anyone making the allegations; I would point out Alex Gibney’s article on the film which though I disagree with it he argues his points very well. However I would point out the argument of torture being effective (and in turn accusations of condoning American violence) is largely undone by the cold, blunt delivery of the films finale. Bin Laden is finally killed practically offscreen in front of screaming women and children with no triumphant ‘got him!’ moment. The first thing the SEAL’s do when the deed is done? Take pictures with a camera to confirm the kill. More distancing through a digital screen.

 

There’s no ‘ra-ra’ patriot message to end on. The narrative ends hours before Bin Laden’s death is made public. No footage of celebrations in Times Square, rather Bigelow chooses to end on an image that suggests that the decade long mission has brought nothing but a Pyrrhic victory. Maya’s quarry finally caught, her life is practically over. Many may feel differently and either way it is no easy watch. But Bigelow has created a never less than compelling , astonishingly well made thriller which dodges the cliches it could have fallen into and shines a light where similar films have rarely gone. However you feel about that is completely up to you.

 

 

Django Unchained | Film Review

Quentin Tarantino is a filmmaker whose name and ego seems to precede his films by quite a substantial degree. Since bursting onto the independent scene with the fantastic Reservoir Dogs in the early 1990’s his reputation and title as a ‘saviour’ of contemporary American cinema has grown rapidly, winning an astonishingly loyal fan base and even coining its own phrase; ‘Tarantinoesque’ which commonly refers to the trademark motormouth and foul mouthed dialogue that he revels in. Yet for the admiration that has been heaped upon him, Tarantino has found himself under growing accusations of plagiarism, violence for violence’s sake and the inability to rein in his work, spiralling off in all directions and drawing out what are essentially ‘B-Movies’ into epic lengths. His latest, his long planned Western, is arguably guilty of all of these and yet is handled with such bravura and panache that when all is said and done there is no denying that whether for better or worse, you are at the mercy of a force of nature behind the camera.

 

Shortly before the outbreak of the American civil war, Django (Jamie Foxx) is freed from a chain gang by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a dentist turned bounty hunter who needs Django to identify a gang of outlaws he is hunting down. Quickly realising that Django has talent for the trade, Schultz forms an alliance to give him his freedom and rescue his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the plantation she has been sold to. It is a journey that will take them across a surreal and profane landscape and ultimately to the doorstep of the extravagant and sadistic slave trader Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his unnervingly loyal servant Steven (Samuel L. Jackson).

 

Tarantino has made no secret of his love of the Western genre (though he has referred to this new work as a ‘Southern’). Motifs and visual allusions to the classic Spaghetti westerns of the 60’s and 70’s adorn his previous films along with the now typically anachronistic use of music from Ennio Morricone to present day rap tracks and  everything in between. Django Unchained feels more like a sponge for pop culture than just a straight homage. That it works as well as it does is a testament to how horribly addictive Tarantino’s aesthetic is at its best. Profane soliloquies trip off the tongue, cameras swoop and crash zoom with grace and claret soaks the surroundings to a hysterically overemphasised effect. There is a killer in joke in which Franco Nero, the Italian superstar famed for playing the titular Django in a series of Italian westerns, meets his American namesake. The films setting, both historical and social, has brought controversy for Tarantino’s supposed fixation with racial epithets but the swerve and swagger on display as well as the overall theme of retribution puts aside accusations of racism on his part. As he did with Inglorious Basterds Tarantino has taken an idea (or at least a cinematic idea) of history that is emblazoned on our minds and has taken a switchblade to it and crafted a piece of postmodern beauty out of it (if beauty is the word you can use). He does this more effectively than he did in Basterds and in similar vein Kill Bill Vol.2 where he was indeed guilty of spinning off into a fan boy tangent and making the parts more than their sum. Whilst I do think the third act of Django could be tightened somewhat, it never becomes dull or trying. Long dialogue driven scenes, notably one set around a dinner table late on, throb with tension and a knowing wit. The payoffs are exceptionally enjoyable. It’s not just verbally that Tarantino excels; a jaw droppingly violent shootout stands next to the House Of Blue Leaves showdown in Kill Bill as proof he should be considered an action director of note.

 

Django Unchained also serves as a reminder for Tarantino’s other exceptional trademark; his ability to elicit magnificent performances from his ensembles. After the accolades he received for Inglorious Basterds it is no surprise to see Christoph Waltz reunite with the director and a joy it is to. He would seem to have been put onto this Earth for Tarantino’s words to have the pleasure of his delivery. His Schultz is savvy, charming, deadly, is smarter than everyone in the room and knows it. There is a line comically alluding to Schultz’s English being a second language. Whichever language which he delivers in (English, German or French) he remains masterful. Leonardo DiCaprio is clearly having a ball flitting effortlessly back and forth between comically debonair and psychopathic rage. Watch out for the scene where he loses his temper and smashes a glass with his hand. The result is not faked. Having spent many years playing the incredibly straight faced and dramatic lead, he proves a perfect foil for a more extravagant and comedic turn. Here’s hoping he plays to the advantage. Brilliant as these two are the films is very nearly stolen by Samuel L. Jackson as house servant Steven. The Uncle Tom from hell, balding, limping and in a constant state of bewilderment/silent rage Jackson relishes the ultimate in reverse stereotyping. It’s a role that if misjudged could have come across as extremely uncomfortable. Under his performance, it’s a scary and hysterical joy. Another larger than life performance could tip things too far over the edge yet Jamie Foxx wisely decides to play down any caricatures. His Django is a man of few words and big actions and when there are words they come like daggers. It’s a performance of quiet electricity.

 

Django Unchained is not perfect by any stretch. Part of me still would very much like to see Tarantino whittle down a project to under two hours and some of his choices of direction still raise an eyebrow. He casts himself in a cameo role with a bizarre and quite frankly terrible Australian accent that proves he should genuinely stay behind the camera than venture in front of it. Minor faults aside this is something of a comeback for Tarantino, ironic that he is considered the master of comebacks for actors. His devotees would argue he never went away but this is definitely in the upper tier and reminds you of his best. It’s like a shot of tequila; it burns the throat but the aftertaste is terrific.

 

Flight Film Review

You may think that Flight is an air disaster movie, but you would be wrong. It is a film about addiction and consequence, but do not let that put you off. This dazzling and adult film from Robert Zemeckis is a punchy, entertaining and thrilling look into the life of Whip Whitaker, a pilot who is introduced to us in the opening scene in a hotel room with empty bottles, cigarette butts, a naked women and cocaine. The cocaine he then snorts because he is working that day and has to go and fly a plane.

The role of Whit Whitaker is played by Denzel Washington, and, boy, does he go for it. Washington really is one of the best actors that we have. He is just excellence personified. As the pilot that can fly better when high and drunk than other pilots can do sober, his charisma makes you like him, even when he is pressing his self destruct button over and over again. His character’s arrogance is beautifully played by Washington, ‘Nobody could’ve landed that plane like I did.’ An investigation is launched into the crash and the people surrounding Whit are trying to get him off, but is he?

John Goodman’s drug dealer is always underscored on entrance to a Rolling Stones tracks and the supporting cast are all first class. Kelly Reilly is also very good as a drug addict who Washington tries to save.

I loved this film. An entertaining, adult look into addiction and people trying to connect with each other. Go see.

HELLBOY & PAN’S LABYRINTH ACTOR DOUG JONES SIGNS UP FOR ‘MONSTER’ ROLE

Production Company Movie Mogul Ltd (PANIC BUTTON), have signed up US actor Doug Jones in their up-coming production of sci-fi action horror WE ARE MONSTERS.

Jones, a former contortionist, who is perhaps best known in the UK for his roles in the Hellboy films and Pan’s Labyrinth, will play the part of the ‘monstrously evil’ Sir Daniel Southall.

Also attached to the film, which goes into pre-production shortly is monster effects specialist Neill Gorton ( FROM HELL); Stunt Co-ordinator Andy Bennett (THE WOMAN IN BLACK) and Storyboard artist Ben Oliver (JUDGE DREDD, X-MEN).

Keen to involve the public, WE ARE MONSTERS producer, director and co-writer John Shackleton, has turned to crowd-funding platform Kickstarter in what is being dubbed the most ambitious UK Kickstarter film project yet. Their campaign runs until Feb 11th and has already reached 30% of their £100k funding goal.

We Are Monsters follows Lorna Thompson, a lonely suburban schoolgirl, joins a mutant gang of teenagers on a quest to discover their true identities. They uncover a global conspiracy, which they must find the strength to fight before civilization is destroyed.

www.wearemonstersmovie.com

Win a Copy of Hysteria on DVD

Frost Magazine has teamed up with  Sony Pictures Home Entertainment in the UK and are giving away copies of Hysteria on DVD.

The film is a fun romantic comedy starring the lovely Hugh Dancy, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Rupert Everett and Sheridan Smith, set in Victorian England and telling the story of the accidental invention of the electro-mechanical vibrator. This film would be a great addition to your DVD collection and if you have any old DVDs that you never watch anymore, trade them in by visiting musicmagpie.com

To win just follow @Frostmag on Twitter, or Frost’s editor, @Balavage and Tweet: “I want to win Hysteria DVD with @Frostmag”. Or sign up for our newsletter.

This competition is open to UK residents only.

HYSTERIA is out on DVD January 14th, courtesy of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Copyright: © 2011 Hysteria Films Limited, Arte France Cinema and By Alternative Pictures S.A.R.L. All Rights Reserved.

Do Elephants Pray? | Film Review

Do Elephants Pray? is a film that anyone on the 9-5 rat race will be able to relate to, and to their credit, the filmmakers capture the dull greyness of adulthood, jobs and responsibility perfectly.

Advertising executive Callum Cutter’s (Jonnie Hurn) life completely changes after he meets a French free spirit (hippie) Malika (Julie Dray) and their worlds of commerce and nature collide. Malika promises to change Callum’s life forever, as long as he keeps her identity secret.

Callum is the head of his own failing advertising company and is trying to find meaning in his own soulless life, he is played with subtlety by Hurn who is very good in his role and is also the screenwriter and producer of the film. Callum faces the dilemma of selling the unsellable product.

Marc Warren (of Hustle fame) is also in this film, playing a cad after Callum’s job to perfection. This film was five years in the making and is based on real events on the life of writer/actor Jonnie Hurn, which gives the movie substance. Filmed in London and in the magical forest of Broceliande in Brittany, the film stays true to itself. Do Elephants Pray? is an enjoyable film about self awareness and the meaning of life. With talented and passionate people behind the story it is definitely one to watch. Director and producer Paul Hills has directed well, capturing the essence of the film.

Length: 105 minutes.

Life of Pi – Film Review

For those of you who might not have seen the trailer, or any of the promotional material, or read the book, the plot of Life of Pi can me summarised thusly: a teenage boy gets stranded at sea in a life raft with a tiger.

It is promised very early on that this fantastical tale “will make you believe in God.” That’s a pretty bold claim. In order to develop this idea, a significant chunk of the of the first act is dedicated to the protagonist as explains his unorthodox religious beliefs and how they came to be. This is where the problems begin. These beliefs come across as very superficial and are explained in such a way as to make a child exasperated in their simplicity. This is a issue for it is one of the main themes throughout the film, as it is for pretty much every film ever set on a boat in a storm. For all its highfaluting talk of knowing God, it’s basically a story of man against the elements. And a tiger. At sea.

It is a character study and character studies are director Ang Lee’s bread and butter. He won an Oscar for such work with Brokeback Mountain, whilst the excellent World War Two thriller, Lust, Caution was nominated for a Best Picture Golden Globe. However, he seems to struggle whenever copious amounts of CGI are involved. His attempt to perform the same trick with 2003s Hulk ended with some pretty dire results. This is far superior to that mess, but it is deeply unfulfilling on pretty much every level.

Visually, it is very impressive and some of the grander shots were clearly designed with 3D in mind, but this takes nothing away from those who see it in 2D, as I did. There are some really interesting, visually creative moments, though most of them you’ve probably seen in the trailer. The CGI is some of the best I have ever seen. The detail on the tiger, for example, is fantastic. However, it is still clearly not real and somewhat detracts from the movie, removing any sense of peril.

Aside from a few jumpy moments there was no real sense of tension and despite seeing it in a cinema full of children, there were no laughs at the moments which were clearly intended to lighten the mood, with one exception, which I’m not going to spoil for you. Essentially, It goes for the life-affirming triumph over adversity heart strings, but somehow manages to leave ever single one of them unplucked.

Not all of the blame can be placed on Lee, though he must certainly take his fair share. The script is not strong enough. It’s not bad, but it lacks any kind of flair or sparkle. Whether that is his failure to accurately transpose to the big screen or whether the flaws are inherent are in the source material, I cannot say having not read the book. However, the book did win a number of prizes upon release, including the Man Booker Prize for Fiction, which suggests the source material is pretty solid.

On a positive note, the acting was good. Suraj Sharma as Pi put in a great performance for what was essentially him standing in front of a green screen on his own for the majority of the film. Everyone else did the best they could with the source material, but it lacked the appropriate amount of flair for them to be able to anything special with. It was also quite amusing to see Gérard Depardieu pop up randomly at one point in the film.

Now, I feel the need to stress that I did not go into this film looking to hate it. In fact, I was looking to love it and held high hopes, none of which were met. In the end, this is a beautiful looking film, filled with good intentions, but unfortunately, it doesn’t bring anything of substance to the table.

Was the story fantastical enough to make me believe in God? Not even close. It wasn’t even enough to make my eyes fill up. If you want a truly heart-warming story of young man’s fantastical trip, get the far superior Big Fish on Blu-ray or DVD.