Category Archives: Film

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Film Review

Posted on by

The Planet of the Apes is a franchise that has been going strong since I was a kid. Actually, the original was one of my favourite films.

With scientists admitting that they were doing tests on monkeys, and fresh Daily Mail worries about animal/human hybrid experiments, it makes it all the more real and scary.

The Rise of the Planet of the Apes has the amazingly talented Andy Serkis as Caesar, and what a performance.

In support, James Franco plays Will Rodman, whose father, played by John Lithgow, has Alzheimers. Rodman tries desperately to cure his father and the key lies in Caesar who receives an amazing amount of intelligence and self awareness due to the the drug ALZ 112 previously injected into his mother. But the drug doesn’t get funded after Caesar’s mother seemingly turns violent and is killed.

But it’s Serkis’ Caesar who steals the film. We see him unsure of his place in the world, missing his family, feeling different, like an outsider and wondering why his kind are treated differently. Andy Serkis should be allowed the Oscar.

This film has been a runway success so far, taking $54.8m in its opening weekend. Deservedly too. It is a good film, lots of action, well acted and you care for the characters. ‘Rise’ is timely and good entertainment. In short, I recommend it for a perfect fun night out while definitely giving you something to think about over your post-film pizza.

Prose & Cons Casting and Update

Posted on by

Prose & Cons update….

So, we are on IMDB! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014324/ We are really excited now. We are tweaking the script, casting actors, getting ready for a funding blitz. )If you would like to become a producer contact us at frostmagazine@gmail.com)

Lots of people have asked me about casting, and hundreds of people have already applied. I have put a few of the characters we are casting below, but there is more. Feel free to apply, and if you are a filmmaker or actor who has something worthy of being in our film section then email frostmagazine@gmail.com.

The film has no funding at the moment so it is completely a collaboration. No one is getting paid anything, however, if we get funding; you will be paid. I know its annoying but Richard and I are not rich so we can’t fund our own projects.

Thank you!

Company: Run Pictures Film Company

Production Name: Prose and Cons

Production Type: Film (Feature)

Location: London

Salary: Pay depends on whether we get funding!

Production Details: We are doing a feature film, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014324/ It will be entered into festivals. We are trying to get funding but if we don’t we will be making it for no money, no one will be paid, we have cameras and location, etc, all for free.

We understand if this is not for you, but please realise that if we don get funding, it is not just the actors not getting paid.

Paula: female, artistic, good at writing poetry, agoraphobic, anti-social, melancholic, slightly unstable, has to be okay with not showering everyday and looking a bit dishevelled. We are flexible on age. Gender; female Min Age 29 Max Age 40

Spud: Sarah’s best friend: Description25-35, must be able to drive a car. No exceptions.

Spud (not her real name, she loves potatoes) is a screenwriter about to make it big and go to Hollywood. She is best friends with Sarah. Spud has an on/off thing with Jamie.

Jamie: Male, 25-39, eccentric, slightly dim but warm and loving. Terminally unemployed. Loves Spud.

Two Dog Walker: We need two dog walkers with good comedy reactions for one day filming. Any gender.

Sarah’s Publisher; any gender. 35-45. Literary agent. A little heartless.

George White; Male, 45-55, TV presenter, think Philip Scofield but arrogant. Or any American TV anchor.

Anna Whiteman ; 25-35, Female. TV Anchor/presenter. Presents own TV show with Matt. 25-35.

We have more roles to cast but that’s it for now.

Why Films Are Getting Stupider (Probably)

Posted on by

When DreamWorks’ CEO, Jeffrey Katzenberg, stated last month that 2011 had so far been one of the worst years for cinema in recent memory, it was easy to see where he was coming from.

Sure, the CEO of DreamWorks complaining about the quality of filmmaking does reek of hypocrisy (this is the man responsible for the unforgivable Shrek sequels) and yes, this year is probably not worse than 2010 but still, it’s hard to imagine 2011 being remembered as a golden year for cinema (or une année d’or if you want to be all Cannes about it).

How will it be remembered?

Perhaps as the year Harry Potter part 7 part 2 was able to stake a legitimate claim to the title of ‘Best Film of the Summer’, or the year Hollywood was running so low on ideas that they made a freaking Smurfs movie even though no one asked for one and scientific studies (probably) showed that most people would rather have a knitting needle shoved into their eye than have to pass posters emblazoned with the vacuous faces of the smug blue bastards on the tube everyday. Or perhaps 2011 will quite simply be remembered as the year cinema got even stupider.

The central problem with cinema today is that the film industry is no longer making movies for adults. I believe that the blame for this can be attributed to one little word: ‘demographics’.  For a long time now, the balance between ‘show’ and ‘biz’ has been out of whack. Studios are so focused on revenue that films are increasingly being made solely to appeal to the broadest possible consumer demographic, forsaking little things like quality and integrity.

It seems that some marketing genius somewhere has also decided that people over the age of about 15 don’t go to the cinema anymore.  In addition to this, it’s common knowledge that the young, perhaps due to their not-as-yet-entirely-formed brains, are much more inclined to buy the ‘merchandise’ that movie studios are busy fashioning out of cheap plastic and the tears of orphans in some factory in the Far East. This has led to film studios pouring huge amounts of time and money into films aimed at teenagers and, God help us, tweenagers. (It should be noted at this juncture that this demographic of course deserves to be rewarded for its valuable

Unnecessary and irritating

contribution to our flagging economy and for the fact that it isn’t comprised of ungrateful squatters insistent on milking dry our society’s bizarre idolisation of the young).

This not only leads to more films being made specifically for a younger age group, but also to the tweaking of films that traditionally might not have been aimed predominantly at a youth market (this is why every big Hollywood film now has to have a seemingly unnecessary and irritating teenage character who makes wisecracks and adds little or nothing to the plot).

In addition to this, there are countless examples of screenwriters having their work butchered because Hollywood execs are worried that this youth market won’t understand words of more than two syllables or be able to focus on the screen for 15 seconds without an anaemic chase sequence or a cutesy CGI rabbit prancing around.  In short, they are attempting to make movies so stupid that even the stupidest person in the room can enjoy them.

Of course, this is based on the mistaken assumption that teenagers and children are idiots. I don’t believe this and I’m sure you don’t either. In fact, in my experience kids are more equipped than most to follow the plot of even the most byzantine blockbuster because not having student loans to pay off or a job to worry about means that they are able to focus much more energy on understanding the intricate details of a fictional world.

Naturally, some children are idiots in the same way that some adults are idiots (children and adults share many similarities like this, something the use of ‘demographics’ fails to elucidate) but on the whole, children are pretty smart. If you don’t believe me, just ask any little boy about his love of Star Wars or James Bond or dinosaurs and I guarantee that he will amaze you with an answer so extensive and detailed that even Temple Grandin would probably think it was a

All it takes is one strong gust of wind...

little over the top.

No, I don’t think that the youth market is stupid and neither do you, but as we all know, conventional wisdom has no place in Hollywood and clearly they think the little darlings are as thick as box of rocks.  Don’t believe this? Don’t believe that movies are getting stupider? I have a statistic: the average shot length (ASL) of US films in 2008 was 2.5 seconds (the most recent statistic I could find). This means that roughly half the time in 2010, movies could not go 2.5 seconds without cutting to a different shot. The average movie studio believes that we can’t go more than about three seconds without the under-15s getting distracted and leaping around the cinema trying to catch imaginary butterflies.

If this is not an absurd underestimation of our collective intelligence then I don’t know what is.

Compare this to the fact that in 2000 it was 4.7, in 1994 it was 6.8 and in 1972 it was a whopping 8.6 seconds and you have categorical proof that films are getting dumber and it’s children’s fault.

 

Of course, the fact that so many films are being so heavily targeted to the youth demographic means that anyone over the age of 15 is skipping the cinema and staying home to watch Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic instead. This means that when the marketing guy checks the figures again, he naturally comes to the conclusion that no one over the age of 15 goes to the cinema and so he reports that the studio should be even more heavily targeting their output to the youth demographic who are of course all suffering from ADHD, anterograde amnesia

Did you know that if you watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon whilst simultaneously listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon it actually drowns out the piss-poor dialogue?

and crippling stupidity. This in turn, leads to more stupid movies and even fewer intelligent adults going to the cinema. The marketing guy then checks the figures again and so on and so forth. It’s a vicious circle, but I’m sure you’ve got that now (unless of course you’re a teenager, in which case we’ll be here for hours).

Compounding this problem is the fact that films getting steadily stupider means that cinemagoers (on the rare occasions that you do go to the cinema) are becoming less demanding, indoctrinated by this widespread idiocy. This means that the bar for what people will pay to see at the cinema just keeps getting lower. So when you forked over your hard-earned cash to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon (even the title has a typo) because ‘y’know it passes the time of day and there are like some real cool ‘splosions and such’ you were actually creating a demand for more horribly inane movies to be made. Basically, it’s your fault.

By now this relentless negativity, this somewhat condescending end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it attitude that I’ve adopted has started to wear you down and you’re probably left asking firstly, whether things are really as bad as I’m making out and secondly whether we can do anything to prevent cinema’s seemingly inevitable descent into idiocy.

Well, the answer to the first question is a tentative ‘not really, I’m being dramatic’. While on the whole, studios do seem to be churning out more and more movies that are little more than products designed to generate revenue, all is not lost. This year alone has seen

Apathy is bad

many surprising, heartfelt, challenging brilliant films such as Win Win, True Grit, Tree of Life, Beginners, Bridesmaids and Submarine so we definitely shouldn’t give up hope yet.

And the answer to the second question is ‘yes’, you can prevent it by going to see the films I listed above because demand creates supply.

If more people go to see intelligent and well-made films, then more intelligent and well-made films will be made, it’s basic economics. Now, I’m not saying that we all need to be watching Eastern European art house films with inexplicable costumes and ugly people crying, just choosing the better option.

If you’re going to the cinema this evening, don’t go and see Transformers, go and see Super 8 or Tree of Life instead. And later this year don’t go and see Final Destination 5 (5inal Destination, seriously?), go and see Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.

Have some self-respect and demand something from cinema. Demand to be challenged, to be moved, or to laugh. Demand to be exhilarated or befuddled. Demand to be angered even.  Just don’t allow yourself to be yet another pile of laundry who just sits in that dark room feeling nothing for 90 minutes and then immediately forgets about it afterwards because you are better than that and you deserve better than that. After all, we are lucky enough to be alive at a time when the likes of Terrence Malick, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are still making movies. Let’s take a moment to be grateful for that.

If you want to try to counteract the ill-effects of the cinematic junk food you are being force-fed, then please check out our new semi-regular feature, ‘Have you seen… ‘. The first of these is about the 1998 film Happiness and can be found here:    Have You Seen… Happiness?

Have you seen… Happiness?

Posted on by

In the first instalment of a new series of articles highlighting films that have you might have missed, Charles Rivington tackles Todd Solondz’s controversial 1998 ensemble piece, Happiness.

 I want to start by stating quite simply that Todd Solondz’s Happiness is not for everyone. It seems odd to say this given that I am meant to be encouraging you to watch it but I feel compelled to tell you that there is a good chance that you will hate Happiness. I have shown Happiness to a large number of friends and while half of them

       

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Lara Flynn Boyle form an unlikely bond in Happiness

have loved it and raved about it (never the ones you expect), the other half have branded it ‘tasteless’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘immoral’.  These people aren’t bible-bashers or Daily Mail readers either, they are well rounded and open-minded and yet they still take moral umbrage with this film. To be honest it’s not hard to see where they are coming from. Happiness presents us with a veritable smorgasbord of deviant and disturbing behaviour: sexual abuse, suicide, murder, masturbation, dismemberment and, most prominently and most upsettingly, child rape. And yet it if you can cope with these issues being discussed and alluded to in a film (for the most part they occur mercifully off-screen), Happiness is a brutally funny, unexpectedly moving and thoroughly rewarding experience.

 

The structure of Happiness is clearly inspired by Chekhov’s Three Sisters (also the inspiration for  Woody Allen’s brilliant, Hannah and Sisters which may well be the subject of a future ‘Have you seen…’). Happiness centres around three adult sisters, their families and neighbours who all live in a nightmarish version of New Jersey that would  even make a ‘real housewife’ rather uncomfortable. Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), the eldest sister is a smug suburban housewife and mother whose psychiatrist husband, Bill (a spellbinding turn from Dylan Baker) has developed a secret obsession with his eleven-year-old son’s classmate. Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle) is a famous poet who has become disillusioned with her success, leading her to fantasise about being raped. The youngest daughter, the ironically named Joy (a charmingly pathetic Jane Adams) is a meek, dormouse of a woman whose love life and singing career are equally as dead in the water, eliciting the smug sympathy of her more successful siblings. Rounding out the cast are Louise Lasser and Ben Gazarra as the sisters’ divorcing parents, Camryn Manheim as an overweight woman who ‘hates sex’ and a pre-fame Philip Seymour Hoffman delivering a hilariously repugnant performance as Helen’s lonely and sexually deviant neighbour.

 

While outlining the film’s plot above in such a perfunctory manner suggests that Solondz is merely attempting to provoke shock for the sake of shock (and there is clearly an element of this), Happiness’s success lies in its handling of these controversial issues and horrifically flawed characters, not only with blistering humour, but also with alarming sensitivity, compassion even . The is most striking in Dylan Baker’s masterful performance as Bill, a child rapist and the centre of the film’s most controversial and disturbing plot strand. While Bill’s actions in the film are despicable and calculated and I’d be loathe to go as far as to describe him as sympathetic, Solondz’s writing and Baker’s performance at the very least present Bill as being unquestionably human. His humanity is most apparent in a quiet yet pivotal scene  in which Bill confesses his crimes to his young son, Billy (Rufus Reed). The conversation between father and son is both deeply unpleasant and very moving; despite his heinous acts it is clear that Bill loves Billy and can’t bring himself to lie to him. It’s an unbearably painful moment that will sear itself onto your memory and stay with you long after the film is over.

 

Despite it’s disturbing themes, Solondz also manages to mine a large amount of pitch black humour from the material (Happiness is essentially a comedy, albeit a very dark one) and much of the film is laugh-out-loud hilarious and irresistibly quotable; a personal favourite being the sophisticated Helen insisting to her younger sister that “I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing with you” to which Jane Adam’s Joy, her eyes wide and watery, meekly replies, “but I’m not laughing”.  Solondz’s cruel sense of humour is apparent right

Jane Adams looking pensive in Happiness

from the off in the film’s fantastic opening scene which depicts a horribly uncomfortable dinner date between the pathetic Joy and her even more pathetic, soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend Andy (Jon Lovitz in a hilarious cameo). This remarkable scene is pretty much self-contained (it feels like a short play) and serves to lull the audience into a false sense of security, deliberately wrong-footing us so that we are ill-prepared for the horrors that await. Even if you don’t feel compelled to watch the film, I would recommend tracking down this one scene as it is very funny.

 

So there you have it: Happiness, a disturbing, disgusting and hilarious portrait of the dark side of human nature. Whether you immediately add it to your Lovefilm queue or you roll your eyes and close this browser window in disgust is entirely up to you. Happiness is not for everyone and maybe it’s not for you but even if its not can we please all take a minute and appreciate what a good thing that is. In a world where big studios spend all their time and energy chasing the broadest demographics and dumbing movies down in the process, I think we should all be grateful when a film comes along that isn’t ‘fun for all the family’, isn’t patronising, doesn’t talk down to us, is aimed solely at adults and, most importantly, doesn’t have ‘something for everyone’. Thank you Todd Solondz. Thank you Happiness.

Watch the (somewhat misleading) trailer for Happiness here:

Happiness Trailer

And the opening scene:

Happiness Opening

Prose & Cons: A Melancholic Comedy

Posted on by

After the success of Bridesmaids, a new wave of films with strong female characters are hitting cinema screens. Prose & Cons is a black, melancholic comedy set in the world of artistic frustration and writers block.

Sarah [Played by Catherine Balavage] is one of the new waves of poets. Her book sold millions of copies, but now she hasn’t written anything for over 160 days, and her publisher is getting restless. After an ultimatum from her publisher, and a horrendous poetry reading that went viral on twitter and YouTube, Sarah becomes increasingly desperate for new material. Her actions have far-reaching consequences that will change the lives of all of those around her.

Directed by Richard Wright and produced and written by Richard and Catherine; Prose & Cons is a film about writer’s block, consequences, friends and the resilience of typewriters.

Follow the film on Twitter here: @undersadtears

Here is the directors production diary: http://undersadtears.wordpress.com/

You can keep up to date on Prose & Cons IMDB Page

And more info on Catherine here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2952107/

Released 28th November 2011.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Posted on by

*WARNING! MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!*

After ten years, the end of the Harry Potter saga has finally come to an end. It is one of the most anticipated summer blockbuster movies of 2011 and it is just as insanely popular when the book was released at our local bookstores. The result is just as exciting as you’d expect a movie finale.

The story continues as Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to destroy Voldemort’s last remaining Horcruxes (each individual item Voldemort has put his soul to make himself immortal). Meanwhile, Hogwarts is under the control of Death-Eaters and Dementors. The story is just continues straight from Part 1 and you can really feel Harry’s struggle to destroy the last remaining Horcruxes. Even showing Voldemort slowly, and eventually, growing more vulnerable as the story progresses. For those who have read the books, it won’t come to any surprise with the few twists here and there (i.e. Ciarán Hinds as Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth Dumbledore). A lot is at stake and director David Yates really dwells on that very well! The only problem I have is the time duration; Part 1 was 2 hours and 26 minutes, this film is only 2 hours 10 minutes long. It feels a lot shorter than it says, when it honestly should have been a lot longer to really show the epic story and scale of the production.

The performances from the three main leads are nothing to write about but they have improved over the years during the film series run. The film features an amazing British ensemble cast; Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Julie Walters and even David Yates collaborator Kelly Macdonald (State of Play mini-series and The Girl in the Café) gets an appearance as Helena Ravenclaw. As much it is fantastic to see such huge names in a film like Harry Potter, the time duration comes to affect and limits their screen-time. Fiennes, however, does show he is having a lot of fun playing Voldemort but also shows a twisted charismatic presence you don’t get a lot from villains nowadays.

The production value is top-notch, you can see a lot of effort and care has been put on this epic finale. The sets look fantastic, the visual effects look dazzling and the orchestral score (by Alexandre Desplat) really brings the emotional core to the story and overall film. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort is rather intense but it all feels rushed and quite lacking compared to other epics (The Lord of the Rings). Though Warner Bros. doesn’t pull any stops and really does deliver quite an event.

Overall; it is the film Harry Potter fans want from a finale and it is the best in the series. Not quite as the big bang it was anticipating but still has enough to keep you satisfied through-out. You can’t deny the Harry Potter film series will have Hollywood keep its eye on British filmmaking and finding talent overseas. An immensely well made production, strongly recommended.

4 out of 5

First picture of the New Man of Steel hits the web

Posted on by

This is the first official picture released of Henry Cavill looking very dramatic, very serious and very dark as the new Superman slowly begins to gather pace in time for it’s 2013 release.

Yes we know 2013 seems like an age away and yes this is just one picture for a film which has almost taken six years to get this far – but hey, this is Hollywood and hey, this is a reboot.

So what can we tell so far about the man of steel from this shot?

Well it seems the older blacker suit that was floating around the internet has been dropped; we can clearly see that the familiar blue, yellow and red colours are in place as well as the cape.

The familiar ‘S’ logo is still there although much bigger– so the idea that it will be silver was obviously too a mistake.

Henry Cavill seems to very much look the part. I have to say he looks just that bit bulkier than his last counterpart and the shot looks quite serious; perhaps indicating that this story will be that bit more edgy.

I am really quite excited by this shot although I admit it is not much to go by I think of what Christopher Nolan did with Batman and David Goyer did with Blade and I cant help but think what they recently told the LA Times:

“I immediately got it, loved it and thought: That is a way of approaching the story I’ve never seen before that makes it incredibly exciting. I wanted to get Emma and I involved in shepherding the project right away and getting it to the studio and getting it going in an exciting way.”

If that doesn’t sound like something well and truly promising I guess nothing else will.

 

Mission Impossible 4 Trailer

Posted on by

It’s been five long years since the last dramatic movie, and a whole lot less since the famous incident where he jumped up and down on a famous lady’s sofa but now Tom Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt, in the long-awaited franchise’s fourth instalment Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol.

If you ask me Mr Cruise must have a fountain of youth somewhere because he looks good, real good. And if you ask me he always looked better with long hair so there are reasons to rejoice all round. No body is better at putting more action and twists and turns into two hours than Mr Cruise and if the trailer is anything to go by, fans of the franchise are in for a treat as the new movie appears to be packed with more death-defying stunts, dramatic chases and amazing explosions than an adrenaline junkie fed on triple Red bull intravenous drips.

In the montage I managed to spot Dubai, with Ethan Hunt climbing the super-duper high Burj building.

It’s ironic that the initial montage beats along to Eminem’s hard track – I wont back down.

If the film is any where as good as the trailer – we certainly hope he won’t.

We can’t wait till December – check out the trailer and let us know what you think.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0LQnQSrC-g&w=560&h=349]