Frozen

It's another Disney Princess film! Yay!

I have the feeling that if I watched this as a child I would have given it a million stars out of ten. But I think my young adult mind as skipped and gone straight into critical mode. It doesn't help that I am currently doing a module on Animation and noticing that nearly every single Disney Princess is the same. Seriously.

1. They are all young, skinny ad beautiful. I think the oldest was around eighteen. The youngest nearly twelve, depending if you count Alice from Alice in Wonderland as a Disney Princess....
2. The Princes or love interest are always equally good looking. They might have a personality trait that makes them really off putting, usually a giant ego, but we must look past that as they are hot. Apparently.
3. Disney villain. Female villain is jealous of the Princess. Well duh. Male Villain wants to bone Disney princess. Mega duh. Also they ALWAYS die. I can not recall a Disney Princess film where the villain doesn't die. Yes I am aware that there are sequels to films where they come back, Jafar being the best example.
4. Happily Ever After. Enough said.

So yes Frozen! The film I have heard nothing about for the past few weeks. Children going crazy, girls my age and just above going absolutely mad. The same damn song sang over, and over and over again.... Most Disney films have that ONE song you just know. I have no shame in admitting I can recite both parts to A Whole New World from Aladdin and The Circle of Life from The Lion King. But it can be annoying after a while.

Frozen is not like your typical Disney film animation wise. A lot of the new films are starting to take on the look similar to Dreamworks and Pixar CGI. Less cartoon like but still keeping i with the look that the Disney characters do, such as the big eyes. It is also based on a beloved children's fairy tale, The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Anderson, the same genius behind The Little Mermaid. Also if you want your childhood ruined go read the original story for the Little Mermaid.... seriously. Childhoods will be ruined.

The main female princesses in the film are very strong characters, both with distinct yet slightly different personalities. Elsa, the one with magic ice and snow powers, isolates herself a lot, being very shy about her powers. Anna is more outgoing and playful even into her teens, I assume teens. The supposed Prince is a massive douche, of course. The other love interest is the super nice guy who you are praying to escape the friend zone but it is obvious from the word GO that he will. It is Disney. Who wants the rude egotistical prince to get the girl? This isn't real life, we got to give those poor men in the friend zone some hope. Should have called him Ron, then it would definitely happen.

It don't know if it is the fact that it happens to much in Disney films but the whole Happy Ever After endings get annoying to me. It makes films predictable but I suppose you need to have a good story to fill in the gaps. But I did like that the story did something I haven't seen before. It focused on the relationship between sisters. The love of sisters for that matter, which ultimately brings together the Happy Ever After. I reckon Disney is trying to bring about the success of the Disney Renaissance period from long ago, and if they continue this way they probably will match it somehow. As long as the animation stays flowed and the stories stick to the cliche convention but with an added twist I reckon they could. Disney won't lose it's appeal with children, but Frozen showed it is able to capture the hearts of adults as well. I can see how it can. 

Underrated Actors and Directors.

Whenever I watch the Oscars I can't help but watch see more deserving people to win awards at times. It is no secret in Hollywood that the Academy Awards is biased to many actors and even directors. Take a look at Argo. That film swept the board for acting, directing and best film despite Ben "Batman" Affleck being the director and main actor. But he was snubbed a nomination for best director. Terrible. But revenge is best sold sweet, by winning BEST Picture. Yep. I felt it was deserved.

Now this is something in the film industry that happens a lot. This could be for being typecast or deemed to weird or quirky or even for being more of a comedic actor. Now I'm not saying by underrated as in they don't get the film roles, I'm saying underrated as in they don't get recognized for their film roles.

One of my favourite actors of all time is Gary Oldman. An amazing, talented actor who really really should have won for his role in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy at the Oscars. Best Actor. But you're always going to lose out if the other film in the category is either a musical or based on a true story aka. historical drama. Lincoln won best actor with Daniel Day Lewis, so point proven. Nothing against this at all, but I was so disappointed that Gary was unable to receive an Oscar he truly deserves. But there are so many out there who I have felt the same with.

Johnny Depp, quirky, weird, but there is no denial that he is a chameleon. He can portray literally anything, whether it is a drunken pirate, a director in drag or a man with scissors for hands. Hopefully something will come along for him that awards his amazing talent.

Alan Rickman, his voice should have its own award.

Leonardo DiCaprio, although not a huge fan I was surprised that he doesn't have an award, especially since he wasn't even nominated for his role in Titanic, the film that won 11 Oscars, tying with most awards with LOTR The Return of the King.

Morgan Freeman, although he has an Oscar, should have had one for The Shawshank Redemption. That reminds me, that film should have won best picture, not Forest Gump. Unpopular opinion here.

But this is only a few examples. Hopefully the underdogs of Hollywood will rise up those stairs one day to collect the recognition they truly deserve.

Why I Won't Review The One Direction Movie.

Because I said NO.

It's nothing to do with the fact I hate their music, or the fact they got famous for auditioning for a reality tv "talent" show. It's the simple fact that I know I won't like it, so my review will be completely biased of my hatred towards them and their music and their annoying psycho fanbase (incoming death threats).

So no. Just NO.

"Holy Miscast Batman!"

Firstly apologies for the lack of posts. I have been somewhat busy with writers block and taking time off to do the festival summer season, the weather must have something to do with it.

But I had to get in on this turn of events which is the announcement of Ben Affleck being cast as Batman for the upcoming 2015 film Superman and Batman film. Now as a popular fan of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy with Christian Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne. At first my emotions went like this:

1. Denial. I thought it was a joke. Not on the lines of Half Life 3 confirmed joke, but a troll none the less.
2. Anger. Remembering that goddamn film where he played opposite one time lover J-Lo. I am so annoyed at this film I can't even bare to mention the actual film name. Oh and Daredevil. No one can forgive him for Daredevil.
3. Confusion. Who was he up against? Who else auditioned or was considered for the part that made him number one choice above all?
4. (Slight) Acceptance. Decided to accept that the backlash would probably do nothing to sway the mighty had of the director's choice and just deal with it.

Now the reason I accepted this is because of something interesting I came across one night while pondering these many thoughts between my gaming breaks. There have been many, many actors and actresses cast in roles before that have always been thought of as bad, terrible for the part but then are either proven wrong or get replaced at last minute before filming can progress too far. Examples you ask?

1. Harry Potter. The role of the loveable boy wizard originally went to Hayley "I see Dead People" Joel Osment. J.K Rowling was so angry at this casting of a american in a british role she threatened to have nothing to do with the films. Luckily, they listened and Daniel Radcliffe was cast.
2. Aragorn. Yep, originally Stuart Townsend of League of Extraordinary Gentleman fame was a member of the famous fellowship of the ring. Until Peter Jackson realized that someone who was supposed to play an 87 year old Gondor King needed to look a bit older and rougher and tougher. So just in time Viggo Mortensen took his place.
3. Marty McFly. The role of the unlucky time traveller originally was in the hands of Eric Stoltz. After realizing that he was the missing comedy timing that the director was looking for, he was replaced with Michael J. Fox.

The list could go on but these for me are the popular choices.

Then I remembered a recent event which was similar to this situation. An actor cast in a role which people are unsure of. Peter Capaldi as the Doctor in Doctor Who. Now this ranged from "oh my god perfect" to "ew he's too old". I should note that any real fan of Doctor Who would know that the Doctor has been played by many older men in the past. It's what the role is about, a British white male in the role everytime. Not in a racist way, but seriously people are asking for a woman Doctor too. It is annoying. So as you can imagine the majority of the internet judged this casting. But the majority was "I'm going to see how this plays out". He doesn't take over the role until December of this year. I for one, think he was a good choice, and can't wait to see what he is like. Every Doctor is different after all.

And now for my final example of the evening. I present Heath Ledger. The Joker. He was cast as the infamous villain opposite Christian Bale's Batman in The Dark Knight. Now I shall ignore the fact that this was the last completed role before he sadly passed away, and go back to when he was cast. When it was announced that the man that once played Patrick Verona in the popular romcom 10 Things I Hate About You, the internet went crazy. Similar to the reaction that people are having now to Ben Affleck. They hated it. Many people said he should "stick to being a gay cowboy". Now I found it interesting that many people hated the fact that a "gay cowboy" was taking the Joker's shoes, especially as this role as a gay cowboy won Heath Ledger multiple awards and nominations for BEST Actor. I assume many didn't think he was capable of playing such a crazy character such as the Joker. All I can say is that Heath Ledger did an amazing performance which disproved most critics, and went on to posthumously win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. I should also point out that for this role, he won over 30 awards for his role as The Joker. In the acting world, that is HUGE. Especially at awards season, and especially for that fact he played a Supporting Character; A Villain.

So now I say Keep Calm, and hide in the Batcave. At least until 2015. When Superman and Batman finally meet on the big screen. I just hope there hasn't been a big mistake with Ben Affleck stepping into the Batmobile. Gobble, gobble.

Love Actually, Chalet Girl and the Rom-Com

As a girl, I should like Romantic Comedies, also known as the dreaded Rom-Com. Now, for as long as I can remember my teens were spent being the anti-girl. A tomboy. I avoided them like the plague and to this day am skeptical of them to this day. Sitting in film class in college and listening to everyone's favourite films and listening to the girls name anything from "Mean Girls" to "House Bunny" was enough to make me cringe. But that doesn't mean I can't like a good film.

Flashback to Xmas time 2005. Young teen me feeling down, a tad bit of teenage depression (waiting for the moment where my friend Simon mentions my "little emo phase" I love hearing about so much) and my dad asks if I want to watch a film. After years of being shown epics such as Shawshank Redemption and The Crow I was expecting something along the same lines. My dad puts on Love Actually. I fell in love with this romantic comedy. It had everything that made me love a good British film. Perfect cast, amazing jokes and brilliant storylines. And most importantly, it was all about love. Instead of following some dumbstruck girl falling for the guy she shouldn't do and a long agonizing hour and half of "will they won't they but they definitely will because its a girls film" cliche, we had different stories of love, loss and rejection. And most importantly of all. Family. And it was the best. My dad and I still watch it nearly every year and I do find myself crying with not just laughter but with happiness.

Flash back to the present day. A screenwriter came to my University and talked about a film he had written the screenplay for. He explained how he had a vision of the story and how it would look on screen only for it to go through tons of rewrites and changes, both in writing and on screen. He said this was normal for a screenwriter getting their story on screen. It made me realize a lot more about the process that goes into each film and the hard work it gets to make it just right that everyone can agree on one final piece.

The film he wrote was Chalet Girl. I looked at it thinking "oh god another one of those boy meets girl cliches" but decided to put my trust in it, like I did with Love Actually, and gave it a watch. First looked at the cast. If it was not for a few tweeks *cough* Ed Westwick *cough* it was almost perfect. Main girl was a girl who I didn't know the name of instead of another Jennifer Aniston role, and the two dads were Bill Nighy and Bill Bailey. Even Brooke Shields as the disproving mother made the cast one of the best in a rom-com I had seen for a long time. Everyone suited their roles perfectly, even the Ed Westwick nice rich boy but slightly douchebag role fitted him well. In a nice way, I don't think anyone else would have pulled it off.

The plot seemed less cliche than most, gave the characters more of a background to go with. Made them seem a lot more human and you could really connect more because of that. The exciting atmosphere of a snowy landscape was a better and more interesting change to possibly the scene of sunny LA or sunny anywhere or the big inner city. The plot went well up until I started guessing everything, as I do with most rom-coms, but there were enough comedy twists involving the ensemble cast that it kept it fun and more interesting as the film went on. I did not like the ending, cliche girl and boy get what they want and everyone is happy, blah blah blah. But overall the film itself was more enjoyable than most, and was definitely one of the better rom-coms out there. I don't know why, but I have a sneaky suspicious this is due to it being a British rom-com. American rom-coms seem to stick to the same boring template, whereas British writing always seems to expand and create something within the template and make it something original on its own.

Anchorman

I'm pretty sure that if I jump straight out and say I don't like Will Ferrell I will have to duck and hide as many devoted fans of his films come at me with pitchforks and fire. So if I explain myself: its not that I don't like him. I just don't find him particularly funny. I will watch films with him in it, but I often find myself laughing at things happening around him, not what he does. There are a few exceptions, but then again, these are a few.

Baring this in mind, Anchorman got stuck on and I rolled my eyes, expecting myself to be the only person not laughing at everything Will Ferrell did. There were moments where I did laugh, which surprised me when a majority were to do with Will. And the plot was not what I expected it to be, bringing in a a good political issue of feminism in the work place which was a brilliant match with the characters being portrayed within the film, especially within the field of Television. This is why with Will Ferrell I am hit and miss with him in his comedies; if the characters and plot work together then I think it works. There were moments of absolute stupidity but they managed to work, somehow, with the direction of the story which often can be the killer in comedies. So to sum up, it depends on how much silliness you can take, or whether you really like Will Ferrell's acting style.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

I am a fan of the ridiculous horror films, even the crazy stoner films which the best critics rate 1 star out of 5 I  will choose over a big period drama or action film. Tucker and Dale reminds me of the classic horror film cliche, but someone stuck two fingers (or even the middle finger) up at genre convention and said they wanted to do something different. This is where horror and comedy are PERFECT.

Tucker and Dale follows the basic horror movie plot:

• You got your creepy dudes. In this case Tucker and Dale
• You got the stupid teenagers going on a camping trip. Oh and of course the camping trip has a scary horror campfire story behind it. And of course the creepiest teenager is the one to tell the story.
• Skimpy girls who figured out that shorts and a revealing top cover underwear. So boobs cleavage.
• Gore. Beautiful, beautiful gore.

But the film takes these basic points and twists them so that whoever is evil, is actually not so evil. You end up cheering for our loveable hill billies Tucker and Dale, the misunderstood heroes of the story and one by one you sigh and scream and the frustration you feel for the annoying teenagers that definitely think they are the main characters of this horror movie but only own about 1 brain cell between the lot of them, resulting in hilarity, confusion and a whole lot of hilarious death scenes. I won't give it away, but a board with broken nails, a woodchipper, and a whole lot of bees. Someone is bound to die in a hilarious or stupid way.

I highly recommend this to anyone, horror fan, comedy fan or even just basic fan of any films or looking for something entertaining to watch for the evening. It's a film you can pull out at any movie night which anyone would be intrigued to watch or even watch again and again. It's one of those films that should be a timeless classic, but without a doubt the best comedy I have watched in recent years.