Homestead is a company in the most lucrative industry ever, colonising new planets. They’ll give you a fresh start on a new world, a chance to build and grow a new society. Embark on the Avalon for a 120 year journey, during which time you’ll be held in suspended animation. They’ve never had any problems, until now. Careful for spoilers.
Universal Studios have announced plans to make a sequel to the hit, 2011, comedy film Bridesmaids, but will it be without star and co-writer Kristen Wiig?
When approached to write the follow up film, Wiig said that she, and her writing partner Annie Mumolo, were not working on that, at least not at the moment, they ‘aren’t planning a sequel’ and ‘are writing something else’. Wiig maintained this firm stance even after a lunch meeting with the studio. Unfortunately, not taking no for an answer, Universal may be planning on going ahead with the film without their leading lady/writer.
A proposed idea for the sequel, would follow Melissa McCarthy’s character, Megan, who many, myself included, thought stole the show in the first one. However, it was Wiig and Mumolo that made that character, and the other characters, funny, so will different writers be able to replicate that or are they just wasting their time? It’s not that Wiig and Mumolo are the best writers in the world, but they did put together a great comedy film that focuses on, occasional, strong female characters, which is something you don’t see every day. Normally they either follow male characters or they’re your typical rom com, which aren’t usually funny.
Both before and after its release, Bridesmaids, was compared to the Hangover, often being called the female version. Now that there have been two successful Hangover films, with a third one on the way, it is no surprise that Universal want to compete with their hit, especially considering the relatively small budget needed to make the film. However, is the risk of destroying the original with a bad sequel, that’s really a spinoff, too great or will the desire to make money win out? Of course the money will win in the end, it generally does in these situations, but hopefully Wiig signs up or, at very least, the writing duo are replaced by someone equally as good.
What do you think? Did you like the first Bridesmaids film? Do you think they should carry on with the original writers? Is there even any need for a sequel? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button. Twitter, yeah that’s right I have a Twitter account, just saying.
Is it possible for friends to have sex without developing romantic feelings for each other? Come on you’ve seen enough chick flicks to know the answer to that.
Friends With Benefits stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, both of which do a good job with their respective ’emotionally distant/damaged’ characters. Timberlake’s character has to deal with slowly losing his dad to Alzheimer’s, while Kunis plays a woman who was raised by a flakey mother who’s gone through a lot of men. The two meet when Jamie, Kunis, headhunts Dylan, Timberlake, for a job in GQ. She flies him out to New York and convinces him that moving there and taking the job is the right thing to do.
The two get to know each other and become friends. Then one night, while talking about how complicated relationships are, Dylan suggests that the two start having sex without any emotional strings attached. Thus begins the predictable plot of the elusive chick flick. However, despite the familiar storyline, the movie was pretty entertaining. The characters were funny, but also had emotional depth and felt three dimensional. They complemented each other well, none stealing the spotlight from the other, and they both had their own individual storylines, which gives the film more layers and ultimately gave the viewer an insight into why they should give a crap about these characters.
A lot of the time, when watching romantic comedies, you start to wonder where the comedy is, but that’s not the case here. There are a lot of good laughs that both genders will enjoy. In fact, guys will enjoy it so much that I’m not even classing it as a chick flick, even though there are some shocking similarities.
Though not quite as clever as Bridesmaids, Friends With Benefits is an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half and I would recommend it to anyone who wants a good laugh and doesn’t mind some character development along the way.
What do you think? Is Friends With Benefits a chick flick? Are you going to see it in the cinema? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
In a town were dancing is against the law, the teenagers fight for their right to boogie.
The 1984 hit film Footloose is being remade and brought to the next generation. The film is set in the fictional town of Bomont and will star Kenny Wormald as Ren McCormack, played by Kevin Bacon in the original, and Julianne Hough as Ariel, originally played by Lori Singer.
Bomont is an uptight old-fashioned town were, after five teens die in a car accident coming home from a dance, a law was passed to stop minors dancing in public (seems like they probably should have just banned driving, but that would be ridiculous). Then a city kid called Ren, moves to town and rebels against the law. Ironically the town were dancing is illegal is also the home of some really skilled dancers, like no way they got that good without practice.
The trailer was good, but will modern audiences be able to take the plot serious? There’s one part were, in court, Ren says ‘there was once a time for that law, but not anymore’, the law forbidding public dancing was only passed three years before Ren moved to Bomont, that’s not a lot of time for the law to go from necessary to unnecessary. Then again, the law was completely crazy to begin with, or was it? The whole idea of a town that banned dancing wasn’t made up. The inspiration came from a Elmore City, a place in America were dancing was banned until 1980. However, in reality the ban was put in place in the late 1800s, which is a little more believable than 2008.
As far as dance movies go, it seems pretty good and, though the cast look too old to be effected by the no minors dancing in public law, the characters seem believable. It should also be noted that, despite it now being a classic, the original Footloose got really bad reviews, makes me wonder if this one will do any better. Maybe the modern setting and music will help the story. Speaking of music, the trailer plays a number of songs; some are reminiscent of the Step Up movies, while others are more country. The trailer itself gives the same impression; Step Up with a country edge.
We won’t really now if it’s good or not until the movie comes out on the 14th of October, but what do you think? Did you like the original? Are you looking forward to seeing a modern version? Do you hate dance movies? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
Lionsgate have announced that they are remaking the classic film Dirty Dancing. This revelation proves that it is in fact impossible to put Baby in a corner and make her stay there.
The original film came out in 1987 and follows a young girl, Frances ‘Baby’ Houseman, who, while away with her family, falls in love with a dance instructor. The film covers controversial issues, some that are still controversial today, like abortion. Despite abortion still being a grey area in film, the rest of the plot is pretty tame by today’s standards and most young people have done much dirtier dancing in nightclubs.
However, the remake will not be set in modern times. This means that it will be able to stay as tame as its predecessor and have an identical setting and list of characters. So what’s the point of making the same film twice? For that answer you’d have to ask the creators of Final Destination. However, this is not the first time Dirty Dancing has been remade. In 1988 a TV series of Dirty Dancing, which featured none of the original cast, was made. The show basically retold the events of the movie, with some alterations, but it only lasted eleven episodes. Then in 2004 a remake called Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights came out. The film was negatively received and criticised heavily for copying the original.
Many of the people who worked, behind the scenes, of the original film will be returning for this remake. Does this mean it has a chance of living up to the original? Or will it be too tame to leave an impact on today’s viewer? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
Bridesmaids is an upcoming romantic comedy that claims to be as funny as The Hangover. However, it’s fair to say that the audience appeal isn’t as wide as The Hangover, as romantic comedies often fall into the chick flick category. This means that there won’t be a lot of men who willingly go to see Bridesmaids. The movie doesn’t come out in the UK or Ireland until the 24th of June, but some reviewers, who seen it in America where it came out last month, are already praising it, even going as far as saying that it reinvents the romantic comedy, which is typically the most predicable movie genre.
The film follows a single woman who has gotten tired of her ‘sex buddies’ relationship and wants something more. She then finds out that her best friend, who she’s known since childhood, is getting married and wants her to be the maid of honour. This gives her an overwhelming list of tasks to achieve, plus she must spend time with the other bridesmaids, one of which may be trying to steal her best friend. Will she be able to be truly happy for her friend, or will jealousy overcome her?
Going solely on the plot, it doesn’t sound a million miles away from your typical romantic comedy. One thing that does stand out though, the main characters are all women it’s not just a man and a woman. However, there is a love interest, but he doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the film. The trailer shows some funny scenes and, without sounding too critical, you don’t usually get many funny scenes in a romantic comedy. Much of the comedy comes from the different bridesmaids, each representing a different relationship type. There’s the newlywed, the girl who’s sick of her marriage, the unmarried childless one and the co-dependent one.
Without seeing it it’s hard to say whether or not it’s as funny as the hangover, but I am confident in the fact that it is boy friendly, though it wouldn’t be my first choice. It received great reviews in America, but we’ll have to wait and see if the European audience response to it as well as the American one did. Still it’s hard to condemn anything that takes on the predictable, by the book, genre that is romantic comedies.
What do you think? Are you looking forward to this film? Do you think it will be funnier than The Hangover? Which would you rather see? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and if you like this post show it by clicking the like button.
Robert Pattinson goes from an animal eating vampire to a circus veterinarian as he attempts to take his career in a more serious direction. Will his plan work or will he always be haunted by Edward Cullen?
Water for Elephants started out as a book by Sara Gruen. It was Gruen’s third book and was initially turned down by her publisher. Since publication, in 2006, it has become a bestseller and can be read in 44 different languages. The story is narrated by Jacob Jankowski, a 90 something year old man living in a nursing home. Jacob reminisces about his life as veterinarian in a circus. While working at the circus, he met, and fell in love with, a married woman named Marlena, as if that wasn’t bad enough, her husband is a paranoid schizophrenic.
The movie follows the same plot and stars Robert Pattinson as Jacob, Reese Witherspoon as Marlena and Christoph Waltz as August, Marlena’s Husband. Both critics and movie goers have criticised the chemistry, or lack of chemistry, between Pattinson and Witherspoon. It seems that the 11 year age gap may have taken a toll on their performances, which, to be honest, isn’t surprising. Besides that there isn’t much criticism to be said, but chemistry between characters can make or break a movie. It really makes me wonder if, when casting for the movie, they were looking for chemistry or just big names.
Though not my type of movie, I have to say that, from the trailer, the movie looks very well put together. If you’re an animal lover you should be warned that there are some scenes of animal cruelty. The cruelty toward animals was also present in the book, because it was very common in circuses back then, but no animals were actually hurt it’s all just Hollywood magic.
What do you think? Does this movie help Robert Pattinson become a more serious actor? Is the book better or worse than the movie? Did you think there was chemistry between Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe.
The tale’s as old as time, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be modernised. Based on the 2007 book, of the same name, Beastly is a modern film adaptation of Beauty and the Beast, set in New York.
The story follows Kyle Kingsbury, played by Alex Pettyfer, a teenager who was raised to believe that looks were everything. He’s rich, good looking and just an all round bad guy. One day, he angers the wrong person; she turns out to be a witch, played by Mary-Kate Olsen, and curses him by taking away his good looks. His father sends him to live alone so no one would see him and he soon learns, through social networks of course, that people didn’t really like him after all.
A tutor is hired to help him keep up with his schoolwork; the tutor is blind and played by Neil Patrick Harris. His solitude is also broken by a maid, because his lesson his about beauty not picking up after himself. One day he saves one of his old classmates, Vanessa Hudgens, from muggers. He then brings her back to his home to protect her. He only has a year to find love or he’ll be ugly forever, will he make it in time?
The trailer makes it clear that this is aimed at romance fans. I mean real romance fan, it’s not diluted with comedy you have to have a strong stomach for this kind of love story. Twilight fans will probably love it and boyfriends of Twilight fans will probably hate it even more than Twilight.
I’m going to judge the film by looks for a minute. The scars/tattoos that are given to Kyle, as unappealing as they are, don’t really scream ugly. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be happy to have it done to me, I just mean when I heard it took six hours every day to apply the full-body makeup, I was expecting more. Hudgens’ character says it herself ‘I’ve seen worse’. As I haven’t read the book, it’s hard to say how loyal they were in terms of character description.
The film was originally intended to be released last July, but it was moved to avoid going head to head with Zac Efron’s Charlie St. Cloud. The reason they didn’t want to release it at the same time as Charlie St. Cloud was so fans of both Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens would not have to face the dilemma of choosing sides. The movie will now come to cinemas on the 4th of March, in the US, and on the 22nd of April, in the UK and Ireland.
What do you think of the trailer? Do you think the movie looks good? Were there ever really two Olsen twins, Mary-Kate’s the only one that seems to act these days?