If there’s one thing that everybody remembers about the original Planet of the Apes movie it’s the Statue of Liberty scene were Taylor discovers that there is no home planet for him to return to as this ape filled land is actually Earth’s grim future. It’s a great twist and sets up for the time travelling sequels, which explore the rise of the apes, the fall of humanity and the eventual destruction of Earth. However, all of this stuff isn’t shown in a linear view, but rather a circular one ending, not with Earth blowing up, but with the apes rising. Time travel has, from the first film adaptation, been a crucial part of The Planet of the Apes, so why won’t it be part of the new movie series?
Rick Jaffa, who co-wrote The rise of the Planet of the Apes and the upcoming sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, has spoken out about the decision to not include time travel in this telling of the ape saga. In an interview with Total Film he said ‘it’s the one big element that we made a conscious decision not to explore in the first one, and we were worried that there might be some backlash in the science fiction community because of it. When the story first came together we were very, very excited, and yet before we pitched it, I thought, “the one thing missing though is time travel. But it’s not necessary for this particular telling”’.
The origin of The Planet of the Apes story is not the original film, but rather a French novel called La Planète des singes. Interesting this story doesn’t actually involve time travel at all and ends in a way similar to that of the 2001 Tim Burton adaptation of The Planet of the Apes, though it is less confusing than Burton’s version. Should the latest adaption of the book stick with the science fiction time travel angle, that the older films are famous for, or is it a good thing that they are leaving it out?
What do you think? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also, don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
It’s been a long wait, and a lot of hype, but The Dark Knight Rises is about to land in cinemas, on the 20th of July. Is it possible for the movie to meet the high expectations of the fans?
The Dark Knight Rises picks up Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, which is a little confusing at first because some important things have happened in those years. Batman taking the blame for the crimes, and death, of Harvey Dent has brought about significant change as a new law, inspired by Dent, has given police the power they needed to take Gotham back from the criminals. With the mob finally behind bars, Gotham no longer needed Batman. This lack of purpose and the loss of Rachel have turned Bruce Wayne into a recluse. However, the threat of new evil is enough to shake Batman out of retirement.
Anne Hathaway had an extremely challenging role. There have been so many great portrayals of Catwoman over the years and she managed to surpass them all. This version of Catwoman is tough, independent, layered and sexy without being ridiculously over sexualised. Without a doubt she was the right person for the job. She was given a really interesting character to play and she did it justice in a way that nobody thought she could. It’s easy to forget who is actually playing the part and get lost in the character, which proves just how great an actress Hathaway really is.
Selina Kyle is a great character, with a rich history and it was really nice to have this history explored but not thrown in your face. The Selina shown in this film is the finished product. You can see what she does and who she is, but not how she got there. This may not sound like a good thing, but it really is. How often do people sit you down and explain why they are the way they are? It doesn’t happen. It’s clear the character has been through a lot and has had a troubled past. In fact, escaping that past is a huge motivating factor for her.
Bane has never really been done justice on film before so Tom Hardy didn’t have as much to live up to in that respect, but he’s still playing the man who broke the bat which is a pretty big deal in the comic world. While it was sometimes hard to understand him, it didn’t really hurt the performance. To keep the film grounded in reality some changes were made to the character, though they didn’t seem necessary they provided a deeper, more emotional reason for why Bane fights. As a villain he is very direct and calculated, while also showing no remorse for his actions. He is pure brute force.
In the comics, Bane has such an interesting backstory and fans may be disappointed to see that it has been changed somewhat. The alterations feel largely unnecessary as it seems like there were many other ways they could have made the same point without messing around with his history. However, the edits do provide some twists and turns while also giving fans of the comics something new.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard, who both starred in Christopher Nolan’s Inception, are new to the Batman universe. Levitt plays orphan turned police officer, John Blake, and Marion Cotillard plays Wayne Enterprises board member, Miranda Tate. Both do a really great job with their characters, proving once again that Nolan has a keen eye for casting the right people. While Miranda Tate helps bring Bruce Wayne, played once again by Christian Bale, out of is reclusive state and back to Wayne Enterprises, John Blake works with Commissioner Gordon and Batman to try bring down Bane. Blake’s ideals sever to highlight those that both Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon once had but have now lost.
Though the film’s long running time, of just under three hours, may be challenging on the bladders of those who ordered the extra-large drink, ever second is necessary to the development of the characters and the story. This is not a brainless action film it has depth, social commentary and extremely interesting characters. The series is brought to an amazing conclusion that should leave fans feeling fulfilled, but, at the same time, little sad as it still feels like there is so much life left in the franchise.
What do you think? Are you a Batman fan? Do you like Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman? Which is your favourite film in Nolan’s franchise? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to click the like button, if you liked this post, and please subscribe.
Spider-Man is about to swing into cinemas, which means we’re going to have to find some other way to unload our spider related puns.
After seeing Spider-Man’s origins told on film only ten years ago in a series that continued until 2007, spanning three films, it may seem a little strange that the series is already being rebooted, which is why it was very important that it didn’t feel like watching the same movie again. Director Marc Webb has done an excellent job and managed to tell a version of Spider-Man’s origin that is interesting, exciting, grounded and very different from the tale Sam Raimi told.
This version of the story puts more of an emphasis on Peter’s parents and the effect losing them had on him. It’s this loss that drives him to look into their past, which leads him to Dr. Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans). Fans of Spider-Man will remember Dr. Connors as the one armed man who accidentally transforms himself into the Lizard. The character appeared in Raimi’s films, but never got the chance to make the transformation. In this movie, his potential is released and his character takes on the role of the villain, though it is an interesting dynamic as he himself aims to improve the world and doesn’t see his actions as evil, actually trying to explain to Spider-Man at one point that he didn’t need to be stopped.
Behind every great hero is a female who regularly gets into life threatening situations and is easily captured by evil doers. In this film that character has been replaced by a strong, smart and brave young woman called Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). Gwen has been part of the Spider-Man universe for a long time, almost from the beginning, but her character is not well known by non-comic book readers for the very reason that she’s famous to fans of the comics. In the comics, Gwen was accidentally killed by Spider-Man when he tried to save her from the Green Goblin. In the film, Gwen is the head intern at Oscorp under Dr. Connors. She is Peter’s love interest, but gets to be more than that when she proves that she is just as brave and no less capable than Spider-Man.
This time around Peter is played by Andrew Garfield. After watching the movie it’s clear that Garfield, and the rest of the cast, really fit. From Spider-Man to the lovable Aunt May and Uncle Ben the casting was terrific. There’s an emotional depth between each of the characters, they don’t just exist next to each other they genuinely have feelings for each other and those feelings aren’t always positive, but that’s life and it’s represented very well in the movie. If you want a hero film that’s more than just fighting, more than special effects, then this movie is what you’re looking for. This is a movie were you will have fun watching it, but you’ll also care about the characters and feel like it was worth spending two hours following their story.
What do you think? Are you going to see this movie? Do you like Spider-Man? Would you have preferred a sequel to the Raimi version rather than a reboot? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also, don’t forget to click the like button, if you liked this post, and subscribe if you loved it.
Over the years the gaming industry has evolved a lot, it’s undeniable. With each new generation of consoles comes advancements that, for the most part, improve the gaming experience, but what’s next?
Even though the PlayStation 4 still hasn’t been officially announced by Sony, there have been rumours about it for months and the latest comes from the Wall Street Journal. In their article they claim that the upcoming console was almost created without a disc drive. This would mean that games would have to be downloaded rather than bought physically in shops. Though the article says that ‘Sony Corp. considered but ultimately rejected a download-only scheme for its next videogame console, people familiar with the matter said, opting to include optical disk drives rather than break with a decades-old model in the industry’.
Breaking away from the model that people have come to know is one thing, but imagine the effect this move would have had on game shops. Removing the ability to buy discs would completely destroy those, already struggling, shops. Plus, there are some people that don’t have access to credit cards and therefore can’t download games, won’t somebody please think of the children. Let us not forget about those, myself included, that like having the physical copy of the game, which can never been taken away by virus’s (though they can be stud on and lost). Another incentive to maintain the use of a disc drive is the collectors additions, which often come with posters or other physical extras on top of the added bonuses in the game.
Though the report says that disc drives will be included in the next PlayStation, it almost wasn’t which means that companies like Sony believe that the disc is on its way out and with movie and television series all available to be downloaded online it isn’t hard to see where they’re coming from. Still, it appears that the digital take over isn’t going to be happening in the near future as the PS4 will come with its very own disc drive, which you can store pancakes in if you’d rather download all your games.
What do you think? Would you like to see a move away from discs? Do you prefer to download games or buy them in a shop? What other things could you store in a disc drive, besides discs and pancakes? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also, don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button, if you liked this post.
With Final Fantasy XIII-2 either released or about to be released in a shop near you, the last thing you should be thinking about is whether or not there will be another direct sequel to Final Fantasy XIII. However, recent revelations do suggest that Square Enix will be turning XIII into a trilogy and or maybe more.
Final Fantasy games, for the most part, each have a standalone story in its own separate universe. X-2 being the obvious exception to the rule, but now it appears that the end of Final Fantasy XIII-2 is a major, smack in the face, couldn’t miss it from a mile away, hint at a sequel. Okay so just in case you’re about to run and leave this page to avoid spoilers, I should probably specify now that I will not be revealing what happens in the story so don’t worry this post will not ruin the games plot in any way.
Now on to the juicy stuff, the game ends with the words to be continued and, after much thought, I’ve concluded that that can mean one of two things; another direct sequel to Final Fantasy XIII or the game will be concluded in downloadable content. It has been confirmed that there is going to be downloadable content for XIII, but I’m not convinced. In fact, I think selling someone a game and then making them pay more to see how the story ends is just plain wrong. So I honestly don’t think that this is the way it’s going to go. Bring on another sequel.
What do you think? Would you be happy with a downloadable content ending? Do you want about direct sequel? Are you excited about XIII-2? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to follow/subscribe and click the like button, regardless to whether or not you actually enjoyed reading this post. If you want to you can follow me on twitter at https://twitter.com/#!/AdamODwyer1 (I’ll follow back providing you are a real person not spam) and just a note that as XIII-2 isn’t out in everywhere yet I won’t approve spoiler comments, I’ll approve them when it’s been out a week or so.
Warning do not watch if you haven’t finished XIII.
Having only read about the Swedish film it’s hard to make any real comparisons, but David Fincher has adapted the late Stieg Larsson’s book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, beautifully. The film translates the dark masterpiece of the Swedish journalist perfectly into a wonder and intriguing film that, right from the start, grabs viewers, with an abstract, and kickass, title sequence, and holds their attention until, near, the end of the incredibly long film
Going into the film without seeing so much as a trailer, I really had no idea what to expect and, if I’m honest, I didn’t think I was going to like it. The main thing putting me off was the length of the film, which is just under three hours. I thought I’d get bored long before the end, but with characters this interesting and complex, it was hardly an issue. The shear psychological understanding of the characters is amazing. Things like why they do what they do and how they react to each other, have been so clearly mapped out that it’s easy to believe the characters are real people. The film does take these characters to some dark places, especially Lisbeth (the girl with the dragon tattoo), and it’s hard to watch at times, but still very nice to see such great acting.
The film follows two different characters, who eventually meet up, Lisbeth (played by Rooney Mara), an antisocial girl with a photographic memory and incredible computer hacking skills, and Mikael (Daniel Craig), an investigative reporter. When Mikael is sued for libel after making accusations about a rich businessman, he quits his job in an attempt to protect the magazine he co-owns. He is then recruited by an old man named Henrik (Christopher Plummer) to solve the 36 year old mystery of Henrik’s niece’s murder. Mikael agrees, but is unaware that Lisbeth had already been hired by Henrik to do a background check on him. When he finds out he asks to see her report, noticing there are things she could not have found out without hacking into his computer, he then hires her to assist him in solving the case.
There isn’t a single actor in the film that didn’t do a great job, even the Swedish accents seemed flawless and I was legitimately surprised when I found out which ones were real and which were not. However, I couldn’t help thinking, at least at the start, how pointless the accents were. Why make all of the characters speak in English with Swedish accents? If you want them Swedish get them speaking Swedish. I’m not saying that Craig and Mara should have been forced to learn another language for the film, but giving them the accents made it seem like it was just an adaption for the people that were too lazy to read the subtitles on the Swedish version. Though, I’m sure there are some stylistic differences too, that’s just what crossed my mind while watching the film.
I’ve already mentioned how great the acting was, but I feel more attention has to be given to Rooney Mara, who essentially transformed herself for this role. She was brilliant, the best part of the film. Her character is probably the most complicated of the lot, and that’s saying something. It’s not hard to sympathise with her as she goes through her dark journey and the sense of isolation is just overpowering at times. She has been hurt by nearly everyone she’s ever known so it’s hard for her to trust anyone. Mara is able to bring so many levels into every scene, watching her body language you can see Lisbeth’s fear of real intimacy and getting emotionally involved with anybody. There is desperation in her actions and Mara has the ability to convey this in a subtle way.
Clearly aimed at a more mature audience, some scenes were really hard to watch. One scene in particular were the viewer must watch a rape, was genuinely disturbing. It was necessary to the understanding of the character, but was still horrible to see. The villain of the movie is so routed in psychology that it was a bit like watching a combination of the shows Dexter and Criminal Minds. It’s rare to see a film were the bad guy has a motive that is just so purely sick and realistic, not at all like the ones given by the killers in franchises such as Scream and Urban Legends.
Though the end was somewhat unsatisfying, this film is still, to my surprise, a brilliant, intriguing and intelligent piece of work. Despite having never read the book, I didn’t have trouble keeping track of the many suspects and was so engrossed in the story it almost didn’t matter. At times it felt as though they could have gotten three films out of this one book, but that’s more to do with the level of detail than anything else. This movie was so well done that I feel it’s only a matter of time before they adapt the sequel as well. It is a true shame that the author, Stieg Larsson, died before the book was even released.
What do you think? Have you read the book? Did you see the Swedish version? Are you a fan of David Fincher? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button. If you want to keep up to date with future posts and projects follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/AdamODwyer1.
Is it possible for a group of bad actors to escape death? Well it didn’t work for the previous groups, but maybe this time they’ll get lucky.
The Final Destination series has become a joke, no I’m not being mean I’m talking literally, the franchise just won’t die and until I saw this movie I thought that was a bad thing. As a fan of the series it’s hard to constantly see it ripped apart by critics, but let’s face it The Final Destination (aka Final Destination 4) was terrible. The acting was bad the plot was bad and the whole thing just felt rushed, but the first three films were, in my opinion, pretty damn good, that includes the acting which I never had a problem with until the fourth one.
This time around the acting wasn’t great either, well at least not at the start. As the movie went on the actors seemed to get it together, some more than others, and the plot was interesting enough to distract from the ones that didn’t. People, me included, sometimes joke that all Final Destination movies have the same plot, but doesn’t nearly every movie franchise? People get put in elaborate traps and are killed in all the Saw films; it’s the other stuff, the characters and the things that happen in between the deaths that make the movies different. So with that in mind; screw you people that make fun of Final Destination, me included.
The film follows a group of co-workers who are going on a retreat when one of them, Sam (played by Nicholas D’Argosto), has a premonition that the bridge they are on is going to collapse and kill them. He warns everyone and some make it to safety. Unfortunately, they are then stalked by death and are getting killed in the order they would have died on the bridge. William Bludworth, the coroner (played by Tony Todd), returns to the franchise after being absent from number four. He tells the group, very openly and un-cryptic, that if they give death someone else in their place they will survive. It would have been nice if he had been a little more cryptic, because it makes you wonder why he would have withheld his information from the other groups. The whole murder aspect was a good, but they kind of did away with the intervening part which played such a fun part in previous instalments. I wish they’d to the photos again like in number three, that was cool.
If Final Destination is known for anything it’s the death sequences and this film definitely delivers. There were some moments were the suspense had me cringing in my seat, but other could have been better. The use of red herrings was clever and I loved trying to figure out what was going to happen, one of the best things about Final Destination. The movie has a great twist at the end and I mean great, like the end alone makes this movie worth going to see. It was only when I thought about it that I realised that all the movies in the series have some form of twist ending; in the first one they learn that intervening doesn’t get you off deaths list, in the second one that kid blows up because he was saved by Nathan during the film, Wendy has a second premonition in the third and in the fourth they ponder if death sent them the premonitions to get them to where it wanted them thus it was all part of the plan and they never really escaped anything (though his theory doesn’t make sense when you consider that if it were true the events of the second movie would not happen).
The 3D was good, but wasn’t as overused and gimmicky as number 4. I like when 3D is used to its full potential, don’t give me all this depth crap just start throwing stuff at my face and I’ll be happy (providing it doesn’t actually hit me). 3D isn’t essential, but if you have the option I’d advice going for the 3D, let’s face it you’ll have plenty of chances to see it in 2D when it leaves the cinema. Plus at the end of the film there is a montage of some of the deaths from the previous films, which is cool in 3D (and 2D). Couldn’t help but think that the opening tittles will be really boring in 2D, as they go on for a bit too long with very little but 3D to entertain you.
I think the movie is great and redeems the franchise. I’d recommend seeing it and in 3D. I wouldn’t be disappointed to hear they were making a sequel, in fact I hope they do, but what do you think? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
For centuries we men have lived in fear of the chick flick. There predictable storylines and flat humour have been the subject of many nightmares. Then came a movie, one that claimed to reinvent the chick flick, but did it succeed?
Bridesmaids has been compared to the hit film The Hangover, some even going as far as saying that it was a superior film and they aren’t entirely wrong. Despite early doubts, Bridesmaids is a completely guy friendly movie, that men will actually enjoy being dragged to. The story is well written and will have even the manliest man laughing from start to finish.
One of the biggest flaws in modern chick flicks is that they don’t realise that woman are not delicate little flowers, or at least most aren’t. Women will laugh at sex jokes just as hard as any man. Bridesmaids uses this to its advantage and has plenty of crude humour throughout. The characters feel real and breakaway from the norm; you don’t usually see female characters behave like this. The rivalry between the characters is often shown subtly rather than just blatantly saying it or using wacky stunts to compete with each other, which is normally what happens in movies like this.
The plot follows a single woman named Annie, played by Kristen Wiig (who actually co-wrote the film with Annie Mumolo). Annie’s going through a rough patch; her business failed, her boyfriend broke up with her, she has really annoying roommates, etc. She’s then asked to be the maid of honour at her best friends wedding. Putting her jealousy aside she agrees and is then tasked with many different jobs including planning a bridal shower and bachelorette party. To make matters worse, most of the other bridesmaids are married and one is trying to come between her and her, soon to be married, friend.
Now if you’re a guy this may sound just like any other girly movie, but I promise it’s not. The film is filled with energy and has a really great script, with tons of hilarious comedic moments. One of the best things about the film, in my opinion, is what it overcame to become as successful as it has. It’s a female driven comedy, which, no offence, usually means it isn’t going to be good, at least not for men and it has no big stars in it. It truly deserves this success and there are talks of a sequel, but nothing’s set in stone.
The movie is a little over too hours long. A lot of people complain that movies shouldn’t be this long, but with the increase in ticket prices over the last year consider it a bargain. When a film’s as enjoyable as this it’s hard to complain about it being long. If you’re a fan of comedies, whether you’re male or female, I highly recommend seeing this movie as it really does have something for everyone; in fact it has lots of stuff for everyone.
What do you think? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
Marvel’s latest pre-avengers film hit cinemas recently. Was it all just a mindless action flick or does it also have a good plot?
The movie takes place in three worlds; Asgard (Thor’s world), Jotunheim (a land populated by ice giants) and Earth (the place where you’re computer currently is). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is banished to |Earth after he leads his friends into battle with the ice giants, thus breaking the peace. Thor lands on Earth only to be run over by scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her research team. Knowing that she’s onto something, S.H.I.E.L.D agents confiscate Jane’s research. They also seal off the area around Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir, which you may remember from an after the credits scene of Iron Man 2. Back in Asgard Thor’s father Odin becomes sick and falls into a coma and Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) takes over, with a confusing plan that doesn’t make all that much sense.
The graphics were great, especially the weather effects. There are plenty of explosions to satisfy action fans. I liked how a large amount of time was given to show how Thor got banished, but after the movie was over I couldn’t help but think that time could have been better spent. The actors were great. Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth were excellently cast and the two have so much chemistry together. Ultimately, the audience is left dissatisfied at the end. I went with two other people and they both agreed that the end was disappointing. This disappointment was increased when I told them the news that Portman would not be appearing in The Avengers movie.
The movie differs from the original comic series. Portman’s character, Jane Foster, has been given a modernised role. In the comics she is a nurse, which made sense because Thor was trapped in the body or a doctor named Donald Blake. In the movie Thor gets to keep his own identity when he arrives on Earth. I think this decision really paid off as much of the humour comes from his lack of knowledge of Earth customs. The name Donald Blake is actually used in the movie briefly so keep an ear out.
While the ending wasn’t exactly fulfilling, the rest of the journey was exciting and full of action. Some of the plot was hard to follow; it kind of felt like it was rushed or just not thought through enough. The actors have been signed on to reprise their roles in two more Thor films, which will hopefully be made. I’m not entirely sure how the ending will fight in with the Avengers film, but if they can find a way to bring Captain America into it, despite that fact that he should be an old man in the time period the movie is based in, I’m sure they’ll fit Thor in too. Just a note, there is a scene after the credits, I missed it and if you do too you can read about it online.
What do you think? Do you like the changes they’ve made to the plot? Did you like the ending? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below.