Could Dwight be getting his own spinoff?
Though nothing is set in stone, it seems that, probably in an attempt to keep the franchise alive, a spinoff of the US version of The Office, starring Rainn Wilson as Dwight, is in the planning stages. A future episode of The Office will follow Dwight and his family on Schrute farm and will act as a backdoor pilot for the proposed spinoff, but will the concept be strong enough to carry an entire series?
Of all the characters of the show, Dwight is definitely the most interesting. Having said that, Joey wasn’t exactly the boring one on Friends, no that role went to Ross, but his spinoff still failed. Even thinking about how this show would work is pretty crazy and it’s hard to imagine it going on for more than a season, that’s if it even gets picked up. Still, judgement should be reserved at least until the episode airs and then we can all jump on or off the band wagon.
What do you think? Do you think it would make a good show? Is Dwight your favourite character? Which character from The Office would you most like to see get their own spinoff? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to follow/subscribe and like the like button, unless you didn’t like this post. You can also follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/#!/AdamODwyer1, I follow back as long as it’s not spam.
For those of you that thought showering was just a time to wind down and get clean, you are about to get a rude awakening as Psycho returns for yet another instalment, but this time it’s television.
Even if you’ve never seen the 1960 film Psycho, its sequels, the prequel, its last attempt at a TV spinoff or the 1998 remake, you probably know about the infamous shower scene and that’s because the film, especially that scene, is a horror classic. Show me one other film that had to be shot in black and white to avoid being ‘too gory’, a concept which is lost these days.
The original film is about, momma’s boy, Norman Bates who runs a motel with his mother. Then an unsuspecting shower user comes to stay and the rest is Hollywood history. Two sequels followed, completely unrelated to the two sequels of the book the original film was based on, then came a prequel, that looked at Bates’ teenage years, followed by a spinoff were the motel is reopened and murders start again and finally, in 1998, a nearly shot for shot remake of the original film was made. The new TV series will be called Bates Motel, the same name used for the spinoff, and will once again examine the teenage years of Norman Bates.
Though still in the early stages of development the show is said to give a close look at how Norman became a psycho. The story will show him from childhood and through his teenage years, providing the pilot gets picked up. Viewers will get to see how his mother, Norma, and her lover damaged Norman, putting him on the path to become a killer. Last time a Psycho show was proposed, the pilot wasn’t picked up and it was instead turned into a TV movie spinoff. Hopefully this version doesn’t suffer the same fate as it will be interesting to see were, in 2012, they will take the story. It’s no secret that movies are scarier these days than they were in the past, how will this change the story?
What do you think? Would you like to see this show get made? Are you a fan of the original movie? Have you ever read the book? Let me know by voting a leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to follow/subscribe and, if you enjoyed this post, click the like button.
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 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.
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.
The Wii was made to bring the whole family together to play games and have fun, which it did. Then fifteen minutes later they all got bored with it and left. However, it did have a lot of selling power and some pretty good ideas, so naturally it’s getting a sequel.
The Wii U is like the Wii’s sexier cousin. They have a lot in common, but you know which one you want to play with. Though it was originally known as Project Café, the new title and the first trailer for the console were shown at this year’s E3. The Wii U makes use of some of the features from the Wii, for example the remote, but it also brings a lot of new material to the table.
The trailer is all about the new controller and for good reason as it’s the most prominent difference between the consoles. As well as a controller it also acts as a handheld console, giving players the option to take games from the TV and play them on the controller. The level of interaction between the controller and other Wii devices is pretty impressive, even allowing players to use the controller with the balance board and the Wii remote.
Players can use the new controller in so many different ways, as you’ll see from the trailer below, some of which are reminiscent of the augmented reality feature on the Nintendo 3DS. It really seems like Nintendo are making something really good, or at least something with a lot of cool technological applications. I imagine that it would be a lot of fun just playing around with the different features, but Nintendo are trying to aim the console at serious gamers as well as casual gamers. This means that we should be getting a nice blend of action and miscellaneous games, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Before you get too excited you should note that, in the two days after it was announced, shares in Nintendo had dropped by nearly 10 percent, which shocked the president of the company and me. It’s strange, expensive new consoles in a recession seems like such a good idea, though hopefully the recession will be over, and we’ll all be rich, by the time it’s released which isn’t until sometime after April 2012.
What do you think? Do you like the new features? Are you excited about the Wii U? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and if you like this post feel free to click the like button it does bite but you’ll get over it.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if Jaws met Free Willy and they had some sort of mutant movie baby? Well wonder know more, because here’s another movie mix.
When a young boy learns that the police are trying to kill a great white shark, he risks everything, including his own life, to free the heartless killing machine. Truly a heart wrenching story of the crazy stuff kids did in movies in the 90s. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry and you won’t go in the ocean for weeks.
Just to clear up a bit of confusion this is NOT a real movie it is part of a new thing I’m doing called Movie Mix. I take two films or TV shows and combine them.
What do you think? Would you like to see this movie? Which of the originals is better? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below.
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.
Was the moon landing faked? Who cares, all I know is that a spaceship from Cybertron was discovered on the moon way back on the first moon trip to the moon and the US government have kept this a secret, even from the Autobots. Thank you Obama.
Just a few days ago, a new trailer for the third Transformers movie, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, was released. It gives a lot more detail than past trailers and I have to say, despite earlier hesitation, I didn’t hate it. It looks like it’s going to be an action packed adventure from start to finish, which is surprising considering how bad number two did.
By know you probably know that Megan Fox is not longer part of the franchise, unfortunately Shia LaBeouf still is. Was Fox’s absents felt in the trailer? Nope they replaced her with some blonde girl. The blonde girl, also known as Rosie Huntington-Whitley, plays Carly, a character that is actually from the 1984 Transformers animated series. Finally one of the shows human characters has made it into the movies. The actress playing her has no prior acting experience though so it could go either way.
The plot explores the final battle between Autobots and Deceptacons. Each group is trying to get their hands on the ship that the humans found on the moon many years before. The secrets that the ship holds may well decide the winner of the war. I have mixed feelings about the plot. It just feels like they always have to go back and discover secrets. Didn’t the Transformers ever actually live on Cybertron? Shouldn’t they know some of this stuff already?
A real tragedy occurred while they were filming. An extra suffered from permanent brain damage when a stunt, that she wasn’t even part of, went wrong. A cable broke and came through the front of the car she was in, hitting her in the head and cracking her skull. She is paralyzed on one half of her body and her left eye had to be stitched closed. Paramount promised to pay for the medical expensive and her family is suing for seven counts of negligence. The extra’s name is Gabriela Cedillo and she is 24 years old. I legitimately hope that she wins the lawsuit.
Another accident happened on the set, this one involving a police officer who clearly was out sick the day they announced that some streets would be closed for filming. The car that plays Bumblebee was crossing an intersection when a police car came from a different direction. Unable to stop in time Bumblebee crashed into the side of the cop car. The officer was not supposed to be there, but at least no one was injured.
What do you think? Is this film cursed? Are you glad to see a human from the animated series appear in the film? Do you miss Megan Fox? Will this series be able to recover after the disappointing, perhaps racist, second film? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to vote.
Have you ever wondered how Easter became what it is today? What do eggs and bunnies have to do with the resurrection of Christ? Well there’s actually a simple answer and it involves people pushing religion on each other.
Every Spring Pagans held a festival to honour their god Eastre, who’s symbol was a rabbit. When the Christians came to convert the pagans to Christianity, they found that the Eastre celebration happened to be on the same day Christians celebrated the resurrection of Jesus. To make it easier to convert the pagans they simply allowed them to continue their festival, which involved painting eggs, but in a Christian way.
So that’s why we get chocolate eggs delivered by bunnies every year on the date Jesus returned from the dead. It’s actually a lot simpler than I thought; I was expecting a big government conspiracy. Let me know what you think of the origins of Easter by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe.