Plot
Merida, a young princess and talented archer, is determined to change her fate. She doesn't want to obey the traditions of the kingdom and marry young. She wants her freedom and make her own path. So when she finds a witch in the forest, she gets the witch to give her a spell to change her fate. But the outcome leaves Merida's family cursed. She must now break the curse and restore peace in the kingdom before it's too late.
Review
I had high expectations when I heard about this movie. It's Pixar and almost all of their films (except for Cars 2) were up to pare and brilliantly animated films to entertain adults and their kids. And Brave is no exception.
I really liked the film's story. This is Pixar's first fairy tale and to me the film had a darker and more mature tone compared to their other films like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, The Incredibles or WALL-E. I actually really liked this change. The reason is because original fairy tales were much darker and were violent.
Brave is set in the 10th century Scotland and what I especially liked about the film's setting is that it seems fitting with the fairy tale element and old folk legends. If the movie was set in modern time, I'd have difficulty accepting the fairy tale aspect of the film. But because it's set in the Middle Ages of Scotland, I think it fits well.
Some may say that they were disappointed that Merida was unable to change her fate with magic. But I'm actually happy she didn't change her faith magically. The reason is because it shows us that only we are able to change our fates. No one else can do it for us except ourselves and those who want to help us better our lives and live happily.
Merida is the first female protagonist in a Pixar film. I don't understand why it took them so long, but in the end it was worth the wait. Merida is a fascinating character. She's an anti version of the typical princess. She knows what she wants out of her life: she wants to make her own path and not have it be made for her. She makes this clear. She doesn't shy away from letting her opinion of things be known. So I appreciate the fact that Pixar decided to avoid their first female protagonist being the typical princess.
In many ways, the relationship between Merida and her mother (which is a pivotal part of the film's plot) reminded me of Finding Nemo. Finding Nemo was about the relationship between father and son. A relationship that was strained and how the relationship eventually mends when they're separated. In Brave, it's about the relationship between Merida and her mother, a relationship that is strained but is mended when they're separated. In this case, it's separated when the mother is transformed into a bear by the curse.
I liked the film's humour. But that being said, I think the humour ended up being more orientated towards the kids. The triplets and their pranks are gonna be entertaining for the kids and maybe even the parents. But for the most part, I think that although parents will enjoy it, they won't find it as funny than the previous Pixar films. My theory is that the filmmakers aimed the humour specifically more towards the children because of the film's darker story so it would lighten the movie up for them.
The animation is flawless. The setting of Scotland is beautiful. I'm not a fan of 3D but they made it work. I think they could've included more 3D sequences, but besides that, it's still well done.
Brave is a highly entertaining and fun film that will be a pleasure for the entire family.
Rating: 4.5/5
Wednesday 18 July 2012
Wednesday 4 July 2012
TV: True Blood
Again, this post is entirely my own opinion. It's a summary of the show and why I think you should watch it, or at least consider it.
I started watching this a few years ago. I was babysitting for someone, it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I had watched everything on TV already. They had HBO and I saw that True Blood was airing. I figured why not and clicked. It was the second season finale. I was fascinated by the show. I didn't know about the characters or the story so I was confused, but I was drawn in. So then I started watching from the first season. And I have to say that I wasn't expecting any of it.
The series initial core plot with vampires and humans co-existing was appealing to me. I've watched vampire movies and shows and read a lot of vampire literature. And most of the time, the vampires are portrayed as being feared by humans. So the idea of supernatural creatures and mortals co-habiting. The show is currently airing it's fifth season so in addition to vampires, the show have explored stories with shapeshifters, werewolves, fairies and witches. I like the way these supernatural beings that have been written to death are written. There's nothing completely new, but there are certain details added that make these old beings fresh. Even the way vampires are written in this show avoid certain cliches. They can see their reflections, garlic doesn't do much, silver hurts them, they can enter church and drink synthetic blood in order to survive and avoid feeding from humans. The vampires in True Blood are fighting for their rights, like African-Americans and gays in America had and have to fight for their civil rights.
The strange thing about True Blood is that they have their ups and downs with their episodes and seasons. One week it's great, the next it's not so good and the next they're back up. For me personally, the same applies for their seasons. The first two seasons as a whole were brilliant, the third went downhill, the fourth was an improvement from the fourth and now with their fifth, they're in the middle, with some good and not so good stories. Despite these mishaps, one thing that I believe is that True Blood always keeps you entertained and enthralled. True Blood isn't one of those shows that you can watch every now and then. You have to watch every episode, or at least catch up on the plots and characters, in order to keep track. Because episodes pick up where the previous episode left, so if you missed an episode or two before, you may be confused.
I have mixed feelings about the show's characters. The characters are usually good, but there are times where I can't stand them. Sookie is the show's main character and there are times I like her and times I wish she was gone. I don't think that's a good thing to say about the main character. Bill, Tara, Eric, Pam, Lafayette and many of the other characters I feel the same way. But maybe this is a good thing because it shows us that these characters are flawed and you're not always going to root for them.
I will praise the writers for making the characters distinct and giving them their own stories. The supporting characters aren't always the plot points for the stories for the lead characters. They have their own stories and lives separately and it allows us to embrace them.
Despite my mixed feelings about the characters, the acting is fantastic. The show has a fairly large cast. Anna Paquin, an Oscar winning actress, is very good as Sookie. She's sometimes wooden, but I think that that's how the character is. Stephen Moyer plays Bill and I think he's wonderful. He and Anna Paquin (who are married in real life) have great chemistry together. Alexander Skarsgard is Eric and I think he's a talented actor and has chemistry with Anna Paquin. Rutina Wesley is Tara, Sookie's best friend. Despite the fact that Tara gets on my nerves mostly, Wesley is a talented actress that makes the material work. Sam Trammell is Sam, Sookie's boss and I think he's good. He has a spark with Paquin and I wish they could've gotten them together or at least have a fling. Ryan Kwanten is Jason, Sookie's brother. Jason is probably one of the stupidest characters to grace our television screens, yet Kwanten makes it work. Nelsan Ellis plays Lafayette, Tara's cousin. I think Ellis is fantastic and Lafayette to me is the show's breakout character. He's hilarious yet Ellis also has a good dramatic balance and is able to pull off both comedy and drama. Carrie Preston is Arlene, Sookie's friend and I like Arlene (one of my favourite characters) and I think she's underused and could be given better stories. Chris Bauer is Andy, the local sheriff. I haven't always liked Andy, but Bauer makes the character work and plays the character's smugness and arrogance well. Jim Parrack is Hoyt, Jason's best friend. I like the character and think he could be used more. Todd Lowe is Terry, Arlene's partner and I think he's a good character but I wish they could use him in a better story. Deborah Ann Woll is Jessica, a girl that Bill turns into a vampire. Jessica is another of my favourite characters and I think she's really underused. Kristin Bauer van Straten is Pam, the vampire that Eric made. I think she's a highly entertaining character and is always fun to watch. Joe Manganiello is Alcide, a werewolf, who was introduced in season 3. I think he's a good addition and he's actually a talented actor. Lauren Bowles plays Holly, a witch introduced in season 3. I'm not a big fan of the character, but Bowles is good. I praise the entire cast for making over the top material well.
The show is incredibly violent. HBO is cable, so they get away with much more than network shows. The show has bodies exploding into blood and guts, faces being peeled off, violent murders, hearts being cut out and those are just a few examples I can think of. So if you don't like blood, you may not want to watch.
In addition to the violence, the show has a lot of sex. It's basically porn. This show really is for a mature audience. In my opinion, no kid under sixteen should be watching this. I think they'd be surprised and not in an entirely good way.
Why should you consider watching this? For me, it's unlike recent vampire shows I've seen. We have a suspenseful and thrilling series that feels like a long movie. The episodes follow one another in terms of story. There's no distracting, it's chronological. The visual and attention to detail really makes you feel like you're watching a really long movie. A really long film filled with distinct characters, slightly melodramatic plots and good special effects.
Of course this isn't everyone's cup of tea. For me, I think True Blood is one of those shows you'll either love, hate or love/hate. What I mean by love/hate is that you love and hate certain characters and plots. So you have a balance between the two.
There it is. To me, True Blood is a thrilling, different, entertaining and sexy show.
I started watching this a few years ago. I was babysitting for someone, it was 1 o'clock in the morning and I had watched everything on TV already. They had HBO and I saw that True Blood was airing. I figured why not and clicked. It was the second season finale. I was fascinated by the show. I didn't know about the characters or the story so I was confused, but I was drawn in. So then I started watching from the first season. And I have to say that I wasn't expecting any of it.
The series initial core plot with vampires and humans co-existing was appealing to me. I've watched vampire movies and shows and read a lot of vampire literature. And most of the time, the vampires are portrayed as being feared by humans. So the idea of supernatural creatures and mortals co-habiting. The show is currently airing it's fifth season so in addition to vampires, the show have explored stories with shapeshifters, werewolves, fairies and witches. I like the way these supernatural beings that have been written to death are written. There's nothing completely new, but there are certain details added that make these old beings fresh. Even the way vampires are written in this show avoid certain cliches. They can see their reflections, garlic doesn't do much, silver hurts them, they can enter church and drink synthetic blood in order to survive and avoid feeding from humans. The vampires in True Blood are fighting for their rights, like African-Americans and gays in America had and have to fight for their civil rights.
The strange thing about True Blood is that they have their ups and downs with their episodes and seasons. One week it's great, the next it's not so good and the next they're back up. For me personally, the same applies for their seasons. The first two seasons as a whole were brilliant, the third went downhill, the fourth was an improvement from the fourth and now with their fifth, they're in the middle, with some good and not so good stories. Despite these mishaps, one thing that I believe is that True Blood always keeps you entertained and enthralled. True Blood isn't one of those shows that you can watch every now and then. You have to watch every episode, or at least catch up on the plots and characters, in order to keep track. Because episodes pick up where the previous episode left, so if you missed an episode or two before, you may be confused.
I have mixed feelings about the show's characters. The characters are usually good, but there are times where I can't stand them. Sookie is the show's main character and there are times I like her and times I wish she was gone. I don't think that's a good thing to say about the main character. Bill, Tara, Eric, Pam, Lafayette and many of the other characters I feel the same way. But maybe this is a good thing because it shows us that these characters are flawed and you're not always going to root for them.
I will praise the writers for making the characters distinct and giving them their own stories. The supporting characters aren't always the plot points for the stories for the lead characters. They have their own stories and lives separately and it allows us to embrace them.
Despite my mixed feelings about the characters, the acting is fantastic. The show has a fairly large cast. Anna Paquin, an Oscar winning actress, is very good as Sookie. She's sometimes wooden, but I think that that's how the character is. Stephen Moyer plays Bill and I think he's wonderful. He and Anna Paquin (who are married in real life) have great chemistry together. Alexander Skarsgard is Eric and I think he's a talented actor and has chemistry with Anna Paquin. Rutina Wesley is Tara, Sookie's best friend. Despite the fact that Tara gets on my nerves mostly, Wesley is a talented actress that makes the material work. Sam Trammell is Sam, Sookie's boss and I think he's good. He has a spark with Paquin and I wish they could've gotten them together or at least have a fling. Ryan Kwanten is Jason, Sookie's brother. Jason is probably one of the stupidest characters to grace our television screens, yet Kwanten makes it work. Nelsan Ellis plays Lafayette, Tara's cousin. I think Ellis is fantastic and Lafayette to me is the show's breakout character. He's hilarious yet Ellis also has a good dramatic balance and is able to pull off both comedy and drama. Carrie Preston is Arlene, Sookie's friend and I like Arlene (one of my favourite characters) and I think she's underused and could be given better stories. Chris Bauer is Andy, the local sheriff. I haven't always liked Andy, but Bauer makes the character work and plays the character's smugness and arrogance well. Jim Parrack is Hoyt, Jason's best friend. I like the character and think he could be used more. Todd Lowe is Terry, Arlene's partner and I think he's a good character but I wish they could use him in a better story. Deborah Ann Woll is Jessica, a girl that Bill turns into a vampire. Jessica is another of my favourite characters and I think she's really underused. Kristin Bauer van Straten is Pam, the vampire that Eric made. I think she's a highly entertaining character and is always fun to watch. Joe Manganiello is Alcide, a werewolf, who was introduced in season 3. I think he's a good addition and he's actually a talented actor. Lauren Bowles plays Holly, a witch introduced in season 3. I'm not a big fan of the character, but Bowles is good. I praise the entire cast for making over the top material well.
The show is incredibly violent. HBO is cable, so they get away with much more than network shows. The show has bodies exploding into blood and guts, faces being peeled off, violent murders, hearts being cut out and those are just a few examples I can think of. So if you don't like blood, you may not want to watch.
In addition to the violence, the show has a lot of sex. It's basically porn. This show really is for a mature audience. In my opinion, no kid under sixteen should be watching this. I think they'd be surprised and not in an entirely good way.
Why should you consider watching this? For me, it's unlike recent vampire shows I've seen. We have a suspenseful and thrilling series that feels like a long movie. The episodes follow one another in terms of story. There's no distracting, it's chronological. The visual and attention to detail really makes you feel like you're watching a really long movie. A really long film filled with distinct characters, slightly melodramatic plots and good special effects.
Of course this isn't everyone's cup of tea. For me, I think True Blood is one of those shows you'll either love, hate or love/hate. What I mean by love/hate is that you love and hate certain characters and plots. So you have a balance between the two.
There it is. To me, True Blood is a thrilling, different, entertaining and sexy show.
Tuesday 3 July 2012
The Problem with Today's Horrors Films
I'm going to start this post by writing that this is completely my own personal opinion. You probably don't share it or agree with my views, so this is just a warning that you may not like what you read. Now let's get down to business.
I love horror films. Oddly, I'm someone that can scare easily. I'm not a fan of gore and blood. I cringe at certain scenarios in horror or thriller films. Yet I love watching scary movies and horror-orientated television shows. It's strange and I can't find a logical explanation for it.
Whenever I watch a horror film, most of the time, I'm watching an old one. By old, I mean one that was released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. Why do I watch old ones? Because of the quality of today's horror films aren't up to their standards. When I look back at horror films released in the last ten years or so, I honestly think of only a handful that reach the standard of classic horror.
Whenever I see a horror film, it's as if the filmmakers are trying too hard. Almost every horror movie I've seen that has been released in the last few years is filled with gore and shock scares. It doesn't work. It's just annoying. Most of the time, there's no proper character development and/or plots. For me, that's what makes a horror movie work.
I think a part of that is because of the Saw movies. The first one came out in 2004 and they've exploded onto the movie scene since then. The Hostel films soon followed. The torture porn films are too much. In Scream 4, they poked fun at this when one character said that she likes the Saw movies because Jigsaw kills people very creatively. And the other character's response is that you don't give a shit who dies because there's no proper character development. I completely agree with this. I think filmmakers are now trying to scare audiences with the visuals instead of scaring them with the actual story and what happens to these characters.
The Exorcist, the film that's considered the scariest and one of the best horror films ever made by many critics, is an example of a horror movie that used plot and characters to frighten the audience. The Exorcist, while visually frightening with their special effects and makeup, also concentrated on character and plot. We had a concerned and frightened mother, a priest questioning his faith and Regan undergoing tests and the aftermath of being exorcized. These are just some examples of how just watching what you're character is going through emotionally and psychologically adds to the scares. Again, this is just my point of view. I think The Exorcist is a perfect example of a film that used character, plot and visuals to scare the audience.
Another thing that really cranks my gears are the remakes of classic horror movies. Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, House of Wax, Halloween are some of the classics that were remade and not so well I might add. Whenever I hear a cult favourite is going to be remade, I honestly wonder if writers can't come up with anything original and exciting, so they desperately go through the films that people know and love and decide to up do the original. Most reviews I've read of the remakes of Psycho, Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween pretty say the same thing "you can't beat the original". There are some movies that shouldn't be remade and Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween are some of those movies. It's been announced a remake of the 1976 horror classic Carrie (based on the novel by Stephen King) is to be remade. I think I know what'll happen, but we just have to wait and see.
For several years, there was an obsession with remaking movies from Japan. It started off with The Ring, released in 2002. The Grudge, Dark Water, Pulse and several others soon followed. Most of them are decent but I personally believe The Ring is still the better Japanese remake.
Another aspect of current horror movies I hate is the repetitiveness of stories in current releases. Here are a few examples.
Demonic possession has been a popular trend and the majority of them fail. Almost every year, a new movie about people being possessed is released. And it's pretty much the same story like the other one. Some of them worked and some of them didn't.
This is just a small detail, but another thing that drives me is when horror movies label it "based on true events". I don't know if they think it will add a sense of fear in the audience to make them think everything actually happened or if they think their audience is just really naive. Whenever I read "based on true events" or "inspired by a true story", I always think yeah right. And of course when you google it, there's no response.
Another repetitive pattern is the mockumentary genre. The Blair Witch Project used it in 1999 and quite well I might add. It was a scary movie and actually had people believing it was real. Now, they use it too much. They used it with The Last Exorcism, the Paranormal Activity movies and The Devil Inside to name a few. For some it worked and some it just failed miserably. And the fact that the mockumentary films come out every year just makes it more annoying to me.
When I look at these three specific examples, they didn't recur as much compared to films released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. I will say there were some horror films that were inspired by actual events, but now every year there's at least one scary movie with the tagline "inspired by actual events". It's getting old.
My rant is over. This is just the perspective of someone who is a fan of the genre and thinks that it's really gone downhill in the last several years.
I love horror films. Oddly, I'm someone that can scare easily. I'm not a fan of gore and blood. I cringe at certain scenarios in horror or thriller films. Yet I love watching scary movies and horror-orientated television shows. It's strange and I can't find a logical explanation for it.
Whenever I watch a horror film, most of the time, I'm watching an old one. By old, I mean one that was released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. Why do I watch old ones? Because of the quality of today's horror films aren't up to their standards. When I look back at horror films released in the last ten years or so, I honestly think of only a handful that reach the standard of classic horror.
Whenever I see a horror film, it's as if the filmmakers are trying too hard. Almost every horror movie I've seen that has been released in the last few years is filled with gore and shock scares. It doesn't work. It's just annoying. Most of the time, there's no proper character development and/or plots. For me, that's what makes a horror movie work.
I think a part of that is because of the Saw movies. The first one came out in 2004 and they've exploded onto the movie scene since then. The Hostel films soon followed. The torture porn films are too much. In Scream 4, they poked fun at this when one character said that she likes the Saw movies because Jigsaw kills people very creatively. And the other character's response is that you don't give a shit who dies because there's no proper character development. I completely agree with this. I think filmmakers are now trying to scare audiences with the visuals instead of scaring them with the actual story and what happens to these characters.
The Exorcist, the film that's considered the scariest and one of the best horror films ever made by many critics, is an example of a horror movie that used plot and characters to frighten the audience. The Exorcist, while visually frightening with their special effects and makeup, also concentrated on character and plot. We had a concerned and frightened mother, a priest questioning his faith and Regan undergoing tests and the aftermath of being exorcized. These are just some examples of how just watching what you're character is going through emotionally and psychologically adds to the scares. Again, this is just my point of view. I think The Exorcist is a perfect example of a film that used character, plot and visuals to scare the audience.
Another thing that really cranks my gears are the remakes of classic horror movies. Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, House of Wax, Halloween are some of the classics that were remade and not so well I might add. Whenever I hear a cult favourite is going to be remade, I honestly wonder if writers can't come up with anything original and exciting, so they desperately go through the films that people know and love and decide to up do the original. Most reviews I've read of the remakes of Psycho, Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween pretty say the same thing "you can't beat the original". There are some movies that shouldn't be remade and Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween are some of those movies. It's been announced a remake of the 1976 horror classic Carrie (based on the novel by Stephen King) is to be remade. I think I know what'll happen, but we just have to wait and see.
For several years, there was an obsession with remaking movies from Japan. It started off with The Ring, released in 2002. The Grudge, Dark Water, Pulse and several others soon followed. Most of them are decent but I personally believe The Ring is still the better Japanese remake.
Another aspect of current horror movies I hate is the repetitiveness of stories in current releases. Here are a few examples.
Demonic possession has been a popular trend and the majority of them fail. Almost every year, a new movie about people being possessed is released. And it's pretty much the same story like the other one. Some of them worked and some of them didn't.
This is just a small detail, but another thing that drives me is when horror movies label it "based on true events". I don't know if they think it will add a sense of fear in the audience to make them think everything actually happened or if they think their audience is just really naive. Whenever I read "based on true events" or "inspired by a true story", I always think yeah right. And of course when you google it, there's no response.
Another repetitive pattern is the mockumentary genre. The Blair Witch Project used it in 1999 and quite well I might add. It was a scary movie and actually had people believing it was real. Now, they use it too much. They used it with The Last Exorcism, the Paranormal Activity movies and The Devil Inside to name a few. For some it worked and some it just failed miserably. And the fact that the mockumentary films come out every year just makes it more annoying to me.
When I look at these three specific examples, they didn't recur as much compared to films released in the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s. I will say there were some horror films that were inspired by actual events, but now every year there's at least one scary movie with the tagline "inspired by actual events". It's getting old.
My rant is over. This is just the perspective of someone who is a fan of the genre and thinks that it's really gone downhill in the last several years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)