I can’t believe Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes have separated. I think it’s such a shame because they were one of those rare couples from the showbiz world who seemed happy together and actually in love. There aren’t many famous marriages that you expect will last, but this was one of them. It has hit me as hard as when Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston – and I’m still in shock about that. Just like the Pitts, the Mendes’ always looked so happy together at public awards and genuinely in love. And they seemed like such an odd couple too which made it even more believable.
They were married seven years which, in Hollywood terms is a lifetime so I can’t knock them for trying. I just wish this one had worked out. These days it seems like no marriage lasts in the film world and it gives it a bad name for everyone. Relationships between famous actors aren’t taken seriously anymore, and who can blame us? It all appears to be about publicity and using their personal life to get them further and it’s just not morally right. Love shouldn’t be about selling magazines or boosting your popularity but from the outside that’s the impression some famous couples give out.
And for serious couples like Kate and Sam, I’m sure the separation is hard enough as it is, without all the press attention. Every magazine claims to know the reason behind their split and I feel sorry for them, having to go through a public divorce. Another downside to marrying another film star...
Monday 29 March 2010
Wednesday 24 March 2010
Spoiling sequels
We’re nearing the release of the second Nanny McPhee film and I’m getting nervous. This always happens to films I like. They always make sequels.
I know the makers want to extend the success and popularity of the first one, but they still haven’t learnt their lesson. Have they not seen Rocky 6? Or American Pie 6: Beta House? Or the sequel to Jaws? Or the ten Home Alones that didn’t feature McCauley Culkin? Obviously not, but I have. It’s such a shame because it almost ruins the original film. Take Pirates of the Caribbean – one of the best modern Disney films – why couldn’t they just be happy with having one of the highest grossing films of 2003? Instead they decide to stretch the characters and plot to its very limit until, by the end of the third film, you’ve got no idea which way’s up and who’s an actual baddie or who’s just pretending to be dead. And, as if three films just wasn’t enough confusion, they’ve announced ANOTHER film for next year. They should call it Pirates of the Caribbean – Curse of the Sequel. Worse thing is, it’s being directed by someone else – I call this Home Alone syndrome. The makers of Home Alone realised we’re not that stupid that we wouldn’t notice if they replaced the main character with another person. So they decided to use the success of the first two films and stick the same name on the third – despite the fact it was a completely different story with new characters and everything. Personally I don’t think they should have been allowed to call it Home Alone.
I’m just praying Nanny McPhee doesn’t fall foul of this common curse. But I’m not holding my breath – I’m a little confused about how it’s going to work. The whole appeal about the first one was that Nanny McPhee was a mother who was reincarnated temporarily to control her children who were wreaking havoc after her death... how are they going to fit the SAME nanny into a different family?!
We shall soon see...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-interviews/2010/03/12/nanny-mcphee-is-a-timeless-character-says-star-of-the-film-emma-thompson-86908-22105466/
I know the makers want to extend the success and popularity of the first one, but they still haven’t learnt their lesson. Have they not seen Rocky 6? Or American Pie 6: Beta House? Or the sequel to Jaws? Or the ten Home Alones that didn’t feature McCauley Culkin? Obviously not, but I have. It’s such a shame because it almost ruins the original film. Take Pirates of the Caribbean – one of the best modern Disney films – why couldn’t they just be happy with having one of the highest grossing films of 2003? Instead they decide to stretch the characters and plot to its very limit until, by the end of the third film, you’ve got no idea which way’s up and who’s an actual baddie or who’s just pretending to be dead. And, as if three films just wasn’t enough confusion, they’ve announced ANOTHER film for next year. They should call it Pirates of the Caribbean – Curse of the Sequel. Worse thing is, it’s being directed by someone else – I call this Home Alone syndrome. The makers of Home Alone realised we’re not that stupid that we wouldn’t notice if they replaced the main character with another person. So they decided to use the success of the first two films and stick the same name on the third – despite the fact it was a completely different story with new characters and everything. Personally I don’t think they should have been allowed to call it Home Alone.
I’m just praying Nanny McPhee doesn’t fall foul of this common curse. But I’m not holding my breath – I’m a little confused about how it’s going to work. The whole appeal about the first one was that Nanny McPhee was a mother who was reincarnated temporarily to control her children who were wreaking havoc after her death... how are they going to fit the SAME nanny into a different family?!
We shall soon see...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-interviews/2010/03/12/nanny-mcphee-is-a-timeless-character-says-star-of-the-film-emma-thompson-86908-22105466/
Thursday 18 March 2010
What a rip-off
Surprisingly enough, 2009 proved to be a very successful year for cinemas. Despite the recession not improving a great deal, the UK’s second biggest cinema chain Cineworld has reported high ticket sales leading to an 11.5 per cent increase in profits. The chain found the number of cinemagoers rose by 9 per cent and mostly put it down to the recent take off of the 3D phenomenon.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article7057842.ece
Although it’s great to hear companies doing well, there is a loser in this story. Whilst a big reason for the cinemas improved profits IS an increase in customers overall, it’s not the sole reason. Who hasn’t noticed the considerable rise in cinema prices?! In fact, last year Cineworld raised its prices by an average of 7.5 per cent. So technically the cinemagoers are losing big time, especially if they want to see a 3D film which means paying a whole lot extra for the glasses and the investment the cinema has put into the special screens and equipment needed to show the films.
It’s a real shame because for the last couple of generations the cinema has brought films and families and fun together. My mum, who still calls it the ‘pictures’, used to go all the time but now only really goes if George Clooney has a new film out, because she thinks the prices are extortionate. And she doesn’t even go to the big cinemas like Vue or Odeon. I think it’s sad that such a popular past time is being ruined by greedy businesses wanting more money. And it’s not just the price of the ticket that is shocking. I hate the way cinemas know you’re going to want refreshments and the only place you can really buy it, especially if you fancy some popcorn, is in the cinema. So, because obviously they’re not making enough money on the ticket sales (pfft, yeah right!), the cinemas decide to charge ridiculous prices for food and drink. The cheek of it is they have a rule about bringing your own food, they must be worried you might be tempted to go to Tesco before the film. God knows why when their food is just so reasonably priced. Anyway, that stupid rule means people who refuse to pay cinema prices have to either go without or sneak food in and be made to feel conscious and bad about it.
Well done Cineworld but this year maybe you could make your profit elsewhere and bring your prices down so going to the cinema doesn’t cost a fortune.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article7057842.ece
Although it’s great to hear companies doing well, there is a loser in this story. Whilst a big reason for the cinemas improved profits IS an increase in customers overall, it’s not the sole reason. Who hasn’t noticed the considerable rise in cinema prices?! In fact, last year Cineworld raised its prices by an average of 7.5 per cent. So technically the cinemagoers are losing big time, especially if they want to see a 3D film which means paying a whole lot extra for the glasses and the investment the cinema has put into the special screens and equipment needed to show the films.
It’s a real shame because for the last couple of generations the cinema has brought films and families and fun together. My mum, who still calls it the ‘pictures’, used to go all the time but now only really goes if George Clooney has a new film out, because she thinks the prices are extortionate. And she doesn’t even go to the big cinemas like Vue or Odeon. I think it’s sad that such a popular past time is being ruined by greedy businesses wanting more money. And it’s not just the price of the ticket that is shocking. I hate the way cinemas know you’re going to want refreshments and the only place you can really buy it, especially if you fancy some popcorn, is in the cinema. So, because obviously they’re not making enough money on the ticket sales (pfft, yeah right!), the cinemas decide to charge ridiculous prices for food and drink. The cheek of it is they have a rule about bringing your own food, they must be worried you might be tempted to go to Tesco before the film. God knows why when their food is just so reasonably priced. Anyway, that stupid rule means people who refuse to pay cinema prices have to either go without or sneak food in and be made to feel conscious and bad about it.
Well done Cineworld but this year maybe you could make your profit elsewhere and bring your prices down so going to the cinema doesn’t cost a fortune.
Friday 12 March 2010
Disagreements with Disney
“Britain's biggest cinema chains may choose not to show Disney's latest animation Alice in Wonderland because the company are proposing to sell it on DVD just 13 weeks after it reaches the big screen.”
I’m so glad Disney settled their dispute with the cinemas. For a moment there they had me worried. As much as I support being a firm believer in your own ideas, I also support listening to everyone else and trying to reach a compromise. Which I think Disney may just have done this time. After the threats from the cinemas of boycotting and the like, I was sure Disney might have taken one step too far this time. But luckily they managed to come to an agreement with the three largest cinema chains in the UK – but barely in time – just before the film’s big premiere in London. I’m also all for change if it’s needed and if it benefits everybody, but clearly in this instance it was one sided. From what the papers reported, it seemed like it was Disney calling the shots and, by using potentially one of the biggest films of the year as the bribe, made sure they were heard. Whether it’s classed as bribery or not, I don’t know, because it did take Odeon a while to agree and by the sounds of it there was a negotiation rather than surrender. Disney make the point that the longer the films are in the cinemas, the easier it is for piracy to occur. However the cinema chains make the opposite argument that audiences will have less chance to see it, no doubt affecting the cinema’s revenue. After reading comments I have found that Disney most probably hasn’t done much audience research. Either that or they did and didn’t take it on board. People have defended the cinema’s point of view mostly, saying that cinemas are social places and offer a different experience than DVD. But we’ll have to wait and see if the result is a good one for anyone, if at all. In my opinion, sometimes it is frustrating having to wait ages before I can buy a good film on DVD but then it just makes me appreciate the film more when it’s finally released.
I’m so glad Disney settled their dispute with the cinemas. For a moment there they had me worried. As much as I support being a firm believer in your own ideas, I also support listening to everyone else and trying to reach a compromise. Which I think Disney may just have done this time. After the threats from the cinemas of boycotting and the like, I was sure Disney might have taken one step too far this time. But luckily they managed to come to an agreement with the three largest cinema chains in the UK – but barely in time – just before the film’s big premiere in London. I’m also all for change if it’s needed and if it benefits everybody, but clearly in this instance it was one sided. From what the papers reported, it seemed like it was Disney calling the shots and, by using potentially one of the biggest films of the year as the bribe, made sure they were heard. Whether it’s classed as bribery or not, I don’t know, because it did take Odeon a while to agree and by the sounds of it there was a negotiation rather than surrender. Disney make the point that the longer the films are in the cinemas, the easier it is for piracy to occur. However the cinema chains make the opposite argument that audiences will have less chance to see it, no doubt affecting the cinema’s revenue. After reading comments I have found that Disney most probably hasn’t done much audience research. Either that or they did and didn’t take it on board. People have defended the cinema’s point of view mostly, saying that cinemas are social places and offer a different experience than DVD. But we’ll have to wait and see if the result is a good one for anyone, if at all. In my opinion, sometimes it is frustrating having to wait ages before I can buy a good film on DVD but then it just makes me appreciate the film more when it’s finally released.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
And best director goes to...A WOMAN?!
It’s that time of year again – award ceremonies coming out of your ears. But I’m not so frustrated this year after a woman finally won the best director Oscar, Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker. I almost couldn’t believe it when I read it, that after 82 years of the awards – that’s 82 directors congratulated for their work – that not ONE woman had been acknowledged as a worthy director. Shocking, I know. Surely there must have been some sort of vendetta against women and this most coveted award?! Looking back through the years, it seems the answer to this puzzle is quite simple really – how has a woman got any chance of winning the award when only men are ever nominated for it? Answer: They haven’t. If you look at the facts, only four women have ever been nominated in 82 years. And it can’t be that there aren’t female directors out there that are good enough. Twilight proves that. Directed by Catherine Hardwicke, Twilight was one of the biggest films of 2008 and proved you didn’t need a big budget to make a big hit. It also proved you didn’t need a man behind the camera too. And to mention just a couple of others...Lost In Translation, Something’s Gotta Give, Monster, Little Miss Sunshine, What Women Want, I could go on. In fact, before Avatar came along, the highest-grossing film in the UK was directed by a woman. Mamma Mia, directed by Phyllida Lloyd, took more money when it was released in 2008 than Titanic – the holder of the title at the time. The situation is bittersweet, although Bigelow winning is a breakthrough, it shouldn’t need to be. It shouldn’t have taken this long, but I suppose at least we’re getting somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)