http://duerespect.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/rants/

P.S You’ll also find my friends did a rant about people’s priorities and mobile phones. They are, kinda, interesting if you wanna listen to them.

Was in Germany recently seeing family, and I came across a poster for The Boat That Rocked, only with a different, english, title. And it made me think, why do names of films, plays, books etc change when they are released in various countries? I mean, another example, Harry Potter, why was the first film re-entitled Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone in America, what was wrong with Philosophers?

I am curious to find out whether this is the case with other films, anybody know of any other examples like this? Bar film titles that have been translated into different languages, because that is naturally understandable.

Now, i know that i have already done a blog post before referring to Shane Meadows and how much i love his films, but i was watching This Is England just now, and it made me think about things and relate to it, more than i ever did when i last watched it over a year ago.

Which just goes to show the power that a genre such as social realism can have on an audience, and why films such as this need to be more recognised. Ok i now that T.I.E was shown in America and didn’t do that well, probably because they didn’t get most of what the film was on about, however The Full Monty was a success across the pond and Trainspotting, although the film had to be re-dubbed by the original cast because of the ‘heavy’ accents that were spoken.

Ok, i’ll rephrase that. More films like this need to be made, and not just from England, i’m mainly thinking Hollywood, because i think it would be good to see Spielberg or Greengrass, for example, make something hard hitting, very ‘real’, and on a low budget. And i mean for less than $10 Million, try doing a ‘Blair Witch’ and make it for $40,000. Now that would be a challenge, and it would be really interesting to see what they would come up with. And lets face it, it would make quite a good documentary to.

But enough of that, you get the sense that 3D cinema is going to be the next big thing in the next few years, what with Up (the first 3D animated film to open the Cannes film festival i think you’ll find), Avatar, Alice In Wonderland (Due 2010, Tim Burton’s new adap looks very good from what i’ve seen and heard, especially since hearing that Johnny Depp is playing the Mad Hatter, and Stephen Fry will be starring as the Cheshire Cat!), Ice Age 3, TinTin, Tron, and even a fourth Final Destination entitled Final Destination: Death Trip 3D, which, by judging what happened to My Bloody Valentine 3D, will disagree with the crtitics but agree with the box office takings.

Also did you know that some films are being given the 3D makeover? And i don’t mean remakes. The Lord Of The Rings, Blade Runner, The Matrix Trilogy and Star Wars (All 6 films) are being ‘upgraded’ to 3D. Which i think will please alot of people indeed. Its certainly got me waiting in anticipation, especially Star Wars…

Hey there all of you. Sorry for not doing a post in AAAGGGEESS, but will try and keep it up from now on. And anyway I want to start my ‘return’ with a film review (Sorry if people find it a bit long. POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERTS).

Yes while not deciding to go to the university ball last night, one of my mates suggested I go and see Star Trek at the local cinema with a few other mates, as it was the first night showing. Now not being a true ‘trekkie’, perhaps the only one in the group, i decided to go for two reasons. One, its a JJ Abrams film, having been a fan of MI3 and Cloverfield, I wanted to see how he re-invisioned it (and judging by the trailers it looked like a good film anyway), bringing me onto my second point, I wanted to give it a chance, to see whether it was my kinda thing and to see whether the ‘re-invisioning’ (if that is a word) panned out.

So, I get to the cinema, which is packed considering it is a cinema in a sea-side town in west wales, watch a few trailers and adverts, then role the opening credits. What i then see for the next two hours or so is an astonishing achievement, it had me going from the dramatic opening scene, to a ‘here is a hint that there will be sequels’ ending. I found Chris Pine’s James Kirk to be a very relaxed, funny, rebelious and intelligent lead, right from the scene where he is in a bar and bumps into a few of the Enterprise crew, including a very beautiful Uhuru (Zoe Saldana). I also found Zachery Quinto to be a perfect Spock, forget Syler, this is the role that I will remember him by, playing a half-vulcan, half-human role with such calm, intriguing intelligence and, in one or two scenes, emotion.

While Dr Leonard ‘Bones’ Mccoy (Karl Urban) and Montgomery ‘Scotty’ Scott (Simon Pegg) also play two wonderfully entertaining roles, Simon Pegg especially, though it came to me as no surprise that he plays a similar role to that which he played in ‘MI3′, a character who isn’t seen that much, but when we he is on screen, provides some more comic relief. Not that i’m saying that he provides all the comedy, Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Uhuru all take their turns in the comic spotlight.

But don’t see this as a comedy spectacle, the balance of Action and Sci-Fi is perfectly executed, both blending together without the need of a romance inbetween (like you get in, say, Transformers). This film is though in essence about Spock and Kirk, JJ himself saying in an interview with TotalFilm (Issue 153, April 2009) “They were the characters I cared about. I didn’t feel like I would be very good at doing a completely seperate space adventure that had the Star Trek name on it. But going back to the beginning… that was more interesting.”

All in all an absolutely brilliant film, appealing to the hardcore ’trekkies’ (my mates afterwards said that they thought it was absolutely brilliant), the semi-fans, and the ‘newbies’, a film that I would definately recommend anyone go and see. I just can’t wait for the sequels, because there wouldn’t be a reason not to as i’m sure this will be a phenomenal success, but only as long as JJ directs them, as the clapping from the audience the film got when the credits rolled was well and truly deserved.

*****

Now just what dumbass thought this up? I mean, it would have just been simpler to put “sexual references” like they do with all their other films wouldn’t it?! I’m baffled to work out why they decided to say this on this film, why not include it also on something like Striptease or, erm… well you get the idea surely.

What I would like to know, is if anybody else have spotted some strange classification decisions? Or advice given with films that could perhaps be added to? Discussions below please…

Oh and the link to the Fast and Furious advice is here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/recent/index.php?media=film

P.S Haha at 3 seconds having been cut so that it could achieve a 12A rating…surely what were in these 3 seconds that would warrent it a 15 rating? Post your ideas below.

So you could imagine my delight when I found an article on the Empire website detailing his next works, primarily looking at Le Donk, a “balls-out comedy” following an Arctic Monkey’s roadie, played by no less then his good old mate Paddy Considine, who takes a retired rapper, by the name of Scorsese, on tour in the hope of launching his career, bearing in  mind the rapper weighs 17 stone and has converted to Islam.

One of his long-term projects, King of the Gypsies, has been stalled somewhat due to him finding out someone also had a stake in the idea. But another, darker and scarier,  project which will follow that, which Meadows describes as “making Dead Man’s Shoes look like play school”, just got me even more excited.

Anybody else a fan of Meadows’ work and are excited at this prospect??…

The link to the original article is: http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24496

This isn’t even a laughing matter, as Michael Bay, Gore Verbinski AND Ridley Scott have signed on to do Battleships, Cleudo and Monopoly each. I mean its sounds crazy in the first place, but since these three Hollywood uber-directors have signed on, it was like hearing Christian Bale signing up for Terminator Salvation, after hearing McG would be directing it.

So do you think Hollywood have made the right move? Would you go and see them? Or would you rather play the games… All I’ll say is that I’m willing to give it a chance.

While the plot isn’t fully laid out, empireonline.com report that Kurylenko plays “a savage-looking Pict warrior woman” by the name of Etain, whose family were butchered by the Romans, and who cut her tongue out, and, not surprisingly, she’s out for Roman blood.

While i’m not going to say anymore on narrative here, I will add that she will be starring alongside Noel Clarke (of Doctor Who and Kidulthood/Adulthood fame), and as if that doesn’t tickle your fancy, it is being produced by Christian Colson (Slumdog Millionaire) and Robert Jones (Run Fatboy Run).

And perhaps the best bit about all of this? It is hopefully going to be released this year.

For more info, check out the link to the article below:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24388

Even though the blog reports on Cohan being spotted at an Alabama military academy back in february, surely the release date is more important, considering that Borat was one of the funniest films in 2007, and from what trouble that Cohan has caused in the making of the film already (gate-crashing a fashion cat-walk anyone?), this film looks to be “Very Nice!” indeed.

Anyone else excited about the release?