2014 Media – Films
Posted: Sat 3 January, 2015 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Media, Seeing Films Leave a comment »In 2014, I saw 64 films at the cinema
As for the film count, I kept track. I do get a summary count from Cineworld – but they operate on May to May, which is the anniversary of when I started the account with the Unlimited Card. So I keep track for the calendar year instead. It’s a bit geeky (I know, who’d have thought, with me) but it’s of interest to me, if no-one else.
I won’t list them all – that’s definitely of interest to no-one else, and my film taste is frequently bloody awful.
Anyway, of those 64 films, only one wasn’t at a Cineworld (as usual, taking Father to see the Hobbit film at the closer cinema, which is an Odeon) because of that Unlimited Card.
Currently, that Unlimited card costs me £16.40 a month, which makes just under £200 a year. (£196.80, if we’re being accurate) A single adult ticket to my local Cineworld cinema is £10.30. Seeing two films a month means the ticket pays for itself.
Now, it’s hard to work out the true savings, because obviously without that card, I would most likely have not gone to see as many films as I have. I’d have still gone, but only seen maybe half as many, even a third as many.
But even if we go right down to seeing a third as many films at full price as I have with the Unlimited, that’d be 21 films at Cineworld. So that would still be £216.30 – and that means that even at the most basic level, I’ve still saved at least £20 on tickets. Looking at seeing half the films, that would be 31 films – which at full price would’ve cost me £320 – and the Unlimited ticket would’ve saved me £122.50.
As with the book target, I don’t know if I’ll see as many films in 2015. I’ll still see a fair amount – and as we’ve shown, as long as it’s more than two a month, that card is paying for itself. That’ll do me for the moment.
Chef
Posted: Fri 4 July, 2014 Filed under: Domestic, Films, Food, Media, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Writing Leave a comment »Last night, I went to see Chef at the cinema. It’s brilliant – if you get the chance, go and see it.
Lots of films (or their reviews/pimps) bang on about being “the feel-good movie of the season/year/decade” – Chef doesn’t, but bloody well should. It’s ace.
The basic premise is simple – talented chef gets bored by humdrum menu/restaurant, has a meltdown at a restaurant reviewer, loses his job, goes off and launches a food van doing what he loves. But the acting, the script – and the food – all raise it up a level. I’ve never been in a film where you hear the audience groan with lust/envy at the presentation of food in the film. They did in Chef. Sure, it’s – kind of – a film for foodies, but it’s not just that. It’s one of those films where you can see that they had fun doing it, that it was an enjoyable thing to work on.
It’s funny, it’s sweet (without being mawkish, cloying, or any of the normal American emotional guff) and it’s just good.
Go and see it. It’s worth it.
The Imposter
Posted: Mon 7 April, 2014 Filed under: Films, People, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films, Weirdness Leave a comment »Over the weekend, I finally watched The Imposter, a documentary about a man who impersonated Nicholas Barclay, an American teen who had disappeared four years previously.
It’s a fascinating – and very creepy – film, which would be dismissed as unrealistic and impossible if it were a fiction story/film.
The Imposter himself, Frédéric Bourdin is a very strange character, and (in my unprofessional opinion) probably about as much of a pure-bred psychopath as it’s possible to be. The family of Nicholas Barclay are also extremely strange – and yes, I know, editing etc. – and make you wonder just why a family would accept in a stranger that could not possibly be their child/relative.
I don’t know the full story – I doubt anyone ever will – but the documentary makes you think of alternatives, of options, and of coincidence. Maybe it was Bordin’s bad luck to pick Barclay as a person to impersonate – it certainly leads to a much bigger story, and a whole different set of possibilities.
Totally recommended, even if documentaries ‘aren’t normally your thing’
CGI
Posted: Mon 10 March, 2014 Filed under: Cinema, Films, Photography, Seeing Films, Technology, Thoughts Leave a comment »Over on Twitter this morning, I saw this image, a behind-the-scenes photo from Pirates of the Caribbean, showing the actors in their motion-capture suits, that allows CGI stuff to be added afterwards and move the same way the actor does.
Now what interested me the most was that the entire outfit – clothing etc. – was also all applied in CGI. And that had never actually occurred to me. I got that the various faces/tentacles/prosthetics were applied by CGI, but for some reason I’d never clicked that the clothing was all computer-generated as well.
Ain’t progress grand?
Giving The Game Away
Posted: Mon 3 March, 2014 Filed under: Advertising, Cinema, Domestic, Films, People, Seeing Films, Thoughts Leave a comment »Yesterday, for want of anything better to do, I went to see Ride Along at the cinema. I expected it to be bad – but screw it, it was free (although if it hadn’t been, I’d have been wanting my money back. Hell, I considered asking for a refund anyway)
It’s definitely an early contender (in my opinion) for the Worst Film of the Year (Mainstream / ‘Comedy’) category, but (as said) I pretty much expected that. Hated it. Although others in the audience at least laughed, so I guess that’s something.
What did surprise me though was how many of the key ‘jokes’ and scenes had been given away in the trailer – but also how many people still laughed at them.
It made me wonder if they’d actually seen the trailer before going to see the film, and if so, had forgotten them in the intervening time.
All very strange.
12 Years A Slave
Posted: Fri 10 January, 2014 Filed under: Films, Reviews(ish), Seeing Films Leave a comment »On Tuesday, I went to see the new film “12 Years A Slave” at the cinema. It’s been reviewed as being harsh and unforgiving in its view of American Slavery, but also reported that some members of the audience have walked out, shocked and horrified, and even felt ill and faint.
The film is the story of – well, more accurately it’s based on the story of – Solomon Northup, a free-born ‘African American’ from New York, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1841. In many ways it’s a remarkable story, and a remarkable film.
No-one walked out of the showing I was in – well, none in shock/horror, more just bloody-awful bladder control – but it’s an uncompromising view of slavery and the attitudes towards slaves. It’s another of those films that’s worth seeing, but it’s not one you’ll enjoy, if that makes any sense at all? A couple of the scenes in it are very unpleasant, leading you to wonder how it got away with a 15 certificate – but for me the real horror is in the perception and treatment of slaves.
I know I’m not the most charitable soul – file under “Sherlock, Shit, No” – but I find it truly horrific to see that belief that a slave isn’t human, is just a possession that the owner can do with as they will. All they’re ‘worth’ is the price paid. Nothing more, nothing less – and even seeing them exchanged as commodities, a way of passing on that debt. I know it happened (and probably still does in places) but it’s a vile attitude to have about anyone, regardless of skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, belief, or anything else.
It’s a grim film, and hard to watch in places, but it should be seen – and seen by lots of people – almost as an essay in how people shouldn’t be treated.