Cinematics
Posted: Sun 30 December, 2012 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Finances, Seeing Films Leave a comment »Looking back at the list I’ve kept it looks like I’ve seen 26 films this year, since May. Yeah, yeah, I kept a list – mainly because I wanted to make sure I was getting value for money from the Cineworld Unlimited ticket, but also because well, I’m a geek.
There’s probably a couple I saw pre-May, but all the same, 26 isn’t bad going. It’s been eight months since I joined Cineworld, at £15 a month, adding up to £120. 26 films would’ve cost me in the region of £260, which makes it pretty worthwhile.
In the course of 2012, I even had a couple of months where I didn’t go to see films – primarily July / August, when it was all really dire shite (in my opinion) with nothing I really fancied. So that total probably means that I really should get out more, just not to the cinema.
I won’t bore anyone with the list of films – I know I’ve got dire taste in films, but I like escapism.
2013’s going to be a year for more of the same, I’m sure. The ticket is worthwhile – it would’ve taken only 12 films to pay for itself, and I doubled that – so it makes sense to keep on with it. And that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
Life of Pi
Posted: Tue 11 December, 2012 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Reviews(ish) | Tags: #lifeofpi 2 Comments »Last night, I went to see the new film of Life of Pi. I’ve not read the book – when it comes to films, sometimes I find it’s better to not be locked on ‘it’s not the same as the book’ – so I went with an open mind to see what it was like.
All told, it’s an impressive film – and for the first time, one where I would actually suggest seeing the 3D version, as that added a visual layer which I imagine the 2D version lacks. Certain shots – of Pi watching the ship sink, for example – had an real ‘depth’ to them.
Visually it’s beautiful. There are some stunning scenes, and the vision of the film is exceptional.
Technically, it’s stunning – the CGI for the animals is some of the best I’ve seen, and you do believe that the tiger is there in the boat.
But – ah, there’s always a but. For a film so much about belief, miracle, and wonder, it feels (or felt, to me) soul-less. I’ve had this issue with Ang Lee‘s films before – they’re beautiful, excellent films. It’s just that they have no heart, no passion. Other people’s perspectives vary, obviously, but for me, I just come out feeling somewhat dissatisfied.
All told, it’s worth seeing, and it’s a good film. It’s just not a great film. (Again, in my view)
But I will have to go and read the book now, and see if that adds more to the film…
Sightseers
Posted: Sun 2 December, 2012 Filed under: Cinema, Domestic, Reviews(ish) Leave a comment »Over this weekend, I went to see Sightseers, a new British film. It is very dark, basically about two dysfunctional people who form a relationship, and go away on a week’s caravan trip. Strange – and very British – tourist places merge with a tale of murder, serial killing, and general black humour.
An example line “He wasn’t human, he was a Daily Mail reader”.
I really enjoyed it – it’s not your run of the mill Hollywood offering, which is always a good thing – but I suspect it’s probably an acquired taste. If you like oddball British films, it’ll be right up your street.
Product Placement
Posted: Mon 29 October, 2012 Filed under: Advertising, Cinema, Thoughts Leave a comment »Over the weekend, I went to see the new Bond film, Skyfall. There’s been a lot of kerfuffle about the product placement in the film, Bond drinks Heineken, etc. etc. – so among other things I wanted to see if it actually made one jot of difference to the film.
And of course it doesn’t. The Heineken bottle, for example, is only visible for about ten seconds – and even then you don’t get to see the brand name. Sure, you can recognise the label, but the actual brand isn’t there. Which I thought was interesting.
There’s actually a lot of product placement – but I don’t get the current kerfuffle about it, to be honest. Bond films have *always* been a bonanza of product placement. Why scream about the product placement of a bottle of beer, in comparison to – for example – Aston Martin’s deal? Oh no, sorry, that’s ‘classic’, so somehow it doesn’t count. Bond is a label queen, always has been, always will be.
Take a second, think of all the names/brands that you mentally link to Bond…
- Aston Martin
- Lotus
- Walther PPK
- Martini (I know it’s the name of the cocktail, but all the same)
- Bollinger champagne
And that’s just ten seconds thought.
To me it’s interesting, seeing the things that people *perceive* as product placement, versus what’s there as either ‘classic’ stuff, or simply not realised.
In Skyfall, sure, the Sony Vaio brand is all over the place, and not particularly subtle. But there’s all the old favourites too. Audi cars are used in most scenes, and there’s a couple of references to VW Beetles which I’m quite certain aren’t coincidental.
Personally, I find product placement to be less intrusive than normal advertising. Well, at least when it’s done properly – I can think of a few really bad examples of super-obvious tie-ins that were just painful (I, Robot’s obsession with Converse and Audi, for example, and the Cisco overdose on Transformers films) – but for the most part it’s something my brain can gloss over.
Indeed – and again, from a personal perspective – I found that the pre-film adverts, also 90% Bond-related were far more intrusive, and led me to the point of being pissed off with Bond before the film had even started.
Product-placement and tie-ins I can live with. Related advertising is far worse.
Advertising Irritation
Posted: Wed 10 October, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Cinema, Cynicism, Thoughts Leave a comment »A few days back, I whiffed on about awful adverts in the cinema, ones that have a different effect on people than was perhaps expected
This piece of crap – for Coke Zero, as part of the Skyfall marketing behemoth – is a perfect example.
You can just tell that the ad agency- and probably the client- thought it conveyed a sense of humour, something new and fun to be talked about. But in the cinema, it gets no reaction, no laughter, nothing. (Although there is the occasional “Fuck sake”, or similar)
Captive Audience – Part Two
Posted: Sat 6 October, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Cinema, Cynicism, Domestic, Legal, Thoughts Leave a comment »While at the cinema, there’s one other piece of ‘advertising’ (Well, I suppose it comes termed as adverts, but really “lectures” is a better term) that annoys me excessively.
Those adverts/lectures are the anti-piracy lectures, and the one that really fucking grates is this one…
Now bear in mind, this is being shown at the cinema. Everyone who is watching this advert has paid to see the bastard film – we’re not the ones that need to be preached to about not pirating films.
For these pieces of shit, we – the cinema-going audience – are a captive audience. We can’t fast-forward, we can’t go and get a cup of tea, we pretty much have to watch the fucking thing. And it’s preaching to the people who are (I suspect) the least likely group to be pirating films.
Even worse, the adverts are actually counter-productive. Because let’s face it, pirate copies don’t have these bloody anti-piracy adverts on them. And that, to me, is a point in favour of pirated films.
Captive Audience – Part One
Posted: Fri 5 October, 2012 Filed under: Advertising, Cinema, Creativity, Domestic, Thoughts Leave a comment »Over the last few months, I’ve been going to the cinema more – the Cineworld Unlimited ticket has it’s uses, and what the hell, I like films. For £15 a month, I’m seeing as many films as I want, and that’s fine. More than one a month, and it’s paying for itself.
The downside of it, though, is the bloody adverts. I don’t know why or how, but cinema advertising is incredibly bad. Trailers are OK (although it all gets a bit samey after a while) but the adverts themselves are just bad.
And it’s interesting too, to see how the audience react to those adverts. I know that agencies do test viewings and so on to gauge reaction, but they really should try going to the cinema and seeing – and to some degree hearing – the reaction there.
Orange currently are one of the biggest culprits. They seem to do one ad per season – Summer’s one was based round the Expendables 2 film, and Autumn’s one is based around The Sweeney. They’re meant to be funny (I think) but they get so dull with repetition, and the Autumn one isn’t getting any reaction at all. (Understandable really, because it’s a) weird and b) shit )
Overall, I think the worst times are where ads try to be funny, and the audience stay stony-faced, not a noise from them. It’s just cringe-worthy.
I don’t know what can be done to fix it – other than lots of viewer research and surveys, and ideally a shitload more creativity – but it’s still interesting about the reactions, or lack thereof.