the Story of The Kelly gang (1906)

the first feature film. it was originally 70 minutes but it's so damaged and lost that only 16 minutes and 10 seconds are watchable.

although this movie was the first feature length film it wasn't the first film, the first was the 1890's i think.

The Americans overlook this film, probably because it's Australian and had nothing to do with America, so they say that "Birth of a nation" was the first feature. Yanks have to be first don't they?

i feel like some noodles....

Star Trek 2009

2009 was a good year for special effects, with Avatar, Harry Potter's 6th installment and Star trek.

Star Trek is my favorite film of 09, Avatar was good but without the special effects it would suck! and it was over-hyped and overrated. Star Trek deserved it praise, it was well cast, had the main characters and knock out SFX!

I liked Chris Pine as James Kirk, if only William Shatner had made a cameo, that would have been epic!!! but Leonard Nimoy was in it as future Spock, so that was great.

The plot is that Nero comes back in time, his arrival disrupts the continuum and creates an alternate reality, allowing director JJ Abrams to do whatever he wants, and he did it with style. awesome, awesome film.

Zachery Quinto (Sylar from the now canned Heroes) plays a good Spock, not straying too far from what he knows, (logicality and emotional, much to his chagrin, Sylar like) which seems Spock like as well. Quinto made a great Spock

Chris Pine, got the woman chasing part right! as someone who wasn't that interested in the original Star Trek i now want to see the series and movies! I liked Chris PIne in this, which is a rarity.

Zoe Saldana (of Avatar fame) was ok, no wow factor, but ok. like in everything else

overall i don't have that many bad things to say about this movie

Singin' in the rain (1952)

what is considered the greatest musical of all time is deserving, if not a bit overrated, but it's a simple film, easy to understand with some of the best dance choregraphy i've evn seen on screen

Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) is a silent film star in 1927, famous for his pairing with Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), but the studio is moving to talkies and theres a reason why Lina has to stay silent- she has a scratchy and horrible voice. But Don meets Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds in her breakout role), who can sing and talks great! Lina doesn't like Kathy, and that's how the fun begins!

well in all honesty i watched the film last week and might have gotten a few deatils wrong but thats the basic outline of the story.
the acting is great, it's not brilliant, although Jean hagen was hysterical with that voice! i found it an interesting piece of trivia that she actually could sing in real life and even dubbed herself in the silent picture that we see in the film.
the music was great! fun to listen to and simple too. Dancing was what made the movie, it hold one of the most iconic dances in history, where Gene Kelly sings in the rain, but theres moe than just that scene! "Good Morning" is my favourite part of the whole film, that made it look so easy, Donald O'Connor was perfect in his solo "Make Em' Laugh".

acting: 4/5
songs: 4/5
dancing: 5/5
story: 3/5
writing: 4/5

film: 4/5
it's the greatest musical ever made, on regular film standards it's not brilliant but it deserves being the ruler of all musicals, after this film was released i'm sure that any musical the followed were compared it, it's unfair but this film is the perfect musical/comedy.
just my opinion but such a simple plot was elevted by electric performances and amzing dancing.
if you haven't seen it... SEE IT!!!!!!!!

Real Movies

a real film isn't a film that has a great special effects, that is a show, when you strip down a film like that you generally find the acting to wooden, the script to be mediocre and plot to be overly contrived. an exception to this rule is Star Wars, it's special effects pale in comparison to Avatar, but the rest of the film(s) make up for that! with characters that aren't as cliche'ed and if they are than they're acted very well.

a real movie doesn't need special effects, their were no giant technical machines or computerised worlds in films like The Shawshank Redemption,. All about Eve and Sunset Blvd. the latter 2 are 60 years old and still entertaining, witty and well done. no special effects required.
films are made to rake in money, and Avatar did that, and in 70+ years will people still be talking about it? no. with this new trend in film making it'll be only a matter of time before you won't even need actors for films! Avatar, will always be remembered for it special effects, not for dynamic story or amazing acting, or great dialogue, nothing like that. its a laser/lights show, made to keep people attentions with the pretty colours, its cheaper to go and see a fireworks display. don't get me wrong the effects were spectacular to look at but they're like models, great to look at but sometimes there isn't much else to rave over.

one of the great things about films is that you can switch off to them, not have to rethink your entire life during it.
i generally grade films on these things:
acting
story
dialogue
music (for musicals)
dancing (for musicals)
design
special effects

in that order, i don't care about effects, i don't need them to be present in every film i watch unlike some people, if i'm watching a sci fi and they have great special effects then thats a plus, but i can watch a sci fi with low budget special effects and still be entertained if something else makes up for it. films that rely on one specific aspect of film making (eg: just having name value etc etc) then it's not worth it if they only have one or 2 things going for it.
i'm one of those people who is not screaming over Avatar, its was good to watch but i'll never watch it again. But i will be buying Alice in Wonderland, purely because i found that more entertaining.

Glee

Glee. the television show that has brought a new high to comedy/musical TV.

its biting one liners, electrifying songs and fun characters are just a few good things about this show.

some of it has the overdone stereotype, like Kurt the gay teen, but its all in the stride of such a colorful and uplifting show. covers of songs are awesome and have opened up the worlds of Journey, Queen, Neil Diamond and Wicked to the people who weren't so familiar with them or are huge fans of them but loves Glee's take.

acting is great, Lea Michele has a great voice! Cory Monteith doesn't have the best voice or the best dance skills but its all in his character, he's a great leading man in the songs and not bad to look at. the guy who play Puck is underrated! great voice, good acting and good looking!

the cast is all round good and Mike, i do not know who plays him but he is a great dancers and needs some more screen time.

i love this show and believe that it is infectious, i can't not like this show.

acting: 3/5 gets a bit melodramatic at times

songs/dance: 4/5

writing: 4/5

show: 4/5

to anyone who has not seen tis how i recommend it to you.

revision

i realized that Shrek isn't a disney movie, i always forget about that, but in a way they ARE parodying Disney.

just saying

A Folly Of Film: Remakes.

You know what i mean, now some remakes work, they live up to or better the original movie, but that could be that the original wasn't that great to begin with. A cult classic, a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of thing.

Remakes are everywhere, almost every movie copies another movie, it's clear that Hollywood has run out of ideas, and that's understandable, there are only so many idea's in the world right? BUT, if they aren't going to use an original plot line then shouldn't they try to make up for that? with, good jokes or really good art direction? something!

The producers (2005) isn't a direct remake of the original (1968), but rather a musical film of the Broadway musical that was inspired (adapted? whatever!) by the original movie. but for the sake of argument lets call it a remake, cos on a technicality it IS. The dialogue is very close to it, they match almost scene by scene and use some of the original props, but the performances were funnier (just my 2 cents) the songs were great (the original wasn't a musical). Remakes work sometimes, but sometimes they just can't do it.

Fame (1980) was very good! however Fame (2009) wasn't, too many characters lack of plot, boring characters (what a waste of Kelsey Grammar and Megan Mullally's talent), and the acting just wasn't up to the par of the original. therin lies the problems with remakes, you already have you're audience (the original fans) and now you just need to reel everyone else in, but the spend too much time on making it appealing to people who don't know Fame, and they alienate the original fans, they want to see the original integrity and trueness that the original had, with real characters that people could relate to, these characters weren't good, and the over time the writers put into making the characters appealing to modern audiences clearly made them forget about the plot.

anyway, remakes shouldn't happen, and if they do then they need to live up to the original, or at least TRY.

they plan to remake Footloose (1984), can you DO that in a modern setting? Footloose took place in 1984, with no internet, or iphones or normal cell phones for that matter! so it was easier to have the little town of Boumont isolated, but in todays modern age you can get to anything. if Footloose takes place in modern days it'll just look completely stupid!

alright, original idea's aside, some movies might be okay, but remakes shouldn't happen unless they are going to have some defining thing to make them different. how would any of you feel if they remade.... oh i don't know... Some Like it hot? it just wouldn't be the same.

REMAKES MUST LIVE UP TO THE ORIGINAL OR DO NOT MAKE THEM AT ALL!

rant out