If The Cinema Had Laws

We have all been to the cinema, but in this technological advanced age where people live whole lives online, its getting more and more impossible to achieve that one simple aim - get a bunch of people to watch a movie without disturbing someone.    We are there for the same reason - to immerse ourselves in the cinematic experience.  Woe betide anyone who drags us back into reality.

So after much anguish and icy stares at fellow movie-goers, here is my OCD-influenced list of what should/should not happen in a cinema.  Yes, it does come across as grumpy, and no, I don't have too much time on my hands (took all of 30 mins to do).  It might bother some people more than others, but as more and more "incidents" occur, our toleration level should not rise (in tandem with cinema prices) because it's just plain wrong.

If you think of anymore then please comment, but there is one thing I bet - that you will agree with all that I list.

There are 2 groups responsible for ensuring a smooth cinematic experience.  3 if you include the quality of the film, but that's another point entirely.  Those 2 groups are the Cinema itself, and the people who visit it (i.e. you and me).

Cinema-goers:

1) Be on Time 
There's about 20 minutes of adverts, and yet you still feel the need to walk in, make a noise and piss about when the film is 10 minutes in. Even more annoying when this happens and the person in question is carrying a giant box of popcorn and a drink. So let me get this right, your mega late for the movie, but you still felt the need to spend ages in a queue? Get your arse in gear and show respect for those who made it on time.

2) Noisy Food
Yes I know this is probably a case of me being too picky. But its the timing of the food being opened rather than the food itself. The adverts for products come and go. Next up is the semi-exciting trailers. All come and go pleasantly.  Darkness then falls. The BBFC rating appears and then vanishes as the screen goes black and silence falls.  Then the movie starts.  And that's when you decide to open your ridiculously loud packet of crisps and start shovelling popcorn in your mouth like your wrist is part-Terminator. As soon as you do that I'm jolted from my cinema experience and back into the hell of reality.C'mon! If your sitting there, open it before the movie starts.

3) Mobile Phones
Do I need to say any more about this? If you can't sit for 2 hours without looking at your phone then you shouldn't be at the cinema because clearly you don't have the attention span to watch a film.  I'm guessing you don't have books at home either. Respect those around you - and stop looking at it.

4) Talking/Laughing (non-comedic films)
I was in the middle of watching the brilliant "Get Low" drama last year, and it was almost ruined by some brat giggling through it.  Thankfully someone a few rows back shouted "Shut the f**k up". Unfortunately there just aren't enough back-row saviours to solve this problem.  If you want to be social or chat, or share your jokes, then great. Go to the pub. Don't go to the cinema because we are there to watch the movie, not listen to your irritating voice.

5) Going To The Toilet
If you rush to the toilet 2hrs in to a 31/2 hour epic then ignore this. I've done that myself and it cannot be helped.  This is for those who sit through all the trailers, chat to their mates for ages, then, just as I'm slipping into my cinematic experience, it's rudely interrupted because that's when they decide to go, and I'm treated to their outline as well as the clump of their boots, twice over.

6) Foot-tapping/Other Repetitive Movement
This one is a major source of annoyance for me, because, much like the sign language woman in the lower right hand corner of your screen, as soon as you see it, you cannot ignore it.  If the movie bores you so much, then please leave. Don't sit there tapping your foot like your in your own lounge.  If its a twitch, then it can't be helped, but this is for those who constantly waggle their limbs like they have caffeine for blood. Sit at bloody peace.

Cinema chains:

1) Check The Temperature
Hands up who has went to the cinema and has had to keep their jackets on because it's so bloody cold? The ridiculous nature about this is that it's probably the a/c unit, rather than it being just cold.  Even though the staff walk up and down the steps about dozen times throughout the movie, nothing is done about it. Not easy to get immersed in the film when you have a large jacket on that rustles each time you reach for a Malteaser.  Either turn the a/c off, or put the heating on.

2) Letting People In Late
Now this is one that really gets me. Clearly the movie has started because it started at 2pm and it's now 2:40pm.  And yet why is someone now wandering in and doing that thing where they stare at the seats as though they have never seen a cinema before? This is irritating on three levels. One - Its disturbing my enjoyment of the movie, and Two - you have charged them full price even though they have missed a chunk.  Three - But maybe you deserve it if you still want to see a film after missing the first 15 minutes (I mean seriously - who does that???Would you not rather see something else and see this film another time?) Stop it. The doors shut for a reason. So stop selling tickets beyond a certain time - that time being the start of the trailers.

3) The Certificate Is There For A Reason
How many 25-30 yr olds have been asked for ID when trying to buy a tiny bottle of wine on a Friday night after a hard week of work? And how many have been asked when trying to put the lottery on? Challenge 25, right.  I bet none of the 25-30 yr olds have been asked for ID at the cinema.  Which is great, except that almost no one gets asked, so 12, 15, 18 rated films are always filled with those who are clearly under age.  Very annoying since they will be the first to make any noise.

4) Better Offers On Food/Drink
I'm no cinema boss, but surely this is an area they could capitalise on.  We are going to the cinema with food and drink, so it's a ready market.  And while there are some rich souls who can afford to pay the prices the set, most of us will no doubt nip to the wee newsagents across the road for a juice and some chocolate.  Entice us in Mr Cinema Boss! Offer it, and they shall come.

5) Staff Training
You offer staff training Odeon? Cineworld? AMC? Yeah of course you do. That's why I can see 2 tills on, a queue of about 25 people, and another 2 staff doing that "If I Stare At My Screen Then It Looks Like I'm Busy And Therefore Cannot Serve". Kick their arse. Fed up seeing staff wandering about (what do they actually do exactly besides serving at a till or the cinema bar, stock up and tidy?) doing nothing. I could literally walk in with a blank piece of paper and the zombie who greets me with a "enjoy the film" would still put a tear in it and wave me through.  Better customer service needed by a long way.  Of my local Cineworld (tallest in the world) in Glasgow, there are some really good workers. Which just shows up the ones who aren't, and sadly this is the case for a lot of cinemas. If the customer service level was like that in a shop, you would be hauled through the back and bollocked.

And there you have it.  Too picky? Perhaps. Too neurotic? Maybe. But is there any on the list that you would disagree with? Anyone who enjoys listening to loud chatter, or a big bag of Quavers being opened? Or to stand in a queue on Orange Wednesdays and watch as only 2 out the 10 available tills are on and not feel annoyed?

We all love the cinematic experience we get at the cinema, and just because it's 2012 and technology is upon us like a rash, does not mean we should accept any less than a perfect experience. In darkness. In silence. Ensnared by all that is on the screen.

Shameless self promotion...

I'd just like to say thank you to the Whedon Studies Association (Slayage) for publishing my essay and putting up with my constant questions...

Also for actually publishing that gloriously geeky photo I took.

The Fans Who Never Lost Faith: Slaying 1970s Subculture Theory

Review : THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Ten years. Does that constitute as a long time? In the history of the universe, it's barely a fraction. To the average joe above the age of 25, it probably doesn't seem quite as lengthy as once previously felt.  A premiership football manager? Now they would probably think differently. A politician? Almost certainly. A sixteen year old living in 2012? Now that's a life time!

Cynically-minded or not, one suspects this is exactly what the hacks at Columbia pictures are banking on with The Amazing Spider-Man, a reboot of a well-loved Marvel creation that already had its origin story fairly well depicted by Sam Raimi a decade previously. Yet, after the The Evil Dead genius & his original Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) opted to jump ship not long after Spider-Man 4 was slated for production, Columbia opted to press the reset button instead & go for a new vision of our friendly neighbourhood web-slinger - merely 5 years after the wretched third instalment that was dogged by emos, villain-overload & general bad haircuts for all concerned. "Too soon" a collective voice cried? "Not when there's plenty of dollars to be made from gullible teenagers" chuckled studio heads Doug Belgrad & Matt Tomach (probably).

So with Raimi & Maguire gone, enter Marc Webb & Andrew Garfield. Webb, an able if somewhat unproven director with the decent (if a little overrated) anti-rom-com (500) Days Of Summer being the only feature attributed to his modest back catalogue. Garfield, a genuinely talented performer who has steadily made his name from television fare like The Red Riding Trilogy to David Fincher's near-Shakespearean depiction of Facebook in The Social Network. Both key appointments were intriguing. Webb had already demonstrated a solid ability to work with actors and develop characters, yet had displayed no real nack of nailing an elaborative set-piece (unless you count the impromptu song & dance number in Summer, which if we're being honest, the likes of the Green Goblin, Venom or the Vulture are unlikely to indulge in). Garfield, a self-confessed Spidey fan, undoubtedly had the acting chops, but was closer to 30 than an adolescent school boy. Perhaps he's too old to be playing a teenage superhero? Yet, as the impressive cast list grew with the likes of Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Field & Rhys Ivans added to proceedings, one begun to wonder. Maybe there's wisdom in these choices? Maybe there's more to this Spidey reboot? Maybe it'll give us something that the previous three films didn't offer. Maybe, just maybe,  it'll be 'Spider-Man Begins?'

Alas, it is not. What we have instead is a workman-like superhero film with reasonable stabs at character building, yet when analysed a little closer, is a shell of a Spider-Man film. It's curious that the average fan boy seems to have responded positively to Webb's effort, largely thanks to the re-introduction of Spidey's web slingers - something the Raimi's films had altered previously. Yet many seem to have not picked up on a fundamental change in its entire approach - the character of Peter Parker himself.

Whilst this is admittedly a personal point of view, one of the most interesting aspects about the Parker character was always the contrast between his teenage normality and his masked alter ego. For decades, Spider-man has resonated with people not just because he was one of the very few teenage superheroes, but because of the empowerment his great power & responsibility enabled. Parker represented something the likes of a Clark Kent or a Bruce Wayne could never be. A teenager, with all his social awkwardness, neuroses & anxiety being able to become something confident, something strong, unperturbed by confrontation and injustice. A teenage fantasy who not only had the strength & courage to confront the face of antagonism, but had the charisma to get the girl of his dreams. As an adolescent, we all wanted to stand up to bullies, to feel confident in ourselves, to tell the girl we liked how we really felt - yet many of us didn't, or couldn't. With Spider-Man, we had a figurehead who represented that, better than anyone or anything.

The Peter Parker of The Amazing Spider-Man however, is something altogether different. Despite a brief montage of him being somewhat excluded from high school social etiquette, it doesn't take long for him to become confrontational. To say what he really thinks. To be confident enough to sneak into a laboratory using an Hispanic alias. To charm his way into the thoughts of Gwen Stacey. Previously, these are things Spider-Man would do. They are not things Peter Parker would ever consider without the aid of a mask - or at least not as early on. There is a legitimate argument that this change in Parker's approach embodies the fact that in 2012, the geek is the new cool. Facebook, Apple, Google, Game Of Thrones, The Big Bang Theory. Things that once would be considered specialist interests, are now very much part of the mainstream. This might well be the case, but it doesn't defuse the problem that this circumstance has turned Parker into a far less compelling & identifiable creation as a result.

Taking centre stage instead appears to be the void left by absent family members, specifically the disappearance of Parker's parents & of course, the tragic death of Uncle Ben indirectly caused by Parker's misguided approach to perceived justice. In other words, the creation and development of his alter ego has been inspired by either a desire to seek answers regarding his past, or to atone for his previous mistakes (aside from the obligatory spider bite of course). This in itself is a reasonably interesting approach, yet at the same time it doesn't offer a clear road map to the inevitable need to save the day. After all, this is supposed to be a superhero film first, not necessarily a tale of existentialism & redemption. Try as he might, Webb's film unfortunately cannot satisfyingly bridge the two, and as a consequence, neither side fully convinces.   

For any superhero or vigilante story to work, the creation in question has to have a connection to its surroundings - either in a positive or negative manner. The likes of Batman succeed because of Bruce Wayne's relationship with Gotham City - infused by his own personal tragedy caused by the ills rooted at the heart of Gotham society. In Raimi's Spider-Man, you were also never left in any doubt of the relationship between the web head & New York City. Perhaps the then recent events of 9/11 reinforced this idea a little more than you would normally expect, but nevertheless, you felt Spidey's personal correlation with the Big Apple, and the NYC community's subsequent embrace of Spidey - resulting in the stakes feeling just a little bit higher. In The Amazing Spider-Man, only once does this feel to be the case. In an excellent scene that takes place during the Lizard's rampage on the Brooklyn Bridge, our hero is sidetracked by the threat of a young boy dangling in a car that's all set to descend into the Hudson river. Up to that point, Spidey has been pursuing an agenda based on self-interest. In this scene, it feels like its the dawn of a realisation to his wider responsibility, yet sadly this realisation is never satisfyingly delivered. Any attempts to build on this by in large either fall flat or is portrayed half-heartedly, and consequently, the big heroic deed towards the end neither feels dramatic, nor earned. 

Perhaps this is a consequence of a poorly devised script, leading to a film that frustrates rather than compels. It's to the credit of the cast that these deficiencies are challenged, yet there's only so much papering over the cracks they can muster. At one point, Parker proclaims to Stacey that he enjoys kissing her. On paper, this is as cringe-worthy as the "it's only because I'm so in love with you" awfulness in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith, yet gets away with it thanks to the way both Garfield & Stone play it. Had this scene been in the hands of less able performers, you would really fear for its success - something which is symptomatic throughout the films duration. Some poor writing also leads to the antagonist in the form of Dr. Curt Connor's (Rhys Ivans) unconvincing transition from determined ethical scientist with a personal trauma to  an insane genocidal monster with an inner schizophrenic monologue, in barely a handful of beats. Furthermore, plot lines will be drawn, then completely forgotten about as another immediate incident comes sharply into focus. Perhaps there's an intention to revisit these threads in a future film, but in a supposed stand alone feature, they are irksome to the point of distraction.

Which leads to the overwhelming feeling that The Amazing Spider-Man provokes. A feeling of deja vu. That we've been here before. This is where the argument over how a 16 year old perceives this in comparison to an older viewer becomes crucial. At the time of Spider-Man, the target audience for the 2012 version would have been in nappies or engrossed in The Tweenies, playing in sandpits and eating crayons - blissfully unaware of the adolescent pragmatism to follow. It is likely therefore, that this will connect with the teenagers of today more than the Raimi original, for the simple reason that it is made for their generation - irrespective of plot threads & specific aspects being regurgitated or not as well executed. Colombia know this, and as a result, they are capitalising on this generational gap. This isn't necessarily a problem if the retelling is stronger than the one previously told, but it isn't. Any improvements over the 2002 version are largely incidental to overall picture (the majority of the cast, the special effects), whilst the crucial aspects are for the large part, tame or repetitive in comparison. You know something's wrong when the best set-pieces involving spidey reflexes occur when Parker's not in costume. Then again, there is a case that maybe this isn't the Spider-Man many of us know and love, and perhaps that's the problem.

2/5 

DVD Review: Total Recall, Ultimate Rekall Edition

On July 16 comes the release of Total Recall, Ultimate Rekall Edition on triple play; a digitally restored version of director Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi classic.

Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as Douglas Quaid, the year is 2084 and the third world war has come and gone. The planet Mars has been colonized, and it plagues the dreams of Quaid, who constantly ponders visiting it. Alternatively to this he is given the choice of memory implants to trick him into thinking he has been there, but as Quaid begins this process, his world takes on a new twisted and unexpected turn.

Also starring Sharon Stone, Michael Ironside and Ronny Cox; Total Recall can still be considered a great work of science fiction cinema since its original release in 1990. Although visually it does seem slightly dated in comparison to other dystopian films such as Blade Runner, its underlying themes of world politics, posthumanism and biotechnology remain as relevant as ever in today’s postmodern age.

Schwarzenegger is impressive as our action hero, combining humorous one-liners with great combat sequences. Total Recall manages to combine comedy, action and real issues of science which will please fans who already cherish the film and fascinate newcomers alike.

This new edition also features much new material, such as making of and special effects featurettes and a commentary from Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger.

4/5

DVD Review: Project X

This is probably the most despicable piece of cinema I have ever been forced to watch...I am feeling genuine anger at how terrible this 'comedy' was. At least this guy gave the US media a run for their money:

Directed by Nima Nourizadeh and written by Matt Drake, Project X follows a group of high school boys as they plan and throw a party which takes place at one of the teenagers’ parents’ home while they are away for the weekend. As the party escalates in size it equally does so in wreaking havoc on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Project X is blatantly derived from the infamous Australian boy whose party got just slightly out of hand a few years ago. Filmed in a mockumentary, hand-held camera style; it suffers from poor characterisation and a sparse and deeply unfunny script. What are shown are endless scenes of lewd behaviour, animal cruelty and a scene involving a midget who is shoved into an oven and then later escapes and gives a punch to anyone standing in his way.

This is supposed to be humorous, but it just isn’t. The attitude these kids have makes the viewer feel no sympathy for them. If the crude scenes depicted actually came with a good script this may work, but to merely show a succession of pointless, meaningless settings involving gratuitous nudity with no likeable character to root for leaves the viewer unengaged, and in my case, rather angry at how dull it all is.
The acting sees forced and the dialogue is awful. What seems like a build up to a big finish also disappoints, as when the parents return their attitude is also so uneventful. Project X isn’t just a bad film, it’s offensive to comedy and cinema in general.

0/5

If you want a real party...just stay at home and listen to this.