Christmas is getting nearer, and I hope everyone is excited! People are probably also excited about Disney’s Frozen II, and, for those who do not know, I want to draw attention to the plagiarism case below, concerning the Frozen (2013) teaser trailer (the first video below) and the short animation titled The Snowman by independent animators Kelly Wilson and Neil Wrischnik (the second video below – access by following the link since it is imossible to watch it on wordpress)). This case was settled out of court in 2015. I previously talked in my review of Frozen how the animation relied heavily on the conceptual story and character vision from Hans Christian Andersen’s tales (which is fine), as well as on the romance from Anastasia (1997) (which is also ok), but it seems that, from the very beginning, the Frozen franchise was off to a start that involved blatant stealing and zero acknowledgement. At the preliminary hearing, Judge Chhabria ruled that “the sequence of events in both works, from start to finish, is too parallel to conclude that no reasonable juror could find the works substantially similar“. With the world’s most creative brains at Disney/Pixar headquarters, they still could not come up with their own concept for a teaser trailer. The similarities are painfully evident, and if Disney did not think so, they would have battled it in court, rather than settling for an undisclosed sum to be paid to Wilson and Wrischnik. And, Wilson and Wrischnik were paid by Disney.
“Late Afternoon” by Louise Bagnall is this year’s Academy Awards nominee in the category of “Best Short Animation”. I somehow prefer it over other nominees, and the frontrunners for the award are considered to be Pixar-produced animation “Bao” and Pixar-related short “Weekends“. Other nominees are touching “One Small Step” and the hilarious and witty “Animal Behaviour“. Normally I enjoy intricate, detailed animations, but, in the case of “Late Afternoon“, I somehow appreciate the simplicity and like how the animation incorporates the concept of memory. Have you watched this year’s nominees yet? Do you have a favourite?
Paul at Pfeiffer Pfilms and Meg Movies hosted The Meg Ryan Birthday Blogathon to celebrate the birthday of Meg Ryan, and this is my belated post containing some thoughts on “Prelude to a Kiss” (1992). I love so many Meg Ryan films, including her “feel-good” romantic comedies “You’ve Got Mail” (1998) and “Sleepless in Seattle” (1993), and her more “serious” movies, such as “When a Man Loves a Woman” (1994) and “In The Cut” (2003).
Prelude to a Kiss (1992)
“…Must have been my kiss(es), all I can think, drives men wild…” (Rita/Julius).
The movie is based on the 1988 play of the same name by Craig Lucas, and, although most plays-to-films do not agree with me, for example, see “Marjorie Prime“ (2017) and “Carnage” (2011), this movie seems to work, maybe because it does not have this feeling of being contained in one location. The story may appear absurd, but it is actually quite entertaining and amusing. Rita (Ryan) and Peter (Baldwin) meet at a party and instantly establish a connection. After some lovely courting (which takes the movie some 40 minutes to get right), the couple move on with their wedding, and, from then on, its a roller-coaster of delights and sorrows. During the wedding, Rita somehow manages to swap her body with that of an old grumpy man through a kiss, and Peter, noticing that something is wrong with his new wife, sets on the course to put things right. And, Rita really does not seem like the old Rita to her husband at all. If before she could not get enough sleep, now she sleeps like a baby, and, if before she drank alcohol (she worked as a barmaid), now she does not even want to try a cocktail in Jamaica. Continue reading “The Meg Ryan Birthday Blogathon: Prelude to a Kiss (1992)”
It is 14 November 2018, which means that my blog is 7 years old today! I did not celebrate when it was 6 years last year, but because I love number 7, I thought it was worthy of mention. Thank you to all my readers who followed me, and some have done so for many a year! I know the blog has never been a consistent one in terms of the posts’ frequency, but in September 2018, the blog reached a mark of 1,000 followers and now the current number is 1,051. Film blogging is a lot of fun – one can discover so many new films, share film experiences and perfect the art of film criticism or reviewing – everyone has their own style. Perhaps,you would like to see more of some articles, lists or reviews of particulate films on my blog? Then, tell me! Thanks again for following and/or reading! 🙂
I have been informed that I have reached an incredible number of 1000 followers on this blog. I would like to express my sincere thanks to all my followers who have been so committed to following my posts over the weeks, months and even years (even despite of the fact that I am far from being consistent with my posts’ frequency). I appreciate very much that you are reading, liking and commenting on my posts. Perhaps, you have a favourite category of posts or would like me to cover any particular topic or film? Any comments or suggestions welcome. A huge thank you, again!
Recently, I have been thinking about the task of writing reviews in general. Most film critics will say that they are objective in their film analysis, but that also made me think about those films which a reviewer may find difficult to review objectively. The reasons may be some emotional attachment to a movie (which may stem from childhood), the fact that a reviewer has seen a particular film too many times (developing a biased liking towards it), or maybe one thinks that a particular film is somehow too brilliant for words and any extra words to describe or analyse it will be futile. For example, one may just want to write one word: “brilliant” or “masterpiece” and then put a full stop. It will be interesting to hear or discuss some examples.
Last year, in August, I posted a similar post – Unpopular Opinion Tag (Films), where I talked about three movies that people generally love, but I hated. Now, it is time to do a “reversal” post. Here, I will be talking about three movies that people or critics do not like much, but I actually thought there was merit in them or things to love. I am choosing to write about Premonition (2007), Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Joseph: King of Dreams (2000). Be warned, there may be some spoilers ahead.
I. Premonition (2007)
IMDb score: 5.9; Rotten Tomatoes score: 8%.
In 2007, Mennan Yapo shot this film starring Sandra Bullock, and, in my opinion, it does not deserve to be so unknown or all the negative reviews. The film is actually fascinating. It relies on a twisted Groundhog Day/”Deja Vu” (2006) concept to tell the story of Linda (Bullock), a wife and a mother, who finds her world turned upside down when she wakes up one day to learn that her husband is dead and another day – to find out that he is still alive. The truth is that her week days do not follow the natural timeline, but are randomly emerging, and Linda has to find out how her new reality works exactly to possibly save her husband from a deadly car collision. The film is clever (in a way it is a brain-teaser), and it is very interesting to follow Linda on her journey. The film makes you want to pay attention to small details to find out how they may change the next day. The film may lack some fundamental logic and, definitely, plausibility, especially towards the end, but it is so atmospheric, many of its other faults could also be forgiven. It is atmospheric in a way every scene is filled with the feeling that something macabre or threatening is lurking in the background (some unseen force), meddling with the natural clock, and music and the involvement of children make the picture even eerier and more effective. Couple this with the exploration of the issues of sanity and grief, and a few nice jumps, and the result is strangely compelling. It may not be this great thriller, but it is good enough for repeated viewings and Bullock does a good enough job.