Scratched Screen

follow this blog

3 followers

57 daily readers

rank of 636

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Stay In or Go Out

April 11th 2010 11:38

Ever since the VHS, when we had the choice to watch movies at home rather than go out to a cinema, home theatre systems have become more and more elaborate, high tech and state of the art. There almost seems to no need to go to the cinema anymore. You can pretty much have the same experience at home for a fraction of the price these days.

The last movie I watched at the cinema was Law Abiding Citizen. While I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I think I would have enjoyed even more if I could have watched it in the comfort of my own home.
What is really funny though, is every time I go to the cinema to watch a movie, I come out saying, "Never again! I'm just going to wait for the DVD to come out and watch it at home". Why do I get so frustrated after watching a movie at the cinemas? Simple. The people. You use to be able to go to the cinema to watch a movie and people were quiet. Yes, they laughed when something was funny, or screamed or jumped if they were shocked by something. But, every cinema I go to, in every suburb I try, there are people carrying out conversations during the movie, getting louder to compete with the sound, what they don't seem to realise is everyone else in the cinema wants them to shut up so they can enjoy the moive. Then you get people answering their mobiles during the movie and instead of walking out and answering once they've left, they answer then proceed to the exit chatting away loudly on their damn phone. Then the people who don't put their phone on silent. Ok, they may have forgotten, despite the ad before the movie starts to remind all phones to be on silent, but then they can't seem to remember after the 4th text message!?

Movie tickets aren't cheap by no means these days either, so you'd think we could spend that kind of money and watch a movie in peace and quiet. Even when you spend all the extra money to go to Gold Class, these people with their mobiles, and need to talk during the movie instead of before and after, are there too! Don't they realise how much they've paid to watch the movie? Don't they also want their monies worth?

I think it's safe to say that watching a movie at home wins. The cinema doesn't offer that much of a different experience to what you can recreate at home. You can even have your family and friends talk during the movie and use their mobiles and it's like you're at the cinemas!
Yes a home theatre package may cost quite a bit, but let's face it, you don't have to go overboard. A nice size TV, good sound system, is more than enough.
Then you can sit in the comfort of your own home, with only the people you want around, watch the movie, pause when you need food or a bathroom break, and you don't even have to pay exorbitant prices for food and drink!
The best thing is for less than the price of one movie ticket you can go to your local video rental shop and hire 5 or even more DVD's and watch them at your own leisure.

Yes you'll have to wait longer to watch the new releases and if the DVD isn't released in 3D you'll miss out on that (not a great loss at all in my opinion), but it's definitely worth the wait to save money and not deal with annoying people.

What does it for you? Home or cinema? Make your choice...

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Scream 4...?

April 7th 2010 10:46

Wes Craven is my go to guy when it comes to horror movies. He's been apart of all the greats, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, Scream and many more.
But now, Dimension Films have said they want to continue the Scream franchise and Wes Craven has agreed to it. Even the original actors, Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox Arquette will be coming back to Scream 4.

It is almost what, a decade since Scream 3 was released? What possible reason could Dimension want to continue with the franchise now? Well, it's simple. The money! The first Scream movies would have raked in loads of cash for Dimension FIlms, so why not bring it back now, see if the franchise still has it.

I have to admit, I'm a little dissappointed with Wes Craven for going along with the idea. Now don't get me wrong here, I loved Scream and when I saw Scream 2, I loved that as well. But lets be honest, Scream 3 wasn't anything great. By the third movie it had lost something. I think it happens to most movies. The appeal is lost by the third movie. You can try and revive it with a 4th and 5th and 6th and so on, but it usually doesn't work. Look at Final Destination, the third one was horrible and then they released The Final Destination, which didn't help much at all. Even A Nightmare on Elm Street, went through the same fate. Though, I would say the worst Nightmare on Elm Street movie would have been the second. Took a really odd turn with that one. Then in 1995, Wes Craven came out with Wes Craven's A New Nightmare, in an attempt to revive the Freddy franchise. Now I will admit, I thought this movie was really well done, despite coming out several years after the last one. What really killed A Nightmare on Elm Street, was Freddy vs Jason, there's a movie that we could have done without.

But I digress, the point I'm making is, maybe directors, film companies, writers, need to just let things die. Run their natural course and end. Attempt to come up with a new idea, something even better than what they had in the past. I just don't understand why, if a movie franchise has been dormant for over a decade, why bring it back now? Scream 4 is going to come out so beyond it's time that it won't be anything like the others and will feel more like a complete seperate entity. I must say though, I am happy at least they it's going to be a sequal and not a remake of the first Scream. How I can't stand remakes!

I know the film companies are trying to make money, everyone is, but they should realise that, though not by much, Scream 3 did not do as well as Scream 1 and 2. Don't they think a pattern may be forming?
They may be on to something though. I mean with a new audience and target market, much of the younger kids probably haven't even seen Scream 1 or 2, so they'll watch it with no preconceptions at all. But the older audience will know. And if I'm correct, many of us won't like it.

My only hope is that they end at 4 and don't drag it out longer than this...

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

New Blog Owner

April 7th 2010 08:28

I would just like to take this time to say hello to all the readers of Scratched Screen.
As of today I am the new blog owner, and the posts titled:

"3D Movies - Advancing or Annoying?"
"Movie Remakes"
"Dancer in the Dark - Film Review"
"Dogville - A Quiet LIttle Town Not Far From Here"

Are what I have written, all blogs written prior to this are not mine and I have no affliation with them.

I hope you all enjoy what I write and the old readers stay and we gain some new ones.

Thank you. Looking forward to hearing from you.

=)

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Dogville - A Quiet Little Town Not Far From Here

April 6th 2010 11:17

I am slowly becoming in love with the work of Lars von Trier. I am a fan of odd movies, films that are different, films that dare to move away from the mainstream. And that is what Lars von Trier does.

Dogville, is definitely not your average movie. The whole movie is shot on a black stage, with nothing more than chalk lines on the ground, akin to the plans of a house, to signify where buildings, houses, objects, and the like were. It has the appearance more of a stage play with minimal props, rather than a movie.
And that is the great thing about Dogville. Without elaborate backdrops, scenery or props, it all relies on the actors to portray everything. The simple action of opening a door that isn't really there, or purposely avoiding the towns prized flowers, makes you forget that these things are not really on screen.
An amazing cast of actors, with Nicole Kidman and Paul Bettany as the leads, playing Grace and Tom Edison, respectfully, they are able to really bring the town alive.

If you have read my previous film review for Dancer in the Dark, you will know that I do not like to give too much of the story away, and I will do the same with Dogville.

The movie begins with a prologue in which the town of Dogville is portrayed as a quiet, out of the way, small town where everyone is friendly with one another and share a tight bond. As the movie progresses, the story of how Grace has found herself in this town and how she attempts to breakthrough the townspeople's fear of new people and become one of them is told throughout nine chapters.
Tom is the only one at first who trusts Grace and wants to help her, and in one of his many town meetings regarding the towns moral code, convinces the people of Dogville to help Grace and prove their community values.

Dogville battles with the concept of how deceiving small, quiet towns really are, and how the people aren't always the humble folk they are portrayed as. As the help Grace povides the town become less volunteered and more forced upon her, as her status from the police goes from "missing" to wanted", Grace begins to find out the truth behind this quiet town.
Lars von Trier shows us the disturbingly, cruel nature of the people of Dogville, which leaves us wondering, what upstanding member of our own community could really be like these people?

This movie is disturbingly brilliant right to the very end. Dogville comes to a close in a surge of violence and mayhem, which honestly, is found to be quite fitting when one has seen the whole movie.
I will of course not tell you anything of the violence but this, if you want to know why it ended this way, you simple must watch it. Just reading about the movie will not do it any justice and you would miss out on a wonderful movie experience.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Dancer in the Dark - Film Review

April 5th 2010 06:55

Dancer in the Dark directed by Lars von Trier, was released in Australia in 2000, but last night was the first time I watched this film.
I heard about this movie from a friend and they couldn't really describe it to me, they told me I "..just had to watch it." So that is what I did.
I got the DVD, got comfortable in front of my TV and popped it in.

The movie stars Bjork, and although I'm not really a fan of hers, I find her work interesting and different, and I knew that this movie wasn't going to be your run of the mill feature film. It was so much better!
Dancer in the Dark is a musical, but nothing like the musicals you would be use to. I don't want to give too much of the story away because you all must see this film, but it is a rather depressing tale, which isn't a common feature within a musical.

Selma, played by Bjork, is a struggling single mother, who moved to America from Czechoslovakia, to seek medical help for her son. Selma suffers from a disease that causes her to slowly lose her eyesight, and unfortunately her son will suffer the same fate, if she can't get him the operation he needs in America.

The musical aspect of the film is used as a means for Selma to escape from her troubles. Her one true passion is her love of Hollywood musicals, all but their finale. When she begins to feel overwhelmed or stressed, she will hear music in her surroundings and a musical will play out in her head. These musical scenes are what Selma is thinking and feeling, at a particular moment in time.

The movie deals with relationships; those between friends, mother and son, and husband and wife. It is clear that Selma values her friendships highly, as when her friend goes to her with his problems, she shares hers and promises to keep it a secret between them. Unfortuantely, Selma's trust is betrayed and despite everything she maintains his secret till the very end.
Although Selma is blind, she is the only one who can really see the truth and that she must do whatever she has to save her son.

While Selma loved musicals, the one thing she hated was the ending. She preferred to think that the movie would go on forever. To do so, she would only watch till the next to last song, always missing the finale.
And that is what happens in Dancer in the Dark. Lars von Trier ended the film with these lines across the screen, "They say it's the last song. They don't know us, you see. It's only the last song if we let it be." While technically it is the last song of the film, and the movie has ended, those words tell us that it is in fact not the end for those within the film and they will live forever if the viewers mind allows it.

This movie may not have been a big budget film, or made much of a splash when it was released, but the fact that it is clear that the actors put their heart and souls into their characters, and Lar von Trier captured every moment beautifully; especially with the musical daydreams of Selma, working the lighting and camera effects to create their surreal nature, this movie is a definite must see!
It is a shame it never garnered the recognition it deserves, but if you really want to see a great film, don't let this one pass you by.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Movie Remakes

April 4th 2010 09:11

Isn't interesting that more and more "new release", high grossing films, are in fact remakes of movies released in the '70's, '80s and sometimes even earler?
It seems that they are making money of ideas of the past, movies they have made money on before. Fooling us all with better special effects, fancier props and better images.

Two examples come to mind when writing this, the first being Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland. Now I know that this is meant to be conisdered, I suppose, a sequal to earlier films released, or more specifically the novel, but after all, it is just a story rehashed to be thought of as something new. Of course being a Tim Burton film, it will gain much popularity and true to form good old Tim would cast Johnny Depp as lead role, generating more revenue from all the people who are just so in love with Mr Depp.
I am aware that it is not just an exact retelling of Alice In Wonderland, but you can't disagree when I say it isn't really anything new. Tim's movie may look nicer. Have a more gothic, surreal nature, highlighting the oddity that is "Wonderland". But once again, all in all, it is an old story.
Now, some of you may be aware of American McGee's Alice which was a dark game adaptation of Alice In Wonderland. A film adaptation is still in the works, switching from studio to studio and may never be released. But, while that would still simply be the premise of an old story, it would be more of something different and new than what Tim Burton has done, He did try to make a dark Alice In Wonderland, but I just don't think it is as good as it could have been. If American McGee's Alice ever becomes a film, that would be the film to see. It would defintiely be a lot darker and more interesting and at least a little new and different.

Now, I'm not just Tim Burton bashing here. I did say there were two movies that came to mind, and that second movie is Clash of the Titans directed by Louis Leterrier. Clash of the Titans was originally released in 1981 and was the 11th highest grossing film of the year, so why wouldn't they want to do a remake? If it can do that well in 1981, think of how well it can do in 2010 with all the new techonolgy we have!
Clash of the Titans is a fantasy film based on the myth of Perseus, but the remake is only loosely based on this myth. I know I was saying that they should change the movies up a bit, make them different so they aren't just carbon copies of the old film, but if the plot of the movie is based on a myth, don't you think it should be more than just loosely based on that myth?
The thing with Clash of the Titansis, although the monsters and creatures were, I guess, crude in their form when compared to what they can do now, but that's what made it interesting and fun to watch. Adding all these bells and whistles to the movie, just takes the magic away.
The truly sad thing is, so many people I have spoken to about this film were completely unaware that there was ever a movie made in 1981. Oblivious to the fact that it's a remake. The film makers can so easily get away with remaking a movie and claiming it as new and most of the audience would be nonethewiser of the fact, that it is not new at all.

There are so many remakes out there, or sequals that just happen to come out 10 years after the fact. I obviously can't list them all because I'd be here forever, I just spoke about these two films because they have both just come out to the cinema. It just seems a little tiresome that these remakes keep coming out, instead of making new films.
Surely, writers and directors have new ideas and don't have to keep profiting off ideas of the past.
So put your thinking caps on and show us something new!

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

3D Movies - Advancing Or Annoying?

April 3rd 2010 05:33

With the sudden wave of 3D movies being released, and the hype created by them, anyone would think this is a new technology in the film industry. However, it is in fact, far from a new feature in films.

Movies in 3D have existed in some form from very early on, and became fairly popular in the '50s in American cinema. They were still a niche market in the film industry, nothing like the mainstream phenomena it has become in recent years. It didn't last long though, while it was exciting at first, with all these 3D films coming out, the thrill that came with this new way to see movies, slowly died. And of course, with exhibitors feeling uneasy with the technology and more comfortable with the newer processes such as cinemascope, the want to show 3D films was dying.

But in 2003 it was reborn, revamped and brought into mainstream cinema! I guess it started with IMax. They had a lot of non-fiction films released in 3D, which always made for a nice one off treat, something different from going to your local cinema. It was working for them. They released their first full length 3D feature film in 2003: Ghosts Of The Abyss
. And then everyone wanted to do it. Every cinema, every film company wanted to release movies in 3D because they saw that the 3D counterparts shown at IMax were generating greater ticket sales.

From then on we have had a sudden burst of movies in 3D. With the return in 2003 however, it was animated films that were more prevalent to be in 3D. Now, it seems every movie should be in 3D. Film goers can't seem to appreciate 2D anymore, it just won't cut it when it comes to watching a move. I guess people can't get enough 3D in the real world. Or they forget that they can just look around them and see 3D everywhere!

I use to think seeing a movie in 3D was exciting. When I first got my hands on the movie: "Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare" I was genuinely excited to sit down and put on my 3D glasses and watch maybe all up 10 minutes of the film in 3D. I also remember my excitement when a specal episode of Medium was aired on TV and parts of the episode would be in 3D.

The excitement just isn't there anymore. It is merely commonplace in movies these days. There is no longer the fun of going to the cinema and watching a movie in 3D, just because it is in 3D. Or getting excited because the movie you've been dying to see is released in 3D.

Personally, the release of movies in 3D is becoming annoying and overdone. Not every movie out there needs to be released this way. There is no thrill in it anymore. The reason why movies in 3D are making more money, isn't because people find the 3D manner of the film fun and want to see it this way, it is because they charge an arm and a leg to see a movie in 3D.

I much preferred it when 3D was a luxury, something you didn't get everyday. A treat, a difference in movie watching. Now it is all too common and boring. I think it's time to get back to basics. Stick to 2D. Or why not try something new? There's an idea!

And don't get me started on 3D Television...

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Christine Caruana - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Back From The Dead

August 14th 2009 14:30

My apologies on my absence for the last couple of months, not only did my internet get cut off for some reason, but I recently moved to a new house in New Orleans. It has been quite a cluster-fuck for some time.

More reviews to come, and I've recently seen a few indie horror flicks that you should know about, so check back tomorrow, and there will be a whole slew of new reviews for you to goggle at.

Ciao. xx

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Dallas Laird - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend