So the Haverhill cinema is really starting to take shape and you can tell where the banks of seating are going to be and therefore presumably the screens in front (one would hope, otherwise there's going to be an awful lot of people down the physio after each showing).
But looking at them, I can't help but think it looks a little cramped... for five screens anyway.
My understanding is they need to get 1,000 people in per day to break even but it looks like we'll all be sitting on one another's laps! However, it's probably just impossible to tell at the moment and maybe things will become clearer when the cinema opens.
On a slightly different aspect of cinemas... am I the only person who gets annoyed that films are only shown for one week before being moved to the graveyard slot? Case in point, Shrooms, which looked great. But for one reason or another, I couldn't get to the cinema that weekend. I don't have a car and so don't much like travelling around on the buses alone at night unless I have to, but I was hoping there would be at least an early-evening showing in week two. Instead both Cambridge cinemas moved it to 11pm. Which would be a great time to see it, I admit, if you could get there. I suppose this is one thing the Haverhill complex will help with, if one can walk to the cinema there's less of a barrier to seeing late showings.
Hmmmm.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Thursday, 1 November 2007
And it wasn't even Hallowe'en
The thing with horror films is sometimes the anticipation of being scared is worse than the actual horror - and then sometimes it pales into the background compared with the grossness on screen.
This is what happened with Black Xmas (and yes, that is what it's called; if it were down to me it would be Black Christmas).
It's only a 15 so I really wasn't expecting terror. If you've seen When A Stranger Calls you'll know the kind of thing I was expecting. High on anticipation, low on gore.
Instead, what I got was a freaky-looking serial killer gouging people's eyeballs out with his bare hands and dragging their twitching corpses along the floor by the sockets. Not a great thing to watch alone at night.
It wasn't an all-star cast, but I thought they filled the roles of the 'stalked sorority airheads' fairly well. In fact they weren't too airheady at all and it's not often you see some sensible suggestions in a horror film (he's in the house; we should leave the house - good plan!) The only member of the cast I'd seen before was Michelle Trachtenberg, whose previous work includes Dawn in Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
So, if you're still itching for fear post-Hallowe'en then take a look at Black Xmas.
On the other hand, we have Straightheads, starring Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer - which I thought would be the more frightening of the two films because I knew in advance it contained a rape. It took some time to pluck up the courage to rent it because I empathise far too much with the victims in any film. However, the reviews had been great and the trailer looked interesting.
As I said in the Echo, those scenes were, I thought, pretty tastefully done. Certainly it wasn't gratuitous, and the film poses and interesting moral dilemma. Because first of all you have to ask yourself if you would have the strength to come back from the attack Dyer and Anderson suffer in the first place. And then, can you really condemn them for the revenge they take? Have they sunk to the level of their attackers? What will happen to them after the attack they then carry out.
It leaves you a little shellshocked and questioning at the end.
This is what happened with Black Xmas (and yes, that is what it's called; if it were down to me it would be Black Christmas).
It's only a 15 so I really wasn't expecting terror. If you've seen When A Stranger Calls you'll know the kind of thing I was expecting. High on anticipation, low on gore.
Instead, what I got was a freaky-looking serial killer gouging people's eyeballs out with his bare hands and dragging their twitching corpses along the floor by the sockets. Not a great thing to watch alone at night.
It wasn't an all-star cast, but I thought they filled the roles of the 'stalked sorority airheads' fairly well. In fact they weren't too airheady at all and it's not often you see some sensible suggestions in a horror film (he's in the house; we should leave the house - good plan!) The only member of the cast I'd seen before was Michelle Trachtenberg, whose previous work includes Dawn in Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
So, if you're still itching for fear post-Hallowe'en then take a look at Black Xmas.
On the other hand, we have Straightheads, starring Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer - which I thought would be the more frightening of the two films because I knew in advance it contained a rape. It took some time to pluck up the courage to rent it because I empathise far too much with the victims in any film. However, the reviews had been great and the trailer looked interesting.
As I said in the Echo, those scenes were, I thought, pretty tastefully done. Certainly it wasn't gratuitous, and the film poses and interesting moral dilemma. Because first of all you have to ask yourself if you would have the strength to come back from the attack Dyer and Anderson suffer in the first place. And then, can you really condemn them for the revenge they take? Have they sunk to the level of their attackers? What will happen to them after the attack they then carry out.
It leaves you a little shellshocked and questioning at the end.
Saturday, 22 September 2007
Death Proof
Oh my lord... The best film of 2007 has landed... I know, I'm shocked too that anything could top Shoot 'Em Up (last week's selection) but Tarantino has done it again. I laughed; I gasped; I cringed; I actually danced in my seat.
Now there are going to be plenty of people queuing up to knock Death Proof, because - quite frankly - they won't get it. And I wouldn't want them to. Those people are not like me and I don't want them liking the same films as I do.
I don't know why I read the reviews in the nationals before I went because I *knew* it would get bad reviews, and the ones I read were not praising it. But I like to make my own mind up about films and usually if a film is slated, I'm gonna like it.
Death Proof purports to centre around a character played by Kurt Russell, called Stuntman Mike, who basically stalks pretty girls and then chases them in his reinforced car... to death. And my what a gruesome - and graphic - death it is. Sorry, I digress. As I say, it's supposed to centre around Stuntman Mike but in fact what is really striking about it is what is great about all Tarantino films, which is the day-to-day conversation. There's a lot of dialogue which doesn't move the plot forward, and there are elements we never find any more about. For example there is a scene where Jungle Julia is sending a text to a guy called Chris, telling him she can't wait to see him. Now, unless I blinked and missed it, we never meet Chris; we never learn any more about their relationship and you kinda forget about it when the action kicks off. But it's set against the typical whimsical music one would expect an action of great romantic importance to feature alongside.
The story is a great one. It's typical of the late-night films I used to watch as a child. And it's actually quite scary when you think about it. Just because it's told in the style it is, people seem quick to dismiss it. But think about it for a while, and it's really pretty terrifying.
As always with Tarantino films, there is an incredible soundtrack. Seriously, if this guy knows all these songs himself, he must have an incredible mental musical archive, and I feel really lucky to have been introduced to these songs. I rushed out and bought the soundtrack as soon as I left the cinema (yes, on a CD and everything! which leads me to ask, when is someone going to start to offer a facility to upload your new CD purchase onto your iPod for the bus journey home? I still want the physical album).
I guess there's probably been some rumblings about the portrayal of women in the film but, you know what, it's an exploitation film, so you get what you're promised. And actually I think the women portrayed are really strong. Certainly in the final scenes it's feminism all the way, with gratuitous violence!
And I imagine some people will be annoyed by the visual tics, like the jumping (altho I couldn't figure out where the 'missing reel' supposedly takes place) and the grainy quality, but I just think it shows someone who is willing to do whatever he wants to make something he would enjoy. It's a pretty joyful film to be honest.
However, one thing really surprised me. No, it shocked me. This is a Quentin Tarantino film. As far as I can see it's the biggest release this week. I went to the showing at 3.10pm; in the cinema's biggest screen and the total audience was... me and an old man in a tank top (and I don't mean the American meaning of this, I mean a jumper or pullover). I can't believe no-one else wanted to see it. Perhaps it was a weird time to go, and the fact it's an 18 certificate meant (blissfully) there weren't masses of kids in there, which you might have got for a 15 certificate. My brother's watching it in Norwich as I write and he tells me there are about 40 people in his screening. But seriously, this poses a serious question for the Haverhill multiplex. If the biggest blockbuster of the week only attracts two people on a Saturday screening, in Cambridge, how do they propose to fill the cinema here, or will they not show controversial or 18 certificate films. I know the arts centre doesn't attract an audience to 18s. It's worth thinking about.
Ice cream consumed, none. I'm on a diet. Today.
I'm off to dance to the soundtrack.
Now there are going to be plenty of people queuing up to knock Death Proof, because - quite frankly - they won't get it. And I wouldn't want them to. Those people are not like me and I don't want them liking the same films as I do.
I don't know why I read the reviews in the nationals before I went because I *knew* it would get bad reviews, and the ones I read were not praising it. But I like to make my own mind up about films and usually if a film is slated, I'm gonna like it.
Death Proof purports to centre around a character played by Kurt Russell, called Stuntman Mike, who basically stalks pretty girls and then chases them in his reinforced car... to death. And my what a gruesome - and graphic - death it is. Sorry, I digress. As I say, it's supposed to centre around Stuntman Mike but in fact what is really striking about it is what is great about all Tarantino films, which is the day-to-day conversation. There's a lot of dialogue which doesn't move the plot forward, and there are elements we never find any more about. For example there is a scene where Jungle Julia is sending a text to a guy called Chris, telling him she can't wait to see him. Now, unless I blinked and missed it, we never meet Chris; we never learn any more about their relationship and you kinda forget about it when the action kicks off. But it's set against the typical whimsical music one would expect an action of great romantic importance to feature alongside.
The story is a great one. It's typical of the late-night films I used to watch as a child. And it's actually quite scary when you think about it. Just because it's told in the style it is, people seem quick to dismiss it. But think about it for a while, and it's really pretty terrifying.
As always with Tarantino films, there is an incredible soundtrack. Seriously, if this guy knows all these songs himself, he must have an incredible mental musical archive, and I feel really lucky to have been introduced to these songs. I rushed out and bought the soundtrack as soon as I left the cinema (yes, on a CD and everything! which leads me to ask, when is someone going to start to offer a facility to upload your new CD purchase onto your iPod for the bus journey home? I still want the physical album).
I guess there's probably been some rumblings about the portrayal of women in the film but, you know what, it's an exploitation film, so you get what you're promised. And actually I think the women portrayed are really strong. Certainly in the final scenes it's feminism all the way, with gratuitous violence!
And I imagine some people will be annoyed by the visual tics, like the jumping (altho I couldn't figure out where the 'missing reel' supposedly takes place) and the grainy quality, but I just think it shows someone who is willing to do whatever he wants to make something he would enjoy. It's a pretty joyful film to be honest.
However, one thing really surprised me. No, it shocked me. This is a Quentin Tarantino film. As far as I can see it's the biggest release this week. I went to the showing at 3.10pm; in the cinema's biggest screen and the total audience was... me and an old man in a tank top (and I don't mean the American meaning of this, I mean a jumper or pullover). I can't believe no-one else wanted to see it. Perhaps it was a weird time to go, and the fact it's an 18 certificate meant (blissfully) there weren't masses of kids in there, which you might have got for a 15 certificate. My brother's watching it in Norwich as I write and he tells me there are about 40 people in his screening. But seriously, this poses a serious question for the Haverhill multiplex. If the biggest blockbuster of the week only attracts two people on a Saturday screening, in Cambridge, how do they propose to fill the cinema here, or will they not show controversial or 18 certificate films. I know the arts centre doesn't attract an audience to 18s. It's worth thinking about.
Ice cream consumed, none. I'm on a diet. Today.
I'm off to dance to the soundtrack.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Oops
Having hit 'publish' I suddenly realised I had forgotten to expand on part of the title... Christmas in September.
What I was going to say is, I watched The Holiday the other day, and has anyone ever noticed that it's much better to watch Christmas films out of season?
It's a little off topic, I know, but the first Christmas cards are already in the shops and by the time the 'festive' period arrives, I'll be thoroughly sick of it and in bah humbug mood.
But show me a Christmas film mid summer and I feel all cosy and want a turkey dinner. Perhaps the film companies are missing a trick here. I'd definitely be more inclined to see a Christmas film in the summer holidays (when the cinemas are traditionally full of child-pleasing blockbusters), than at Christmas when it seems like enforced sentimentality.
Perhaps I should patent that idea. Phil's Christmas Cinema - only open in July and August.
What I was going to say is, I watched The Holiday the other day, and has anyone ever noticed that it's much better to watch Christmas films out of season?
It's a little off topic, I know, but the first Christmas cards are already in the shops and by the time the 'festive' period arrives, I'll be thoroughly sick of it and in bah humbug mood.
But show me a Christmas film mid summer and I feel all cosy and want a turkey dinner. Perhaps the film companies are missing a trick here. I'd definitely be more inclined to see a Christmas film in the summer holidays (when the cinemas are traditionally full of child-pleasing blockbusters), than at Christmas when it seems like enforced sentimentality.
Perhaps I should patent that idea. Phil's Christmas Cinema - only open in July and August.
Run, Phil, Run... and it's Christmas in September
It's a hard act to follow the success of Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz... so I don't think it's fair to compare Simon Pegg's latest vehicle, Run, Fatboy, Run, to them - but I guess everyone else will.
I liked it. It's a nice film and it was great to see a film set in England, directed by an American, with the feel of an English film. Unlike The Holiday (which I loved and I've only just seen), it doesn't pander to the 'quaint English' stereotype of remote cottages and rubbish weather.
Instead there's some great use of locations around London and the weather's actually pretty good. And it is funny. Well, I thought it was. I admit, I don't know whether it's been released in the States, but it'd be interesting to get an American's view on it. Or see how well it does at the box office.
The film uses its peripheral characters really well, and the use of a cute child never fails to tug the heartstrings.
It's actually probably a pretty good first date film. Because it's not so funny the lady's going to ruin her mascara and there's nothing that's going to cause offence - but, importantly, it's not too romantic. Some romcoms can be the filmic equivalent of unsubtly leaving wedding magazines lying around!
Ice cream consumed: 1 scoop pomegranate, 1 scoop lemon sorbet, 1 scoop blackberry.
Hopefully this weekend I'll be off to see Disturbia. We're heading for scary season. Hurrah!
I liked it. It's a nice film and it was great to see a film set in England, directed by an American, with the feel of an English film. Unlike The Holiday (which I loved and I've only just seen), it doesn't pander to the 'quaint English' stereotype of remote cottages and rubbish weather.
Instead there's some great use of locations around London and the weather's actually pretty good. And it is funny. Well, I thought it was. I admit, I don't know whether it's been released in the States, but it'd be interesting to get an American's view on it. Or see how well it does at the box office.
The film uses its peripheral characters really well, and the use of a cute child never fails to tug the heartstrings.
It's actually probably a pretty good first date film. Because it's not so funny the lady's going to ruin her mascara and there's nothing that's going to cause offence - but, importantly, it's not too romantic. Some romcoms can be the filmic equivalent of unsubtly leaving wedding magazines lying around!
Ice cream consumed: 1 scoop pomegranate, 1 scoop lemon sorbet, 1 scoop blackberry.
Hopefully this weekend I'll be off to see Disturbia. We're heading for scary season. Hurrah!
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Welcome!
Well it took a bit of faffing about but here I am. I being Phil Madyctt, Haverhill Echo film reviewer. Some of you may have seen my work in the Echo. Perhaps you've even watched a film on my recommendation - or thought I've sold a film short (it's hard when you have to be as concise as my space sometimes allows).
So as this is my first post I guess I should explain why I decided to start a blog. Obviously I like films and I wanted somewhere (else) to witter on about my latest viewings, but also - and most excitingly - work is at last starting on Haverhill's multiplex and so I thought it would be an opportune time to start to monitor it. I can see it now: Phil Madyctt - Haverhill documentarian! (or something).
You'll have to forgive me if my witterings and my pictures are a little less than enthralling to start with. I don't know much about building work but I imagine to a casual observer (and certainly to me) it won't look like much is happening to start with. But the bigger picture (ah ha!) my friends, that's what we need to remember. Look back in 100 years and my work will be very important. Ahem. I hope.
Okay, so here's the first picture. It's the first step on the long road to the town's own multiplex cinema. Ta da!
So as this is my first post I guess I should explain why I decided to start a blog. Obviously I like films and I wanted somewhere (else) to witter on about my latest viewings, but also - and most excitingly - work is at last starting on Haverhill's multiplex and so I thought it would be an opportune time to start to monitor it. I can see it now: Phil Madyctt - Haverhill documentarian! (or something).
You'll have to forgive me if my witterings and my pictures are a little less than enthralling to start with. I don't know much about building work but I imagine to a casual observer (and certainly to me) it won't look like much is happening to start with. But the bigger picture (ah ha!) my friends, that's what we need to remember. Look back in 100 years and my work will be very important. Ahem. I hope.
Okay, so here's the first picture. It's the first step on the long road to the town's own multiplex cinema. Ta da!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)