Tag Archive: shrek forever after


UK Release Date: 18th October 2013

Stars: David Soren (director), Ryan Reynolds, Paul Giamatti, Michael Pena, Luis Guzman, Richard Jenkins, Ken Jeong, Michelle Rodriguez, Samuel L Jackson, Snoop Dogg.

Plot: A freak accident might just help an everyday garden snail achieve his biggest dream: winning the Indy 500.

With DreamWorks’ The Croods in cinemas this week, here is the trailer for the next DreamWorks animated film due for release later this year, with a quite frankly ridiculous plot of a snail trying to compete in the Indy 500 against real life cars… ridiculous…

Ridiculous but FANTASTIC. This is the kind of plot that can only work in animation and the trailer shows all signs of it being a hit for the slightly misfiring DreamWorks. They’ve put together a solid voice cast along with screenwriters who have previously worked on Shrek Forever After, Jack the Giant Slayer and The Wrestler.

What is clear from the trailer is that this is going to be a brilliant journey that audiences are going to be taken on and it’s going to be, probably, one of the feel good films of the year. The animation looks great as you would expect, the story is interesting, the cast is great, the laughs are there in the trailer. What’s not to like?

Advertisements

Now, a few years ago FOX brought out the X-Men films of which number one and number two were absolutely brilliant, there is no denying that, but they followed it up with X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine which kind of tarnished the X-Men brand for a while before a successful reboot with X-Men First Class. At this time FOX were also bringing out movies of another famous powerhouse team of Marvel’s called The Fantastic Four; sorry to remind you. However, after the slating that Rise of the Silver Surfer received FOX announced that they would be rebooting the series (mainly a money spinning idea so the rights don’t go back to Marvel Entertainment. I don’t for a second believe that this is out of kindness to the fans because if they cared about the fans in the first place Galactus would not have been a giant cloud of smoke and Jessica Alba in a bad wig definitely would not have been Sue Storm!). A few days ago it was announced that Josh Trank would be directing the reboot after the praise he got for Chronicle and now it has been reported that Jeremy Slater is being approached to write a script for the reboot meaning that FOX must be serious about this venture; whether that’s a good or bad thing remains to be seen. But who will be playing the family of heroes? Here are my main candidates…

 

Mr. Fantastic – Jon Hamm. Hamm is best known for his television roles where he has appeared in The Unit, 30 Rock and the role he is most known for these days as Don Draper in the hit television show Mad Men. He has ventured into film before with projects such as Shrek Forever After, Sucker Punch, The Town, Bridesmaids and Friends With Kids all on his roster. Hamm has won a Golden Globe for her performances in Mad Men and has been nominated another three times so the man clearly has acting talent; the popularity of Mad Men also make Hamm no stranger to attention or pressure from fans so would be a good choice for the role of Reed Richards.

 

Invisible Woman – Elizabeth Banks. Okay, so this is going to be a cast that a lot of people are going to question but here goes; Elizabeth Banks is a very talented actress and has proven her versatility over the years. Like Jon Hamm, Banks also appeared in 30 Rock but is no stranger to huge summer hits as she recently appeared in The Hunger Games and before that Man on a Ledge. She has proven that she can be both serious and light hearted as well as looking good at all times (something important for anyone playing Sue Storm). Jessica Alba has the looks in the original two films but Banks has the acting ability too and would be a great shout for me.

 

Human Torch – Aaron Paul. FOX have sort of screwed themselves over a little bit in that the only part of the original films that was any good at all was casting Chris Evans as Johnny Storm so whoever gets that part in the reboot has a lot to live up to (unlike the rest of the cast). Fortunately, Paul has the ability to do just that. He has had bit parts in television shows and films over the years but really made it big with his role as Jesse Pinkman in universally acclaimed series Breaking Bad. Jesse is my favourite part of the show and Aaron Paul’s portrayal is the reason for this, I have no doubts that he could bring great charisma to the role of Johnny Storm.

 

The Thing – Bruce Willis. The rest of the cast presumably wouldn’t be that expensive so why not blow the budget to get Bruce Willis on board? I’m not Willis’ biggest fan but a few years ago I heard a rumour that The Thing would be fully CGI and Willis would be voicing him. Obviously that never came to fruition but imagine how good it would be if that actually happened? Bruce Willis is a well known tough guy who doesn’t take any stick and would be a great fit for Ben Grimm whether motion captured or in his human form pre-Thing. Just do it.

 

So there’s my cast for the reboot although I highly doubt that any of them will be correct, but who would you have play the Fantastic Four?

Are 3D Movies Already Dying?

Despite numerous past attempts, 3D films have never really taken off in the past but since 2003(ish) there has been a resurgence of 3D films in mainstream cinema. There have been films made specifically for the purpose of being 3D and then films that have been shot in 2D have been transformed into 3D films and this happens with both live action and animated features. But is 3D really needed?

Avatar was praised hugely for the use of 3D

Two of modern cinema’s most successful directors have a different approach to making films in 3D. I am talking of James Cameron and Christopher Nolan. Cameron embraces 3D; his film Avatar became the highest grossing film of all time and that was made in 3D, whilst Nolan decided against using the effect on Inception and The Dark Knight Rises as, although he has seen 3D work well, he claimed it restricted what they were able to do. So that’s what the professionals think, what about audiences?

In 2010, 28 films were released in 3D and that number rose to 47 in 2011. However, takings for 3D films dropped by seven million pound despite more films being made in the format, showing that audiences were not going to see 3D films as much as they had been; something the studios have taken into consideration and the number of films being released in 3D this year (2012) is down to 33. Perhaps audiences have now experimented with 3D films and decided that they do not like them.

The final Harry Potter was the highest grossing 3D film of 2011, yet more people saw it in 2D.

So why are people not going to watch films in 3D? The price is one reason. Cinema ticket prices are on the increase all the time it seems and the price for drinks and popcorn is absolutely ludicrous. If you want to go see a film in 3D that bumps the price up by another two or three pound, therefore if you want a 3D film, a drink and popcorn you’re looking at spending nearly £15 probably to see a film. And if that film ends up being more like Clash of the Titans than Up then you’re going to feel more than a little bit ripped off.

Reason two: the really stupid glasses that everyone is forced to wear. Sure, they look better than the cardboard glasses you used to get with one blue lens and one red lens which made pictures seem 3D in magazines etc. but they are going to hurt your nose. Nobody wants to sit for two hours and feel like their nose is being crushed by these bricks you are forced to wear to enjoy the film in all it’s ‘glory’.

You don't need 3D to enjoy Woody and Buzz!

And finally, does 3D really add anything to the film? The films I have seen in 3D (Toy Story 3, Shrek Forever After, Thor, among others) have not really benefited from the technology. I’m not saying that the 3D didn’t look good, because it did, but I would have quite happily watched these films in 2D and still felt the same.

In my opinion, 3D was a scheme by studio bosses to try and make audiences fork out more money for the films as almost every decision made high up is about money. But audiences have now seen a 3D film or two and decided that they are quite happy with 2D without the intimacy this new effect offers. I could quite happily go the rest of my life without watching another 3D film. I know some people enjoy it and good for them, but I am yet to see a reason why it is needed.