I Love Film Merchandise, Or George Lucas Can Take His Star Wars Figures And Shove Them Up His...

Stuck for some last minute Christmas gifts? How about a DVD of a film they like? Or the Poster for the movie? The toys of the cast of the film? The soundtrack to the movie? Take them to the theme park where the film's official ride is? You could always go to Mcdonalds, buy a happy meal and give them the figures from the movie that come with the food (okay this isn't really an option if, say, their favourite film is A Nightmare on Elm Street - Although a small figure of Freddy Krueger in a kid's happy meal would be brilliant, and let's be honest, Krueger's face actually looks a lot more appetising than half the stuff Mcdonalds serve anyway).

Film merchandising is huuuuuge money. Thousands of companies, unrelated to film, try to create synergies with film companies every year to produce merchandise for the film in an attempt to boost their sales (while helping put bums on seats in the multiplexes for the film's production companies). One of the smartest moves in the history of mankind, was when George Lucas held back the rights to the Star Wars merchandise. He's made a fortune because of it. There's even Star Wars condoms now, which is kind of ironic because no one who likes Star Wars has ever even actually had sex.

I've never really gone in for film merchandise. I have a lot of DVD's (over 800, in fact - clearly bragging here), and I have a few postes (still in their rolls because the wife won't let me have them up -yet her first time attempt at becoming an artist - basically slapping some blue paint on a white canvas and calling it a wave- rests 'proudly' on our dining room wall...), but other than that I have never bothered parting with my 'hard earned' (I use that term loosely) cash.

It's not that I have a problem with people who collect film merchandise, though. People who do, however, collect film memorabilia (such as figures) often get labelled as geeks. This may be because merchandise is particularly popular in the science fiction and horror genres, but I think it's a little harsh to stereotype. Deep down we're all geeks who enjoy collecting things, it's just that while some people collect stormtrooper figures, Batman comics and Pokemon cards, other people collect Vinyl records, girl's phone numbers and sexually transmitted diseases on Saturday nights, when they're out partying.

It seems every film these days has some sort of merchandise that comes with it. Love Ghostbusters? Put on a proton pack and pretend you're Billy Murray; Jurassic Park your favourite movie? Buy all the toys and re-create the film's most iconic moments in your living room; Can't get enough of Indianna Jones? Buy a whip and his hat and spice up your love life; Massive Pulp Fiction fan? Buy a gimp mask; A fan of Saw? Nah me neither...

Whatever your favourite genre, whatever your favourite film, chances are you will be able to find some sort of merchandise for it. So if you fancy treating yourself this Christmas, or are stuck for the awkward person who loves Batman and Robin but says he has everything, then buy him a George Clooney figure that squirts shampoo from the Bat nipples... I bet he doesn't have one of them... Just remember to add my name to the gift tag after you've wrapped it...

I Love How 3D Makes You Feel A Part Of The Movie Or You Charge Me An Extra Pound A Ticket To Hurt My Eyes And Give Me A Headache!

In the land of Hollywood, and further afield, there are certain things occurring right now; Chris O Donnell is working as a sales assistant in HMV wondering why no one has bought a copy of Batman and Robin. Ever; Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer are sat in a room together trying to figure out how they can fit 4000 explosions into their next movie; Robert De Niro is performing the "you talkin' to me" Taxi Driver speech in his sleep while dreaming about a time he used to make good movies; Al Pacino is shouting. Loud; Samuel L Jackosn is simultaneously signing five contracts for movies he's going to star in this week; Perhaps more importantaly, though, some big wigs in Hollywood are greenlighting another bucket load of 3D movies.

Let's get one thing straight - 3D isn't a new thing. It's being invented, killed and brought back to life more times than Feddy Krueger and Michael Myers combined. It was prominent in the fifties when the youth of America were parking their cadillacs at the Drive Thrus' and making out to low budget B movie horrors. It was doing its best to wow audiences in the 80s and 90s as well with such trend killing movies as Jaws 3D. Now, however, it seems to be back with a vengeance - But why? And is it here to stay?

Avatar has a lot to answer to. I'm sure the majority of people have seen it - It's Pocahontus meets the Smurfs. That film where Sam Worthington betrays humantiy, but gets to have sex with Zoe Saldana so it's all okay. That film revolutionised 3D movies and grossed enough money at the box office to buy Jupiter and the starting eleven of the Manchester City football team... Twice. Since Avatar though Hollywood have been quick to try and make every film produced 3D. Even going as far as to tag 3D onto movies that were originally designed to be 2D - Clash of the Titans, anyone? Or even re-releasing older movies in 3D - The Lion King, and coming soon, Titanic. Now some of these have worked, but an awful lot haven't.

Another advantage is the fact technology has moved along so much. Gone are the days of those blue and red 3d glasses and dodgy special effects. I still remember coming home one day to see my Mum wearing a pair of those 3D glasses she'd got free in the paper and my Dad wearing a pair of homemade ones he'd put together using some white card and two quality street wrappers (not even the right colour either; choosing to use a purple caramel nut one instead of a blue coconut one). Obviously he could have bought another paper, but when you're from Yorkshire you do what you can to save money - we were the type of family that shared the bath water on a Sunday night...

It's fair to say my Dad thought the whole 3D experience was terrible, but my mum did too and her glasses actually worked and didn't result in her getting little bits of strawberry cream in here eye...

Another factor that suggests it might be here for the long haul is that some of the elder statesmen are getting involved in the 3D trend. Martin Scorcese is the latest, with his upcoming film Hugo set for a 3D release. I can't wait for them to re-release Scorcese's Casino in 3D; the chance to have that guy from Home Alone popping out the screen calling me a "f***in' c*** su****" 300 times in 2 hours. 

So is it a massive rip off to make Hollywood some extra bucks, or an enhancement of the cinematic experience? Perhaps both... but one thing is certain for me; if the films have good scripts/stories/hot actors and actresses/lots of explosions/basically make a lot of money, then 3D will be here for the long haul, but if we see a run of failures  and box office flops (as has happened before), then 3D will go the way it has in previous cycles... well, until James Cameron can figure out how to burn them straight into our retinas...

There is No Originality Left in Hollywood Or Wahooo Another Horror Remake!

The Thing opens in cinemas today. It's apparently a prequel to the fantastic eighties, John Carpenter, horror classic. It could just as easily be a sequel or a remake, though. It seems lately that a massive percentage of films are either one of the dreaded S, P or R words. Now don't get me wrong I'm not completely against the afore mentioned types of movies, it's just I find it difficult to get excited for films such as Friday the 13th part 67: Jason Feeds the Ducks, or Saw part 8: No one cares anymore.

Then there's the versus movies that have started popping up. Only four people in the world enjoyed Alien Vs Predator (and three of them worked on the movie). Four less than that enjoyed the sequel. I actually quite liked Freddy vs Jason, though. Mainly because it featured Destiny's child member, Kelly 'she's not Beyonce but she'd still get it' Rowland, who thought it would be brave to have a go at taking on Jason... it didn't end well. Hollywood should continue this trend of sticking musical figures in versus films. Michael Myers VS Girls Aloud! People would love that. Although if this last year is anything to go by then we know the Americans wouldn't be able to understand Cheryl Cole's accent, (although we could just kill her off first...).

Then there's the ridiculous amount of rip off straight to DVD movies with near identical front covers; Paranormal Entity, anyone? Last year my mother in Law thought she'd found a bargain when she bought 2012:Doomsday for three quid from Tesco. She failed to realise it was some cheap rip off that had a fifteen pound budget, and that shot its distaster scenes in a bath tub with micro machines cars and the Thunderbird 4 submarine toy.

It's only a matter of time before they amp up hybrid genres and start mixing movies from completely different genres altogether. In the music world artists from different genres are always collaborating to try and keep things fresh and it seems everyone has someone featured on their latest single these days. So with that in mind I propose Die Hard, Feat. the cast of Saturday Night Fever... AKA Jive Hard!

Bruce Willis in a white vest and flares. Travolta with a machine gun. A final shootout to the Bee Gees classic Staying Alive. That's got billion dollar movie written all over it. I look forward to recieving my cheque, Hollywood.

How Can You Have A Vampire Movie Where They Bloody Sparkle Or It's A Love Story You're Completely Missing The Point!

I went to see Twilight Breaking Dawn at the Midnight showing on Thursday night/Friday morning. I then went to a special Waterstones' screening on the friday. I've never read the books (I actually can't remember If I've read a book). I'm not even really a fan of the films. Yet somehow I found myself firmly apart of this Twihard hysteria that's going around. Well okay I wouldn't say I was firmly a part of it, but I've certainly contributed to the film's 30 million midnight gross, and the massive weekend haul it's going to take.

I have no interest in writing a review of the film. I'll give you a brief synopsis though and then you can decide if you want to see it; (SPOILER ALERT) - Jacob gets angry and takes his top off. Edward and Bella get married. Jacob comes to the reception and gets angry. Edward and Belle have rough vampire/human sex (either that or there was a nasty case of domestic violence - the 12 A certificate kind of stopped us getting to see it). Bella becomes pregnant because the free condom Edward got from the Health clinic broke. Jacob gets angry about this saying they should have used his JLS ones.The wolf pack decide they're going to kill the baby Bella is carrying. Jacob gets angry about this.  Bella has the baby. Jacob gets angry about this. Bella dies. Jacob gets angry about this. The wolves and the vampires fight. Jacob gets angry about this. Bella wakes up a vampire. Somewhere, off screen, Jacob was probably angry about this. The end (until part 2  - cha-ching!).

This franchise certainly divides people. It's like Titanic all over again. That film seemed to be universally hated (granted mainly by men - it's actually a really touching piece of cinema and a great comment on the class system at the time, or it's a film about how some women like men who look like twelve year old boys), yet it smashed box office records.

Granted Twilight is popular, but for all the people who love Twilight there is another person who moans about it. Why is it the film equivalent of marmite? Is it because women love Lautner's Abs while men hate him cause they want those abs but like beer and pizza too much to get them? Is it that women love R-patz' dreamy gaze and smile and men think he looks like a crack addict? Do men think Kristen Stewart can't act, but women.... probably agree? Or that women (and me) love a good love story, but men would rather watch Bruce Willis blow terrorists up? Women like their vampires sparkling in the sun, but men like their vampires dripping with the blood of the latest virgin they've seduced?

Or maybe it's just pure escapism. Men watch Bond movies and wish they were him. Driving fast cars, sleeping with stunning women... so what's the difference between women watching Twilight and dreaming of it being them on the screen having rough vampire sex with that guy who was in one of the Harry Potters?

One of the aims of cinema should be to provide a form of escapism; Twilight certainly does this for a large number of people.

People who criticize it for being a terrible vampire movie are missing the point. It's not a vampire story. It's a love story set in a world with a vampire back drop. The same way Titanic was a love story that just happened to be set on a ship that unfortunately hit an iceberg. Sure that adds to the emotional impact of the movie, but it's not what the movie is about. The world will always love a good love story, because Hollywood will always make it look better than how it plays out in real life for us all (No I've not forgotten DiCaprio dies in Titanic, but you get the point).

Of course I'm clearly stereotyping here; Yes the film certainly had a target demographic, but some men like Twilight, and some women hate it (though I'll be honest there were not many men in the cinema on Thursday night... ). So here's to the final chapter of the movie next november, Breaking Dawn Part 2, or its alternative title 'The angry topless wolfman, and his battle to maintain perfect abs'.

On a much more comical note, a woman said I had a look of Robert Pattinson about me on the Thursday night (I really don't, other than the fact we're both men, debatable on my part, who have heads). At first I was pleased, but on further inspection she did say that comment right after I'd said he looks like he's always high on Crystal Meth. Not really a compliment afterall then...

Living In A Sitcom Or Why Do These Things Happen To Me?

The other night a friend of mine made an observation about sitcoms (The Inbetweeners in particular), saying he doesn't know how they get the ideas for the banal and ridiculous situations. I told him it's just life, and we all live in sitcoms, we just don't realise it half the time. He needed an example, so I reminded him how only last week he ate half a take away box (the type you get your cheesy chips and burgers in), because I said I'd give him a tenner if he did. They're really difficult to get down, from the look of it.
To be fair he isn't the only one; I have another friend who regularly eats things on nights out too (he ate a plant long before Will from the Inbetweeners ever did). I only had to pay him a pound as well.

You don't need to be drunk though; I remember being in Pizza Hut once with my brother, and while he was queuing for the all you can eat buffet, someone in front took the last 4 slices of a certain pizza. My brother, being less than impressed, decided he'd get back infront of the guy later on, and rather than taking all the slices of the replacement pizza, he decided to produce a makeshift over glove with his top and pick up the entire base the pizza comes in and bring it back to the table. We were asked to leave.

Then there's just the awkward embarassing moments that seem to regularly occur; One night out when I was 19 I'd been chatting up some girl, she seemed nice and I would have liked to have met her again. Anyway the next day I had a doctor's appointment about a certain area (No before anyone asks, I drink yakult, I am disease free). The doctor asked if it would be okay for a student nurse to be present. I didn't really think about the question and said yes... Well guess who the student nurse was... To be fair I normally have to fork out quite a bit on drinks to get people to look at 'that', so I shouldn't complain. Though of course we didn't meet again...

Now I'd like to say that these sort of events are rare occurrences, but I'd be kidding myself. Cause not a week goes by where something ridiculous doesn't happen to one (or even all) of me and my close friends (in the last month alone there have been incidents involving a corkscrew, a polish man's front door, the fourth best brand of red wine available, half price stickers and a baby, an angry woman at a zebra crossing and a nightclub toilet door). So if you want to know where writers get their ideas for sitcoms, have a look at your own life and think about all the ridiculous moments that happen on a day to day basis, cause that's all they do; they observe. Unless it's just me and my friends... but it can't be, can it?

The Double Standards in Hollywood or How I learnt to Not Say Inappropriate Things the Hard Way

So Brett Ratner has stepped down from producing the 84th Academy Awards next year, and Eddie Murphy will no longer host the awards either. All this after Ratner quipped that "Rehearsals are for fags" when promoting his new movie 'Tower Heist (2011), a phrase which apparently insiders in Hollywood deemed "unforgivable".
Now is it me or are Americans a little more up tight than us over here?
I'm not saying Ratner is, or isn't, a homophobe. I don't know the guy. I also don't condone what he said (especially in the position he is in). I do however think that his comment in no way suggests he is.
I mean I walked past a girl yesterday who, while shaking her I-phone about, said to her friend "my phone's being gay again, it's not working". Now obviously this is a ludicrous sentence - phone's, to my knowledge, don't have a sexual preference (unleess the picture below is a massive phone orgy...)

Nor do they have a gender, but regardless, that girl's comment doesn't make her a homophobe - sure she's without a good vocabulary, and ignorant, but not a homophobe. It's just unfortunate that the word is still used as such a derogatory term without people even thinking. Ratner shouldn't have said it, but an apology should have been sufficient in my opinion.
Then again are these same people pulling the strings, the ones who created such uproar after Ricky Gervais hosted the Golden Globes earlier this year? I watched the awards show recently with my brother... What was all the fuss about? Sure he had a dig at a number of people, and took a few jokes too far, but It's an awards' show and he's a comic! What did they expect? (It's actually very funny,  check it out for yourself below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvHXzP2SpLA

Then again maybe it's the fact he's British and we're just used to it. With our over the top panel shows where comics can pretty much say what they want...Such as Frankie Boyle on Mock the Week here...

. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEzEKQ0fFxE


Not that this comment didn't land the BBC with some complaints, and he went on to leave the show soon after, but it's hardly stopped Boyle getting work (he's still hosting panel shows himself, and appearing on them).
The again do the majority of Americans even care? Is it in fact just The Academy who would have acted in this way? Would the British Academy of Film and Television have done the same? Did Ratner have to leave?

If so, then is there an issue of double standards here; I mean in 1977 Roman Polanski was arrested for having sex with a 13 year old girl. He still went on to win Golden globes AND an academy award for The Pianist (2002). So with that I think I've finally got it... you can win awards regardless of what you say or do, you just can't produce/host the damn things unless you're squeaky clean... Only in Hollywood...

The Cinema Experience Or How I Learnt To Tolerate Morons Who Can't Keep Quiet In A Cinema

You know for a first ever blog that's quite a mouthful of a title. That suggests I'm the sort of person that would have called Jaws (1975) 'The Shark That Eats People', or Die Hard (1988) 'The Man who kills terrorists in a Big Building'. 
I saw Paranormal Activity 3 (2011) last wednesday. I was disappointed for numerous reasons. However, I'm still glad I went to see it, and I'd recommend you go see it too... at the cinema though, and not in your living room/on a laptop screen/on your phone/any other way they've discovered we can now watch films that I've missed.
So why am I glad I parted with £6.50 (for two tickets, mind, cheers Orange!) on the movie? Because it's one of those films that offers something of a 'cinematic experience'.
I remember seeing Paranormal Activity (2007) on the big screen and being blown away. It was like a group-cinematic version of the game 'Where's Wally; Two hundred and fifty people jumping together in synchronised fashion; A larger muscular man, who looks as if he can bench 200k, shrieking like a girl when a door slams on screen; A bed sheet moves, and another man shouts out 'cool threesome' - a lot of people laugh - some at him, others with him.

It was one of those film experiences that you just wouldn't get if you watched it at home on that 42 inch samsung TV you saved ages to buy that's far too big for your living room (I'm speaking from personal experience here, cause one day I hope to be able to afford a house I can fit my TV in).

Now don't get me wrong, those people who insist on texting on their phones during screenings, explaining the plot to their partners because apparently Hollywood movies have complex narratives these days or those people who have contests to see who can crunch popcorn the loudest, ARE irritating.
So why have I learnt to tolerate, and even enjoy, certain idiotic/hilarious actions from certain cinemagoers? Because there are occasions where random outbursts, evoked by the goings on on-screen, certainly add to the whole cinematic experience. And I'm not just talking about laughing in unison during a comedy, or screaming as one when the Killer pops up in the latest slasher film Hollywood has decided to remake or even dancing down the aisle together as Kenny Loggins belts out Footloose... Okay that last one was just a big dream of mine. The cinematic experience is more than that.
I remember my Dad telling me about a scene in National Lampoon's Animal House (1978), in which a female character is undressing, while one of the male protagonists climbs a ladder and performs the role of 'peeping Tom' through the window.

This was much to the delight of one audience member who, as the woman began to undress, seemingly forgot where he was, as he cried 'yes, yes, oh yes'. However as the 'Peeping Tom' began to slide off the ladder, and thus our POV was taken away seconds before the 'tit shot', his cries of 'yes' soon turned to 'no.. no... No, you idiot!'. Once again, the cinemagoers laughed.
Then another time he recalls that while watching Tommy (1975), Roger Daltry began singing 'I'm free', so of course some smart arse shouted out 'so what I'm four'.
Or how about the time Olivia Newton John declared John Travolta should 'Tell me about it Stud' in the film Grease (1978), prompting another wannabe' standup comic in the audience to spurt out 'Stud? More like staple'.

The fact that these events are still fresh in the mind some thirty + years later, says a lot about the cinema experience.
That's not to say sometimes the 'cinematic experience' can get a little out of hand. Like the time two cinemagoers decided to release a couple of rattle snakes in a cinema in Arizona, during a screening of Snakes on a Plane (2006) (Seriously, google it). 
So what do you think? Should we all sit in silence while we watch the film unfold on screen before us? Is audience participation, at times, a good thing? Have you any funny cinema stories to share? If so, let me know!
My advice on the matter is simple; Next time you're considering 'waiting for the DVD', or downloading the version 'Pirate Pete' shot on his I-phone, think about the 'cinematic experience', because sometimes watching a film in the company of complete strangers can be rather entertaining.