Latter to watching a trailer for your new favorite movie, do you often miss the release due to a lack of promotion or simply letting it pass you by? Well here is a website that ensures you will never miss that crime-thriller or indie-documentary that you’ve been meaning to watch. For the most part it is easy to simply check online the release date of movies you want to see, but often it can be a time-consuming task to have to filter through hundreds of recent issues. With the more underground films, or distributions with less advertising, they can sometimes fall between the gaps meaning you could neglect some really great titles.
Movie Cron is a website that acts as a sort of movie memo for release dates. It is simple to use and the first step is just signing up with your email. Users are given the option of receiving updates on their mobile, by text, or by email as well as being able to filter by category. There is the added choice of setting notifications a day, 2 days or a week ahead of the movie’s deliverance date as well as the time at which you receive the reminder. Once you have signed up you can search through the many genres, of which there is a large variety, and any film you like the look of simply click “add notification”. The customisable features of the sight makes this a unique product and another, even more attractive feature is that is costs nothing to sign up.
Even though this product is fairly fresh, creator Cameron Rudnick has managed to generate an eclectic and bulky collection of movies and he is hoping to continue expanding as more people join. Recently, he said, “I added an email newsletter signup to get an email when a major movie is released in the genres selected. So I am constantly adding new features.” For movies lovers it’s a great little tip and Rudnick is even hoping to expand to an iPhone/android app. Sign up now and ensure that you never miss that important movie night again.
“And if you think that our dance was all in the hips
Oh well, then do the twist”
BELLFLUR’s ‘Country’ and a meandering quandary
by Pablo D’Stair
BELLFLUR’s ‘Country’ and a meandering quandary
For sundry reasons, of late, my mind has been occupied by questions of artistic collaboration, in one form or another, the video above, for me, a particularized intersecting of versions of these considerations. A written word piece by me gave title to the album the video is for one song from (Twelve Vagrant Monologues From The Last Living Star, by D.C. based band Bellflur) and a spoken word version of my writing, over interpretative instrumentals, is the entire B-side of the vinyl. My connection, though, to the music, the album, the live performances is almost entirely peripheral and, in turn, my connection to Rich Bernett’s video basically a semantic one. Yet I nonetheless find myself, in viewing the piece, considering ‘me’ a part of the collaboration it is artifact of, and in so find my response to it curiously knotted about in rhetorical considerations of what is what and by whom and wherefore and all that.
Now of course, flat fact, the artistry of the video speaks for itself and needs (as is the case with all cinema, but most certainly Short Film and Music Video) no commentary, merely reaction—click to view it if you have not, already, and you will find it perhaps, as I do, something that could well be a filmic interpretation by Michel Gondry of one of Samuel Beckett’s Fizzles, or a staging by Patrick McGoohan of a piece of Knut Hamsun’s writing through a script treatment by Philip K. Dick. It is a statement, singular, but rife with its influence (whose influence? influences, plural?) and one that, for all its obviously auteured precision, is built of as many conventions of its form (the Music Video) as it breaks from (or at least riffs urgently out of a clean hold of).
…Let me digress, a paragraph:
To me, as a writer, music has always been a visual medium (yes, let’s work through that sentence a minute, right?). While I drive, for example, music plays, and to each song a distinct, entirely (or multiple distinct and entirely) visual progression of what the song ‘is’ not only occurs to me, but I daresay has become necessity. No, not in a ‘six foot five and full of muscles’ so I think of just that image (thank you Men At Work) sort of way, and certainly not in a ‘here I am imagining some images of Matchbox Twenty and Rob Thomas crooning away inter-spliced with some moody, interpretative, thematically heavy still photography’ et cetera—but song is visual to me, and honed visual, as precise as it is able to change on each listen. A onetwothreeFOUR drum beat clearly, to me, means every fourth beat a ‘camera angle’ changes, a new visual input becomes appropriate, for example—I have a visual language for music, and the tonality of any piece, the lyrical content serve only as touchstones to cast anchor from, the images containing (in my mind alone as they may be) the emotional content of Sex Pistols, Dylan, The Redwalls, They Might Be Giants, Rod Stewart.
…So with that in mind, I return to what I was saying:
That is, for all of the individual nuances of the video, I cannot help myself seeing it as a ‘kind,’ as having distinct brethren, being of a certain aesthetic ‘shared’ and ‘borrowed’ and ‘built on’—collective unconsciously, somewhat, pick-and-chose, somewhat as well—and even, bit-by-bit, ‘defined’ by those who ‘do music videos’ (I cannot think of a term there, writer though I claim to be).
I hasten to interject a self-interrogatory ‘You don’t mean that as a disparagement, though, I’d hope?’ and to just as hastily insist, ‘No, I don’t—no, no not at all.’
Why it is such a presence in my thoughts is that my reaction to music, visual based (as above clumsily elaborated on) has no root in the visual interpretations of music I have come across by others (other Music Videos, other sequences in films etc.). And so a part of me, as viewer, could not help but look for my particular ‘visual-less visual aesthetic’ (my ‘mind’s eye’ does not count as actual) in something that, at least partly, I feel I share ownership to.
Having a ‘kind’ is something I generally am resistant to, artistically, as usually it means something is seeking participation, if not shared birth-canal (or will have some root foist on it) in something else. Better to be ‘kindless,’ I tend to think even it means to also be ‘ remorseless, treacherous, lecherous,’ and ‘villain.’
And here, because of the (to me) supremacy of a kind of Visual in music, it is the sight-aspect of the video that has the reins—the music, the lyrics (and…down the line…me) are things that I, in seeing a ‘kind,’ feel are untethered, are things I find myself wondering if are, of necessity, a part of the single object of Video (that is, I wonder would the visual aesthetic, perhaps even the content of video, be able to exist, and exist exactly as it does, with some other music beneath it).
Of course, perhaps it is to inquiry too particularly to inquire so and, certainly, there is no harm in seeing a type of aesthetic that could be on display in other videos for other songs by other bands as something that has been amoebaed by Bellflur, one and all—I care not to know interpersonal history of filmmaker, art designer, bandmates, and all, nor to know what went on and was initiated by whom in the brainstorm rooms of the actual collaborative efforts (of which, truly, I am no part of) so my inquiries are ones self-thrust and conscientiously answerless.
Which is good, because the answers would be immaterial.
My mind in being occupied with collaboration of late, as I began this all by saying, is pressurized just now in such a manner that elements functioning in tandem cannot be pulled clean apart enough to be looked at in pieces with whole and individual import—I am forcing a need for monovoice (for ‘supremacy’ and ‘component part,’) where my gut knows that polyvoice would serve my soul far better—in that, my curious predicament of being in love, completely, with each and every cut of stained glass that forms the above mosaic, but in quandary as to how to send prayers through he window, to not get stuck in the aperture move through to the sky it prostrates itself to.
That, of course, is just me—fortunately for music, video, cinema, and the world at large.
I think this film can be described in a single word, quaint. Now hear me out though I’m not talking quintissentially English cups of tea out in the garden whilst watching the bowls. I’m talking about looking back at a time where things seemed to be a lot simpler, communities a lot tighter and life a lot more straightforward.
Now let me be honest with you, It’s a Sunday afternoon and I’m not particularly looking forward to going back to work tomorrow for a number of reasons. The last thing I wanted to do today was review a film that would make me feel any worse about my life, but thankfully this didn’t!
Valley Of Song is a British comedy drama film that was released in 1953 by director Gilbert Gunn with a plethora of British talent starring as the main characters. Based in a tiny Welsh village called Cwmpant (as an English person I have to admit I did have a little giggle at this!) the opening scenes are of Geraint Llewellyn (played by Clifford Evans) returning to Cwmpant from London where he has been based working in insurance. With it being such a small village, the news travels fast and before long he has been appointed as the new Choirmaster and feuds are started. Obviously with it being rural Wales (insert casual racism and stereotypes here) there is only a small selection of surnames within the village and the feud in this one (very Romeo and Juliet like, but with Welsh accents) is between the Lloyd’s and the Davies’s. The choir will be performing Messiah at the National Eisteddfod and Mrs Lloyd (Rachel Thomas) is expecting to take the part of contralto, however Llewellyn opens up a whole can of worms by choosing Mrs Davies (Betty Cooper) to play the part. As you can imagine, this does not go down very well with Mrs Lloyd and she drags her son out of the choir practice and in effect stamps her feet to show her disapproval. To make matters worse her son Clifford (John Fraser) is courting Mrs Davies’s daughter Olwen (Maureen Swanson) and they become lovers caught between the feuding families, stuck in a village which has been split down the middle.
As you can imagine from a black and white film from the 1950’s, the situation is resolved to everyone’s satisfation and it is charming in its conclusion. This film won’t make you laugh until you cry, nor cry until you laugh. However it will make you smile on a Sunday afternoon and reflect on how the trivial things in life always seem to impact on us the hardest. Hurt pride, vanity and selfishness often come before a sense of togetherness, community and selflessness. Of course this film is stereotypical and outdated, but that is waht makes it beautiful! We don’t live in the 1950’s anymore and life and love have become a lot more confusing in the modern world, but we can all take something from this film so I suggest you watch it to see what you learn about yourself.
The trailer and poster for Arbitrage starring Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon and Tim Roth have now been released – the poster is below, and so is the trailer.
The UK Premiere is on 20th February at Odeon West End, Leicester Square.
Richard Gere (Pretty Woman, Chicago) gives a stunning, career-best performance in a role that this month saw him nominated in the Best Actor category at the 2013 Golden Globes. Academy Award winning Susan Sarandon (The Lovely Bones, Dead Man Walking) also stars in this tense and gripping story of desperation in the face of financial and family ruin. Tim Roth (Reservoir Dogs), Brit Marling (Another Earth), Laetitia Casta (The Island) and Nate Parker (The Secret Life of Bees) complete the stellar cast.
Following up the impressive ensemble cast of last year’s Valentine’s Day romantic comedy He’s Just Not That Into You was never going to be an easy task, that film boasting nine big names among its credits, but this year’s aptly titled Valentine’s Day release Valentine’s Day doesn’t just go one better, it goes ten, boasting a cast that consists of a whopping NINETEEN big name stars, making it possibly the most star studded (and one of the most diverse age wise, with stars to appeal to all age groups) movie ever made. One thing is for sure – this is one film that will do big at the box office. Is the film actually any good though? Well, some have claimed that Valentine’s Day is essentially the same as British romcom Love Actually, only with it being set on Valentine’s Day instead of Christmas and in Los Angeles instead of London. Read into this what you like – if you are one of those who loved Love Actually (like this critic, for instance) then this is one film you will probably also enjoy; if, however, you are one of those people who loathes that film then you can be sure that this film will not be for you.
Either way, though, the film certainly has some rather impressive credentials (although this will be subjective – some of the stars, and perhaps even the director, could be classified as love them or hate them) with not only an impressive cast line up but also a director – Garry Marshall – who has directed a number of truly enjoyable romantic comedies in the past, including Pretty Woman, Runaway Bride and both The Princess Diaries films, among many other directorial credits. So, is Valentine’s Day another classic, or like some of last year’s big Hollywood romcoms, does it promise much and deliver little?
February 14th, Valentines Day, is not a national holiday, but it is one of those days that must be celebrated. There are “special someones” in your life who expect to receive romantic gifts from their lovers. Commercialism has put a tremendous amount of pressure on men to give their lovers a romantic day with all the trimmings. Women are under pressure to have a man, or they feel desperate and unloved. Intertwining couples and singles break-up and make-up on this day, their stories told through the interconnections they have with each other. Reed Bennett (Ashton Kutcher) proposes to his girlfriend Morley Clarkson (Jessica Alba), not getting the answer he was hoping for, something that comes as no surprise to any of his friends, particularly the happily married Alphonso (George Lopez). Reed’s best friend, teacher Julia Fitzpatrick (Jennifer Garner), is planning to surprise her boyfriend Dr. Harrison Copeland (Patrick Dempsey), unaware that he is a married man.
Also unbeknown to her, one of her pupils, Edison (Bryce Robinson), is madly in love with her and is planning to surprise her. Publicist Kara Monahan (Jessica Biel) is planning her annual I Hate Valentine’s Day Party and getting stressed out because none of her friends have RSVPed. When one of her clients Sean Jackson (Eric Dane) plans to make a big announcement she crosses path with and finds a like mind in the form of Kelvin Moore (Jamie Foxx), a sports journalist who has been ordered by his boss Susan (Kathy Bates) to do fluff pieces about Valentine’s Day, despite the fact that he hates it. Jason (Topher Grace) and Liz (Anne Hathaway) have only been dating for a few weeks and already their relationship is in trouble when Jason discovers that Liz, whose main job is as a receptionist for publicist Paula Thomas (Queen Latifah), is moonlighting as a phone sex girl. The kindly Holden (Bradley Cooper) and army officer Captain Kate Hazeltine (Julia Roberts) meet on a long flight and form a connection. Teenagers Grace (Emma Roberts) and her boyfriend Alex (Carter Jenkins) are planning to sleep together for the first time. Edgar (Hector Elizondo) and Estelle (Shirley Maclaine) are a couple who have been happily married for over fifty years but an old secret threatens to destroy their bliss. Felicia (Taylor Swift) and Willy (Taylor Lautner) are a teen couple experiencing the joys of young love. Some will find romance in their relationship, and others will feel the heartbreak of ending a relationship. In this Russian roulette world of finding love, everyone is asking for advice on how to find and keep true love.
Despite its impressive cast, Valentine’s Day isn’t a film that works as well it could and probably should. For starters, the sheer volume of star names means that no one star gets a massive amount of screen time, meaning that fans of any particular star may well feel a bit disappointed that they don’t feature more. Also, a few of the roles amount to little more than cameo appearances meaning that they may as well not even be counted. Additionally, some stories are more interesting and enjoyable than others, meaning that the quality is extremely variable throughout the film and the fact that the different stories don’t entirely gel together makes it seem like some of them may have linked for the sake of it, rather than for any genuine purpose. For all these reasons, the film is certainly not the next Love Actually – although those who like that film will still probably enjoy this one too – nor is it another classic like Pretty Woman.
That said, though, the film does have its charms. Unlike some recent Hollywood romantic comedies, the romance is central throughout, never cast aside for irrelevant gags, and the film is pretty funny, occasionally providing some moments of hilarity, at least if the reaction in the screening I was at is anything to go by. The humour won’t be to everyone’s tastes of course but teen girls will love it even if no one else does. The story is mostly rather typical Hollywood fluff but it is at least quite enjoyable fluff with many of the stories being pretty sweet, some being very entertaining and a few even being quite moving. There are even a few plot surprises – obviously, nothing amazing, but certainly more than you would probably expect for a film such as this. The cast, who have pretty much the sole focus of marketing for this film, are far from their best here, none of them delivering any performances that are going to win them many accolades or them getting nominated for Oscars, but neither are their performances deserving of much criticism or any Razzie nominations, the majority of the cast members being very entertaining, even if many of the characters are slightly obvious stereotypes and attempts at against type casting deliver hit and miss results. So, Valentine’s Day is a far from perfect film but if you’re looking a date movie to see this Valentine’s Day that provides simple, undemanding entertainment it is definitely a film for you.
