The Belko Experiment

In their trailers, not many films catch my attention and draw me to want to watch them. I’ve never really became interested in the The Purge franchise through the trailers, and only watched them because they seemed cool. This stands with most films. Some films, I like the look of, just from their trailers, such as Sully, Ghostbusters (2016), Grimsby.

belko-experiment

When the trailer for The Belko Experiment was first shown to me, I was intrigued. This film looks good, it has a cool plot-line, and better yet, it’s got some experienced people working in the crew (for example, Peter Safran, producer of The Conjuring, Annabell, The Conjuring 2), and from what I see in the trailer, it has a semi-decent storyline.

The trailer makes the film seem quite good, we’re just gonna have to wait for the release, on the 17th March.

Advertisements

Sherlock, Series 4: How did it go?

The final episode of Sherlock was broadcast just two days ago, and even since then I’ve not been impressed – much. It was a great way to end the series, but it became too muddled and complicated to easily follow. The episode started so promising, but as we watch further, the stupidity of the story is revealed.  The episode shows Sherlock discover about his sister, and further be tormented by her genius plans.

 

Young Eurus

Sherlock, at a young age, was convinced that his dog named “red beard” was killed by his sister, at his old childhood home. Throughout the episode, we see Mycroft (and other things) trigger relapses within Sherlock, towards the memories of his dog. Later in the episode, we see that Sherlock was mislead through his childhood, and the redbeard was actually a the childhood nickname for Sherlock’s best friend, Victor, who was thrown down a well, and thus essentially murdered by Eurus.

Sherlock and Eurus Holmes

Eurus is the unknown sister of Sherlock and was kept in a “high security facility” named Sherrinford. Sherlock, and his parents, were subject to Mycroft’s lies, about how their daughter (and in Sherlock’s case, sister) was killed in a house fire at their old family home.

As it conspired, Eurus was actually taken by the government and placed in a prison, where she was essentially held captive as a mental prisoner. She was kept in the most secure part of this prison, and was not to be approached when the cell was entered, as she seemed to be very persuasive.

Sherlock, without knowing the potential danger he would put himself in, went to Eurus’ cell to talk with her. After much talk, her explaining how they had met just days before in a previous episode, she reveals that the glass sheet which was between Sherlock and herself was never there, which is why she could easily get out of her cell without anyone noticing. As the viewer, we see the glass sheet as soon as Sherlock walks in, but somehow they’re trying to convince us that we didn’t? Is it as if Sherlock, someone who can preempt something weeks in advanced, and who soaks up every single detail, couldn’t feel the glass between his and his sister’s hands was non existent?

The storyline, up to this part, makes perfect sense and works without issue. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is where the episode completely falls apart. It turns out that the prison warden had visited Eurus and talked to her, causing him to become brainwashed. When the government requested the help of Eurus’ mental ability, she demanded something in return from the warden, which she got. This demand, turned out to be a visit from a character we all know well – Moriarty.

Eurus and Moriarty were given 5 minutes to talk with each other, and with these minutes, they devised a plan to capture and play with Sherlock, Mycroft and Dr Watson. This is a great example of where the episode became inconsistent and confusing. In these 5 minutes, Moriarty and Eurus managed to come up with a plan which took Sherlock and his gang many many hours to complete. In reality, is this even possible in such a short window of time?

 

Towards the end, the storyline took a complete turn. I’m not too sure if it was intentionally confusing, but it ended up being very confusing. The confusion made it very hard to remember; I’m still now unsure what was happening. Hopefully the end of the next series will be a bit more understandable and easier to follow.

Christmas Adverts 2016

Every year, during the buildup to Christmas, shops and other businesses modify their advertising schemes to fit the theme of Christmas. These adverts usually depict a good Christmas – be it children getting the presents they wanted or a family enjoying their Christmas dinner.

The hype this year, and most years, is for the John Lewis Christmas advert. John Lewis’ new Christmas advert for this year is a two minute clip depicting a dog getting first use of it’s owner’s Christmas present. The clip reminds viewers that Christmas is for all to enjoy, and depicts this through it’s use of animals.

 

Waitrose also brought in their advert, depicting a robin taking a massive flight home, in order to share a mince pie with his friend (or family member). This advert also reminds viewers that Christmas is a time for all to be together.

 

One of the most unexpected releases this year is the Lidl Christmas advert. Lidl’s Christmas advert depicted a regular family enjoying Christmas together, preparing and also bringing the family together. This advert really was unexpected, but is probably one of the best that will be brought out this year.

Monsters Inc (2001): Boo!

monsters_incMonsters Inc is a family fun film which shows the imagination of children come to life. It helps with getting kids over the fear of monsters, by introducing them to humour and to the friendliness of Sully, the organization’s top scarcer. Monsters Inc is a company which is contracted to scare children, in order to generate electricity, to power the local city of monsters. Sully, a blue lovable character, is the company’s top scarcer, and Mike, the one eyed green blob, his sidekick. But when the company becomes desperate for more scares, Randall, a jealous snake like monster takes his scare gathering to the next level.

 

When working overtime, Randall leaves open a child’s door open, which ends in the door’s owner escaping into the monster world. Sully discovers this, and after tying to replace it back in its room, takes it as one of his own, and gives the child the name: Boo.

monsters%20inc-xlarge

 

Product Placement in the UK

Product placement in the UK is heavily controlled by the communications regulator, Ofcom. As of 14th February 2011, Ofcom allowed television operators within the UK to use product placement as a method of advertising. Product placement is when a company, such as Sony, pay programmes makers and television channel operators to place their product into their programmes.

An example is the Sony Vaio laptop being shown in use by “Mark Zuckerburg”, in “The Social Network”.

sony-vaio-notebooks-the-social-network-product-placement-4

 

Ofcom limits product placement heavily, including restrictions on the types of products that can be placed, what types of programs they can be placed in and limits in the way they can be seen and referred to, in these programmes. These limits include types of programme, such as news programmes or children’s TV shows. This is why  news shows often cover up the laptop’s logo with their own.

Restrictions about the type of product that can be advertised include those such as cigarettes, and other items which have serious health consequences.

 

When product placement is about to occur, the product placement watermark must be displayed for 3 seconds at the end and beginning of the programme and it’s advertising breaks, to warn viewers of what is going to be displayed (it’s a common thought that product placement to subliminally trigger viewers into purchasing the product).

 

product_placement_logo1

Camera Stabilization

Filming with a shaky camera, unless with the intention of showing a shaky view (for example, in a POV shot). If you wanted to film a man running down a road, this would commonly be extremely difficult to achieve when fully handheld.

This is where camera stabilization comes in. Garrett Brown, a cameraman, in 1971 created the first camera stabilizer. This was named the Steadicam, and has become the most widely known and used camera stabilization brand in the industry.

The invention and distribution of the Steadicam gave more freedom to directors and film producers, combining the steady footage from a tripod, but the motion of a dolly and the flexibility of a hand-held shot.

Bound for Glory, a 1976 Hal Ashby film, was the first cinema film to use and demonstrate the powers of the Steadicam. A technical shot in this film caused a stir of interest in the industry, which invited many directors to show interest in using the kit.

One of these directors, Stanley Kubrick, requested that the camera shot from a near-floor level distance, which prompted Brown to develop a new addon to the system, arguably the largest development to the system, bar it’s production.