I Am Legend (2007)

I Am Legend is a 2007 Horror, Thriller, Drama starring Will Smith and his dog. After a virus has wiped out mankind, turning them into creatures of the night, Robert Neville (Smith) is the last man alive, trying to find a cure while all alone in New York.

I Am Legend is based on an amazing book by Richard Matheson, who also wrote some classic scares such as The Night Stalker, Trilogy Of Terror, Steven Spielberg's Duel and some excellent episodes of The Twilight Zone including Nightmare at 20,000 feet and Button Button (which was recently turned into the film, The Box). He also wrote one of the scariest haunted house movies ever made called The Legend Of Hell House. I Am Legend is a book that is so cinematic, it is perfect for a really good film version as long as you stay reasonably faithful to the original story.

So, in the immortal words of William Hurt in A History Of Violence, How do you fuck that up?

Well, the first thing you do is hire Oscar winning screenwriter hack Akiva Goldsman to completely ignore everything that made the book great and write something far less interesting instead. How the hell this man ever won an Oscar is beyond me. He's the guy who wrote some of the worst Hollywood blockbusters of the past 15 years, including Lost In Space and the famously bad franchise killer, Batman And Robin. The film he managed to beat The Lord Of The Rings into winning an Oscar for was A Beautiful Mind, where he ignored any attempts to tell the true story of John Nash, and instead gave us an ill-conceived thriller that mistakenly confuses schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder where most of the films characters don't even exist.

The main aspect of the I Am Legend book they have completely ignored is that of the creatures the infected humans turn into. In the book, they are most definitely vampires. The book goes into great depth explaining the scientific reasons behind every aspect of vampirism and Neville sees it as his duty to hunt down and kill them. In the film, the creatures are poorly CGI'd creatures named Dark Seekers that all look identical but are still allergic to sunlight. This does beg a few questions. Namely, how can a virus effect your physical appearance in such a way that you are the same height and build as everyone else, wear the same clothes, and can open your mouth so jaw droppingly wide? The CGI is so bad that every time one of these creatures moves, you just wish the film makers used proper make up and actors. They aren't Vampires in the film, probably because they made it before Vampires became cool again. There's no motivation or explanation for the creatures, they just are, and making them all appear identical may have saved a few bucks in the budget but causes us to distance ourselves from them emotionally. One is given more screentime than the others, but we are never sure if he's the one we are looking at.

It isn't all bad though. Will Smith gives a great performance as someone close to insanity, and there are some decent scares and a touching scene with his dog, but any good moments are soon forgotten by an horrendous ending.

The ending is the part of the film where they really fuck it up. Originally, the film makers shot this ending but the test audiences didn't like it much, so they filmed a new ending that was even worse. It's difficult to explain without going into any spoilers, but Robert Neville may have found a cure but makes a decision so ridiculously self-sacrificing that Cracked.com wrote this article ripping it to shreds. If you've seen the film, go to that link and read it. It explains all that's wrong with the ending far better than I ever can.

The end of the book explains the title I Am Legend so perfectly that it makes you want to review what you have just read from a different perspective. The film on the other hand, suddenly realises that the title makes no sense with their re-written ending that they had to include a sudden voice-over to cover themselves.

Now, my review seems to be bashing the film mainly because it isn't the same as the book, but when I saw the film for the first time, I hadn't read the book, but I still hated the film. There are just so many bad film-making decisions and moments of bad writing that you just can't get past. One I just noticed after watching again was that he's got 2 running machines upstairs in his house, one for him, one for his dog. Have you ever tried lifting a running machine? They are pretty heavy. Seeing as he's the last man alive, how the hell did he manage to get it in his house, never mind dragging them up those stairs?

After 2 failed attempts to turn I Am Legend into a good film in the 60's and 70's, we waited over 35 years for Hollywood to have another go, and they still failed. Hopefully, in their next attempt in 20 years time, we might have more luck.

IMDB currently gives I Am Legend a rather generous 7.1 but I'd have to give it a far lower score of 5. There's some good stuff in there and some of the visuals are impressive, but as a film in it's own right it's only OK. As an adaptation of a classic book, it's a disaster.

Gremlins

Gremlins is a 1984 family movie starring Zack Galligan and Phoebe Cates and is directed by Joe Dante.

Trouble arrives in the small American town of Kingston Falls after Billy is given a Mogwai as a pet. Despite being told to keep it away from water and not to feed it after midnight, both of these things happen, resulting in a group of Gremlins taking over the town, causing mischief and mayhem.

There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who love  Gremlins, and those who haven't seen it yet. Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn't love this film? It's a modern Christmas Holiday classic, like Die Hard. Not really about Christmas, but set during that holiday so you have an excuse to watch it every year.

Despite that last sentence, I hadn't seen this film for years, but as I caught a glimpse of it on TV the other night, I knew I had to hunt down my DVD so I could watch it again, and I am glad I did. There are so many great, classic moments in this film, and so many in-jokes hidden away in the background. My favourite moment is when the dad is at an inventors conference. In the space of about 3 seconds, we have Robbie The Robot from Forbidden Planet making a cameo, while Steven Spielberg drives by in a buggy, and the time machine from The Time Machine mysteriously disappearing in the background.

Other great moments include when all of the gremlins are in the cinema watching Snow White, and the infamous Death By Microwave scene. When the film came out in America, they had to create a new rating for it, the PG13, as it was too violent for young kids, but it's target audience would be unable to see it if they went for the higher rating of an R.

Gizmo himself is one of the cutest creatures ever committed to film. Usually, I hate deliberately cute things in films but I make an exception for Gizmo as he's just so cool and adorable. Just look at him. Who doesn't want a Gizmo of their own? Howie Mandel's voice work for Gizmo is great too, squeaking out "Bright Light" every so often. The person who came up with a Gizmo Furby toy was a genius.

Both Gizmo and the gremlins are bought to life using some incredible puppet work. If ever they were to do a remake or another sequel, and I really hope they don't unless the original director did it, then they would probably use CGI to bring them to life. Whether or not CGI would work nearly as well as puppets is debatable, but personally I don't think CGI gremlins will have the same charm that the puppets do. Having said that, in this day and age, will puppets be as convincing as they were back in the 80's?

The film isn't perfect though. It takes half an hour to really get going, and some of the characters just disappear completely. Judge Reinhold is a major part of those first 30 minutes, but once the gremlins appear, he disappears and is never mentioned again. Deleted scenes have him hiding in the bank. The first cut of the film lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes, so a lot had to be trimmed before release. It's a shame my DVD didn't include those lost scenes.

Zack Galligan is good as Billy, but there is a reason the actor has disappeared into obscurity as he can be quite bland. He did make some great films during the early 80's though. Waxwork and it's sequel are really enjoyable horror movies and definitely worth a watch. And the film he made after Gremlins, Nothing Lasts Forever is one of the weirdest movies I have ever seen. Worth checking out.

Phoebe Cates, however, is as stunning and adorable as always. Did anyone not have a crush on her when they were young? She was going to be a huge star, but then married Kevin Kline and retired to look after their kids. A great loss to cinema. Phoebe Cates contributes one of the films strangest and most famous moments, when she explains why she doesn't like Christmas. It's a moment so strange that it's brilliantly spoofed in the sequel.

The film's director, Joe Dante, is one of my favourite directors of all time. His movies are always great fun. His first horror movie, Piranha was one of the better Jaws rip offs and is a classic film in it's own right, recently spawning a 3D remake. The Howling, along with An American Werewolf In London, reinvented the Werewolf movie with some jaw dropping special effects and some surprising laughs. Innerspace made a star out of Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan and is one of the most inventive and enjoyable summer blockbuster ever made. He was also the man responsible for one of the all time great kids TV programs, Eerie Indiana. It's a shame that he's only made a handful of films since the 90's, and his most recent, The Hole, was a great family horror movie that failed to find a big audience. While writing this, I've just noticed that his film, Explorers, is on TV in an hour, so I may have to watch that.

IMDB currently gives Gremlins 7.1, but I am going to have to give it a far higher 9. The only reason I am not giving it a 10 is because Gremlins II, The New Batch is even better.

Wrong Turn 3 - Left For Dead

As the name suggests, Wrong Turn 3 is the sequel to Wrong Turn and Wrong Turn 2:Dead End. The series is about a severely deformed family of cross-bred cannibals who lay traps for anyone who happens to be walking through the woods.

Part 1 had Eliza Dushku from Buffy and some other up and coming stars from good TV shows being chased. It was quite fun but not great.

Part 2 had a cast of unknowns and Henry Rollins being chased but was instantly forgettable.

Part 3 is about a small group of murderous inmates, chained together as their armoured bus is attacked. Trapped in the woods with a shit load of money they just happen to find, they are more interesting in making it out with the bags of cash than making it out alive. It doesn't star anyone you've heard of as the cast is mostly made up of British TV actors pretending to be American, in a Bulgarian woods standing in for the USA.

As anyone who knows me knows, I love a good horror film. I even enjoy the crap ones sometimes as long as they are entertaining and imaginative. Even though this film is awful, with moments of logic that defy explanation, I still found it quite enjoyable. The acting was awful, the direction was lame, the special effects were cheap and the direction was laughable, yet it was still quite fun.

The script itself was laughable. One of the inmates was an undercover US Marshall, but nothing is made of this fact, so what was the point? The dialog was horrendous, with this classic sample from the beginning of the film.

Topless girl sunbathing by a river is joined by her boyfriend.
Girl: "Alex thinks I'm a slut. Do you think I'm a slut?"
Boy: "Yes, but that is what I love about you."
Girl: "I thought you loved my tits".
Second later, a spear impales said tit along with his hand, perfectly summing up the quality of the film you are about to watch.

I'm not going to waste any more time talking about this film as it doesn't really deserve my time. I will say this though. Don't spend even a penny on this rubbish, but if there is nothing else on and you enjoy rubbish horror movies, then you can do a lot worse than spending one and a half hours in the company of this film. If you do have something more interesting and important to do, such as tidying up your sock drawer, then do that instead.

IMDB gives this film a generous 4.4 out of 10. That is all you need to know.

Tron:Legacy

Tron:Legacy is the sequel to the 1982 movie, Tron. It stars Jeff Bridges, reprising his roll as Kevin Flynn from the original, but also plays Clu 2.0, Flynn's avatar. It also stars Garrett Hedlund as his son, Sam Flynn, Olivia Wilde from TV's House, and Michael Sheen playing a fictional character for a change.

20 years after his father's disappearance, Sam Flynn finds himself in the trapped in the computerised world that his father created.

Tron:Legacy was the 2nd mystery film organised by SeeFilmFirst as part of their Online Bloggers event, held at The Empire Cinema in Leicester Square. Standing outside the cinema that Saturday morning, it became obvious to anyone who had not already guessed that Tron:Legacy would be one of the films as the cinema was already covered with giant marquees in preparation for it's world premiere the following day.

The day itself consisted of 2 Q&A sessions, one on setting up a film website of your own (Creating an online audience), and the other on piracy. I managed to ask what I thought was the best question of the day during the online audience Q&A, "Considering that 2 recent films which had attracted a huge online following, Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim, both under performed at the box office, how much does the online audience represent the real world audience". As the event was filmed, you may see their response online soon. If I find it, I will post it.

The director of Tron:Legacy was there to introduce the film, which was cool. Presumably he'd flown over for the main premier the following evening. As for the film itself, I'm not sure if I was disappointed with Tron:Legacy, or whether it just failed to exceed my limited expectations. As my earlier post concluded, I wasn't a fan of the original, so was hoping that the sequel would be better. In some ways it was. The special Effects were amazing, but in this digital age, nothing we haven't seen before in multiple computer games. Avatar had entirely computer generated landscapes and neon effects. Beowulf had photo real CGI characters, whilst Benjamin Button and X-Men 3 had de-aged characters, yet all managed to do them better.

Let's talk about the de-aged Jeff Bridges. When he first appears, he's wearing a helmet so you can't see his face. The sole reason for this ridiculous helmet seems purely so that he can take it off and reveal himself to be a young Jeff Bridges, shocking the audience into wowing at a special effect that they've already seen in the trailer and at the start of the film. At first, the de-aged Jeff Bridges is amazing, that is until he starts to move. Once he does, he looks like a computerised Jeff Bridges that they've recreated for a computer game. If you've seen the trailer, you will already know what to expect. There is something about how his mouth moves that doesn't look real, and it moves a lot. Even when he isn't talking, his mouth moves is some strange way as if to emphasize that they know how to create CGI mouths, which they don't. He also suffers from that scary dead eye look that blighted The Polar Express. However, that fault had been fixed in both Beowulf and A Christmas Carol and they are both a year or 2 old, so why did they fail to fix it in this? It's taken them 3 years to make this film, but it seems that they have spent so much time patting themselves on the back at being able to create a young Jeff Bridges, no one bothered to point out to them that it looked crap. You could use the excuse that the young Jeff Bridges actually plays Clu 2.0, which is the old Kevin Flynn's avatar, therefore has a reason to look like a computer effect. However, in some flashback scenes, Clu 2.0 interacts with the young Flynn, and they both look like bad CGI effects.

During these flashback scenes, we see the Tron character, played by a de-aged Bruce Boxleitner but he also looks like a bad computer effect. Later in the film (Spoiler alert) the original Tron character appears, but he is wearing a helmet. This has the effect of making you fail to associate the character with the one from the first film, but also makes you think they were saving money on special effects. Seeing as Bruce Boxleitner appears in the film, and has been de-aged to play Tron in the flashback scenes, surely they could have had him take his helmet off once. Also, seeing as he is wearing a helmet throughout, how did Jeff Bridges know that it was Tron?

The older Jeff Bridges character is strange too. He doesn't seem like the same character from the first film. Less care-free and rebellious, but that is understandable as the character has gone through a lot in the last 20 years. To show that it is the same character, they have him occasionally spout clichéd hippie phrases such as "Far out man," to remind you that he is the same person. This is strange as the Flynn character from the first film never seemed to be much of a hippie at all and never said anything like that.

Olivia Wilde is great in the film, but she is great in everything she is in. In real life, she is married to an Italian Prince, meaning she is in reality a princess. She's been turning up in a lot of films lately when she isn't filming House. She also had a small role in , turning the day into a bit of an Olivia Wilde double bill. She is slowly turning into a huge star and will also soon be seen in John Favreau's new film. Talking of which, and forgive the digression, at the start of the day, we were shown a load of film trailers. The last one was for the new John Favreau film that Olivia Wilde is in. Great trailer. Daniel Craig is a cowboy in the wild west, where he is taken prisoner by Harrison Ford. So far, a great looking western with a great cast. Then aliens attack. The audience were already excited by this. Then the name of the film appears. "Cowboys And Aliens." The audience applauded. Seriously, who doesn't want to see James Bond and Indiana Jones in a film called Cowboys And Aliens. Anyone?

Anyway, back to Tron. The storyline was OK and less confusing that the original, but I still didn't understand bits of it and even now couldn't explain what actually happened, hence the brief synopsis earlier. What was Quorra the last of? How, in a digital world, did Flynn manage to get hold of a whole roast pig for their dinner, and why did they then only eat the vegetables? Did Flynn deliberately design the interior of his house after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey? If anyone has the answers to these questions, please post them below.

As for the 3D, I was expecting it to be the next revolution in the technology as they made a big thing about having to set up the 4 digital projectors during our lunch break. Seeing the Tronised Walt Disney logo at the beginning, it looked like it might very well do so. The film itself starts in 2D and doesn't turn 3D until they enter the digital world, and there is a warning at the start of the film so you know to expect this. Maybe it's because I wasn't right at the back, or maybe because I had 2 heads partially obscuring the bottom of the screen, but when the 3D did arrive, it was hardly noticeable. I think I would have enjoyed the 2D version just as much, maybe even better as it probably wouldn't have given me a headache. Another question I have is why do cinemas always put the screen so low, so there are always heads obscuring it. I was aching my next as I couldn't relax in my seat as I kept straining to see over the heads in front. They were only in my way and they had to stretch to see over the heads in front of them. I felt sorry for the people behind me.

All in all, a big disappointment. Not completely awful as the film is quite fun, but not too great. I can't compare it to the current IMDB score as no-one else has seen it yet, but I'd give it a 6.6, better than the first one, but still not too great.

When you do see the film, let me know what you think in the comments. Do you agree or disagree? I want to know.

3D films. A few thoughts.

Before I review Tron:Legacy, I wanted to post about 3D films in general. I recently watched both Saw 7 and Megamind in 3D, and found them to be complete opposite experiences. I'm not a big fan of 3D in general. Either it takes you out of the movie experience as you find yourself noticing the 3D and thinking "Wow", or you don't notice it, making the 3D pointless. I am finding myself preferring to see the film in 2D rather than pay the extra money.

Saw 3D had some of the worst 3D I've ever seen. It's not so much that the 3D was poorly done, it was more that it was non-existent. I couldn't spot any 3D effects, even when things were flying out towards me and had to take my glasses off to prove the film was 3D as the screen still appeared blurry. At one point, I thought my glasses must have been faulty, but watching Jackass 3D later in the day proved they were working fine. The film itself was the worst of the series, and the 3D only helped in it's crapness.

Both Jackass and Megamind had amazing 3D. Maybe it was because I wasn't so near the front but the 3D was stunning for both films. It's become a cliche when talking about 3D, but it added so much depth to the film which enhanced the visual experience greatly. Watching the films in 2D would have been just as enjoyable as it is all down to the storytelling skills involved (Storytelling skills in Jackass? Well, you know what I mean), but the 3D in both films just added an extra layer to an enjoyable movie.

The strange thing that I don't understand is this. Megamind had truly great 3D, yet the film was also available in 2D. Saw 3D on the other hand, had truly awful 3D, yet you could only watch the 3D version. I have found this is becoming an annoying trend recently. I read reviews slating the 3D in Clash Of The Titans, saying how it was badly transferred and ruined the movie. Because of this, I only wanted to watch the 2D version. However, the 2D version wasn't being shown anywhere. I had no choice but to watch the poorly converted 3D version. As a result, I've still not seen the film. The Last Airbender was also only available in a poorly converted 3D version, but I didn't watch that as it was supposed to be crap.

My question is this. Why do the studios think people want to pay extra to have their movie ruined. It seems they see 3D as a way to charge an extra 2 or 3 quid per ticket. If they can spend a few thousand quid converting the film, that money will translate into millions of extra revenue. However, if people watch these poorly converted 3D films, it will put them off watching the good ones. Because of that, 3D has a real danger of becoming a fad.

What are your views on 3D? Please post them in the comments so that I know people have found my blog and are reading it.

Tron

Tron is a live action Disney movie from 1982, starring Jeff Bridges as Flynn and Bruce Boxleitner as both Alan Bradley and the title character, Tron. Famous at the time for incorporating revolutionary computer animation techniques alongside real footage of actors, it took over 25 years for the sequel, Tron:Legacy to be made, which is out this month.

For reasons I still don't quite understand, Bruce Boxleitner acquires Jeff Bridges help in breaking into the ENCOM corporation, during which Bridges is accidentally zapped into a computer game, where he helps Tron to free the computer world from an evil dictator, played by David Warner.

As I correctly guessed that Tron:Legacy would be the second surprise film at the SeeFilmFirst bloggers event, I decided to familiarise myself with the first film. I remembered seeing this when I was young, but couldn't remember anything about it other than the light cycles and the feeling of disappointment when it had finished. Expecting to enjoy it more as an adult, that feeling of disappointment quickly returned.

The idea for the first Tron was genius and years ahead of it's time. The visuals were extremely impressive given the technology of the time, but the film is let down by a rather rubbish and confusing storyline. I spent the first 30 minutes waiting for them to enter the digital world, and the final hour wishing they never bothered.

The effects have dated considerably badly. You can tell it's not computer animation, but is instead just normal hand drawn animation drawn to look like a computer made it. The rotoscoping techniques, where they actually paint on the film to create the glowing suits does however look really good.

Jeff Bridges is one cinema's greatest actors, but in the late eighties and early nineties, he seemed to be a curse to any film he was in. Even though the films were good and he was excellent in them, they always seemed to flop badly. Both Peter Weir and Ridley Scott had rare flops after casting him in Fearless and White Squall, while audiences also stayed away from Tucker: The Man And His Dream and American Heart. Fortunately, The Coen Brothers turned him into an acting god by casting him as The Dude in The Big Lebowski and reminded people what they were missing. He's as good as can be expected in this, playing Flynn as a likable, carefree spirit enjoying his time in the digital world. Bruce Boxleiter, Cindy Morgan and David Warner are also good in their dual roles.

David Warner himself if also one of cinema's greats. He's turned up in such classic films as Straw Dogs, Time Bandits and The Omen, where he was given one of cinema's most iconic death scenes. In Tron, he plays the head of ENCOM, the company that the characters try and break into, as well as a commander in the TRON digital world. He also plays the Master Control Program, which bears a remarkable resemblance to GOD in South Park. He is good in a role that could have been embarrassing, displaying the right amount of stuffiness and managing to look menacing in a rather ridiculous outfit.

The problems with Tron is that the film doesn't actually make much sense, and other than the Light-Cycle games, isn't actually that much fun. The pace is quite plodding and confusing and as great as the visuals are, you need a film to be something more than just looking good to enjoy it.

IMDB gives Tron 6.7, but I'd give it about 6. You can see how they tried to revolutionise cinema, and why they failed. Maybe the sequel will be better.

The Next Three Days

The Next Three Days is the latest film from by Paul Haggis (Writer, Director of surprise Oscar winner Crash, Creator of classic Canadian Mountie TV series Due South, and writer of the last 2 James Bond movies), and stars Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Robin Hood) and Elizabeth Banks (Slither, The 40 year Old Virgin, Zack And Miri Make A Porno). It is a remake of the french film Anything For Her.

Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks are a happily married couple whose life is turned upside down when she is found guilty of murdering her boss. Believing she is innocent, Crowe attempts to break her out of prison.

I saw this film as part of a special day devoted to online bloggers in association with SeeFilmFirst held at The Empire cinema in Leicester Square. Even though I didn't have a blog, I still bought a ticket as it looked like it would be interesting. We knew we would be watching 2 films during the day, but we weren't told what they were until we were inside the event. The only clues we had were that one was out in December and the other in January. One was in 3D and one hadn't even been released in America yet. My guesses were that the 2 films would be Tron:Legacy and Green Hornet. I was half right.

When they announced that the first film was going to be The Next Three Days, I think everyone in the audience was as surprised as I was as I am pretty sure no-one had correctly guessed it would be that. I personally was a little disappointed at the announcement as I knew the film had received average reviews and disappointing box office. I was relieved that it wasn't Gulliver's Travels, which looks just plain awful.

However, now that I've seen it, I have to admit that I really enjoyed it. Paul Haggis is a very talented film-maker so I should have trusted that he would deliver.

The main problem that I think the film faced when failing to find an audience in America was that it starred Russell Crowe. Russell Crowe is an excellent actor, and has never put in a bad performance, however, people don't like him. He comes across as a bit of a dick in real life, taking everything too seriously, lacking in a sense of humour and prone to violent outbursts. In this film, he plays an everyman type role and he plays it well, but people don't like to see Russell Crowe play normal. As nice as his character is, they still subconsciously think "Russell Crowe is a dick who is just playing nice" when they watch him. It's like if Jason Statham played an average guy who gets caught up in a fight, you know he'd kick their ass as he's The Transporter. Despite that subconscious knowing, you are still never really sure if he's going to succeed, and you still root for him as the story unfolds without being too implausible.

Another thing you are never sure of is whether or not his wife is actually guilty. Elizabeth Banks is a great actress who is coming away from the comedic roles that she is mainly associated with. It's great to see her in something more dramatic and she is excellent in this film. Her performance constantly had you thinking "Yes, she definitely did it" one moment, then "Hmmn, maybe not" the next without being too obvious either way.

One thing I didn't understand with the film though was why it was called The Next Three Days.The film starts in the middle, then goes back in time to The Last Three Years. I mis-read the words at that point and thought it said The Last Three Days, so couldn't understand how what was happening occurred over such a short amount of time. When the title The Last Three Months appeared about 30 minutes later, I realised my mistake. When we did get to the moment at the start of the film, I was expecting to see the title The Next Three Days, but it failed to appear. Strange.

On the whole, the film is extremely enjoyable. Does he succeed in getting her out of jail? Was she guilty all along? I'm not telling, you will have to see the film to find out, just don't let the fact that it stars Russell Crowe put you off seeing it. He's too good an actor to be unbelievable in something.

Current IMDB rating is 7.3, and I think I'm going to have to agree with that. A solid enjoyable film that doesn't rely on implausible occurrences that take away from the realism of what is happening. Good acting and likeable characters that you root for. Some good twists and turns and the film progresses and a fun couple of hours.

Quick introduction

Hi everybody.

Quick introduction that I am sure I'm going to look back on in the future and squirm with embarrassment when I read it again, but I've got to start somewhere, so I may as well start here. Hopefully, my other posts will be funnier, have photos attached and all sorts of jazzy exciting fonts, but I've got to learn how to simply post something first, so sorry for the lameness.

My name is Aaron Masters, and I am a film lover living in South London, England. I watch a lot of films and own a lot of dvd's. As I have a Cineworld Unlimited card that allows me to watch as many films as I want for only £17 a month, I regularly watch 3 or 4 films in one day at least once a month if I'm not doing anything else. Hopefully, I can put a quick review of every film I see from now on into this blog, even if it's just a quick line or 2.

Yesterday, I saw a preview of Tron:Legacy, with the director in attendance. This was part of a special day devoted to online film bloggers and reviewers, which inspired me to create my own. The review of Tron:Legacy will come later, after the official world premiere as they have put an embargo on any reviews until after that had ended. We also saw Russell Crowe's The Next Three Days, which I will try and review first.

Bye for now.

Sparklemotion.