| by Bel | 3.12pm NZ time |

A film that disappointed you the most

I hated the ending of Coraline. SPOILERS AHOY (duhh).

 The book, and graphic novel, of Coraline is a great read, if a little scary for younger kids. Neil Gaiman has a knack for children's books which push at the boundaries of what parents are comfortable with.

The film version is pretty good, if you don't mind the strange puppetry style. But what really bugged me was the introduction of Wybie, the boy living next door. He's not in the book at all but is a key player in the film.

Neil Gaiman has responded in interviews by saying that the creation of a completely new character was an essential cinematic device. In the book version, Coraline is alone but the reader has access to her thoughts. They needed somebody for her to speak to in the film to avoid dominating the scenes with voice-over or clunky exposition.

Ok, sure. But sheesh - did they have to also write in a boy-saves-the-day moment in the film's climatic scene??

Coraline, who has managed to think for herself and risk all sorts of dangers throughout the story, is rescued by Wybie at a crucial final moment of the film. I feel that it would have been far more satisfying, and true to Coraline's character, if she had been able to extricate herself. Instead, Wybie's arc is completed by his managing to stop everything from plummeting into disaster when Coraline can't.

MESSAGE: Don't worry, as long as there's a boy around, all will be well!

Sigh.

This was also my first - and only - experience of watching a 3D DVD at home. It was awful. We re-started the film in normal 2D after only a few minutes. Gahhh.

| by Bel | 9.00am NZ time |

I have been dying my hair non-stop for over a decade now. My mousy blonde days are long behind as I successfully trick the world into believing I am a brunette, thanks to chemicals.

But at the start of this year, I had hairdresser disaster where my "warm chocolate brown" was interpreted as a sort of burgundy purple. The re-do appointment left me with very dark hair, which wasn't in very good condition.

And before long, this happened:

Regrowth. *shudder*

I was contemplating buying a home dye to just try and override everything. But then the box of Colour B4 (official website) caught my eye. It was more expensive than most supermarket box dyes, but online reviews were pretty positive.

I splashed out, figuring that things couldn't get any worse.

I bought the "Extra Strength" variety as this was recommended for removal of darker shades or when your hair has been dyed several times. Check and check. The result was a pleasingly distinct change in colour for much less cost than getting it stripped out by a professional.

My main warning with this product is that it stinks. Like, stinks. I've mostly used nice ammonia-free dyes lately but hadn't forgotten that hair dye usually has a weird toxic smell. However this stench was beyond anything ever before.

Rotting eggs is the best way to describe it.

And to boot, you have to leave the solution in for 45 minutes. Yes, nearly an hour of sitting around with a stinky rotten odour in close proximity to my nose.

I also felt self-conscious over the next week that when my hair was wet, the smell reemerged. I'm not sure if this was me being hyper sensitive or not! I would suggest following up the hair dye removal with a couple of days of deep conditioning treatments if you are equally paranoid.

The change was noticeable straight away, even while my hair was still wet. It was several shades lighter than before, no distinct regrowth - and the streak in my hair was a bleached white colour.

At first it seemed my hair had taken on a ginger look, but it soon settled down to a more natural light brown.

Here is a pic I took the next day to send to Lou:

I would recommend Colour B4 for remedying any hair dye disasters you might have, or for when you are took broke to get your roots down and just want a change.

Oh and as you can see, I didn't succumb to temptation and my hair is still long!

| by Lou | 7:00am UK time |

A film that disappointed you the most

I would put The Time Traveller's Wife here but a) I sort of knew it was going to be shit, and b) it was so shit that it actually pains me to talk about it. I just kind of have to pretend that The Time Traveller's Wife is the-best-book-never-to-be-made-into-a-film, as if it never happened and someday maybe someone talented who actually understands what is so great about the book will give it the adaptation that it deserves.

Here instead is a disappointment that brings up no sense of horror but was rather just one of those "Oh? This is what everyone has been raving about? Really?" moments. At the risk of being lynched because I'm sure you were one of the people raving about it... Here goes:

I was really disappointed by the film Up.

Yes, the opening of the film is wonderful. It would make The World's Best Short Film Ever. And the idea of someone attaching balloons to their house and flying away is fantastic. And the talking dog is clever and hilarious.

But after that... well, didn't you think that after they landed it all got really boring? And that all the crazy man/ jungle/ dog shit was just plain stupid and pointless? And that the high emotionality of the first 10 minutes sort of just emphasises how empty the second half of the film is?



Okay, just sayin'...

| by Lou | 11:05am UK time |

A film that you used to love but now hate


I've been mulling over this and can't think of a single one.

You see, there are films that I used to love that I now instinctually avoid (one can assume that one's 30-year-old self will react quite different to Forrest Gump than one's 14-year-old self), and there are films I used to love that I now also love for their absolute cheese (top of the list here is Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves).

So instead of trying to force myself to come up with one I am going to use today to talk about something completely different.

The other day I watched The Philadelphia Stoy, which has featured on both Bel and Sonal's lists as a much-loved film.

Imagine my surprise when I discover that my much loved film High Society is actually a musical remake of The Philadelphia Story (the original film itself being an adaptation of the play).

Not particuarly remarkable, and in fact I'm sure most everyone familiar with either film already knew this... but! Isn't it weird that two films made 16 years apart should have the same Little Sister and the same Uncle Willie?

Were they suspended in time hanging out in the mansion waiting for the next film crew to arrive?

I present the evidence:

"Virginia Weidler" as Dinah Lord in 1940:




"Lydia Reed" as Caroline Leed in 1956:




"Roland Young" as Uncle Willie in 1940:




"Louis Calhern" as Uncle Willie in 1956:




Adding colour doesn't fool me!


For those who have seen neither film, I recommend going in chronological order. Knowing the story won't ditract from the gloriousness of seeing Sinatra and Crosby in full swing, whereas the reverse does deteriorate the gloriousness of seeing Katherine Hepburn in top form.

| by Bel | 11.29am NZ time |

A film that you used to love but now hate

Let me clarify immediately. I do not hate Donnie Darko. I love Donnie Darko and always will.

What I hate is the re-release "director's cut" version of Donnie Darko.

The original film had a very short run at the cinema and achieved its cult following after it came out on DVD. I was lucky enough to catch it at the NZ International Film Festival and was instantly smitten.

However, eventually Richard Kelly put together a "director's cut" version, stating that his debut had been let done by a lack of funds for special effects, music licensing etc.

I excitedly went to the movies in the middle of the day, expecting to joyously watch one of my favourite films.

Within moments my nerdy heart sunk and I knew I was going to experience nothing but disappointment. Because that iconic and perfectly balanced opening sequence, of Donnie waking on the ridge-top road and cycling back down to his home, had been mutilated beyond repair: they'd stuck a different song on. No more Echo and the Bunnymen. No more warm-fuzzy feelings from that first three minutes of screentime.

And from there it only got worse. Digital effects were used to overlay pages from Roberta Sparrow's book, making the mysterious time travel themes condescendingly obvious.

The intrigue and ambiguity which made the original so compelling was stripped right out, and instead we got to watch completely thought-unprovoking screen-saver-esque footage to spell out the plot.

Any and all deleted scenes were jammed back in, making the film 1) longer and 2) cluttered with unnecessary detail on characters which the viewer has already embraced.

There may be a chance that there's still people out there who haven't see Donnie Darko at all. I would implore that you seek out the original release and avoid the director's cut version like the plague.

If you would like to read more on the differences between the Donnie Darkos, check out other irate fans here and here.

(And let's not even mention the straight-to-video "sequel".)