I'm reading "we-think" and I saw [Rec] at the cinema - yeah. Yeah, quite good. Errm, no, I mean the book. No. No, it was okay b- it was - no, the book is good, I - yeah - I was talking about the film. The film. [Rec]. Yeah. Yeah it's in the cinema now. Oh, it might be limited release, not sure. Err, Spanish I think. Yeah. Yeah, you know... not really. I would say that it was mostly overhyped. Yeah it was. Very much like Blair Witch in places. Shaky cam and that. No, I never saw cloverfield but - bu - but yeah, that's what I heard so -
- so, I -
- okay, well, I'll be around so if you want to chat ag -
-right, bye then, bye
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Why haven't you become Charlie's myspace friend? He only has one friend.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I saw a film called 'blood car'. It was good.
[ 19.04.2008, 11:07: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I saw an Opera called "The Minotaur". It wasn't great.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
tonight I may as well go and watch son of rambow. stay tuned.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
I'm going to watch Son of Rambow today - at a 'parent and baby screening'. Can you believe this shit...a cinema full of mewling, puking savages working in unison to prevent you following a single word of dialogue as Dolby surround sound buffets your poor mind so it's incapable of telling you how to deal with the unhappy gaybe in your arms.
And you pay for the privilege.
It promises to be as far removed from the traditional going to the cinema experience as humanly possible.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
what's the point?
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I’m no baby expert but aren’t Biggie and Smalls still very much in the ‘baby’ rather then ‘child’ category? Do they actually watch films? Or is this just going to be deeply unpleasant for you and totally meaningless for them?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Can you believe this shit...a cinema full of mewling, puking savages working in unison to prevent you following a single word of dialogue...
It promises to be as far removed from the traditional going to the cinema experience as humanly possible.
You've obviously never been to the Vue at Basingstoke.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I also would like to see In Bruges. I have a girlfriend, and she saw Happy go Lucky. She said that she didn't think I'd like it. Fun fact: The main character lives on the same road that I used to live on, and now jonesy and scrawny both live on.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I went to a parent and baby screening of some film. I can't remember the plot, or even what the film was, as it was such a cacophany my entire brain shut down. Awful.
In other news, I like the Apprentice, although all those left in it are unredeemable shits.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: I’m no baby expert but aren’t Biggie and Smalls still very much in the ‘baby’ rather then ‘child’ category? Do they actually watch films? Or is this just going to be deeply unpleasant for you and totally meaningless for them?
The second one. 'Parent and baby' screenings are to give the chance to new parents to - you know - get out the house a bit, and by lumping them all into the same screening it discourages them from bringing a young baby into 'regular' showings. It's an OK idea, I reckon. If nothing else it's got to be an absolute goldmine pulling opportunity. Jonesy will probably be the only bloke there and as long as he trains himself to say a few lines like "Gosh... you mean he doesn't help out at all?" and "I don't see it as giving up work - to my mind raising a child is the most important and rewarding job a person can do" and if he wants to push the boat out something along the lines of "Since their mother left they're all I have. Of course I'd love to have someone take care me for a change, but - haha - seriously, I feel luckier than most people", then he'll be knee deep in late-twenties clunge before he even collects his popcorn.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Good luck Jonsey!
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Benwah, definitely go and see In Bruges! I saw it on Sunday and it was excellent. In parts laugh out loud absurd, in parts moving, in other parts violent. Highly recommended, 4 Garys.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
It was alright. Better than being in the house. Son of Rainbow 7 out of 10.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Get any action? You were gone for a while.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Action's what got me in this fucking mess in the first place.
[ 22.04.2008, 10:08: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
OK, look. I know you're tired and probably angry, but I don't want to hear you talking about action like that again.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Yeah. I have three action-related problems, and I would never say a word against action.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Sorry Action. It's true: you're all good. And deep down, I love those little action men, damnit.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
7/10 seems fair for son of rambow. Typical british comedy-drama, with clunky dialogue being compensated for with some nice shot compositions. You could see where Jenning's history with promos came into effect.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
nearly done with season 2 or The Wire. One more episode to go. So far, the thumbs are aloft, but it doesn't rival the first series for awesomeness.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I preferred the second season; Frank Sobotka has been pretty much my favourite character in the whole show.
I watched Superbad last night, and - lol - it should have been retitled 'Pretty Bad'. I was a bit bewildered cuz it seemed to have a lot of praise from some fairly credible quarters (eg, kovacs) but was mostly the same old shit. There were a couple of gross out gags that didn't really make any sense, like a woman rubbing period over this dude's leg while she was dancing with him, like she was haemorraging or something. Then someone goes "Hey you've got blood on your trousers. Were you dancing with a girl? Oh my god that's period!" as though that was the first thing that would occur to you if you saw a small red stain on a man's thigh. The plot hinges on at least three stupid co-incidences and the movie continues that wearisome shit where geeky guys get with fit chicks. How can anyone seriously churn out a film where the guys are accepted for their nerdy loveability but the chicks that go with them are just plain old gorgeous babes. Even Juno had this problem: the lead character kept pretending that she was some sort of misfit even though she bwas hotter than the surface of the sun.
Bah! Anyway. Maybe I'm getting too old for this sort of thing, but Superbad didn't really impress me. It seemed like a few guys wanted to make a movie for the love of reliving an imaginary youth, but didn't really have any ideas in terms of story or unusual characters. Compared to stuff like Dazed and Confused or 10 Things I Hate About You, Stupidbad is really fucking average.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I preferred the second season; Frank Sobotka has been pretty much my favourite character in the whole show.
No, he looks like a large hairy baby.
The best character so far is Rawls. And the worst is Ziggy. That dude was a dick. He also reminded me slightly of me. Pathetic, needy and weak willed. Always trying to be the centre of attention, pissing everybody off.
[ 24.04.2008, 05:44: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
actually maybe not Rawls. I suppose it's got to be Omar, even if that's a totally obvious choice.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
I've been lent the whole first series of Heroes which I have to watch before 9.50 pm because the second series starts then. That's a serious commitment of time so is it worth it?
For my reading, I read A Thousand Splendid Suns and found it gruelling but absorbing. The Kite Runner didn't stick in my mind much afterwards, but this book isn't shifting. Maybe it's because I'm a woman and can identify more; don't know. Anyone else read it?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: And the worst is Ziggy. That dude was a dick. He also reminded me slightly of me. Pathetic, needy and weak willed. Always trying to be the centre of attention, pissing everybody off.
I know what you mean, but doesn't that sort of make him a great character? I watched him and thought "Christ, that's probably exactly how I'd turn out if I grew up in his situation". He's an awful twerp, and you wouldn't want to spend time with him, but I watching him made me feel uncomfortable for the best possible reasons.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah but by worst character, I mean, the character I like the least, not the least well crafted character. But we seem to be on similar pages here.
[ 24.04.2008, 06:06: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Finished Season 2 of The Wire. Good ending. Got Season 3. Good packaging, finally.
I watched The Abyss at the weekend. Can you Adam and Eve that I'd never seen that jazz before? Quite good. I liked Kyle Reece from The Terminator as the nutjob agent. And I liked the end where Ed Harris kept falling deeper and deeper down into the ocean. I definitely had a few moments where thinking about just how deep it goes weirded me out. Like, if you were over a mile beneath the surface, in the pitch black, alone, freezing, with limited air. That's some scary shit. The ending was stupid though.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
almost did season 4 again (1 episode left). season five next weekend.
cedric daniels and roland prezbyaldsjfhweiurysdski.
Posted by Pepper (Member # 353) on :
Did you see the regular version of The Abyss, Kanye, or the director's cut? I much preferred the ending of the latter.
This weekend I have watched most of series 3 of My Name is Earl, and been a bit disappointed.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
how would I know the difference between the two?
eta:IMDB tells me that it was the normal version, not the special edition.
[ 28.04.2008, 09:55: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Pepper (Member # 353) on :
Ah, the second version is about half an hour longer and explains what the aliens were planning to do (watery devastation cos humans are so warmongery) and why they didn't (Bud's love for his missus).
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Right. I can't see how that would make it better though.
Posted by Pepper (Member # 353) on :
It did though.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I can't see how that happened.
Posted by Pepper (Member # 353) on :
And yet it did. I wouldn't lie about it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I'm sure you think you're telling the truth.
Posted by Pepper (Member # 353) on :
Phew, that's good. I'd hate to fall out about it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hmm.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I went to see it when it came out, whenever that was (1989ish) in France's fashionable Aix en Provence, with a half-French/half English friend, and his French girlfriend. The film was dubbed into French, I think. I don't remember. What I do remember is halfway through the film Isabelle announcing that before we'd left the house she had dropped some acid, and was now in the middle of a pretty mental trip. I spent the rest of the film wondering what it was like for her, watching that, on acid.
There'd be one really easy way to find out, I suppose.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Went to see Irn Mn last friday and quite enjoyed it. It's about the safest, least risk-taking summer blockbuster a human being could conceive of.
Appropriately enough for Marvel's first movie Iron Man feels like it was created with a copy of My Big Book Of Film-making open on the table in front of them, so closely does it run to formula. The special effects are solid, but again you get the sense they were playing well within boundaries they knew they could achieve. There's never a moment like in the freeway chase of Matrix Two where you get the sense that the filmaker's imagination exceeded the ability of the effects team, and that sense of lack of ambition lends a slight disappointment.
On the other hand, Robert Downey Junior's performance is fun, and the suit looks pretty cool and none of the action sequences out-stay their welcome. Jeff Bridges is pretty good, even though he's not really given much to do other than be creepy, and a lot of the chicks are fit.
I don't know. It's such a wafer-light movie there's not much to say about it. You never really get the sense that Stark is an asshole before his epiphany. Basically he spends his time nobbing piping hot chicks, drinking, driving fast cars and making cool stuff that kills foreigners. It's hard to hate someone who's living the dream to that degree, and the film seems to find it hard to condemn him too. Ah well.
It feels like a solid three-star movie all the way through, fun and pacy without ever being inventive or really exciting, and if your attention wanders during the movie you can spend your time thinking of synonyms for 'quite good'.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i watched the shining on the big screen at the nft on tuesday. that was mindblowing. not the first time i've seen it or anything, but experiencing it so big and loud... i could almost do that every day and never get bored. everything about it makes a mockery of what our 'hottest directors' are currently turning out. more than anything else, it gets its fucking balls out and doesn't flinch for a second. no nods, no smartassness, nothing cool, nothing added. lean, tight, raw and so beautifully angry. films about relationships don't get any more honest and ugly. loved it.
[ 08.05.2008, 09:57: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Kubrick, though. It's not really fair to compare other directors to Kubrick. People would just get disheartened. I'd love to see The Shining on the big screen, though. Any of them really. Watching Barry Lyndon on DVD all I could think of was how brilliant it'd look in the cinema, how much more sense it would make. Or, if people are to be believed, you could just watch it on your i-pod and hold it really close to your face.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's hard not to come out of it feeling like you've just discovered what cinema is actually about.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I was lucky enough to catch A Clockwork Orange in the cinema when it was re released and remember feeling similarly disheartened by the kind of tripe that gets churned out these days.
I'd love to be able to see Apocalypse Now on the big screen as well. Much as I love that film, you do get the sense that you're missing the full experience even on a reasonable home theatre system.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah, I saw Clockwork Orange on the big screen - the sort of... completeness of its vision really leaps out at you. God this is making me want to watch a bunch of Kubrick films. I only saw 2001 for the first time about two years ago, and afterwards the only film I wanted to watch was 2001, again. I know what Benway means about feeling like you could watch these things every day and not get bored. Man, I'm going over it my head now. Images like the wide shot of Jack in his writing hall, bouncing the ball against the wall, or the incredible blue tinged shot of the side of the hotel with the snow drifted against it, enabling the escape.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the most powerful scene for me this time around was when she goes down and checks out the 'novel' with the baseball bat, and then he turns up and goes nuts.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
The symmetry! The fucking symmetry.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Kubrick, though. It's not really fair to compare other directors to Kubrick. People would just get disheartened.
I think Raja Gosnell is going to make you eat your words. This film looks amazing.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched the new Neil Marshall film last night. It's called Doomsday. It's not so good. In fact, it's fucking terrible.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I shame. I really liked Dog Soldiers and fucking loved The Descent.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Descent was ace. Once the initial 20 minutes of female Pepsi Max bullshit was out the way it got pretty good, pretty fast, and was actually quite creepy. I was really looking forward to watching Doomsday. Ah well, I'll watch it anyway.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
you might like it thorn. It's as close to a film involving people firing shotguns into buses full of exploding cheerleaders as you're likely to get. Only it's futuristic ninja soldiers in Bentleys, firing machine guns into exploding buses full of cybergoth punk cannibals and knights on horseback, set in a post apocalyptic glasgow that's actually a cross between Xena Warrior Princess, Aliens, Escape from New York, Mad Max 2, and a luxury car advert. I mean if you can handle that, going at 1000 miles an hour, with somebody getting their head crushed or removed every 10 seconds then you'll love it.
I found it empty and stupid.
[ 09.05.2008, 11:08: Message edited by: Jimmy Big Nuts ]
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
does sound alright, I have to say.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Even though that post contains a quite an obvious insult to me, yeah that does sound right up my street.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
That wasn't supposed to be an insult, I just know that you will, for example, go to watch AvP at the cinema, which means you have a higher tolerance for shitty action films than I do. I like shit films well enough, but not action films.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
not with this much action, anyway. And not so totally lacking any character or plot or charm as Doomsday.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That's true, although I only went to see AVP2:R because Mikey said he was looking forward to me writing about it. Because I was unemployed at the time going to watch it so I could write about it for here gave me a sense of self worth. Pathetic as it is, I actually took a notepad into the cinema with me, and the hour I spent afterwards sitting in the pub and drafting the write-up probably would have been the highlight of my week.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
We got our wires crossed there, and it all got a bit edgy.
[ 09.05.2008, 11:44: Message edited by: Jimmy Big Nuts ]
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
Maybe I should watch The Descent again, I seem to recall finding it to be tedious utterly-derivative and unengaging shite when I rented it, and I'm hardly the most demanding of viewers.
If you like a bit of mindless, empty-headed action, the sort which makes AvP look like fucking Orwell crossed with Kubrick, then I highly recommend Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror (review copy available upon request), utterly stupid in an intentionally tongue-in-cheek way, but highly watchable provided you disengage all cognitive processes in advance..
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
OK, so I went to see Doomsday on Saturday as recommended by Dr Benway, and fuck me it's bad, in a really stupid kind of way.
Firstly, there's way too much exposition. The first five minutes are spent with a narrator explaining how there was a viral outbreak in Scotland and they had to rebuild Hadrian's Wall to keep all the Scots in. Then the virus outbreak happens in London and they have to send a team of redshirts into Scotland to find out how there are survivors. The thing is, the virus schtick is kind of irrelevant. If you want to create a vision of Glasgow that's full of honking, terrifying savages with terrible hair and frightening tattoos you don't really need to explain it away with a virus thing. It could just be Glasgow. Just have them brick up Scotland because it's a good idea anyway and I'm sure people will be prepared to believe the place will descend into this kind of apocalyptic wasteland within about ten or fifteen minutes. And just have the team go into the hotzone looking for a shortbread recipe or something. Then the rest of the film could play out as it is.
If that's what you want, anyway, because Doomsday is the most bewilderingly absurd film I've seen in my life. It reminds me of the kind fo thing I wrote when I was twelve - nonsensical episodic stories lurching from one stolen idea to the next, changing direction everytime I saw a new film at the cinema. It's the kind of thing you should show drunk people at parties and they would be like, "Man those films were awful last night" and you'd say "No - just one film" and they'd screw their face up and say "No, there were several films - one was a shit mad-max rip off with this stupid cyberpunk cannibals, and then there was some medieval film that pilfered Gladiator and Lord of the Rings - how could that possibly be the same film as the hi-tech sci-fi film, you durr brain, and then there was a film with a car chase involving a brand new Bentley - how could that have been in the same film that would be ridiculous."
I would have loved, loved this totally bananas lurching from one premise to another, if it hadn't been so colossally unimaginative. That's what I didn't get about it - why Neil Marshall thought it would work if he just stapled together other people's ideas wholesale. It made me wonder if he was going for a kind of Tarantino thing without really understanding how something like Kill Bill works.
Plus, he seemed determined to steal the very worst bits of films. There's the scrungy Cavegirl dance from Matrix Reloaded, that everyone hated, and when they were running from the cast of Mad Max to catch a steam train I thought - yes. If you're going to steal from a Mad Max film why not make it Thunderdome the shit one that everyone hates?
The word that kept resounding in my head was 'folly'. Like he was shit-hot after the Descent and just kind of went a bit mad with his budget. Or maybe he was just trying to create a show-reel to get him some work on big-budget American films - alot of the set-pieces seemed designed to show that he could 'do' sword fights or car chases (he can't, incidentally - the editing in the car chase at the end is total guff).
So there we have it. Doomsday, as recommended by Dr Benway. I think that shows us what we can expect from his recommendations in the future.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I did say. I'd be pissed off if I had to actually pay to see it.
On Friday, during a vodka and energy drink binge round a friends' house, I watched a short film called "cutting moments" that was good. Probably the most effective woman-cutting-off-own-lips-with-scissors scene I've witnessed.
[ 11.05.2008, 06:56: Message edited by: Jimmy Big Nuts ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
See this knob?
I paid good money to see him play. He was fucking shit. I doubt I will ever again clap eyes on anyone with more of a hard on for themselves. Jonathan Richman is totally in-fucking-love with himself. What a boring, self-absorbed wanker. His set was about fifty minutes long and he only played two songs I recognised (Lesbian Bar and Pablo Picasso) and he rendered them worthless by gurning and cavorting throughout, while his adoring fan-club of dribbling middle-class yahoos dribbled and yahooed. Do you know what he did that really annoyed me? He sang the same dull-ass song three times, in different languages. I could barely tolerate the song the first time, yet another of his endless droning ballads about unrequited teenage love, which he would interrupt with tangential observations on the quirkiness of life. He finally trudged to the end, he kept strumming the hook... and I realised I was in trouble. "Hey, gang! Tell ya what, how about I sing it again... in French?" They yahooed. He sang. He made it to the end, again, and... "Hey, gang! Tell ya what, how about I sing it again... in Italian?"
And he did.
After about a half an hour of this I shouted out "Play a hit!" I flatter myself that the next song he played was a riposte to my rudeness. It was called 'Day Old Bread', about how old songs are like day old bread and nobody except 'cynical people' want anything to do with day old bread. No. I don't know what he was on about either. But he sang 'Day Old Bread' again in Spanish, too.
In between he'd do little dances for applause. And make 'Aw, Shucks, ME?' faces when the audience erupted at his every gesture and sneeze.
It was a truly appalling night.
I now HATE Jonathan Richman.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I had not heard of him until just now, but Im pretty sure I hate him as well.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Even his surname is smug.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Over the weekend I watched the first disk of a Showtime tv series (2005) called Weeds. I enjoyed it immensely. I know I'm a little bit late to the party on this one, but did anyone else see this show when it was on?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Is that the one about how it's OK to be a drug dealer if you're a white woman using it as a way of holding onto her upper-middle class lifestyle?
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Yeah. But it is a comedy for Christs sake...not a lesson in how to live your life...
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Yep. It is quite enjoyable, but you do find yourself thinking that getting rid of the live in housekeeper would be a good way of saving money.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
For the love of god...you don't analyze a show like this...you just enjoy it. wtf.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ralph: Yeah. But it is a comedy for Christs sake...not a lesson in how to live your life...
Yeah, but you know... my impression is that central to its concept and success is an embodiment of a hypocrisy that might be painful to witness over and over again. That while impoverished, black drug dealers are a terrifying social evil a wealthy white one might be quite cute and amusing. LOl! No it's ok, because she's one of us. Just a bit roguish. She's not dangerous like those savage black men.
I don't know how much saying 'It's a comedy' lets it off the hook either, unless it's actually using comedy to attack this complacency on the part of the viewer. If she occasionally strung up one of her dealers that was stealing from her and took a chainsaw to his limbs, then that would be a pretty smart ploy, and would change my pre-conceptions of the programme. But if it's 'just a comedy' and uses its supposed innocuousness to abdicate responsibility for playing up to this hypocrisy, then I'd find that quite insidious and unpleasant to watch.
[ 12.05.2008, 07:43: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That while impoverished, black drug dealers are a terrifying social evil a wealthy white one might be quite cute and amusing. LOl!
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same show. The black drug dealers in the show I've been watching haven't been portrayed as a terrifying social evil -- quite the opposite really. They're quite loveable and humorous. I find myself wishing that I still got high and was able to hang out with them for an afternoon...
[ 12.05.2008, 07:50: Message edited by: ralph ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
With that line I was thinking about the wider representation of drug dealing in Western culture in general, rather than in Weeds, which I haven't seen.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
You haven't seen it? Mother. Fucker.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: See this knob?
did he do Egyptian Reggae? That would've made it all worthwhile. Especially if he brought on Hot Gossip and the Camel for it... ah yeeeeah. Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
This guy reckons that after WWII a front was set up for all the top Nazi scientists and top Nazi spies. That front was... the CIA! America's military-industrial complex needed the spies to keep an eye on the Reds (using their pre-existing second-to-none espionage network) and they wanted the scientists to keep working on the WMDs and UFOs they'd been pioneering, but most importantly some sort of super-efficient zero-point power source. Tesla gets a heads up and the assassination of JFK is explained. I thoroughly recommend this book to likeminded cranks and borderline-alcoholic-pseudo-conspirologists.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: did he do Egyptian Reggae?
No. He didn't. And even if he had I suspect he would have minced around doing some sort of irritating, fey sand-dance. And then I would've had to kill him.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
no camel then?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: no camel then?
You have no idea what a disappointing evening that was. I really liked Jonathan Richman until Friday night. Now I despise him. I want him dead.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
I could never call myself a fan, I own one album - the one he did with the Modern Lovers (with, surprise, Egyptian Reggae on it) and I kind of liked the naive charm, but could quite understand how that could rapidly become tiresome.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
This is nice. My two favorite internet people bonding. Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Way to break the ice Rolph.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Sorry man.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
watched The Wire series 3. Very good. Still, I was after "that" happened.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I watched Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom yesterday afternoon, followed by David Lynch's Blue Velvet. Both start with a musical number featuring a female singer, but after that they diverge slightly. I'll give them a total of eight blacke boys.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched Last Crusade last night and spent the whole time wishing that I was playing the Amiga 500 adventure game, rather than watching the film. It's not a good film. It just doesn't have the sinister edge that Lost Ark managed to hold on to. Temple of Doom is even worse. I'm kind of curious about the new one though.
[ 19.05.2008, 06:37: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Temple of Doom is pretty awful isn't it. If it wasn't for the minecart chase at the end, it would be utterly pap. I'd say Crusade is better, mostly because it has an airship, and airships are fucking awesome. But also because it has probably one of the most gruesome deaths you'll find in a supposed family film.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the new Jones film though. I might even raid the lost piggybank (see what I did there?) to scrape together enough money to go and see it at the cinema.
In other news, I watched Lake Placid the other night and found it to be a steamy pile of poop. I'm not sure why this surprised me really. Maybe I just expected better of Bill Pullman.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I watched AvPR at the weekend. I couldn't make out much, visually the film is gash. The Masketeers deemed it 'Shit' and 'Not as good as Predator'.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: watched The Wire series 3. Very good. Still, I was after "that" happened.
I've given the Wire one and a half series, and just cannot like it - I find it a little bit smug really. The whole chess analogy from series one was a rip off of that film with Samuel L Jackson where he teaches his kid to play chess (juice?) and they acted all 'look how clever we are by likening the streets to the chess board' about it. It's not just that though, it's just the general air of them being so assured in the fact that they are making 'something great' - it must just be the most horrible lovey-wank-fest on set.
I also tried to watch Southland Tales, managed 40 minutes before Felix woke up and demanded some attention, but not sure it's any good either - this one suffers from self-awareness - like Men In Black - the first one worked because Tommy Lee Jones played it straight, but the second, too self aware, Southland Tales is like some geeky goth version of Men in Black II
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
The Wire is the only series I've been able to get into, and I'll admit that while it's the characters and climactic plots that keep me coming back, satisfaction is derived from the fact that it's very angry and unwilling to make the judgements that could be expected. In that sense it goes beyond entertainment and more into a fairly detailed sociological examination of the inherent classism / racism of the American Dream. That's where I get my jollies. Plus, hiphop, gunplay and re-ups. All in the game, String.
[ 19.05.2008, 09:42: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
i watched in bruges. it was pretty casually offensive. luckily it was a saturday evening and i was feeling pretty casual myself, so i enjoyed it a fair amount. if it had been, say, a wednesday, and i'd been feeling comensurately uptight, i might have found it less amusing. but you know. im mellowing with age. also, with the exception of one very discomforting line about a seesaw, a hilarious scene where colin farrell punches a woman in the face, and some fairly entry level homophobia, most of the offensiveness is at the expense of midgets, and i find it really difficult not to laugh at jokes about midgets, mainly because 'midget' is just a really funny word in and of itself, like 'gusset' or 'eggbound'.
anyway. yeah i liked in bruges it was good. i liked it more than happy- go- lucky, which is a cancer on the world of film, and has made me completely reassess my opinion of mike leigh. i used to quite like him, now i think he is a TOTAL CHANCER who hasnt made a really great film since meantime.
[ 19.05.2008, 11:27: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by missgolightly (Member # 34) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: watched The Wire series 3. Very good. Still, I was after "that" happened.
A definate " " moment, yeah. I briefly went into a sulk and threatened to never watch it again after that, but am glad I stuck with it. At least he was cool til the end.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by missgolightly:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: watched The Wire series 3. Very good. Still, I was after "that" happened.
A definate " " moment, yeah. I briefly went into a sulk and threatened to never watch it again after that, but am glad I stuck with it. At least he was cool til the end.
If you two are ing what I think you're ing, I couldn't agree less. That motherfucker had it coming and as for the supervillain team-up who took him out..? They'd make a great Coffin-Ed Johnson and Gravedigger Jones in any forthcoming screen adaptations of Himes' Harlem Detective novels.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
bah. It had to happen, but it's made me less excited about season four.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's annoying that you can't go on the web and start reading about The Wire, or looking for interviews, because the second you do, you come across giant spoilers.
Posted by Pink (Member # 459) on :
Don't worry about season 4. It was season 4 that made me think that this was the best television I had ever seen.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
See, that's the problem, I've heard season 4 is when it all comes together, and it becomes the best television show ever - but that's what 37 ish hours gone before you even get there - and season one just wasn't good for me - it might all come together beautifully, but it just isn't for me.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
i'm two away from finishing 5 (this weekend).
i'm with mask on the double team bad boys. he had it coming to him. i think i may have cheered.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Maxim Gorky has been to see the new films by Auguste and Louis Lumière.
quote: Last night I was in the Kingdom of Shadows.
If you only knew how strange it is to be there. It is a world without sound, without colour. Every thing there—the earth, the trees, the people, the water and the air—is dipped in monotonous grey. Grey rays of the sun across the grey sky, grey eyes in grey faces, and the leaves of the trees are ashen grey. It is not life but its shadow, It is not motion but its soundless spectre.
quote:Suddenly something clicks, everything vanishes and a train appears on the screen. It speeds straight at you — watch out!
It seems as though it will plunge into the darkness in which you sit, turning you into a ripped sack full of lacerated flesh and splintered bones, and crushing into dust and into broken fragments this hall and this building, so full of women, wine, music and vice.
Read the rest of his review *here.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
watched Eagle vs Shark. Kiwi version of Napoloean Dynamite. Looks / feels like an advert for mobile phones, a banhart-esque acoustic soundtrack plays prominently while two socially inept 'losers' with kooky creative streaks and an inability to live in an adult world have awkward conversations about hipster-approved subjects. Just like in NP, it's hard to determine when it's set, but all the same visual cues are present - cassette tapes, crappy old desktop PC's, cheap sportswear. The lead (played by one of the dudes from conchords) puts on an absurd act of misunderstood 'cool' in order to protect his vulnerable core, and humour is found in the seriousness of his demeanour and his own sense of pride contrasted with our own observations that he is very much not cool. But our enjoyment in mocking his social uncoolness in the face of misplaced self-belief is tempered by his seemingly effortless ability to absolutely nail the kind of things that hipster kids like - tweeness, re-contextualising the past, juvenilia.
the film is about this man meeting a woman who is very similar, and they go to his home town where he is scheduling a fight with a man who bullied him when they were in school. Once they get to the quiet community in rural new zealand that is his home town, he begins a humourously lame (yet endearingly enthusiastic) martial arts 'training' routine, and she gets to understand him, his family, and the community that has shaped him.
The performances are mannered and cold for the most part, and overall the film felt far too much like it was playing to a specific demographic, flattering the 'taste' of audience by rewarding them with a mirror into their own sense of identity.
[ 12.06.2008, 09:04: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Yeah, it was shit, eh?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Although, it did make me laugh when he attacked the bloke in the wheelchair.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I didn't really like the film at all. Seemed kind of heartless, even though it was going out of its way to appear sweet and cute.
However! Summer Heights High is on BBC THREE at the moment, and seeing that cheered me up again.
[ 12.06.2008, 09:17: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West:
However! Summer Heights High is on BBC THREE at the moment, and seeing that cheered me up again.
Summer Heights High? Fucking Ada. I tried watching that last night, what a load of old shit.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
no, it's good.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you're a homo.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Yeah. I don't know how that guy ever got the impression he was funny. Or talented. He's fucking rubbish. Utter fucking rubbish.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I think you've misfired there, BM. You're incorrect about him and the show. Might want to rectify that.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
No. And he's obviously deeply in awe of his own cuteness. The man's a total knob-end. Shit show 'starring' a shit **** .
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
He's like a cross between Norman Wisdom and Dick Emery. Bad.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hmm, I can see how you might think that after only seeing the first episode. It gets better though. Jonah is a superb character.
[ 12.06.2008, 09:48: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Just imagine that, Dick Wisdom, delusionally thinking he's Peter Sellers. Plus he's Australian. You couldn't make it up.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: It gets better though.
Well, it would have to, really. I actually found watching that show quite traumatic. I wonder if I could sue?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched Howl's moving castle and Two Lane Blacktop over the weekend. Howl's Moving Castle is a fairly cold slice o'life from the fringes of early 70's American society, focusing on a cross country car race between an emotionless gearhead and a middle aged fantasist. The race quickly degenerates into a wider search for meaning and purpose, as both people are turned inside out by being forced to see their own delusional states. Little dialogue, no actual car 'chases', just lots of staring and driving, and some drag racing. But very cool, and very good.
Two Lane Blacktop however, is a vivd and fast paced animation from Miyazaki about witches, spells, the power of love, and the futility of war. I found it a little hard to keep track of the action at times, and missed some fairly important plot points as a result of being dazzled by the visual beauty and the Joe Hisaishi soundtrack. Still, it was entertaining, but perhaps too complex for my slow, hungover brain. There's a girl who may or may not have been turned into an old woman and there's a dude who is possessed by a demon, who has had his heart removed which has been possessed by another demon, which powers the moving castle, and there is another witch who is really fat who wants the heart and some kings and queens who are having a war. And a scarecrow called turnip head.
[ 16.06.2008, 06:26: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Has anyone seen Star Wars? I watched it this weekend, it's quite good but the special effects could've been better and the plot was a bit unbelievable but all in all a good option if you're stuck in on a sunday afternoon and it's on the box.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah, I saw star wars, and that seems like a fair summary. I quite liked it as a child though.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
I think it's probably a bit adult for most kids.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I find it a drag as an adult, but as a kid it seemed like a very real world.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Who was the handicapped guy with all the hair, what was that all about?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I also watched Friday 13th over the weekend, which I would recommend to any parent looking to entertain their kids for an hour or so. Perhaps it's been ages since you went for a nice night out, like how you used to do before they came and ruined it all. Wear some fancy clothes, get a babysitter, and put on a nostalgic revival performance of the old you. If you do this, but you worry that your children might not be having fun while you are, then yes, go for Friday 13th. It has it all. Rain, trees, and Kevin Bacon.
[ 16.06.2008, 06:47: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
I loved Friday 13th as a kid. The scene where the teenager's lying on the bunk and Jason's hand comes out from underneath, clamps his head down and pushes an arrow through his neck from under the bed was one of my favourite scenes of the '80's. I wore out the Ferguson Videostar constantly rewinding and slow playing that. The plot had a few holes though.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
kids don't mind about plot holes. Nothing makes any sense to them anyway. It's all just gaudy colours and imaginary friends.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: It's all just gaudy colours
This is literally true, apparently. When each of us starts out as little humans our eyes see colours, light and contrast extremely vividly. As we get older, our eyes get more and more knackered and we become more and more jaded. Until we can't stand the fucking sight of anything or anyone any more, because everything looks like runny grey shit.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I watched Victorian Sex Explorer last night. It was quite interesting. Apparently, your muslims were quite fond of it up 'em, in the old days. Less keen now. I wonder what happened..? Maybe the quality of bum has fallen off.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Bums were a lot smaller in those days apparently, it wa sall down to the largely vegetarian diet most people subsisted on. These days, thanks to all the cows it's more akin to waving a halal sausage in a windsock. Apparently.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
The Indian trannies they featured in the programme were no bargain. You'd have to be pretty desperate to fuck one of them. The chief tranny thought he was fucking gorgeous, as well. He wasn't.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: Bums were a lot smaller in those days apparently, it wa sall down to the largely vegetarian diet most people subsisted on. These days, thanks to all the cows it's more akin to waving a halal sausage in a windsock. Apparently.
That reminds me. I also saw the episode of South Park where Mr Garrison invented the monocycle that was controlled by dildoes in ass, mouth and both hands. That was good.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I also saw the South Park where Cartman made Scott Tenorman eat his own parents. That was superb.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
And Cripple Fight. Those South Park guys are geniuses.
Who's your favourite South Parker at the moment? Mine's Butters.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Ralph Wiggum
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's got to be Sean Connery. The original and the best.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
or chandler.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Wow, what a great audience!
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
that one when Chandler became the poster boy for the North American Man Boy Love Association, that was hilarious.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
we were on a break! lol
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
lol
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
I liked the bit when Tony and Chris were getting rid of "Ralphie" Cifaretto's headless corpse and Tony was telling Chris he was wasting his life smoking pot. ROLF!!11!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: we were on a break!
Break DEEZ NUTS!!! lol
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
how are *you* doing? Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: we were on a break!
Break DEEZ NUTS!!! lol
lol. I spent the first hour of the day trying to think of a good Deez Nuts.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Speaking of films I watched that thing on Saturday night... fuck it... what's it called? Paul Hogan is in it. He plays an outback guy who goes to New York with a journalist. God what was that called?
[ 16.06.2008, 07:54: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Van Helsing?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Get Carter?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Home Alone?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I give up.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Graystoke. It was definitely Graystoke.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
You should go and look on imdb and then come back here and post the title. It had two sequels.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Just the name of the character would be fine.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Boba Fett?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Crocodile Dundee? Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: Graystoke. It was definitely Graystoke.
By the way McDirts - your name came up during a conversation at the weekend. Cherry in Hove thought that he knew you. Have you ever been to Dundee?
edit: You don't have to bother answering this now.
[ 16.06.2008, 08:02: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Crocodile Dundee?
done DEEZ NUTS!!! lolo
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
olol o!
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
That was well worth the wait. Very good.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
are we done with TMO now then? I think we've building up to that joke for about 9 years, but we've finally got there. Been a good ride. What next though? Where do we go from here?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Been a good ride. What next though? Where do we go from here?
We should stage daily invasions onto other fora, until we find one that we're happy to stick with.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
that's what Ralph did with us. Although he's a slightly different entity over there.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: Graystoke. It was definitely Graystoke.
By the way McDirts - your name came up during a conversation at the weekend. Cherry in Hove thought that he knew you. Have you ever been to Dundee?
edit: You don't have to bother answering this now.
Ehm, no, I have been to Aberdeen though. Stayed in a youth hostel. I've been to Hove as well.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Aberdeen! That was what I meant. Yeah, you must be the person we thought you were.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
the one with the hair, right? And the trousers, yeah?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I have been watching...
Savages (Phil Seymour Hoffman) - Not bad. Not very funny, despite being a 'comedy'.
Before the Devil Knows Your Dead (PSH again) - Very bleak emotional heist movie. Good. One for Jim Thompson fans.
Sweeney Todd - Shit. Didn't realise it was a musical.
Deadwood - Just starting Season 2. Good. Good and sweary. Um...
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Just watched In the Valley of Elah. As a movie a bit of a plodder, but another excellent performance from Tommy Lee Jones. Similar to his No Country performance. He's got this... unbearable vulnerability. A hard-ass who's past it. I think maybe I find this particularly affecting because he reminds me of my Dad. He's still got the drive, the passion, the menace, he just doesn't have the wherewithal anymore. Everything's just beyond his grasp. He has things to do, reasons to live, but the whiff of the grave is not far off. It's fucking sad, but Jones seems to push that right up into the lens.
Posted by Zygote (Member # 883) on :
There's this guy at work (I'm pretty certain that he's trying to bum me) who keeps bringing DVDs in for me to watch. Out of politeness, I feel that I have to watch them. The problem is, the last two films that he lent me were fucking shit: Shoot 'Em Up and some 'wacky' English film about crown green bowling, the title of which, regrettably, escapes me.
Today, he's left American Gangster on my desk. Is it worth investing nearly three hours of my evening into watching it, or should I politely give it back to him and tell him that I'm not interested in starting a relationship with him?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zygote: Today, he's left American Gangster on my desk. Is it worth investing nearly three hours of my evening into watching it, or should I politely give it back to him and tell him that I'm not interested in starting a relationship with him?
Take the DVD home and keep forgetting to bring it back, for at least three months. Then return it it with a hairy toffee stuck to the cover, coffee spilled on the booklet insert thing, crayon scrawled all over the plastic box and marmite smeared across the disc itself (both sides).
He'll probably stop wasting time lending you stuff and you can get straight down to the bumming.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
American Gangster's pretty good. Bit heavy going but I thought it was pretty much worth the time spent watching it.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: American Gangster's pretty good. Bit heavy going but I thought it was pretty much worth the time spent watching it.
substitute 'American Gangster' for 'bumming' and 'watching' for 'doing' and maybe your work colleague's intention may not seem so bad.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
After the Wedding. On telly. Excellent, recommended. Danish family drama.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
My top tips:
In Search of a Midnight Kiss, or similar title. Lovely romantic independent romance, filmed on tiny budget in downtown LA. Funny and touching, without being sickly. Contains amusing masturbation incident, but not in an American Pie manner.
Killer of Sheep Lo fi film made in the 70s for less than $10,000. Maker couldn't release it as he couldn't afford the music rights to the soundtrack. Now acknowledged to be one of the best 100 films ever made. On at BFI, which also has the advantage of serving pints of sausage rolls.
Posted by Zygote (Member # 883) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Take the DVD home and keep forgetting to bring it back, for at least three months.
I did this (for about a month, however) with the last two films but this just led to him coming up to my desk every single day, asking if I'd watched them yet. This is obviously not good, so I'll probably just watch it tonight and 'accidentally' return it to him with a hardcore, all-woman porno enclosed.
I feel guilty for speaking this way about the guy, but he's in an 'emo' band and continually bangs on about "deals in Japan" and "a new music video he's in", which never seem to materialise. He's also got the gayest hairstyle you could imagine, which makes him look like a Thundercat and it probably doesn't reflect very highly on me having him coming over to my desk every day. I think I should leave. Once I've taken this DVD home first of course. Ha!
Posted by Zygote (Member # 883) on :
Yes, I'm just jealous that he's in a band and is younger than me. I can't help the way I feel. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Went to see Wall-E yesterday and it was just unbelievably good. The reviews had been crazily gushing, as they always bare for Pixar movies, but Wall-E still caught me by suprise with its originality and invention and intelligence. I can't recommend it highly enough - the whole time I was watching it I felt like my was being dazzled on two completely different levels - on the one hand enthralled by the ridiculously charming and affecting characters and on the other, consistently amazed at the film on the level of craft. There's incredibe cinema in this film, and sequences that had me tearing up not because of sentimental button pushing, but out of sheer jubilant beauty. Incredible.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
A reviewer on the Tv yesterday said that it was a good film, but that the first 20 minutes were what make it really worth seeing. She reckoned it was the most beautiful twenty minutes she had seen. Now you've made me more than ever determined to get Mr Sam to take me. So far he is resisting.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zygote: Yes, I'm just jealous that he's in a band and is younger than me. I can't help the way I feel.
Take to the virtual world. You can be younger and play in your own band.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam: A reviewer on the Tv yesterday said that it was a good film, but that the first 20 minutes were what make it really worth seeing. She reckoned it was the most beautiful twenty minutes she had seen. Now you've made me more than ever determined to get Mr Sam to take me. So far he is resisting.
Yeah, the first act is the boldest, most unusual part of the film, but it's pretty dazzling from start to finish. I think there's a sense that because the first half hour is so poetic and affecting, that when the human characters and dialogue are introduced it almost feels like an intrusion. So the criticism that the first chunk is better than the rest keeps coming up, but really it's all pretty amazing. My absolute favourite moment - a joyful dance through space aided by a fire extinguisher - came well into the supposedly inferior second half of the movie. The whole film is amazing, just that the opening section is more amazing.
[ 21.07.2008, 05:00: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
I'm sold on it. I'll go with my mate if I have to, but it will do Mr Samm good to be exposed to something outside of his usual shoot-em up thrillers.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
It's the first day of my six week break today. The sun is coming out in fits, which is handy, but I haven't switched off yet so I am at the computer doing lesson plans and materials for September, a nice, high pile of marking nestling besides me; maybe ten days worth. I HATE marking with a hatred beyond expression. I promised Mr Sam I would do the shopping for the next six weeks and I pretty much hate that too.
Nonetheless, to be at home, pleasing myself *titter* instead of nose against the grindstone with groups of 30 small and often irritatingly insistent little people passing before my knackered eyes at 50 minutes intervals to be entertained is such a lovely feeling. Aaah!
I went into that former Virgin record shop at the weekend and bought £90 worth of cheap music and books; mostly books. Pap almost to a text, but I'll read anything now, just because I can. I have the luxury of time to do it. Just finished Stephen Fry's rather scatological autobiography. Not a great writer but vaguely amusing. I don't like him as much as I did after reading it though. His honesty; his self-flagellation, passing off as regret, seemed rather smug and not at all attractive.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
How does this paean to your spare time equate with your grumblings that it's a hard life being a teacher, you think that we get the summer off, no, we have it hard, we're nose to the grindstone the entire time blah blah blah?
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
You are just jealous! LOL
I am a poor suffering soul, broken in mind and body, but I like to hide it under a canopy of good cheer and apparent joy at six weeks off.
Especially as the sun is bursting through my window and gently cooking my back with its rays whilst the mirrored pieces in my mobile flash myriad sparkling lights around the room and suddenly, it feels like summer.
I feel sorry for myself, I really do.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Hello sam. How are you?
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
moved to waffle thread
[ 21.07.2008, 07:38: Message edited by: sam ]
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
How are you? How's the family? The mrs still podding nicely? How's the boys?
You know - how.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
It's all good. mrs. ralph is still pregnant...finally starting to show a bit. We are (as always) struggling to come up with a name for the baby.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
That's it. You can't see me. I tried to call for help on Life; you cannot hear me. It is too late. I am lost forever. Herbs may be in two different time continuum, but I am down a black hole and can no longer post normally. I am lost to to life (and Media Junkies)as I know it. Now the only tmo left to me is the pitiful remnant of an edited post and already I can see I am further and further away from the warmth and life of tmo as it goes on without me. I... I am lost in space. *weep*
[ 21.07.2008, 07:07: Message edited by: sam ]
Posted by Zygote (Member # 883) on :
quote:Originally posted by sam:
quote:Originally posted by Zygote: Yes, I'm just jealous that he's in a band and is younger than me. I can't help the way I feel.
Take to the virtual world. You can be younger and play in your own band.
It's okay, sam. I'm not jealous of him at all now. He's just been showing off his new mug, which says on it: I Love Spreadsheets.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
I see your point.
This virtual world thing fascinates me though. There was a story in the Metro last week about a musician in New York who has got a following and can now play gigs for real after setting up a band in a virtual world. I did notice however he was fatter and older in real than in virtual and it made me laugh.
Posted by Zygote (Member # 883) on :
I reckon* that my annoying work colleague will follow the same route, but with the same emo hairstyle. *cackle*
Anyway. I thought that American Gangster was thoroughly enjoyable. The DVD that I've been handed today is Control. Looks like my cup of tea at first glance. Anyone else seen it?
*pray.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zygote: The DVD that I've been handed today is Control. Looks like my cup of tea at first glance. Anyone else seen it?
It's good, but makes Ian Curtis look like a little bit of a dick in places. Don't know whether that was intentional.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
I'm halfway through Hangover Square, which I believe is something of a TMO favourite. I can't quite believe how good it is, and how utterly heartbreaking. I can hardly bear to pick it up each night, but so want George to win, even though he's quite evidently doomed.
Patrick Hamilton is brilliant. Such 'small' stories, but so much of human existence encapsulated in each one. 20,000 Streets Under the Sky is another work of genius.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I thought 20,000 Streets Under the Sky repeated itself a great deal - like he was just feeding the same piece of information to the reader over and over again. It was weird because it started off as almost subtle - kind of showing you the relationship with the prostitute, the guy's thoughts about it and letting the reader infer the total road-crash that it is. But by about 200 pages in the riff has been hammered home a couple dozen times per page and the beauty of it has been completely destroyed. I wouldn't call it a work of genius, or even a Great Novel. Hangover Square is fantastic though - it seems to achieve far more than 20,000 Streets Under the Sky in far less time.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
At the moment I'm reading Gravity's Rainbow, which has suprised me by being incredibly invigorating and not at all the miserable slog I feared it might be. As a thicko, I don't normally get on with Big Books, tending to lose my way, forget who's connected to whom drift into a daydream for 100 pages and then declare it to be repetitious or unsubtle without ever really getting to grips with it. But! Gravity's Rainbow keeps making sense to me, and at 550 pages in I don't feel like I'm fighting a losing battle.
A friend of mine told me he gave up on it after the first 100 pages, and there is a metaphysical element to the book, so it keeps slipping between the real and the imaginary and will occasionally propel the narrative back in time, to follow a vignette inspired by some detail one of the main characters noticed. So the main story doesn't exactly push forward at a cracking pace, but maybe because I'd just come out to 20,000 Streets with its intense focus I found myself really enjoying the continuous diversions and discussions. I'm still about 350 pages from the nend, so I'm loathe to try and pin down what the book might be saying on its main themes of perception, interpretation and our role in sort of... creating our own reality, but it doesn't really seem that obtuse. In fact what amazes me most about this 900 page monster that was declared 'unreadable' by the Pulitzer judges is just how accessible it is.
[ 23.07.2008, 06:44: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Now isn't that strange. I'm getting much more of a feeling of repetition with HG than I did with 20,000 etc. Ooh, her story, and how she fell in with a bad crowd, etc... so spare yet so doomed. I keep lending it to colleagues, and getting cross when it comes back increasingly dog-eared.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I'll be honest - I ditched 20 etc towards the end of the first book in favour of Gravity's Rainbow. I didn't fancy taking the Hamilton book on honeymoon because I didn't feel I was getting anything out of it, and I thought a two week holiday was a good chance to make a serious dent in a book that I would otherwise never have started. So I didn't get to the bit about Jenny falling in with the bad crowd.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Gnnn... that's where you went wrong. The second two parts of the trilogy are better than the first. You see the same story from other points of view. MUST TRY HARDER.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah, I understand how it's laid out, but given that it was orginally published as three novels, I didn't feel like I'd lose anything by bailing after the first, reading something else, and then coming back to it. Regardless, I can't see how a trilogy that includes the wearing, flawed The Midnight Bell section could be a work of genius.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Anyway, people only wet their knickers over Patrick Hamilton because he makes hanging round in bars getting wankered seem like some poetic adventure into your own achingly lonely soul.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I read Lemons Never Lie by Donald E. Westlake the other day. It's a really inconsequential little heist tale. The sort of story that might be an aside in a bigger plot, but it's just such a breeze to read and so effortlessly compelling, and just so evidently the work of a master MASTER storyteller that it really filled me with joy. Thoroughly recommended.
Posted by Lilo (Member # 8247) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay:
quote:Originally posted by Zygote: The DVD that I've been handed today is Control. Looks like my cup of tea at first glance. Anyone else seen it?
It's good, but makes Ian Curtis look like a little bit of a dick in places. Don't know whether that was intentional.
Have you read the book the film is based on? His wife wrote it. He was a dick to her.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lilo: Have you read the book the film is based on? His wife wrote it. He was a dick to her.
Yeah it seemed that way. What a dick.
Posted by Zygote (Member # 883) on :
Yes, Control does indeed portray Curtis as a dick. My girlfriend remarked, about halfway through, that she would love to "hang the bastard" herself, which I thought a little harsh. I attempted to alter her opinion by blaming 'manic depression stemming from his epilepsy' on his attitude towards everybody, but this just resulted in her rolling her eyes and, shortly after, going to bed.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
People only like Joy Division because they feel sorry for epileptics. It's political correctness gone mad. Shrewd bands should get a starey-eyed spaz for a frontman, then they're guaranteed success.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Nice BM. Nice.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Joy Division were shit, though.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
True.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Anyway, people only wet their knickers over Patrick Hamilton because he makes hanging round in bars getting wankered seem like some poetic adventure into your own achingly lonely soul.
Suffering now from that self-doubt induced by conversing with Thorn, I'm unsure whether to answer:
a) But hanging round in bars getting wankered is some poetic adventure into your own achingly lonely soul or b) No he doesn't. He exposes it for the shallow self-absorption it really is. or c) Well, I like it so you're wrong.
[ 24.07.2008, 07:09: Message edited by: herbs ]
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
i went to see wall- e last night. i have nothing to say about it that hasnt been said by mr definitive over there, so instead i will tell you all something that i heard over the weekend, which made me very very happy. apparently in soho somewhere there is a secret exclusive private members' club- no, no, not that kind of private members' club. this is much better than that. they will only let you in if you are dressed as a robot. there are no other entry criteria. if you find this place and ring the doorbell and you are dressed as a robot, the little peephole thing will slide shut and the door will open wide enough to let you in, and you go downstairs into a cellar which is not a cellar but a HIGH- TECH REPLICATION OF A STARSHIP CONTROL PANEL, with, like, quality street wrappers on the walls to replicate leds. and everyone else there is dressed as a robot. i dont really know what else happens there, probably they sit around and drink cocktails with dry ice coming out of the top and talk about blakes seven, but in a very hip- sexy- london- private members sort of a way. theres probably some kind of robot burlesque where a sexy metal chick comes out and wiggles her sexy metal bum to a kraftwerk soundtrack or something. i dont know. i havent been.
of course the problem with this, if it even exists- and its possible it doesnt, that it has been made up to reiterate london's general supremacy as world's best city ever to wide- eyed arrivistes and yokels- is that its not going to stay secret and exclusive for very long, being as how all you have to do to find it is hang around soho on a saturday night looking for people dressed as robots, and follow them.
this is the point at which someone pipes up and says 'yeah, old news, yokelface. been there, done that. robot club was kinda exciting for five minutes back in '06, but it was such a fleeting moment, we didnt even think to mention it.'
[ 24.07.2008, 10:00: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I don't know whether to be happy that I'm off to see Dark Knight tonight, or sad that I'm not off to see Wall-E.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
What was Dark Knight like?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Rather good, actually. Once you get over the initial Heath Ledger chill, he totally owns the part, and brings some excellent touches at key points. Mind you, so does Christian Bale. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a vast improvement in the Rachel role compared to Katie Holmes, and I always love to see Gary Oldman.
9/10
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Good. I like Batman. The comic books are very gothic and I've never minded the films, even the ones which were not so loved by critics or fans. In fact I liked the first, very dark one quite a bit. Another film to drag Mr Sam to.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Exactly what kind of films does Mr Sam like? You'd think that between the melancholy beauty of Wall-E and the action-packed drama of The Dark Knight, there'd be something that would appeal to him.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Thorn, I predict that you will love The Dark Knight, if you didn't crumble and see it last night. The more I'm thinking about it today, the better I'm realising it was.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Exactly what kind of films does Mr Sam like? You'd think that between the melancholy beauty of Wall-E and the action-packed drama of The Dark Knight, there'd be something that would appeal to him.
He claims to only like thrillers and action movies. Batman is too - well, yes, melancholy for him. He loved The Bourne Conspiracy for instance and Oceans 11 and 12. Jumpers was OK he said, but too slow.
However, I have dragged him to many films which he has ended up enjoying. He likes to stick with what he thinks he knows, if you see what I mean.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Oh, and he'll watch stuff like Kill Bill, which I can't cope with because it is too violent for me.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Thorn, I predict that you will love The Dark Knight, if you didn't crumble and see it last night.
Saturday at 7pm for me. My excitement was diminished somewhat after seeing Wall-E, though; I came out thinking 'How can The Dark Knight' possibly be better than that? I had the same thing with No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood earlier in the year, and TWBB ended up blowing me away. In fact, if Dark Knight really is as good as people say it is, that quartet alone would make ZOOB the best year ever for American film.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Batman fans may be interested to know that I am wearing an Adam West era Batman costume to a party on Saturday night. There is no way I wont be pulling.
[ 25.07.2008, 07:53: Message edited by: Abby ]
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Choose wisely.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Thorn, I predict that you will love The Dark Knight, if you didn't crumble and see it last night.
Saturday at 7pm for me. My excitement was diminished somewhat after seeing Wall-E, though; I came out thinking 'How can The Dark Knight' possibly be better than that? I had the same thing with No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood earlier in the year, and TWBB ended up blowing me away. In fact, if Dark Knight really is as good as people say it is, that quartet alone would make ZOOB the best year ever for American film.
I've bought Old Country and will be wattching it soon. I've hesitated over There Will Be Blood. Would you tell me why I should buy it?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I done a write up here, but essentially it feels like something genuinely new and exciting, a kind of synthesis of great world cinema of the last 100 years that manages to avoid feeling like the sum of its influences. For my money, it's a better film than No Country..., but at this level that's like choosing whether or not its better to feel up Jenna Jameson or Bree Olsen.
Anyway. TWBB is a tremendous film - one of the very best films - and it always made me sad that no-one else went to see it (certainly noone posted on that thread. Although it's a character movie rather than a plot based film it's never less than gripping, partly because of Daniel Day Lewis's famous performance. It almost threatens to overwhelm the movie, despite the incredibly photography, editing and use of sound. But he's not the only good thing in it - Paul Dano's character Eli, is a tremendous, oily presence and his battle of wits with Daniel Plainview is brilliant, and delivers much of the drama. God! Just thinking back to thier scenes together is making me want to watch the film again, but there's something about Eli that just makes him the perfect foil to Plainview. Which is kind of the point, because one of the themes is obviously faith vs capitalism ALTHOUGH! those traits aren't embodied in the characters you would necessarily think.
There's so much brilliant about this film I could bang on for days - the way it continually shifts away from conventional narrative techniques and continues to defy predictability right up until the crackpot ending, which, in its own way, gives you some idea of where we're likely to end up when the oil runs dry.
You should definitely buy it - it's fucking brilliant.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
I will do. I keep picking the dvd up and wondering why I think I should watch it - maybe I read your post on it and then forgot, or someone else praised it. Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
i have been reading all the 5star reviews of man on wire, and feeling very excited and proud because my mum is the archive producer on it and so i kind of feel like i practically worked on it myself for the last two years. this was a nice text message exchange from last weekend
me: have you read the review that compares it to hoop dreams? as comparisons go thats not a bad one!
my mum, six hours later: NO WHT IS A HOOP DREAM
seriously, if misc files thinks my punctuation is bad, just a handful of texts from my wonderful mother would blow his tiny mind beyond repair. still, nobody's mum can punctuate texts, can they? but anyway. go and see man on wire, everybody. go and see it. its wonderful. its not actually as good as hoop dreams, but its pretty fucking great.
[ 01.08.2008, 11:07: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I have been 'reading and watching' The Time Machine by H. G. Wells. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but the film (starring Mike off of Neighbours, and apparently directed by Wells's gr7-grandson) seemed to be largely unrelated. I thought the Eloi were supposed to be different to humans as we recognize them. And where did the Morlock leader come from? But more importantly it seemed to lose the point of the book, in favour of generic action movie filler.
I'm currently reading The Invisible Man. Don't think I'll bother with the film this time...
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
oh, i have also been reading again since i paid off my latest humungogantuan library fine: highlights have included-
cannery row, john steinbeck: gorgeous and funny and stupid and brilliant. i decided after being forcefed the red cocking pony in 1986 that john steinbeck was a total spazmo, and that if all his books were that dull and stupid and featured grossout bits where a boring old cowboy man sucked mucus out of a horses windpipe with his bare mouth then there was like, no way i was ever reading any of his stupid books again. im totally glad i reassessed that life- defining decision last year but am pretty cross that i should have been put off a great great writer at such an early age. has anybody read the red pony as an adult? is it as shit as i remember it being?
where angels fear to tread: totally boss, because em forster is totally boss, obviously.
michael tolliver lives, armistead maupin: read in one sitting, had me intermittently weeping like a big fucking gay from page 23. page 23. of course if a book starts you weeping that early you have to sit and read it one go, dont you? you cant just go off and cook yourself a quiche and go to ikea and buy scatter cushions and have indiscriminate anal sex with a stranger that you picked up in a public lavatory or generally go about your normal business if a book has set you weeping by page 23. you have to give it YOUR FULLEST ATTENTION. id forgotten how much i loved [insert name of character in question here] until it appeared they were going to die, and that point i began to worry that i might actually weep my own eyelids inside out, but i couldnt stop, i had to keep fighting through the tears, struggle on despite my heartbreak until i reached the bitter end, which, being a born survivor, i naturally managed to do. once i had finished i was too tired to go out and have indiscriminate anal sex with a stranger i picked up in a public lavatory- thats how emotionally involving michael tolliver lives is. its fabulous. darlings.
[ 01.08.2008, 11:55: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Caught a cracker of a film this afternoon - an Australian mocumentary about a portaloo employee called Kenny - seen it advertised on Sky but thought nothing of it, but was thoroughly delighted by it - kind of like the office a bit but without the cringing, and quite charming too. A few moments of laugh out loud stuff, but on the whole just a charming film - the whole relationship with his ill father who just sees him as a 'Glorified turd-burglar', and a wonderful insight about a man who although with a non-appealing vocation is very proud of what he does. Highly recommended - 8 Barrys
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: I have been 'reading and watching' The Time Machine by H. G. Wells. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but the film (starring Mike off of Neighbours, and apparently directed by Wells's gr7-grandson) seemed to be largely unrelated. I thought the Eloi were supposed to be different to humans as we recognize them. And where did the Morlock leader come from? But more importantly it seemed to lose the point of the book, in favour of generic action movie filler.
There's a 1960s version of the film which is quite good.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Waynster: Kenny
I watched this a couple of weeks ago. Wayne is bang on the money here - a really charming movie with some great lines. It's knid of interesting in the lines it straddles betweend comedy, drama and character study. There's some set-piece comedy moments, like a sprint across a stock-car track, but parts of it, like his relationship with his dad and his son are quietly tragic. Er. Anyway. JUst wanted to second Wayn's recommendation, there.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I caught the 15 minutes where he's at the festival before going to his brother's birthday party on Sky a couple of weeks ago as well but didn't have time to watch the rest - I'll have to have a look in the listings.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I watched Rambo yesterday, which was great fun. At 81 minutes it doesn't outstay it's welcome, although it does sort of feel like it's missing a third act (not quite to the same extent as Rambo III, though). Basically, if the trailer that was going around the internet a year ago appealed (the one with the decapitation, disembowelling and disintegration by machine gun) then the film shouldn't disappoint, because it's basically an hour and twenty minutes of the same sort of stuff.
As is traditional for a Rambo film, the cinematography is brilliant, the better to offset the crunching brutality, the script is dogshit awful and the performances are perfunctory. The female lead is ghastly, even though all she has to do is gasp in horror everytime something atrocious happens (about 90% of the film) and she's mainly there so that Rambo can keep stopping her from getting raped.
Anyway. There's plenty of kickass action, including an extrordinary montage of people being cut to shreds by a .50 cal machine gun. Stallone is quite charismatic as Rambo, although it doesn't really... it's not a hugely demanding role. But he's come a long way from Rambo: First Blood Part II where he can't even walk convincingly.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Keep your eyes peeled for Somers Town by Shane Meadows. It's got that great young actor Thomas Turgoose in it. Definitely one to watch.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Has anyone else been watching that Saddam's House on Wednesday, BBC2? It damn good; solid acting and great atmosphere. Final episode next week and I'll be away.
What does anyone else think of it?
Posted by Lilo (Member # 8247) on :
I'm currently watching To Catch A Predator on FX. My sister put it on and now I can't tear my eyes away.
It's about, well, it's about catching predators. People pretend to be underage girls and chat to older men. Finally, they agree to a meet in the 'girl's' house. But when the man turns up there are hidden cameras and a man ready with 'what are you doing here?' questions. As soon as the man leaves the police arrest him.
This is an American show.
It is fucking...weird.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
Sounds like that infidelity one, where they take people to where their partner is having it off with someone else and then get them to confront each other - but with perves. Like you said, weird.
Posted by Lilo (Member # 8247) on :
Yeah, it shows you the stuff they said to the 'girl' as well. And naked photos with the cock blurred out.
I don't understand why this show exists.
Posted by Lilo (Member # 8247) on :
OHMYGOD one man brought his own FIVE YEAR OLD son to the house where a 'fourteen year old boy' was waiting to meet him.
Another man stripped off as soon as he entered the house and started roaming the house looking for the girl!
I can't wait for this to finish because it's making me feel strange. It's also making me laugh quite a bit which probably makes me a bad person, or something.
Posted by sam (Member # 884) on :
It makes me grateful we don't have the FX channel.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Watched Cloverfield last night and it was shit. Appropriately enough for a movie that's a collage of camcorder footage, it appeared to be stitched together from the set pieces of better films, so there's a scare that's lifted directly from The Descent, there's some crawly critters that attack people in dark tunnels and after you escape apparently unharmed, you find that your chest explodes, there's the sobbing confession to camera from Blair Witch and blah blah blah. It's all completely soulless, there's only really one character, which all the actors inhabit and even that isn't drawn so much as a character as it comes across as a marketing demographic. Wealthy mid-twenties hipsters run around screaming and gradually succumbing to the viewer's powerful wish for them all to die.
Towards the beginning of the film I found myself wondering whether maybe we were supposed to hate all the characters, whether perhaps it was some kind of scathing attack on the complacency of the west pre-2001 and the film was going to suggest that the fall of the Twin Towers was something that we needed in order to shake us out of self-absorbed gluttony. But no. Turns out that the vapid, beautiful, boring characters were the result of creative bankruptcy rather than satirical intention.
For all the supposed novelty (gimmickry) of its hand-held camera premise, Cloverfield sure is an uninventive, cliche infested monster flick. From the tunnels, to the 'hey there's something moving - let's go check!' moments, to the love story that only exists to provide a reason to stick in the disaster area there's not one single moment of inspiration or invention. It's awful. Even the supposed in-the-moment realism of the camcorder is undermined by the stupid wise-cracking jerk behind the camera whose lines seem there only to remind us that we're watching a Hollywood movie.
So yeah. That's about it really. The people in the movie behave with a baffling level of stupidity - forgetting to take water with them even after they've prised open a vending machine and that kind of thing. The acting is dreadful, from a dreaful script. Throughout the whole movie you can practically hear JJ Abrams babbling 'Yeah man, we've re-invented the monster movie by pushing it through the twin filters of 9/11 and lives and habits of the My Space Generation', when really as a viewer I just got the impression that he'd ruined the evening by pushing my face through a filter of shit.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Interestingly I watched Diary of the Dead the other day, and almost all of your post above could be used to describe that film. Plus the added criticism that, for a movie which seems to be trying to make a point about the validity and importance of Web 2.0s great user created content, it seems almost totally uncommitted to looking convincing as an amateur film. Every shot is perfectly framed, beautifully edited, and other than a few interesting perspective elements, looks about as convincing as the first-person sequence in Doom. In that respect Cloverfield is actually far more successful than Diary.
I really don't know at what point Romero lost his way so badly, but this film was a total let-down. Especially after the hype about how it was going to be indipendantly produced so Romero could fully realise his artistic blah blah etc.
Also, bonus points for the Magical Negro
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Diary of the Dead doesn't really interest me at all. Land of the Dead was a bit ropey with some nice ideas, but you get the impression that George has flogged his zombie metaphor to, er, death and really it's time for him to put a bullet in its brain to take it out of commission permanantly. I'm sure he didn't want to spend his life making zombie films and the response to Diary of the Dead seems to indicate that he can barely be bothered to try anymore.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Spoiler video --->
This was my favourite part because it reminded me of Hud going round the party with the camera at the start of the film. It made me think "Get him to give a farewell message to Rob!" and then I laughed out loud at my own joke. Also, if you ever wanted to know what it would be like to be eaten by a giant amphibious monster this is probably the most accurate representation, short of actually going out and doing it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
People who haven't seen the film may like to ponder that in that clip the monster, which hitherto has been pushing over skyscrapers, creating shockwaves when it walks and plucking helicopters out of the sky has just sneaked up on them in central park.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I watched Pulp Fiction last night. (It's good, I recommend watching it).
I was wondering though.
The scene where SLJ says
"English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?"
When this scene is dubbed into French or whatever, do they also change the word English?
So you get
"Francais, mamanbaiseur. Parlez vous?" (This is probably a poor translation)
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Diary of the Dead doesn't really interest me at all. Land of the Dead was a bit ropey with some nice ideas, but you get the impression that George has flogged his zombie metaphor to, er, death and really it's time for him to put a bullet in its brain to take it out of commission permanantly. I'm sure he didn't want to spend his life making zombie films and the response to Diary of the Dead seems to indicate that he can barely be bothered to try anymore.
I dunno, it's like he wants to try and say something but it's really hard to know what. There's this subplot about how the guy doing the recording has basically become obsessed with blogging everything. There are some really cringe enducing moments like SPOILER when he's laying there dying from a zombie bite at the end and he turns to the chick and it like "shoot me!" and passes her the camera. We're clearly meant to think that this is some kind of clever social commentary but the whole thing feels so forced and unrealistic that it's impossible to actually buy into it at all.
It's like he wants to tell us that microblogging your life is an unhealthy obsession, but at the same time he's quite obviously going out of his way to say that you can't trust conventional media and it's only through looking at people's uploaded, unedited media that we can really hope to get a clear picture of what's going on in the world.
There are some nice ideas in there but the film never really hits any chords with me, partly because of the confusing, mixed messages, and also because the execution is so poor you have to feel that George is really commenting upon subjects on which he actually has very little understanding.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: The scene where SLJ says
"English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?"
When this scene is dubbed into French or whatever, do they also change the word English?
The standard way to overcome this potential problem when translating/subtitling/dubbing lines like this one is, at least in Spanish, to use the phrase "my language" instead of "English" or whatever other language it might be. So SLJ would say, in Spanish, something like "D'you speak my language, motherfucker?"
The actual wording or re-wording of the phrase depends largely on how well it will synchronise with the lip movements of the original.
Spanish dub actors (and behind them, the translators and editors) are very good, and it's easy to suspend disbelief and just go along with these foreign people speaking Spanish. The lip-syncing is really really tight. The voice-over actors themselves become associated with certain screen actors, so the same Spanish voice actor will always dub SLJ, for consistency across all his films.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
in which the line you mention is "Mi idioma, cabronazo, ¿sabes hablarlo?"
which is a direct translation of the original, literally "My language, massive bastard [literally 'big male goat'], can you speak it?", but avoiding the "English" problem.
[ 18.08.2008, 10:51: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Excellent. Thanks very much mart. Unfortunately I can't view youtube at work, but I very much look forward to watching that at home.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Of course in the specific context of Pulp Fiction that approach would make Jules sound a bit ridiculous. "My language motherfucker! Do you speak it?" can only really ever be met with a confused "What?"
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
That was excellent. I'm going to have to check if my DVD version has the different dubbed versions on it and learn how to quote Pulp Fiction in various different languages.
Posted by missgolightly (Member # 34) on :
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Generation Kill yet - new mini series from David Simon and Ed Burns, The Wire blokes. It's based on a book written by a rolling stone writer about his time with some marines in Baghdad in 2003. It's extremely realistic, with brilliant dialogue and great characters. Main actors include Lee Tergesen (Beecher from Oz), James Ransone (Ziggy from The Wire) and a cool swedish guy called Alexander Skarsgård, aswell as a few of the marines playing themselves. We've watched the first 5 episodes and are gonna watch 6 tonight. Very highly recommended.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Have you torrented this or is it available in legit form?
Posted by missgolightly (Member # 34) on :
It's on tv in the US at the mo, but we been downloading as soon as each episode is available.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I watched Clerks the other night, having never seen it before. It goes some way to explaining why it is that people like Kevin Smith so much. Watching Clerks 2 right after kinda shows how he's lost his way a bit though.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I watched about 12 episodes of series 3 of Supernatural over the past 3 days or so, plus Charlie Wilson's War on DVD.
The latter was "alright".
I do really enjoy the former, not least because of the high pretty boy quotient, but my Sky+ seems to have not bothered the tape the last 4 episodes of the series, which is a bit annoying since it means I'll have to torrent it now.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Death Race is a film with its priorities straight. Three people died a fiery death before the first line of dialogue is spoken. The first word of the film is 'Damage'. A couple of lines later 'Deploy the napalm'. Then a car gets scythed in half by a giant plate of steel armour. Then there's an explosion: the first of many.
I was kind of in two minds about this film. The trailer promised a movie that was largely about cars driving very fast into giant metal spikes. On the other hand Paul W.S. Anderson has a bad habit of overwriting simple premises until all promise of cheery ultraviolence has been wrung out of his films in place of nonsensical exposition and half baked ideas.
Not in Death Race, though! Here he finally keeps things pared down, has the good sense to give the simple set up - prisoners drive cars at each other - room to breathe. And the result is fucking marvellous. There's probably about three or four minutes of downtime here - mostly spent setting up Jason Statham's home life, before he's framed for murder, yanked off to prison and forced to compete in the Death Race.
From there the film is a cornucopia of sadism. Heads burst open like watermelons, bodies are perforated by machine gun fire, cars drive into - yes! - metal spikes, necks are snapped, men are burnt and faces are punched. By the time we're in the prison any scene that isn't people doing violence to each other is people threatening to do violence to each other. There's three races, but once the cars are off the track it's just an excuse for a brutal fist fight in the canteen, or in the pit area or in a kitchen, a dockyard, wherever Statham find himself the sweet sound of broken bones and smacking flesh is only seconds away.
For all its vapidity, the film results in some interesting philosophical questions. Like "Christ, do I really have a serious problem with sadism?" as I burst out laughing when Statham bounces a man face first into a vice. Or "If I'm not gay, then why is Statham making me feel like this?". Not since the eighties have I seen a film so adoringly in love with its star's mighty masculine body. At least I'm not alone - ever character in the film and the camera itself looks like they're on the verge of jumping Jason's bones and there's some spice to be had from the extent Joan Allen seems to be practicially licking her lips in every scene they share. Not to mention the weirdly bi-sexual family unit that comes together at the end of the film.
Still! The main attraction here is still the immesely gratifying violence. The action's not expertly directed, but it is relentless, loud and occasionally imaginative. Despite the 15 certificate, you don't feel like any punches have been pulled and the sound effects and speed of the whole enterprise give it a queasy edge. It even feels quite real in places. Whether CGI is just getting better, or whether many of the stunts were done for real, there's a sense of crunching weight that makes it thrilling in its own visceral way.
One final mention goes to the fact that this all takes place in 2012. This is a world where the economy has collapsed and society's bloodthirsty voyeursim has already outgrown fistfights to the death broadcast over the internet. {i]Four years from now![/i] Whoever wins the next election runs the world into the ground within one term of presidency! And, on this evidence, the London Olympics is going to have some pretty strong competition.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Death Race
Kick-ass!
That sounds like the perfect movie. I have to make time to see it.
A lot of the stunts are apparently 'real' and not CGId. And Statham did a lot of them himself! Props.
Statham has also been tipped to star as Daredevil in a reboot directed by Frank 'the Fascist' Miller. Also, while watching the execrable Stallone in Judge Dredd the other evening, the Masketeers and I decided that Statham would make a good Dredd in any future reboot of that title.
Finally, last night I watched The Orphanage. It was quite scary.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I'm not sure I could believe Statham as a hot shot lawyer. Plus any mask that inhibits his ability to glower menacingly at people is going to reduce his acting ability by 100%.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Plus any mask that inhibits his ability to glower menacingly at people is going to reduce his acting ability by 100%.
Agreed. We nominated him on the length of his head, how he always seems to be either kicking asses (or taking names) and that turning one or other or both corners of his mouth down and 'grrrrr'-ing probably wouldn't be beyond him.
In a Dredd reboot the costumes wouldn't be gayed about with by Gianni Versace, too. Hopefully...
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Just been on Statham's IMDB page and his characters have got some of the best names outside of eighties action. I thought Jenson Ames - in Death Race - was good but check this out:
Sgt Jericho Butler Det Quentin Conners Chev Chelios Terry Leather
Fantastic!
Terry Leather!!!! Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Co-incidentally, I watched Daredevil with the Masketeers on Saturday. We all laughed at Bullseye and thought the first encounter with Elektra (on the see-saws) was balls. Given the playground setting, their martial arts looked more like a clapping game.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I like the way the kids gather round the fight like, "Hey! That woman's beating up another blind man! Brilliant!"
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Went to see Noises Off... at the Oxford Playhouse last night. Before the show somehow in my head I'd convinced myself that it was a kind of Grim Oop North thing like what Ken Loach or Mike Leigh might do.
So I was kind of unprepared for the blistering level of farce that the play actually is - presumably everyone else on the planet is already aware of this? Play within a play; a group of actors stage a production of a sex comedy called Nothing On, but between the dress rehearsal and the last leg of the tour the machinery starts to wobble, cogs come loose and the whole thing descends into craziness. Anyway, it was fantastic. I spent most of the time marvelling at the cleverness of the script. Gags are primed so smartly and covertly that I rarely clocked that a set up was taking place until the pay off; and the pay offs are glorious, with some jokes getting double or triple punchlines. It's massively satisfying in its pin sharp orchestration, not least because this kind of thing is so frequently painful to watch. It's like the difference between Adam Sandler slapstick and the Marx Brothers mirror scene in Duck Soup. Plus! one of the actresses spends most of her time running around in suspenders and basque, which adds quality to any play.
So on the one hand it's brilliant farce, embracing the conventions of the form, while simultaneously ridiculing it. On the other, it's utterly unsuccesful as a kitchen sink drama, with a bare minimum of realistic human behaviour and nothing remotely remarkable to say about the struggles of the British working class. Only one character represents an entire segment of British society - a deaf alcoholic - and if anything the play seeks to trivialise his problems rather than explore them.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I saw that a few years ago. Thought it was okay.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
The woman walking around in her lingerie added a lot. All plays should have this.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I remember a thing with a telephone and perhaps somebody falling through a window.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah it had all those things, but loads of plays and films have that. It wasn't remarkable. Noises Off is literally the first time I've seen a blonde woman wearing lingerie.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull the other day. That's a load of shit.
The best film I watched recently was probably Return of the Living Dead. That was good.
Man, I should never have packed in the film reviewing gig.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Yeah it had all those things, but loads of plays and films have that.
alright, name another play or film that has a thing with a telephone and then maybe somebody falling through a window.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy Big Nuts: alright, name another play or film that has a thing with a telephone and then maybe somebody falling through a window.
Scream?
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
possibly.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
What do I win?
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
a blonde in lingerie.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I've never had one of those before. Are they any good? I bet they're not a patch on GT5 Prologue.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy Big Nuts: Man, I should never have packed in the film reviewing gig.
You shouldn't of. I was going to ask if you'd like to review some cult horror for me, for a zine, with Thorn doing mainstream piss-take movie reviews.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
It was alright. trashy. A window into the seedy world of the eighties VHS market. You can download it from the link there.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I've got Slugs still to watch, and also Zombie Flesheaters 3 / After Death. It's constant isn't it. It never ends.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I watched Lucky Number Slevin last night. I enjoyed it a lot. It would have been improved if they'd had a hardcore sex scene with Lucy Liu, but other than that I enjoyed it.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I saw that was on, but decided against it. Seemed like it would be a bit slick and *****. Instead I watched Star Trek: TNG and played some duke nukem. I'm basically reverting to being 16 again.
[ 07.10.2008, 13:13: Message edited by: Jimmy Big Nuts ]
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
can't we take this stupid fucking censorship thing off?
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
It was quite slick. I'm guessing that the other word you were doing was c unty? It probably wasn't that. Not even any softcore porn. Although Lucy Liu did wear quite a short skirt.
I was searching for some short skirt shorts of Susie Dent the other day and it appears there are none on the internet. There was a video of her on the news wearing a knee length skirt and knee length boots and that got me going a little bit, but it wasn't quite satisfactory.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Lucy Liu is alright isn't she? She'd probably snort slightly like ralphs cum-face though if you got to bang her. Like a startled dear. Oh deer.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched Zombie Flesheaters 3. I was right, I'd seen it before. Good music.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
I fucking love zombie movies.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I watched The Jacket last night. I still haven't decided what actually happened.
77/100 Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I remember watching the Jacket. I was also vaguely confused. Agreeably surprised by Keira Knightley.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
accidentally what?
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
A coca-cola bottle
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Saw Burn After Reading on Saturday. If anything it's even bleaker than No Country For Old Men. Although ostensibly a comedy, it's about as bitter and misanthropic as movies get. There's no Marge Gunderson or The Dude providing a kernel of humanity - it's just self-absorbed twats failing to connect with each other and ultimately being punished for their vanity.
This is like the billionth time the Coen brothers have remade The Pardoner's Tale; the most recent being less than a year ago with No Country. Still. It's a completely different take on the story, beginning with John Malkovich being cast out of a CIA Mount Olympus to get mixed up with the idiot problems of a bunch of mere mortals. It's a great and original framing device and occasionally the CIA deitys reconvene to comment on the plot and act bewildered by the illogic and stupidity of the rest of the characters.
Without wanting to spoil too much, the plot revolves around a missing disc of CIA material, a bunch of affairs as well as an elusive set of plastic surgery procedures that serve the same purpose as the Dude's rug. The film's funny, but it's a bleak kind of funny, like the only way to deal with the nastiness of these characters is to take a step back, and laugh bitterly. The float onto the screen in a bubble of solipsism and are usually extinguished from the plot before making any kind of meaningful connection with anyone else. At least No Country, for the the doom and mirthlessness had characters that appeared fundamentally worthwhile. BAR seems to be the Coen's sneering in total disgust at the vanity, stupidity and moral turpitude of the Western World in the 21st Century. It's like a Dr Strangelove for selfishness.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I watched The Ruins the other night. I hadn't actually heard of it before, I was just in the video store searching for something to watch on Saturday night and figured I'd give it a chance.
It's not an awfully unique or original horror film, following the well trodden path of 'group of generic American youths go somewhere they shouldn't then get killed by supernatural peril du-jour', with a bonus European thrown in to act as host to all the film's most sadistic moments (it just wouldn't be right to torture an American like that, naturally).
What the film does do pretty well though is maintain an unrelenting sense of tension and horror, as their situation becomes increasingly bleak and hopeless and the characters all start to go mad in various ways. The film's pretty draining to watch.
If you've seen any of the Hostel or Saw films, you'll have noticed there's a trend at the moment for using sequences of extended, ultra-realistic looking gore for added shock value. I don't know if I like this or not really, since it's a pretty unimaginative way to make an impact, but The Ruins really does go to town with this. There are a few moments where I actually found myself looking away from the screen, unable to watch what I was being shown, and I'm one of the least squeamish people I know.
All in all, I found The Ruins to be a fairly enjoyable watch, with characters who were slightly more engaging than those I've seen in a lot of horror films lately thanks to a fairly understated script, and it's certainly very effective in delivering a genuinely unpleasant, horrifying viewing experience. Which, again, is more than can be said for a lot of recent films. My opinion, if expressed in numerical format, equates to 3.5/5
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I've watched bits and pieces of The Ruins on youtube. I wasn't really that keen to sit through the entire movie, but I was faintly intrigued by the killer plant thing. It did look pretty nasty. Not sure about the ventriloquism angle - it seemed like the plants had the same kind of movie-intelligence as the sharks in Deep Blue Sea, where they know stuff they can't possibly know, regardless of how clever they are. Things like fooling characters into thinking other characters are having sex.
Having said that it's not one of those premises that you can dive into without build up, so maybe I'm being unfair. Like my dad walking into the room 45 monutes after as film has started and declaring it ludicrous because he missed all the world building stuff at the start.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
It's kind of like Texas Chainsaw crossed with Day of the Triffids.
It's implied in the film that the plant/plants (you never find out if it's one single creature, or a bunch of them, or whatever) has been there, consuming people for at least long enough for a tribe of people to dedicate themselves to containing it at all costs, so I guess it's reasonable to assume that if it's at least as intelligent as a human, it's had enough time to study the way that people behave and develop some fairly sophisticated means of duping people into becoming dead. So I suppose it's not that implausible really, within the context of the film. But it did seem like one of the weaker aspects of the film.
I think without the absolutely brutal violence and gore, it'd be much less notable. The bit where they move the German guy actually made me yell out loud.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Ha! I read The Ruins a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was utter shit and went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Just getting more and more and more ludicrous and unpleasant. Having said that I stayed on for the whole ride. I think I was waiting for the plant to be revealed as some sort of Cthonian astral super-intelligence, just so I could tick it off as another Cthulhu book read. It wasn't, though. It was just shit.
[ 20.10.2008, 05:36: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah, I can see how it might not make a terribly good read. Like I say, there's nothing really original there in the story, it just makes a strong impact as a film thanks to some good pacing and the use of sudden shocking scenes.
I was pretty surprised there was no real effort made to explain what the thing was, or where it came from and how long it had been there. I got the impression we were meant to think it was some kind of old Mayan God or something, which had been there for thousands of years. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Also, there weren't actually any ruins in the book. At one point, when they're lowering the Greek guy down the hole to investigate the ringing mobile phone (it was the plant, pretending), he's lowered past a cavern/hole, where he feels the wafting of fresh air... I got the feeling Smith started out with one idea for the story but went off in a whole different direction. Like, the cavern could've been a set-up for a potential escape, or access to the titular ruins (that might've explained the mystery of the plant) but instead he just went for treacherous vines, spinal injuries, acid burns and starvation. I can see why any author might, it just seemed like he followed the most ridiculous option...
...
I'm starting to like it more, now. In retrospect.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Oh, I think the book and the film might have some big differences then. In the film, the vines are covering an ancient Mayan temple, and the hole is at the top of it. The Greek guy gets shot by the tribe people pretty much as soon as they get there so plays no real part in the plotline, other than to set up the fact that more people would come (making a copy of the map for his friends)
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
The characters die in a different order between book and film, and some of them swap their deaths round (so it's a different person carving vines out of their body, having their legs amputated etc). Also, in the book the lone 'survivor' just gets wankered on Tequila and then slits her wrists, whereas in the film she gets away only to - argh! - discover she's got some vine crawling around under her skin.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
The film actually sounds a lot better than the book. It was a pretty bad book, though. In the book there's two equally irritating American couples, three Greek guys who speak no English, at all, whatsoever, the German guy and his younger brother. The young brother goes off after some archaeologist bird he's fallen in love with, leaving a hastily sketched map for his brother. The German goes after his brother with the two couples and one of the Greeks. The other two Greeks promise to follow on later, using a copy of the hastily sketched map.
The party are looking for the archaeological dig, the ruins, but go up a hill covered in red vines. Then it all goes to shit. The tribal locals won't let them off the hill, they surround it. The only hope of survival is investigating down the hole or waiting for the arrival of the Greeks. The Greek on the hill gets lowered down the hole, falls and breaks his back. Two of the party go down after him, raise him to the surface and then everyone pretty much sits around getting thirstier and thirstier and slowly burnt and freaked out by the vines. Some of this stuff is pretty gruesome, but mostly it's tedious. When they get really desperate a couple of them go back down the hole. It's an old mine, not a ruin. They realise the vines are smart and that they're fucked and they all end up dying, just as the voices of the other two Greeks can be heard approaching.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Planst as monster, though. That's the first problem. Who has phobias about plants in the same way as - say - snakes or spiders, or water, or caves? There's nothing scary about plants. They can't think, they can barely move. They're completely banal and harmless. Even the most dangerous plants take days or weeks to do any damage. Here they seem to try to make them scary by giving them properties that are nothing to do with plants, like sentience and dexterity. Day of The Triffids made sure to blind everyone so that the playing field was levelled slightly. Without that kind of plot point you're surely just left with a pretty generic movie monster with the 'plant' thing being a gimmick.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: There's nothing scary about plants. They can't think, they can barely move. They're completely banal and harmless.
Yeah. That's why I was waiting for the Lovecraft moment. Like, they'd find some stuff in the tents on the hill, and some more stuff down the hole, seemingly unrelated bits and pieces, but then... then... they would make the connection, and the horrible, unknowable, mind-shattering truth would drive them all to suicide and insanity as a timeless evil was summoned by the Godless blacks.
[ 20.10.2008, 07:37: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah, there's a moment where you kinda think, jesus am I really watching a horror film about a moving plant? But it works a lot better than you'd think because for the most part the plant is simply a malaevolent presence which keeps the characters in a constant state of peril. It certainly never gets up or moves around more than a trailing vine moving a few feet. It's not so much the fact that the plant is extremely dangerous to them, more the fact that they're completely unable to escape it.
It's a survival horror at it's core, rather than an out and out monster flick. The characters are trapped there with this plant which alone wouldn't represent any real danger, but as they can't physically leave the temple it basically boils down to a group of people stranded and waiting to die, and that's where the real quality of the film comes from.
It's no classic, but I'd say it's probably the best horror flick I've seen this year. Well worth a rental.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It sounds similar to the concept The Raft from Creepshow 2.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Stephen King wrote that.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
CASTING THE RUNES by M. R. James
_April 15th, 190-_
Dear Sir,
I am requested by the Council of the ---- Association to return to you the draft of a paper on _The Truth of Alchemy_, which you have been good enough to offer to read at our forthcoming meeting, and to inform you that the Council do not see their way to including it in the programme.
I am,
Yours faithfully,
--- _Secretary._
* * * * *
_April 18th_
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to say that my engagements do not permit of my affording you an interview on the subject of your proposed paper. Nor do our laws allow of your discussing the matter with a Committee of our Council, as you suggest. Please allow me to assure you that the fullest consideration was given to the draft which you submitted, and that it was not declined without having been referred to the judgement of a most competent authority. No personal question (it can hardly be necessary for me to add) can have had the slightest influence on the decision of the Council.
Believe me (_ut supra_).
* * * * *
_April 20th_
The Secretary of the ---- Association begs respectfully to inform Mr Karswell that it is impossible for him to communicate the name of any person or persons to whom the draft of Mr Karswell's paper may have been submitted; and further desires to intimate that he cannot undertake to reply to any further letters on this subject.
* * * * *
'And who _is_ Mr Karswell?' inquired the Secretary's wife. She had called at his office, and (perhaps unwarrantably) had picked up the last of these three letters, which the typist had just brought in.
'Why, my dear, just at present Mr Karswell is a very angry man. But I don't know much about him otherwise, except that he is a person of wealth, his address is Lufford Abbey, Warwickshire, and he's an alchemist, apparently, and wants to tell us all about it; and that's about all--except that I don't want to meet him for the next week or two. Now, if you're ready to leave this place, I am.'
'What have you been doing to make him angry?' asked Mrs Secretary.
'The usual thing, my dear, the usual thing: he sent in a draft of a paper he wanted to read at the next meeting, and we referred it to Edward Dunning--almost the only man in England who knows about these things--and he said it was perfectly hopeless, so we declined it. So Karswell has been pelting me with letters ever since. The last thing he wanted was the name of the man we referred his nonsense to; you saw my answer to that. But don't you say anything about it, for goodness' sake.'
'I should think not, indeed. Did I ever do such a thing? I do hope, though, he won't get to know that it was poor Mr Dunning.'
'Poor Mr Dunning? I don't know why you call him that; he's a very happy man, is Dunning. Lots of hobbies and a comfortable home, and all his time to himself.'
'I only meant I should be sorry for him if this man got hold of his name, and came and bothered him.'
'Oh, ah! yes. I dare say he would be poor Mr Dunning then.'
The Secretary and his wife were lunching out, and the friends to whose house they were bound were Warwickshire people. So Mrs Secretary had already settled it in her own mind that she would question them judiciously about Mr Karswell. But she was saved the trouble of leading up to the subject, for the hostess said to the host, before many minutes had passed, 'I saw the Abbot of Lufford this morning.' The host whistled. '_Did_ you? What in the world brings him up to town?' 'Goodness knows; he was coming out of the British Museum gate as I drove past.' It was not unnatural that Mrs Secretary should inquire whether this was a real Abbot who was being spoken of. 'Oh no, my dear: only a neighbour of ours in the country who bought Lufford Abbey a few years ago. His real name is Karswell.' 'Is he a friend of yours?' asked Mr Secretary, with a private wink to his wife. The question let loose a torrent of declamation. There was really nothing to be said for Mr Karswell. Nobody knew what he did with himself: his servants were a horrible set of people; he had invented a new religion for himself, and practised no one could tell what appalling rites; he was very easily offended, and never forgave anybody; he had a dreadful face (so the lady insisted, her husband somewhat demurring); he never did a kind action, and whatever influence he did exert was mischievous. 'Do the poor man justice, dear,' the husband interrupted. 'You forget the treat he gave the school children.' 'Forget it, indeed! But I'm glad you mentioned it, because it gives an idea of the man. Now, Florence, listen to this. The first winter he was at Lufford this delightful neighbour of ours wrote to the clergyman of his parish (he's not ours, but we know him very well) and offered to show the school children some magic-lantern slides. He said he had some new kinds, which he thought would interest them. Well, the clergyman was rather surprised, because Mr Karswell had shown himself inclined to be unpleasant to the children--complaining of their trespassing, or something of the sort; but of course he accepted, and the evening was fixed, and our friend went himself to see that everything went right. He said he never had been so thankful for anything as that his own children were all prevented from being there: they were at a children's party at our house, as a matter of fact. Because this Mr Karswell had evidently set out with the intention of frightening these poor village children out of their wits, and I do believe, if he had been allowed to go on, he would actually have done so. He began with some comparatively mild things. Red Riding Hood was one, and even then, Mr Farrer said, the wolf was so dreadful that several of the smaller children had to be taken out: and he said Mr Karswell began the story by producing a noise like a wolf howling in the distance, which was the most gruesome thing he had ever heard. All the slides he showed, Mr Farrer said, were most clever; they were absolutely realistic, and where he had got them or how he worked them he could not imagine. Well, the show went on, and the stories kept on becoming a little more terrifying each time, and the children were mesmerized into complete silence. At last he produced a series which represented a little boy passing through his own park--Lufford, I mean--in the evening. Every child in the room could recognize the place from the pictures. And this poor boy was followed, and at last pursued and overtaken, and either torn to pieces or somehow made away with, by a horrible hopping creature in white, which you saw first dodging about among the trees, and gradually it appeared more and more plainly. Mr Farrer said it gave him one of the worst nightmares he ever remembered, and what it must have meant to the children doesn't bear thinking of. Of course this was too much, and he spoke very sharply indeed to Mr Karswell, and said it couldn't go on. All _he_ said was: "Oh, you think it's time to bring our little show to an end and send them home to their beds? _Very_ well!" And then, if you please, he switched on another slide, which showed a great mass of snakes, centipedes, and disgusting creatures with wings, and somehow or other he made it seem as if they were climbing out of the picture and getting in amongst the audience; and this was accompanied by a sort of dry rustling noise which sent the children nearly mad, and of course they stampeded. A good many of them were rather hurt in getting out of the room, and I don't suppose one of them closed an eye that night. There was the most dreadful trouble in the village afterwards. Of course the mothers threw a good part of the blame on poor Mr Farrer, and, if they could have got past the gates, I believe the fathers would have broken every window in the Abbey. Well, now, that's Mr Karswell: that's the Abbot of Lufford, my dear, and you can imagine how we covet _his_ society.'
'Yes, I think he has all the possibilities of a distinguished criminal, has Karswell,' said the host. 'I should be sorry for anyone who got into his bad books.'
'Is he the man, or am I mixing him up with someone else?' asked the Secretary (who for some minutes had been wearing the frown of the man who is trying to recollect something). 'Is he the man who brought out a _History of Witchcraft_ some time back--ten years or more?'
'That's the man; do you remember the reviews of it?'
'Certainly I do; and what's equally to the point, I knew the author of the most incisive of the lot. So did you: you must remember John Harrington; he was at John's in our time.'
'Oh, very well indeed, though I don't think I saw or heard anything of him between the time I went down and the day I read the account of the inquest on him.'
'Inquest?' said one of the ladies. 'What has happened to him?'
'Why, what happened was that he fell out of a tree and broke his neck. But the puzzle was, what could have induced him to get up there. It was a mysterious business, I must say. Here was this man--not an athletic fellow, was he? and with no eccentric twist about him that was ever noticed--walking home along a country road late in the evening--no tramps about--well known and liked in the place--and he suddenly begins to run like mad, loses his hat and stick, and finally shins up a tree--quite a difficult tree--growing in the hedgerow: a dead branch gives way, and he comes down with it and breaks his neck, and there he's found next morning with the most dreadful face of fear on him that could be imagined. It was pretty evident, of course, that he had been chased by something, and people talked of savage dogs, and beasts escaped out of menageries; but there was nothing to be made of that. That was in '89, and I believe his brother Henry (whom I remember as well at Cambridge, but _you_ probably don't) has been trying to get on the track of an explanation ever since. He, of course, insists there was malice in it, but I don't know. It's difficult to see how it could have come in.'
After a time the talk reverted to the _History of Witchcraft_. 'Did you ever look into it?' asked the host.
'Yes, I did,' said the Secretary. 'I went so far as to read it.'
'Was it as bad as it was made out to be?'
'Oh, in point of style and form, quite hopeless. It deserved all the pulverizing it got. But, besides that, it was an evil book. The man believed every word of what he was saying, and I'm very much mistaken if he hadn't tried the greater part of his receipts.'
'Well, I only remember Harrington's review of it, and I must say if I'd been the author it would have quenched my literary ambition for good. I should never have held up my head again.'
'It hasn't had that effect in the present case. But come, it's half-past three; I must be off.'
On the way home the Secretary's wife said, 'I do hope that horrible man won't find out that Mr Dunning had anything to do with the rejection of his paper.' 'I don't think there's much chance of that,' said the Secretary. 'Dunning won't mention it himself, for these matters are confidential, and none of us will for the same reason. Karswell won't know his name, for Dunning hasn't published anything on the same subject yet. The only danger is that Karswell might find out, if he was to ask the British Museum people who was in the habit of consulting alchemical manuscripts: I can't very well tell them not to mention Dunning, can I? It would set them talking at once. Let's hope it won't occur to him.'
However, Mr Karswell was an astute man.
* * * * *
This much is in the way of prologue. On an evening rather later in the same week, Mr Edward Dunning was returning from the British Museum, where he had been engaged in research, to the comfortable house in a suburb where he lived alone, tended by two excellent women who had been long with him. There is nothing to be added by way of description of him to what we have heard already. Let us follow him as he takes his sober course homewards.
* * * * *
A train took him to within a mile or two of his house, and an electric tram a stage farther. The line ended at a point some three hundred yards from his front door. He had had enough of reading when he got into the car, and indeed the light was not such as to allow him to do more than study the advertisements on the panes of glass that faced him as he sat. As was not unnatural, the advertisements in this particular line of cars were objects of his frequent contemplation, and, with the possible exception of the brilliant and convincing dialogue between Mr Lamplough and an eminent K.C. on the subject of Pyretic Saline, none of them afforded much scope to his imagination. I am wrong: there was one at the corner of the car farthest from him which did not seem familiar. It was in blue letters on a yellow ground, and all that he could read of it was a name--John Harrington--and something like a date. It could be of no interest to him to know more; but for all that, as the car emptied, he was just curious enough to move along the seat until he could read it well. He felt to a slight extent repaid for his trouble; the advertisement was _not_ of the usual type. It ran thus: 'In memory of John Harrington, F.S.A., of The Laurels, Ashbrooke. Died Sept. 18th, 1889. Three months were allowed.'
The car stopped. Mr Dunning, still contemplating the blue letters on the yellow ground, had to be stimulated to rise by a word from the conductor. 'I beg your pardon,' he said, 'I was looking at that advertisement; it's a very odd one, isn't it?' The conductor read it slowly. 'Well, my word,' he said, 'I never see that one before. Well, that is a cure, ain't it? Someone bin up to their jokes 'ere, I should think.' He got out a duster and applied it, not without saliva, to the pane and then to the outside. 'No,' he said, returning, 'that ain't no transfer; seems to me as if it was reg'lar _in_ the glass, what I mean in the substance, as you may say. Don't you think so, sir?' Mr Dunning examined it and rubbed it with his glove, and agreed. 'Who looks after these advertisements, and gives leave for them to be put up? I wish you would inquire. I will just take a note of the words.' At this moment there came a call from the driver: 'Look alive, George, time's up.' 'All right, all right; there's something else what's up at this end. You come and look at this 'ere glass.' 'What's gorn with the glass?' said the driver, approaching. 'Well, and oo's 'Arrington? What's it all about?' 'I was just asking who was responsible for putting the advertisements up in your cars, and saying it would be as well to make some inquiry about this one.' 'Well, sir, that's all done at the Company's office, that work is: it's our Mr Timms, I believe, looks into that. When we put up tonight I'll leave word, and per'aps I'll be able to tell you tomorrer if you 'appen to be coming this way.'
This was all that passed that evening. Mr Dunning did just go to the trouble of looking up Ashbrooke, and found that it was in Warwickshire.
Next day he went to town again. The car (it was the same car) was too full in the morning to allow of his getting a word with the conductor: he could only be sure that the curious advertisement had been made away with. The close of the day brought a further element of mystery into the transaction. He had missed the tram, or else preferred walking home, but at a rather late hour, while he was at work in his study, one of the maids came to say that two men from the tramways was very anxious to speak to him. This was a reminder of the advertisement, which he had, he says, nearly forgotten. He had the men in--they were the conductor and driver of the car--and when the matter of refreshment had been attended to, asked what Mr Timms had had to say about the advertisement. 'Well, sir, that's what we took the liberty to step round about,' said the conductor. 'Mr Timms 'e give William 'ere the rough side of his tongue about that: 'cordin' to 'im there warn't no advertisement of that description sent in, nor ordered, nor paid for, nor put up, nor nothink, let alone not bein' there, and we was playing the fool takin' up his time. "Well," I says, "if that's the case, all I ask of you, Mr Timms," I says, "is to take and look at it for yourself," I says. "Of course if it ain't there," I says, "you may take and call me what you like." "Right," he says, "I will": and we went straight off. Now, I leave it to you, sir, if that ad., as we term 'em, with 'Arrington on it warn't as plain as ever you see anythink--blue letters on yeller glass, and as I says at the time, and you borne me out, reg'lar _in_ the glass, because, if you remember, you recollect of me swabbing it with my duster.' 'To be sure I do, quite clearly--well?' 'You may say well, I don't think. Mr Timms he gets in that car with a light--no, he telled William to 'old the light outside. "Now," he says, "where's your precious ad. what we've 'eard so much about?" "'Ere it is," I says, "Mr Timms," and I laid my 'and on it.' The conductor paused.
'Well,' said Mr Dunning, 'it was gone, I suppose. Broken?'
'Broke!--not it. There warn't, if you'll believe me, no more trace of them letters--blue letters they was--on that piece o' glass, than--well, it's no good _me_ talkin'. _I_ never see such a thing. I leave it to William here if--but there, as I says, where's the benefit in me going on about it?'
'And what did Mr Timms say?'
'Why 'e did what I give 'im leave to--called us pretty much anythink he liked, and I don't know as I blame him so much neither. But what we thought, William and me did, was as we seen you take down a bit of a note about that--well, that letterin'--'
'I certainly did that, and I have it now. Did you wish me to speak to Mr Timms myself, and show it to him? Was that what you came in about?'
'There, didn't I say as much?' said William. 'Deal with a gent if you can get on the track of one, that's my word. Now perhaps, George, you'll allow as I ain't took you very far wrong tonight.'
'Very well, William, very well; no need for you to go on as if you'd 'ad to frog's-march me 'ere. I come quiet, didn't I? All the same for that, we 'adn't ought to take up your time this way, sir; but if it so 'appened you could find time to step round to the Company orfice in the morning and tell Mr Timms what you seen for yourself, we should lay under a very 'igh obligation to you for the trouble. You see it ain't bein' called--well, one thing and another, as we mind, but if they got it into their 'ead at the orfice as we seen things as warn't there, why, one thing leads to another, and where we should be a twelvemunce 'ence--well, you can understand what I mean.'
Amid further elucidations of the proposition, George, conducted by William, left the room.
The incredulity of Mr Timms (who had a nodding acquaintance with Mr Dunning) was greatly modified on the following day by what the latter could tell and show him; and any bad mark that might have been attached to the names of William and George was not suffered to remain on the Company's books; but explanation there was none.
Mr Dunning's interest in the matter was kept alive by an incident of the following afternoon. He was walking from his club to the train, and he noticed some way ahead a man with a handful of leaflets such as are distributed to passers-by by agents of enterprising firms. This agent had not chosen a very crowded street for his operations: in fact, Mr Dunning did not see him get rid of a single leaflet before he himself reached the spot. One was thrust into his hand as he passed: the hand that gave it touched his, and he experienced a sort of little shock as it did so. It seemed unnaturally rough and hot. He looked in passing at the giver, but the impression he got was so unclear that, however much he tried to reckon it up subsequently, nothing would come. He was walking quickly, and as he went on glanced at the paper. It was a blue one. The name of Harrington in large capitals caught his eye. He stopped, startled, and felt for his glasses. The next instant the leaflet was twitched out of his hand by a man who hurried past, and was irrecoverably gone. He ran back a few paces, but where was the passer-by? and where the distributor?
It was in a somewhat pensive frame of mind that Mr Dunning passed on the following day into the Select Manuscript Room of the British Museum, and filled up tickets for Harley 3586, and some other volumes. After a few minutes they were brought to him, and he was settling the one he wanted first upon the desk, when he thought he heard his own name whispered behind him. He turned round hastily, and in doing so, brushed his little portfolio of loose papers on to the floor. He saw no one he recognized except one of the staff in charge of the room, who nodded to him, and he proceeded to pick up his papers. He thought he had them all, and was turning to begin work, when a stout gentleman at the table behind him, who was just rising to leave, and had collected his own belongings, touched him on the shoulder, saying, 'May I give you this? I think it should be yours,' and handed him a missing quire. 'It is mine, thank you,' said Mr Dunning. In another moment the man had left the room. Upon finishing his work for the afternoon, Mr Dunning had some conversation with the assistant in charge, and took occasion to ask who the stout gentleman was. 'Oh, he's a man named Karswell,' said the assistant; 'he was asking me a week ago who were the great authorities on alchemy, and of course I told him you were the only one in the country. I'll see if I can catch him: he'd like to meet you, I'm sure.'
'For heaven's sake don't dream of it!' said Mr Dunning, 'I'm particularly anxious to avoid him.'
'Oh! very well,' said the assistant, 'he doesn't come here often: I dare say you won't meet him.'
More than once on the way home that day Mr Dunning confessed to himself that he did not look forward with his usual cheerfulness to a solitary evening. It seemed to him that something ill-defined and impalpable had stepped in between him and his fellow-men--had taken him in charge, as it were. He wanted to sit close up to his neighbours in the train and in the tram, but as luck would have it both train and car were markedly empty. The conductor George was thoughtful, and appeared to be absorbed in calculations as to the number of passengers. On arriving at his house he found Dr Watson, his medical man, on his doorstep. 'I've had to upset your household arrangements, I'm sorry to say, Dunning. Both your servants _hors de combat_. In fact, I've had to send them to the Nursing Home.'
'Good heavens! what's the matter?'
'It's something like ptomaine poisoning, I should think: you've not suffered yourself, I can see, or you wouldn't be walking about. I think they'll pull through all right.'
'Dear, dear! Have you any idea what brought it on?' 'Well, they tell me they bought some shell-fish from a hawker at their dinner-time. It's odd. I've made inquiries, but I can't find that any hawker has been to other houses in the street. I couldn't send word to you; they won't be back for a bit yet. You come and dine with me tonight, anyhow, and we can make arrangements for going on. Eight o'clock. Don't be too anxious.' The solitary evening was thus obviated; at the expense of some distress and inconvenience, it is true. Mr Dunning spent the time pleasantly enough with the doctor (a rather recent settler), and returned to his lonely home at about 11.30. The night he passed is not one on which he looks back with any satisfaction. He was in bed and the light was out. He was wondering if the charwoman would come early enough to get him hot water next morning, when he heard the unmistakable sound of his study door opening. No step followed it on the passage floor, but the sound must mean mischief, for he knew that he had shut the door that evening after putting his papers away in his desk. It was rather shame than courage that induced him to slip out into the passage and lean over the banister in his nightgown, listening. No light was visible; no further sound came: only a gust of warm, or even hot air played for an instant round his shins. He went back and decided to lock himself into his room. There was more unpleasantness, however. Either an economical suburban company had decided that their light would not be required in the small hours, and had stopped working, or else something was wrong with the meter; the effect was in any case that the electric light was off. The obvious course was to find a match, and also to consult his watch: he might as well know how many hours of discomfort awaited him. So he put his hand into the well-known nook under the pillow: only, it did not get so far. What he touched was, according to his account, a mouth, with teeth, and with hair about it, and, he declares, not the mouth of a human being. I do not think it is any use to guess what he said or did; but he was in a spare room with the door locked and his ear to it before he was clearly conscious again. And there he spent the rest of a most miserable night, looking every moment for some fumbling at the door: but nothing came.
The venturing back to his own room in the morning was attended with many listenings and quiverings. The door stood open, fortunately, and the blinds were up (the servants had been out of the house before the hour of drawing them down); there was, to be short, no trace of an inhabitant. The watch, too, was in its usual place; nothing was disturbed, only the wardrobe door had swung open, in accordance with its confirmed habit. A ring at the back door now announced the charwoman, who had been ordered the night before, and nerved Mr Dunning, after letting her in, to continue his search in other parts of the house. It was equally fruitless.
The day thus begun went on dismally enough. He dared not go to the Museum: in spite of what the assistant had said, Karswell might turn up there, and Dunning felt he could not cope with a probably hostile stranger. His own house was odious; he hated sponging on the doctor. He spent some little time in a call at the Nursing Home, where he was slightly cheered by a good report of his housekeeper and maid. Towards lunch-time he betook himself to his club, again experiencing a gleam of satisfaction at seeing the Secretary of the Association. At luncheon Dunning told his friend the more material of his woes, but could not bring himself to speak of those that weighed most heavily on his spirits. 'My poor dear man,' said the Secretary, 'what an upset! Look here: we're alone at home, absolutely. You must put up with us. Yes! no excuse: send your things in this afternoon.' Dunning was unable to stand out: he was, in truth, becoming acutely anxious, as the hours went on, as to what that night might have waiting for him. He was almost happy as he hurried home to pack up.
His friends, when they had time to take stock of him, were rather shocked at his lorn appearance, and did their best to keep him up to the mark. Not altogether without success: but, when the two men were smoking alone later, Dunning became dull again. Suddenly he said, 'Gayton, I believe that alchemist man knows it was I who got his paper rejected.' Gayton whistled. 'What makes you think that?' he said. Dunning told of his conversation with the Museum assistant, and Gayton could only agree that the guess seemed likely to be correct. 'Not that I care much,' Dunning went on, 'only it might be a nuisance if we were to meet. He's a bad-tempered party, I imagine.' Conversation dropped again; Gayton became more and more strongly impressed with the desolateness that came over Dunning's face and bearing, and finally--though with a considerable effort--he asked him point-blank whether something serious was not bothering him. Dunning gave an exclamation of relief. 'I was perishing to get it off my mind,' he said. 'Do you know anything about a man named John Harrington?' Gayton was thoroughly startled, and at the moment could only ask why. Then the complete story of Dunning's experiences came out--what had happened in the tramcar, in his own house, and in the street, the troubling of spirit that had crept over him, and still held him; and he ended with the question he had begun with. Gayton was at a loss how to answer him. To tell the story of Harrington's end would perhaps be right; only, Dunning was in a nervous state, the story was a grim one, and he could not help asking himself whether there were not a connecting link between these two cases, in the person of Karswell. It was a difficult concession for a scientific man, but it could be eased by the phrase 'hypnotic suggestion'. In the end he decided that his answer tonight should be guarded; he would talk the situation over with his wife. So he said that he had known Harrington at Cambridge, and believed he had died suddenly in 1889, adding a few details about the man and his published work. He did talk over the matter with Mrs Gayton, and, as he had anticipated, she leapt at once to the conclusion which had been hovering before him. It was she who reminded him of the surviving brother, Henry Harrington, and she also who suggested that he might be got hold of by means of their hosts of the day before. 'He might be a hopeless crank,' objected Gayton. 'That could be ascertained from the Bennetts, who knew him,' Mrs Gayton retorted; and she undertook to see the Bennetts the very next day.
* * * * *
It is not necessary to tell in further detail the steps by which Henry Harrington and Dunning were brought together.
* * * * *
The next scene that does require to be narrated is a conversation that took place between the two. Dunning had told Harrington of the strange ways in which the dead man's name had been brought before him, and had said something, besides, of his own subsequent experiences. Then he had asked if Harrington was disposed, in return, to recall any of the circumstances connected with his brother's death. Harrington's surprise at what he heard can be imagined: but his reply was readily given.
'John,' he said, 'was in a very odd state, undeniably, from time to time, during some weeks before, though not immediately before, the catastrophe. There were several things; the principal notion he had was that he thought he was being followed. No doubt he was an impressionable man, but he never had had such fancies as this before. I cannot get it out of my mind that there was ill-will at work, and what you tell me about yourself reminds me very much of my brother. Can you think of any possible connecting link?'
'There is just one that has been taking shape vaguely in my mind. I've been told that your brother reviewed a book very severely not long before he died, and just lately I have happened to cross the path of the man who wrote that book in a way he would resent.'
'Don't tell me the man was called Karswell.'
'Why not? that is exactly his name.'
Henry Harrington leant back. 'That is final to my mind. Now I must explain further. From something he said, I feel sure that my brother John was beginning to believe--very much against his will--that Karswell was at the bottom of his trouble. I want to tell you what seems to me to have a bearing on the situation. My brother was a great musician, and used to run up to concerts in town. He came back, three months before he died, from one of these, and gave me his programme to look at--an analytical programme: he always kept them. "I nearly missed this one," he said. "I suppose I must have dropped it: anyhow, I was looking for it under my seat and in my pockets and so on, and my neighbour offered me his, said 'might he give it me, he had no further use for it,' and he went away just afterwards. I don't know who he was--a stout, clean-shaven man. I should have been sorry to miss it; of course I could have bought another, but this cost me nothing." At another time he told me that he had been very uncomfortable both on the way to his hotel and during the night. I piece things together now in thinking it over. Then, not very long after, he was going over these programmes, putting them in order to have them bound up, and in this particular one (which by the way I had hardly glanced at), he found quite near the beginning a strip of paper with some very odd writing on it in red and black--most carefully done--it looked to me more like Runic letters than anything else. "Why," he said, "this must belong to my fat neighbour. It looks as if it might be worth returning to him; it may be a copy of something; evidently someone has taken trouble over it. How can I find his address?" We talked it over for a little and agreed that it wasn't worth advertising about, and that my brother had better look out for the man at the next concert, to which he was going very soon. The paper was lying on the book and we were both by the fire; it was a cold, windy summer evening. I suppose the door blew open, though I didn't notice it: at any rate a gust--a warm gust it was--came quite suddenly between us, took the paper and blew it straight into the fire: it was light, thin paper, and flared and went up the chimney in a single ash. "Well," I said, "you can't give it back now." He said nothing for a minute: then rather crossly, "No, I can't; but why you should keep on saying so I don't know." I remarked that I didn't say it more than once. "Not more than four times, you mean," was all he said. I remember all that very clearly, without any good reason; and now to come to the point. I don't know if you looked at that book of Karswell's which my unfortunate brother reviewed. It's not likely that you should: but I did, both before his death and after it. The first time we made game of it together. It was written in no style at all--split infinitives, and every sort of thing that makes an Oxford gorge rise. Then there was nothing that the man didn't swallow: mixing up classical myths, and stories out of the _Golden Legend_ with reports of savage customs of today--all very proper, no doubt, if you know how to use them, but he didn't: he seemed to put the _Golden Legend_ and the _Golden Bough_ exactly on a par, and to believe both: a pitiable exhibition, in short. Well, after the misfortune, I looked over the book again. It was no better than before, but the impression which it left this time on my mind was different. I suspected--as I told you--that Karswell had borne ill-will to my brother, even that he was in some way responsible for what had happened; and now his book seemed to me to be a very sinister performance indeed. One chapter in particular struck me, in which he spoke of "casting the Runes" on people, either for the purpose of gaining their affection or of getting them out of the way--perhaps more especially the latter: he spoke of all this in a way that really seemed to me to imply actual knowledge. I've not time to go into details, but the upshot is that I am pretty sure from information received that the civil man at the concert was Karswell: I suspect--I more than suspect--that the paper was of importance: and I do believe that if my brother had been able to give it back, he might have been alive now. Therefore, it occurs to me to ask you whether you have anything to put beside what I have told you.'
By way of answer, Dunning had the episode in the Manuscript Room at the British Museum to relate.
'Then he did actually hand you some papers; have you examined them? No? because we must, if you'll allow it, look at them at once, and very carefully.'
They went to the still empty house--empty, for the two servants were not yet able to return to work. Dunning's portfolio of papers was gathering dust on the writing-table. In it were the quires of small-sized scribbling paper which he used for his transcripts: and from one of these, as he took it up, there slipped and fluttered out into the room with uncanny quickness, a strip of thin light paper. The window was open, but Harrington slammed it to, just in time to intercept the paper, which he caught. 'I thought so,' he said; 'it might be the identical thing that was given to my brother. You'll have to look out, Dunning; this may mean something quite serious for you.'
A long consultation took place. The paper was narrowly examined. As Harrington had said, the characters on it were more like Runes than anything else, but not decipherable by either man, and both hesitated to copy them, for fear, as they confessed, of perpetuating whatever evil purpose they might conceal. So it has remained impossible (if I may anticipate a little) to ascertain what was conveyed in this curious message or commission. Both Dunning and Harrington are firmly convinced that it had the effect of bringing its possessors into very undesirable company. That it must be returned to the source whence it came they were agreed, and further, that the only safe and certain way was that of personal service; and here contrivance would be necessary, for Dunning was known by sight to Karswell. He must, for one thing, alter his appearance by shaving his beard. But then might not the blow fall first? Harrington thought they could time it. He knew the date of the concert at which the 'black spot' had been put on his brother: it was June 18th. The death had followed on Sept. 18th. Dunning reminded him that three months had been mentioned on the inscription on the car-window. 'Perhaps,' he added, with a cheerless laugh, 'mine may be a bill at three months too. I believe I can fix it by my diary. Yes, April 23rd was the day at the Museum; that brings us to July 23rd. Now, you know, it becomes extremely important to me to know anything you will tell me about the progress of your brother's trouble, if it is possible for you to speak of it.' 'Of course. Well, the sense of being watched whenever he was alone was the most distressing thing to him. After a time I took to sleeping in his room, and he was the better for that: still, he talked a great deal in his sleep. What about? Is it wise to dwell on that, at least before things are straightened out? I think not, but I can tell you this: two things came for him by post during those weeks, both with a London postmark, and addressed in a commercial hand. One was a woodcut of Bewick's, roughly torn out of the page: one which shows a moonlit road and a man walking along it, followed by an awful demon creature. Under it were written the lines out of the "Ancient Mariner" (which I suppose the cut illustrates) about one who, having once looked round--
walks on, And turns no more his head, Because he knows a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.
The other was a calendar, such as tradesmen often send. My brother paid no attention to this, but I looked at it after his death, and found that everything after Sept. 18 had been torn out. You may be surprised at his having gone out alone the evening he was killed, but the fact is that during the last ten days or so of his life he had been quite free from the sense of being followed or watched.'
The end of the consultation was this. Harrington, who knew a neighbour of Karswell's, thought he saw a way of keeping a watch on his movements. It would be Dunning's part to be in readiness to try to cross Karswell's path at any moment, to keep the paper safe and in a place of ready access.
They parted. The next weeks were no doubt a severe strain upon Dunning's nerves: the intangible barrier which had seemed to rise about him on the day when he received the paper, gradually developed into a brooding blackness that cut him off from the means of escape to which one might have thought he might resort. No one was at hand who was likely to suggest them to him, and he seemed robbed of all initiative. He waited with inexpressible anxiety as May, June, and early July passed on, for a mandate from Harrington. But all this time Karswell remained immovable at Lufford.
At last, in less than a week before the date he had come to look upon as the end of his earthly activities, came a telegram: 'Leaves Victoria by boat train Thursday night. Do not miss. I come to you to-night. Harrington.'
He arrived accordingly, and they concocted plans. The train left Victoria at nine and its last stop before Dover was Croydon West. Harrington would mark down Karswell at Victoria, and look out for Dunning at Croydon, calling to him if need were by a name agreed upon. Dunning, disguised as far as might be, was to have no label or initials on any hand luggage, and must at all costs have the paper with him.
Dunning's suspense as he waited on the Croydon platform I need not attempt to describe. His sense of danger during the last days had only been sharpened by the fact that the cloud about him had perceptibly been lighter; but relief was an ominous symptom, and, if Karswell eluded him now, hope was gone: and there were so many chances of that. The rumour of the journey might be itself a device. The twenty minutes in which he paced the platform and persecuted every porter with inquiries as to the boat train were as bitter as any he had spent. Still, the train came, and Harrington was at the window. It was important, of course, that there should be no recognition: so Dunning got in at the farther end of the corridor carriage, and only gradually made his way to the compartment where Harrington and Karswell were. He was pleased, on the whole, to see that the train was far from full.
Karswell was on the alert, but gave no sign of recognition. Dunning took the seat not immediately facing him, and attempted, vainly at first, then with increasing command of his faculties, to reckon the possibilities of making the desired transfer. Opposite to Karswell, and next to Dunning, was a heap of Karswell's coats on the seat. It would be of no use to slip the paper into these--he would not be safe, or would not feel so, unless in some way it could be proffered by him and accepted by the other. There was a handbag, open, and with papers in it. Could he manage to conceal this (so that perhaps Karswell might leave the carriage without it), and then find and give it to him? This was the plan that suggested itself. If he could only have counselled with Harrington! but that could not be. The minutes went on. More than once Karswell rose and went out into the corridor. The second time Dunning was on the point of attempting to make the bag fall off the seat, but he caught Harrington's eye, and read in it a warning.
Karswell, from the corridor, was watching: probably to see if the two men recognized each other. He returned, but was evidently restless: and, when he rose the third time, hope dawned, for something did slip off his seat and fall with hardly a sound to the floor. Karswell went out once more, and passed out of range of the corridor window. Dunning picked up what had fallen, and saw that the key was in his hands in the form of one of Cook's ticket-cases, with tickets in it. These cases have a pocket in the cover, and within very few seconds the paper of which we have heard was in the pocket of this one. To make the operation more secure, Harrington stood in the doorway of the compartment and fiddled with the blind. It was done, and done at the right time, for the train was now slowing down towards Dover.
In a moment more Karswell re-entered the compartment. As he did so, Dunning, managing, he knew not how, to suppress the tremble in his voice, handed him the ticket-case, saying, 'May I give you this, sir? I believe it is yours.' After a brief glance at the ticket inside, Karswell uttered the hoped-for response, 'Yes, it is; much obliged to you, sir,' and he placed it in his breast pocket.
Even in the few moments that remained--moments of tense anxiety, for they knew not to what a premature finding of the paper might lead--both men noticed that the carriage seemed to darken about them and to grow warmer; that Karswell was fidgety and oppressed; that he drew the heap of loose coats near to him and cast it back as if it repelled him; and that he then sat upright and glanced anxiously at both. They, with sickening anxiety, busied themselves in collecting their belongings; but they both thought that Karswell was on the point of speaking when the train stopped at Dover Town. It was natural that in the short space between town and pier they should both go into the corridor.
At the pier they got out, but so empty was the train that they were forced to linger on the platform until Karswell should have passed ahead of them with his porter on the way to the boat, and only then was it safe for them to exchange a pressure of the hand and a word of concentrated congratulation. The effect upon Dunning was to make him almost faint. Harrington made him lean up against the wall, while he himself went forward a few yards within sight of the gangway to the boat, at which Karswell had now arrived. The man at the head of it examined his ticket, and, laden with coats he passed down into the boat. Suddenly the official called after him, 'You, sir, beg pardon, did the other gentleman show his ticket?' 'What the devil do you mean by the other gentleman?' Karswell's snarling voice called back from the deck. The man bent over and looked at him. 'The devil? Well, I don't know, I'm sure,' Harrington heard him say to himself, and then aloud, 'My mistake, sir; must have been your rugs! ask your pardon.' And then, to a subordinate near him, ''Ad he got a dog with him, or what? Funny thing: I could 'a' swore 'e wasn't alone. Well, whatever it was, they'll 'ave to see to it aboard. She's off now. Another week and we shall be gettin' the 'oliday customers.' In five minutes more there was nothing but the lessening lights of the boat, the long line of the Dover lamps, the night breeze, and the moon.
Long and long the two sat in their room at the 'Lord Warden'. In spite of the removal of their greatest anxiety, they were oppressed with a doubt, not of the lightest. Had they been justified in sending a man to his death, as they believed they had? Ought they not to warn him, at least? 'No,' said Harrington; 'if he is the murderer I think him, we have done no more than is just. Still, if you think it better--but how and where can you warn him?' 'He was booked to Abbeville only,' said Dunning. 'I saw that. If I wired to the hotels there in Joanne's Guide, "Examine your ticket-case, Dunning," I should feel happier. This is the 21st: he will have a day. But I am afraid he has gone into the dark.' So telegrams were left at the hotel office.
It is not clear whether these reached their destination, or whether, if they did, they were understood. All that is known is that, on the afternoon of the 23rd, an English traveller, examining the front of St Wulfram's Church at Abbeville, then under extensive repair, was struck on the head and instantly killed by a stone falling from the scaffold erected round the north-western tower, there being, as was clearly proved, no workman on the scaffold at that moment: and the traveller's papers identified him as Mr Karswell.
Only one detail shall be added. At Karswell's sale a set of Bewick, sold with all faults, was acquired by Harrington. The page with the woodcut of the traveller and the demon was, as he had expected, mutilated. Also, after a judicious interval, Harrington repeated to Dunning something of what he had heard his brother say in his sleep: but it was not long before Dunning stopped him.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
This, from my local neighbourhood library. Some are better than others.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
tl;dr
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That was a joke, by the way. I will read that at some point BM.
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: in the book the lone 'survivor' just gets wankered on Tequila and then slits her wrists, whereas in the film she gets away only to - argh! - discover she's got some vine crawling around under her skin.
That's the 'alternate' film ending - in the main ending she gets away with no follow-up as to what happens to her, and the film then ends with the greek guys entering the clearing with the ruins. Apparently she slits her wrists in the book to leave herself as a warning to others not to approach, but the vines then drag her body away rendering her death pointless.
I thought it was okay, seemed a bit short and didn't give enough depth to the whole vines backstory to be properly satisfying..
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i watched this the other day. It's an atmospheric comedy written and directed by a Japanese chick. It's about a Japanese chick who is a teenager or something in Japan, and she lives in a rural town and teaches kids how to play the recorder. She's not easy to get on with, being very compulsive and erratic, and she spends her spare time dreaming of being a pop star. She is teased by people because of her 'masculine' appearance. Anyway, the film is all about her coming to terms with the relationship she has with her father, who is dying in hospital, with the children who she teaches, and with a dude she works with who is German.
I know there are a few fans of experimental Japanese indie popsters 'tenniscoats' here on tmo, and this film is pretty much their music, only on screen. There are moments of comedy, beauty and straight up artiness, all mixed up. Scenes are often staged in either the drunken lethargy of a listless autumn afternoon, or the excited physicality of a fight. The dodgy translation added to the weirdness of it all.
I wouldn't say it was a must-see, and I would bet 100% that nobody here will ever bother to watch it. But it is worth catching.
[ 22.10.2008, 12:05: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched Hostel on the telly the other night. Weak.
However, I also watched Galaxy Quest, which I have a soft spot for. That evened out my overall film viewing experience to a neutral nothingness.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
James Bond looks like a load of shit doesn't it.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Yeah. I have no interest in James Bond at all. Lots of reviews are saying stuff like "it's not like James Bond at all. I mean, it's Bond, but he doesn't give a fuck about what his Martini is like and there's no Q or Z or H&M. No gadgets and no fucking" So basically the new bond film features a dude called Daniel acting like Matt. Maybe if I dress a cat up like Eval Knieval and rollerskate it into a stack of boxes and name the video footage after an Ian Fleming book then people will start spunking off in public about how good it is. Stupid fucking bond films.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Also, Daniel Craig looks like someone did this:
to both sides of his face.
Thanks to Waynster for posing for me in that picture.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
He's just such a pathetic role model for the British male. Standing there in his suit, brandishing a machine gun, looking all serious. He looks like such a swaggering fuckpiece, like he really thinks he looks well sharp. It says so much about us that this is our hero. Incredibly self-important yet utterly insecure. Wanting to be lone wolves, standing alone, yet at the same time, wanting other men to think we've got a good sense of style, and really caring about wearing the right sunglasses. Cock.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
At least Roger Moore knew exactly how absurd this fantasy was.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I like it when critics describe the new Bond films as 'realistic', even though the last one had a plot where Bond bankrupts the world's terrorists by beating them at poker and at one point mid-hand he's poisoned, goes out to his car, dies, comes back to life and then heads back in to the casino to win the game.
[ 28.10.2008, 08:42: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Didn't John Cleese make a joke about his height, being only 5'8" and he nearly pooed and cried at the same time?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Also, Daniel Craig looks like someone did this:
to both sides of his face.
Thanks to Waynster for posing for me in that picture.
I suspect that's exactly what has happened to him. Every time I see his stupid gormless mongface with its total lack of believable expression, I just want to smash it in with a cricket bat.
That Sony advert, the one with him just standing there as things blow up around him, with a face so smug you'd think he'd just shit a gold brick, I actually can't watch it all the way through.
Casoni Royale had a good bit at the start, with all the cranes and free running and junk, but other than that, it was a complete abortion of a movie. And Daniel Craig is fucking terrible in it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Can anyone tell me at exactly what point in Casino Royale Vesper's boyfriend is kidnapped and she becomes a double agent? Becuase I've seen that film a couple of times and that whole plot point doesn't make a fucking jot of sense.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: That Sony advert, the one with him just standing there as things blow up around him, with a face so smug you'd think he'd just shit a gold brick, I actually can't watch it all the way through.
It's so massively contrived and shit as well. With as much sense one of those big fuckers you get in the pub who asks you to punch him in the stomach and you're frightened to because you know when you've given him, one maybe two tries he wants to have his turn. Except......you're pretending not to be bothered by CGI explosions. Unless it was real and Daniel Craig's face is actually caving in because he does all of his own stunts. But anyway, it's like 'fucking hell, explosions!' Stupid fucking advert!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
*sticks dick in the mash potato* Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm not really quite sure what all those HDTV adverts are trying to say to me either. Am I supposed to be sitting there thinking "oh no, this looks really shitty on my TV, I better go out and buy a brand new Bravia!" or something?
I know that some say that adverts are more there to build brand loyalty and make you feel good about thingsyou've already purchased, but even that doesn't work, because the adverts not in high definition anyway.
It's just an enormous failure on every level. Which I guess is the Daniel Craig connection.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Hah, like those old adverts that use to go 'THIS! Is! DVD! and you'd have to look at your video case in an accusing manner.
Darryn - can't you iplayer Dead Set (or 4 on demand, which I think is what the C4 equivalent is called)?
If not, I have a Sky+ recording it on series link and a DVD recorder at your disposal, good sir.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay:
Thanks to Waynster for posing for me in that picture.
Scarily uncanny.
Unfortunately, my very publicised loving of the bond franchise means I am very much looking forward to the film, but I can see why a lot of people can get sick of it all, and I am also slightly concerned that the next one might be a bit of a dud - I have heard conflicting reviews of it but I'll go along and make my own mind up.
As to other films I saw death proof, as it was one of a very special friend of mines favourite films. Watching a young lady very graphically cutting of a chaps winky with a pair of tin snips has me very scared indeed as this person will be moving in with me soon - I don't think I shall sleep again.....
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Darryn - can't you iplayer Dead Set (or 4 on demand, which I think is what the C4 equivalent is called)?
Unfortunately for us ex-pats, all these Iplayers from the BBC and their C4 equivalents don't work outside the UK - I'm still trying to find a way to trick this but with little success so far.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Waynster: As to other films I saw death proof, as it was one of a very special friend of mines favourite films. Watching a young lady very graphically cutting of a chaps winky with a pair of tin snips has me very scared indeed
Hang on... when does this happen in Death Proof?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
The internet must be broken because I keep checking here for posts and there are none and my email is empty too.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
*Sticks mash potato in his dick* Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
We've all put NWOD on ignore and he hasn't realised, lol!
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Thanks to the wonders of Alluc.org I caught last night Run fatboy run which was fairly amusing, and also Where The Truth Lies - a rarity of a film as Kevin Bacon plays the lead as opposed to his normal endless run of supporting roles. Interesting film, bit of a whodunnit, but definately made all the more better by having the rather gorgeous Alison Lohman in it who I am liking a lot who you may have seen in Matchstick Men or White Oleander.
I notice that In Bruges is also up there, which I have heard good things about, so I may catch that tonight if I don't head out after my meeting.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Thanks to Orange Wednesday I only wasted £3.75 on that fucking disaster called Quantum of Solace. Probably the worst film I've seen in the cinema since the excreable V for Vendetta it had a similar approach of being an ostensibly 'smart' movie that showered tiny shards of fucking stupidity on the audience as though working on the principle that people would ignore those if the film gave the appearance of making sense. There's going to be a few spoilers from here, so if you must go and see this film, keep that in mind.
So, where to begin? There's no real plot - it's just Bond chasing the bad guys. He gets suspended by MI6 for a bit, but it doesn't make any difference to the story. The villains frame Bond by putting a dead body in his car. MI6 don't question this, as though they're all saying "Framed? Don't be ridiculous! Who ever heard of such a thing? Who would frame and MI6 agent?". But like, I say, it doesn't make any difference. He carries on wandering the world and getting into fights exactly the same as before.
The fights. Given there's no real character and no real plot, the action is surely the main draw here. Except that it's staggeringly inept in execution. The film opens in the middle of a car chase, which must have seemed like a great idea on paper. However, without any kind of clue as to who's chasing Bond - as in what car they're driving or what the drivers look like - it's impossible to make sense of the chase. Cars catapault into the air. Was that the villain? Is the threat gone now? Did Bond just kill an innocent? Indeed, 'What just happened?' is kind of the theme of the action sequence as they're frequently resolved by Bond performing some nebulous yet decisive action that results in the death of his opponent. He throws a grappling hook at a boat and it flips over. He does... something in an aeroplane that makes another pilot crash. He does a thing that makes a man fall off a scaffold, but I don't know what it was. On and on it goes in total incoherence.
Terrible performances too, although probably down to the script, because even Judi Dench is totally unconvincing. At one point in a briefing she seems unaware that a passport is a CGI image on a table top screen - a la Minority Report - and keeps seeming to try and pick it up. Daniel Craig comes off as extremely shy about the quips, as though he knows how lame they are and can't quite bring himself to say them. Mr White comes off as a sort of angry market stall owner in his one scene, scoffing at MI6 that "We're always worried you're looking over our shoulder, but you know nothing about us!" Then he mentions that he has "people everywhere". So surely he should have known that MI6 is ignorant of his organisation?
Anyway. One more thing, and then you can go. My favourite piece of stupid in this film is the hotel in the desert, that stands in for the usual underground base or villain's lair or what have you that always end these things. It's a hotel. In the desert. The power blinks out. "Oh - that'll be the fuel cells", exposits one character. OK. So Jeff Architect built this hotel in the middle of the desert. "How are we going to power this hotel, Jeff, that you've built in the desert, Jeff, with the attendant climate that the desert has, Jeff, what energy source should we harness?"
"Jeez, I dunno. How about highly volatile hydrogen fuel cells?"
"Well, Jeff, I was wondering about solar power as a safe and abundant source of energy. After all, we're in the desert. It's one thing we've got plenty of."
"Power from the sun? Are you mad? Are you some kind of mad middle ages superstitious quack? We're going with hydrogen fuel cells".
Wouldn't you know it. Part of the building catches fire and this sets off a chain reaction as each part of the hotel sets off an explosion in another part and blah. I've worked for engineering consultants. I want to know how in the name of fuck this building passed safety regulations.
"Jeff, I can't help noticing - Jeff, pay attention - I can't help noticing that not only have you failed to install the mandatory number of fire doors to prevent any blaze from travelling the length of the building in a matter of minutes, not only have you not done that, but I notice that you've placed hydrogen fuel cells every ten metres or so meaning that any instance of fire any where in the will result in the entire building becoming an inescapable exploding deathtrap that will kill all your guests within a matter of minutes."
"... Ok ... well.... What if I put a sprinkler system in?"
In the desert Jeff? A sprinkler system in the desert where's the water going to come from Jeff when the whole fucking film, Jeff is all about the villains stealing water? How's that going to work? It doesn't Jeff! It doesn't work! It's just about enough to get Daniel Craig photogenically wet but it has no effect on dampening the giant fucking hydrogen bomb yu built in the middle of nowhere!
Oh yes. That's right. The villainous organisation turns out to be a utilities company that wants to charge more on the water rates. Like Thames Water but less implacably evil.
[ 06.11.2008, 05:23: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
-Gentle, appreciative round of applause-
Balls. I haven't seen it yet.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
bugger, i wanted to see that too..
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
I'll still go and check it out for myself this afternoon, but before your report I had some misgivings from others reviews. Still it is a Bond film, and I love them, so whilst I might not enjoy this one as I did Casino Royale, I just feel obligated to just make my own mind up.
Anyway, I thought V for Vendetta was a cracking film Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: bugger, i wanted to see that too..
Well, you know. Don't avoid it on my account. I'm sure some people will enjoy it. People who don't mind piping hot shit being fired into their face for 104 minutes.
Oh yeah - it's only 1hr 45min long, but I have to say it was the longest hour and three quarters of my life. It's like the last 100 minutes of the working day on the Friday before a bank holiday.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
I was planningto scut out early today and nip to the flicks, but all hell broke loose here and now im stuck at my fucking desk like a **** ..
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
To his credit Daniel does do a lovely ducking-away-from-flying glass face in the initial car chase. Except that it finally becomes clear (after Bond has shaken off the pursuit) that the car-chasers were henchmen of Mr White, who Bond has stashed in his car boot. Presumably the henchmen knew that Mr White was stashed in the car boot, hence the chase. To be honest if I was Mr White and I was paying henchmen to protect me I'd have some sharp words to say about them firing automatic weapons at the boot of the car where I was stashed, not to mention trying to run it off the road. P45s all round, surely.
Though my favourite bit in this sequence was the two or three shots of the aggressively styled Aston Martin foot-pedals. Now, I admit it's a while since I've driven a motor vehicle, but I do seem to remember there being a requirement that in order to make it go, one put one's foot on a pedal. In none of the shots of said stylish Aston Martin pedals was James Bond's foot in evidence anywhere near the pedals, leading one to suppose that his car goes fast on steely blue-eyed willpower alone.
Some key duff moments.
1. Sending a twig-thin redhead who seems to be about twelve years old with a strong Roedean accent to 'arrest' Bond was really never going to work.
2. Daniel Craig is doubtless very charming, but as a come-to-bed line 'I can't find the stationery, could you help me look?' lacks a certain something. Actually it pretty much lacks a certain everything.
3. Redheaded girl coated in - supposedly - oil, sprawled dead on the hotel bed. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that she appeared to be coated in bitumen rather than oil, the 'Oooh, we've all seen Goldfinger haven't we, let's have a copy of the shot' moment was just awful. Not to mention the practicality of getting a dead, slippery, naked, oil-covered girl's corpse up the stairs and into the bedroom of a large, posh hotel without someone clearing their throat politely and asking you what the hell you're doing.
4. Bond picking up a piece of rock from a big pile of broken stone and musing 'They used dynamite.' Well, we didn't think they used grapefruit spoons.
It's just full of shit ideas and inconsistencies... the puny villain who suddenly fights as well as the top man in MI6 (who ten minutes previously has downed three other MI6 agents)... the attempt of Bond and Camille to hold a conversation in the middle of a speedboat chase, leaving you to hope they weren't expositing any key plot points because you didn't have a hope in hell of hearing them... the Reservoir-Dogs-like aliases (Mr White, Mr Green) that were never taken further or explained... the idea that you can just casually reshape the underground geography of a huge area of desert to make it function as water holding tanks.
Dreadful in every respect.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
As much as I love Bond movies, aren't they all a little like the boat scene you described, Octavia?
What was wrong with V for Vendetta?
Ps...not just the boat scene, but the way both you and thorn describe the movie, they're all a little cheesey. But still entertaining.
[ 06.11.2008, 09:40: Message edited by: Amy ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
The difference here is that it's not so much cheesey, as technically inept. There's no sense of the geography of the action, so it's kind of unengaging. Also, because it's got this tone of 'serious' movie hanging over it, the stuff like the exploding hotel comes off as stupid rather than playful.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
About as hot of the press as you will ever get a review from me - I've come straight from the cinema to the pub to look like a cock and type this, but I have to get it all down while it is still fresh.
Theren is ultimately a lot wrong with this movie, and a lot right with it - having been a massive fan of the franchise for more than 30 years, sometimes you doubt your impartiality, and expect any reader rightly to do so, so in this respect I am going to do my best to find fault first - this will contains spoilers so please look away if you are yet to see the film.
Firstly, the action sequences - in the first third of the movie there were far too many of them, and this horrible style of 4 second shots made it impossible at times to work out what the hell was going on (the grappling hook and the dinghy - just how did he do that?) - it sure works well in the Bourne films, but Bond uses a bit more artistic license and with so much going on it was very difficult to keep up with it. With Bond being reinvented with a new sense of reality in the previous outing I was sad to see the whole implauusible rope routine - I'd just 2 years previous been introduced to the real Bond, and now it seems they are slipping back to the old ways a little.
The guy who played Greene I found cringeworthy - couldn't act his way out of a paper bag - the scene with the main Bond girl at the harbour was plain awful, and the dialogue like it had been written on the back of a fag packet. She (her name I have forgotten did improve a little, but not enough to redeem herself.)
Two characters from the previous outing did not get the exposure they deserved - Mr White we hardly got to see, and as someone who was a great part of the integral plot of the previous one I would have thought deserved more exposure to develop his characrter. Also Mathis, who I thought was a great asset to Bond - why the hell was he assasinated? He could have been like another Leitner, an asset outside the agency, yet in a crass and stupid way he was illiminated far too early.
The actual plot seemed to distanced from where we were left of at the end of the last story and just deviated too much from that. The story on the whole was pretty thin and left a lot to be desired - I really fely that they could have built so much from the last film but instead it seems they just thought "Stuff it - they loved the last one - they will go and see any old tosh" - instead of having a chance to build the characters up to the supposed finale, they have just seemed to have skipped though a lot of it all, relied to much on luck and circumstance as well as bad scripting and a weak plot, and are (and I hope) going to fix it all in the next film - however they have a lot of work to do to reconvince me
So what was good about the film? Well Craig did play the character as well as he could given the dialogue, and also Dench was once again fine and a treasure to the role - it had some fine moments - the aforementioned scene at the opera was rather good, and some other parts were entertaining. But did I enjoy the film? Well, if truth be told, yes, but at the same time being dissapointed. Its a Bond film and I love the franchise, and especially in the recent reinvention of the character, and I think Craig really is the most superior actor to adopt the role, but there was a lot to be said in the negative about this. I will need to see it again to judge it properly, but first viewing and there are too many questions to be asked to the writers - had this film been written 15 years ago with Brosnan at the reigns it would have been a classic, but in this day and age it just doesn't quite cut it. 6/10.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Oh and I apologise for any typos but have you tried writing in the dark on a laptop less than the size of a fish finger box - it ain't fun
Posted by missgolightly (Member # 34) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Oh yeah - it's only 1hr 45min long, but I have to say it was the longest hour and three quarters of my life. It's like the last 100 minutes of the working day on the Friday before a bank holiday.
I totally agree with this, and with your review. It didn't help that I was painfully hungover, and had to sit in the middle of a big group, closing my eyes when it got a bit too energetic and dizzying, eating popcorn to try and stave off the nausea, confused about what was going on and not really caring anyway, and basically wishing I hadn't been talked into leaving the house. A very miserable experience, all in all.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
Has anyone read the Stephenie Meyer's series? The first book is called Twilight. It's young adult, but quite good. The movie is coming out here sometime soon and I'm picking up the second book today. Very excited.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Hi Amy
I've read them all plus the standalone novel The Host.
I resisted buying them at first, thinking a bit sneeringly that their enormous popularity must be a bit Dan Brown-y. I eventually bought the first one, got hooked right in and ordered the rest of the series from Amazon the same day as I started reading the first one, then read through all of them within the space of about a fortnight.
They're not great literature but they're damn addictive.
I saw a poster for the movie when at the cinema to watch Quantum of Solace, but I've not seen trailers or anything else yet. It felt like a nice forthcoming treat, realising that the movie had been made and was relatively imminent.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
they are definitely addicvtive! I just bought new moon, started reading it last night and I'm already over 100 pages into it.
Did you know there's another book called midnight sun, but it's not finished. Apparently, it's the first book from Edward's viewpoint. I know you can read the first 6 or 7 chapters on Stephenie Meyer's website.
[ 07.11.2008, 16:23: Message edited by: Amy ]
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I've seen previews for the Twilight movie, and know the books are hugely popular, but they just don't do it for me. I'm otherwise a huge Vampire fan and am hooked on HBO's "True Blood." There are only two more episodes left so I think I'll have to get those books.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
I thought there were 3 episodes left? I LOVE True blood. I'd let bill bite me any day! Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I hope you are right, three is always much better than two. Bill doesn't do it for me...too pasty and haggard looking, but I guess that's a side-effect of being a Vampire. I prefer the two live pieces of man-flesh on the show.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
I also like the guy who plays the vampire Erik. Can we say hot? Sam merlotte is pretty tasty too. Even if he does bark. Like a dog.
[ 08.11.2008, 09:41: Message edited by: Amy ]
Posted by missgolightly (Member # 34) on :
I've never seen that, but just looked it up and it has Alexander Skarsgard as a vampire so it's definately at the top of my must-see list now!
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
well, I'm just happy other people are into true blood as much as I am.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
The Family Mask went to see Monkey: Journey To The West last night and I must say it rocked. Incredibly beautiful, often spectacular, great score. The story was occasionally a bit incoherent, but if I remember correctly so was the source material. The show seemed to meld the best elements of panto, circus, animation, opera... and even... m-musical theatre.
So, I give it two thumbs straight up.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Is that the Damon Albarn thing ?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: Is that the Damon Albarn thing ?
It is, indeed.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amy: well, I'm just happy other people are into true blood as much as I am.
only one left! I went ahead and got the book, but it is not at all as deliciously dark as the show.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
I know. One left really does suck.I don't want to wait til next season to find out what happens next!
Make sad.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amy: One left really does suck.
haha. I had to.
[ 19.11.2008, 09:02: Message edited by: rooster ]
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster:
quote:Originally posted by Amy: well, I'm just happy other people are into true blood as much as I am.
only one left! I went ahead and got the book, but it is not at all as deliciously dark as the show.
Rooster, I was just on the phone with my sister in law and apparently she's a HUGE fan of the books and thinks you should give them another chance. She thinks the books are muchmuchmuch better than the series. She has me so interested in the books, that I think I'm going to rush out and get them!
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Well, thanks to explosive, liquid magma diarrhea and a low grade fever I bunked off work yesterday afternoon got home and found a DVD rip download of QoS online, torrented it down and crashed on the couch to watch Bond.
I quite enjoyed it.
As a standalone movie its OK, but if you could somehow take Casino Royale and cut out 30 odd minutes of the crap and then take QoS and edit out again 30 odd minutes of crap and splice the leftovers together into a new movie called Casino of Solace or Quantum Royale and what you'd be left with is a classic Bond movie albeit missing Q and Moneypenny.
Royale ends badly, no real resolution, QoS starts badly with a disjointed car chase but add in 5 minutes of Bond putting White into the boot of his car and the films run seamlessly into each other.
There's a lot of plot that seems to have walked directly out of other Bond movies, the girl seeking revenge (For your eyes only) dead girl covered in goop (Goldfinger) the Quantum Organisation (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion from Thunderball or Dr No) but that's OK, the francise is old and so are we, we've seen it all before that's the price you pay for getting older.
It's claimed that Casino and QoS are the first two parts of a trilogy that explains the birth and formation of the Bond character which is a nice idea but maybe not worth a full six hours of cinema..
Not as bad as I expected, not as good as it could have been but in movie marathon - great
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Amy/Rooster, have you seen the Twilight movie yet and if so is it any cop? It's out over here on Friday.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
H1ppy, I've seen the poster, and I can confirm that the film is no good. Useless emo bullshit starring a cock faced shitlicker.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Lakeview Terrace is probably the most interesting looking film out at the moment, unless you enjoy drizzling AIDs riddled horsewank into your eyes. If that's the case, why not give "Four Christmases" a go?
[ 16.12.2008, 12:00: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
can horses even get AIDs?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
answer: No. But cats can.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
think about that next time you're having sex with a cat. That's some embarrassing shit. The only thing worse than being told by a man that you've got AIDs is being told by a man that you've got cat AIDs. You can't pretend that you got that cat AIDs from a blood transfusion in the 80s.
[ 16.12.2008, 12:08: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hope that answers your question, h1ppy.
[ 16.12.2008, 12:12: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Am I right in thinking there's no such thing as Good AIDS for cats - only Bad AIDS?
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
My friend’s cat has AIDS and that is pretty much the theory I have been working from when I taunt him.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Apparently cats can have sweet lickle blood transfoosie-woosies - which must mean that good AIDS is possible in felines. It's not just from bumming and horse.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I watched In Bruges last night, and absolutely loved it. I bought it in a moment of panic, trying to fill out a 3 for £20 purchase minutes before HMV was due to shut.
So, I thought best case scenario it'd be 'watch it once sell it on Amazon'. Expected it to be no better than guff like Layer Cake. Imagine my suprise, then, when I stumbled into a beautiful, classy drama that was much less about whizz-bang camera shot and ice-cool hitmen, and much more about humanity and potential and death and history.
I don't want to give away too much, as I'd like anyone who elects to watch it to go into it clean. But it's a fantastic, funny, sad film with one of the most engaging partnerships I've ever seen in a movie. The relationship between Brendan Gleeson's character and Colin Farrell's is an absolute pleasure to watch. I'm just blurting superlatives now. But anyway. Don't be put off by the fact it appears to be another shitty Britty ganagster flick. It's actually original and artful and wonderful.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah, it was good. I've been recommending it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
On here or in general? H1ppy recommends it on the first page of this thread, but I didn't see anything from you. Of course, this is why we should have seperate threads for each film and each book, so people don't have to plough through 12 pages of irrelevance to read what others had to say about In Bruges. All I wanted to do this morning was talk about In Bruges and hear what other people had to say about In Bruges, and what they thought it was about and what their favourite moments were and all the rest of it. On IMDB people just get bogged down in the ballistic effects of Dum-Dum bullets and all the rest of it.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I've just ordered it from LoveFilm, so once I've watched it I'll know whether I enjoyed it or not.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I've just ordered it from LoveFilm, so once I've watched it I'll know whether I enjoyed it or not.
I think Thorn has already told you that you will, so you can probably take it off the list.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Hey I finally got round to watching Dark Knight the other day. Very good!
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
You're right. It's off the list again. Thanks Thorn. I'm glad it's such a good film.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
The last film I watched wasDon't Come Knocking. Jessica Lange was easily the winner in acting, closely followed by Eva Marie Saint. I didn't realise it was Eva Marie Saint until the end. You know. Her from North By Northwest. Really bonkersly beautiful. Still doing a good job in her 80s.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Actually that was the last DVD I watched. The last film I watched was Chinatown, on the telly, the other night.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Still doing a good job in her 80s.
My gran is in her 80s, and I know that she would have been terrible for the part (she can't do American accents). So, they cast that role really well.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
She would have been rubbish in Chinatown as well.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
So what sort of film do you think your gran would be good in? I'm sure if you came up with a concept, the TMO mind could pen a suitable vehicle for her talents.
I'll do the cover.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Well, I wonder if In Bruges could have been the perfect vehicle for her, but as I haven't seen it, I couldn't say for sure.
Her current vehicle is a wheelchair.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Both my grans are dead...have been for years. Thanks for reminding me.
Maybe something along the lines of Weekend at Bernies?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Yeah, all my grandparents are dead, too.
So, Mart, is it an electric wheelchair?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Strictly analogue.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Well, I wonder if In Bruges could have been the perfect vehicle for her, but as I haven't seen it, I couldn't say for sure.
Can she do an Irish accent?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by ralph: Thanks for reminding me.
You'd forgotten that your grandmothers were dead? I hope you didn't send them a Christmas card.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
She's Welsh, which is close enough, innit. They could then alter her voice in post-production or something. CGI her accent.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
In other news, I've been growing a moustache for Christmas.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
pics or stfu
eta: of your gran in her wheelchair. not of your moustache.
[ 18.12.2008, 07:42: Message edited by: ralph ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
blimey, mart, : nice
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
yeah, she's a real looker, my gran
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
where's the wheelchair? and is that joint she's smoking medicinal?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
*swoon*
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Wow, life's been hard on you these past few years
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
There's a painting of me in the attic that keeps getting younger.
(and, er, that photo is heavily processed with the clever Lucis Art filter thingie. makes anyone look rough as arseholes.)
[ 18.12.2008, 08:27: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
If my arsehole looked that good, how would I ever stop squatting over mirrors?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
(misc did you ever buy your fancy camera?)
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I did. I went for the E-510 with a 14-42 and a 40-150 lenses - and it lives up to all my expectations. I got the FourThirds/OM lens adaptor too, which has been a lot of fun to play with. I'm glad I went for the 510 as the image stablization (in the body, not the lens) is amazing - it seems to work like magic. I'm also keen to pick up the 25mm pancake lens when funds allow.
I must get around to posting some pictures to the Internet at some point in the near future...
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I'm thinking of selling my pancake. But I'm not sure yet.
I want the 40-150 -- it's supposed to be the best of the kit lenses.
[ 18.12.2008, 09:06: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Aye, it seems pretty well put together for a kit lens. Good and sharp all over and nice colour/contrast reproduction. I still can't quite get over how light everything is these days. Picking up an old OM lens really puts it in perspective.
I also need to get a decent memory card. I've got a cheapy 1GB xD which is fine, but obviously not big enough. With the flash off, I can fill it a few times over on one charge of the battery. Do you happen to know which cards are the best to go for? I need xD or CF - pretty quick for sequential shots and 4GB or more.
[ 18.12.2008, 09:31: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Unless you're shooting critical stuff that you need speedy transfers for, I reckon any old thing would be fine. Definitaly get CF rather than xD, though.
I just use the Hama 1GB CF that mine came with.
My best shots so far have been with the OM 50mm/1.8, but it's an absolute bitch to focus without the split screen and in such a small viewfinder.
All DSLR cameras are very, very good. That one looks terrible in silver, though.
One of the most wide-read photographers on the internet, Ken Rockwell lurves his D40, over all his other fancy pants cameras.
Can't help you with whether that's a good price. I mean, yes, it's a great price, but I've no idea whether you'll find it cheaper after Christmas.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: All DSLR cameras are very, very good. That one looks terrible in silver, though.
Yeah, it's much better in black, but it's an extra 15% to have it in black...
I might wait until January.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: My best shots so far have been with the OM 50mm/1.8, but it's an absolute bitch to focus without the split screen and in such a small viewfinder.
On the 510, you can zoom the Live View in by 10x while you're focusing. Click the button that changes the Live View mode (bottom left) until you get a screen with a green rectangle. Move the rectangle around using the arrows and click the OK button to zoom in. Not sure if your 420 also has this. It allows you to focus much more accurately, although I do miss the OM-10's split circle thingy.
ETA: Thanks for the link about cards.
ETA: A silver D-SLR is just wrong.
[ 18.12.2008, 10:12: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Yeah my camera can do that as well, but it's only really useful on a tripod, I think.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Whilst I am a great lover of Nikon cameras I would advise strongly against the D40 for one reason - it only works with modern DX lenses whereas most of the others (D80, D70, D1xx D2xx etc) do accept lenses going back to the original F-mount from 1959 I believe (obvioulsy completely manual use) - apart from that its a cracking camera, but I would check out some of the other models first.
(I'm a bit out of date with Nikon's current lineup - I dread having no money then looking up things I want to buy - Like a D300....)
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Yeah, but for someone with no knowledge of cameras and lenses, is that really going to matter? I doubt it would make any difference at all for Cherry. Fair enough to mention it though, I suppose.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
No... Nan!!!! Why did you have to die? Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Oh yeah. Stomach cancer. I forgot.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Yeah my camera can do that as well, but it's only really useful on a tripod, I think.
Not necessarily - maybe the IS helps.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
oh yeah, that'll be it
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I've just ordered it [In Bruges] from LoveFilm, so once I've watched it I'll know whether I enjoyed it or not.
Well, Thorn was right -- this is a great, funny, desperately sad film. Some bits of it are absurd, but they only grate because the rest of it is so human. The pairing of Colin Farrel and Brendan Gleeson and the writing for their characters, and all the other parts, is wonderful. Farrel's nervy, jangling, uptight body language seems so in tune with what he's just been through, and Gleeson is even better. The pregnant hotel owner was also fantastic. And the dwarf. And Yuri. Everyone.
Thanks Thorn. Did you watch the deleted scenes? I thought they helped quite a bit with some of the stuff that is only hinted at in the film proper.
In other news, I went to an audition at a local churchy amdram group on Monday, and have got a part in a play. We're putting on a show! I play an old Yorkshire git called, appropriately, Joe Gittings, who is always trying to get his neighbour to sneak up the pub with him for a few pints.
Rehearsals start on Monday. I really enjoyed the read-through at the audition, but I'm quite nervous about it now.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Really glad you enjoyed it. I know what you mean abotu some of the more absurd moments feeling like an intrusion. But yeah, the main characters are so wonderfully written and acted that the movie easily withstands a few knocks. I was happy to see that it got a couple of nominations at the Golden Globes, given that the movie seems to have more or less disappeared. I've been raving about it to everyone for weeks now. Haven't run into anyone who didn't like it, but once I do, they're getting a punch in the fucking head, bottle or not.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
[slight spoiler]
You know at the end when Fiennes does what he does? He says "You've got to stick to your principles". Do you think he meant that he knew that the, er, thing (I'm trying to avoid spoilers here) next to Farrell wasn't real, or that he thought it was real and that's why he does what he does?
My assumption was that he thought that it was real, and he was just cutting Farrell off when he says "No, Harry, it's not-...", but I did wonder.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I would completely agree with that interpretation.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Which one?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
The one that you assumed to be the case. That he thought the thing was real and did the thing that he did because that was what he said he would do if the thing happened assuming that the thing was what he mistook it to be rather than what it actually was.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I hope we haven't spoilt it for anyone now.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
approaching the big 7k mart. I'm looking forward to what you're cooking up.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The one that you assumed to be the case. That he thought the thing was real and did the thing that he did because that was what he said he would do if the thing happened assuming that the thing was what he mistook it to be rather than what it actually was.
That was my interpretation too. Because you've also got to bear in mind the thing that the other people were doing at the time and what the thing that they were doing was supposed to be based on and the mistake in that thing. So the thing that Fiennes thinks has been doubly foreshadowed by the thing in the other thing and the earlier thing.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I liked it when they were swearing. It's funny when Irish people swear. 'you feckin eejit', lol.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Because you've also got to bear in mind the thing that the other people were doing at the time and what the thing that they were doing was supposed to be based on
Wait, what do you mean by this? Do you mean the film crew, shooting a dream? What is it supposed to be based on?
Plus now I'm reading on IMDb that the thing next to Farrell at the end was real! I thought it was a model, a prop for the dream. Right?
edit: Shit, I'd forgotten about the 7,000 thing coming up. Massive arse. Will have to have a think.
-------------------------
edit: Quite literally I've only just worked this out, in the shower, a day later. The thing next to Farrell isn't a prop, it's the real deal, but of course Fiennes doesn't realise how old it is -- that's where he's mistaken.
The reason I thought it was a prop was because of the angles the scene was shot at. The syntax of the editing seemed to be telling me that the thing was just a prop, because the real thing was elsewhere on the set, heading over.
But that's not as clever as the thing being real, but mistaken for something else.
I'd still like to know what Octavia meant, though.
further edit: oh yeah, the whole Don't Look Now referencing thing. right.
[ 09.01.2009, 07:58: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
lol, I didn't realise you thought it was not real in that sense. Yeah, starts walking which is why it is where it is when the thing that happens, happens.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
Umm. [SPOILER] The sequence they're shooting is based on Don't Look Now - which has the same misconception at the end.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I watched Enemy At The Gate, last night. I quite enjoyed it, despite Jude Law not being one of the dozens of people to have their brains blown out. Sniper movies... why aren't there more of them?
I recently read Modern Baptists, too. It was extremely enjoyably, like a more genteel, rural Confederacy of Dunces. Sort of. The central character was a lovelorn neurotic rather than a crazy, crazy-person. And there was no pants factory, or lutes, or twelve inches of paradise.
EDIT: Noy? What am I, Northern Irish?!
[ 19.01.2009, 07:25: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Incidentally, I recommend all you readers out there check out the Book People website. I got a boxed set of Penguin Modern Classics, a boxed set of the complete Jeeves & Woosters, and a boxed set of Penguin Classic Boys' Own adventures for £9.99 each. Thirty-odd excellent reads for less than thirty quid.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Not really connected with anything, but something that made me laugh this morning was nseeing the following posted with complete sincerity on an imdb thread about The Wrestler...
quote: Bdave, are you hitting on me on a message board? What has this world come to?
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Alan Carr said re the Wrestler 'Donatella Versace has to be in line for an Oscar after that bravura performance'.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
She's not in it. Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
think about it....
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Watched Control last night - story of Ian Curtis. Very good, nice surprise to see it was directed by one of my favourite rock photographers, namely Anton Corbijn. All shot in black and white, but a great telling of a tragic story. Also plus points for having the lovely Alexandra Maria Lara in it (waits snorton's obligatory lurk-debunking)
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: She's not in it.
What can he have meant?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah it's Marisa Tomei, not Donatella Versace. Not sure what Alan Carr was on about.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
According to imdb Donatella Versace hasn't even starred in a film.
[ 27.01.2009, 10:59: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
He needs to get those glasses checked, the toothy get.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I don't think he could be making a joke about confusing her with Mickey Rourke. That wouldn't work at all. They look nothing alike, and Mickey spends half the film with his shirt off. He's obviously a man.
I suppose there's some similarity in their complexion, but that's about it. You may as well make a joke about mistaking Will Smith for Halle Berry. In fact that would have been much better. Get him to stand up there and say something like "I'm glad Tiger Woods won the election."
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
As much as I enjoyed Jeff Goldblum's performance as a detective in Slumdog Millionaire, I had hoped we were past the days of actors blacking up for a part.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Actually, he looks a bit paler than he normally does. Like someone's scrubbed him.
[ 27.01.2009, 11:53: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I think it's obvious that I should have a TV show instead of Alan Carr.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I think it's obvious that I should have a TV show instead of Alan Carr.
I'd rather just about anyone had a TV show instead of Alan Carr.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Anyone except ralph.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
yawn Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by ralph: yawn
Roll Credits.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
rooster:
Have you read anymore of the sookie stackhouse books? You should, as they get better and better. I've switched allegiance from Bill ( such a jerk) to Eric.
You had said you didn't think they were nearly as dark as True Blood, but I completely disagree. They are much, much darker than the show. Sure, there's quite a bit of humor and mystery involved, but I think if you press on, you'd really like them. Book four is phenomenal! I'm almost finished book eight, but apparently Charlaine Harris is contracted for at least three more. The next book is due out in May.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
yes, I did grow to like them - finished them all about a month ago (ran through them pretty quickly when we were without power for four days). I still think the show is darker...I think the books deal with everything happening too glibly to be dark.
I have to say that True Blood hooked me on a bunch of HBO and then Showtime shows. Froop and I just recently finished all the episodes of Dexter, which were awesome - and VERY dark!
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
Oooo! I'm glad you liked them. We were really into The Tudors on showtime, but we don't have it now, so I suppose we'll have to rent season two.
Do you guys watch Big Love? Excellent show, even if it is mostly about poligamy.
I've heard of a new author, she writes about vampires, names Tanya Huff. Haven't read anything by her yet, so I don't know if she's any good. I plan on checking out her work once I've finished the last Sookie book.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
The Tanya Huff "Vicky Nelson" books were also developed into a TV show, called Blood Ties. It broadcast in the UK last year - I quite enjoyed it, but I don't think they've made a second series.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Yep, we watch Big Love. I liked last season...
I watch most of those 'Premium' shows. Working my way through all the seasons of L Word now. My favorite on Showtime is Weeds.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
Hippy, did you read those books as well as watch the series? If so, were they good? I bet I could download Blood Ties.
I liked last season of Big Love as well. Have you been watching this season too, rooster ? I have a feeling that Barb only wanted to expand the family because she thought she was going to die. Did you see the look in her face, at the end? She looked like what the hell am I doing in this womans house. Heh.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
yep, we caught that look too.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: Working my way through all the seasons of L Word now.
It's okay - you can speak its name - Lost
Yeah, we've just started watching the latest series too. Accidentally watched episode two before episode one, which only served to add to the confusion and sense of time-fuckedness.
A bit like the time I came back from the pub and decided to watch a two sided DVD of Jackie Brown with a friend. Stupidly put on side B and didn't realise. Mate said afterwards - yeah it was okay, but quite short... Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
I reckon that Mickey Rourker / Donatella Versace gag was a legitimate one meself.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amy: Hippy, did you read those books as well as watch the series? If so, were they good? I bet I could download Blood Ties.
I read the first book after watching the entire series. It appeared that the first TV episode followed the first novel fairly faithfully and I didn't gain much extra from the book itself so I haven't read any further.
The series is quite good, the female protaganist is well characterised as are the two male counterparts, who incidentally are both quite good eye candy - so definitely worth a download of the pilot then you can see what you think.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: I reckon that Mickey Rourker / Donatella Versace gag was a legitimate one meself.
No it was rubbish it was like one of benway's sandy toksvig gags
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
"Simon Weston does a lot of valuable charity work but no-one ever mentions how good he was in the Nightmare on Elm Street Films!"
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah? No? Come on, it's basically the exact same joke.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
a bit, but not. Simon Weston he got his horrific facial injuries through being caught in a fire defending our right to own a strategically important set of islands off the coast of Argentina and Freddie Kruger got his injuries through being burnt to death by a load of vengeful parents. Either way, it wasn't either of their fault for the way they look.
However... Randy The Ram Robinson looks like he does because he thinks it looks good - Blonde hair extension, fake tan, extensive plastic surgery and all. Donatella Versace looks the way she does becaue she thinks it looks good - Blonde hair extensions, fake tan, extensive plastic surgery and all. However, the joke's on Donatella, because Randy The Ram Robinson is a fictional character and only looks that grotesque as an effective plot device, whereas Donatella chooses to look like that in real life, so let's all have a good laugh at Donatella the stupid slice of prime Euro-trash that she is.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I'm not complaining about the joke being unkind, I'm complaining about it being 'shit'. Now you mention it of course, we probably don't need even more jokes using women's appearances as some kind of battleground and that kind of gay-man-hates-womens-bodies was unpleasant enough when Little Britain were doing it, let alone when it's mulched through the kind of "a-HA!" gag set up that Fist of Fun were mocking 15 years ago, ffs.
Not that it's that big of a deal, but there's not a lot else to talk about on here today.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
It's not that shit a gag. Not hilarious, but not shit, it's worth a smile. It's not about hating her body is it? just about the fact that she's succesfully managed, from the neck up, to resemble Mickey Rourke;s grotesque character in The Wrestler.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Simon Weston is a worthless **** .
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Okay, how about... Donatella Versace is an inspiration. He does all that wonderful charity work despite having his face melted into a horror-mask in defence of the Falklands.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
It's tragic what happened to him. Still, on the plus side, he never looks any older, does he?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Simon Weston is a worthless **** .
Calm down, Mail-readers. Simon Weston only got where she is today because she inherited her talented brother's business.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: he never looks any older, does he?
He's our very own mash-up Action Man.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Also... and I'm amazed nobody's thought of this before... someone in the flame-proof textiles business should probably try and get a few clippings from his moustache.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Just imagine... firefighters, racing drivers, stormtroopers, all wearing their Westonite flameproof bodysuits.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Also Alan Carr has no business mocking other people's appearance when he looks like a speccy South Park characature of Jack Dee.
[ 28.01.2009, 08:48: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Flicking through some old threads, I just came across (I mean 'found' not... the other thing) this piece of phoo from Darryn:
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
If you look at that picture ^^ and think "lol, Darryn's a pretty funny guy" remember that I was the one who redicovered it and posted it again, so I deserve 10% of that 'lol' as a finder's fee.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Oh Donnatella Versace! Of course, I thought he meant the one out of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I've been too efficient today and done all my work. Nothing's left to do.
Somebody say something.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
someth
No I'm sorry I just can't do it
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
ing
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Well, I thought it was funny.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
man, I haven't seen Jones for ages.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Jonesy was one of the good guys. Always seemed like he was one of TMO's favourite posters, second only to me.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I've been reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I'm afraid to say I don't really think much of it. An ok book, but too far up its own arse with mixed messages and naive moralising. Maybe there's some kind of subtle subtext I'm missing.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
saw The Ruins. Enjoyed it, some nice moments. Also watched The Hitcher last night, from 1986. Fantastic film. I thought it was just a standard movie about a dude chasing another dude. In fact, it's a dreamlike metaphor-laden fable about... err. violence and umm... duality.. mankind struggling to control its dark side...
Anyway, it's lovely. I imagine that Blu-ray would do it justice. While the photography was amazing, the picture seemed a bit washed out on ITV4.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Oh yeah I went and saw Seven Pounds the other night. It was ok. Smith was pretty good in it. The twist is pretty obvious from about a third of the way into the movie, but it was quite enjoyable overall. If a little bleak.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
oh that's right I also watched "The Tripper", about a serial killer in a Ronald Regan mask killing hippies at a music festival. Written by david Arquette. That was... yeah.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I took the boys to see Bolt yesterday. Latest Pixar effort, in 3D. Lot of repetition in those films nowadays, but it was quite watchable and improves a lot when the hamster character appears. So, er, if you're stuck with children at some point then you could so worse.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Bolt is from Disney proper, rather than Pixar. Pixar do tend to be in a different league creatively than the rest of the CGI movies.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Oh, and I went to see Frost/Nixon on Saturday, which I enjoyed a lot more than I thought I would. David Frost is played as a total buffoon completely out of his league, whereas Nixon is kind of sympathetic. As a character in the film, that is - it's not likely to change anyone's mind about the actual person. Michael Sheen comes off as a bit... lightweight, in places though. He doesn't really add anything to the character and it gets left to other people to describe his inner life. When he's gadding about at film premiers and nailing chicks, someone remarks 'You have very sad eyes'. Except, he actually looks like he's having the time of his life.
Still, the film clips along very fast, Frank Langella is great and Nixon and the story just comes across as... very well told. It's a bit of a Dad movie, but there's some emotion there, too, as Nixon starts to face up to the enormity of his failure and his hubris. Worth checking out, and definitely better than Slumdog Meeyonair.
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
dp
[ 02.02.2009, 07:06: Message edited by: Jimmy Big Nuts ]
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
I just remembered. I also watched Sid and Nancy again. Still a good film. Good old Alex Cox. Coxy. Foxy Coxy. The Coxinator. Cox on Blox. Coxix. Sir Coxalot. Alex Cox. The director. A good film.
Posted by missgolightly (Member # 34) on :
Rooster and Amy - thank you for recommending True Blood!
I've just watched the whole season in 3 days and absolutely loved it. My only complaint is that Eric wasn't in it enough - god damn that guy is sexy as a vampire, he's definately knocked Angel off the top of my hottest vampires list. I'd happily let him bite me!
Will have to get the books to keep me going til season two!
Posted by Jimmy Big Nuts (Member # 895) on :
i saw frost/nixon. Unlike thorn, I wouldn't recommend it. Wait until it's on TV, because it's not really worth any money. I mean, it's not awful, but it's not memorable or interesting. While the stakes are certainly high for the american people and for nixon, it's hard to care what nixon actually does once the camera rolls, and it's really hard to give a toss about frost. At one point the film tries to suggest that frost and nixon are in some way comparable, which really ruins any kind of david and goliath situation, because frost is being played / written as alan partridge for 90% of the film. The emotional payoff seems to be hung on nixon finally accepting to himself and those around him that his corruption was unjustified and harmful, but the script is too blunt to deal with this revelation, and the crescendo is played for cinematic tension rather than character exploration.
Maybe I got it wrong, I certainly seem to be in the general minority with this film. As I've said elsewhere, for a film about a powerful man coming to terms with the damage he's caused throughout his life, checkout 'Ivan's XTC' instead, and skip this predictably made ron howard popcorn fare.
Anyway I also saw a film called 'murder party', which was great. Low budget satire about a bunch of whiney coke fuelled art students in New York who get together on halloween to kill an average dude in the name of art. He's tied to a chair, they're tooled up, and the project begins. It's stupid, slapstick, gory fun, but it's also a decent commentary on the pointless, banal decadence of college art scenes. Worth checking out if you get the chance, but be warned, there are a few crap jokes here and there, and the tone is predominantly 'independent feature'.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
So, you're telling us that Thorn is either wrong about films or he's lying to us?
Which is it Thorn? Are you just clueless when it comes to the silver screen or do you just take some sort of sick pleasure from misleading people?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I saw a Hungarian film called Taxidermia. A baby was born with a pig's tail. Eating competitions caused some Little Britain style vomiting (but more realistic). Some cats ate a fat man whose son killed himself in a pretty spectacular way. I found it reasonably enjoyable. My only complaint would be that it is rather difficult to read subtitles when lying on ones side.
Also saw Alien Resurrection. Winona was a robot. Sigourney was part alien. It was okay.
Also saw a Japanese film called After Life. Looked pretty good, but I missed the end. Same complaint re subtitles.
Also saw a bit of a Woody Allen film where he plays a magician and Scarlet Johansson is in it too, and she sees a ghost or something. Only saw the first half hour of that one. It was okay, too, I guess.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: So, you're telling us that Thorn is either wrong about films or he's lying to us?
Which is it Thorn? Are you just clueless when it comes to the silver screen or do you just take some sort of sick pleasure from misleading people?
Basically Benway has a more refined, demanding taste, whereas I like anything that resembles slick product that I don't have to think about too hard.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Of course what Benway didn't seem to pick up on in Frost/Nixon is that the third major character in the film is the interviews themselves AHHHHH!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
(the other two major characters are David Frost and Richard Nixon)
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
It sounds a bit like Alien vs Predator.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I just took delivery of a 2 disc 'special edition' of The Hitcher (1986), have any of you dudes seen this it's AMAZING. ITV4 show it almost every night.
[ 09.02.2009, 08:18: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I've been reading A Clockwork Orange. Very good.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Oh - and I watched Zatoichi on Friday night and really didn't feel like I got to grips with it at all. I don't know whether we were all in the right headspace for the film, but I couldn't see it as anything remarkable in the slightest.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I finished Brave New World and I'm sorry to say it didn't really speak to me in any profound way.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I finished The Wire on Friday. That was pretty good.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Some real cutting, in-depth reviews here folks, good work
[ 09.02.2009, 09:51: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Sometimes I worry this place is turning into Barbelith.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
On Friday I read Piercing by Ryu Murakami. Unpleasant and compelling, it tells the tale of two horribly damaged individuals playing out a doomed murder plot. Interchangeably predator and prey. Both victims. Bleak, uncomfortable and aces!
EDIT: Firday. Named for the God of Trees.
[ 09.02.2009, 10:02: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Some real cutting, in-depth reviews here folks, good work
I also meant to add "there's some really interesting use of sound and syncopation in Zaitochi which dovetails brilliantly with it's theme of sight and senses, in fact in many ways the sound design is kind of like another major character in the film."
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Walking Dead Vol. 9 is out, too. This series just keeps getting better and better. Volume 8 was a real karate chop to the throat, so it feels like Volume 9 is taking its foot off the gas, a bit. And it's quite welcome. There's a strange new development that could either be foreshadowing a 'conclusion' to the series, or (more likely) is just leading the characters into brand new realms of bad.
EDIT: mmmnnngg!
[ 09.02.2009, 10:07: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I had some grilled chicken in wholemeal pitta for lunch, from the turkish place round the corner. It was pretty good, although not without it's flaws. While I could see what the chef was aiming at with the way he'd flavoured the chicken with chilli and coriander, he was let down by the salad mixture and the consistency of the pitta bread. Too much tomato in the salad, and the bread was far too flimsy. It's a shame because apart from these two problems, the meal offered 10+ minutes of real enjoyment, and reminded me of an earlier work by a man who I used to visit on the blackstock road. However, much of the complexity of flavour, and the use of contrasting textures and mouth-feels that I'd expect from a good chicken-in-pitta were lost. Execution was solid but uninspired, presentation was adequate at best. While I'm all for brevity in a meal, I think that perhaps some of the nuance and character had been lost on the kitchen floor. In this fast food culture, we seem to demand that anything not immediately mouth-fucking be cut out lest we should be demanded to pause and consider what lies in our mouths. It's possible that this meal was once a subtle and layered exploration of both chicken and pitta, but any of that was lost in the cutting process.
In short, while luddites may be content with this bog standard high street chicken-in-pitta meal, It takes a little more refinement and imagination before such a meal becomes agreeable to my own delicate palate. I know that I'm in the minority here - most people are content with a mcChicken Sandwich. 'Tis lonely, being incredibly cultured and discerning.
[ 09.02.2009, 11:58: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Walking Dead Vol. 9 is out, too. This series just keeps getting better and better. Volume 8 was a real karate chop to the throat, so it feels like Volume 9 is taking its foot off the gas, a bit. And it's quite welcome. There's a strange new development that could either be foreshadowing a 'conclusion' to the series, or (more likely) is just leading the characters into brand new realms of bad.
EDIT: mmmnnngg!
I'm loving Walking Dead. I keep wondering how they're going to finish it. Probably with them all dieing, at a guess.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
you wrote a review for Amazon.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
What's wrong with you?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I've written lots of reviews for Amazon. Well, not lots...
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
Have you nothing better to do with your time than read/write reviews for Zombie comic book series on Amazon? Because I can assure you, I have.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
not really. I'm going to swing by Gosh on my way home and buy that mother toot sweet.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: Because I can assure you, I have.
Go for it! Carpe diem! Awesome!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I'll have you know I'm an Amazon Vine Voice!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
LOL @ sandwich review.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I wrote that for you. Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: I've written lots of reviews for Amazon. Well, not lots...
One of my favourite outings here (this one went viral). My bloody friends actually bought me the album for my birthday.
Whatever happened to the Ramsay one? Is that still there?
[ 09.02.2009, 12:58: Message edited by: H1ppychick ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick:
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: I've written lots of reviews for Amazon. Well, not lots...
One of my favourite outings here (this one went viral). My bloody friends actually bought me the album for my birthday.
Whatever happened to the Ramsay one? Is that still there?
That was very gratifying. My original post reappeared a while back, despite being removed in the big purge. The best one for Katei and Pete was the Oogly Shabubu one. Don't know what happened to that. The Ramsay one didn't last long, either. Sigh...
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Incidentally, this made me laugh yesterday:
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I watched Zombie Flesheaters 2 last night, also known as Zombi 3. I believe that ringers is a fan of this one. It's about as lame and mishandled as a film can be, apart from some stirring 80s power metal and.. I guess.. an okay gore scene here and there. I've rarely got the 'so bad it's good' thrill from films. Even though my interest in cheap Italian horror films has driven me to plough through some ungodly trash in the past, my motivation hasn't been to laugh at crap films. If a film is lacking in heart, then I won't enjoy it, however awful the production is. This film, while it had its moments, was pretty cynical. It didn't have any atmosphere, and for the most part it was just the same pack of zombies shuffling around the Philippines while the same three soldiers shot them down with guns. There were some funny, silly moments, such as a zombie head flying out of a fridge to maul somebody, and a woman having her face pulled off by a foetal zombie hand bursting through a pregnant womb, but I found it hard to concentrate on most of the action.
There's definitely a tipping point where a terrible horror film goes from being bad in an entertaining way to being just really fucking boring, and I think that the few flashes of imagination and ridiculousness save Zombi 3 from being unbearable. But it's not great, or even good.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Watchmen looks a bit shit, eh? WHO SAW THAT COMING.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Yeah.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Yeah!
You know, there's really nothing at the pictures I want to watch, and there hasn't been for ages. It all looks like either an arseache or something totally stupid.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Watchmen is 161 minutes long. That's HELLA arseache.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
When is it out? I can't be bothered to look.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
6th March. I'll probably do the Orange Wednesday thing.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't think I'll watch it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hmm. No. Probably not.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Hmmm, pay day.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I'm going to this next week.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm probably going to go and see Watchmen
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's supposed to be pretty bad.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
No, it was supposed to be pretty good. No one sets out to make a bad film, you idiot.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah, but it's something to do isn't it. What else is there to watch at the cinema?
Nothing.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Interesting.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I must admit, I was kind of anticipating the most recent F13th film, but I didn't watch it in the end. It wasn't supposed to be very good.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Same with 'Slumdog'. I doubt I'll watch it until it comes on film four.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
well, I say 'same with slumdog', but I never wanted to see that, so it's totally different, not the same.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hmm.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I wish I had gone with my first instinct not to bother with Slumdog.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Louise and some other people when to watch it and said it wasn't great. I went with their opinion, and didn't watch it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
maybe I could watch the two Che films that are out at the moment. That would kill a day.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Stephen Soderbergh is usually pretty decent at putting a film together.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
okay well, if you're still coming over tonight, then perhaps we could go to watch one of them tomorrow morning?
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
HippyChick and Rooster (and anyone else that may or may not be interested):
I found an author that you two might like. Her name is Karen Chance and I just read the 3 Cassie Palmer books that she has written. Actually, I'm on the 3rd book...if you liked the Sookie Stackhouse books, then you'll love these.
Let me know if you want more info on them. Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
Ooooh, the 4th cassie palmer book comes out april 7th!!! Yay!!
edit i cant type as well as i used to.
[ 08.03.2009, 14:21: Message edited by: Amy ]
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Amy - have already read them, you're right, they're not bad
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I'm reading another Ryu Murakami. In The Miso Soup. There's something wrong with that guy. I'm very glad.
I also read Mark E. Smith's ramblings in Renegade. Hilarious.
The following comic books>>>
Deadpool Kick-Ass Umbrella Academy
Are all teh Aces!
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I'm reading a book about the witch hysteria in Salem. Quite interesting. Hmm.
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
Hippychick- I picked up a few of Tanya Huff's books. The smoke and shadows books and some fantasy book called Wizard of the Grove. Which is two books in one: Child of the Grove and The Last Wizard. I've not read any of her books yet, as I'm still finishing up with Karen Chance.
Have you read Wizard of the Grove, and if so, was it any good?
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
The Watchmen was enjoyable I thought. If I had a comment to make, like Kill Bill actually only needed to be one 2 hour film, so the Watchmen would've benefited from being two 2 hour films, giving the audience more opportunity to get into the story and characters thus creating more of a sense of engagement.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Saw it last night with 3 friends, we all thought it was rubbish. And far, far too long.
None of us had read the book and had no vested interest.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Watched Syriana on Friday night, which seemed to have been made with a complete disregard for the possibilties and restrictions of the medium of film. There are no real characters, motivations are mostly murky or painfully simple ('make moar money!') and it takes two long hours to make the point that the US is willing to do some shady stuff to maintain the status quo. I gather it's based on a non-fiction book, and there's nothing about the story that benefits from being a feature film. The characters don't come to life, there's no emotional engagement. The only possible justification is that it brings the story to more people, but even then Syriana is so inaccessible, and requires such depth of knowledge going in, that the only people who could possibly understand the film are the ones who already know what it's all about, making it totally redundant.
Also saw This Is England, which was way, way better. Watching it, I got quite angry that that idiot Danny Boyle continually seems to be seen as the poster boy for British film, when Shane Meadows outclasses him all the way. Haven't got a lot to add to what's already been said about this movie, but it felt like being smashed through the floor.
Sunday night, we watched Short Cuts which didn't seem quite as emotionally engaging as This is England, but seemed more unusual somehow. It's 16 years old now, and comes across as fresh and smart and in some moments it's unbelievably funny. As well as being an extraordinary attempt and collating the width and breadth of human experience throughout a few days in a single city while remaining true to the individuality of the film's characters, it also has actual fucking shedloads of female nudity, which adds to the film immensely. Worth bearing in mind that watching this film will make you like Magnolia a lot less, as you realise that in a lot of ways it's basically an inferior remake of Short Cuts.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
You've watched Dead Man's Shoes right? The tension that film manages to generate... Tension coupled with the most ridiculous laughs. It's easily one of my most favourite films ever.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah, I saw Dead Man's Shoes after it'd been recommended on here about a year or so ago. I think the only other Meadows film I've seen is Twenty-Four Seven, which I also really loved.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
A Room For Romeo Brass is also equally hilarious and terrifying.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Yeah, I saw Dead Man's Shoes after it'd been recommended on here about a year or so ago. I think the only other Meadows film I've seen is Twenty-Four Seven, which I also really loved.
Quite bizarrely, and I promise you with no TMO-prompting I watched this magnificent film last night - not the first time and certainly not the last either - brilliant piece of cinema, and you can stab me to death if I am wrong in saying that Paddy Considine is nothing short of brilliant in this - utterly electrifying performance - Christ I sound all Baz Bamigboye all of a sudden - but fuck it - for that film, its allowed, ok? Pure class.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by McDirts: A Room For Romeo Brass is also equally hilarious and terrifying.
I shall be sourcing this and 24-7 which I have yet to have seen
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I went to see Watchmen last night. Better than I expected.
Posted by McDirts (Member # 6680) on :
It is isn't it? I still would've liked to have seen it as two films so it could've been a bit more engaging rather than churning out all the key story elements in rapid succession.
I saw Bronson last night and enjoyed it. They could've taken the easy way out and made another uber-violent hardman biopic, but instead created this vaudeville character, over acted brilliantly by Tom Hardy and told what is essentially a fairly dull, pathetic life story with imagination and verve. It certainly didn't glamorise this pretty reprehensible character. I'd give it 7 out of 10.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah the paceing wasn't brilliant, it did feel like it was a lot to take in fairly quickly. It's a bit long for me to comfortably sit through in the cinema as well. At home you can shift around and remain comfy but in the cinema after two hours you start to get a bit fidgety.
It suffers a little from the same thing as Sin City, which is terrible comic book dialogue. But I don't know if you can actually criticise the film for this as (as far as I know) it's a literal straight-to-film adaptation. It also manages to avoid feeling like the kind of glitzy action-fest you'd usually expect, looking at films like x-men and the like. I'm only very vaguely familiar with the comic versions so I can't really comment on how faithful a vision of Watchmen this really is, but if Sin City was anything to go by then I imagine it's fairly successful in this respect as well. Rorschach and Nite Owl really make the film though. They definitely make up for the weakness of some of the other characters.
There were a few knowing references to other films which I thought were a bit obvious. Ride of the Valkyries over the Vietnam scene made me chuckle but maybe detracted slightly from the impact of the scene.
Overall though I definitely enjoyed it. I think it will inevitably suffer because of the reverence for which fans of Watchmen comics have for the original material; fans who will never be truly satisfied with a screen adaptation. But it's certainly no Judge Dredd, and I think I'll probably buy this when it comes out on Blu-Ray.
Also - there was a trailer for Transformers 2 before the film which looked awesome. And I'm almost ashamed to admit being quite excited by the trailer for the new Fast and Furious film too Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
A friend of mine went to see Watchmen at the Waterloo Imax the other night. He said there was a fight between some pissed off cinema-goers and a Moore-zealot who kept shouting "This is SHIT!" at the screen.
EDIT: To add, the Moore-zealot wasn't me?
[ 19.03.2009, 07:47: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Was it Kovacs?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I've seen all three fast and furious films, and I've watched tokyo drift more than twice. I'm telling you this because I can't live with the guilt any longer.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that actually the first film of the series is really not at all bad. It had great pacing, the action sequences are exciting and it builds to a tense finale. It's also given us any number of wonderfully quotable lines which still frequently pop up on car forums ("I live my life a quarter mile at a time" "overnight parts from Japan" "granny shifting, not double clutching like you should") so it's at least good enough to have stuck in the public memory. It also has not too bad of a storyline and is generally well directed, and features lots of proper old fashioned stuntwork rather than being a cgi-fest.
The second and third films were pretty terrible, but the first is still good fun and stands up to repeat viewing.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:According to the BBC, this new show is designed as a traditional comedy entertainment show in the style of Morecambe and Wise.
Horne & Corden follows a traditional format, with Mathew Horne and James Corden hosting the show as themselves in front of a live studio audience. They also play a wide selection of original characters that are 'innovative, provocative' and 'always entertaining'. Cameo appearances include Kylie Minogue.
Characters include: Xander, an old boarding-school chum, who is the most hideous, foul-mouthed, but well meaning man to ever rear his head from a person's past. Xander specialises in turning up at inappropriate times to remind people of embarrassing moments they'd rather forget.
No real comedy here, just the fat one over acting in what would be an embarrassing way in front of the other one who had just been hired for a posh job.
quote:Tim Goodall, a gay TV journalist, who's more interested in sipping Pina Colada and discussing how fit the soldiers are in Basra than delivering breaking news.
The skinny one playing a tired gay stereotype, again, no real comedy here.
quote:Jonny and Lee Miller, two very flamboyant 'magicians', whose magic is left to the audience's imagination, while their dance routines are magnificent.
both of them showing off....
quote:Superman and Spiderman "know each other's work", but when it comes to socialising they're a bit awkward.
A few okish moments of social awkwardness, without any real punchline.
quote:Mat and James also present a range of characters from 'Ricky Gervais doing some serious acting', to an annoying office colleague who's always got a better story from the night before.
weak.
quote:And there's always someone looking for a mobile phone charger at inappropriate moments.
I didn't see this sketch.
Overall 2/10.
Just found a review of it on the telegraph.
quote:Why sugar the pill? Horne & Corden (BBC Three) was about as funny as credit default swaps. The process that lead some BBC maven to grant two of the stars of the sitcom Gavin & Stacey their own sketch show is understandable – Gavin & Stacey, which was written by James Corden with Ruth Jones, began on BBC Three and spread across BBC Two and One to become the corporation’s single breakout comedy hit of the last two years. So as a reward for providing the Beeb with an answer to the question, “What is BBC Three for?” Corden and Mathew Horne have been given licence to turn their rough-book scribblings into a series. Ironically, their series is on BBC Three, which raises the question, “What is BBC Three for?” again.
Most of the sketches in last night’s show were too long, floundering around for a punchline like a drunk looking for a light switch. Corden’s belly was the source of much of the humour, and as whale-like and copiously hypnotic as it may be, we were still basically being asked to laugh at a fat guy. Then there was a gay war correspondent where the joke was that he was gay: a jaw-droppingly crass gag that Jim Davidson would probably have deemed too simplistic. Corden playing Ricky Gervais playing David Brent in a pastiche of The Karate Kid was as confused and self-indulgent as it sounds. And even the sketches that did threaten to flicker in to life, such as the two superheroes playing it straight in the gym changing room, were soon asphyxiated by a sight gag, in this case the appearance of Corden’s dough-ball buttocks. The 11th showbiz commandment, of course, is that thou shalt not be laden with awards, lauded and lunched, as these two have been, without there being a backlash not long after. Yet with a third series of Gavin & Stacey in the offing, Horne well received in The Catherine Tate Show and Corden a genial chat-show guest, there was no sign that the pair of them had crossed the line from welcome houseguests to tedious lodgers. With this supremely ill-advised vanity project, that line has been crossed, and the galling thing is that the response to the next series of Gavin & Stacey may suffer as a result. If, like many, you enjoy that series, then Horne & Corden’s only saving grace was that it went some way to showing why it works. That show has easily definable characters each with their own comedic voice – good sitcom, in other words. Many comics can write funny lines but often, those lines could go in the mouth of any character. Corden’s gift, we now realise, is for characters – not the distilled, leftfield logic of a sketch. The title sequence for this show, incidentally, was Horne and Corden smashing up TVs. It may have been filmed when they saw the final edit.
[ 19.03.2009, 10:39: Message edited by: Tilde ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
It looked terrible. I saw a trailer for their film a few weeks ago, which also looked terrible.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
It was terrible Thorn, surprisingly bad in fact. It's like they had some rough ideas for some characters and then improvised on the day it came to shoot the sketches thinking something funny would come out of it. I couldn't believe no one actually previewed it and said... er sorry to interrupt here but none of that is funny? Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
It smacked of that when I read a feature a coupla weeks back, and they were talking about how they'd goof around on the set of their other show and they thought 'hey! we should turn these characters into a sketch show!'. I'm pretty sure everyone has a moment like that when they're joking around with their mates, but then most people aren't the BBC's favourite people in the world at the moment.
I found the whole interview, the clips and everything slightly jarring, because Horne and Corden are the exact same age as me, but I couldn't relate to their attitudes or humour at all. If they were 21, it might have just made me feel old, but instead I felt alienated, and slightly embarrassed that this pair of idiots were such a visible face of my generation.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I have been watching box sets of the following:
It's Garry Shandling's Show
The Larry Sanders Show
Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe
[ 19.03.2009, 11:46: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Sweet I didn't know you could get screenwipe boxsets!
I saw that Horne and Corden thing as well and can confirm it's absolute bilge.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Sweet I didn't know you could get screenwipe boxsets!
UKNova has them all!
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I also happened across a programme called Supersize vs Superskinny the other day. It works like this - get a morbidly obese person and a dangerously thin person (yes, thinner than me, ralph) and in order to fix their problems feed them on each others' diet for a week. So skinny has to eat fried breakfasts, loads of snacks, huge meals, etc and fattie has to make do with a couple of pieces of fruit and a single biscuit. It's clearly a brilliant idea and I'm sure that medical practitioners around the country are on the verge of offering schemes to match the fat up with the thin in order to reap the obvious benefits.
If you get bored of the food talk, you can just zone out and try to imagine whether/how a 32 stone man could have sex with a six stone woman, or vice versa.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: It's clearly a brilliant idea and I'm sure that medical practitioners around the country are on the verge of offering schemes to match the fat up with the thin in order to reap the obvious benefits.
I bet psychologists will jump on this soon as well. Match up someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with a complete slob. That would work. Well, it works a treat in our house anyway.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I've been watching that too, and it's a fantastic bit of bewildering television. It's really hard to work out exactly how it's meant to help anyone, but the show really succeeds by encouraging the viewer to look and think to themselves "Thank the shitting lord that's not me!"
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I've written a sketch show that's currently being syndicated in South Korea. Highlights include
Make-up lady - a lady who is putting on her makeup in a situation that causes her to slip and get it all over her face. Think trains, a disco, a fun run, etc.
the non-identical identical twins - hilarity ensues as the twins try and con people with their identicalness, when they aren't actually identical at all
Mrs Bingo - Trigger happy style skit where Mrs Bingo leaps up and goes 'house!' at the wrong time and place
the sexy tramp - a disgusting tramp attracts an inordinate amount of beautiful women as he goes about his business, and it totally bugs him.
The show is called "laughter butterfly bounce", which makes more sense if you're Korean.
[ 19.03.2009, 12:28: Message edited by: Deep Freeze ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: ...but the show really succeeds by encouraging the viewer to look and think to themselves "Thank the shitting lord that's not me!"
That must be it. It's the same ploy as Five's freak show series, the trailer of which should've had a voice over like this:
Look at these weirdos - they're stuck to-fucking-gether! Go on, have a good hard butchers! Urgh, what a pair of freaks! Hey, now they're playing baseball - is that one gonna hit the other one in the head? Lol, now one's trying to strangle the other in a toddler flashback. Hehehe.
But Five isn't all bad - they do show the fantastic Ice Road Truckers and screen repeats of Home and Away when I'm not at work.
But then again: *The Gadget Show Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The greatest TV show ever is How it's Made on Discovery. That's a scientifically demonstrable fact Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: [QUOTE]But then again: *The Gadget Show
Ah... good old the Gadget Show. I remember once Samsung hired out the British Museum for a big UK press event, and they had the to idiots from this show do a presentation that was all like "Hey, I'm wondering how I can enjoy music on the move?" "Well have you thought about the new Samsung Yepp9000?" etc etc, as they went through a range of pointless gadgets and 'innovations' that wouldn't impress anyone (maybe Benway) in this horrid format. When It was over, we all stood up to leave, and my friend Jim said to me "That was the single gayest thing I have ever seen in my life". Then this dude in the row in front of us turned round and said "well, I'm sorry to hear that". That was the head of Samsung UK sales, which made it a good ROFL moment.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
They always have those really improbable giveaways at the end of the show as well, where they list stuff you could win and the list goes on for so long you'd think you were watching some kind of Charlie Brookeresque parody. I'm guessing they get sent freebies of all manner of stuff by marketting depts for various electronics companies and then just give it all away when they're done playing with it.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: But then again: *The Gadget Show
Ah... good old the Gadget Show. I remember once Samsung hired out the British Museum for a big UK press event, and they had the to idiots from this show do a presentation that was all like "Hey, I'm wondering how I can enjoy music on the move?" "Well have you thought about the new Samsung Yepp9000?" etc etc, as they went through a range of pointless gadgets and 'innovations' that wouldn't impress anyone (maybe Benway) in this horrid format. When It was over, we all stood up to leave, and my friend Jim said to me "That was the single gayest thing I have ever seen in my life". Then this dude in the row in front of us turned round and said "well, I'm sorry to hear that". That was the head of Samsung UK sales, which made it a good ROFL moment.
Excellent.
Left to right:
"Annoying" "Voice" "Man"
Probably considered the dad of the show because he jumps around like an idiot less often than the others. But for some reason everything he says sounds like he's doing the pinchy finger quotes at the same time. Like he doesn't actually believe any of the words he's saying are real words. There are plenty of people who do this on telly (e.g. Tiff Needell from Five's Top Gear wannabe, Fifth Gear) and in real life, but GadgetDad is the king.
Total Fucking Prick Nerd Type
He's bald and wears glasses so he'll make a perfect geek. Someone's force-fed this cunt Red Bull, but it hasn't given him wings. It's just made him into one of those annoying tossers you get at clubs who tell everyone they're totally feelin the vibe, man but haven't actually taken any drugs. Doesn't know what he's talking about, either. Not a geek at all.
Token
Okay right, this person is also into gadgets yeah, but get this - she's a chick! Fucking unbelievable! She's got breasts and a vaginer, yet she talks about 'tech' with something approaching excitement. Who knew this was possible!??!! Groundbreaking stuff, you might think. Sadly it makes a twat out of itself every time the mouth opens. What happened to Aleks and the Emilies? For shame!
[ 19.03.2009, 13:17: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I can't help watching it though... Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Their current BBC3 sketch show has been drubbed by the critics - and there's no improvement on that programme's lobotomised humour at this live outing, a headline performance in aid of the Teenage Cancer Trust. The only person to emerge with reputation intact is Ruth Jones, Corden's co-writer and love interest on Gavin and Stacey. Tonight's set features only five sketches, interspersed between the other standups on the bill, Sean Lock and Noel Fielding. These skits include the Young People's Church, a happy-clappy Christian send-up whose raison d'etre is to mix religiosity with infantile double entendre, "Jesus, come in my back door", and so on (Horne and Corden are both 30 years old).
Also present is Horne's camp TV news incarnation, reporter Tim Goodall, a mincing gay stereotype who says things like: "Look at the size of Albert Hall. It's massive. Can you imagine the size of his cock?" This routine, in which Tim insults the dress sense of some members of the audience, culminates in a guest appearance by Gok Wan, over whom Corden fawns to no discernible comic purpose.
As my will to live fizzled away, I wondered: how has it come to this? Corden is a likable actor on stage and screen, but he's a loutish comic, all aggressive neediness and blokey bonhomie (one of their few slots tonight is given over to orchestrating a Mexican wave). Horne was a skilled deadpan foil to Catherine Tate as well as in Gavin and Stacey. But here, he looks dead behind those piercing eyes, as if his soul has decided to stay at home.
There's no spark, no dynamic relationship between the two to generate tension or comedy. Nor is there sensitivity, warmth – or the sense of one's own ridiculousness from which comedy springs. Their final sketch, in which two frilly magicians flounce around, performing crap tricks to a bombastic soundtrack, suggests they can't even make basic silliness funny. "Everybody is going down on you," sing their Young People's Church alter egos, with forced innuendo. But it's Horne and Corden who are going down – and fast. Surely they can't sink further.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
David Baddiel wrote a column defending them in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, where he came across as eerily similar to TMO's ben. It was quite unsettling.
[ 31.03.2009, 06:14: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote: (Horne and Corden are both 30 years old)
This is particularly scathing, somehow.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
must be pretty dark times, going from being almost universally loved to this string of disasters. That's the sketch TV show, the film and the stage show that have been slagged off by the press. They must be getting pretty tired of these reviews. I know. I've had a similar trajectory here on tmo. Rising up the ranks from occasional lol'er to master of ceremonies, only to cannibalise my material, turn on my fellow stars, reject my audience and ultimately pursue such misguided and blinkered vanity projects that my reputation and the memories of my better days have been left in tatters.
I've felt the roar of the crowd, the feeling of walking on air as the lols come in. I've also felt the horror and the shame that comes with the realisation that you're wearing the emperors new clothes. My advice to james and matthew is simply to learn from these mistakes. Accept that you're mortal, be honest about your weaknesses, and you will grow as a human. But I have to be honest. That confidence that allowed you to fly so high... It'll never come back in the same way, because you'll never be able to believe your own hype again. Sure, you can regain your chops and put on a good show. But the hysteria... that feeling of being 100ft tall. Only the foolish can feel it.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I noted that the rot had set in remarkably quickly at Time Out (under their new ex-Smash Hits editor) when Corn and Harden earned a front cover to celebrate their 'exclusive celebrity interview' in said organ.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
they could also just kill themselves.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I watched the second episode, despite the unenjoyable first episode, just because I thought maybe, just maybe it would be more enjoyable once you got into the characters. Like how the fast show initially confused people, then, went on to be a legitimate comedy catchphrase festival of fun. Easy Cheesy Squeezy Peas etc.
I still found the majority of it to be rubbish. I think the superhero's social awkwardness sketch has possibilities, apart from that nothing.
Still maybe they'll pull through. Probably just need to bum each other off live onstage or something. Push the boundaries a bit more...
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
you could also kill yourself. "I'm just saying".
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Their unofficial James Corden Fan Site puts a different sheen on it.
quote:James Corden and Mat Horne performed live for the Teenage Cancer Trust on Sunday night. Drawing on characters and sketches from their much-maligned, eponymous sketch comedy, the duo wowed audiences and critics alike, bringing “high energy” to a “showbiz miracle.”
Horne & Corden began it’s six-episode run earlier in the month and was quickly slammed hard by critics. Yet the premiere episode set a record for audience on BBC3 and the show is rumored to be green lit for a second series. And a promotion to BBC2, which would mark the fastest-yet transition from the digital station to one of the main broadcast channels.
Their performance at Albert Hall was met with greater success. Bruce Dessau from thisislondon.co.uk writes,
At their best they raised the roof. Corden’s rapidfire rapping (“I’ve always had time for my rhyme”) showed he can rattle off neat lines at will when he has them. His public school oaf Xander also slipped down well as he clambered through the audience.”
Though his critic is measured and mixed (”trading heavily on high energy rather than high quality”), Dessau rated the program 3 out of 5 stars.
Over at The Telegraph, Dominic Cavendish shares more optimism,
…the pair bounded onto the Albert Hall stage with undaunted devil-may-care, acting for all the world like adored messiahs not newborn pariahs, and they were met with undisguised, and very vocal, affection from the crowd. If this was a make-or-break night, they could still count on their fans’ indulgence – but they didn’t need to. They rose to the occasion and delivered the funnies. You could almost hear a collective sigh of relief go up.
Those who trashed their BBC3 sketch-show might have cared to see how some of its characters work in a live context – which is very well indeed.”
For Horne and Corden it no doubt marked a welcome, happy end to what had been a difficult month. Aside from the launch and subsequent critical mauling of their sketch show, the pair also puts behind them the premiere and subsequent critical mauling of their new film, Lesbian Vampire Killers.
Horne and Corden have promised to “disappear” for awhile and let the public catch their breath. Still, we hope they don’t wait too long. If anything, the TCT evening proved that their fans continue to enjoy their work.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
If it helps I didn't find Gavin and Stacey a funny bone shaker either.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I watched a film called 'Looker' that I enjoyed a lot. It was a good one.
Note to hollywood: That is what a film poster should look like.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: If it helps I didn't find Gavin and Stacey a funny bone shaker either.
I watched half of the christmas one, and found it totally boring. Rob Brydon really annoys me. I don't like his 'schtick'.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
What is it with the British and our need for a comedy double-act? I don't know how far back it goes, but... Flanagan & Allen, Flanders & Swann, Morecambe & Wise, Corbett & Barker, Cannon & Ball, Dennis & Gee, Vic & Bob, Collins & Carr, Corden & Horne... and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: What is it with the British and our need for a comedy double-act? I don't know how far back it goes, but... Flanagan & Allen, Flanders & Swann, Morecambe & Wise, Corbett & Barker, Cannon & Ball, Dennis & Gee, Vic & Bob, Collins & Carr, Corden & Horne... and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
Nearly all shit, to some degree.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: What is it with the British and our need for a comedy double-act?
It surprises me that no one (that I can think of right now) has tried putting together a group like Monty Python since, uh, Monty Python. There's no shortage of excellent comedians around, and a lot of them write their own material, or a fair bit of it anyway, and do good sketches, but they just seem to stick together in pairs and quickly get repetitive.
There was that fairly lame Red Nose Day thing where Mitchell & Webb got together with Armstrong & Miller, but they basically just appeared in each others established sketches. If those two double acts could get together with one of the better stand-ups, plus some kind of wild-card along the lines of Terry Gilliam, then I'd say a whole new world of chuckles would open up. Or The Mighty Boosh people with the Little Britain people or whatever. Wouldn't they incite each other to far greater things? Maybe they just don't like each other.
I did read somewhere that a lot of comedians, even now, are terrified of ripping off Monty Python, and yet they don't seem at all bothered about carrying on like Pete & Dud, The Two Ronnies, Fry & Laurie etc etc in an unbroken line.
I suppose there was Not The Nine O'Clock News, but that was more a satire thing, which is about the only time you do get groups larger than two. Like The Now Show on the radio, which is hit and miss. Some might say shite. Though it usually has great moments.
Who would you put together do you reckon? And would it work?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Oh, and The Comic Strip. Maybe it's not that unusual. But even that was 30 odd years ago.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I did read somewhere that a lot of comedians, even now, are terrified of ripping off Monty Python, and yet they don't seem at all bothered about carrying on like Pete & Dud, The Two Ronnies, Fry & Laurie etc etc in an unbroken line.
It's a bit weird that this reverence to Monty Python continues, they're rerunning old episodes on cable at the moment. About 80% of each show is painfully awful. Every now and then there's a famously funny sketch but it's waaaaaaay more Miss than Hit.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
And The Goons!? Fucking hell! What a load of old shit.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Oh, and The Comic Strip. Maybe it's not that unusual. But even that was 30 odd years ago.
Mary Whitehouse Experience Absolutely
etc
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
So, do you reckon the comedians are doing the right thing in sticking in pairs.
Oh, and The Fast Show. That wore thin after a while, but was fantastic when it was first broadcast.
And The League Of Gentlemen.
I dunno. Both formats work well enough don't they.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Highly-educated men getting dragged up and doing funny voices? It's a bit shit, isn't it?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Highly-educated men getting dragged up and doing funny voices? It's a bit shit, isn't it?
The thing nowadays is that most of these sketch show people have a selection of characters and catch phrases and use them over and over again. Monty Python had a few stock characters, but most the time it was a different set up each show. I know a lot of it is really weak now, but the best stuff still stands up and the format should be tried more often, really. With threads running through shows and sketches banging into each other and that. I'm not saying to just copy Monty Python, but to update that format a bit.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
monty python were all quite similar though weren't they, as were the comic strip people. And the not the nine o'clock news people. I think that the closest we've got to that more recently was the day today. The thing that they've all got in common is that primarily they were saying something, they represented a disaffection, a generational gap and a desire to rebuild using new rules. Maybe TV is less powerful as a medium for that kind of social electricity these days because people find their niche online and turn to TV more for mind numbing entertainment. I don't know. That's probably bollocks. There are plenty of comedic actors out there, but when you've got such meaningless tweeness as flight of the conchords and mighty boosh as the top tv comedies, or the angsty cynicism of peep show, it seems clear that we don't want to get behind people with a cause. We want either inoffensive noodling or theatre of humiliation. I say 'we', but I don't really know who that is.
I'm talking shit here so that somebody can shoot me down.
[ 31.03.2009, 08:04: Message edited by: Deep Freeze ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Deep Freeze: such meaningless tweeness as flight of the conchords and mighty boosh as the top tv comedies, or the angsty cynicism of peep show, it seems clear that we don't want to get behind people with a cause. We want either inoffensive noodling or theatre of humiliation.
The Flight of Conchords is just shit. Mighty Boosh is a continuation of typical British daftness (Goon Show, Python, Vic & Bob...) that has been cynically drawn as edgy because they occasionally drop the word 'rape' into their Random Gag Generator. Peep Show I do actually see as having a voice. It's not really saying much other than 'Life is shit'. But, there you go.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I'm still very much down with tim and eric. They're midway through their fourth season now, and it's delivering as always.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I'm not saying all British comedy is plain rubbish. I'll watch it. I laugh at most of it. There's just not much to get excited about. We've got these comedy double acts and comedy teams, but none of them (or hardly any of them) really go out on a limb or doing anything genuinely interesting. We stratify them, Python = Genius, Russ Abbot's Comedy Workhouse = Dire. But, really there's not that much in it, in the majority of cases/material/performances. I think we do better with situation/character comedy and individual stand-ups.
The Day Today was good. But they were more of a team put together to realise someone else's comedic vision, weren't they?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
when it comes to actual laughter, I think that Harry Hill's TV Burp probably gets me the most, and if Sean Locke is on form when he's on a panel show.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Deep Freeze: when it comes to actual laughter, I think that Harry Hill's TV Burp probably gets me the most, and if Sean Locke is on form when he's on a panel show.
Harry Hill is consistently funny. He does that slightly cheeky whimsy thing. Completely unapologetically, no cards up his sleeve, no mocking pomo agenda. Just big collars, bad props and daft jokes. He even made You've Been Framed funny. He still takes the piss out of Lisa Riley on that, and she hasn't been on the telly for about 10 years.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Trying to think of UK TV comedy that's good. So far on my list I've got:
League of Gentlemen Spaced Peep Show Alan Partridge The Day today The Office Fall and Rise of Reginal Perrin
The great british Public voted for 1. fools and horses 2. blackadder 3. vicar of dibley 4. dad's army 5. fawlty towers 6. yes minister 7. porridge 8. open all hours 9. the good life 10. once foot in the grave.
Christ on a bike.
[ 31.03.2009, 08:43: Message edited by: Tilde ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde:
The great british Public voted for 1. fools and horses 2. blackadder 3. vicar of dibley 4. dad's army 5. fawlty towers 6. yes minister 7. porridge 8. open all hours 9. the good life 10. once foot in the grave.
I find it really hard to watch any of those now, with the exception of Fawlty Towers (if I'm in the mood) and the majestic Porridge. Porridge is mainly worth repeated viewing for the splendid ensemble performing, though. Same goes for Rising Damp and the Perrins.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
nowt wrong with fawlty towers
eta: oh noes I agreed with Mask on something
[ 31.03.2009, 08:48: Message edited by: ralph ]
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
The lead performances in Dad's Army are pretty good. Lowe was excellent.
Also good from the golden era of british sitcomes was ever decreasing circles.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
LotSW! Although admittedly it has gone off the boil a bit in recent decades.
[ 31.03.2009, 09:00: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I can't remember Ever decreasing Circles - I remember the start with the pond and the ripples. Anyway it's in at 52.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
men behaving badly is freaking agony when you watch it now. What the hell happened to this country around that time?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
hmm. sarah alexander is married to Peter Serafinowicz. I always hoped that she'd end up with me, but I can't compete with Peter. Peter incidentally is a big fan of tim and eric as well.
I once stood next to Sarah Alexander in Kensington. She was looking in an estate agent's window, I was pretending to do so, drinking in the moment.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Deep Freeze: What the hell happened to this country around that time?
'Lad''Culture', according to the press.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
11 Father Ted More | Top of page 12 Keeping Up Appearances More | Top of page 13 'Allo 'Allo! More | Top of page 14 Last of the Summer Wine More | Top of page 15 Steptoe and Son More | Top of page 16 Men Behaving Badly More | Top of page 17 Absolutely Fabulous More | Top of page 18 Red Dwarf More | Top of page 19 The Royle Family More | Top of page 20 Are You Being Served? More | Top of page 21 To the Manor Born More | Top of page 22 Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em More | Top of page 23 The Likely Lads More | Top of page 24 My Family More | Top of page 25 The Office More | Top of page 26 Drop the Dead Donkey More | Top of page 27 Rising Damp More | Top of page 28 Dinnerladies More | Top of page 29 As Time Goes By More | Top of page 30 Hancock's Half Hour More | Top of page 31 The Young Ones More | Top of page 32 Till Death Us Do Part More | Top of page 33 Butterflies More | Top of page 34 The Thin Blue Line More | Top of page 35 Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin More | Top of page 36 Peter Kay's Phoenix Nights More | Top of page 37 Waiting for God More | Top of page 38 Birds of a Feather More | Top of page 39 Bread More | Top of page 40 Hi-De-Hi More | Top of page 41 The League of Gentlemen More | Top of page 42 I'm Alan Partridge More | Top of page 43 Just Good Friends More | Top of page 44 2.4 Children More | Top of page 45 Bottom More | Top of page 46 It Ain't Half Hot Mum More | Top of page 47 The Brittas Empire More | Top of page 48 Gimme Gimme Gimme More | Top of page 49 Rab C. Nesbitt More | Top of page 50 Goodnight Sweetheart More | Top of page 51 Up Pompeii More | Top of page 52 Ever Decreasing Circles More | Top of page 53 On the Buses More | Top of page 54 Coupling More | Top of page 55 George and Mildred More | Top of page 56 A Fine Romance More | Top of page 57 Citizen Smith More | Top of page 58 Black Books More | Top of page 59 The Liver Birds More | Top of page 60 Two Pints of Lager and... More | Top of page 61 The New Statesman More | Top of page 62 Sykes More | Top of page 63 Please, Sir! More | Top of page 64 Dear John More | Top of page 65 Barbara More | Top of page 66 Spaced More | Top of page 67 Bless this House More | Top of page 68 Love Thy Neighbour More | Top of page 69 Man About the House More | Top of page 70 Desmonds More | Top of page 71 Duty Free More | Top of page 72 All Gas and Gaiters More | Top of page 73 Happy Ever After/Terry & June More | Top of page 74 Only When I Laugh More | Top of page 75 Brass More | Top of page 76 The Rag Trade More | Top of page 77 Sorry More | Top of page 78 Kiss Me Kate More | Top of page 79 Doctor in the House More | Top of page 80 I Didn't Know You Cared More | Top of page 81 Shelley More | Top of page 82 Nearest and Dearest More | Top of page 83 Fresh Fields More | Top of page 84 The Army Game More | Top of page 85 Robin's Nest More | Top of page 86 The Dustbinmen More | Top of page 87 Whoops Apocalypse More | Top of page 88 My Wife Next Door More | Top of page 89 Never the Twain More | Top of page 90 Nightingales More | Top of page 91 Early Doors More | Top of page 92 Agony More | Top of page 93 The Lovers More | Top of page 94 Father Dear Father More | Top of page 95 Hot Metal More | Top of page 96 And Mother Makes... More | Top of page 97 Life With the Lyons More | Top of page 98 Marriage Lines More | Top of page 99 A Sharp Intake of Breath More | Top of page 100 No Problem
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
We should do a complete review and appraisal of every one of the top 100. We owe it to British comedy to get to the bottom of exactly what's gone wrong.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
The raging-out-of-control genre at the moment, of course, is the panel game thing, like QI, Stop The Week, 8 Out Of 10 Cats and loads more. The radio's been full of them for years. I like The Unbelievable Truth, but that's probably because it's hosted by David Mitchell who is going from strength to strength at the moment, till everyone gets sick of him.
Those programmes must cost about 20p to make, but they do work most the time. i.e. They makes I laugh. I wonder how easy it is to maintain that, and why it's usually funnier (with a bit of editing, presumably) for a few comedians to just sit there bouncing jokes off each other than it is when they sit down for weeks on end to write a carefully crafted script.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Hi-De-Fucking-Hi?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
the surrealist sitcom that Raz and I got on BBC Three - "Walkden in Egg Hell" was recently nomimated for best script by listeners of minority-orientated digital radio station BBC1 Xtra.
[ 31.03.2009, 09:13: Message edited by: Deep Freeze ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Was that supposed to be funny?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
no. I dance to my own tune.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Guilty secret: They've been repeating Allo Allo recently and I've found myself laughing at it quite a lot. It's quite bizarre, because I thought it was complete shite when it first came out. It probably still is complete shite, but I'm just saying.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I saw another one of those panel shows called Argumental on Dave the other day. It was hosted by John Sargeant and I think Marcus Brigstocke (who also appeared on Hole in the Wall this week) was one of the team captains.
5/10, but I fell asleep after about ten minutes.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
WTF?
My Family at 24 but The Office at 25?
Two Pints of Lager and a packet of crisps at 60 but Spaced only at 66?
This is basically proof that the british public are actually morans.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
it says more about the tv watching demographic than the quality of the tv show.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Deep Freeze: no. I dance to my own tune.
canned lol
[ 31.03.2009, 09:17: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
*canned applause*
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Deep Freeze: it says more about the tv watching demographic than the quality of the tv show.
It says more about the survey-responding demographic really. As do all surveys. They should force the entire population to fill in surveys, at gunpoint and with lie detectors. Then we'd start getting to the truth of the matter.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I imagine that the survey filling in demographic and the classic tv sitcom watching demographic are quite similar.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
The fact that 2PoLaaPoCP ever made it past the pilot episode is proof that if there was a god, then he's the sort of god who would put a whoopee cushion under your seat during an important interview or go to shake your hand and raise his thumb up to his nose, wiggling his fingers and poking out his tongue.
the ****
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Are we ready to have a go at Tommy Cooper, yet?
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I have not even heard of the programmes listed below! Are they predominantly older then I would remember, or have they been invented since I have not had TV (~2 years)?
53 On the Buses More | Top of page 55 George and Mildred More | Top of page 56 A Fine Romance More | Top of page 59 The Liver Birds More | Top of page 63 Please, Sir! More | Top of page 64 Dear John More | Top of page 65 Barbara More | Top of page 67 Bless this House More | Top of page 68 Love Thy Neighbour More | Top of page 69 Man About the House More | Top of page 71 Duty Free More | Top of page 72 All Gas and Gaiters More | Top of page 74 Only When I Laugh More | Top of page 75 Brass More | Top of page 76 The Rag Trade More | Top of page 78 Kiss Me Kate More | Top of page 79 Doctor in the House More | Top of page 80 I Didn't Know You Cared More | Top of page 81 Shelley More | Top of page 82 Nearest and Dearest More | Top of page 83 Fresh Fields More | Top of page 84 The Army Game More | Top of page 85 Robin's Nest More | Top of page 86 The Dustbinmen More | Top of page 87 Whoops Apocalypse More | Top of page 88 My Wife Next Door More | Top of page 89 Never the Twain More | Top of page 90 Nightingales More | Top of page 92 Agony More | Top of page 93 The Lovers More | Top of page 94 Father Dear Father More | Top of page 95 Hot Metal More | Top of page 96 And Mother Makes... More | Top of page 97 Life With the Lyons More | Top of page 98 Marriage Lines More | Top of page 99 A Sharp Intake of Breath More | Top of page 100 No Problem
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
It's easy to get it wrong. I tried writing sitcoms and my main worry while writing was that I make it 26 minutes long.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Brass and Whoops Apocalypse were quite good, if I recall correctly. Not seen them in years though. Brass was a pisstake of those Northern drama things set in a mill or something. Whoops Apocalypse was, I think, a bit like those Police Squad/Naked Gun things - straight faced, bad puns, slapstick. I think.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: I have not even heard of the programmes listed below! Are they predominantly older then I would remember, or have they been invented since I have not had TV (~2 years)?
53 On the Buses More | Top of page 55 George and Mildred More | Top of page 56 A Fine Romance More | Top of page 59 The Liver Birds More | Top of page 63 Please, Sir! More | Top of page 64 Dear John More | Top of page 65 Barbara More | Top of page 67 Bless this House More | Top of page 68 Love Thy Neighbour More | Top of page 69 Man About the House More | Top of page 71 Duty Free More | Top of page 72 All Gas and Gaiters More | Top of page 74 Only When I Laugh More | Top of page 75 Brass More | Top of page 76 The Rag Trade More | Top of page 78 Kiss Me Kate More | Top of page 79 Doctor in the House More | Top of page 80 I Didn't Know You Cared More | Top of page 81 Shelley More | Top of page 82 Nearest and Dearest More | Top of page 83 Fresh Fields More | Top of page 84 The Army Game More | Top of page 85 Robin's Nest More | Top of page 86 The Dustbinmen More | Top of page 87 Whoops Apocalypse More | Top of page 88 My Wife Next Door More | Top of page 89 Never the Twain More | Top of page 90 Nightingales More | Top of page 92 Agony More | Top of page 93 The Lovers More | Top of page 94 Father Dear Father More | Top of page 95 Hot Metal More | Top of page 96 And Mother Makes... More | Top of page 97 Life With the Lyons More | Top of page 98 Marriage Lines More | Top of page 99 A Sharp Intake of Breath More | Top of page 100 No Problem
They are all older than you would remember.
I know about down to no. 71, but didn't watch them all - like On the buses with that conductor guy, I do remember watching Duty Free when I was very young. Love thy neighbour is famous for being racist, although I haven't ever seen anything other than clips. Dear John I recall as being quite funny, although again I was very young[/b]
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
same here with Duty Free. I remember that being on, and a chick had very big hair.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I tell you what I don't find that funny, is The Daily Show.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
umm.. I'm sorry...Did I just say that out loud?
*laughter*
no, but I think your ass wants to say something...
*laughter*
Mmmm-Hmmm! I hear that, girl!
*laughter, applause*
[ 31.03.2009, 09:54: Message edited by: Deep Freeze ]
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
okay.... who ordered the shrimp?
*hysterical laughter, whooping*
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I'm on fire today.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
horne and corden could learn a lot from me about dignity.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I can take it. I can take this. Whatever.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Jon Stewart is like a lucid David Letterman.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I haven't watched it so it kills the thread for me.
However I will be watching The Wire as I have sky+series linked it. Looking forward to it as I can't find anyone who has a bad word to say about it, and I enjoy Lost which plenty of people hate.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I've just started watching Gilmore Girls from the beginning.
9/10
ETA: Man, I could be reading it as well:
[ 31.03.2009, 11:11: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
is it about lesbian incest?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
oh, look, I need to have a sleep or something. Sorry.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
No, that isn't what it's about. At least not yet...
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I have all the Gilmore Girls box sets :shame:
Actually I don't have them, my friend who I lent them to about a year ago has them.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
There's no shame in that, H1pster.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
It does look kind of sexy though. I suppose if I had to choose I'd do the mother.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
... then the daughter
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Hopefully in the same room, and make each of them watch.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I need to go night nights.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I've been watching Urotsukidōji. Having slogged through nearly three hours of graphically depicted rape scenes, I finally understand what happened in the first one. In a nutshell, a whole load of raping went down. Also what you thought was the overfiend was actually just a demon of destruction, destroying the three realms to make way for the birth of the real overfiend, who is the unborn child of the demon of destruction. Phew!
I'm now trying to watch the second one, "the demon womb". While it started well - a nazi plot to unleash demons by hooking a woman up to a rape machine - it soon unravelled, and now I have no idea who anybody is, why this person is raping this other person, or why Tokyo keeps being destroyed in cataclysmic explosions. I fear I'll have to start again.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah I think you've got the gist of it
(what is a gist anyway?)
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
it's like a wrench or crowbar.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
This is the second time in a week that I've seen people on the internet discussing British sketch shows without mentioning Jam. Admittedly it's not a double act but it did break a lot of the conventions mentioned on this thread and felt like something genuinely new when it first aired. There hasn't really been anything like it since, either.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Was Jam on at a weird time or something? I don't think I ever caught it on TV. I've seen some clips on youtube I think... was it the one with Simon Pegg in? The clip that springs to mind is the one where they are banned from wanking at work.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
That was Big Train.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
oh yeah. I haven't seen Jam then.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Jam was brilliant. I think it was on at about 10.30pm on a Friday or something, so not that weird a time. It's probably worth torrenting rather than watching on Youtube in ten minute chunks. Even when it screened on Channel 4 it did so without advert breaks to preserve the menacing atmosphere.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Having said that, the opening sketch gives you some idea what to expect.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I preferred jammmmmm, the ambient remix version.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Yeah, but I'm not sure that's going to be available for free on the internet. I can't imagine any of these idiots paying for the DVD.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I remember a sketch about an impressively stupid woman who was trying to get her car back from a car pound. That was Jam, wasn't it? And something about a chap trying to commit suicide by jumping from the first floor over and over again. And disconcertingly slowed-down voices. Chris Morris.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
*100 Greatest Scary Moments (#26)
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Jam was pretty close to the line. There's the jealous girlfriend confronting her boyfriend to be reassured.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Or the foreplay of that welsh couple. "At that point I'm well ready. Aching for a fuck." Jam was ace.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Plumber called to 'fix' dead baby. Brr. Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I've watched some Jam clips on youtube and it is pretty good stuff. Obviously not anything with mainstream appeal though.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Also, started watching The Apprentice. As per usual a bunch of cock knockers, who appear massively overconfident in their own abilities setting themselves up for a fail followed by a thorough telling off by the headmaster.
Yes Sir Alan, no Sir Alan, Good Morning Sir Alan. Thankyou for firing me Sir Alan
Some terrible lines from Sir Alan in this series, I don't know, maybe he's writing his own material:
In response to James' ridiculous CV statement that when he wakes up in the morning he can "taste success in his spit"
'"When you wake up in the morning you can taste success in your spit" is that right? ... What did you have, a curry last night?'"
Not great Sir Alan.
If I was writing it I'd have gone for:
'"When you wake up in the morning you can taste success in your spit" is that right? ... Maybe you should stop sucking RIchard Branson off'"
I dunno, it's all pretty entertaining stuff watching vile people be horrible to each other and then get ridiculed. Anyone else watching it? Ben?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
don't watch it myself, but last night's episode was apparently filmed in my company's London head office (which is closed today and tomorrow because of G20 protestors.) some of the stooges were our staff. did it look nice? I've only been there for meetings a couple of times.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
It did look nice. Always freaks me out a bit that people work like that. I mean, my experience of work has always been in a pretty shit environment, wearing casual/scruffy clothes, drinking coffee out of styrofoam cups/mismatched cheap mugs. Not having high powered lunchtime meetings round modern boardroom furniture in a high glass tower, wearing designer suits.
I don't know, I guess I find it all a bit intimidating and out of my league. The idea of walking into an environment like that fills me with the fear.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: Anyone else watching it?
I watched it for the first time last night, after eating so much pasta that I found myself unable to reach the remote. I was genuinely surprised that these people are already 'successful business types'. They're supposed to be the cream of the crop, are they? I'd always assumed that they were fresh out of cunty business college. And as much as I thought they were all hateful idiots, I also find everything that Siralan stands for to be absolutely repellant. It's just one old successful cock telling a bunch of younger, less successful cocks that they're not being quite the right type of cock. What is there to like here?
quote: Some of this year's Apprentii already fall into that category: there's one physical characteristic or affected visual quirk that makes them stand out. Mona, for instance, has fascinating eyes: beautiful, but exactly the same as Nookie Bear's
[ 02.04.2009, 08:44: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I wish Brooker would come and post on this forum.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlton Brooker:
The Apprentice (Wed, 9pm, BBC1) throws up many questions. Such as: what's the plural of apprentice? Apprentii? Apprenticeese? Let's go with the former. And now we've established that, what's the correct collective noun for a group of Apprentii? A pillock of Apprentii? A wankel? A swagger?
Swagger it is. Right. Now we can proceed.
As this year's swagger of Apprentii marched into view over the Millennium Bridge, I was struck by two things. Firstly by the way that during the initial stages when there are far too many of them to really focus on, they all fall into one of two categories: interchangeables and aliens. The interchangeables are nondescript, hovering around in the background as though auditioning for Nick and Margaret's job, a bit like visual filler. Sometimes you'll spot one in the boardroom and scratch your head trying to remember their name. But don't be fooled: the series is always, always won by an interchangeable. They start developing names and personalities somewhere around week five. Think of them as hatchlings.
The aliens, meanwhile, draw the eye. I was once told that the mark of a well-designed cartoon character is that they remain recognisable even in silhouette – think of Bart Simpson or Mickey Mouse. Some of this year's Apprentii already fall into that category: there's one physical characteristic or affected visual quirk that makes them stand out. Mona, for instance, has fascinating eyes: beautiful, but exactly the same as Nookie Bear's (Google it if you don't believe me). Howard is a genetic cross between previous winners Simon and Lee, albeit one with the downward gaping mouth of a depressed coelacanth moaning about all the damp weather they've been having underwater. Ben looks exactly like hitherto-undiscovered footage of Aidan Gillen (AKA Tommy Carcetti in The Wire) playing a local businessman in an imaginary episode of Emmerdale from 1999. Even so, as I mention their names, chances are you won't quite be able to recall who I'm talking about yet. There are just too many of them. It's still just a swagger of Apprentii.
A youthful swagger at that. The cliche that you know you're getting old when policemen start looking young applies even more strongly to Apprentii. Half of them dribble. One is seven years old. I keep expecting them to pull out a set of toy cars during the boardroom scenes and start making brrmm brrmm noises while Sir Alan's trying to bollock them.
Speaking of Sir Alan, it's heartening to see that these stormy financial times haven't beaten an ounce of humility into him. Despite an ongoing makeover which sees him becoming physically leaner and slicker each year, his character remains constant: the level of unwarranted, snarling belligerence hasn't dropped a single share point. Even though last week's inaugural task was a fairly pedestrian car-washing challenge, he conducted the final showdown like a murder trial – not any old murder trial, but a gangland, kangaroo court, Long Good Friday sort of trial, the sort that takes place in an abandoned warehouse and ends with one of the defendants being hung upside down and having their knees sliced off with an angle grinder.
If he's this angry during week one, with any luck by week six he'll be throwing furniture around in a rage and grabbing candidates by their ties. And instead of sending the fired loser out of the room to meekly collect their suitcase, he'll nod a small gesture in Nick's direction and leave the room.
At this point Nick quietly taps a button under the desk (locking the doors), silently pulls on some tight leather gloves and advances slowly towards the victim, brandishing a syringe filled with a sinister clear liquid. The victim beats their fists against the exit to no avail, as Nick moves in, smirking coldly, moving ever closer, relentless as a Terminator. Close up on the glistening tip of the needle as it draws near. Cut to black. Tortured scream. Roll credits in silence.
This, my friends, is precisely the kind of entertainment we need during a recession.
Spot on, lol
[ 02.04.2009, 08:52: Message edited by: Tilde ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: I wish Brooker would come and post on this forum.
We used to have a Brooker posting on TMO. It was entertaining at times, but ultimately pretty destructive.
Perhaps Charlton would be different. He could bring his friend Morris along. Should we send invites?
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I could ask him via twitter.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
anne-marie and I know him, so I'll give him a shout.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I saw Monsters v Aliens, today. It was okay, not great.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
On the subject of Brooker, I've been very much enjoying Newswipe
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I watched Stardust again last night as I thought my mum might enjoy it (she seemed to). I love that movie. It gives me warm hugs, much like The Princess Bride.
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I watched a lot of south park over the weekend. I enjoyed the one where Gacy, Dahmer and Bundy are the three stooges, trying to organize the delivery of a cake in the shape of a Ferrari for Satan's 'my sweet sixteen' hallowe'en party. Also biggie smalls is trying to get to the party, but every time he gets on a plane, somebody summons him back to south park by saying his name three times into a mirror.
[ 06.04.2009, 11:21: Message edited by: Deep Freeze ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
I had a bit of a foreign sesh yesterday - watched Der Bader Meinhoff Komplex yesterday - fairly interesting but more of a straight factual story on the whole RAF thing in the 60s/70s. I also watched 9 Рота (The 9th company) - a Russian film about the last days of the Afghanistan occupation - fairly good and nice to see some decent modern Russian cinema.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: I watched Stardust again last night as I thought my mum might enjoy it (she seemed to). I love that movie. It gives me warm hugs, much like The Princess Bride.
Stardust the movie charting the rise and fall of the rock singer Jim Maclaine, in the mid 60s, with his manager, Mike, and his group, "The Stray Cats"?
Or that film what Take That did the song for ?
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
I would guess at this one. Robert DeNiro as the cross-dressing captain is fantastic..
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I watched Fast & Furious at an 11.30am showing on Saturday morning. More of the same. Vin Diesel seems to have got even larger. His arms are enormous. Paul Walker is still wooden.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I might go and see that tomorrow. Is it worth seeing?
Posted by Deep Freeze (Member # 841) on :
I don't know. Probably not. None of them are, really.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
As I mentioned on the gaming thread, I watched Virtuosity off of XBox live on Easter Sunday, when I was trying to pick something that would encourage giggling and shouting among a bunch of hangovers. One person protested that he "didn't think the movie would be bad enough", an anxiety that turned out to be lacking in foundation.
If you thought the classy crime movie American Gangster was the first time Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington went head to head, then you were mistaken. Nonetheless, they'd probably want you to think that because at it's best Virtuosity is an exercise in taking two multiple-Oscar winning actors and exposing them to one crushing humiliation after another.
Crowe is a computer program composite of over 200 hundred serial killers, although the dominant personality among those seems to be a screamingly camp nacissist with a passion for green suits. At one point I feared the movie would be unwatchable because Camp Russell Crowe was making me wince so completely. Snatching a computer-generated rose out of the air, or catching a glimpse of his face on TV and saying "I- I'm beautiful!" or strutting down the street to the bee gees in a purplish suit, he fails to generate any menace at all. Whenever he tries to be frightening he just looks like a colossal bender.
Denzel Washington doesn't fare much better. At the start of the movie he's playing a VR game, and his character is dressed in a purple Nazi outfit so tight that he can't run properly. Later, he's plugged back into the VR machine and we see a shot of his real world self strapped in and running in mid-air, his fists and legs pumping at nothing.
There's not much to say in terms of plot. Someone lets Crowe out of his machine for no reason, and then they're astonished because he goes on a killing spree. Convict Washington is the only one who can stop him, because in the game he failed to stop him. Washington's strategy is solely to shoot Crowe over and over again, which doesn't even work and it's hard to see why Washington is the only person who can do this. At one point Washington is accused of a murder he obviously didn't commit, and they send a SWAT team after him. At this point he's in the same building as Crowe who's taken a whole TV studio and is executing people one after the other. The SWAT team exclusively attempt to shoot Denzel, despite the fact that at best he shot one person, by accident and he clearly didn't even do that. Still, to keep the drama going they target him, and not the man shooting people live on telly.
Among all the duff lines and plot idiocy there is one extraordinary moment in a nightclub, which represents the very peak of Russell Crowe's degradation. Having recorded a bunch of screams for his 'symphony' Crowe stands over a bank of motion operated synthesisers a does a weird dance that's a cross between The Robot and the Elvis Pelvis. It's an extraordinary moment, made sidesplittingly hilarious by the fact it's Russell Crowe disgracing himself in this manner. I tried and tried to get a clip of this from YouTUbe, but it's nowhere to be found. The best I can manage, is this scavenged image that may not even work:
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Denzel?... Crowe I could understand but... Denzel. Fucking hell.
[ 15.04.2009, 15:40: Message edited by: Tilde ]
Posted by Amy (Member # 11) on :
Physic, I absolutely LOVED Stardust!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Watched Taken yesterday, which is about Liam Neeson killing France. Simple, ludicrous, button-pushing premise executed delightfully well. Liam's daughter is abducted by people traffickers within minutes of getting off the plane in Paris, so he heads over there himself to begin the butchery.
From there, it's one splendid scene of bone-cracking violence after another, as he beats, blasts, crashes and tortures his way to the top of the prostitution ring. It all seems quite familiar, except that it's Liam Neeson doing all this, rather than Seagal or whoever, and it's a great casting decision. He's charming enough that the violence isn't alienating, but even better is the way he towers over everyone else in the film; a giant carving his way through East European weasels.
Towards the end it shifts from a horrifyingly plausible portrayal of seedy brothels to an absurd Bond-villian style auction house but by that point you'll either be completely on board, or bored to death. It has a scene where Liam kicks someone so hard in the nuts, their legs fly out behind them. I enjoyed it immensely.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I was down in London at the weekend and am gutted that I didn't stay for another couple of nights. Tonight at the Vue cinema in Leicester Square they're showing a charity screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation, which I'm sure we've talked about before on here.
Clip of the film here. If you can't watch the whole thing, go right to the end to see how they did the giant boulder scene -- amazing.
I would love to see this at the cinema. Somebody else go for me.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I would love it if Lucas and Spielberg sued them for that and made explicit their true natures as money grubbing shitbirds. It would be so perfect.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I think that clip's probably sufficient. I can imagine the charm of watching a bunch of 13 year-olds mugging their way through an entire poorly-lit, badly-focussed movie palling pretty quickly.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I know what you mean, though I've read that, watching the whole thing, you end up really rooting for the kids, that the suspense is actually about how on earth are they going to film the next tricky scene (the truck bit, the submarine, etc.), rather than the story itself.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I know what you mean, though I've read that, watching the whole thing, you end up really rooting for the kids, that the suspense is actually about how on earth are they going to film the next tricky scene (the truck bit, the submarine, etc.), rather than the story itself.
They've certainly proven themselves to be resourceful young men. If nothing else that movie'll serve as an especially elaborate application form when applying for a job as a runner.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I'm in two minds about this as an achievement. History attests to the fact that they're far from the first young folk to make a movie with zero resources. Apart from making a small splash in the gorehound market, no-one really cared about the staggering ingenuity and commitment that went into Peter Jackson's Bad Taste. The only reason this garners so much interest is actually because of the least impressive thing about it: that it copies another movie in its entireity.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The only reason this garners so much interest is actually because of the least impressive thing about it: that it copies another movie in its entireity.
Surely that alone is impressive. If I'd managed to get my hands on a whip and a fedora at age 13 I'd have been overwhelmed by my achievement. These kids doggedly put together an entire movie, sets, props, shots... there's obviously something wrong with them. But then, even that's impressive, getting three autistic kids with the same obsession living together in the same neighbourhood.
[ 28.04.2009, 07:06: Message edited by: Black Mask ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
In other words, if they'd spent seven years making a film from an original script, with stunts and FX that were pulled off with the same level of ingenuity, there's no way they'd have a charity screening in Leicester Square.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: In other words, if they'd spent seven years making a film from an original script, with stunts and FX that were pulled off with the same level of ingenuity, there's no way they'd have a charity screening in Leicester Square.
Pretty much. It'd end up in 3-minute segments on YouTube, with morons commenting LOK UR MOV3S DA BOM. HOOZ DA HOTTE I WUD DEF TAP DAT ASS LOL222 Where it would belong.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The only reason this garners so much interest is actually because of the least impressive thing about it: that it copies another movie in its entireity.
I disagree. I think the interest is the human interest, the charm of the story. These are 11-year-old kids, man. They've watched this amazing film. One of them says, hey, wouldn't it be fun to shoot our own version? They all say yeah! They reckon they can do it over the summer. It takes them seven years to do it. They don't give up. They keep at it. By the end, Indy has real stubble, whereas at the beginning it was burnt cork. You see these kids grow up, on screen.
That's why it's such a great story. By recreating another film shot-for-shot, they've set themselves a remarkable challenge, and they've met it. If they'd made their own story, it would probably never have occurred to them to try and shoot a scene where a kid gets thrown under a truck, or to consider the possibility that they could actually wangle it so they could film with a real submarine -- they would probably have never scripted it in the first place.
The Peter Jackson film you mention (and which I have seen) is of course a great achievement, but it's made by a guy obsessed with cinema, with film. It's inevitable, if you like, that he'd become a filmmaker. The film is a career move.
These kids, well, they're just kids. They're not obsessed with filmmaking. They're obsessed with making one film, for fun. Seven summers of teenage fun. How magnificent is that?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: Seven summers of teenage fun. How magnificent is that?
meh
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Surely that alone is impressive. If I'd managed to get my hands on a whip and a fedora at age 13 I'd have been overwhelmed by my achievement. These kids doggedly put together an entire movie, sets, props, shots... there's obviously something wrong with them. But then, even that's impressive, getting three autistic kids with the same obsession living together in the same neighbourhood.
That's why I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, yeah, if my kids did this I'd be impressed with them. I'd be delighted. But it's something that happens a fair bit in the world: the Hot Fuzz DVD has got Edgar Wright's teenage attempt at making a cop movie with his mates, for example. But had he gone into being a QA tester for Electronic Arts, his film would remained unwatched, and twenty years down the line it wouldn't get a Leicester Square screening, because although it was no less of an achievement (arguably moreso, because he wasn't working from a template) it wasn't done under the banner of a famous film.
Or maybe I'm just jealous because The Great Trainer Robbery is destined to rot on VHS, unloved and unappreciated.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: How magnificent is that?
Pretty magnificent, mart. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't remember being a kid or is simply dead inside.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
You know what could happen? They could all go on to be big-time movie directors and then this abortion will appear on the Special Features disc of their big release, and everybody who watches it can go...'Wow. Their film-making actually got worse!'
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
After playing through some of the game and enjoying it, I decided yesterday to buy Afro Samurai on DVD. Which, obviously, is totally awesome.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Following a very boozy Saturday, Octavia and I settled in to watch the entire Transporter trilogy in one sitting, none of which I've ever seen before.
THESE FILMS ARE FRICKEN AWESOME!!! Occupying some netherworld between James Bond and Tom and Jerry, powered along by Jason Statham, ludicrous plotting and splendid action sequences, there's at least one moment of utter brilliance in each film.
The first movie seemed to be a cut above the other two, although there was a sense that I'd been whipped into such a frenzy of delirious excitement by the climax of No.1 that the moments of exposition at the starts of 2 + 3 felt like never-ending moments of drudge and tedium, as I hopped up and down on the sofa shouting "MOAR FIGHTING!! MOAR!!!"
There's a tendency to suggest that these are movies that require you to shut your brain down to enjoy. I disagree. There's at least as much fun to be had from picking out references and inspirations ranging from the predictable (Lethal Weapon, Indiana Jones) to the bizarrely highbrow (a conversation about Madeleines lifted from Proust) as there is from the audacious action sequences.
It's tempting to dismiss them as dumb action movies, but there's a sly wit to each movie. When a villain in 2 is listing off requirements for his henchmen he includes at the end "and a psychotic devotion to following orders" which is the kind of observation you can only deliver with a forensic understanding of action movie conventions.
Onto the specifics of each film, then. The first is the best: a rambunctious, ridiculous romp strung together by Looney Tunes action sequences, the best of which - a fight in an oil slick - is simulaneously camp, hilarious, gay, violent. It's both an homage to the absurdly homoerotic action movies of the eighties, and a Tom and Jerry Cartoon played out in real life. The Stath slips and slides around the floor, as the henchmen are unable to get a grip on him. At one point a guy dives mouth first at Stath's spread crotch. At the end of the scene Stath kisses him on the lips.
There's not a lot the second two movies can do to compete with that, but they try their hardest. Number 2 has a brilliant fight that sees Statham taking people out with a fire hose, whipping it round girders, tying it round ankles, smashing it into groins. Then, when everyone's down and tied up he turns the hose on!!! Yanking them across the floor, pinning them to walls. Absolutely brilliant. Just brilliant.
By the time the third one rolled around, I was starting to feel some level of repetition in the fights, although the films probably aren't meant to be watched in one sitting. Even so, there were some series highlights here, such as Statham's Macguyver-esque resourcefulness in using the air from his tyres to breath, after he's driven his car off a bridge. And then there was the occasional witty choice of music such as I Wanna Be Your Dog, as Jason chases after a car.
So. Yeah. I'm completely sold on Statham as the heir to the Seagal/ Schwarzenneger/ Stallone school of action hero. Really looking forward to seeing Crank and Crank 2.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Yesterday I read Bad Vibes by Luke Haines, in one sitting. It's a real page-turner, unputdownable, etc...
It's a memoir of the bad old Britpop days by the former frontman of The Auteurs. It's a swingeing, whingeing, barking, snapping, curmudgeonly masterpiece of a memoir, with Haines' ego on overdrive and dripping with vemom at every perceived and real slight and grudge that he has absolutely no intention of forgetting or forgiving. I found it immensely funny and accurate, but then I was never a Britpop fan. He seems prone to the same sort of enthusiasms as me (anti-art, avant-garde, conspiracy theories, murder, terrorists, utopian movements...) so maybe that helped. It's a full-on rant with the charm of Niven, Stanshall, Mark E Smith or Ignatius J. Reilly.
Try it.
Posted by Physic (Member # 195) on :
I'm with you on the Transporter films Thorn, ridiculously entertaining considering how absurd they are. If you thought they stretched credibility a little though then wait until you see Crank, it doesn't so much stretch it as turn it into an origami swan.
Crank has to rank as easily the most ridiculous film I've ever seen, much like the Transporter films it still manages to be entertaining though. Even as your brains dribble from your ears in an effort to escape you'll be unable to tear yourself away from the latest ludicrous action sequence..
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: It's a memoir of the bad old Britpop days by the former frontman of The Auteurs.
Excellent - I'm going to buy this. I used to be a little bit obsessed with The Auteurs in the early '90s.
From Wikipedia:
quote:However, just as the band looked like 'breaking through' to the mainstream (as other British bands, such as Oasis and Blur were then doing), Haines broke both of his ankles, resulting in the cancellation of much of their 1994 European tour. At the time he claimed "I jumped off a fifteen-foot wall (while) touring, ... to finish the tour and get the insurance" but later, in the sleeve notes to Das Capital, he denied that it was deliberate, writing "I merely drank too much wine and fell over. It happens."
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Went to see Star Trek yesterday. Not bad actually, pretty good. Acting is a bit hit and miss, but more than made up for by the great pacing and exciting action sequences. Leonard Nimoy playing Spock playing Obi-Wan was less than brilliant, and there were a few too many slightly awkward references to the old star trek series and movies. But generally a very entertaining watch. Right up there with Star Trek II I'd say.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Terminator Salvation - meh
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Funny, I enjoyed it a lot! I'm thinking Anton Yelchin is this year's Shia LaBoeuf
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I found it really tedious and self-referential to the point of being almost fourth wall breaking. Bale was terrible as John Connor, the directing and script were average at best, and I found the whole thing was just full of cliches and bits obviously stolen from other films. Like the military General who predictably wants to just nuke everything against the advice of everyone else, and the bit where they went to Mordor. And the completely dull and pointless bit right at the end where we find yet another slow fight with a robot in a alightly unlikely industrial complex.
There were a few good bits like the giant robot dealies and the fairly terrifying noise they made (though hard to see how they managed to sneak up on a bunch of people in a wooden shack in the middle of the desert), and CGI Arnie made me giggle with joy.
But otherwise it was mediocre at best. Better than T3 of course, but not by much.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I was thinking of taking the kids along to see Terminator: Salvation, or whatever it's called, then realised they hadn't seen the other three films yet. What a pathetic oversight on my part. Got all three from Tesco's for 3 quid each and watched them over the last week. What really shocked me was that Terminator 3 was actually very good. I'd always remembered it as being shite. Anyway, the boys are all Terminator fanatics now.
Shame about the terrible Salvation reviews. I'm still half tempted to see it, but it does sound rubbish.
They also asked me what other films Arnie has been in, but I couldn't think of any good ones. Are there any?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Don't listen to Ringo, the film's good. Maybe not brilliant, but a good summer blockbuster.
Re Arnie: The Running Man, True Lies, Predator (off the top of my head).
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Predator is not really very 'good' but is still somehow essential. Commando is both good and essential. Pretty much everything Schwarzneggar did after going mainstream was crap. Especially True Lies.
Total Recall is okay but hardly classic Verhoeven.
To be honest, you'd have a better hit-rate getting your boys into Steven Seagal. Out For Justice is fifteen billion times better than anything in Arnold's non-Terminator output.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I just want to go with Commando for being the ultimate all out, ballsout macho flick of its day. It has possibly the best components for an 80's action flick. Lines like:
"I eat Green Berets for breakfast"
"I love listening to your, little piss-ant soldiers trying to talk tough. They make me laugh! If Matrix was here, he'd laugh too"
"He's still coming the crazy bastard" but of course, the brakes are cut on the car and its driving downhill.
Seminal.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Predator is not really very 'good' but is still somehow essential.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Think they've seen that one.
I like Arnie, but his films do seem to add up to not much somehow. I don't think they'd be into Total Recall. True Lies has its moments, but it's basically rubbish. I can't even remember Last Action Hero. He was in that wasn't he?
I dunno. He was just born to be that big cuddly robot. Zyberneddic organissm, I should say.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Fools! It gets no better than Conan the Barbarian
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Fools! It gets no better than Conan the Barbarian
Lol. Red Sonja.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Predator is not really very 'good' but is still somehow essential.
This is madness. Predator is a fantastic movie. Not only does it have a ridiculously over-testosteroned cast, it also boasts one of the clearest, most exciting action sequences ever, when the lads storm the rebel camp. Most of all it reminds you that action movies used to have really, really excellent scripts. It doesn't quite match Robocop for quotability but it's definitely in the A-List for wickedly inventive macho dialogue. Every time a modern action movie has it's battered hero clench his fists and mutter "My turn" I pine for the ingenuity of "I ain't got time to bleed", "Son of a bitch is dug in like an Alabama tick", "If it bleeds, we can kill it", "So you cooked up a story and dropped the six of us in a meat grinder" and so on and so on.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What really shocked me was that Terminator 3 was actually very good. I'd always remembered it as being shite.
You were right the first time. T3 is drettful.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: What really shocked me was that Terminator 3 was actually very good. I'd always remembered it as being shite.
You were right the first time. T3 is drettful.
No no no. I'd always remembered the female terminator as being really lame, but when I watched it again I radically changed my mind. I like the girly approach where, instead of, "Give me your clothes, your boots and your modorzycle" she says, "I like your car", or "I like your gun". And how she has a little mini-orgasm when she tastes the blood on a bandage and realises whose it is.
Arnie is also far better than I remembered, and the set piece with him hanging off the crane and knocking buildings down like a demolition ball is one of the best action scenes in the whole series.
Honestly, it's way better than it's given credit for.
The real weak bit, of course, is the self-pitying John Connor. Though he does pull himself together after a bit. The future wife character is well-played. No, this movie needs to be reassessed.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
No Dang. No. It's shite.
Any time you think it's good, just get in your mind for a moment the image of Arnie wearing star shaped sunglasses.
Though I guess T2 did have the 'smile' scene, that was cut from the theatrical release.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
It's not just the star-shaped sunnies. There's sunglasses-gag after sunglasses-gag after c***ing sunglasses-gag. At least four, after which I gave up counting in despair. There's also no logic to either the plot or the Terminators themselves (eg the T3000 was smaller than Arnie, but because more advanced was able to fling the T101 around like a ragdoll. Supposedly the TX is even more advanced, so logically though it is also smaller than the T101 it ought also to be able to fling it around. However, there's the scene where Arnie breaks up a set of toilets by flinging the TX around them, which can only have been added for the spice of abuse.)
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
[terminator geek] Actually Robert Patrick plays the T-1000 not T-3000. Arnie plays a T-800 in T1 and T2, but a T850 in T3. Model 101 refers to the physical appearance which is why they all look the same (an infiltration unit would be a little bit useless if they were all identical so the idea is there are lots of different 'moulds' and that's what the M101 code stands for) [/terminator geek]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia: Supposedly the TX is even more advanced, so logically though it is also smaller than the T101 it ought also to be able to fling it around. However, there's the scene where Arnie breaks up a set of toilets by flinging the TX around them, which can only have been added for the spice of abuse.)
I think they both fling each other around because they are both strong. When it comes to flinging around scenarios, it's just a case of who has got hold of whom really. This would apply to two humans fighting each other. Even though you and I are of very different stature, you could shove me through a window, no doubt, and I could probably chuck you over a wall (up to a certain height). It's just fighting.
It's funny how we're having a similar discussion to the Indiana Jones one here. The new Indiana Jones film was dismissed by Ringo (and probably others) as silly and unbelievable, whereas he had no problem with the previous films which were at least as ridiculous. The same applies with T3. The whole Terminator series is absurd, but there seems to be this weird line which a lot of people's suspensions of disbelief simply won't cross. Or their acceptance of silliness perhaps. The star-shaped sunglasses scene takes about three seconds. He puts the glasses on, then takes them off and crunches them under his boots. End of. But that is enough to destroy the enjoyment of the film??
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Though I guess T2 did have the 'smile' scene, that was cut from the theatrical release.
To be fair, the fact that is was chopped suggests Cameron knew it was pretty naff. I was wondering the other day whether there's an unmolested version of T2 available to buy, cuz the added scenes aren't really up to much.
The blood-orgasm moment in T3 was awful, surely? A horrible instant that underscored the twin purposes of the T-X as a sex-toy fantasy and misogynistic nightmare. The whole movie is pretty unpleasant in that regard. Other than the boob-expanding TX showing up to be slapped around by the male characters, Katherine Brewster is treated like a nagging nuisance for most of the film.
Other than that it's a nonsensical rehash of the second film. There's so many illogical moments, it's hard to remember them all, but the most egregious moment of nonsense is the attempt (or lack thereof) to explain why Judgment Day is happening again. John Connor mentions that he would have met Kate Brewster's dad had the events of T2 not taken place, and that that's why Judgment Day was going to happen. "Don't you get it?" he raves "He's the key! He always was!". He repeats the phrases a few times, basically covering over a plot point that doesn't make any sense at all, and that the writers clearly didn't know what they were intending to do with. So he just blathers her dad being 'the key', then her dad dies, and nothing more is explained. Given what a tight grip the first movies kept on their plots, this kind of thing stands out as unforgivable.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: It's funny how we're having a similar discussion to the Indiana Jones one here. The new Indiana Jones film was dismissed by Ringo (and probably others) as silly and unbelievable, whereas he had no problem with the previous films which were at least as ridiculous. The same applies with T3. The whole Terminator series is absurd, but there seems to be this weird line which a lot of people's suspensions of disbelief simply won't cross. Or their acceptance of silliness perhaps. The star-shaped sunglasses scene takes about three seconds. He puts the glasses on, then takes them off and crunches them under his boots. End of. But that is enough to destroy the enjoyment of the film??
There's a whole matrix of qualifiers to apply here. I don't suppose it's news that - yes - there is a line of suspension of disbelief that collapses the film when crossed. The most obvious of these is that a story has to make sense by the rules of its own universe, which T3 doesn't. Not just that it contradicts previous films, it doesn't even make sense on its own terms. "We need to break into a top secret military base!" Cut to - characters showing up in the command centre, with no explanation. Just for an example.
As for the the silliness, there's surely an interaction between a film's originality, invention, it's style and it's confidence that dictates whether or not it can get away with more frivolous moments. The scene in T2 where he tears up the biker bar is exciting, cruel and funny. So when he snatches the sunglasses to the soundtrack of Bad to the Bone, it's a moment of comic relief, a giggle of broken tension and a cleverly controlled scene. The equivalent in T3 is a near unwatchable moment of him attacking a defenceless stripper, a 'talk-to-the-hand' gag that a child could have written, and then the pay-off is the awful star-sunglasses gag. It's crap, layered on top of crap - not just a three second moment, but an entire scene of awful. Not just that, but one of the signature scenes of the Terminator series - memorable in the first, riffed on in the second, re-baked as a vapid joke in the third. It sums up the film as a whole. No wit, no style, no class.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Basically you're talking about additions to film series' which have long running character whose behaviours and motives have already been well established. Then you have sequels like T3 and Crystal Skull which have these well loved, iconic characters doing and saying things which are not only completely not in keeping with what we already know about them, but actually ruin the image we already had of that character. It's like having Boba Fett revealed as a secret cabaret dancer. Yeah I can accept it all being set in a fantasy sci fi setting, I can even accept Ewoks overthrowing the Empire, but Boba Fett is fucking sacrosanct. So is Indiana Jones, and so is the Terminator. These are characters who are simple, uncomplicated, and unflappably cool. Cock about with them at your peril.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I'm just not that bothered about contradictions and inconsistencies, in these cases at least. Maybe I should concentrate more, but it seems there are advantages to not being too much of a geek when it comes to films.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I don't know. I just prefer to give a crap about the quality of fims and feel slightly emotionally invested in the films I enjoy the most. I think it's this relationship with films which marks out a proper film fan from the kind of mouth breathing fuckspod who watches stuff like Meet the Spartans.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'm just not that bothered about contradictions and inconsistencies, in these cases at least. Maybe I should concentrate more, but it seems there are advantages to not being too much of a geek when it comes to films.
It's not about being a geek. It's not about knowing whether or not the T-101 can lift a certain amount of weight, or stand a certain amount of damage or blah-de-blah. We're talking about failing to deliver on the fundamentals of storytelling and filmmaking.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Also, it's definitely not the case that the crane sequence is one of the best action set-pieces of the series. It's probably the one where the most stuff gets destroyed, so it rates quite highly on the Bay-o-meter, which is used to measure how much a terribly directed action sequence will appeal to retards, but other than that, it's got nothing going for it. There's no sense of geography for one thing - never a sense of where all the pieces are at a given time - whihc in turn robs it of any suspense or excitement.
There's also no real point to it. One of the things the struck me watching the three films this past fortnight was the way in which 1 and 2 use action sequences to push the plot forward. It seems like a lost art these days, but when the dust settles on an action sequence, the characters' worlds have completely changed. After the night club shootout, Sarah has been 'acquired' by Reece. When Reece and Sarah's car crashes in the first film, they're surrounded by cops, Reese is taken prisoner, Sarah told that everything she just learnt is rubbish. In T2, when the T1000 attacks it's how Arnie gets hold of John Connor. The sequence in the looney bin is how Sarah joins the gang. It's all done with purpose and clarity. There's nothing like that in T3. The TX doesn't drive the plot: she's just an obstacle who interferes with the character's objectives. They evade her, then carry on with what they were doing before she showed up. If you took her out of the film, it would be shorter, but the events would be no different. That's shitty story-telling.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: We're talking about failing to deliver on the fundamentals of storytelling and filmmaking.
You're talking about that in the same way as a real ale enthusiast would talk about lager though. No doubt he'd be right, technically, but a lot of us are happy just to neck a few Stellas. There are film sequels which commit total blasphemy against the brilliance of the original, just as there are beers which are undrinkable, but T3 is far from that. To my eye. As a mouth breathing fuckspod.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Surely the very least you should expect from an action thriller is a well told story? It's not high art, so if there's no craftmanship either what exactly are you left with?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: It's all done with purpose and clarity. There's nothing like that in T3. The TX doesn't drive the plot: she's just an obstacle who interferes with the character's objectives. They evade her, then carry on with what they were doing before she showed up. If you took her out of the film, it would be shorter, but the events would be no different. That's shitty story-telling.
The TX adds a new dimension to the story as she has been sent back to eliminate all of John Connor's future lieutenants. She is seen just trundling around the country knocking people off completely at random - like the excellently cold shooting of the guy at the drive-thru burger place.
She gets to Katherine Brewster and we go from a sleepy vet answering an early morning call to abduction by a cyborg from the future while being chased by a relentless monster that looks like a cute babe. Her face when she's about to be killed by the TX and Arnie appears in a pick-up truck and wipes it out sums up the whole, "What the fuck is going on" scenario.
By the end of the scene, her life has totally turned upside down, we have seen the power of the thing that's trying to kill her and John Connor has realised that the game is back on, big time.
How can this not progress the story?
Also, the Arnie Terminator is established as having been sent back to protect Katherine Brewster, by Katherine Brewster, after John Connor has been killed, by the Arnie Terminator. These are all neatly tied-up connections.
Of course there are rubbish flaws in the plot, but there is plenty to like about it all, and Katherine Brewster's father makes plenty of sense as being behind the development of Skynet and of the first Terminators... which was not explained in previous films.
I dunno, I'm getting ridiculously defensive about a popcorn film which I just happen to have enjoyed when I saw it again, having remembered it as being a bit lame before. I was just pleasantly surprised, that's all.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: [QUOTE]She gets to Katherine Brewster and we go from a sleepy vet answering an early morning call to abduction by a cyborg from the future while being chased by a relentless monster that looks like a cute babe. Her face when she's about to be killed by the TX and Arnie appears in a pick-up truck and wipes it out sums up the whole, "What the fuck is going on" scenario.
By the end of the scene, her life has totally turned upside down, we have seen the power of the thing that's trying to kill her and John Connor has realised that the game is back on, big time.
How can this not progress the story?
Because Arnie is on his way to abduct her and get her to safety anyway, because Judgment Day is about to happen. Remove the T-X from the plot of T3. Arnie turns up, abducts John Connor and Kate Brewester (conveniently in the same place, regardless of whether TX gets in on the action) and drives them to a shelter so they're safe when the bombs go off. Ends exactly the same way. The TX spends the entire film having no impact on events whatsoever.
The action sequence with the crane doesn't actually change the situation. Arnie's on his way to pick up John and Clare, he picks them up, he carries on. There's a blip while he swings around on a crane, but by the end of the sequence he's getting on with exactly what he was doing when he left the vet surgery.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Also, the Arnie Terminator is established as having been sent back to protect Katherine Brewster, by Katherine Brewster, after John Connor has been killed, by the Arnie Terminator. These are all neatly tied-up connections.
Of course there are rubbish flaws in the plot, but there is plenty to like about it all, and Katherine Brewster's father makes plenty of sense as being behind the development of Skynet and of the first Terminators... which was not explained in previous films.
The first point, about John Connor being killed by an Arnie Terminator isn't neat, it's stupidly illogical. Surely the character would know not to trust any terminator he had programmed? It doesn't make any sense that he would let his guard down.
As for Kate Brewster's dad being behind Skynet. Fine. That's all fine. But why does John burble on about "that night in the basement", and how because he fingered her but never met her dad, Judgment day was delayed, and now that he's going to meet her dad, Judgment Day is again inevitable? He launches into this babbled exposition twice, and the second time does all his "He's the key! it was always about him" blurb, but it's never explained what he meant. It's like they wanted something as clever as the Reece/ Connor/ father thing, but couldn't quite get there, so just put a load of babble in instead.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The action sequence with the crane doesn't actually change the situation. Arnie's on his way to pick up John and Clare, he picks them up, he carries on. There's a blip while he swings around on a crane, but by the end of the sequence he's getting on with exactly what he was doing when he left the vet surgery.
Uh, don't these criteria kind of apply to, I dunno, 80% of all action sequences in the entire history of film?
I mean, at the end of The Blues Brothers, right, they have to go to Chicago and pay the money in at the mayor's office, or wherever it is. After about 40 minutes of car chasing and massive destruction... they end up in the mayor's office paying the money. All that action didn't change the situation at all! What a shit film.
And as for Saving Private Ryan. They're supposed to get on a boat and go to France, but there's a blip while they roll around on the beach a bit and get shot at for some unexplained reason, and when they get to the end of that sequence, they're doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing anyway... sitting on the top of a cliff in France. How pointless is that?
etc.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I haven't seen The Blues Brothers, so I can't comment on that.
Saving Private Ryan is another example of a shit film, yes. You're right about the D-Day sequence, it's really just in there for directorial showboating. The story doesn't even begin until after that scene ends, but it won Spielberg the oscar, which is probably why it was included in the first place. I don't know your 80% figure, but - yes - a lot of action films fail to use the action sequences to push the story along. I didn't mean to suggest that Terminator 3 was the only shitty film ever made.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The car chase in the final act of the Blues Brothers sets up the fact they're in jail right at the end of the film, which gives a sense of symmetry to the story - it opens and closes with Jake and Elwood at Joliet.
The landing scene in SVP is choreographed to show the complete horror of war, and is suitably visually and emotionally powerful, setting the tone for the rest of the film.
The crane scene in T3 is just retarded. It's all about two awesome robots, one you'd like to be, the other you'd like to fuck, totally smashing up loads of stuff because of how totally awesome they are. I imagine if you were, like, 13, you'd get so pumped you'd kick you mom in the face.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: The crane scene in T3 is just retarded. It's all about two awesome robots, one you'd like to be, the other you'd like to fuck, totally smashing up loads of stuff because of how totally awesome they are. I imagine if you were, like, 13, you'd get so pumped you'd kick you mom in the face.
You're being silly now.
As you so rightly point out, the Terminators are totally smashing up loads of stuff because of how totally awesome they are. This totally validates the scene. How do we know how awesome they are? Oh yeah, it's because we see that scene. They have power over machines, they can destroy buildings with their own bodies, they are relentless, and they are able to recover from apparent destruction. And it's an action movie. C'mon.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I haven't seen The Blues Brothers, so I can't comment on that.
If you haven't seen The Blues Brothers then I don't know how you have the nerve to even contribute one post to a thread about films. Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
But it's retarded
I can't believe that you don't understand the difference between a movie like T2 and a movie like T3. The quality of T2 is not measured in the number of buildings destroyed, how many silly pairs of sunglasses Arnie puts on, etc etc. It's measured in the quality of the storyline. The intricate directing. The subltle pacing and attention to detail. I'm not saying that T2 is the perfect intellectual movie, far from it, but it's not a movie designed simply as braindead entertainment, and this is why the stupidity of T3 is so difficult for fans of the series to accept. T3 is designed to appeal to a completely different movie-going demographic, and that's why fans are so alienated by it, as it completely fails to deliver on any of the strengths of the two previous films.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I think there is simply a cross-over with some films, where they appeal to both "serious" movie fans and mouth breathing fuckspods alike. The sequels might then become unacceptable to one of these groups by becoming too serious, or more fuckspodlike.
Some music is like that as well. I suppose The Beatles would be the obvious example, where a classical music lover might appreciate A Day In The Life or Strawberry Fields Forever, and a neanderthal headbanger likes Helter Skelter or Revolution, and some songs are liked by both of them.
The first two Terminator films are obviously very acceptable to serious film fans, presumably because of this excellent storytelling and tight directing of which you speak. But a lot of us don't see them like that. They're just neat action movies, and T3 just continues in the same vein. You can see huge and unacceptable flaws, we just think it's not as good, sure, but it's still cool.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That's actually quite depressing.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
It's like looking at Van Gogh's Sunflowers next to a piece of paper that a 3 year old has scribbled all over with an orange crayon and saying "yeah well I accept that for some people the 3 year old's drawing lacks something compared to Van Gogh's, but to be honest I just really like the colour orange so I find them both equally enjoyable" Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: If you haven't seen The Blues Brothers then I don't know how you have the nerve to even contribute one post to a thread about films.
I think that's probably true. Blues Brothers may be the greatest film ever made. Certainly better than Robocop.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I genuinely love the Blue Brothers. It's hard to think of a single criticism of it.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Doesn't T3 have a scene where the female robot controls a car, and changes it's gears with her mind? If it does, that's just rubbish, isn't it?
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: It's like looking at Van Gogh's Sunflowers next to a piece of paper that a 3 year old has scribbled all over with an orange crayon and saying "yeah well I accept that for some people the 3 year old's drawing lacks something compared to Van Gogh's, but to be honest I just really like the colour orange so I find them both equally enjoyable"
Yeah, and...?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Oh dear. Now Thorn and Ringo will never be able to enjoy T1 & T2 again. They must be two of the most implausable, badly-written films ever made. No wonder T3 just did whatever it fucking wanted when it only had that drivel to work from.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Surely most of those no-fucking-sense points are there because of the third film? The mini-nukes in the abdomen, the no-fate contradiction and the alternate timeline are all generated by Terminator 3.
The paradox about Reese being John Connor's father isn't really nonsense at all - it's a clever co-opting of scientific theory on the nature of time for the purposes of pulp entertainment. Terminator 2 threatening to change the future is a bit more dodgy, but it's never made clear in that film whether or not the characters succeeded in averting Judgment Day. They hope they have, but by not comitting itself either way, the film doesn't contradict the events of the first movie. That's until T3 comes staggering into the room and completely demolishes any sense whatsoever.
The '3 assassination attempts per user' thing is explained in the first movie. Skynet has already lost the war, humans have "smashed its central defence grid" and infiltrated its base. It can't keep sending Terminators back - it sends back the T-1000, of which there is just one because it's a prototype, and its workhorse T-800 and then the humans are all up in the base wrecking shit, and taking over the Time Displacement Equipment for themselves. Again, that makes sense until the third movie staggers in and vomits all over continuity by making it so the TX is the latest production line Terminator, the t-800 is now obsolete and consequently implying that there was a big gap in Skynet sending back its various assassins and begging the question raised in the article as to why it wasn't busy sending out terminators all day and all night.
So it all makes sense, until you introduce Terminator-fucking-3 into the equation.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: So it all makes sense, until you introduce Terminator-fucking-3 into the equation.
Not so fast. You haven't explained how the pure metal Terminator gets through the time machine in T2 yet. That alone makes it completely unwatchable for me. (Apart from when I just fucking shut up and watch it, that is.)
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah I thought it was all pretty clear from the first two films. Skynet is knackered, so as a last-ditch attempt at saving itself, its final act is to send back two terminators - one to kill John before he's born, and the other to kill him when he's a teenager. But neither attempt succeeds because the resistance send back Reese and the Good Terminator who manage to stop the T800 and T1000 respectively.
The whole point of the Miles Dyson story arc is that it's meant to be an oversight of the characters. Dyson is working on recreating the technology from the smashed Terminator, but he's not the guy responsible for creating Skynet. If he was successful it would only bring closer the date for Judgement Day. But since he's killed and his research destroyed, the timeline remains the same, so there's not really a paradox as such.
Until the third film comes along and fucks everything up.
The only paradox is that of Reese being Connor's father, but this can be axplained away as well if you consider that in theory the John Connor that the T800 is sent back to kill might not originally be Reese's son, but a John Connor that Sarah may have gone on to conceive otherwise. But when Reese bones Sarah he changes the future slightly, and becomes John's father instead. Probably changing the person that John was going to become, and potentially making him an even better leader in the future. But since all the events which take place during the timeline happen within this paradox, it doesn't actually 'not work' as such. You just need to look at it as the future having already been changed from the moment that Reese and the T800 arrive back in time, and all the events and story elements which take place from that point onwards are based on this altered timeline.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Not so fast. You haven't explained how the pure metal Terminator gets through the time machine in T2 yet. That alone makes it completely unwatchable for me. (Apart from when I just fucking shut up and watch it, that is.)
Yeah, I actually never liked that ever since I was a kid. But we've only got Kyle Reece's word for it that it didn't work. Maybe he didn't fully understand how iot worked himself - he didn't build the fucking thing. He also thought that he was the only one sent back, and that they destroyed it after he went through, all of which he was wrong about, because he's just a character with his own perspective, rather than omniscient keeper of all the secrets.
Also the 'liquid metal' is very clearly layman's terms for the 'ememetic poly-alloy' the T-1000 is made of. The properties of that may be sufficiently close to living tissue to allow the T-1000 to go back.
Anyway. I like to imagine a scene where John explains to Reece:
John: Kyle, you need to go back and protect my mother from the terminator.
Kyle: No problem. I'll get my gun.
John: No. No guns. Nothing dead will go. It's just him and you.
Kyle: Right. Him and me. How do I stop him.
John: I guess you'll have to wing it.
Kyle: Right you are.
BLUE LIGHT. KYLE Disappears.
Soldier: Hey, Connor! There's this other setting on the console. It's got a 'living tissue' and a 'non-organic setting'. We could have sent back an arsenal for him.
John: lol. Stupid us!
Soldier: lol.
[ 09.06.2009, 12:41: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Here's another thing. I always quite liked the idea that the human's misinterpreted the first terminator as an assassination attempt, and that in actual fact Skynet sent the first Terminator back in time because it knew that unless the smashed chip ended up in the factory, it would never exist. In doing so it also facilitated it's own eventual death at the hands of John Connor, but it was willing to do that because to live and then die was preferable to never having lived at all.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That's wild speculation on my part though. It's not fully supported by anything else in the films and it doesn't really explain why Skynet has to keep being such a dick about everything.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The two films are largely concerned with the nature of causality though aren't they. Another reading could be that when Reese was sent back, it was from a future which ceased to exist when the timeline was changed by the arrival of the terminator and him fathering John Connor instead of whoever his natural father was meant to be. So at the start of T2 the future has changed - the two sent back aren't Reese and the T800 but a T800 and the T1000, and the technology was different/more advanced because of the contributions of Miles Dyson who would otherwise have had nothing to do with it were it not for the existance of the smashed T800. When you get into that kind of thinking, then none of the information that Kyle has about the future in the first film is necessarily true because the future has been changed. Then when Dyson is killed as a result of information from the second T800, the timeline is changed once again, to a totally retarded timeline shown in T3 where the charaters have become camp charicatures of themselves and delicate storytelling no longer exists.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
There was a great one shot comic book that was set around the time of the first book - it basically said that because the system was pretty much smash (skynet) and a lot of information lost about Sarah Conner, they sent back a hand full of Terminators to take out the ones that they knew about and when they knew about them and told the story of a different Sarah Conner being protected by a different resistance person. It also said that the resistance sent back a handful of people to protect her at various points in time.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Went to see the baffling, tortuously long and utterly awful piece of right wing, racist propaganda Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen yesterday afternoon. Anyone who thought the first one was bad (it is) needs to stay well clear of this one. A movie that's not just staggeringly inept but also insidiously pernicious, it's possibly the worst mainstream film I've ever seen. Not only is it as bad as Van Helsing, but at 150 minutes it's very bad for a very long time.
First up. It's a kids movie, but I would strongly advise against taking kids to see it, unless you're attempting to teach them that it's OK to worship a bunch of racist, sexist, violence-as-pleasure-seeking motherfuckers. The Autobots in this film are a bunch of right wing jerks, who will happily put a bullet in the brain of a helpless sentient being. One Decepticon at the start of the film is wounded, helpless and says "this planet is not yours to rule!" Optimus Prime tells him to fuck off and puts a bullet in his brain. Jesus Christ Optimus! What the hell happened to you! You used to be merciful, just and pacifist! Ever since you got that flame job over your rims you've turned some kind of NRA, Republican fuckhead.
The human characters aren't much better. The chick from the first film, now more pneumatic and degraded than ever, cheerfully indulges in torture. You remember how in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Evillest Nazi in The World is about to burn someone's eye out with a poker? This is what the good characters in Transformers actually go ahead and do. Not only that, she even jokes about it to her mates in front of her victim. This is how they get the information they need. Then on they plough with their inane adventure.
The plot is a hopeless mishmash of MacGuffins and muddled backstory, as people career around looking for various ancient artifacts in scenes lifted from other, better, sci-fi films. There's even a pointless strand lifted direct from The Dark Knight, where the Decepticons demand the Shia turn himself in. It goes nowhere. None of it goes anywhere. There's a lot of noise, and babble, and in one mystical moment where it turns out that the 'key' everyone was chasing can only be wielded by the pure of heart blah blah, you realise that there was no point in any of the good guys getting involved at all. The Decepticons wouldn't have been able to turn on the Super Death Machine anyway because it can only be operated by someone pure and brave and... what kind of pure and brave person is going to want to operate a Super Death Machine anyway? Oh that's right. An American seeking to uphold American values.
Indeed, as much as it's a CGI showreel the movie's also a showcase for Giant American Machines of Death. Gunships, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, even a frikkin' rail-gun is deployed at one point. All of this hardware is so flawlessly and brilliantly efficient, that you have to question why we even need the Transformers on our side. The Jesus Army For The Protection of White America is so perfect and well-equipped, so incapable of meeting a threat that will not crumble under The Might of the Great American Military that the Transformers look oddly feeble by comparison. Their ultimate Big Bad is felled by one well aimed shot from a battleship, several miles away. America! Fuck Yeah!
So apart from being a two and a half hour propaganda piece for "America!", it's also amazingly - breathtakingly - racist. I don't remember ever cringeing with embarrassment in a film before, but there's two characters in this film (christened elsewhere on the internet as The Sambots) who make Jar-Jar Binks look like a tasteful approach to racial characterisation.
These 'twins' have exaggerated simian features, buck teeth, and talk in a kind of gangster patois that sounds like something Snorton would use to mock black people. They claim to be illiterate "We don' really do readin'". They're clumsy imbeciles. They are the worst examples of racial stereotyping that I have seen in a film made in my lifetime and just incase Michael Bay thought you might miss what they represent, he throws in a completely pointless moment with a black character who has exactly the same teeth and dimwitted mannerisms as his robot counterparts. It's like, rather than accidentally being insensitive, he drew a big arrow onto the film and said "This. This is what these two robots are standing in for. This." Elsewhere, there's a 'comedy' Italian stereotype robot who hilariously gets his eyes burnt out, and then - yes - tries to fuck Megan Fox's leg while shouting "oh! Oh yeah baby!". In some ways it's hard to believe that this was a real film, rather than some weird, bewildering dream.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I'll probably really enjoy it then.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
These 'twins' have exaggerated simian features, buck teeth, and talk in a kind of gangster patois that sounds like something Snorton would use to mock black people. They claim to be illiterate "We don' really do readin'".
They're apparently called Mudflap and Skidz... Nice.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'll probably really enjoy it then.
I'd like to see you try.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Also - I forgot to mention this - one of the robots has giant bollocks. John Turturro stands underneath them and says "I am standing directly under the enemy's scrotum". Then a railgun shoots the scrotum off.
I'm having to fact-check this stuff online, because I'm struggling to believe it was actually in the film. There's also a bit where Shia LaBoeuf's mum eats a hash cake and rugby tackles a jock to the ground to try and she chases after frisbees like a dog.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Obviously there are plenty of bigger criticisms than this, but this movie annoys me because basically all of the transformers turn into GM cars. The cartoon was ace because they all turned into different stuff like trucks and tanks and race cars and cassette players, and junk. Now you have the chevrolet corvette. the other corvette. the chevy beat. the chevy trax. the GMC van. etc etc.
Where's the Porsche, the F1 car, the Lambo, the Beetle?
Rubbish, all of it.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
You're making it up now.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Oh also, according to google, the sambots were originally meant to combine into a pink ice cream van. You couldn't make this shit up.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: These 'twins' have exaggerated simian features, buck teeth, and talk in a kind of gangster patois that sounds like something Snorton would use to mock black people. They claim to be illiterate "We don' really do readin'". They're clumsy imbeciles. They are the worst examples of racial stereotyping that I have seen in a film made in my lifetime and just incase Michael Bay thought you might miss what they represent, he throws in a completely pointless moment with a black character who has exactly the same teeth and dimwitted mannerisms as his robot counterparts.
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: They're apparently called Mudflap and Skidz... Nice.
LOL, one google later and I found this picture titled appropriately. Meesa gonna boogie. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Oh also, according to google, the sambots were originally meant to combine into a pink ice cream van. You couldn't make this shit up.
Not originally meant to - this is how they make their first appearance. As an ice-cream truck with "Decepticons can suck my popsicle" written on the side. God. At this point 'Skids' and 'Mudflap' combine into the same ice cream van - like two men in a pantomime horse. Once they get their concept car alternate mode, the idea that they combine is completely forgotten.
Also - the GM thing Ringo mentions is a major problem for the film. It renders the autobots largely indistinguishable from each other. When they were iconic car designs like Porsches, Lamborghinis or whatever it was easy to tell them apart, and those designs could be recognised in robot modes as well. As it is, they all look like clones of each other.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
It also cocks up the concept behind some of the characters. Bumblebee is the most obvious example. In the cartoon Bumblebee is the link between the Autobots and the humans. He transforms into a VW Beetle, the 'car for the people', which represents the kind of cars people buy when they're first learning to drive. Bumblebee's friendship with Daniel is analogous of the kind of relationship you build with your first car. In the film he's a tricked out aspirational supercar. And in the first film he can't speak.
Transformers is hardly the deepest cartoon series ever made, being little more than an extended advert for a range of toys, but Bay manages to miss the few subtelties most children were able to understand in the 80s.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: You're making it up now.
There's nothing I could make up that is more stupid than what they put in. I haven't even mentioned that there's a Gremlins rip off near the start where Sam is attacked by kitchen appliances, one of which is a waffle-maker with a minigun for a penis.
Also, for some reason the film keeps cutting away to footage of a chihuahua trying to have sex with a bulldog (might be a mastiff, actually). It doesn't really have anything to do with anything. One of the characters comments on it in an off-hand kind of way. But other than that it's like "Giant Robots Fighting... Giant Robots Fighting... Chihuahua Trying to Mount Bulldog (Might Be A Mastiff)... Giant Robots Fighting". With no explanation.
I joked to Octavia when we came out that the barrage of imagery and story and dialogue were so disconnected that maybe the film was meant to be the world's most avant-garde blockbuster. Writing this out, it makes me wonder if that really was what they were going for.
[ 22.06.2009, 08:22: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I tried doing a search for info about that, because I simply can't believe that could be true. But all I got back were loads of reviews of Beverly Hills Chihuahua
This really does feel like the worst ever decade for films doesn't it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Best I can manage to back me up is this story which mentions the dogs humping each other.
I know it sounds ludicrous, but if someone told you the first movie would have Bumblebee pssing in John Turturro's face, you proobably wouldn't believe that, either.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Aha! this clip features the minigun-penis robot (I think it might be a transformed blender, rather than a waffle maker). It does cut away to the dogs at one point, but not while they're humping.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Thorn did you ever get round to watching Indiana Jones 4? Your yardstick of Van Helsing being the worst film ever made is a bit out of date now.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
This sounds like my dream movie.
If only they'd hurry up and do Transformers vs Terminators.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Thorn did you ever get round to watching Indiana Jones 4? Your yardstick of Van Helsing being the worst film ever made is a bit out of date now.
Well, as of now I think I'd consder TF:ROTF a worse film than Van Helsing. So it sets the new benchmark of awful.
I never did get to seeing Krystal Skull, and I can't imagine I'll bother buying it or renting it. Watching crap movies at home feels like a bigger waste of time than seeing them at the cinema. At least at the pictures there's a sense of experience, and you go for a drink afterwards and have a laugh about it, and there's usually nothing else on. Watching something crap at home means you've chosen to watch that instead of any other film that's ever been made.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: It also cocks up the concept behind some of the characters. Bumblebee is the most obvious example. In the cartoon Bumblebee is the link between the Autobots and the humans. He transforms into a VW Beetle, the 'car for the people', which represents the kind of cars people buy when they're first learning to drive. Bumblebee's friendship with Daniel is analogous of the kind of relationship you build with your first car.... Transformers is hardly the deepest cartoon series ever made, being little more than an extended advert for a range of toys, but Bay manages to miss the few subtelties most children were able to understand in the 80s.
Sorry to be a massive pedant here, but Bumblebee has a relationship with Spike (who is supposed to be Sam Witwicky from the film) and Daniel is Spike's son who builds a friendship with Hot Rod in the animated film. The point still stands though. Mostly in the cartoon bumblebee strives to understand the humans culture (for some reason a mayan village girl suggests Bumblebee wants to fuck a car. Hmmm) and Daniel and Hot Rod both share a similar desire to be treated with respect and 'grown up' by their peers. Your comment still stands though. Sam just wants Bumblebee to fuck a shallow chick. The fact it does get him laid AND turn into a giant robot is actually just really annoying.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Heh I have that episode on DVD, where Bumblebee manages to smile, despite being a car. Actually, maybe that's your DVD and I never gave it back to you. Hmm
Yeah, I thought Daniel might be wrong, but I thought searching out the facts would make me some kind of enormous geek, and the only person likely to spot the mistake was you anyway.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Well it's good that the things I like finally came to some good eh!?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Every dog has his day
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
It's a pug. Not a bulldog, or a mastiff, but a pug.
quote:Sights I am trying hard to forget include John Turturro in a posing pouch, and a chihuahua humping a pug - a 'gag' considered so hilarious by Bay, and so well suited to viewing by children, that he includes it three times.
I'd forgotten about the bit with the posing pouch. They have the camera right up close, so John Turturro's ass is up on the screen, 50 ft tall.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
She looks great! Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Oh my god. What have they done to her? Is there anything we can do to help?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Is she looking at a horsey?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
Very nice. Why is hers the only one in slow motion? Was she dreaming?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
That's ace, she looks very toff.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Just finished reading 100 Bullets...
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I thought that wasn't out till the end of the month?
I sort of went off 100 Bullets after Book 8. That whole story was brilliant, but it really started to slide for me. It suddenly seemed to get absurdly mysoginistic, and there was a sudden sense that the characters weren't doing anything when they were off page. They just seemed to sit waiting in hotel rooms until the story chose to focus on them. Also, I had a sense that stuff was being added in just to stretch it out to 100 issues.
Without spoilers does it bubble up to a satisfying ending?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I thought that wasn't out till the end of the month?
I sort of went off 100 Bullets after Book 8. That whole story was brilliant, but it really started to slide for me. It suddenly seemed to get absurdly mysoginistic, and there was a sudden sense that the characters weren't doing anything when they were off page. They just seemed to sit waiting in hotel rooms until the story chose to focus on them. Also, I had a sense that stuff was being added in just to stretch it out to 100 issues.
Without spoilers does it bubble up to a satisfying ending?
At volume 9 I realised it was no longer satisfying as an episodic read, so I sat it out until the series concluded. I got volume 13 last week and started re-reading the whole run on Thursday evening. I fucked my leg playing tennis at the weekend, so I had the perfect excuse to spend three days on the sofa doing nothing but reading.
Some of the problems you mention I recognise. I still don't think Azzarello realised the whole thing was going to run to an epic 100 book arc. So, we've got 13 families, 7 Minutemen, agents, warlords, wildcards, bit players... I'm sure Azzarello initially thought these would be interesting background colour, or a potential pool of characters to dip into if things were lagging, not that he's have to introduce, realise and pursue stories for all of them. So, there are dips, there is 'off-screen' downtime, the tone is occasionally uneven. The much-lauded dialogue does sometimes clang. There is some misogyny (but then, everyone's treated pretty shabbily). There's the late introduction of characters D'Arcy, Slaughter and Rothstein which seems a bit contrived and rushed. There's Echo and the painting. But, my overriding impression, having completed the whole thing, is of admiration and satisfaction. Some of the segues and narrative tangents are obviously there to illuminate or colour pre-existing themes or motifs or to provide foreshadowing for forthcoming threads. By about volume 10 I realised that there was no point in trying to second-guess motives or even attempting to keep any sort of track of where allegiances lay or who was on whose side. This was double-, triple-, quadruple-... whatever-cross. Trust no one. Except Graves. Graves never lies. Some big players go down at unexpected times and the whole thing barrels along to a frenetic, bloody conclusion. There are a handful of unexpected survivors.
I'd say read it. Definitely. It's like The Wire but for comics.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: It suddenly seemed to get absurdly mysoginistic, and there was a sudden sense that the characters weren't doing anything when they were off page. They just seemed to sit waiting in hotel rooms until the story chose to focus on them.
Thinking about this... it seems to emulate the formula of a lot of hard-boiled novels. The bankrobbers hang out by the pool until the money runs out then they plan another heist. The broads get slapped about and hide the guns. It's lazy, I know, but it's true to the pedigree of the tale.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Oh I'll definitely get it, if only to complete the collection. Once I've read it, I'll probably start the whole thing from the beginning and read it in 'one go'. It's just that it felt like it went from being my favourite thing ever to a bit 'meh'. But there's no question mark over whether I'll finish it.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I read the first couple, then decided to stop and wait till the whole series was finished and do the lot in one go - looking forward to it.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I was going to read it but I was talking to Thorn over the weekend and he said he thought it was a bit too complex for me and I'd probably be better off with some Dan Brown.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: I was going to read it but I was talking to Thorn over the weekend and he said he thought it was a bit too complex for me and I'd probably be better off with some Dan Brown.
One of the best 'stupid' reads ever. And volume 2 should be out soon.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Did anyone else see 'Manson' last night? The testimony of Linda Kasabian was interesting, but the docudrama bits were ropey and their Charlie was pathetic.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
I missed it, totally forgit it was on..
Maybe I can Iplayer it.. was it worth it or not ?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: was it worth it or not ?
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyes... just. If only for the Kasabian testimony. There's so much else about the show that sucked, though. It was obviously made on a shoestring, so they didn't bother licensing any genuine 60s music (no, not even 'Helter Skelter'). Every time they have to set the scene, for a be-in or an orgy or a freak-out, they crank up this godawful library music of wah-wah guitar and phased sitars. The chief injustice is to Charlie, though. He should sue. They've cast a skinny, ruggedly-handsome surfer with zero personality, in the scenes where he's turning the Family on and 'blowing their minds' it's just a beard spouting bolocks. I mean, I know Manson was spouting bollocks, too. But he was (apparently) doing it with his pinball, leprechaun, psycho-energy charisma. If you check out some of his interviews on Youtube you'll see what I mean.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
Went to see District 9 today with my mum and sister. We all enjoyed it very much. Slightly heavy handed in the first 20 minutes or so, and the mockumentary style was hit and miss, but once it started mixing the styles and telling a real movie story, it came into its own and hit a lot of the right notes.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Benny: No Hero and Crossed are fantastic, requiring a strong stomach. I'm hooked. Thanks again for those. (The package you sent had the return address obscured with a postal label, email me your address if you'd like me to mail you back something to read)
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
I really want to see District 9 and The Hurt Locker.
I saw Inglorius Basterds on Saturday. I kinda liked it, but it's very uneven, if the whole film was on a par with the opening chapter it would be glorious. Cristoph Waltz' performance as Hans Landa is worth the price of admission through.
I watched all of Dollhouse which I enjoyed a lot, and which I thought improved throughout throughout it's run. Although I can't help thinking that Echo's original personality appears to have been a bit of a twit.
Most recently I've been watching True Blood, HBO's Southern Gothic Vampire series, which is highly enjoyable, even if the supporting cast of characters are far more interesting and appealing than the ostensible leads.
Oh yeah, and I kind of accidentally, and against all my better judgement (such as it is), ended up getting into Supernatural.
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: Benny: No Hero and Crossed are fantastic, requiring a strong stomach. I'm hooked. Thanks again for those. (The package you sent had the return address obscured with a postal label, email me your address if you'd like me to mail you back something to read)
BM - glad you're liking them!
Crossed has some amazing moments of disgusting shock contrasted with some genuinely moving and beautiful moments.
Don't worry about sending something back, seriously. Glad you're enjoying them.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
District 9.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Uh huh.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Sweet
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Muse, at The Den, last Saturday.
University Challenge, for the geeking.
The Gadget Show, even though Jason What'sHisFace is quite annoying, and John Thingummy looks and sounds like a geography teacher. I always enter the prize draws, because I really really feel that my life is missing 3 huge TVs etc etc
Private Practice, because I'm a girl.
True Blood, for the gore and sex.
The Dragon Keeper, by Robin Hobb, which I read at a romp yesterday.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: University Challenge, for the geeking.
I highly recommend continuing the geekery on BBC Four, with the 'highbrow' quiz show Only Connect. Instead of picking questions from 1-6, teams (with names like The Chessmen and The Rugby Boys) have to choose a Greek fucking letter. "I'll have, erm... Gamma please!"
It's utterly preposterous in its attempts to appear cultured. But it is hosted by everyone's favourite intellectual dominatrix, Victoria Coren - buttoned up to the chin in something demure.
[ 07.09.2009, 10:55: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
...and that reminds me to add (although it's finished now)...
The Supersizers
which has been an excellent opportunity to squee over every right-minded woman's favourite TV cuddle-monkey. Giles Coren, that is. Not Sue Perkins. Although I'm sure she has a lot to offer on that front too.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i saw district 9 and thought it was excellent. good old wickers. I also saw my first 3d film recently, 'the final destination'. They give you a pair of glasses like the ones that ronnie barker had on the two ronnies. Before the film starts it says 'please put your 3d glasses on now'. Once the film starts, lots of things coming flying out at you. Final Destination is probably a good choice for a 3d film as it enabled the film makers to concentrate solely on delivering spikes, knives, scissors, saws, nails, poles, tires, blobs of blood, crash debris, bones and bit of broken glass. Things are constantly being shoved in your face. The weird thing is that it all has a slightly tilt-shift photography feel to it, in that on a normal screen an axe flying towards the camera looks quite big - it is obviously big enough to be visible by the audience, and gets bigger as it approaches the camera. But with 3d, things get smaller as they come 'out' of the screen, so for example a car is powering along a race track but because the nose is hovering about 10 inches from your face, it feels totally tiny and undramatic. an axe, btw, would be similar.
But even with smallish objects popping out at you, something feels weird, and it's quite distracting, and it doesn't feel like you're watching a film so much as looking at the sailboat in a magic eye picture. It's like.. yeah.. that's interesting, but it's also eyefucking and not really delivering much in the way of rich information. My eyes always felt like they were fighting to work out what was going on. I had a massive migraine later that day.. don't know if it was connected. The film itself outside of all this silly business was pretty weak for the most part, but I enjoyed the final act. It went very meta and self-exploratory in a jokey way, and disassembled the 'final destination' myth and story structure enough to make it seem like a fifth film would probably have to be based around a bunch of kids staring in a final destination film, like in Scream. A large portion of the final act involved people in the cinema watching a 3D film, but the 3d film they were watching looked all blurry on the screen like how a 3d film looks without the glasses, and I liked that touch.
anyway, final destination was pure shite compared to district 9. Halo fans will probably enjoy d9 - there's at least one scene in there that feels like it's straight out of the third game. The aliens looks very arbiter-ish indeed. You can see that the work that Neil and Paul did on the Halo film has been repackaged for d9.
I also watched The Slumber Party Massacre. Written by a woman as a critique of slasher films, directed by another woman and treated as a straight slasher by the studio, it's a weird film at times, but generally fun, and there's boobs.
[ 08.09.2009, 08:52: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Yes, District 9 gave good sy-fy.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i am reading a book about the post cold war US Nuclear arms business. Stuff to do with R&D, factories, bunkers, missiles silos, command centres etc and how they're all changing and coping with the shift in how nukes are used as part of the strategic + tactical plan. interesting if you like things to so with nuclear weapons. which i do. so, for me it's interesting.
[ 09.09.2009, 07:20: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I am going to se District 9 tonight, so it had better be good. On a related note I bought The New York Trilogy at the weekend on the basis of you lot banging on about it, so that had better be good as well.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
District 9 is a good one.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Hey, guess what? My town will be getting its own cinema before the end of the year!
Can you imagine how exciting this is?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
on saturday i will watch hurt locker.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
they are showing The Thing at cineworld shaftesbury avenue on the 15th.
[ 09.09.2009, 11:49: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Ooh, that one might be a bit dark for you, Steve. Perhaps you should try The Time Traveler's Wife instead.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: they are showing The Thing at cineworld shaftesbury avenue on the 15th.
Shaftesbury Avenue sounds like the ideal place to show one's thing.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
District 9 was good. Do you think there will be a shit sequel with Brad Pitt and ten thousand CGI spaceships with too many explosions? Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's good isn't it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: they are showing The Thing at cineworld shaftesbury avenue on the 15th.
God I love that film. Re-watching it, there's a great moment about 10 minutes in when you realise that for the next hour it's just classic scene after classic scene. MacReady locked out in the cold leads into the heart attack which leads into the blood test... just brilliant. And! Best ending to any film, ever.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: On a related note I bought The New York Trilogy at the weekend on the basis of you lot banging on about it, so that had better be good as well.
I liked this book at the time, but thinking back to it I'm not sure it was 'all that'. Maybe I'm sceptical of it because Bandy recommended it, and I'm assuming that therefore it must be a smart book on the surface but ultimately a bit shallow. The kind of thing you can say "eh? Alienation eh? Is black white? eh?" in the pub without having to think about it, really. My friend Ben liked it as well, which makes me doubly sceptical for much the same reasons.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: District 9 was good. Do you think there will be a shit sequel with Brad Pitt and ten thousand CGI spaceships with too many explosions?
I hope that the inevitable sequel will delve a bit deeper into the morality questions, rather than shallowing out into a plain old sci-fi/action movie. In a way, I'd like it to be Godfather II style - with the return of the prawns interspersed with a more detailed explanation of their original arrival on Earth in 1982.
ETA: You remember that bit in Godfather II when they explain how Don Corleone arrived on Earth, right? With the prawns?
[ 10.09.2009, 06:30: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i saw the hurt locker: it was good.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
to elaborate: It was directed in a good way, with good cinematography. the acting was uniformly good (pun intended), with the lead character displaying a good degree of complexity around what on the surface could be seen as a standard war movie type man. the tension was good, heightened by a production design that created a good sense of being in the middle of the shit in baghdad. i thought it was also good that the film looked at war from an angle other than simply 'war is hell'.
it generally just felt good. very fresh, tight, no dicking around, and as i said on saturday, clearly informed by perhaps the greatest artistic statement ever created by man on the subject of war - call of duty 4: modern warfare.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Watched the new DVD release of Leon last night. The main reason for buying this Director's Cut was because the original DVD was a horrible 4:3 letterbox version, and I realised I was never going to watch it again because every time I put it in the player, it would annoy me.
So I was delighted with the picture on this new version, which presents the film in its original aspect ratio, but optimised for a 16:9 TV. The picture's lovely and crisp with good contrasts: Octavia's first comment was "I never really thought of this as a film with brilliant cinematography before", which gives you some idea of how much the new transfer elevates the film.
The sound is very good: clear and rich. Purists might be annoyed that the soundtrack is levelled for home viewing, rather than retaining the original contrasts from the cinema version. It seemed like kind of an unusual decision in a time when more and more films are released on DVD with their soundtracks intact. It's a relief for those of us who get sick of lunging for the volume control every time a character fires a gun, or shuts a door, or sits in a chair, or puts a glass on a table and the Foley Guy feels he has to complement the action with a teeth shattering sonic boom.
So while all those improvements make the DVD worth trading up for, there's also an extra 20 minutes or so of additional scenes. Most of these are added to the midsection of the film, in one big chunk, while the other major addition comes towards the end.
The new scenes significantly change the tone of the film, and complicate the relationship between Leon and Mathilda. Dramatically, it's interesting that the film now places the sexual tension in the foreground, where the original sort of skirted around it. Apparently, test audiences reacted badly to a scene where Mathilda propositions Leon for sex, but to my mind it actually makes the film less queasy now that it closely examines the idea and deals with it, rather than ignoring it.
Other additions make the film darker (it's suprising that this director's cut has been reclassified as 15, given its increased interaction of kids and guns), as it has Mathilda becoming more complicit in Leon's work, which may not really be the right decision in artistic terms, but it does lead to some fun moments. There's also a fantastically tense russian roulette scene, that's well directed and acted, but doesn't quite work in the context of the film as it requires Leon to decide yet again to take care of Mathilda. It feels like a re-tread of what's already been established.
So some good stuff, some less so. It's a brilliant film in either incarnation, and as the DVD release of the earlier version is so severely compromised, this is the one to go for.
[ 15.09.2009, 07:07: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I watched Amelié on Sunday because I'm so up to date that I'm just catching up on films from 2001 or whenever it was released.
I thought it was a beautiful film, Excellent cinematography and brilliant laugh out loud scriptwriting.
I'm not very good at reviewing films.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I really liked Amelie too. If you enjoyed that, I think you'd also enjoy A Very Long Engagement from the same team. It's very similar in tone and style, but also Audrey Tatou gets her titties out, which is a welcome improvement on Amelie, where she doesn't.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
That sounds excellent as the major downpont of Amelié was the lack of exposed french breasts. I shall check it out.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
You might also want to watch Hors de prix, which has not just Audrey but lots of generally beautiful French people being generally beautiful.
It's a frothy load of old nonsense, but done in an enjoyable French stylee.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
I watched Hidden the other night, which was a bit of a slow burner actually watching it, but has lingered in my head subsequently more than any other film I've seen in the past year (exception: Idiocracy).
As usual with Michael Haneke, an attractive bourgeois family unit was put through the wringer, but what set it apart was the unease and uncertainty that permeated the film thanks to the use of HD - both by Haneke the film maker, and by the hidden stalker surveilling Georges and his family. You were never entirely sure whether you were watching something happening in real time or a recording that had been created for the purpose of inflicting psychic violence.
My favourite scene was the one where the parents realise that the little boy has gone missing, but you find it impossible to concentrate on their - increasingly fraught - exchange because you're watching the news on the fuck-off LCD that's blaring away behind them.
Wasted a fruitful hour yesterday trawling through this massive thread of theories about what 'really happens' in the final scene. [EDIT: *contains spoilers* - obv.]
[ 15.09.2009, 09:56: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I watched an Argentinean film called Bombón: El Perro over the weekend, which was so low-fi, no action, minimum peril that one of my housemates flew into a violent rage at the loss of two hours of his life at the climax of the film which was ... **spoiler** ...a dog having sex...with another dog.
[ 15.09.2009, 11:00: Message edited by: Abby ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i saw that shit at the cinema.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
by 'that shit' i don't mean that it's shit, i mean it as if i was a frustrated middle class white man IM'ing a friend about some 'madd shit' that he's peeped on mypsace, ie 'dawg i peeped this madd shit on myspace, this motherfucker has CRAZY ASS FLOW LOL '
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i actually enjoyed the film. Good outdoor photography.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: District 9 was good. Do you think there will be a shit sequel with Brad Pitt and ten thousand CGI spaceships with too many explosions?
Finally got to see this last night. Very good film. The kind of film which makes movies stand completely apart from books, which is how I like it. Movies don't need books, and books don't need movies.
Also, I thought the Nigerians were excellent. And the main character guy should get an Oscar, except that he mysteriously turned into a scouser every time he got angry. I hope they never, ever make a sequel.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
He was the guy who played Murray in Flight of the Conchords, wasn't he?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Looks about right, but I've never watched the conchords thing.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
last night i attempted to watch 'the mystery of chess boxing' but it wouldn't work. Tonight I am going to try and watch 'Trinity and Beyond' but i doubt that will work either.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
Yesterday I watched 'A Man For All Seasons' as part of my Good Film Versions of Good Plays season (Hobson's Choice was also in it). Both were good.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I'd just like to expand on that banal and thread-stopping post. Hobson's Choice was a drily funny story about 19th century feminism. It's got some lovely David Lean camerawork, a great script, and a satisfying premise that men don't know where they'd be without strong women. It was much funnier than Animal House (watched the other night), which was an incredibly poor effort on everyone's part. Not that the two films have anything in common beyond being comedies.
A Man for All Seasons has made me want to read the biography of Thomas More that I've had on the shelf for approximately 10 years if not longer. It's about a man dying for a point of principle, which seems admirable if impractical. Eye-watering Technicolour and a great performance from Orson Welles as a man rotting from the inside (Cardinal Wolsey). Paul Scofield v convincing as a man who will follow his conscience to the scaffold and Robert Shaw brilliant and terrifying as a cynical and selfish king who needs everyone to agree with him. Or else.
In an odd moment of synchronicity both films had characters called Alice and Margaret.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
watched 'Moon', thought it was good. Very unusual tone. Also watched Brian De Palma's "Dressed to Kill", which is a cross between Psycho and Tommy Wiseau's "The Room". Officer Lewis from robocop plays a prostitute; undresses.
Talking of robocop, I also listened to a radio production of 'The Marching Morons', from which the infamous 'I'd buy that for a dollar' line was borrowed. An interesting story, it's basically Idiocracy - man from c20th is put into stasis and awakens to find a future that has been overrun by idiots - with added genocide.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i also discovered that louise has not seen Carrie, Planet of the Apes, or 2001: A Space Oddesey.
I wonder which classic / famous films have yet to be watched by members of the TMO forum?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I watched 'Blindness' - social commentary with a thriller/sci-fi plotline. Suprisingly harrowing. It made me squirm uncomfortably for a bit during some key scenes. A classic example of not too much graphic or sexual content shown but that the mind conjures up worse horrors. 7 Terence-Wickeds on a scale of 10.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I haven't seen Scarf Ace yet, although I do have it on DVD.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Scarface is a pretty over-rated movie. Pacino is terrible in it and it lasts forever.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: i also discovered that louise has not seen Carrie, Planet of the Apes,
I haven't seen either of these. I also haven't seen Spartacus, or Ben Hur. Or The Breakfast Club, to pick something more 'my generation'.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
carrie is soooooooooooo good
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I've never seen Star Wars.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Cheating now by looking at the IMDB 250, but other 'big' films I've never seen are Schindler's List, To Kill A MOckingbird and Bambi. Actually, most of the 'classic' Disney films.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Good grief. Sin City is higher than Unforgiven on the IMDB top 250. That really is ridiculous.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't think I've watched all of bambi.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
dead poets society. Never saw it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
also good will hunting. Isn't that a classic?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Slumdawg.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i find your insistence on mis-spelling everything to be quite annoying, misc. There's something painful about it. Just had to get that out there. As you were.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: also good will hunting. Isn't that a classic?
hmm. I always thought it was sort of like the 2004 Crash (and Slumdog Millionaire, probably), in that it's a film that looked like a classic, and people talked about at the time as though it were good, and now it's largely ackowledged that it's kind of cack and no-one really rates it 5 years on. You never hear people going "I re-watched Good Will Hunting the other day. Forgotten how brilliant it is", like you would with LA Confidential or something.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Sorry to hear that, Kanye. I don't mean to cause you any pain. I'll endeavour to spell things correctly in future.
I do know what you mean though. Sometimes it hurts my brain when the majority of the Internet seems to spell than as then, brake as break, ridiculous as rediculous, etc.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Except that anyone who forgets how brilliant LA Confidential is has probably undergone such severe brain trauma that they can't even speak.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I know it's part of your schtick or whatever, and maybe it's beloved by everybody else, I don't know. My opinion counts for nought, as it should, I just had to say something in order to relieve the pressure that builds up each time I read one of those mis-spellings.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
is 'the usual suspects' still considered as classic as it was all those years ago?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I've never seen Star Wars.
Any of them? For some reason I thought I remembered you enthusing about the writing in the Han/ Leia scenes in Empire Strikes Back. Did I imagine that or is it only the first one you haven't seen?
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Classics! I'll tell you what's a classic! Dead Snow! Dead Snow's a classic!
I watched it at the weekend. It rocks. It's like Happy Tree Friends but with Scandinavians and Nazi zombies.
I also watched Watchmen (lol) and fell asleep. It really is shit.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
It was a joke, as there was a Radio 4 programme called "I've never seen Star Wars", where the presenter gets people to try things they've never done before. Eat a McDonald's, read Jane Austen, listen to Pink Floyd, go to the opera, and so on.
I have indeed seen all three Star Wars films.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: is 'the usual suspects' still considered as classic as it was all those years ago?
Yes.
If nothing else because Bryan Singer has such tight control of his story. The use of film-language to trick the viewer into making inferences that are completely wrong is just as fun a device as it always was. The use of sound and picture editing is great, the script is smart and the set pieces are still just as wicked as they also were (eg. double headshot in the parking garage, and lift-based kidnapping.)
It all hangs together brilliantly, the twist is revealing rather than undermining everything that's gone before and it's still got skinny Benicio Del Toro doing his utterly bizarre and memoral turn. "He'll flip ya. Flip ya for real."
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
that was a good joke, mart.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Thanks.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Cheating now by looking at the IMDB 250, but other 'big' films I've never seen are Schindler's List, To Kill A MOckingbird and Bambi. Actually, most of the 'classic' Disney films.
Just had a glance through that list and I have seen quite a lot of them (I actually own close to a hundred of those on DVD) but to kill a mockingbird I have only seen bits of, and a few I wonder how valid their inclusion is on the list - Is the dark knight really that good or just sentimentality because of Heath Ledgers subsequent death? And there are some others on there I guess I just didn't really 'get' (memento, requiem for a dream and even WALL-E).
Guess there are a few new entries I need to catch up on as well.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Wall-E is remarkable and brilliant and deserves to be on the list. Not so sure about Dark Knight. I never get bored of watching it, but it feels like it's kind of over-rated. On the other hand, maybe it deserved to be on the list because for one glorious moment it looked like Big Summer Movies would have things like story and character, and a really quite clever subtext, and imagination and good performances. Then: Transformers 2.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yes but District 9 has saved the summer movie.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
wall-e was gay.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I love Wall-E. There's something really captivating about the first hour or so which I think elevates it above other supposedly good kids' films.
I've never seen the godfather films.
There is a lot of dross on that top 250 list. I mean, does Shawshank redemption really deserve to be rated highest? And how comes Back to the Future isn't there? It really makes no sense to me.
Edit - oh wait, yes it is.
[ 21.09.2009, 07:32: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
There are definitely a couple on there I must catch - Das leben der Anderen I have wanted to see for ages, District 9 and Inglorious Basterds will do for starters.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
next time you're in the pub with some pals and the subject of wall-e comes up, you can proudly and confidently announce that 'wall-e was gay' with complete assurance that you are correct. If you're challenged on this point, ie 'what makes it gay', 'why do you say that' and 'what are you, ten years old?' just repeat it until people realise the truth in your statement.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: yes but District 9 has saved the summer movie.
I haven't seen it yet, so I can't tell you whether it was any good or not.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
don't bother watching it, thorn. Just know that it is good. Where's the interest in going into a film that has been universally pronounced as good, only to come out thinking that it's good, and having nothing new to add to the debate about how good it is.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Shawshank personally I think is a great movie, but is it worthy of acclaim so high? I can't say. It would certainly rate highly in my top 250 films, but I am sure there would be others I'd rate higher, and also ones you wouldn't find in that list at all.
Godfather films are good Ringo, well the first 2 anyway, but a bit heavy going - although I haven't watched them in a while - might need reminding
Also, Battleship Potemkin used to be about 23 on that list (hence I tracked it down) - and now its not in the list at all. Not that it was much cop to be honest - no car chases, tits - really quite let down I was...
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah don't get me wrong, I do like Shawshank. It's certainly good enough to have been parodied and ripped off ad nauseum. I just don't believe it's the greatest film ever made, which is really what that list seems to imply.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i thought shawshank was alright, but again, quite gay.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched 'the cannonball run 2' yesterday. Christ on a bike.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Are the following films any good?
There Will Be Blood Tropic Thunder Die Hard 4.0
I ask because I've started picking up stuff like that at Tescos for about 3 quid each, and I haven't watched those yet.
I recently bought Almost Famous in the same emporium, having heard many, many positive comments about it... and it was total shite.
One film I did enjoy recently was Backbeat, which is an early 90s biopic thing about The Beatles in Hamburg. I saw it at the cinema when it came out and I'd forgotten how good it is. It does benefit a lot from having a brilliantly performed soundtrack of the kind of stuff they played back then (played by a supergroup of all sorts of people). They obviously couldn't license any Beatles originals though, so near the end of the film there's a scene where they send a copy of their first single to their friend Astrid in Hamburg and she can't actually play it because her record player is conveniently broken.
Anyway, it's a curious thing about The Beatles that it was possible to fill a genuinely entertaining full-length movie with an episode which happened before they were even famous.
I reckon there is a TV series to be made which would just do little half hour dramatisations of great events in music, done in the style of that film.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Are the following films any good?
There Will Be Blood Tropic Thunder Die Hard 4.0
Yes, no, don't know but suspect not.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I liked 80% of Tropic Thunder.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Octavia:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Are the following films any good?
There Will Be Blood Tropic Thunder Die Hard 4.0
Yes, no, don't know but suspect not.
Yeah, Die Hard 4.0 is very likely to be a disappointment, but seeing how I liked the latest Indiana Jones one, and Terminator 3, I thought I'd take a gamble with my own terrifyingly low standards.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
if anybody else has any films they really like, mention them here and I will tell you that they are gay. Also, add the names of films that you don't like, and I will tell you that I actually enjoyed those films. It's a free service that I'm offering exclusively on TMO.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I really can't accept that anyone genuinely enjoyed Crystal Skull. I honestly can't get my head round it.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
There Will Be Blood is a strong dose of pure awesome. Everything Dang has ever written about films leads me to believe that he will hate it.
Conversely, I suspect that he will enjoy Tropic Thunder and Die Hard 4.
[ 21.09.2009, 08:22: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I probably chiefed the intentional mis-spelling thing from New Way of Decay. Sadly, perhaps due to my poorly developed social skills, I'm unable to match Decay's 'cheeky chappie' appeal, which might explain why you find it so grating coming from me. But don't worry - I'm quite happy to modify my online persona if it would please you, and likely many other members of the forum. This is the Internet after all. We all have to do our bit to make it a more pleasant place for others. I'm also thinking of changing my avatar, as I've become rather tired of the existing one. Any suggestions?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Did anyone see Coraline and was it any good?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: But don't worry - I'm quite happy to modify my online persona if it would please you
Perhaps this is something that the whole forum should decide on.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
actually, if you could pull off a classic BillyBo persona, seethru 2001, then that would be good.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: actually, if you could pull off a classic BillyBo persona, seethru 2001, then that would be good.
I wasn't really around then, but if anyone has a personal archive on their hard disk, I'll be happy to read up and do my best.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
ah, he was great.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: ah, he was great.
Care to tell us why? Was he one of yours?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I heard he was gay.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: There Will Be Blood is a strong dose of pure awesome. Everything Dang has ever written about films leads me to believe that he will hate it.
Right. I'm going to force myself to like it, just to prove you wrong.
I watched In Bruges recently as well.
*tumbleweed* Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
What did you think of In Bruges?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
gay
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I'm getting one of these tomorrow.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
gay
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
ur gay
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
u wish
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I'm getting one of these tomorrow.
What does this do that can't be done with a PS3 + TVersity?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's probably around the same. I picked it up for £200 without a HDD or Blu Ray. I might get a blu-ray drive.. I don't know. Can't decide. I have a 1.5tb SATA that I could stick in there instead. It doesn't do 3.5" HDD and BD at the same time, only 2.5" + BD or 3.5". Don't you need tversity to be running on a pc to send to the ps3? I was messing around with tversity trying to get muxed subs to play on the 360, but after half a day of cocking around with ffdshow settings, I decided that I'd rather just have a box that plays anything with no need for pissing around with containers, codecs or transcoding. I've already got a nas to store the media, I just need something to make it appear on the TV without any hassle. Plus, it has mvk support and is fanless. The main reason I went for this over the older one is that it has gigabit ethernet.
[ 21.09.2009, 11:11: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Okay, that makes sense now.
Yes, you need to run TVersity on a server. I've got one running in my loft with all the music, TV, movies and photos on it and use the PS3 to spit it out onto the screen. It took a bit of initial configuration to get it all to work properly, but I'm pretty happy with it now. It's not silent, but then neither is my flat.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yes, I've never really been happy with the results / effort of on-the-fly transcoding, especially when subs come in to play, and I definitely can't be doing with leaving an actual PC on in any room in the flat.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Misc was it you who pushed me in the direction of Media Portal? I'm checking it out now and it's pretty good. Skinnable, hosts external metadata etc so I can tag all films with IMDB It plays whatever you have the codecs for. I'm just gonna use a really basic bare bones system that boots to media portal
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Can I just be clear... this is so you don't have to walk from the CD rack to the stereo (or DVD rack to TV) when you change what you're listening to?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
No, this is so I can steal films.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I was thinking of Benway, but I imagine the answer is the same.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Can I just be clear... this is so you don't have to walk from the CD rack to the stereo (or DVD rack to TV) when you change what you're listening to?
Hopefully it means I can get rid of the DVDs I've got. I don't listen to CDs anymore, so there aren't any of those in the house now. DVDs take up a lot of room, and I rarely watch them, but I don't want to not have the films, if only because of the time I spent getting them.
Also it means that stuff I pick up online will actually play now, and I can finally watch video files that have muxed subs.
I'm also interested to see what kind of stuff it can stream from the net, and obviously, it's £50 off being a blu ray player.. but I'm not sure if I'm going to bother with that.
[ 21.09.2009, 11:45: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: yes, I've never really been happy with the results / effort of on-the-fly transcoding, especially when subs come in to play, and I definitely can't be doing with leaving an actual PC on in any room in the flat.
I haven't found many files that need to be transcoded - the PS3 plays almost anything I throw at it natively (DIVX, MPEG, MP4, WMV). Perhaps it's different with subs.
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Media Portal
Yeah, MediaPortal is pretty amazing for free software. I haven't kept up with the PC based media centre software since I got the PS3, but last I heard, it was the best out there. Much more capable and customizable than Vista Media Center, anyway.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Perhaps it's different with subs.
It is. Also, the xbox is much more picky than the ps3 when it comes to accepting media. For the most part it's been fine, but the subs + mvk thing is a pain, especially considering the number of foreign films I watch, and the whole setup is really bare bones.
[ 21.09.2009, 11:55: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Media Portal
Let me know if you want that Microsoft Media Centre remote control. Works superbly with MP.
Oh yes, and emulators. Get yourself hooked up with MAME, Snes9x, etc and pick up a gamepad.
I've got my PSP running everything from BBC Micro to (some) N64 games, and instead of it languishing in a drawer, I find myself using it all the time now. Battery life is excellent as it doesn't have to spin up the UMD all the time. Chuckie Egg on the train on the way to work for the win.
[ 21.09.2009, 12:18: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West:
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Perhaps it's different with subs.
It is. Also, the xbox is much more picky than the ps3 when it comes to accepting media. For the most part it's been fine, but the subs + mvk thing is a pain, especially considering the number of foreign films I watch, and the whole setup is really bare bones.
Well, not really I spent a month fine tuning and testing that MKV setup I sent you recently. It's working out for me. the only thing holding me back at the moment is the number of drives I need for the data management, seeing as I'm looking at a cross platform environment at home.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: What did you think of In Bruges?
Sorry, ended up doing some work yesterday.
Yeah, it was ok, but I didn't think it was that original. Not that I'm able to give you a list of films I think it was like, just that I felt I'd seen it before, mainly in French films I can't remember the names of. It didn't leave much of an impression on me really, though I did watch it one evening when I was very tired so I probably missed a bit, I dunno.
Anyway, I watched There Will Be Blood last night and that was a lot more effective.
* There Will Be Spoilers *
It was cleverly filled with forboding from the start, like a Thomas Hardy dramatisation, or like Jean de Florette/Manon des Sources. So, in a good way. In fact, of course, very little really happened, which probably made it more effective than cramming in endless violence and incident, but still...
I wasn't really clear why Daniel was such a twisted character, seeing as he'd simply worked hard and been shrewd and no one had particularly done him any injustice. The ending, in particular, was (on first viewing) quite inexplicable. Apart from being a bit of a gobshite, the preacher didn't seem to have ever done him any harm. Perhaps some minor humiliation during the baptism scene, but that was only in front of people who though it was a wonderful thing and welcomed him for having done it. Oh, and he didn't miraculously cure the child. Hmm.
His fake brother didn't do him any physical or financial harm either, as far as I could make out. (Also, once the brother was, er, out of the way, didn't anyone ask after him?) I might have missed some bits, although I did watch it all and wasn't tired. I might watch it again to work it out a bit better. Or maybe he's just meant to be one of those seething people that finally lose it. I dunno. Seemed that pretty much everything went right for him really.
But as an atmospheric, tension filled movie it was very good and I did enjoy watching it.
I should go and look for your original review now.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Ah, right. That thread didn't really take off, did it? Has anyone else seen the film, I wonder?
But you kind of said similar things to me, except that you explained the two main characters as "a pair of intelligent, hubristic dickheads". If that is just taken as read, then I suppose there is no need for further explanation. And we've all met people like that, sure. As a simpleton myself, I'd possibly have been slightly more convinced if something had happened to make Plainview like that (the preacher at least had some reason, having seen his father's land being bought up and drilled). I'll probably go for a second viewing some time and just accept the character as he is.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I'd possibly have been slightly more convinced if something had happened to make Plainview like that
I dunno. A lot of great art revolves around what's left unsaid, and truly successful works tend to revolve around giving you just enough information to be aware that certain elements are there, without full articulating them. Anything that sought to explain why Plainview was the way he was would be kind of glib and diminish the power of the story.
If it's about a guy who's misanthropic to the point of total self-loathing, then Plainview can carry a lot of thematic weight and stand in for capitalism, human nature, human endeavour, the self destructive impulse, Western imperialism, American foreign policy - anything where the seeds of endeavour ultimately lead you to a place where your humanity is stripped away and nothing you wanted to happen has happened. If we're told that Plainview is a jerk because his mum ignored him, then all it is is a story about how you shouldn't ignore your kids.
The same is true of the Preacher. By not giving him a backstory that explains why he behaves the way he does, his hypocrisy is the hypocrisy of all religion (maybe even beyond that - maybe it's an attack on all rationalisations of greed).
At the same time, the characters do have recognisably human motivations (pursuit of wealth; pursuit of peer-respect), so they're not simply ciphers. They felt like characters to me, with enough left unsaid that the film created a rich and shifting subtext.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I dunno. A lot of great art revolves around what's left unsaid,
I would definitely agreee with that. An excellent example of this would be in Jeff Wayne's "War of the worlds".
In the record version, there is absolutely no reason given for the martians to be coming to attack the earth. All you know is they're here and they're going to burn you. I think this is all you need to know.
However, in the live version, they tagged on a bit at the start with a meeting of the martians discussing how they were running out of resources on mars and were going to have to come to earth to continue the survival of their species.
This actually took a lot of the menace out of them as rather than thinking they were here to kill everything for the fuck of it, you realised they were actually just trying to survive and to be honest, having met humans, I reckon the world may have been better off with the martians.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I thought it was a bit of a FAIL with the Capitalism thing though. The other oil company competitors were portrayed as straightforward businessmen, not really doing anything especially underhand, just doing business. And Plainview never really showed open greed, he just liked getting one over on his competitors and being successful for the sake of success (which a lot of entrepeneurs are like, I know).
But you're right about the more subtle and "unsaid" approach. It gives you more to think on and that. I don't have a problem with it, just that in this case it seemed a bit too unexplained.
The preacher character didn't make much impact on me at all.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you'll all be overjoyed to learn that the c-200 is now running something called 'yet another movie jukebox' and have turned a collection of .avis and .mkvs into something like this:
That's better than before.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Regardless of how 21st Century your interface is, it won't turn Enemy At The Gates or Goal! into films worth watching.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yes, those aren't screenshots from my system.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West:
This is clever isn't it? It must be exciting to have this information on your TV screen instead of on the back of a DVD jacket.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That's what makes it futuristic.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
"Using this multimedia interface and a .avi file I can see the running time of this film! but! It's on a screen rather than on a piece of paper! [/geekspunk]"
[ 23.09.2009, 07:56: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Regardless of how 21st Century your interface is, it won't turn Enemy At The Gates or Goal! into films worth watching.
Enemy At The Gates is one of the greatest war films, ever. Shockingly underrated.
[ 23.09.2009, 07:58: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
no it's fucking terrible.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That's what makes it futuristic.
the point is i won't have dvds.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you always react quite violently to the idea of media being dislocated from a physical object, thorn. It's interesting.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
That's not correct. I listen to the radio, for example, and I download films off of Xbox Live quite frequently. In fact, I think XBox live Video Marketplace is a great idea and I wish they would implement it properly in the UK: My only beef with it at the moment is that the library of films is way too limited.
What makes me annoyed, I suppose, is the trumpeting of completely banal 'features' that I occasionally infer from your posts. That makes my eyes roll because it reminds me of the endless, endless press presentations where I had to endure where some dickwank from Sony would talk you through things like being able to see who starred in the film you're watching, or some other piece of information that's generally already freely available. So when you say something like - what was it now? - "MP3s allow me to browse my music collection while I listen to it", it's like this big gust of corporate cumspeak wafting out your mouth. I used to hera that kind of stuff all the time, and it used to leave me thinking "but surely you've always been able to browse your music collection while listening to it? Even back in the days of tape?"
Of course, the folks at Sony, Apple, Toshiba who used to say this stuff were on the company payroll. When you hear the same bulletted sales points falling unexpurgated from the mouth of someone you mabe liked/ admired, it's a bit chilling/ depressing.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
What was it Amy said about these systems? "They make watching films easier." That's the kind of thing I mean. As if watching films was somehow challenging or difficult.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: That's not correct. I listen to the radio, for example, and I download films off of Xbox Live quite frequently. In fact, I think XBox live Video Marketplace is a great idea and I wish they would implement it properly in the UK: My only beef with it at the moment is that the library of films is way too limited.
Okay, so it's more like... when I say something like 'i like the versatility of mp3s', 'i like the opportunities given by ereaders' or 'i have installed a catalogue for my collection of media files', what you hear is either me as rep for sony trying to convince you to throw away your own dvds / books / CDs, or me blindly and unthinkingly following the word of aforementioned reps into a land of unstoppable wankery.
I think that the problem here is that if these things don't offer a solution to you personally, then they become somehow universally useless, and everybody who therefore uses them have been tricked.. whereas you were bold / brave / clever enough to see past the marketing bullshit.
[ 23.09.2009, 08:39: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I dunno. It's not that I dislike these objects per se, but it's never really about giving people a choice - just about the electronics industry steering you in the direction it wants to go. I'm sure CD-adopters would have said to vinyl enthusiasts "If you don't like CD, what's it to you? Don't buy it." But of course it wasn't as simple as that: Vinyl was all but extinguished because record companies and retailers hated it. CRT TVs still offer better picture quality than flatpanels - but good luck buying one.
Like as not, the same thing will happen with digitisation. Obviously it's better for certain parties to be able to control the means of distribution and content and the playback devices, and pushing media hubs and digital files is a clever way of doing that. But it won't come down to "choose whichever method suits you best, chief", sooner or later the choice will be removed and we'll have to do it this way.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
surely it makes no difference with films though, because they're already digital, unless you treasure your collection of vhs? And vinyl seems to be doing just fine in the face of the mp3.. the CD is losing, but the vinyl is growing because vinyl offers an experience that an mp3 can't. They are co-existing, albeit with one as a niche. You can buy either. DVDs though, not the same, and we're seeing online rental exploding on loads of platforms.
As for flat panel - it's true, but these OLEDs seem pretty good. Presumably I'm just falling for the marketing guff though.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I would have thought that the electronics giants would be more concerned with making stuff that people want and will buy en masse. A flat screen telly might not have as good a picture as a CRT one, but it's good enough, and the benefit of the smaller bulk and weight, and even the cool look, is what people are more interested in.
Same goes for vinyl, which may sound fantastic on a top of the range turntable, but was just a pain in the arse for most people compared to programmable, portable CDs. And mp3s may be lower quality still, but their massive convenience completely and totally outweighs any sound disadvantages for the vast majority of us.
That must all be stating the bleedin' obvious though, mustn't it?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
They had some LED screens in John Lewis a couple of weeks ago when I went in there, and it was like having sex poured straight into your optic nerves. It's like the genuine step forward in screen technology that flat screens promised about a decade ago.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
What about all this 3D television stuff then? Is it going to be the next big thing?
*retires to safe distance
[ 23.09.2009, 10:28: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
The thing with OLED is that while it may be brighter etc, it still doesn't match the kind of texture and smell that you get from OOC (oil on canvas).
OOC:
pros
infinite resolution tactile experience more colours than the human eye can process v. low power / heat no limit on size long life no display refresh lag
cons
incompatible with HDMI dim good quality can be v. expensive
Once they've ironed out the HDMI thing and found away to combat the dimness, I'm switching. Supposedly even though there is no refresh lag, the 'feel of speed' can be lost in action movies and sports.. but I don't really care about either, so whatever.
[ 23.09.2009, 10:31: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: pros no display refresh lag
Rubbish. It takes ages for even the most experienced artist to update a single frame. We're talking at best maybe 2-3 frames per day. Until nanoartists become commonplace, OOC will remain useless for moving images.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
True, but you don't get any flicker.
[ 23.09.2009, 10:39: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Fair point there, yeah.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
It'd probably be ok for slower stuff like cricket
3d TV seems like a silly gimmick to me. Great for things like public advertising screens because they're quite attention-grabbing, but ultimately no use for in your home.
Same with the current fad of 3d movies. They didn't work before and they won't work now. Good movies don't need to be 3d. I imagine it enhances something shit like Saw, but I can't remember ever watching a really good movie and thinking "man, this is awesome, but I really wish that the main character's head loomed out of the screen at me"
[ 23.09.2009, 10:42: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Happy 11k, Ringo! Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Same with the current fad of 3d movies. They didn't work before and they won't work now.
Wrong. They're bloody fantastic. Admittedly, there hasn't been a great movie made in 3D yet, but when it happens it will be extra great.
I'm not holding out much hope for Avatar to be the first though, but you never know.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I wonder what porn would be like in 3d.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
one in the eye for naysayers, I imagine.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the doubters will end up with egg (sperm) on their faces.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the action will really come out the screen.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the idea of masturbating while wearing 3d glasses seems somehow sad. However, in lieu of the holodeck, it'll have to do.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Same with the current fad of 3d movies. They didn't work before and they won't work now.
Wrong. They're bloody fantastic. Admittedly, there hasn't been a great movie made in 3D yet, but when it happens it will be extra great.
I'm not holding out much hope for Avatar to be the first though, but you never know.
No, I think you're actually demonstrably wrong. I've been to see several things in 3d over the years and there's one thing that always stands out (lol); that the whole thing is shot in such a way that you are constantly having things thrust in your face. And this comes at the cost of, y'know, proper cinematography.
And the thing is, if it's not in some kind of jazzy action film, I can't see what on earth it could possibly add to the experience. Like I say, it's a gimmick. 3D doesn't add to a great movie, it would distract you from it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
wasn't dang 'riffing' on his persona of 'man with no ability to tell if a film is good or not'?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I would have thought that the electronics giants would be more concerned with making stuff that people want and will buy en masse. A flat screen telly might not have as good a picture as a CRT one, but it's good enough, and the benefit of the smaller bulk and weight, and even the cool look, is what people are more interested in.
Same goes for vinyl, which may sound fantastic on a top of the range turntable, but was just a pain in the arse for most people compared to programmable, portable CDs. And mp3s may be lower quality still, but their massive convenience completely and totally outweighs any sound disadvantages for the vast majority of us.
That must all be stating the bleedin' obvious though, mustn't it?
It sounds obvious, but it's mostly not the case. There's a lot of other things that drive what manufacturers manufacture and consumer demand can actually become irrelevant.
What manufacturers want are flashy, cheaply made products that will hopefully become obsolete within about seven years.
What retailers want are products that they can fit hundreds of on the shelf (part of the reason they leapt on CD, but not laser disc). What retailers want is generally much more important than what the public wants anyway, because once you've got your product into a sales channel, then it doesn't really matter - the public doesn't have much choice. The web is changing this to some extent, but it's no substitute for getting your stuff front of house in HMV or Currys or wherever. Flat panel is great for retailers because you can fit 100s of them in the storeroom. So it's all that retailers will stock. So it's all that people will buy.
___________________________________________
What you'll probably see with digitisation is a few key outlets - itunes, Amazon, maybe - completely dominating the software and hardware markets - you'll go to iTunes, buy a song or a movie which will only play on your iPod or a book that will only work on your kindle, devices that will in turn only use media bought through iTunes or Amazon. So it gives a lot to Amazon/ Apple/ Whoever insofar as they will have most of the control over the films, music that get watched much as the multiplexes were able to dictate what was shown in the cinemas, and consequently what films got made.
So it's a step in the right direction if you want more homogenised content in music, films and books, less choice, and a small group of companies governing every element of your media use. Yes, Benway - you will be able to call up a little screen that tells you when the film was made.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
What you're talking about has already happened, and now it seems to be moving more in the direction of streaming, at least for the home. So we're moving back into the world of channels. In the states the service Hulu is making big waves, and that basically does deals with studios to show their stuff.
It's not practical for most people to start running their own multi-terabyte media servers, and the big media distribution companies are now offering something that is close to an on-demand streaming servic for films... like apple tv and xbox live movies.. it's not streaming, but it's nearly there. I believe that such services have their fans here on tmo.
I don't worry too much about a homogenisation of media though. That doesn't seem to have happened. The number of distribution channels has proliferated in the last fifty years, not shrunk. You no longer have to rely on whatever gets picked up for cinema or dvd distribution in your territory, and back catalogues are extremely accesible and distributable. Plus, this nightmarish vision of distributors having power over producers, hasn't it always essentially come down to what the public wants? I mean... of course art and capitalism have a complicated relationship, but wal-mart's domination of the cd market in the states didn't stop people from making non-family friendly music.
It's interesting, this idea of digitisation narrowing the democracy of distribution and therefore shifting power. I would have thought that now, film-makers who cannot afford to get their films made into actual films can get their wares out there. Yes, it may be harder to rise to the top, but that's a result of there being much more competition. As a result, cinema is growing in popularity. Summer blockbusters are pulling incredible numbers... there are more and more film festivals popping up.. digitization is lowering the barriers for production and distribution and there are absolutely no shortage of indy production teams putting out amazing stuff around the world. But, thorn, is your point that moving from exclusively dvd distribution to dvd + online distribution will kill this?
I get the impression that you're looking at a model of mainstream media channels, as if there are only a couple to go round, and people will slavishly buy everything from apple and amazon. I just don't see this happening. The popularity of torrenting and the rising popularity of services like Hulu and spotify suggests that potential customers are crafting something else, and the people in charge are trying to figure out how it works by testing the water. We're looking at a struggle between the monoliths and the individuals, and while it's always cheesy when somebody gets dragged into radio 4 to talk about the death of the record label business model, it's clear that something is going on, and just complaining that "all of this technology is superfluous" and "actually the stuff from ten years ago was fine" isn't really an interesting or insightful position. It's like what? you mean we're not actually going to die if we don't buy a new tv? and you figured this out? Are you that guy from fight club?
[ 23.09.2009, 12:06: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
not that I condone buying things of course. These things just end up owning you. You're best cutting out objects in general. Living in a stone shack.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Plus, this nightmarish vision of distributors having power over producers, hasn't it always essentially come down to what the public wants?
I'm completely torn here, because it's getting late and I've got a ton to do here... but do you honestly believe this is true? Like not just for the sake of arguing with me, but are you serious?
[ 23.09.2009, 12:31: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's already happened though right. I mean, in the case of disney / apple, the distributor and studio is almost the same company, and few would argue that there has been a dramatic drop in the quality of Disney pictures in the last decade or so. It depends what exactly you're producing. I don't know... I mean, it's not as if cinema for the most part - the part that makes money - hasn't always been about giving the public what it wants.
I suppose that it comes down to wondering if films and music etc are of worse quality as a result of the power inversion. I don't really see that they are. They're different I suppose, in that confrontational material is given less time and space, with a general tendency towards summer films to assume a stupified idiotic audience, but I think that this was probably always the destiny of the popular cinema. And it's not new. Maybe we just forget about all the shit that exists in the past. While market forces shouldn't be the only motivator, the pompous whims of labels and studios shouldn't either. It doesn't really bother me. I saw two brilliant instant classics in a multiplex this month, District 9 and Hurt Locker. And Moon! Independent film, £5 million, global cinema distribution courtesy of our friends at Sony. Frightfest recently played like four solid days of indy horror or something crazy. That to me seems 'good'
So yeah. I don't see a lack of quality art and entertainment out there. Am I an idiot though? It's possible. I don't read any magazines about films or music, so maybe there's something huge that I'm missing.
[ 23.09.2009, 13:06: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
But Thorn, we've said before on here that it's almost a mystery how some truly great (and recent) films ever get made. But they do get made. How were they ever pitched? Who would expect them to be popular, going by pure moneymaking rules?
The most obscure, "arty", imaginative, bizarre films do get made. And a lot of the time they do get shown in big cinemas as well, and are very popular. It's been something of a golden age for good movies in recent years, not just traditional blockbusters. You give the impression that creativity and variety are being stifled by this new age of stack'em'high cash grabbers, but the complete opposite is true.
Look at the huge leaps in stuff like mobile devices, web applications, streaming media, home cinema systems, wireless internet game playing, 3D movies that don't fuck your eyes up and look stunning. Not to mention the BBC iPlayer that you can use to listen to missed radio programmes, over wi-fi to a little device in your pocket while you do the fucking gardening. This stuff is almost pure sci-fi for those of us that remember digital watches and pocket calculators as the most advanced electronic gadgetry on the planet.
Honestly, if hardly anything had changed from the 1980s and you came on here and told us about all the technology we could have had if it wasn't for Currys and Dixons then I'd be as pissed off as the next man. But most of us can't hope to keep up with this brilliant flow of new gadgets. I'm loving every minute of it myself.
How is it possible to be so fucking gloomy about the one thing which is making life so exciting at the moment - i.e. all the new techno shit.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Just to be clear dang, I'm not advocating a roll-back to the 1980s. I like a lot of new technology. You and Benway seem to be suggesting that one either a) think every new technology is for the best and Apple, Sony and Disney will show us for way, or b) advocate living in a stone shack.
Sometimes it's worth considering that big companies get to be huge because they're playing a long game, and it's worth thinking about the implications of that beyond the fact that you get to have a camera in your phone, iPod and fucking face.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
[ 23.09.2009, 13:40: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
But there is always a "market leader" in these things. At the moment, Apple have the iPod and iPhone (though I heard somewhere that the iPhone is nowhere near as popular as it seems). Personally, I use a Creative Zen mp3 player and a Nokia E71 phone, mainly because I don't like the restriction of iTunes and the Apple apps store, but iPods and iPhones suit a lot of people. With mobile phones, the market is hugely varied and full of competition. Same with games consoles (well, there is some competition there anyway).
I'm not being totally naive about the big companies, but it's not as if they are ruthlessly killing off the competition. Microsoft are giant, but Linux is used routinely by a lot of companies, and about half the people in the office where I work use Macs.
Disney and Sony don't particularly bother me either. Disney still make pretty good kids' movies don't they? Wall-E seems to be generally liked, Bolt was quite good, The Incredibles, and I'm going to see Up next weekend. They're basically continuing to do what they always did, and still doing it pretty well. It's not stopping anyone else from making alternative films, and there is some completely mad stuff out there for those that want it.
It seems to me that there is only a really big problem when the list of giant companies has only one or two names on it. But there are multiple giant companies at the moment, and there are many, many smaller-but-still-very-big companies, and they are all having success and giving us what we want. It's not like there are huge gaps in the market all over the place because the giant corporations are holding stuff back.
I don't think me and Benway are saying that you should think all technology is great, or go and live in a stone shack. [A cave maybe, yeah.] No, I think the point is that we are very much enjoying the technology and would rather get on with using it than worry about who is making money from it or what their long game is.
You have to distance yourself from such thoughts, don't you? Otherwise you really would have to go and live in a cave and grow your own food, because almost everything we consume these days comes from dubious sources or does damage to the environment - food, clothes, gas, cars, shoes, central heating, electronics... the whole fucking lot.
Posted by Jessica Rabbit (Member # 776) on :
I've got the day off work today, so I've got a bit of time to clarify what I'm saying, and explain why everything you and Benway are saying is wrong. If my daughter starves to death while I'm writing this, bear in mind that it will be your fault for being the vessel of colossal ignorance and distracting me from feeding her.
First up: You have to reject the basic assumption that companies are responding to what the consumer wants. I was genuinely amazed to see you both citing that: to me it's an argument on a level with "Well, if you've got nothing to hide why would you object" about ID cards.
What do you think more closely resembles the 100-year plan of a company like Sony? A step by step path for assuming control of means of production, distribution and playback to maximise profits across its entertainment and electronics arm, or a big question mark with "We'll wait and see what the customer tells us they want, and then make that". Obviously it's the first one. Predicting what people 'want' is difficult, unreliable, fickle, and half the time they don't even know what they want. The other half what they 'want' might not be what it's most economical for you to deliver, or you may have comitted to a different path. The way GM cut the throat on its electric car in the face of massive consumer demand is a great example of how a big company will supply you with what it wants to sell you, not what you want to buy. The consumer didn't choose Blu-Ray over Hd-DVD - the formats were at stale-mate until Warner (I think) made a deal with Sony, and Paramount was forced to follow suit. Was Transformers 2 people's favourite film at the cinema, or when they went to the local Vue, was it the only thing on.
So don't believe that the market is dictated by 'what people want', because it's not true in any industry - it's much more cost effective to steer the desires and habits of your customers in the way that suits you best. That's not a big secret, but it appears to need restating. No Benway, I'm not stating this in the guise of Tyler Durden, but as someone who has spent 5 years reporting on this industry, and several more sitting in marketing departments where these discussions take place.
Second of all, I'm not saying that this is something that has already happened. It's something that companies like Apple and Sony will be seeking to make happen over the next few decades. If I was preparing Apple's strategic marketing plan for the next fifty years, it would be basically what I've described: establishing iTunes as the major retailer of downloadable content, establishing Apple devices as the primary means of playback, and then phasing out compatibility with other media/ players to assume control of all stages of the process. I wouldn't do this because I am evil, but because it's the best way of making the most money for the company. Amazon will be looking to do the same thing, and Sony, and at the moment there's some choice, but as with microsoft one company will come to dominate. There may be some niche distributors (the equivalent of Linux, I guess) but the fact they're appealing to a niche audience means there will be far fewer of them than if one producer/ distributor wasn't taking up the lions share of the market.
Benway citing Moon is a good example of how this is already happening - without Sony's distribution this film would have vanished (in the same way as The girlfriend experience, for example). So people are already only getting what the distributor decides should succeed. It's not about 'more choice', or what people want at all. Yes, there is an avenue on DVD for smaller films and that's brilliant. I've always thought DVD is a brilliant format for this kind of thing, but as people are migrated across to streaming media and digital downloads, content providers are going to have more control over what you can get access to (much like the iTunes store does now). This isn't a paranoid fantasy - it's Sony's corporate strategy (they call it connected world or something), and probably Apple's and Amazon's, too.
Like I say, we're not there yet, and I think at some point in the future this will look like a unique and brilliant period where we had an unprecedented level of choice and freedom, and where niche films and music (maybe less so, music) found it easy to find an audience. Benway mentions having more channels, but in the same way having more highstreet booksellers just means you have more places that sell the same books, so will the increase in content providers. Did we really get more choice with Digital TV, or is that choice really between watching a Friends marathon, or a Red Dwarf one?
It's evident that a service like iTunes is laying the way for this, and their control over the music that succeeds will increase as people are migrated away from CD. Already they have an amazing level of control over what gets on to iTunes. What other retailer can tell the Beatles, of all people, to go fuck themselves until they agree to Apples terms? Same with Ac/DC. You say 'more choice', but in many ways having less music by fewer bands (Nothing in the back catalogue from my favourites the Wilkdhearts ) is less choice, not more, and the only reason people think they will have more choice is because they are told this. It's much more cost effective to have a few things that you can sell to everyone, and this is what digital content providers will want to do. Will there still be niche bands? Yes, but because the audience for them is smaller, fewer will be able to survive. Less choice, and probably an overall negative effect on the psychic health of the nation.
Probably the most extreme example of this will happen with books. So far Amazon's service has had an excellent effect on what you have access to, and that's brilliant. Great. What will happen with the e-readers (is already happening, as Amazon controls what content can be read on its Kindle). If this - as Amazon clearly hopes will be the case - fails, then you'll end up going back to a situation where the retailer controls the choice you have access to, and Amazon will seek to ensure you buy the books with which it has the best deals with publishers. Smaller publishers will go out of business as they a) won't be able to afford the high discounts and b)can't survive in a business model that removes their ability to generate cashflow by selling large consignments to booksellers. The same problem will apply to smaller record and film producers. I think that covers the points I wanted to make. Like I say, it's not happened just yet, and at the moment, we've got a lot of freedom, but this is the direction these companies are steering us in, and no they're not sitting around going "How do we please Dr Benway? How do we give him what he wants?"
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
tl;dr
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jessica Rabbit: (Nothing in the back catalogue from my favourites the Wilkdhearts
This is probably contractual with the whole east/west/chappel warner debarcle, but I will drop Ginger a line and see what the SP is - all the round records era/gut stuff is on there fer sure.
[ 24.09.2009, 06:38: Message edited by: Waynster ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
actually i did read it.
I don't disagree about the motives and desires of companies to naturally move towards a monopoly direction. I don't think I ever inferred that companies are primarily in existence for the sake of the joy customers as opposed to amassing their own power and wealth - if I did then that is my fault. I just don't see the consumer as being quite as undiscerning and powerless as you do, and I don't see the situation becoming as dire for the proliferation / expression of art and entertainment.
Maybe the multiplexes have driven films in a certain direction.. It's hard to imagine a renaissance of the eras of classic French or Italian cinema happening again. But to me, this isn't just a result of multiplexes, but of the way society as a whole has changed in terms of what it thinks about itself, and how individuals interact with it and each other - how they desire to express themselves, and to who. Technology will always limit this, but isn't that just the nature of progression through time? That things change?
Your example of The Beatles is a good one though... but you could also say that while they are having terms dictated to them by apple, they are dictating terms to harmonix. Could anybody have predicted that something like rock band beatles would have even existed? I recall your own dismissal of the technology only a year or so ago. O but now they've all done deals and harmonix has sewn it up yadda yadda, so the party is over. That just seems so... near sighted, especially considering how this shit just literally comes out of nowhere overnight.
Apart from Apple, the companies are still playing catch up to the distribution technology of digital media, presumably why things seem rosy right now. But this tech is clearly changing all the time. What I think we seem to be seeing is the companies repeatedly failing to predict how people are using the technology that's being offered. Blu-Ray / HD-DVD is a good example in that actually, neither was what people were really looking for. The PS3 is not doing brilliantly, even though ten years ago, you'd probably have predicted that sony's nigh on monopoly on next gen hi-def hardware would mean that such a machine could not fail.
In terms of the histories of these technologies - recorded music, printed words, video, you seem to be suggesting that at some time in the past these things were 'better', that there was more of it being produced and distributed. Or that what we have right now is different to what we want. Either that, or things are amazing right now, but it will soon go bad due to the strategies of the companies that you mention. I suppose I find it hard to imagine that. Perhaps I don't have the vision or the foresight that you do... After all, I don't work in marketing. But from what I see (in my limited experience) live music seems to be increasingly important to people. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I don't know the numbers or figures behind it, and obviously the cash involved is tiny compared to something like itunes, but in terms of artistic expression, the growth(?) in live events and performance seems to favour there being more bands, not fewer. Bill Drummond's book '17' is an interesting look at the future of recorded music, and how it relates to live performances... he also talks about how recorded music will become less relevant due to the increasing lack of variation .. but not in terms of the way that acts that are pushed by distributors, but how the actual technology being used to create recorded music is having a flattening affect.
Perhaps live music doesn't entirely belong in a discussion about long term strategies of media companies, but it seems an example of why something like itunes won't prevent diversity and choice to flourish. And as for music.. how far back do you have to go to find a time when there wasn't some heavy hand directing which artists make it and which don't, and what the consumer has access to? Also, do we know the consumer habits of people who are using itunes? It's fine to pick up numbers of downloads and money being made, but isn't also the case that this stuff is being augmented via other channels by the same consumers, as opposed to 'niche consumer' and 'mainstream consumer'?
In terms of music, I don't think you can talk about 'niche' and 'mainstream' any more. I know that's cliched, but in terms of my experience of going to gigs and seeing the way all these artists are hooking themselves up to myspace, getting blogged, maybe ending up on a blog aggregator, getting radio play etc, is good for people who like music. Itunes pissing around with the beatles and u2 seems totally inconsequential to me in terms of what the kids are putting out right now. Music seems like it's become synonymous with entrepreneurship as a result of the channels. I don't see itunes destroying or swallowing this, there is room and ingenuity for other things.
Amazon - kindle is interesting, and I agree that this seems to be that this could represent the most successful example of the complete ownership of production and distribution. Assuming the open format of the sony product doesn't work, and google's plans completely fail. We'll see, I suppose this is all happening right now, and is waiting on things like court decisions.
Actually, in all of this we haven't talked about the internet itself - surely things like Google have an affect on distribution as well. On the one hand you've got iphones hooking up to itunes, on the other, google putting it's open software with an open market on every other handset.
Microsoft is a good example of sewing up of tech done correctly. MS with Windows succeeded where apple failed because it wasn't hardware-centric. On the other hand, explorer comes with windows, but firefox - open source - is gaining ground pretty fast. Look to the web for films and the best format for the stuff that's being shared is open source. I don't think that we should be unwilling to look at possibilities outside of whoever is top at any one time when considering the future.
I don't know. Not really an argument there, just thoughts. I suppose what it comes down to me is a belief that people will naturally interact with technology in ways that companies can't predict.
[ 24.09.2009, 07:56: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
fuck me, tmo, don't bother reading that garbage, seriously.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jessica Rabbit: Like I say, it's not happened just yet, and at the moment, we've got a lot of freedom, but this is the direction these companies are steering us in
Oh, what??
So this whole thing is based around your fears for the Future? There's going to be a fuck lot more to worry about in the Future than whether you can get Wildhearts mp3s to play on your Sony Brainstation, or whatever technology they come up with.
Also, every time these people have tried to take control of media in the past, people have found ways around it. To be honest, it can't be done and it won't ever be done. If something can be encrypted then it can be decrypted. If it is possible to play it then it is possible to record it to another format which can be freely distributed.
The only people who will be/are restricted are those that choose to use the restrictive players like iPod. If those things become restrictive to mass consumers as well (i.e. they even start to impact on people who only ever download mass-market product anyway), then they will completely lose their customers. Look at the Sony CD copy-protection debacle. People simply won't buy that shit. Enough people to actually make the companies back down. There are numerous other examples in corporate history. I'm sure they have plenty of success with the gullible, but they've never managed to take complete control and I don't think they ever will.
As for issues like Betamax/VHS or Blu-Ray/HD-TV or whatever. Seriously, consumers don't give a fuck. If one of them was genuinely massively better than the other then, yeah, there would be objections. But that isn't the case, so no one's bothered.
ETA: I agree with a lot of what Benway said as well. Was still typing this when he posted.
[ 24.09.2009, 07:37: Message edited by: dang65 ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Live musical experiences seems to be increasingly important to people. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. I don't know the numbers or figures behind it, and obviously the cash involved is tiny compared to something like itunes, but in terms of artistic expression, the growth(?) in live events and performance seems to favour there being more bands, not less.
4 Billion dollar a year industry apparently. And as for the market driving more and more towards live performances, it just boosts my confidence in my little business plan all the more, seeing that is exactly the source industry it is designed on.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jessica Rabbit: First up: You have to reject the basic assumption that companies are responding to what the consumer wants. I was genuinely amazed to see you both citing that: to me it's an argument on a level with "Well, if you've got nothing to hide why would you object" about ID cards.
By-the-way, I do agree with the comparison with ID Cards. I have been very irate about them in the past, but now I realise that they simply aren't going to happen. Middle-class professionals object to being treated as criminals before they've even committed a crime, and the less well-off can't afford to pay for an ID Card anyway. So, it's not that different from the electronics or software corporations trying to force restrictions either. Enough people will walk away from their products to make them back down, same as the politicians and ID Cards. In fact, I'm kind of looking forward to the showdown, except it will probably never come to that.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I think there's only so much influence that corporations can have over consumers anyway. A bad product with features nobody uses will be rejected, no matter how much marketing hype tries to tell us why we should want it. There are literally thousands of examples where this has happened, particularly with technology.
Posted by Jessica Rabbit (Member # 776) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
Oh, what??
So this whole thing is based around your fears for the Future? There's going to be a fuck lot more to worry about in the Future than whether you can get Wildhearts mp3s to play on your Sony Brainstation, or whatever technology they come up with.
I agree. I didn't mean to imply that this should be the planet's number one headline concern. It's not even my number one concern. About the most I've ever done on the subject is write that post up there. Benway asked why I didn't like digital media: I responded to him. This is how conversation works you see. I don't mean to suggest that if I'm talking about a thing, then that is the only important thing and that all other things should be abandoned in favour of this one True thing. You wouldn't for example, go onto Mart's computer thread and say "Oh WHAT! You're talking about computers! Don't you think there are more important things to worry about than computers!!??!!" I'm sure that you think there are more important things in the world than making people know about bicycles, but occasionally bicycles might be the thing you are discussing. So you see how this works. People might talk about a variety of subjects - it doesn't mean that they think that's the only important thing. I don't think this is the Most Important Thing (unless Kindle puts me out of a job), but it did come up in conversation. Rest assured I won't be writing to my MP or starting a pressure group or taking any action in any way whatsover other than chatting to people on a message board but! I do have an opinion on it. I may make some posts in the future: I should tell you that unless I state otherwise I probably don't consider those things to be the most important issues in the planet's future.
Can you just confirm that I've made myself clear on this?
[ 24.09.2009, 08:43: Message edited by: Jessica Rabbit ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
What I was objecting to was your implication (or my interpretation of what you were implying anyway) that these big electronics corporations are restricting us and forcing products onto us which we don't want. But it turns out that you are talking about something you think will happen in the Future.
We are saying that technology is good right now and continues to take giant leaps. It's been a fantastic decade for that.
In fact, the technology we have now is removing a lot of unjustified profiteering from the media business. At the moment, it's all good for the consumer.
I just felt that you were cheating a bit by shifting your statements to the Future. That's what caused my exclamation. I also think it's legitimate to point out that what you are predicting will be reduced to insignificance by other events. At the moment, issues like war and overpopulation and climate change and energy production are not overbearing enough to stop us complaining about smaller issues. In the Future, even manufacturing electronics is likely become a highly restrictive business, let alone mass-producing and distributing to a global market. That's what I'm getting at.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Oh, you've dumped your post??
Posted by Jessica Rabbit (Member # 776) on :
No, it's back now.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
There's water on the moon!
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: There's water on the moon!
Any sign of oil?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
No, just water for now. And cheese obviously.
Apparently the water can be split pretty easily to make rocket fuel, which is nice.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
an epic 22 gig anime download just caused my internet to throttle to nothing in the middle of screen share conference call. Professional - I live it.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I watched Cha'mone Mo'Fo'Selecta! - a tribute to Michael Jackson on E4 last night.
Some would say it was a little disrespectful to the King of Pop.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Last night - Surrogates, the new Bruce Willis movie. Some interesting ideas, not especially well executed. Agreeably short. 6/10.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Hitman. The chap who played 47 just wasn't right for the role, and the plot wasn't even as good as the game's. Worth watching for Olga Kurylenko only. 3/10.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
This is a really interesting discussion.
I don't have much to add as I'm not terrifically invested in the tech arena. The only mobile I've ever had, for example, is a purely functional model provided by work - and the iPod nano I got for my birthday doesn't really suit me... I don't like going out in public in headphones looking like a twat and I haven't yet got around to compiling a load of 'playlists' to make listening to it at home a remotely bearable experience.
There was a pretty stupid programme on BBC4 last night about the culture of the upgrade. It was presented by poet Simon Armitage - who was a kind of morose, Dang65-type character - and made a number of not-very-penetrating points about how the 'upgrade' serves the interests of the technology firm by cultivating longing and dissatisfaction in the consumer.
In all, it seemed to provide evidence more in favour of Thorn's position than Kanye's - particularly when Armitage went to S Korea and visited Samsung's "future house" jam-packed with the kind of underwhelming tat we can expect to be bombarded with in about ten years. I mean: an iPod that looks like a pebble, ffs.
The footage of glazed-eyed Koreans doing things with their hand-held devices - on trains, in the street - was poignant and depressing and surely an indication of where we're likely to be in just a few years. It may of course be the case that all of them were living intensely engaged social lives via the medium of text or what-have-you but the charm and naturalness of human contact in an urban setting seemed to be in the late stages of being leached away entirely.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I just read the concluding issue of No Hero. It was FUCKING NUTZOID DELUXE! Warren Ellis is a mad man.
(THAT, ben, is how you post to a TMO thread!)
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I watched the first episode of new series Flash Forward on my television set last night. Has anyone else seen it? I bet Amy has.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Yes, the primordial human fear of looking like a twat is a huge issue for anyone who espouses modern technology. Fortunately, the innate human trait of not giving a fuck is often sufficiently powerful to overcome this. Otherwise, we'd never have moved on from the frankly embarrassing Archimedes' screw.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: the primordial human fear of looking like a twat is a huge issue for anyone who espouses modern technology. Fortunately, the innate human trait of not giving a fuck is often sufficiently powerful to overcome this.
Yes - wearing an MP3 player is an expression of your free-thinking individuality. It must be true because all the adverts tell you it is.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
It's also a great way to... express yourself... creatively.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
lol, it's funny because marketing departments often align the purchasing of their product with an expression of free will, individuality, and a re-enforcement of positive self-image. Next thing you know, it'll be 'mp3 players for thoughtful people' or 'TVs for people who on the whole consider themselves to be better educated and more widely read than the rest of middle england'. lol.
[ 29.09.2009, 10:27: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot adverts. So, it's fear of looking like a twat, and fear of looking like you've been influenced by some kind of advert. Yeah, that could really put you off using technology, big time. Personally, I only ever use things that haven't been advertised, but I'm starting to find a small stone and a piece of bark to be fairly limited technologically.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: mp3 players for thoughtful people
They've already done this with Radio 4 podcasts.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Yes, the primordial human fear of looking like a twat is a huge issue for anyone who espouses modern technology.
I don't see why simple aversion to something should automatically be reclassified as 'fear'. This is, it has to be said, a pretty fearful and defensive posture you've adopted, Dang. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Oh yeah, I forgot adverts. So, it's fear of looking like a twat, and fear of looking like you've been influenced by some kind of advert. Yeah, that could really put you off using technology, big time. Personally, I only ever use things that haven't been advertised, but I'm starting to find a small stone and a piece of bark to be fairly limited technologically.
I'm not saying 'don't buy stuff which is advertised' but throughout this discussion you just seem to parrot off 'brand values' without any irony whatsoever, which is always going to sound slightly ridiculous.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: lol, it's funny because marketing departments often align the purchasing of their product with an expression of free will, individuality, and a re-enforcement of positive self-image. Next thing you know, it'll be 'mp3 players for thoughtful people'
I'm... not sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, I use those kind of tactics in order to do my job... but that doesn't mean that these things aren't transparent lies.
[ 29.09.2009, 10:50: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I'm just saying that your joke was funny because it was true.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I too am no fan of the way in which advertising people use these painfully unsubtle tricks to try and generate desire in their products. It's an affront.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
If it helps, I didn't come up with 'Books for Thoughtful People'. That was before my time. I've already written a proposal suggesting that we change it to something more honest, to set ourselves apart from the over-hyped disingenuous, homogenous mass of publishers. My current suggestions is changing "Books for Thoughtful People" to "Books For People", which obeys the rule of three, or to simply adhere to the idea that brevity is best in copywriting and reduce the slogan to one word: "Books."
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Yes, the primordial human fear of looking like a twat is a huge issue for anyone who espouses modern technology.
I don't see why simple aversion to something should automatically be reclassified as 'fear'.
Uh, for melodramatic effect
Nah, I just genuinely think that it's weird how many people will deprive themselves of technology just because they perceive that other people might think they look like a twat.
Actually, a good example of that, which you might have predicted me saying, would be cycling clothes. Do you really that that so many people would cycle around in tight fitting trousers and tops if they didn't offer a huge advantage in comfort and maneuverability? And yet people will actually avoid cycling entirely rather than even be distantly associated with the kind of people who might wear cycling clothes.
The same goes for advertising, really. I know it's horrible to think that you are following the herd and being brainwashed, but I'll wager that the majority of things you own and wear and use daily have been advertised. Obviously. It's a totally unavoidable part of modern life. Even a lot of the hysterical viral videos and spoofs of products and adverts that go around are actually carefully placed by the very people that are being spoofed. They'll stop at nothing.
There's not much point letting that dictate your way of life is there? Especially when a lot of the products are perfectly functional and of good quality. Although it's also true that quite a lot of them aren't. But the advertising isn't really the issue.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i saw 'slumber party massacre 2' at the weekend, which is about about a rockabilly guy who has a giant guitar that is also a drill, and he drills a group of young adults during a party, all the time wailing on his guitar and saying things like "I can't get no satisfaction". Ask me if it's any good.
[ 29.09.2009, 11:34: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Nah, I just genuinely think that it's weird how many people will deprive themselves of technology just because they perceive that other people might think they look like a twat.
I don't think it's wierd or inadequate to be bothered about how you're perceived by others. In the same spirit I never chew gum because I find it difficult to watch others doing it.
Folk in cycling gear may look a bit hideous, but I think everyone appreciates that's largely for sound practical reasons. People wearing earphones on the train, by contrast, often come across as lobotomised, aloof or even pig-ignorant - and you know that ain't hep.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: People wearing earphones on the train, by contrast, often come across as lobotomised, aloof or even pig-ignorant - and you know that ain't hep.
Coincidentally, I often wear headphones on public transport because the people not wearing often spend a good part of the journey loudly announcing that they are lobotomised, aloof or even pig-ignorant.
I did ask someone to turn her headphone music down on a train once though. She was listening to a musical, I forget which one, and it was so loud that I could clearly hear the whole thing, not just the tsss tsss tsss bit.
She went through the fucking roof! I asked her really politely as well.
So, I'm kind of with you on that, but also not.
Basically, most people are lobotomised, aloof or even pig-ignorant, and headphones don't seem to influence that either way.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: People wearing earphones on the train, by contrast, often come across as lobotomised, aloof or even pig-ignorant - and you know that ain't hep.
Clearly you haven't spent much time travelling around London in the evenings. Every night, the citizens of the tube bury their faces in the freesheets, like so many porcine shit-sniffers. At least there's a chance that your man with the headphones is listening to diginified cleansing blasts of white noise. There is no such hope to be found in faces of the freesheet readers.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
At least headphone wearers are less annoying than non-headphone wearing music listeners. Mobile phone speakers make me long for the days of the ghetto blaster.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Mobile phone speakers make me long for the days of the ghetto blaster.
Mobile phone speakers make me long for the days of the rapier.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Office lol. People looked at me.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
that's where your headphones come in. The environment / outdoors / society / everything is a sonic battle ground. Headphones are your nuclear bunker.
[ 29.09.2009, 12:14: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Headphones are your nuclear bunker.
Not if you're listening to Spotify and fucking REO Speedwagon suddenly comes on out of the blue. I feel like someone has broken into my nuclear bunker and force-bummed me in the ears with a sugar cube.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
£lol
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: you'll all be overjoyed to learn that the c-200 is now running something called 'yet another movie jukebox' and have turned a collection of .avis and .mkvs into something like this:
That's better than before.
Looks nice. Like the type.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah it's good man. Handles episodic stuff very well too.
I have just started reading 'cancer ward' (again).
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched 'Ghost in the Shell 2.0' at the ICA. I know that there are plenty of fans of the original ground breaking cyberpunk anime here on TMO, so there must be plenty of questions about this remixed version. I'd be happy to answer all of these - fire away!
I also ploughed on with Gundam 00, and I'm enjoying that, especially because the colour and clarity of the 1080p animation is stunning.
Finally, I watched the recently banned Japanese torture horror 'grotesque'. The BBFC tells us:
quote: "Unlike other recent ‘torture’ themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake."
And I can confirm that sexual sadism, humiliation, and brutality are in plentiful supply throughout. As intolerable perma-student Justin Lee Collins would burble into his phlegm coated lapel mic - Good Times.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote: Unlike other recent ‘torture’ themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development
Interesting use of the word 'unlike'.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I would probably disagree that there was no narrative in this film. The central point is to do with how much suffering you'd endure go to save your partner from the same suffering. I suppose that this is similar-ish to the Saw films, but those seem to more about sacrificing a 'bad' part of yourself to save your life.. There is little altrusim in the mix (apart from the first film).
Grotesque reminded me of that japanese gameshow 'endurance', and there were themes in the film about the dignity of trying your hardest even in the face certain failure, and of putting the team before yourself... Also about just how much damage you can bring upon yourself by following this code, yet the greater the humiliation, the greater the dignity in enduring it. I find those things interesting, simpy because they seem to be integral parts of the Japanese psyche, ones that we don't really feel in the same way here in the West. We're aware of them I suppose, what with your boy Jesus having found dignity in endurance, but us western folk don't seem to have the sense of disgrace that our eastern cousins do. While we can see the point in 'taking one for the team', there is also a respect for the individual who just does what he likes and completely ignores the pressure to conform. I suppose that disaster / action films often feature somebody who has to stay with the bomb to make sure it explodes etc, but these people are elevated to a christ-like position in doing so, rather than simply maintaining dignity. The stakes are always very, very high before this becomes acceptable. In fact, very altrustic behaviour is generally seen as being a bit pussy-ish I think. Anyway, whatever.
[ 05.10.2009, 06:22: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Basically, the Japanese are nuts.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I suppose though that the narrative was very simple - just a young attractive couple being tortured to death in order to provide sexual thrills for a mad man, the timeline just being the start, continuation and finally end of this torture, with the couple trying to somehow find hope and dignity in the middle of all of this. This is probably less 'story' than Saw or Hostel. The Saw films have an overly complicated story as far as I can tell.
[ 05.10.2009, 06:30: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
okay, I'll try and answer your questions re: ghost in the shell 2.0 in order
1) I didn't find them to be obstrusive, although they are noticable
2) Sounds great. It was all re-recorded. Soundtrack is also excellent
3) Didn't really see the point in that, but it didn't detract from the story or the film.
4) Still the same style, ie, different to the TV shows. Major looks weird compared to how she looks now.
5) Overall, great, but shorter than I remember. Might have to rewatch the original.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i also saw the first 25 mins of '50 first dates', which seemed like a contemptible film.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm not sure how I feel about the combination of anime and cgi. In some cases it works really well, but I think in the GITS films it's really obvious which is which and the swtch between the two is really distracting.
I'm a long time fan of Initial D and the original episodes were terrible for this. All the car scenes were crappy CGI.
But by the fourth series it had improved a fair bit and was much less noticeable. Probably helped by the fact that the standard of animation was much much higher by then as well.
The combination of CGI and animation in Shigurui is quite tastefully done. I loved that series. Highly recommended.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yo fuck, check this fucking shit out - I found all my old dvds of anime, so like, all the neon genesis evangelion stuff, both series of ghost in the shell, Paranoia Agent, Sola, Serial Experiments Lain... I was like daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn when I found that shit.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I was like daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn
[ 14.10.2009, 06:35: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I've had Ghost in the Shell 1 and 2 on DVD for a number of years and this has made me realise that I've never actually unwrapped them and have never seen GITS2. I may remedy that tomorrow. I may watch GITS again first though.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the films are quite different to the TV series.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
The whole 'Laughing Man' story from Standalone Complex 1st GiG is brilliant.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
The only anime film I've ever seen was Akira. It was pretty much incomprehensible and completely eradicated any desire I had to watch anything else in this so-called art-form.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah, don't bother with it.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The only anime film I've ever seen was Akira. It was pretty much incomprehensible and completely eradicated any desire I had to watch anything else in this so-called art-form.
This might not have been your fault. Early versions of the film were dubbed terribly and there were a lot of subtitle versions that again didn't really say much. The basic premise is that some kids were tested on for latent supernatural powers. One of the children, Akira brings about the destruction of Neo Tokyo which is covered up as a nuclear attack bringing about the start of World War 3. After that, Japan rebuild the city but because of the fallout from the war (possibly, they hint at) caused by Akira's destruction of Neo Tokyo, the city is in political turmoil. As a result, the kids of the modern society are unruly and anarchic. Their behaviour causes one of them to come into contact with the 'children' (who do not age due to the drugs they take to keep their powers in check) and his latent powers are awakened. History begins to repeat itself.
It's pretty impossible to dub anime as being a 'so-called' art form without sounding like something Samuel Norton would say. If I recall, Akira was an animation that broke the boundaries of quality that made anime marketable to a western audience. It influenced hundreds of films to mimic its animation style so that anyone who enjoys a Studio Ghibli film would be watching animation pioneered by the Akira Team.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you fucking nerdy fuck.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
SHUT UP.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
whatever. Nerd.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: This might not have been your fault.
No, I don't think it was.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Manga also released legend of the overfiend in a completely incomprehensible version. In fact, between their terrible mashups of classic anime movies and confusing everybody by calling themselves 'Manga', those dudes managed to pretty much ruin the chances of anime taking off in the UK for a good ten years.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Akira was fucking dreadful. Most things are fucking dreadful, though, to be fair.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
that's true, mart. Most things are really poorly conceived and then badly carried out.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: This might not have been your fault.
No, I don't think it was.
So then it's agreed, you must have watched an earlier dubbed version of the film that failed to convey the basic plot that even a pig ignorant thickazoid could understand.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I think he just thought it was a load of old bollocks, Mikee.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I got that.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't love akira. I think the film that made me take anime seriously was 'perfect blue'.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
But you know because it's a film that I watched that I quite enjoyed, it's like a personal attack on me. It's like, if you call Akira a load of old bollocks it's the literal translation of rubbing your bollocks on me. You don't want to rub your bollocks on me martin. Not even if I ask.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
You didn't make it very clear that you got that.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
What's your favourite film, mart btw?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Oh yeah right like I'm going to blurt that out on here.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Don't worry mate, it's probably bollocks anyway.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
No, it's really good, actually.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I guess we'll never know.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Why would I have something that's a load of old bollocks as my favourite film? It doesn't make sense.
I'm getting my bollocks out now, Mikee.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I've put them away again now.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Can everyone stop getting their bollocks out please?
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
* pauses mid bollock-extraction * Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
have a peek at these beauties.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Do you remember back in the 'heyday' when Ben got his bollocks out or something. In that sweaty bar.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
rings a bell.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Great times.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
treasured memories.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Forever in my heart.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Anyway.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Right.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Do you like anime, mart?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I've only seen Akira, and didn't like it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I see.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I'm going to Birmingham for three months at the weekend.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
sorry to hear that. It's only three months though.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
If Mart were to live for another 50 years, this Birmingham sojourn would represent 0.5% of his remaining life.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I've had some good times in Birmingham.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Yeah, it'll be fine. Lots of theatre luvvies.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
say hi to my relatives
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Okay. I'll need names and adresses, though. Otherwise, I'll just be saying hello to everybody that I come across, all the time. Like that scene in that film.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Nightmare on Elm Street?
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
that would be beautiful, though, mart. and youre the kind of guy who could get away with it witohut people thinking you were mental. they wouldnt look at you and think, 'some sort of needs', theyd think 'ohhhh! what a nice man! that was really a special thing. i feel better about my whole life now.'
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I guess I'm just a really terrific guy.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
ive actually made a commitment to myself that i am no longer going to be reflexively rude about the midlands on the basis of almost no evidence, so im not going to write the last sentence of that post. it was just lazy. ill tell you why; my sister went to solihull for work last week, and i was all like, HA HA SOLIHULL, SORRYHELL MORE LIKE, ITS IN THE MIDLANDS, ITLL BE AKIN TO A POST- APOCOLYPTIC WASTELAND AND THERELL BE RODENTS RUNNING AROUND WITH THE PUTREFYING LIMBS OF INFANTS HANGING FROM THEIR BLOODIED MAWS AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE ELEVEN KNEES!' because thats what you do, isnt it, Be Rude About The Midlands Reflexively. anyway so it turns out solihull is 'quite nice'. 'leafy'. what the fuck? i realised, i need to raise my game. just because i was emotionally and spiritually dented beyond recognition by the experience of buying a jumbo sausage roll at birmingham coach station in 2006 doesnt mean i can go around dissing its suburbs like some sort of **** . so im going to stop.
[ 14.10.2009, 11:28: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I used to live in the Midlands. So did Bandy. Bandy! Bandy.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
yes, yes you are, martin. and i tell you what, youll fit right in when you get to birmingham. they are giants of humanity, the brummies. they really are. okay, so when i was in the queue for my jumbo sausage roll i was kicked in the shin by A NUN, a bride of christ no less, but i think she was probably in an extremely bad mood, and she maybe didnt even come from birmingham. she sounded like she had a bit of a staffordshire burr to me.
[ 14.10.2009, 11:34: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I was struck by how leafy and quite nice Solihull was as well when I drove through it once, the last time I went to Birmingham.
Thanks Disco. I treasure that hungover morning that turned into a full-blown crazy drunk day in the sun. That was brilliant. That was in Lewisham though. Which isn't too far from where I live now, just to bring it full circle.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I'm now wondering if the hangover in the garden was the morning after the night that Ben got his bollocks out, or something. In that sweaty bar.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Man, that was classic Ben.
Posted by Hades (Member # 57) on :
I was disapointed to find i lived in the midlands. I only moved here 6 months ago and before i got here i thought that technically i was moving to the south west.... but not according to the road signs. I'm JUST far enough up to be classed as midlands apparently. Balls
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Apparently I was born in the East Midlands.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I'm now wondering if the hangover in the garden was the morning after the night that Ben got his bollocks out, or something. In that sweaty bar.
i wonder if it was. you might be right. although, i wonder if the night ben got his bollocks out was also the night ben punched raz/ a man in a george bush mask/ raz, who was wearing a george bush mask* to the ground in a fit of over- enthusiastic bonhomie. ben could clear this all up for us. im sure i saw him somewhere.
where are you living now, if not in lewisham? i dont mean that in a 'where on earth are you living that could possibly compare to lewisham' sort of way, although on reading my question back i can see it might sound that way. im not that attached to lewisham, really.
*cant remember which of these it was.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Penge!
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
penge! lovely lovely penge. or, as it is more popularly known: penge. although the last time i was in penge was 2001 and i am prepared to bet it must have improved since. it cant have got much worse, anyway. can it?
[ 15.10.2009, 12:07: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
if it has i am prepared to come and perform some sort of intervention. i would do that for you, mart. we can have a safeword if you like. if you need me to come and rescue you from the suburb that sounds like a venereal disease, then just write 'persimmon'. just that word. nothing else. 'persimmon'. i will be there lickety- split. i will bring a negotiatior, if needs be. my friend dorothy. shes very nice.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
It's still chav central, with pound shops, charity stores and nail bars and fast food outlets all along the high street, but we live at the top end, by Crystal Palace park, which is flippin' lovely and has alpacas in it. This is Tinkerbell:
And there's a posh overpriced pub with an interesting array of characters in it, from mad looneys who hand out poetry to a dangerously beautiful Italian Brazilian lesbian.
We live above a tattoo parlour. It's street, man.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
alpacas and dangerously beautiful italian brazilian lesbians? penge is more interesting than where i live now. man, thats rubbish.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Oh and dinosaurs.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
shut up.
(anyway i am moving soon. i am supposed to be packing right now. that is why i am on tmo. not that i would have you think i only come to tmo when the alternative is sorting through my dry goods cupboards, oh no. heaven forfend).
[ 15.10.2009, 12:08: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Where are you moving to?
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
cotham. do you know cotham.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
No. Do you?
oh it's still in bristol. okay. i thought you were moving.
[ 15.10.2009, 11:53: Message edited by: mart ]
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
no, im staying in bristol. im not sure anywhere else would have me. the entire middle of the country is probably a badland for me, karma- wise; london's full of mentals and in the north i never quite trust myself not to do something awful and southerner- ish like saying 'oh, you listen to the archers do you? well done', even though i do truly know that people from the north are practically caught up with us now, civilisation- wise.
[ 15.10.2009, 12:08: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Right.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I like Cotham. I used to live in Cotham. Twice, in fact (if you count my flat which was on Cheltenham Road itself, fact fans!)
I've moved to the burbs and I'm out of the urban cut and thrust a bit, but I do have a garden, so, you know, swings and roundabouts. Not in my garden, though, I'm a bit old for all of that.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hello hippychick
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
youre disappointed in me for parroting lazy prejudices for a cheap laugh, arent you, mart. i knew i needed to raise my game. im working on it, okay? i promise.
cotham is nice, its terribly nice. its also near all the less nice bits that the hipsters describe as being 'like hackney five years ago, man'. ha ha funny hipsters with their funny beards... lazy. lazy lazy lazy. its back to the drawing board for me, i think.
[ 15.10.2009, 12:38: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: hello hippychick
lol. im not just saying that, actual lol.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
No, I'm not disappointed in you for that, Disco.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
steve, i...i don't know what to say. i thought we'd got past all this.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hippychick you can't play with my heart like this Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I suspect that he will enjoy Tropic Thunder and Die Hard 4.
Finally watched Die Hard 4.0 last night and thought it was excellent. I mean, obviously it was absurd, but as good a rollercoaster as the other Die Hards, and that's all I ask for.
Haven't finished Tropic Thunder yet, but found it pretty lame so far. Certainly no LOL moments yet.
Also watched Borat for the first time. Bruno was much better. Bruno was full on peering through fingers almost the whole way through and is easily the funniest film I've seen in years. Borat was just a few embarrasing pranks with a few laughs dotted around.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I notice that rottentomatoes.com gives Die Hard 4.0 81% with most the reviews agreeing that it's a great return. Did no one else bother with it here?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I saw bits of die hard 3 and I think I saw die hard 4 on a plane. Somebody drives a car down a lift shaft or something. There's a chase... a hacker. A fight on a jet? I don't know. It seemed to be lacking the graphic violence / campy bullshit one-two punch that made the first two so enjoyable.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched menace II society on friday, for the first time.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Ah gat this cheeeeeezeburger mang.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Saw VI is coming out soon. Who's pumped for that? Everybody yeah? Everybody looking forward to discovering the fiendish traps that have been set for the hapless victims of another chapter of Jisgaw's bloody morality tale? Everybody expecting to be Gripping Their Seats in Terror as the Gory Mayhem Plays Out? Did everybody hear that The Games Have Only Just Begun? Yeah? Man it should be sweet. All dirty and messy, people struggling, most die, one survives, Tobin Bell is somehow in it again. A trailer that makes it look exciting when actually it's dull and impenetrable. Money down the drain. Hating yourself for being suckered in again. Writing on TMO about how you didn't like it. Listening to benway say I told you so. Thinking about quitting tmo, realising that there's nothing left to quit. Getting on with some work instead. Yeah. It's Saw VI, everybody!
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
They're up to 6 now? Who keeps giving them money for this shit?
On the plane from Egypt I watched Monsters Vs Aliens which was fairly entertaining and I also saw 17 Again which was terrible.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Ah gat this cheeeeeezeburger mang.
The cheeseburger scene was probably the 'lowlight' of the film. Overall the picture sucked, and that whole thing summed up why. It seemed to have all this toughness and violence and unhappiness without anything to say about it apart from secretly revelling in dudes rolling around pointing glocks going "geah nigga!". It was like the directors wanted us to be feel something authentic and real that they themselves did not. It also seemed on the one hand to be saying that it was pretty bad and, you know, life in the ghetto is no joke, but then you've got ridiculous piss-takes like that cheeseburger scene that seem like a skit off a shitty nwa b-side, undermining any emotional weight or dramatic credibility that may have been hinted at elsewhere. It was like a really lame attempt at Tarantino cool in the middle of a cheap made-for-TV shrug.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
As mentioned in another thread, I was like six or seven pints down by the time I settled in to watch it, so you know. It could be that I just missed things.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I never thought the cheeseburger scene was a piss-take. It ends with him being shot for offering to suck a dick when his cold cheeseburgers are refused. I mean, I'm laughing about it now. It seemed grim and authentic at the time. After a bazzillion hood film clones, Menace II Society seems dated, but it had a harder impact than Boys In The Hood even though it was released a while afterwards. Considering the film was about social commentary of its time, you're only about 13 years* late to see what it's driving at.
*Jesus, see below.
[ 20.10.2009, 09:48: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Fucking hell it was released in 1992!!!!!!!!
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Unrelated. What's the best way to spell it: knob or Nob?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
i-t
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
oh, that's not the scene I'm thinking of. I'm talking about when he car jacks the fella at the drive in and demands that he orders him a burger which the guy gets wrong so he starts going on about wanting cheese, I don't know.
The scene you're talking about where O Dogg shoots the addict seemed utterly pointless. the opening scene established O Dogg as a crazy-ass ghetto kid who'll smoke a motherfucker for no reason, and this was just like, o btw o dogg is still a crazy-ass ghetto kid who'll smoke a motherfucker for no reason. It just seemed like somebody said "yo, a kid shooting an addict over a dick sucking is pretty hardcore, stick that in there". It didn't make him seem more hardcore or more scary. And he only ever seemed like an idiot with a gun rather than a goodfellas 'tommy' style psycho. There was no thrill in playing voyeur to this intensely violent person because he just seemed like a dick, all the way through the film. After he'd killed the addict in fact, MC Eiht even says that it was a pointless or stupid thing to do and everybody just forgets about it. Maybe it would work at the beginning when establishing O Dogg, but this was towards the end of the film, and had no bearing on anything.
I suppose what it comes down to is that, speaking as a black man who grew up in a tough, crime ridden area of Los Angeles, this film seemed more like a randomly assembled teenage gangsta wank fantasy than a proper film with actual characters.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Of course, what I'm 'riffing' on there is my own position as a white middle class male and what my expectations are from a black film maker making a film about a black community. I feel instinctively drawn to Boyz over Menace, and I wonder if that's because I want my film to show that aspiration and hope will lead black people out of the dire circumstances that the white system has placed them in. In a way that enables me to not feel so bad about it. Boyz creates an obvious enemy out of "The Man" and it's all the fault of The Man and therefore I can see everybody involved as a victim of The Man and I hate The Man too and I also smoke the chronic and listen to classic ice cube cuts and I too hate the racist LA cops and I'm not a racist so I'm on your side - this is our struggle and I'm so pleased to see that all of you want to get into college.
I'm not saying that desiring an education or a future is a 'white' thing, but it is obviously going to make it easier for me if I can align myself with the people involved.
Menace has that Scarface emptiness of just dudes trying to get a piece by being unlikable violent dickheads, and oh look, we've learned that being an unlikable violent dickhead is going to get you killed. In Boyz, the dude who gets killed isn't a banger, he's a football fan who his dreams twisted by being pushed out of education and coaxed into the army. He's a victim of the white system all the way through, so his death is seen as part of this too. In Menace, that white shadow isn't made so explicit, so the action seems more chaotic and pointless - something that is heightened by the lack of strong story arc. I can't so easily impose a morality tale onto the events, and maybe that's the problem, because I expect or even need a story about surviving as a black youth in those circumstances to be foremost a morality tale.
Black people being cast as victims is something that we're used to in pop culture, and basically something that gangster rap cashed in on - prison imagery, being unable to escape the ghetto etc. I guess maybe it blew up so huge because there are extreme fantasies of power being expressed in the form of the constant mudering and pimping, yet the environment is one that most white middle class would consider to be way, way beneath their own standard of living as it measures up to historically received aspirational values. It's raw and dangerous, but nicely contained and seperate, and it's all the fault The Man, who as good liberals we all hate.
But this idea of 'liberal' white people requiring a victim status from representations of blacks in America - is it for masochistic reasons, a kind of psychic atonement? Is it to provide a need and framework for reparations, or is it simply a continuation of the past? Is positive discrimination something that re-enforces victim status, or is it required to fix the balance? Black Power isn't about demanding that the devil fixes its system. I suppose that it seems as if as a white middle class male with a bleeding liberal heart, it is relatively easy for me to get into a position of power compared to one of those guys from Boyz or Menace, and if the film provokes a "this is fucked, how can I help" reaction from me then Boyz says "fight the man, my friend" and Menace says "you can't, but hand over your wallet, bitch, before I cap yo ass".
Or am I wrong about this victim status? Not sure. Maybe I am. Feels like I'm not though. I don't know. I probably am. I usually am. Hmm. I suppose the thing is that many of images that we receive re-enforce this... not just because that it's what we expect to see, but also because, you know, bad shit happens to poor people. Katrina was some pretty hardcore shit and you can't get around the fact that in that case, black communities really were the victims of a white system that doesn't seem to care. I don't mean that weather is a white conspiracy, but the rescue and reparation seemed fucking useless compared to what you'd expect if it was the white middle classes losing their lives and communities. And so far it seems like only Spike Lee has stepped up to tell the story of this event. Fuck, I mean I watched Top Gear and they went through New Orleans, and that seemed the most information that had been put out there once the water receeded. As I said, I don't know. Seems complex.
[ 20.10.2009, 11:06: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Hmmmm, I can see what you're saying. To be honest though, I didn't think many of the guys in Menace are supposed to have the same charm as hood though right? I mean, it's suppose to be about some idiots. O-Dog is a prick. They both seem to have that basic message 'don't get roped into the bad shit, or you'll never go on to be anything better than DEAD' I don't know, I mean I watched this shit as a teenager and Menace packed a lot more punch on viewing. It felt real, if that makes any sense.
Why did you enbiggen your post when you knew I wouldn't give it much response? You animal.
[ 20.10.2009, 11:13: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Oh I don't expect anybody to respond to me, or even to read what I write. Not when there are far more interesting chats going on elsewhere.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Where?
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
You watched Top Gear.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Where?
Over on Life. Dang65 dopped some science about getting into things like music really late, Misc started spitting truth about British Synthpop, and they started all fucking chatting and shit, and I'm pretty excited to see what happens next. I might sweep in with some shit about films that I watch, just to ruin everything. Although, frankly, I feel like nobody really wants to hear about that kind of shit any more, especially considering the weak response rate I generally enjoy with my film-watching anecdotes.
What happened to Thorn btw, have you noticed he went away?
[ 20.10.2009, 11:24: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: You watched Top Gear.
I peeped it. I did.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I was crazy hungover that day, and all I could do was slump on the sofa and watch Dave, plus we had some people round and top gear seems to be one of those shows that most people can generally tolerate. What else happened that day... hmm.. that was the day after we watched 'Grotesque' which I believe I mentioned on these boards. I remember being hungover and watching top gear... and then later that day we came into town by bus because I was too hungover to get the tube, and we watched the ghost in the shell 2.0 film at the ICA and then Louise and I went to 'ping pong' and had dim sum and they didn't have the pork buns so she was disappointed. Then we went home and I can't remember the evening.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Well, it sounds like a pretty good day all in all.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Maybe not, I mean, it sounds okay.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it was alright but I did feel really ill for hours, and the bus was a mistake because it was an Arsenal day so it took like forty five minutes just to get to flipping kings cross, and we actually missed the first five minutes of the film.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the weekend just gone I woke up with a headache on saturday, ate some soba noodles + miso soup then went to hackney and had some pints with a ex-forumite, and that was when i came home afterwards and watched menace ii society. I think at one point I was standing in the doorway of a church watching some people doing all that singing and dancing about god etc. next day i woke up pretty hungover and went to queensway with louise where we met with pals and had dim sum (again) at royal china, after which we went to a pub and i drank soooooooo much guiness that I couldn't even finish my last pint, i don't really remember the journey home and I stayed up talking to louise (who was sober) until like 1.30am on sunday and then took a holiday the next day (yesterday) due to health complications that had arisen from drinking guiness.
[ 20.10.2009, 12:00: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
how was your weekend? Alright?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I finished a fortnight-long translation about concrete and came to Birmingham.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I had a good weekend. Won £500. Which is always nice.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Oh I just remembered I upset one of my friends because she ordered like a pint of strongbow and a soda water and I said I didn't know you liked soda and she said she didn't want to be drunk when she got on the train later and I said that'll help then - half a pint of soda water will definitely prevent you from getting drunk, in fact Oliver Reed himself - and she said oh well if you're just going to put me down, and then she stormed out, it was uncomfortable for everybody, especially me. But that's the kind of person I am - cruel, sarcastic, uncaring.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I had a good weekend. Won £500. Which is always nice.
I didn't win any money, so you beat me at least.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I watched Up by Pixar, which is pretty good as these things go and also on topic.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Oh I just remembered I upset one of my friends because she ordered like a pint of strongbow and a soda water and I said I didn't know you liked soda and she said she didn't want to be drunk when she got on the train later and I said that'll help then - half a pint of soda water will definitely prevent you from getting drunk, in fact Oliver Reed himself - and she said oh well if you're just going to put me down, and then she stormed out, it was uncomfortable for everybody, especially me. But that's the kind of person I am - cruel, sarcastic, uncaring.
Oh that's just brilliant. A complete over-reaction on your obvious attempt at trying to wring humour from something ordinary and boring and it back-fired spectacularly. I mean, everyone's entitled to a good grumpy strop or two but taking it personally. I mean, at least just saying 'oh shut up you twat' but to storm out. It makes them genuinely look like they think soda water is a preventative medicine for alcoholism. You should be pleased with yourself.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I expect Benway is rarely pleased with himself.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Accurate.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: I finished a fortnight-long translation about concrete and came to Birmingham.
Was it a Spanish tourist guide to the Midlands?
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Oh I just remembered I upset one of my friends because she ordered like a pint of strongbow and a soda water and I said I didn't know you liked soda and she said she didn't want to be drunk when she got on the train later and I said that'll help then - half a pint of soda water will definitely prevent you from getting drunk, in fact Oliver Reed himself - and she said oh well if you're just going to put me down, and then she stormed out, it was uncomfortable for everybody, especially me. But that's the kind of person I am - cruel, sarcastic, uncaring.
Oh that's just brilliant. A complete over-reaction on your obvious attempt at trying to wring humour from something ordinary and boring and it back-fired spectacularly. I mean, everyone's entitled to a good grumpy strop or two but taking it personally. I mean, at least just saying 'oh shut up you twat' but to storm out. It makes them genuinely look like they think soda water is a preventative medicine for alcoholism. You should be pleased with yourself.
She could have been on her period or something. You could have smoothed it all over by looking a bit concerned and asking her "What's the matter? you on the blob?"
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Or if you want to be more Top Gear then you could have raised your eyebrows and said loudly "Somebody's on the blob" then laugh and take a long gulp of your drink.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
How was she going to get drunk on a pint of Strongbow anyway? You need at least three 2-litre plastic bottles of the stuff. In my experience. Most nights.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
well that's the point dang65, she was already three or pints into it and was likely to be having a few more.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
look i'm not really into top gear. And on that bombshell - goodnight.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I watched Michele Soavi's lush gothy wig-out "La chiesa", which I think I need to watch again to 'get', but I enjoyed the imagery, and I liked the build up in the first hour. I'm all for logic going out of the window in a scenario where reality is breaking down, but some of the giant holes and bizarre shifts in tone seemed like they were the result of very some weak writing and editing. Still, I've finally picked up both Dellamorte Dellamore and La setta by Soavi, but I probably won't get a chance to check em out until next week. Stay tuned for exciting reports on those.
I also watched Saw 2, which I'd never seen before. I watched it all the way through, and cancer-stricken Tobin Bell was pretty entertaining, but overall it felt flat and lame and what was the point of the business in the house with the numbers and the combination? It seemed like right at the last minute the film went 'psst actually the whole plot and all of the characters in the last hour and fifteen minutes didn't actually matter - it was all just a setup for this final shot'. I think that they thought of the end and worked backwards.
I'm catching a couple of films at the LFF this week. Anybody else attended the annual celeration of cinema in the capital city of our fine nation? Anybody going this week?
There are a few films out in the cinema at the moment that I fancy. I might do a bumper session at the trocadero on saturday in order to catch up.
[ 26.10.2009, 10:48: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
well, I've only seen three of them - Saw, Saw II and Saw IV. Saw IV made no sense to me at all, Saw I think is pretty good to begin with but goes shit later on. I've got Saw III, and I will watch it soon. Not interested in Saw V. Saw VI - probably won't watch it at the cinema.
[ 26.10.2009, 11:24: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Bought the god delusion yesterday. seems ok.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
it's alright. I listened to that in the car when we drove cross-desert from vegas to la. seemed appropriate somehow.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
if you're interested ringers, it was a soft-top PT Cruiser with stock engine, transmission, brakes, suspension, and tyres. That was traded down from an 05 Mustang, again with stock components. The trade down was because the mustang was too much for louise, and to be honest, as we picked our way round the cliffside sections of Pacific Coast Highway, I was kind of glad that we weren't in a muscle car. I say 'we' but of course I can't drive, so it wasn't 'we' at all.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Anyway, she recently sold her car because she switched jobs and now works in the the very middle of town. She did have a ford KA. Again, stock components, although it did have a leather interior.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't know what the output is like on the KA, but I doubt that it's very high.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
anyway, yes, I thought it was alright, but it's not like I was a believer or agnostic going into it.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
No, well he's sort of preaching to the choir with me as well to be honest. And I'm not sure I totally like the way he presents his arguments. Dawkins isn't just sure there's no God, he actually seems really happy about it.
I get the point that there's no real reason why you should give someone's opinion on religion any more respect or reverence than their opinion on, for instance, political parties, film preferences, favourite pizza toppings, etc, but after 27 years of having it drilled into me that religion is something which should be beyond criticism, it makes for some slightly uncomfortable reading at times. But that's probably as much to do with my own preconceptions as it is to do with Dawkins' style of argument.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I think it's fair that religion and religious beliefs shouldn't be beyond criticism. The way that society develops is informed by people's beliefs, so I don't think that people can claim that it's an entirely personal thing unless they never raise children, have opinions, a job, make any decisions etc. It's important for people whose core understanding of life isn't clouded by mysticism and superstition to find some way of dealing with the frustation of living in a society that still identifies with this stuff. The problem with religion is that it's all self-referential so it's hard to place non-religious arguments inside the sphere it builds. And even if you can do this and create practical change, you've still cheapened or even lost the value of an idea once you've had to let a little of mysticism in to stop people from having to look beyond blind faith.
I find it sort of depressing to think about humans in the context of organized religion, magical spirit men giving conservative orders from beyond the grave. But it's up to people without this kind of religion to try and erode it. We have to break this perceived ongoing connection between morality and religion, and I recall that this was a large-ish part of the book.
I understand that culture, society, politics, and religion are very connected, and that it's an uphill struggle, but it seems a bit lame to just accept these delusions without saying anything, even if it's just "you know, it's all in your head m9".
What annoys me the most about it all is when people who are religious suggest that people who are atheist have a 'faith in science'. Science does not invent mysticism to fill in the gaps - you just have to accept that there are limits to our current knowledge. Religion instantly tries to fill all of these ares with god. I suppose that science is based around the idea that scientific laws govern everything regardless of if we actually know about them, but - actually, I'm just rambling now. Sorry.
[ 26.10.2009, 13:13: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I've been doing my bit by relating my disgusting Jesus-Sex-Dreams to the zealots on the Amazon Religion forum.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I wonder if there's a best way to go about rubbishing the mythology of god.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I suppose that science is based around the idea that scientific laws govern everything regardless of if we actually know about them, but - actually, I'm just rambling now. Sorry.
Crucially, science revises and updates itself when new evidence is discovered. If Tilde and Black Mask were to present compelling evidence to say "Actually, gravity is controlled the moon, and here's why..." then science would take this on board and a there would be huge and far reaching research undertaken that revised all scientific principles in the light of this new knowledge. That's the opposite of how religious faith works, and that's why the "well you have faith in science" is an spurious argument.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Man I would love to convince somebody to give up god. To totally destroy the foundation of somebody's belief system. Just over a pint maybe. In like twenty minutes. A few good examples, a couple of of logic games. Watch the realisation creep over their face that we are all completely alone in our skulls, nobody can hear our prayers, nobody cares about you more than you do, and that when you die, you cease to exist. Watch those things dawn on somebody. The hope and belief fade away.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
That would make a great short film.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you should make it.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Unfortunately I don't have the wherewithal, or the inclination.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
actually you could just watch x factor. That's about the same isn't it. Self belief and personal foundations being obliterated, human beings plunged into spirals of doubt and depression, nothing to cling on to, nothing left to live for.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
[insert banal TV show name here] is all about that kind of thing as well, lol.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
also the adverts for [insert innocuous everyday product here], lol.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Life in general, really.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Man I would love to convince somebody to give up god. To totally destroy the foundation of somebody's belief system.
You do, routinely.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: To totally destroy the foundation of somebody's belief system. Just over a pint maybe. In like twenty minutes.
Hmmm... nice ambition. But, I think you'd probably do better over a couple of days, in an isolated caravan with a blowtorch and a brick-hammer.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
watched saw III. Alright. It did manage to make me wince a little, and because I'm a bovine dipshit, I didn't try and anticipate the twist. Both films had a moment near the end where I kind of went "ahhhh... clever" even though it wasn't clever, but did some sleight of hand stuff to distract and dazzle you with funny violence (a man drowning in liquidised rancid pig carcasses, anyone?) to the point where obvious things are 'hidden' until a big reveal.
Overall it felt like an episode of CSI. Flashbacks, crazy cutting, everything lit as if it was the corridor to the toilets in a goth metal club. People talking in empty riddles, mysterious chatter that tries to create weight even though it's all completely empty.
It also struck me how Christian it all is, this suffering for redemption in the eyes of God, but then, it's basically Se7en: The Series, so whatevs.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I'll probably go back over Saw IV now I semi-know who everybody is, but when you've got characters having flashbacks that include dream sequences, it's hard to keep a track of the timeline and the point.
I don't really know why I'm putting myself through this. Same reason I end up watching CSI I suppose. Laziness.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I watched Synecdoche, New York last week and thought it was a fantastic, marvellous film. It's fairly demanding in the first twenty minutes or so, but the pay offs are so glorious that it's worth giving yourself over to it. Like Gravity's Rainbow it kind of attempts a lot of crazy, metaphysical stuff, but it does give you a helping hand. Early references to The Trial, and Death of a Salesman set out the stall quite nicely and give you an idea of what you might be in for, but what spools out from thereon is an extraordinary and unique film. I think Benway would quite like it - there's elements of Paul Auster and Samuel Beckett in the study of total loneliness and alienation and evaporating sense of self. There's also flashes of David Lynch in the flourishes of dreamlike logic, and the disorienting passages of time (it takes a few moments to notice it, but the opening covers about three months in the character's life, despite appearing to be one continuous scene). These influences aside, though, the film is incredibly original, impossible to categorise and utterly moving and wonderful.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I also watched Crank, and more or less the same comments apply.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I have seen crank, i liked it when he boned her at the market, lol.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i don't really like moving films. They shine a light into the black night of my core, revealing the emptiness therein.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
etc
[ 27.10.2009, 06:49: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: i don't really like moving films. They shine a light into the black night of my core, revealing the emptiness therein.
You'd like this one. It's all about the emptiness within etc.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Anne-Marie, who used to post on tmo, also recommended it. Maybe I should fucking watch it.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
[ 27.10.2009, 07:24: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Wow. Child abuse, eh? Looks edgy!
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
lol, you've put me in my place!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
No - it looks good. Eastern, too, so it probably cuts through all the bullshit spoonfed to you by Hollywood.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I'm looking forward to hearing about it - if it features an unsettlingly still shot of a man in a bleak room staring at something off camera for an unsettling amount of time, while an unsettling noise creaks along on the soundtrack, I'm definitely in.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't know any more if you're mocking me or not. I'm vulnerable. You should try and sell me something, or send me an email proposing we meet up for a drink and some sex.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Nothing says 'art, yeah?' more than a jarringly composed still shot held for longer than you would normally expect.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I don't know any more if you're mocking me or not. I'm vulnerable. You should try and sell me something, or send me an email proposing we meet up for a drink and some sex.
I wasn't really mocking you, just having a knee jerk reaction to the crappy description on The Times website. The film itself might be well great.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
While you are making a clever joke that also luckily exposes your own highly developed skills of objective artistic appraisal, there are some times when extended shots can be incredibly powerful. Takeshi Kitano is very good at using them to excellent dramatic effect, highlighting the peace that surrounds his signature explosions of cinematic violence, both drawing events into focus, and placing them in a timeless natural order.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
what a load of wank. What's the point in wanking on about films? I hate filmwank. It's parasitic and useless.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I suppose that makes it better than the american horror equivalent, where the film suddenly speeds up for a second or so, which has never been used effectively, anywhere, ever.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I wonder, sometimes, what goes through a film-maker's mind when he's suffocating his wide-eyed opus under a big pillow of cliche. Whether he's still excited abotu making a film and doesn't really understand why what he's doing is terrible, or whether he's sort of bored doing certain bits, but doesn't know why, or whetehr he just doesn't care.
I was thinking about it while watching Let the Right One In and being grateful for the fact that they left out all the "What am I? A vampire? But vampire's don't exist!" and just did without those scenes. Much less tedious. So when someone's writing a scene about a kid trying to explain something to the local sheriff, is he nstill thinking 'My Movie Is Going to Be Awesome' or is he thinking "Man this is boring to write. I'm sure it'll come alive on screen, though."
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
that happens in SAW all the time. and on CSI. Very fast followed by a bit slow motion. Don't they do that quite a lot in Crank? In my mind the whole film is in fast forward.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Saw is one of the worst films I've ever seen. Why does anyone watch something whcih they aready know is going to be irredeemably garbage? It just doesn't work for me.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I don't think that most people are bothered too much about cliches, and when working in a genre, they become conventions that many fans expect, in order to maintain a familiar rhythmn.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I didn't think that Saw was irredeemable garbage, but I'm not as savvy as you ringers. I thought that while it certainly collapsed under its own weight, it is almost the definition of something that did manage to find redepemtion, in the premise, twist, and the unusually cruel central question - would you saw through your own leg to achieve freedom. Sure, it was done in Mad Max, but I don't think that meant that it didn't feel a bit fresh when the film came out... Plus, it played to a different audience. An example of a high concept film that was saved from writing and plotting flaws by the concept. But then, I'm a dunderheaded dope who'll gratefully wash his mind in any old cinematic effluent.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I don't know really. Is a hypothetical question about whether you'd cut off a limb to save your life really a good basis for an entire film? Maybe we watched different cuts or something but I felt it was an hour and a half of clicheed, artless, pornographic bilge with a painfully obvious 'plot twist' which only someone with brain damage wouldn't have seen coming.
The SAW series doesn't exist on the merits of its storytelling, its visual style or its clever writing. The films exist simply because there are extremely graphic depictions of torture and violence. Fair fucks if that's what you're into but let's not try and dress it up as anything more cerebral than that.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
There was no pornography in the one I saw so we must have seen different cuts. Sounds like your one was better though.
While violence is an important part of the films, and a huge part of the marketing campaign, I think that they rest much more on the 'moral choices' element. I reckon that this is something that appeals to teens - would you rather do A or B - because they're at a time when they are discovering their own moral compass, realising that there are multiple opinions, and finding out the differences between themselves and their peers. The Saw films seem to be aimed squarely at teenagers, and if you look around the imdb messageboards you get this. What you also get though is a lot of kids getting well into the meta-plot, ranking them in order, etc, and it kind of reminds me of the slasher films of the eighties, only with a less casual / comic book attitude towards violence. There's an emphasis on suffering in these films - physically and morally - and it's no suprise that as a society we are examining torture in a number of different ways. Portraying violence as something that causes suffering is correct, right? Also connecting it metaphorically with your decisions - ie that everything you do can hurt people or help people and it's up to you - seems responsible. In a more godless and cynical age, one where teens have access to the most violent imagery imaginable on their cellphones, how do we move forward with the folk devils we need for horror stories?
Obviously the reliance on all the machinery and the stylisation makes it clear that it's fetishised and it's all entertainment, but the violence always seems to be intent on making you go 'ew', much like something you'd get in Casuality. I'm not saying that the films are anything other than the lowest of lowest-common-denominator stuff - they aren't trying to 'move' you, and there are no pretensions to being 'high art' but I don't think they have a rotten moral centre. No more so than silence of the fucking lambs or something. The violence is exploited for visceral thrills, but that's a convention of almost all of cinema, isn't it?
While in Saw 3 there is like one death I can think of that probably stands out in the series as being particularly nasty, for the most part they aren't as violent as they're perceived, and I don't remember the first one being that violent so much as uncomfortable viewing at times, with the old leg-and-saw action.
[ 27.10.2009, 09:14: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I should point out that I don't think they are 'good' films, and certainly they've run out of steam, but I can see why they are beloved and enjoyed by the target audience, and I don't think they are irresponsible. Of course I would rather than the money was spent on promoting and distributing new, more interesting, and better films, but this idea of a pornography of violence, torture porn etc is fucking ridiculous, and actually it's that kind of reaction that keeps things like Saw in the cinemas.
[ 27.10.2009, 09:22: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm not saying they're socially irresponsible, I'm just saying they're rubbish. I'm not sure what you would get out of seeing, say, SAW IV, that you didn't get out of seeing the first one. Other than a new convoluted situation in which someone is made to suffer. And as I saw it, this is literally all these films have. The whole point of them seems to be "look at these people suffering, isn't it awful. Doesn't it make you feel sick?". I suppose there's this subtext of making moral choices. The sort of 'would you kill someone else to save your own life?' conundrums. But it never seems to investigate these questions in any great depth, and it never seems to elevate itself above the sort of basic moral conundrums you might talk about in the pub. It's nothing more than repeating the question - would you do something morally or physically arduous in order to save your life. And I'm fairly sure I got the point in the first place, and don't need a further three sequels to drive the point home.
And the emphasis really does seem more placed on making the viewer gawp at graphic torture and violence.
I suppose I couldn't care less about the meta-plot and this may well be because I'm not a teenager.
But I stand by my point - SAW was garbage, and every sequel has simply been more garbage.
[ 27.10.2009, 09:22: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
While you can dismiss 'would you kill somebody to save your life' as a pub conversation, it's actually an academic pursuit. It may well be uninteresting to you because you've already spent a long time considering your moral position and have decided on your outlook, but that's probably not the case with the target audience, and personally I haven't come up with much that I could say is true for sure, and even as I watched the films, the audience-challenging themes of forgiveness and sacrifice, while stated more explicitly than in most films, didn't seem unconventional or unusual. Yep, the same thing over and over again isn't that interesting, but that's the nature of sequels I suppose. Unlike you I haven't seen all the films, so I can't really comment on the merits of the fifth and sixth films, and I can't really remember the fourth, but I think you're right - having watching the first three recently - that the concept gets dragged out too far, and I think that the film makers have recogised this, hence the ever growing meta-plot. But I wouldn't say that Saw one deserves to be attacked for asking the same question over and over again. Finally, unlike you again, I agree with Havard University on this one - "Nothing captures human attention more than a moral dilemma." - and I think that it was presented well in the first Saw.
There is a long, winding meta plot that keeps fans coming back. What they do is keep rewriting the history, which is why it's so flashback heavy. As I said, it's a cheap trick, but people seem to like it, and I've never 'got' the twist before the film makers have pointed me in the right direction. You are demonstrably more intelligent than me, ringers, so it's not the fault of the film if you worked it out before me.
I think I would say that the films are trashy and exploitative rather than garbage, at least in terms of the ones I've seen recently, although I did get a bit tired of the constant reveals towards the end of Saw 3, beyond the point that I felt like I was giving it the benefit of the doubt.
I'd like to hear more about the pornography in the one you saw though.
[ 27.10.2009, 09:51: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Well, like I say, maybe you took a different reading of it from me. Maybe you disagree that torture porn really exists as a genre of film. But I'd say that the kind of violence and torture shown in films like SAW and Hostel is depicted in a way which felt to me like I was being encouraged to enjoy the spectacle of it, on a certain level. If you don't see it that way then maybe we'll just have to disagree on that point.
Regardless, in my opinion it's the graphic violence and gore which is the main draw of these films, and without it they'd have been dismissed by movie goers as well as critics. Because without the gore there's virtually nothing of substance in any of the films that I've seen from the series, and I've got no reason to think the other sequels would be the same.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I'd like to hear more about the pornography in the one you saw though.
Why are you pretending you don't know what Ringo meant by this?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I hear that the film 'Captivity' steers a bit close to inviting viewers to revel in the prolonged suffering of an individual, but I've not seen it. I honestly think that we've seen different cuts of Saw, because I don't remember at any point being invited to revel in the suffering of the characters. If that was the case with the one you 'saw', then that might explain why you found it uninteresting, because if you found yourself unable to empathise with the suffering at all - ie you were revelling in it or getting turned on by it - how can you care about the moral dilemma?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah that's true that. That's why I didn't get it like you did. Like when I was watching Hostel and spent most of my time wanking over the 2 hour sequence of a japanese girl having her eye burnt and then cut out.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
in the version I saw that scene with the eye only lasted about ten seconds Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Maybe it just felt that long then
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: I honestly think that we've seen different cuts of Saw
This is a lie isn't it? You don't 'honestly think' this at all. While we're being pointlessly literal.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: But I'd say that the kind of violence and torture shown in films like SAW and Hostel is depicted in a way which felt to me like I was being encouraged to enjoy the spectacle of it, on a certain level.
You're probably right. I don't really mind films that encourage me to enjoy the spectacle of violence. I'm a fan of them, in fact.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Was Saw primarily about moral dilemmas? It's years ago I watched it, but I remember that among the set-piece killing there was a guy who had to crawl through razor wire, or he would die, someone who had to walk over broken glass, or they would die, and someone who had to saw through their leg or they would die. I also remember about someone having to dig out their eye or they would die, although that may have been a clip for one of the sequels. Is deciding how much pain you would inflict on yourself before you'd rather die really a 'moral' issue?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah, those 'suffer pain to spare your life' things aren't immediately moral points, although the films try to tie them in metaphorically as such, asking the victims to judge the relative merits of concepts, much in the same way as Se7en - ie - on what basis do you judge the value of life, what elements are important to you - which seems to have moral context. The central premises of the movies are around how much do you value your life compared to that of somebody else, and how does this perspective change depending on your relation to them, and the consequences of their death. so in the first one it's the two dudes and the woman who's been kidnapped, in the second one it's the situation that the detective is placed in, and also the situation to do with the people in the house having the evaluate the pros and cons of collaboration, and the third one shared some stuff with the first one about revenge, the value of life etc.
[ 27.10.2009, 10:58: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: yeah, those 'suffer pain to spare your life' things aren't immediately moral points, although the films try to tie them in metaphorically as such, asking the victims to judge the relative merits of concepts, much in the same way as Se7en
I'm not sure I agree with these comparisons to Se7en - it seems to require ignoring an awful lot of what the earlier film has to offer. Also the 'judge the relative merits of concepts' thing is just seasoning on a watertight police procedural whereas Saw tries to make it the main element of the film, but can only really think of one question to ask. And then presents it in a very confused way. I don't deny that's it's there, but I disagree that it's done well. It's done very badly.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I like this discussion. It's made me think a lot about Se7en and remember all the good things about it.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
The problem is that as much as you can say that the SAW series is morally challenging on certain levels, this really is a very small subtext of a film series whose main selling point is that each new film contains a number of original, elaborately contrived death sequences. Every single image that sticks in my mind from the SAW films I've seen is one of graphic violence and how i found it quite shocking in that slightly numbing way. And I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I'm a fairly average person with no serious psychological defects, so the tendency to pick out and focus the more graphic scenes comes more from the way in which the films themselves present that content than from my own psychological predisposition to do so.
And I'm sure if you took a straw poll of people coming out of the cinema having just seen a SAW film and asked what they enjoyed about it, the answer wouldn't be that it challenged the viewer's assumptions about how they valued human life and rated their own moral integrity. I think they'd be more likely to tell you that they thought the bit where that guy's head got crushed was totally awesome.
You'd have to say as well, that after five sequels they must have started to at least slightly pander towards this if it's what has kept people coming back to the series even in the face of such strong universal criticism from the press.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Yes, Saw was not a police procedural film. The thrills in Saw came from the fact that the story started in that room and examined all the different ways the scenario could play out depending on the history and relationships of the characters, which kept being altered. There were some fucking clunky bits in Saw, as there are in all of the ones I've seen. People literally 'remembering' things half way through the film. But it was original, and I think that it got away with it because it was presented within this context of traps and puzzles - it was engaging with the viewer, always asking them what they would do and think, could you do this? What about this?
It's not unusual for low budgets genre flicks to have to rely on gimmicks to hook audiences. And as I said, I think that they managed to pull just enough stuff together to rescue it from its other flaws, even if that condemned the series to a lifetime of repeating the same mistakes that the first film made. It's mad gimmicky, and stylised violence is part of the gimmick, but I totally reject any notion of 'torture porn', and I don't think that it's garbage. But as I said, I am fairly easily pleased because I'm a horror fan, and an idiot.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: Yes, Saw was not a police procedural film.
Mmm. It did try to be, in places. There was that whole thread with Danny Glover trying to catch Jigsaw. Just chucked in there for no reason, other than to try an imitate an earlier, better film. That's the worst thing about Saw for me - it's a total fucking mess from start to finish. That's the main reason it's garbage. It's like a film written by a 12 year old over the course of several months, where he kept adding in new ideas and characters based on whatever the last thing he saw at the cinema was.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: at least slightly pander towards this if it's what has kept people coming back to the series even in the face of such strong universal criticism from the press.
Yes, the violence is a hook because it's done very well, but I reckon that just a meaningless string of violent images isn't quite enough to get the kind of mainstream success that Saw has seen. The moralising legitimises the violence in the eyes of the viewer, makes it palatable, same as any other successful horror franchise, people are getting punished for trangressing rules. People generally don't want to watch films that make them feel bad. To call Saw 'torture porn' seems to be suggesting that anybody who enjoys it is almost subhuman, if you take that phrase literally, people just going to the cinema to watch people suffer. No - these are characters in a story that has a begining, middle and end, it has jokes, tension, plot, actors, a script, whatever, all the things that every other normal film has. Presumably then 'torture porn' is not supposed to be taken literally, but at that point, I don't know what it means, because surely horror films are supposed to horrify? Or not? Not horrify too much? I don't understand. As I said - the spectacle of stylishly shot violence is not a new or uncommon thing in terms of thrillers or horror films.
I think that Hostel is totally different, and has gone out of its way to market towards the hardcore fan who has probably seen a few of the films that it references. It's no thriller. It's all references to other films, very knowing, winking at the audience the whole time. I've only seen the first one, but it was all so ridiculous and bone-headed that I couldn't take it any more seriously than a troma film. Not that I take the Saw films seriously, you understand. Apart from the first one, they literally hold my attention as much as CSI does - it's on, I'm watching it, I'll probably follow the story, have some minor interest in seeing how the story is going to pan out, but really it means nothing.
[ 27.10.2009, 12:01: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Thinking about it, if there was just one SAW film, I don't think I'd really give it a lot of thought. The first film is not a particularly good film. Fairly unremarkable save for the leg sawing, etc. If I'm feeling charitable I'd say it's probably a cut above Hostel. But this film has generated enough of an enthusiastic fanbase to have spawned five sequels. Five! And they've actually enjoyed fairly consistent box office success. That's what makes me question what it is that keeps people coming back to them, and in my opinion it's not because the films are genuinely good; it's because the films push certain buttons for the viewers. And not intellectual ones.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
yeah, it's jigsaw, it's the production design, it's the traps and the violence. Moral dilemmas aren't neccesarily intellectual things. They are questions that you can't easily answer, and provide you with a situation that forces you to consider the best of some bad options, and I think that makes people place themselves in the traps. It's no surprise that there's fucking Saw rollercoaster at a family theme park in the UK. The periphary characters are thin so that they don't get in the way of your own projection.
[ 27.10.2009, 12:10: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I still tend to agree with the Sopranos commentary on Saw, which is very unkind.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Well I'd have to say that you and I clearly took different things away from the SAW films. For me it felt like I was literally watching a serious of tenuously linked horrific setpieces held together by some really sketchy plot devices. It seemed to me that the writer/s just sat down and thought up a bunch of inventively grotesque scenarios - Hey you know what would be cool? Imagine like a beartrap, but like, in reverse. And it's in someone's mouth. So when it goes off it totally pops your head in half! - and then worked out how they could best put them all together into one narrative. I'm not saying that people who watch these films are sick, or anything like that. I'm just saying that they're rubbish films and I can't understand why there's a need for six on them.
Your point about the SAW rollercoaster is an interesting one, though I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say. Because I doubt a rollercoaster based on the SAW films is really going to be anything more than a glorified ghost train ride - throwing you around while flashing gory images in front of you - and probably nothing at all to do with the kind of realignment of your moral compass which you seem to be suggesting is at the heart of what makes the films so popular.
[ 27.10.2009, 12:25: Message edited by: Ringo ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
the point about the saw rollercoaster is that people obviously associate(d) the brand of Saw with a 'terrifying yet thrilling experience' or something. I think that there are probably plenty of people who are seduced into this mindset by encountering the marketing of the Saw films without actually seeing the films. The Saw films are able to give people this sensation of being on a thrill ride not by simply showing them a series of tenuously linked violent setpieces - after all, that's not very thrilling, but by bringing them into the film, and this is the power of the moral dilemma thing that sits in the middle of every film. The upsidedown beartrap works because I think the woman has to kill a man to get the key to take it off, because the key is in his stomach. The audience is sitting there thinking 'would I be able to do that? I am not a murderer, but could I murder to save my own life?' and there you go, you're experiencing the film from inside it. I mean, not consciously, of course, but subconsciously, that's what you're doing. The moral dilemma draws you in.
Plus maybe there's some literal sense of a rollercoaster having 'twists and turns', similar to the plots of the Saw films. Maybe that's all it is. Seems unlikely though - a bit of a gamble.
I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over here. I'm not trying to suggest that there isn't pleasure being taken in the urgent peril that Saw presents. But it's more like a grungy Crystal Maze than anything 'pornographic'.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
can't you cock-poseys just admit crushing defeat on this one, and all future ones.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yes, I get it that every film has, at one point or another, a person put into a situation where they have to make a choice between doing something morally/physically awful or being killed. I get that but what I am saying is that this fairly flimsy conceptual moral thought exercise really takes a back seat to the violence and gore. And that it's the violence and gore which appeals to people and keeps them coming back.
Even if you don't agree, even if you think that this is a grand philosophical concept which deserves a huge amount of attention, I still challenge you to explain how this concept is explored any more fully, or in any new way in say, SAW 6, that wasn't already comprehensively covered in SAW 5. Or, indeed, SAW.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I haven't seen any Saw film. Which is best, please?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I can't do this any more. I don't really care if you think they're all garbage.
[ 27.10.2009, 12:55: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I don't disagree that Saw attempts to do what you describe, I just don't think it does it well - the bungled policeman subplot, the fact that most of the moral dilemmas aren't moral dilemmas at all, and the ones that are are both the same. The derivative visual style, the desire to cram in as many different elements as possible. I don't think it's a danger to society, or anything like that: it's just a poorly made film, the main selling point of which is that a load of people get killed in a bunch of cool ways. I agree that there's nothing new about that but the fact that it has nothing new to offer is a bad thing in my opinion.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
seriously, I can't do this any more. I've thought and wrote more about Saw than I ever wanted to in my life. I agree, it's a stupid throwaway film, and of course if you stand it next to se7en, it pales in comparison, but there are plenty of films that come out every year with a similar budget and way more violence than Saw that don't have the thing that Saw had to propel it into massive mainstream success. I find it interesting to look at what it is about this film and its sequels that have kept them going considering the flaws they have. In order to find out more about this, I've been watching them. I get it that everybody thinks that it is purely the violence that makes them compelling for people. Having watched a few of them recently, I believe it's something else, based on my own experience. You don't think this. I think it's going to have to end there. I suppose the one thing we can take from this is that for Saw to be one of the worst films that Ringo's seen in his life, he's had a very fortunate movie going career.
[ 27.10.2009, 13:20: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: ...it's just a poorly made film, the main selling point of which is that a load of people get killed in a bunch of cool ways.
Sounds like it would make a 'good' video game. - putting you in control of the moral decision (and killing).
Oh, Metacritic tells me that a Saw game has just been released to mixed reviews.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
hello film fans! As you know, I went to a screening of Joko Anwar's Pintu Terlarang last night. As a bonus, I think I saw the Coen bros doing some red carpet shizz, who were showing off their new one in the same cinema at the time. Not 100% on that. Anyway, I've seen all the buzz surrounding the 'Indonesian Tarantino' (lol) here on TMO, so I'm sure that you're all dying to know if his new one can follow up on the faux-noir modern classic Kala. I suppose that the answer is like yes and no. I can see why Hades was talking about him being like Tarantino, because Anwar is super upfront about his influences - in this case a combination of Hitchcock, Lynch and maybe Cronenburg, and goes to lengths to make sure his movies are set more in the world of movies than in reality.
The film is incredibly stylish and measured, every scene is composed like a catalogue photoshoot. Sparse, exacting, highlighting textures and lines, it's this weird claustrophobic perfection that gives it an instant Lynch feel. Think of the apartment in Lost Highway or the brothel in Blue Velvet. The film is composed of rich browns and compliementary greys and terracotta shades. I wouldn't normally notice or care about that kind of thing, but the style is right up your grill the whole time. Even though the film is set in Jakarta, it's more like a modern-retro Habitat take on American noir. Everybody looks great, has multiple mysteries. The story is about a dude who is a fashionable and succesful young artist, and he inserts aborted foetuses into his immensely popular sculptures of pregnant chicks. Then he gets messages asking for help, discovers a bizarre members only club where people watch a violent reality show, and his hot wife has got a door in their flat that he's not allowed to open. Later on some dudes get cut up.
Overall I enjoyed the experience, but was unfulfilled by the story. While Lynch can get away with films dissolving into fractured dream logic, I don't think that Anwar had a unique enough atmosphere in his film to get away with it. It felt like the whole film was just a fun exercise in homage, which doesn't always make for a compelling experience. It's definitely a film that makes more sense once you've had time to think about it, and I think I'm feeling warmer towards it now than I was last night.
Joko has stated that he's going out of his way to make films that aren't crazy Indonesian, as a response to the government insisting that all indonesian films must represent certain cultural traditions. This response though makes the film feel like it's designed to appeal to international audiences and film festivals.. but people like Lynch and Hitchcock have almost always managed to mix their styles with a more general accesibility. Tarantino makes films about films, but non obsessives can still get into his stuff. Don't know. Felt a bit 'style over substance' as a result of the strange Westernised approach taken by Anwar.
Anyway, tonight I'm watching 'Bare Essence of Life' by the female Japanese director who made 'German+Rain'. You probably remember me talking about that previous film around this time last year when I caught it at the LFF. Anyway - exciting to see what's she's come up with next! More avant garde weirdness I expect, lol.
[ 28.10.2009, 07:01: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I like the look of that Bare Essence of Life one.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
me too.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I look forward to reading all the halloween horror film reports! I watched the Bill Lustig / Larry Cohen classic 'Maniac Cop 2'. A good film. Great cast, some kick-ass stunts (a woman driving a car while hanging off the driver door, a fist fight between two people who are on fire) and some wicked gritty New York action, similar to the kind of sleaze that Henenlotter produced for the ultimate NY grime movie, Basket Case.
Also, it stars Bruce Campbell for the first twenty minutes. While Bruce can always bring it when a chin is required, he's relegated to the minor leagues by the actor playing the titular police officer:
that's his real chin!
I also watched ' From Beyond', which is a Lovecraft film from the team that created the 're-animator' series of films. A small film that plays out like an extended twilight zone, it features everything you'd hope for from the people involved. Incredible latex effects, great lighting, S&M, and a cautionary tale about the dangers of going too far in the quest for knowledge. Also some brain eating and insanity. And the dude from Dawn of the Dead is in it. I enjoyed it.
So, how did everybody else spook themselves? Anybody catch 'paranormal activity'?
[ 02.11.2009, 06:28: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
lol, some good films there, guys. Glad that there's still love for teh horror out there. On a horror related note, we've got a real life horror unfolding at home. As you know I live in a council block. It turns out that a few of the people I live alongside are a bit 'care in the community'. The dude who lives below us has recently 'flipped out' in a 'major way'. He's started leaving presents outside everybody's flats, things like moldy grapes, apples, bottles of water etc. That weirded us out until we found out what was going on, but hilariously, he's written a card to our neighbours saying that he loves them all (it's a mum, her daughter, and her daughter) and that he 'has a present' for them. Louise noted that he has also recently started parking his car in a different way to how he normally parks it. So if I die, dear readers, at the hands of a crazed madman, at least it was not without prior warning.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
On Thursday night I'm going round a friend's house to watch a horror film. I can't remember what it's called but it's definitely a 2 word title and it's quite recent and I believe it is quite low budget.
I think the person who was telling me about it said that it is meant to be like the next Blair Witch or something.
I hope your neighbour doesn't butcher you.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
I'm not literally going "round" their house. They live in the middle of a terraced block so it would be impossible to go "round" it. LOL.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
jesus.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
dp
[ 02.11.2009, 08:16: Message edited by: Kanye West ]
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
It was worth posting twice.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Nah, I'm just messing with you. It was pretty rubbish really.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cherry In Hove: On Thursday night I'm going round a friend's house to watch a horror film. I can't remember what it's called but it's definitely a 2 word title and it's quite recent and I believe it is quite low budget.
Eden Lake.
I watched Crank 2 on Sunday. The first one is pretty daft, but this one is completely deranged. It starts off ridiculous, with Statham getting snow-shovelled off the pavement and into a van, and then goes utterly over the top, with the filmakers losing control completely at about the half way mark.
The computer-games influence is even more overt this time around, with Statham gunning down bad guys in exhange for ever bigger guns, getting power ups, and so on. Then, he anally rapes a man with a shotgun and the film goes, basically, mad. Depending on your mood, the high/ low point comes about 40 minutes in when Statham charges himself up on an electricity pylon, and turns into a Godzilla size Statham with a papier mache head.
The misogyny is off the chart and the whole thing is pointlessly, deliberately racist. I'm not even sure whether there's actually imagination and creativity at work here, or whether the whole thing is born out of a complete lack of restraint. Even so, I did laugh a lot. And I think there's something to admire in the way the film tries to alienate everyone including it's own audience. At first it seems like it's pandering to a kind of Borat/ Jackass loving American teenage demographic, but by the end things have become so completely unstuck that the only explanation is that they were trying to create something that would appeal to literally no-one. It ended with Statham, on fire, drop kicking a re-animated severed head into a swimming pool. I liked it immensely.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
I like Eden Lake.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you really end up rooting for the bad guys in that.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Moon is a great film.
Loved it, loved the soundtrack, loved the acting. 9/10
Only thing I don't like is the what they've done to the poster in order to make it fit the blueray/DVD case.
Awesome.
Shit.
[ 28.11.2009, 07:30: Message edited by: Tilde ]
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
oh yeah Moon is pretty good. I work with the mother of the dude who did the fx. Started off as a designer / illustrator, you know.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
me and the benway went to watch Clint Mansell live. he played some Moon. At the end of the concert my phone went off and resonated throughout the whole chapel.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I really wanted to see Moon. When I was i the Lake District with some friends last month, a bunch of them went to see Moon at the local cinema, but I wasn't invited because I "would have ruined it".
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
can you resend your email thorn, i think that there was a glitch in the internet.
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: I saw Inglorius Basterds on Saturday. I kinda liked it, but it's very uneven, if the whole film was on a par with the opening chapter it would be glorious. Cristoph Waltz' performance as Hans Landa is worth the price of admission through.
I can't believe a search of all of TMO and all we get for this film is one entry from BR, and that (with no disrespect) not exactly very enthusiastic about this film. Maybe because it's by Tarantino and perhaps it's a little passe to praise anything this guy does. I'm fairly certain that anyone with a modicum of taste on these forums, and knowing a lot of you personally as I do, he's is respected as one of the Daddies of the film industry - perhaps it is seen as almost unfashionable to praise anything he does, or maybe it's like going on university challenge and electing for the specialized subject of the bleeding obvious. But having watched this now 3 times within 7 days I think it deserves some reflection.
Ok so lets get through the obligatory - I love Tarantino's films - Particularly True Romance, Dusk 'til Dawn and the obvious Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs, but when Kill Bill 1 & 2 came out and the world did fall at his feet to worship him once more, well dare I say it, but I wasn't that overawed - don't get me wrong, I like them and a lot, but didn't follow the bandwagon like everyone else did. He then goes off, does his CSI episodes, made a couple of decent other films (Grindhouse project was great, nothing more) and I expected him to just turf out the odd movie to appease his heroes. When Inglourious Basterds came out, I put a pin in it to catch it one day, but not with haste, and with not many people discussing it on trusted resources like here, I kinda forgot about it.
However I am just all hoping you have seen this and just kept it to yourselves, because I honestly am starting to feel that he really has gone above and beyond to make an absolute classic. Now yeah I have a bit of a thing for the odd war film, but all that aside, this is the best thing he has done - quite possibly ever in my eyes. It's typical Tarantino - preposterous, outrageously daft yet is so perfectly shot in so many ways. The two main things that make this are primarily the characters and the actors chosen to play them - a fair few of Germany's current movie stalwarts are there and for a time you could have thought you were watching Der Untergang, Die fette jaren sind vorbei or Goodbye Lenin (Daniel Bruhl and also Christian Berkel, albeit in a lesser role). Brad Pitt as Aldo was hammed up to the max but only to make it fit so damn well. The two that truly shine are the aforementioned Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa, a two-faced bastard SS Colonel yet someone you feel powerless to like in a twisted sort of way - you want to hate him but ultimately his charisma and almost boyish charm make him unnervingly endearing. And whilst he carries off 4 languages so well, its the little imperfections in his English, obviously well scripted that make his part so horribly wonderful.
The second character, central to the script and by no means as influential as Landa's, is that of Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna - central to the script, but there is about 4 minutes of that film with her as the prominent role which is quite probably the most beautiful piece of film I have seen in ages. I can't even say why it makes me so enthralled, except if somewhere in a vault in Hollywood there are textbooks on every aspect of fantastic movie making, QT read the lot and concentrated it all for that 4 minutes. Sublime attention to detail, a completely out of place piece of music for the film, and yet for that 4 minutes of film I can't blink - every shot is perfect, every edit, and all concentrated on this beautiful girl preparing for the epic ending.
The rest of the film - the story is brilliant yet absurd, it's historically completely wrong (although I prefer the term 'artistic license on amphetamines'), it's dotted with so many brilliant characters (Perrier,Stiglitz, and even General Fenech by Mike Myers - I couldn't have picked anyone better to send the British Officer Class up better). There are so many stupid excuses for avoiding plot holes (Perrier and Landa for example switching to English) but somehow they all just make the film work so much better, and the what some would call poor plot choices to steer the film - well it just adds the preposterousness that is the film and makes it the sublime bit of cinema genius it is. I also admire the fact he stuck true to the languages of the respective characters and chose so well not just brilliant artists, but such fantastic multilinguists to make it all work so beautiful.
IMHO, best film he has ever done, and without doubt the best film of 2009.
[ 28.11.2009, 00:36: Message edited by: Waynster ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Apologies for the usual banality of the post above. Should stop posting from the pub at 06:45.
Still, it was a damn fine movie....
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Hi Wayne, no need to apologise, I'll try and check it out.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: me and the benway went to watch Clint Mansell live. he played some Moon. At the end of the concert my phone went off and resonated throughout the whole chapel.
I downloaded the Clint Mansell Soundtrack, listened to it, then watched moon, then forgot about it, then it came on my itunes two weeks later and it was Beautiful! Totally makes the film. What's his other stuff like?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: What's his other stuff like?
Amazing. Listen to the soundtrack of Requiem For A Dream and work your way through his films in chronological order. The stuff for The Wrestler is pretty good too.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i fucking watched some films over the weekend, man! I watched Sneakers, Don't Be A Menace To The Hood While Drinking Your Juice In South Central, and Harlan County USA.
Posted by Hades (Member # 57) on :
I got subjected to Twilight: New moon the other week.
Nothing happens. at all really. If you edited together the actual bad guy plot scenes together they would come to 5 or 10 mins.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
I got Shock Value as a xmas gift. Finished reading it yesterday. John Waters is a lovely, lovely man. He should be President of the USA.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I got a lovely hardbacked copy of The Selfish Gene for Christmas which I'm very much enjoying.
Posted by Hades (Member # 57) on :
Is it a Folio edition? I picked up the folio edition of The Blind Watchmaker the other month for £10. Bargin. Love Folio books, they are always beautifully presented.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
No it was the 30th Anniversary Edition.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Just watched Mesrine...
Immensely compelling. Using comparisons with other movies as a shorthand... I suppose it’s Chopper meets Goodfellas meets Che. He’s a genuinely terrifying, self-mythologising murderer and robber, propelled into the limelight by a lurid press... he spends the latter part of the pair of movies fumbling around for some sort of political validation for his criminal activities (NOT A SPOILER: The movie starts with his ambush). Yet, when you see him dead at the end of the second movie it’s as if his actions (or the message of his actions) were bigger and more important than the man. He was a crook, not a nice human being, a shit. The implication at the start of the movie is that he was brutalised by the Algerian conflict, and again while incarcerated in Canada. But, he was charming, and warm and, the impression was, that he wanted to ‘do something with his life’. It’s an engaging, entertaining, thoughtful, intriguing and funny (sometimes bleakly funny)film. This movie has, apparently, been accused of glorifying violence... violence in Mesrine is unstintingly depicted as appalling, painful and NOT FUN. Having said that, I did laugh when Ahmed got what was coming to him. Gangsters ARE glamorous. Violence IS glamorous. This movie does everything it can to play that down, but, still, you can’t help whooping for the bad guys. Vincent Cassell’s performance is astounding. He should get an Oscar, the real one, Best Actor, not Best Foreign Film Performance or whatever it’s called. And the scope of the movie is amazing, the director (a French Guy) deserves something, too. I liked this film. Mesrine FUCKING ROCKKKKKKS!
Posted by Benny the Ball (Member # 694) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hades: I got subjected to Twilight: New moon the other week.
Nothing happens. at all really. If you edited together the actual bad guy plot scenes together they would come to 5 or 10 mins.
I was dragged along to this by the wife - I liked the moment when the ginger vampire was running and there was a shot from up high that had a bird flying. And that was it. It lasted for about 2-3 seconds - a poor return on a 90 minute film that felt like I wanted it to end almost every minute...
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Yeah Mesrine is badass. My brother interviewed Vincent Cassell and reports that he exudes cool.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
The review on LoveFilm says:
quote:Ridiculous
This film is a little bit like the A-team meets Bonny and Clyde without any of the entertainment of either. Its a poorly constructed series of proposterous events, that bored me to tears.
If you are a devout nihilist who watches Top Gear, the fact it is in French will probably satisfy a cultural desire. Beyond this don't bother.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Finally got round to watching District 9 at the weekend.
Tres bien!
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
i feel devoutly nihilistic whilst watching top gear. do you suppose that counts. its uncool to rail against top gear now, isnt it? they want people like me to be riled by their gleeful combo of gonzo and corduroy. all the stereotypical treehuggers i know have caved; theyve embraced top gear as a guilty pleasure, some of them even going so far as to proclaim that they see james may in a sexual manner. this revolts me, utterly. the whole thing revolts me. its omnipresence revolts and exhausts me, an omnipresence that is now so marked that even that lanky sub- macintyre liverpudlian 'have you ever noticed' comedian who deals exclusively in statingly the comfortably obvious mentioned it the other day. i am feeling exhausted by the circularity of this entire post- i hate top gear because they want me to hate top gear so maybe i should not hate top gear but then i will enjoy top gear and they want that and i dont want that but hating top gear is exhausting and i hate it. fucking top gear. it is a looming, pulsing tumour in our cultural veins. i need to get rid of my telly again. i have mostly been watching dvds again*. and cranking, and staring at walls. okay, not the cranking or staring at walls. but its in the post.
* three miles north of molkom, again, mostly. it is a fine, fine film, that. and tomorrow i will be watching lots of madmen and lots of being human and my sister is lending me moon and i borrowed im a cyborg from the library. there are riches on my horizon.
[ 01.02.2010, 10:33: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
i hate top gear too, so you're not alone
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
you see thats interesting because you obviously really like cars, and i really dont like cars very much (except if they are very old and i can invest them with some kind of misplaced nostalgia for a time when there were fewer cars); we are very much at polar ends of the spectrum vis a vis the motor vehicle. but i liked top gear quite a lot when it was about cars, and not about tooling around the south circular in a motorised canoe as if the mere act of doing so was a massive fuck- you to the idea of political correctness.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
There's a marvellous 20-minute segment in Stewart Lee's current act where he lays into Top Gear. Part of what makes it awesome is that it successfully negotiates that whole "haw, haw, did we wind you up treehugger?" element of Top Gear, by turning their own rhetoric back on them with an astonishing level of vitriol and spite, to the point where the Daily Mail ran an article questioning why anyone would be so mean about the Top Gear presenters.
I think he's still touring this show - it's really worth checking out.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Yeah, I used to enjoy Top Gear because its balance of humour, motoring enthusiasm, and journalistic flourish, struck a bit of a chord for me. But these days it's like watching an episode of Last of the Summer Wine, but with cars rather than bathtubs. It seems to require an increasingly large amount of suspension of disbelief, which I don't really like in what should essentially be a factual motoring programme. I don't like how they seem to want to pander towards Sunday evening light entertainment, for people who don't even have an interest in cars. I detest the fact they always make all the women stand closest behind them in the live show parts (watch an episode - whenever they move to another part of the studio you'll see the same few pretty girls standing behind them). I hate Clarkson and his depressingly out of touch rants about political correctness and environmentalism. And most of all I hate the fact they took a show I used to watch religiously and turned it into something I hate, just to get a few more viewers.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Be warned - it does contain spoilers for the show, if you're planning to see it. Obviously if you're not planning to see it, it doesn't matter.
Playing Milton Keynes on the 9th Feb. No mention of Bristol, I'm afraid.
[ 01.02.2010, 08:04: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Ooh maybe I'll check it out
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
i think hes come and been and gone over this way, which is a shame, as that certainly sounds like a comedic riff i could throw my weight behind.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
There was quite a lot of stuff in the show that you would have liked, DM. There was a splendid bit at the start squarely targetting "edgy, angry comedians" like Frankie Boyle, which would have tickled you, and some stuff about comedians who reckon they're breaking taboos. That kind of thing. I like Stewart Lee. It's like having a clever, articulate person agree with me about everything.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Sort of like the precise opposite of the service I provide to Benway.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I am going to go and see this show as a direct result of your recommendation Thorn. I will keep a record of how many LOLs I have, and if I give each LOL a monetary value of say £1, you can reimburse me any disparity between ticket price and LOL-count.
...I just had a bit of a tantrum in a meeting. Now people are being all ingratiating and trying to suck up, which just makes me EVEN MORE ANNOYED at them.
Posted by Cherry In Hove (Member # 49) on :
Why is he not playing Brighton? He's playing Redhill but not Brighton. Is Redhill better than Brighton now?
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Stewart Lee isn't really about the lols, though, is he.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: The review on LoveFilm says:
quote:Ridiculous
This film is a little bit like the A-team meets Bonny and Clyde without any of the entertainment of either. Its a poorly constructed series of proposterous events, that bored me to tears.
If you are a devout nihilist who watches Top Gear, the fact it is in French will probably satisfy a cultural desire. Beyond this don't bother.
B-but... that's almost as if... someone had a completely different opinion of the movie to me..?!
HOW CAN THAT BE POSSIBLE?! HAS THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN?! Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: District 9
Fantastic film, and bizarrely believable for a story involving 8-foot Insectoid Aliens. A great twist on apartheid and - I thought - profoundly moving.
Has anyone else found themselves using the expletive "fockin prowns!" since watching this film?
NurseWhen didn't speak to me for two days after taking her to see District 9. Mind you, she was a bit miffed about the horrors of war in Avatar as well. Maybe I should stop going to the cinema with her?
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: top gear
Top Gear is a bit of a wierd one. It's moved a considerable distance away from a program about motor-cars and motoring, and seems now to concentrate almost solely on racing rocket-powered office furniture against incredibly expensive vehicles, or destroying things.
Whilst I'm not necessarily against playing polo with double-decker buses in Latvia, or causing parking damage to MOT failures in Dorset car parks, Top Gear does seem more of a "Rich Blokes' Max Power for the telly" these days.
I don't make any great effort to watch it.
One of my dirty secrets is a love of those "Police! Camera!" type reality programmes (not the screeching US ones, the pleasant UK ones). There's nothing more amusing than a couple of coppers, straining with the effort of not giving some pikey a good kicking whilst on camera, shouting politely whilst some wonky-toothed Adidas-clad dolescum staggers from his vehicle trying to throw the drugs away.
I've also been enjoying the new series of "Being Human", have you?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm not totally sold on the new series of Being Human. It's a lot darker than the first series and seems to have lost a lot of the humour which made the first one so watchable. That said, the last episode was pretty funny, and I've certainly been enjoying it, so yeah. 7.5/10
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i only like danny dyer's toughest nuts. and star trek tng. and live roulette. and muller lite adverts. and the pictures you get when you look at XXX Red Hot Wives before the free 10 minute 'taster' comes on.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
also I enjoy watching a frozen frame from the tv show 'super nanny' while bruce dickinson's rock show plays on six music.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
I don't know whether to masturbate or go sit on the naughty step for 38 minutes.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
it's very confusing, like a fantasy sexed up version of my primary school teacher, that never existed except in my imagination.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
*computer shut down* Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
God she's filthy Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
y-yes supernanny, I will bend over whilst you put on your gloves Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
no.. not the finger... Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Supernanny...Naooooo Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
For christ's sake supernanny, don't make him smell it, he's just a child! Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
[ 08.02.2010, 18:15: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
went to see a prophet yesterday. the first half is about as good as anything youve ever seen- tough and tense and completely involving. the second half, not so much. its always problematic when the underdog works his way up through a criminal heirarchy, engaging in progressively less excusable acts of violence and manipulation and thereby draining you of your ability to engage with his journey. also, he grows a hideous moustache and his hair goes really very wrong about two years in, which seriously doesn't help. you could in fact argue that audiard is making a direct connection between the state of a man's soul and the state of his hair, in a sense, referring to the universal folk wisdom that men with moustaches are morally compromised in some essential way. still worth three poun fifty of anybody's money though. of course, if you live in london you'll be paying ninety eight quid for a seat and forty two pence per kernel for your popcorn, in which case i might wait til it comes out on dvd.
[ 08.02.2010, 18:33: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
dee-em rocks.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
awww, bless you, sugartits. i finally got round to watching moon. moon rocks! MOON ROCKS. geddit. it really does, though. and i hadnt read a review or seen a trailer or anything, and noone i know who's seen it had said anything more than 'sam rockwell in a spaceship, you should completely watch it'. loved it. there was some talk upthread about clint mansell, and im very definitely not the first person to have thought or said this but, you know, ive seen requiem for a dream, i know what clint mansell does now, im aware of his journey. but i was watching moon, and listening to the soundtrack, which is all beautiful and delicate and evocative and immaculately judged, and i suddenly thought 'fucking hell, this is by the same dude who wrote beaver patrol'. dont get me wrong, i liked the poppies and everything, fine band, and beaver patrol certainly has its share of, well, youthful exuberance. really though, its a headfuck. Soundtrack to moon... rewind, to beaver patrol. 'lux aeterna'... and rewind, to beaver patrol. its gloriously nonsensical when you really think about it.
[ 09.02.2010, 20:06: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Weird, isn't it. It's as though when he was a teenager all he thought about was girls and lager, whereas now he's in his forties he's more concerned with craft and artistry. Total headfuck, as you say. We all know that men are emotional infants who remain obsessed with beer and titties their entire lives, and anyone who deviates from that needs to be commented upon with a sense of bewildered bafflement.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I never knew Mansell wrote The One and Only. Versatile motherfucker, ain't he?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Beaver Patrol is a cover.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
thats not what i meant. i meant that its really beautiful when you can see the arc of someones creative progression illustrated that clearly, its madd inspiring. will it make your day better to believe thats what i meant, thorn? i ask because i want to make your life better in some small way if i can. you know, your life and all lives. all human lives, if thats possible. but ill start with you.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
Lol, is it? well, there you go. it makes a bit more sense now. it was markedly more gonzo than the rest of their canon. how disappointing. Who wrote beaver patrol then? id really like it if the answer to this question was PHILLIP GLASS.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It was the 60's group the Wilde Knights. I wonder if there's something to be said about how if someone is taken seriously they start to act more seriously. One of the last tracks before Requiem by Mansell was called Tits n Ass = Dollars and Aronovsky was introduced to Clint's recording studio which featured a guitar with mostly all the strings missing. After the succes of Pi, he was invited to record the RFAD soundtrack based on the strength of his ability and well, the rest as you know.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I'm sorry that I know so much bullshit about Clint Mansell, all.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
you can get the moon ost on spotify.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: thats not what i meant. i meant that its really beautiful when you can see the arc of someones creative progression illustrated that clearly, its madd inspiring. will it make your day better to believe thats what i meant, thorn? i ask because i want to make your life better in some small way if i can. you know, your life and all lives. all human lives, if thats possible. but ill start with you.
I didn't mean for that to sound as aggressive as it did. So, you know. Yeah. Also, he may still mainly love writing songs about beer and tits, but the guy's gotta pay the bills too.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: you can get the moon ost on spotify.
No I can't. I use Linux.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
yes, and i for definitely will. and actually the only reason i wont be diving into PWEI's back catalogue is that im currently very aware that ive turned into mikee's bete noir, the person who only listens to- or engages with- music with which they are already familiar. is annoying, and now spotify exists i dont even have the excuse that i cant afford to buy music. maybe i will start a thread like the one sam did, when damo tried to get her into underground resistance or whatever it was. that was good. i think she got a lot from it.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I've got the Moon OST and it's pretty good, like.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:mikee's bete noir
I wish that were true, but I picked up my CD collection only recently and Pia and I were sitting cross-legged on the floor trying to glean the better albums. Every CD was like a Craig David rewind into an 90's. I see the VileEvils are playing but I'm probably not going to watch them out of a sense of embarrassed nostalgia.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: im currently very aware that ive turned into mikee's bete noir, the person who only listens to- or engages with- music with which they are already familiar.
I do this too, although my excuse is that every time someone waxes on about some 'brilliant new band' they've heard, it turns out to be a load of old shit, and then you find out that six months later they've completely forgotten about the band themselves, or had only ever heard one song that was played on an advert.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
quote:Originally posted by Kanye West: you can get the moon ost on spotify.
No I can't. I use Linux.
you can, using the Wine software.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
(i 'get the joke' btw)
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i mostly listen to new stuff. I tend to just stick on hype machine when i want to listen to music, and I'd say things that I get really into generally fall out of rotation in about a year.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
yeah, when i worked at glastonbury i spent my entire day off dicking around watching bands who just left me feeling deflated. i was in the tailend of a period then when i didnt even know what i used to like, which was way more bewildering than this for sure, but i walked, you know, a mile and a half to see vampire weekend, and then they were... vampire weekend. only diverting from the most boring template in the world in theory, barely doing so in practise. just another fucking indie band, but worse, because everyone pretends theyre not. anyway. i will start that thread. I dont want to give up trying.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
although I'm still partial to the gta san andreas "k-dst" album, and that hangover complication that mart and i did has had quite a few plays. music tends to be either live, or a background thing for me these days. i never really just sit there and listen to music.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Yeah, I'm the same. Background background background. Actually, background music is the only kind of music I actively listen to, these days, now I think about it.
I played Threnody by Goldmund (it's on that hangover playlist) over and over all day when I first heard it. Interestingly, it just came on, just now, on shuffle from my "Translating" playlist.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: vampire weekend. only diverting from the most boring template in the world in theory, barely doing so in practise. just another fucking indie band, but worse, because everyone pretends theyre not.
That's exactly one of the bands I was thinking of. My friend was telling me that I should listen to Vampire Weekend, and I punched him right in the fucking head*. He likes the kind of thing that the Guardian describes as 'achingly beautiful'. Fleet Foxes. Things like that. Awful, awful. That seems to be quite 'in' now. That, and a single, ever so slightly distorted guitar picking away over a glam rock beat, so that music journalists can call it "sleazy and authentic! The true spirit of grimy rock n fucking roll!" or some such bullshit.
*said 'no, it's not really my kind of thing'
Anyway. New Fear Factory album came out this week. Apparently it's better than Demanufacture, although I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet as I was learning how to calculate break even point, which was a concept most of the class really struggled to get to grips with. Also! (I Hope you're still listening, DM) I read a review of the new Fear Factory album that criticised Pantera for being low-brow. I quite liked that. The idea of intellectual elitism creeping into the metal community. Pantera for the thickies; Fear Factory screaming "I am rape! I am hate!" for the clever people.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Hey I just joined twitter for no apparent reason. How do I get to see pictures of seb's dinner and stuff?
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
i don't think he's on twitter
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
flickr
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Ah right. Are they different things then? I don't really know anything about this web 2.0 stuff
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
flickr is for posting photos online. twittr is for words. they're separate things. i only use flickr.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Where does twitpic factor into this?
To be honest I only signed up so I could follow all the F1 insider stuff int he run up to the start of the season.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I don't know. Sounds like something specifically for Twitter.
Flickr is where people store or host their photos, like an online gallery, and that's it; it's not really for hosting so as to link to somewhere else, but rather just an online place where your photos go. In the old days you'd make albums, or have all your photos in a shoebox or something. These days people put them on Flickr. For example. I use it for my best photos and am on a couple of discussion forums dealing specifically with my cameras and how to use them best and so on, but mainly it's just a place I upload photos to. Rather than, I don't know, taking photos and then not doing anything with them.
Posted by Kanye West (Member # 837) on :
twitpic is a photo hosting service that's heavily integrated with twitter, although not actually part of it.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
Christ it gets more like a forum populated by TOGs every day.
Posted by Tilde (Member # 1215) on :
quote:Originally posted by mart: flickr is for posting photos online. twittr is for words. they're separate things. i only use flickr.
I don't think that's me, mate.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Bloody hell, it is me. I have no memoery of this whatsoever.
Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
here is a review of 'i shall destroy all the civilsed planets!' by fletcher hanks, of which i was speaking yesterday in an entirely inappropriate thread.
here is an image from 'i shall destroy all the civilsed planets!'
here is another one.
its some nutso shit, seriously. i recommend it to anyone who likes badly drawn 1940s comics featuring totally batshit protagonists up- fucking the shit of all sorts of bad guys in a succession of increasingly confusing ways, drawn by a dude who was apparently a total paranoid drunken wife- beating tool. if you like that sort of thing, youll probably like this.
[ 11.02.2010, 12:23: Message edited by: dance margarita ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I watched Synecdoche, New York last week and thought it was a fantastic, marvellous film. It's fairly demanding in the first twenty minutes or so, but the pay offs are so glorious that it's worth giving yourself over to it. Like Gravity's Rainbow it kind of attempts a lot of crazy, metaphysical stuff, but it does give you a helping hand. Early references to The Trial, and Death of a Salesman set out the stall quite nicely and give you an idea of what you might be in for, but what spools out from thereon is an extraordinary and unique film. I think Benway would quite like it - there's elements of Paul Auster and Samuel Beckett in the study of total loneliness and alienation and evaporating sense of self. There's also flashes of David Lynch in the flourishes of dreamlike logic, and the disorienting passages of time (it takes a few moments to notice it, but the opening covers about three months in the character's life, despite appearing to be one continuous scene). These influences aside, though, the film is incredibly original, impossible to categorise and utterly moving and wonderful.
Man. S,NY is SUCH a shitty movie. It's a boho soho hipster's wet-dream. It almost totally lacks coherence. It's a parade of good ideas, but the willful disjointedness just robs it of any worth. A stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid waste of time... and movie. Brilliant things happened therein, but what a painful experience... watching all that imaginative potential just ooze away. And so proud of itself, right down to the didactic DVD cover. Being John Malkovich really excited me, I thought 'Maybe, here's someone who can make movies a whole new way. Someone who can make movies interesting again.' Then... movie after movie, there he is, standing in the mirror, beating off. Twat!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: youll probably like this.
I do.
Thanks DeeEm. Only just seen this.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I think you and I have disagreed on every Kaufman film apart from Being John Malkovich, including Eternal Sunshine which is one of my most favourite films ever. I think more or less the only films we both like have got Jason Statham in them.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tilde: I watched Up by Pixar, which is pretty good as these things go and also on topic.
I watched Up over the weekend and completely fucking lost it at least twice. I don't know. First Wall-E and now this. Wall-E I put down to the fact that I was hungover when I saw it, and feeling emotionally quite raw. As for Up... well. The baby's been a bit unwell, which may have had something to do with. Feeling a bit strung out, perhaps. Either way, the first ten minutes really did me in, and again with the 'stuff I'm going to do' bit towards the end.
Anyway. I'm suprised Tilde is so dismissive here: "pretty good as these things go" because whatever you think of Up it's doesn't really deserve to be lumped in as 'these things', whatever 'these things'. It's as though Pixar is now deliberately trying to find concepts that really shouldn't work, just so they can kick the received wisdom in the teeth.
Most obviously: an 79 year old man as a hero. Old folk are rare enough as leading characters these days. Making two-thirds of your leading cast old men in what's ostensibly a kid's film must have felt like madness. And then the first ten minutes is a montage explaining just how life drags you away from idealism, strips you of your youth, your beauty, your modest plans to raise a family, the people that you love, and then casts you out into a hostile world totally alone.
After that, it's gets bit more familiar, but that heavy sense of bereavement is always there, with the house providing a nice, clearly realised symbol of the grief carl is literally dragging around with him.
And so on and so forth. It's an excellent film, by any standard - not just 'pretty good for that kind of thing', whatever that means.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I enjoyed Inglorious Basterds last night.
9/10 Posted by dance margarita (Member # 848) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask:
Thanks DeeEm. Only just seen this.
have you previously read it, or are you about to read it, or what? i need to know!
and ive only just seen that ive managed to misspell 'civilised' TWICE in that post. i am in mourning for my attention to detail; we buried it in the garden in a hamster's grave. heartbreaking times for the entire discodamage family.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by dance margarita: have you previously read it, or are you about to read it, or what? i need to know!
I've ordered it from Amazon, never read it before. Looks good. Good and weird.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Read The Hustler, by Walter Tevis on the way to and from London on Friday afternoon. Been a long while since I was that gripped by a story. I think Black Mask would like it, if he hasn't already read it. I think Benway would enjoy the style, even as he got annoyed by an entire book being about talent, winning, and the importance of transforming your character. Anyway. I liked it. It isn't just about playing pool: it is about life and deep things like that.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: The Hustler, by Walter Tevis ... I think Black Mask would like it,
I'll try and get a copy when I'm in the West End this week. Trying to make time to read the whole of Planetary again, now that I've got the 4th and final volume in my possession.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Reading:
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo ...who Played with Fire ...who kicked the Hornet's Nest
First was very good Second was very good Third was a bit too expositional in places for my liking.
Watching:
Glee Caprica The Good Wife
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Tonight I will be attending the opening night of Love Never Dies, the sequel to Phantom of the fucking Opera, and going to the swanky party afterwards.
I expect the show to be terrible and the party to be ace. At least, I really hope the party is ace. I don't care about the show.
Expect to see me in next week's gossip mags.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Caprica
I've just started watching series 1 of BSG and I'm finding it really enjoyable. I can't udnerstand why I didn't watch it when it originally aired.
Anyway if you'd be so kind, could you let me know (without giving me any BSG spoilers please) if Caprica is any good. Assuming you watched BSG first, how does Caprica stand up against it?
ETA: I'm still watching Lost, ffs.
[ 09.03.2010, 11:32: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Waynster (Member # 56) on :
Glad you finally discovered BSG Misc - I'll be honest that I am not a huge fan of a lot of American Sci-Fi, but BSG was absolutely brilliant and whilst it does meander a bit it was a cracking series.
I've started to watch Caprica, seen the first two but it hasn't reeled me in like BSG did - nothing wrong with the actors in it and it seems to be building a decent enough story but I don't find it as compelling. With BSG you watched one and felt yourself reaching for the remote for another fix, but Caprica is just a little bit, well 'meh' - not bad, but just not brilliant.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I'm finding Caprica to be a bit of a grower. It's a bit of a slow burn, not an immediate sure fire grab you by the face thing in the same way as BSG, the plot isn't moving particularly fast, but I'm still finding it a decent watch.
I'm particularly liking the Tauron cultural stuff and the casting of the chap playing Willie's dad - it's pretty on the money (if you know what I mean).
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Thanks guys!
I agree with Waynster that a lot of US sci-fi is quite terrible. I watched the whole of TNG, but couldn't face any other Trek, and other than Firefly, there hasn't been a great deal that I've found tolerable.
I watched the closing two-parter of BSG series one before bed last night, and it blew my tiny mind. So many answers, and yet so many new questions...
I had a dream in which D:REAMy professor Brian Cox was presenting a wide-eyed documentary on BBC Four about Cylon technology. It transpired that he was actually one of them. So keep an eye out for that guy - it could well have been a premonition. I think the LHC might be some kind of portal to bring the Cylons to Earth.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Mart – is your girlfriend, the actress, in Love Never Dies? Is that why you are going?
I have recently been enjoying House. It is very formulaic in terms of the structure of each episode, but as the longer plot/characters develop it is awesome. The end of series five is powerful stuff, especially if you watch it late at night while drunk and in a fragile mental state.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I mean…it might seem that >100 hours of viewing time and inducing a minor mental breakdown is a lot to invest in a TV series, but the payoff is definitely worth it…
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
No, Abby, she's not. But the resident director is a friend, and he had tickets, so we went along. Lots and lots of slebs. Dreadful show. Really really bad. It made no sense. Triffic party afterwards though at Old Billingsgate Market. More slebs.
Good fun. Crap, crap show.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
Yes, House is extremely formulaic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The characters are a pretty compelling bunch. You've got Billy off of Neighbours, token black guy, bisexual supermodel, the MILF, erm... Wilson... and, well, Bertie Wooster's just the icing on the cake.
I once got a Cease and Desist order through the post for downloading an episode of House. Well actually for uploading it.
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
Oooh I made it onto Sky news. That's me in the background to the right at about the 1-minute mark, for all of a second or so.
God.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Posted by mart (Member # 32) on :
I know. It's like I'm the new Vikram.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I see you wife got in shot for the most part Thorn.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
after "that" happened.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Awesome.
