I don't remember the sequel to the original Clash of the Titans. Largely because there wasn't one because it wasn't needed. It's not that I'm dead-set against them having made Wrath…, but I can barely remember what happened in the remake, it was so bland. Still, it was with an open mind (no, shut up, really) that I sat down to watch Sam Worthington ply his craft...
The Plot: The Gods are under threat. People have stopped praying, robbing them of their power, and Chronos, the father of Zeus, has formed a pact with his other son, Hades, to break free of the underworld. If Chronos escapes, and the gods aren't powerful enough to stop him, it will mean the end of the universe. Now the Gods have to pursue every avenue of possible help, including those who have rejected them…
The Good: For the most part, WotT looks pretty smart. A lot of the less fantastical effects are good to the point where you don't think of them as visual trickery, and the more over-the-top ones are… well, not convincing as such, but you imagine that's pretty much what a mile-high volcano monster/God would look like, yeah. Exposition points are interspersed evenly, and while this might normally be a drawback, there are chaotic stretches in the film where you'll be struggling to remember what the bloody hell's going on; so I found it welcoming to have frequent catchup sessions.
The casting is interesting, mostly workable, and it was nice to see Bill Nighy being paid to not just turn up and be himself for once. Part of me was wondering exactly why a weaponmaker/inventor for The Gods would have a broad Yorkshire accent, of course, but then Zeus has a thinly veiled Northern Irish one, and Perseus is magnificently Australian, as is Sam Worthington's apparent trademark. Actually, I know I usually moan about this, but I give Worthington points for his voicework, this time around. He's not even attempting to disguise it, and I'd much rather watch him not give a shit than watch him fail badly. Again.
Oh, and Rosamund Pike as Queen Andromeda, running around in a leather battle-tunic and looking all flustered? Go on, then. If you must.
The Bad: Toby Kebbel is a welcome addition as Agenor, the son of Poseidon, and actually injects some proper character into the proceedings, but there's something in either the editing or the timing of his humour that just makes it fall flat. The same goes for Bill Nighy as Hephaestus, where his slightly whacky character seems out of kilter with everything around him. It's as if there's been a gap left for the canned laughter to be dropped in later, but the editors didn't get round to it. When you add this to the aforementioned chaotic 'what's happening in this bit, again?' sequences, it feels a little like two second-drafts of different screenplays that have been edited together without either being finished. If you're going to go to all this effort to make a needless sequel to a needless remake, get the writing sorted first, and the rest will follow.
Bubo, the mechanical owl from the 1981 Clash of the Titans has a cameo. Again. He was in the last one, briefly, but this time his appearance is of Stan Lee proportions in terms of subtlety. If you're going to put him in, give him something to do...
The Ugly: As generally entertaining as I found it, there was just no immersion for me. At no point did I forget that I was sitting in a cinema watching a hastily green-lit follow-up. And who the hell spends $150 million on making a film, then shoots it in 16:9 ratio? It feels like they're not trying, if I'm being honest.
The Third Dimension: Quite a few 'let's point things right OUT OF THE SCREEN!!!' moments, which were either a) jarringly out of context, or b) didn't quite work (when the spears are that 'close' to you in 3D, the ends appear to bend downwards - how is that a good thing?). Either way, they're probably not going to look very good when you're watching it in 2D at home (if my recent re-viewing of Drive Angry is anything to go by). The 3D is definitely there, but I suspect at the expense of a decent screenplay...
Worth £8+? Not particularly, unless you're a hardcore fan of this sort of thing. I think I enjoyed this more than its predecessor, if only because that had lowered my expectations. And that's not great, is it?
With the heartbreaking news of an Avatar sequel being given the go-ahead, I await the announcements of 'Carry On Again Titans' and 'Man on a Ledge 2: Ledge of Allegiance'...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 30.
30 March 2012. The Haynes Manual / Star Destroyer shirt.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Desperate to win the Pirate of the Year Award, Pirate Captain faces humiliation at the hands of his peers until a chance encounter with Charles Darwin brings the Pirate Crew to Victorian London, and they cross paths with renowned pirate-hater, Queen Victoria herself…
The Good: A wonderfully sharp script and brisk pacing keeps The Pirates whizzing along more or less constantly. Thankfully free of the twee-ness that can often hold Aardman features back, there's arguably more here for the adults than there is for the kids. The broad sight-gags and slapstick will appeal to both, for sure, but there's a swathe of references and visual easter-eggs targeted at the older generation, which raise it above your standard 'kid-film' (I swear blind that was the postbox from Danger Mouse), and the soundtrack is a Brit-snapshot of the seventies and eighties. Marvellous stuff.
The voice-acting is everything you'd expect from a cast as reliable as this, with Hugh Grant, David Tennant and Imelda Staunton all leading strongly, and Russell Tovey, Martin Freeman, Ashley Jensen and Brendan Gleeson giving a lot of character without jostling for position.
What I enjoyed the most was the unabashed silliness of the whole thing. The pirates' obsession with ham, their misguided belief that they can disguise themselves at all, Charles Darwin's hyper-intelligent and totally deadpan manpanzee sidekick; all of these (and more) could have easily fallen flat or been overkill, but each works on its own and as part of an hour-and-a-half tapestry of absurdity.
Great, great fun. And I'm not even really into the pirate-thing.
The Bad: The pace seemed to slacken between acts 2 and 3 while the obligatory sentimentality was played out, but that's par for the course anyway, and was only noticeable because of the scenes surrounding it. Also, at several points I looked over my 3D glasses and what was on-screen was exactly the same. Not a bad conversion, but underused certainly, and all-the-darker for being in 3D.
The Ugly: Nothing to report. Seriously.
After the Credits: There's a bunch of callbacks and background-props to have a good look at during the end credits if you're interested, but once the screen goes black, that's the end. There's no content, if you know what I mean, so the kids may not appreciate waiting around.
All-in-All: Unashamedly a kids-film, but when it's done as brilliantly as this, who cares? Sequels and spin-offs look to be a certainty, but that's fine by me.
^^ A very, very strong six. Almost full marks, but I don't know if I'll get a lot out of seeing it again, even with the easter-eggs.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Welcome to Dystopia 101, where oppressive governments and manipulative game-shows are the order of the day. The bad guys wear uniforms with face visors, and the common folk wear colour-desaturated clothes. A disaster/war/event will be referenced and/or explained at some point, and 'Hey! Isn't this just a little bit like our lives NOW??!? Sit wherever you like, I'll be round to scan your barcodes in due course…
The Plot: (from IMDB) "Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match."
A Preface: No, I haven't read the books. And in all honesty, I'm not pretty likely to, now.
The Good: Given everything I'm about to say about The Hunger Games, I'll state now that it's decently enough scripted and acted. Everyone's doing their best with what they're given, and I do appreciate that. The effects are fairly good (with the possible exception of those dogs near the end) and apart from the shaky-cam, it looks and sounds as good as it can. It's just that...
The Bad: Well, it's 'the story', isn't it? Like a huge messy car crash between The Tripods and The Running Man with Predators picking through the wreckage, but with the intrigue or adrenaline of none of them. I know it's aimed at teenagers, but they're not stupid. In terms of content, they're actually more demanding than their adult contemporaries. They have plenty of stuff to do apart from reading books for leisure, so don't patronise them with this. The idea of The Hunger Games being orchestrated by The Evil Government™ as a method to both distract and control the populace is so heavily layered-on that you almost don't notice the clockwork plot setup and character archetypes. Almost.
• The wardrobe department seem to have been told to stick to 'hey, doesn't everyone look whacky in the future if they're rich??', in a move that will ironically date the film faster than putting "2012" in the title.
• Poor Katniss, pulled out of her meagre existence by a rash decision and forced to fight for her life against 23 other teenagers. She's not a murderer, you know! Well, she's quite happy to hunt for food, but that's different. At the start of the film, she's trying to bring down a deer that, by her own admission, she can't possibly hope to smuggle back home to prep/cook/eat. Look, she's fine killing harmless animals just trying to get on with their day, but the moment she's faced with 23 unstable, hormonally-charged teenagers (22 of which she doesn't know) coming at her with knives and spears, well that's just not bloody well on!
• Actually, I say '22', she doesn't really know her fellow Dictrict 12'er Peeta much, either. She's seen him around, and that, but it's only after he admits that he's been stalking her for about five years that she decides she can trust him, and that a relationship would probably be a good idea as long as one/both of them's probably going to die, anyway.
• 'Look, Katniss has climbed up a tree. Shall I shoot her out with this bow-and-arrow?' 'Go on, then…' [shoots] 'Tch, I missed. I suppose we'll just have to wait at the bottom of the tree for her to come down. I mean, it's not like I've got a bunch of arrows here, and any ones that miss her can just be picked up again and re-fired. No, let's ALL wait under this tree and go to sleep at the same time with no-one keeping watch. That is literally the most effective thing we can do.'
• The overall predicability (sorry, 'reliability') is overshadowed only by the film's inconsistency. It's established at the start of the tournament that a cannon is sounded when one of the contestants dies so that they know their numbers have been reduced wherever they are. This signalling continues regularly until Katniss destroys the booby-trapped supplies at The Cornucopia and the contestant who was 'guarding' it has his neck snapped by his irate team-mate (no cannon), followed shortly by young Rue being throwing-daggered to death by a competitor (no cannon), and Katniss arrow-ing that assailant in return (no cannon). Then about twenty minutes later, someone dies and the shots start again.
• Given that The Games are literally a life-or-death situation, and that the 24 competitors quickly divide into uneasy alliances and hunt as packs, Katniss seems to have no problem in sitting and having a cry for about twenty minutes immediately following Rue's death. She actually picks a bunch of flowers to lay on her body, while the team of The Bad Guys™ are furiously wandering around nearby after their booby-trapped supplies have just been destroyed.
• There's a bit near the end where genetically engineered/enhanced attack-dogs are released into the arena. These are shown in a holo/digital form in the control room first, and on the controllers command they magically 'appear' and start pursuing the remaining contestants. Now I didn't see a hole in the ground where they came out of, and they were summoned in exactly the right place at an instant. This, coupled with the slightly dodgy animation of the dogs, made me wonder 'Is this a simulation? Will all of the contestants 'die', and we only find out afterwards that their Matrix-like trials in the dome have been the digitally recreated source of the TV-show all along and no-one's really been killed?' That would be a nice plot development... … No, apparently not. Well, it wasn't revealed in this film, anyway. So it looks like we won't be genetically engineering dogs until we can make them look slightly badly animated as well.
• At one point, we see the inhabitants of District 11 watching the action unfold on giant communal TV screens. They are so moved and touched by Katniss' bravery and moral fortitude, that they begin to riot, attacking the governmental guards that watch over them. And, you know, destroying / burning down their own homes in the process. Yeah, that'll show 'em.
• The contestants are baited with the dual-winners line by the games' creators, whereby rather than have a 'last man standing', a duo can win if they're from the same district (a device to get Katniss and Peeta working together), it's no surprise when this alteration is later rescinded (a device to get them to face-off after gaining each other's full trust). When they refuse to fight and are about to commit to a suicide pact, the gamesmasters reluctantly declare them both the winners, and we see that Donald Sutherland™ isn't at all pleased with this turn of events. But surely, any Evil Media Company / Government worth its salt would just have one of the winners discretely killed, then tell the public they died of an infected wound or something? Pardon? You don't want to burden the many unlikeable characters in the film with any common-sense actions or motives? Oh, it's a Cert 12A. 'Demographics'. I see.
• I've heard it said that a lot of the book-content has been cut for the movie. I don't know how many of the books are spanned in this two and a half hour Running-Man-Lite™, but I'm going to assume that Haymitch's backstory (As a mentor, he evidently knows a lot about The Games, and is clearly drinking to block something out, although this facet dwindles to nothing as soon as The Games begin) was a casualty of those cuts. I'm also going to assume that Effie's complete absence once the games are underway (and from the admittedly rushed ending) is also due to time restraints. Otherwise, that'd just be poor storytelling…
The Ugly: What the bloody hell have you done with Elizabeth Banks, Lionsgate? If you're telling me that in the future, all the hot women have to look like Vivienne Westwood, you can tear my card up right fucking now.
All-in-all: Oh look, it's probably not as bad as all that, but there's very little in The Hunger Games for me, and I'd be surprised if there is for you, either. There's a decent movie in there somewhere, but it's being weighed down with cliché and my firmly unsuspended disbelief.
Ideal if you're very young, or haven't seen many films.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
…although to be fair, neither of them look particularly thrilled to be participating ;D Wear 'em if you got 'em!
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We're here again. I've seen John Carter a second time, and other than not being entirely convinced that Taylor Kitsch is the right leading man for this movie (yet), I don't really have anything to say that I didn't put down in my first review.
So I made you a picture. Is that okay?
Hmm? Faster, more intense? Okay, then...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
When reformed smuggler Chris Farraday's kid brother-in-law gets in serious trouble with the local drug dealer, he has to come out of retirement for one last job. But in the world of illegal importing, things rarely go to plan, and Chris isn't sure who can trust any more...
The Good: Yeah, it's ^that^ movie, for better or worse. For the most part, it's very competently made. Our hero does all the wrong things for all the right reasons, and while he's never apologetic or remoseful about his career, you find yourself rooting for him solely because he's the best of a bad bunch. With the exception of Chris's two kids, there's barely a straight character in the whole movie. The bad guys in Contraband are resolutely bad, and as it turns out, so are a lot of the good guys. Once you know that Chris can't trust anyone around him, you can sit back and enjoy the carnage as a straight smuggling run detours into armed robbery and car chases.
I'd say the twists in the story are 'reliable', as opposed to completely predicatble. It's not so much about how the film's going to end, as how the characters are going to get there. Callbacks are clearly set up and counted back in, and while it feels like it's slightly too long at 109 minutes, once the action kicks in there's no downtime. It's noisy and tense right up until the final sunset.
The Bad: Most of the movie is shot with handheld cameras, and while it's thankfully (mostly) free of shaky-cam, there's a lot of hand-operated zooming going on mid-shot, which is a little disconcerting on a screen sixy feet wide. In that respect, it'll be a little easier to watch on DVD.
The Ugly: I can handle the twisty-turny plot and the two faced characters, but you don't achieve "gritty realism" by hiring actors who mumble all their fucking lines. Not all of them, by any means, but way more than I'm happy with. What the fuck is David O'Hara doing in this film? It took me five minutes to work out that he has a Scottish accent because I couldn't make out a fucking word he was saying. In that respect, pop the subs on and it'll be a lot easier to watch on DVD.
Worth £8+? In all honesty? Probably not. You won't get much out of repeat viewings, and it doesn't rely on a cinema screen to convey its message. It's more than suitable for a night on the sofa, though.
A solid half-way mark, but there's not really enough lasting impact to make it any higher for me...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
As a couple of well-meaning but completely inept rookie cops, Jenko and Schmidt find themselves transferred to an undercover operation which infiltrates criminal gangs in the city's high schools. As a jock and a nerd, respectively, they should have no problem blending in and tracking the shipments of the latest drug-craze. After all, how much can school change in seven years..?
The Good:21 Jump Street is very funny, in a surprisingly charming way. Sure, there's some effing-and-jeffing to pump it up to a Cert.15, and there are traces of gross-out-comedy sprinkled over the top, but at its heart it's a likeable buddy-cop action-comedy. There are no surprises here, but it's not really the movie where you're expecting or wanting them. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are on good comedic form, and while there's the obligatory emotional buildup in the third act, it doesn't threaten to derail the movie.
As I have almost no frame of reference for the TV series (not my thing, then or now), the original setup is framed by a beautifully tongue-in-cheek performance from Ice Cube, and further references are similarly knowing, without being flat-out self indulgent. The bottom line is, the movie could have been made quite comfortably on its own without having an existing franchise bolted on. But rather than have its history weight it down, 21 Jump Street wears it as a (very silly) badge of honour, and is all the better for it.
Oh, and I don't want to be that guy, but when The Reveal™ goes down, I'd been waiting for it since the first appearance of those characters earlier. While it wasn't exactly telegraphed, you know there's something building there. But again, it was done in such a way that made me smile, rather than facepalm, so that's all good.
The Bad: I know it's alluded to in the movie itself (and is, indeed, the very point), but this will pretty much be the last time that Jonah Hill will get away with playing a young character. There are scenes in here where Hill actually manages to look older than he actually is, never mind how old he's supposed to look.
The Ugly: Erm, nothing to report.
Worth leaving the house for? You won't lose too much by watching it on DVD, but if you have the means and the opportunity, this one's worth watching on a massive screen.
I found it solidly entertaining. Your mileage may vary, but if you don't laugh at all through this film, you probably have no soul.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
^^ Click for bigger: 900*1289px, opens in new window ^^
This one may be finding its own way onto a shirt in the near future...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I'm hesitant to gush about Disney's latest offering, because I know that it won't be for everyone (and also because I know the danger of over-hyping a movie), but after repeated viewings of a frankly dull trailer, I'm pleased to report that John Carter is pretty fucking awesome.
It worried me that the Disney's interpretation of a story from Ye Olden Dayes would have about as much edge and punch as a beach ball (and it's certainly true that a lot of the messiest sword-hacking happens just out of shot), but the storytelling in JC is strong enough to render that irrelevant. Moreover, it's just good fun - something that the mouse-eared company often struggle with in live-action.
The Plot: America, the 1860's. Troubled prospector end ex-cavalryman John Carter has lost his way in life after the death of his wife and child. Chasing the dream of gold with debts piling up, a violent encounter in the wilderness leads John to find himself in a strange land with new enemies and unlikely allies. Adjusting to his new environment and powers that set him apart from those around him, John has to find his way home; once he works out where his home really is...
The Good: Thematically, it's The Hero's Journey to a tee, as you'd expect from a source text of a fantasy novel that's a century old. But whereas Prince of Persia and Immortals felt like they were trudging a well-worn path, there's a sense that John Carter helped lay that trail in the first place. Although the story has obviously been adapted for this re-telling, it still retains a strength that holds your attention for the whole two hours. You know John Carter's not going to die, but you're still engaged by the danger he's in, and you still want to know how he's going to overcome the odds against him.
On a purely aesthetic level, John Carter owes so much to the Star Wars prequel trilogy it's had to take out two mortgages. The fact that I frequently expected to see Jawas scuttling between the bronzed rocks only made me happier, when I'd usually be facepalming over that. I noticed (Attack of the Clones concept artist) Ryan Church's name in the credits, but didn't spot any other involvement from ILM or their alumini. The film also has substantial debts with Flash Gordon and 300, but none of this detracts from the matter that it looks and sounds gorgeous. It feels (to me) like an elaborate homage, rather than an easy rip-off.
The Bad: I found the score a little underwhelming, if I'm being honest, but that's probably because my brain was expecting to hear John Williams. As it stands, it's competent but unremarkable.
As the feisty princess Dejah, Lynn Collins' accent frequently sways between uptight-British and midwest-American, not unlike Leia in Star Wars: A New Hope. Her character also weaves from bold-scientist to warrior-princess to weeping-damsel in such rapid succession that you begin to wonder if her character is secretly triplets...
The Ugly: I could do without Mark Strong and Dominic West as the pantomime-villains, if only because they're beginning to be typecast in those roles and they can do so much more.
The Third Dimension: A nice addition and mostly well-rendered, but not a deal breaker. This will look just as good in 2D, but a big/hi-def screen is going to give you the best results.
After the Credits? No extras. Once the names appear on-screen, you can make your way out.
If you like them big, bold and rather fantastical, I'd recommend you leave the house to see this in the cinema. John Carter will be the first new movie this year to get repeat viewings from me. I approve.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) are top flight CIA agents and best buddies, until Lauren (Witherspoon) walks into their lives and begins dating them both. What she thinks is her secret is anything but, and while she deliberates over which guy she wants, they set about proving their worthiness themselves...
The Good: Pine and Hardy are both on great form here mixing action and slapstick in a way that The Other Guys couldn't quite manage. Both leads come a bit unstuck when it comes to the obligatory sentimentality, but so does everyone else involved. Reese Witherspoon's performance, on the other hand, is largely by-the-numbers. It's not neccesarily her fault (her part's not written with the depth of Pine and Hardy's), but you get the impression that the role could just as easily have been played by Jennifer Aniston or Katherine Heigl. And that's never a good sign.
That said, This Means War is a lot of fun. At its best, it's a well-handled, traditional farce; the likes of which are quite rare these days. For the most part, I found it quite charming. It's certainly better than it looks on paper, and puts last year's Johnny English rightfully to shame.
The Bad: The whole thing seems to go on for longer than it should, really. Given that the concept is explained pretty neatly in the two and a half minute trailer, we spend the first half hour of the film having this same setup explained to us in needlessly minute detail. Once it kicks into gear the pacing's back on track, but the climactic ending seems a little tacked on. Speaking of which...
The Ugly: Actually, the entire subplot about European gangster, Heinrich (Til Schweiger), seems tacked on. It's a solid start to the movie, but then it rears its unconvincing head every twenty minutes or so and distracts you from the rest of a very entertaining film. Then, to add insult to injury, it's wrapped up with so little conviction that it seems like 'the writers had run out of ideas by then and anyway it's Friday afternoon shall we go to the pub? Look there's a car chase and an explosion the end.'
Worth leaving the house for? For me? Sure. Highly enjoyable / instantly forgettable. Your mileage may vary.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
...for livening up those long, dull meetings on the Death Star.
^^ Click for bigger, 1074*1000px, opens in new window.
When he's not ridding the galaxy of young, upstart terrorists, Admiral Ozzel uses Twitter and Facebook.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Hello, I made you this thing:
^^ Click for bigger: 1520*400px, 271kb, opens in new window.
I think I'm done doing these for the time being. Unless you've got any requests?
What's that? Characters from The Empire Strikes Back and/or The Clone Wars animated series? Leave it with me...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 27.
09 March 2012. The Vintage-Vader shirt, by Junkfood.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Despite my modus operandi of not reading reviews before watching a movie at the cinema, intel had reached me that Wanderlust wasn't all it could be. So naturally this was on my mind as I sat in a darkened auditorium with only four other people, and waited for the jokes to start. It was quite a wait.
The Plot: A perma-busy New York couple, George and Linda, stumble upon a hippy commune, and decide to try living there to escape the rat-race. Full of whacky characters, when their lifestyles collide, hilarity ensues! Oh, wait...
It's not that Wanderlust is horrendously bad, per se, it's just not particularly good. This isn't unusual for a first-quarter comedy release, but with Paul Rudd and Alan Alda on board, it's borderline unforgiveable. Almost everyone starring in this is capable of so much better, but especially those two. Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd are amiable enough leads, but since they're both essentially straight-men, it falls on the inhabitants of the 'Intentional Community' to provide the gags. They try. Mostly.
Now, imagine some comedy-hippies. Well done, you've just written half of the film. I'm aware that stereotypes arise because they're usually true, but the secondary characters in Wanderlust are simultaneously over-written yet completely one-dimensional. Alda's commune-founder, Carvin, is the only one who's vaguely interesting, but the part isn't enough for him to do anything with.
Outside of the cardboard characters, the film is produced by Judd Apatow, and manages to have his fingerprints all over it without leaving any trace of his charm (no, really). It's not lewd enough to be gross-out, but not touching enough to have any emotional depth. It doesn't have enough gags to be a rollicking-laugh-a-minute, but not enough plot to make an engaging story. wanderlust feels like the second-draft of a screenplay that got filmed accidentally, and everyone was too embarrassed to say anything.
I know I shouldn't look into this too deeply, but the overriding message of the film seems to be that the hippy-commune is a flawed idea, and what everyone really needs to make them Happy™ is a little bit of good ol'fashioned capitalism. Then again, minor plot points in here are so ludicrous that ideas like messages and character development have been pretty much left aside.
Despite all that, Wanderlust is frequently chucklesome, but if you're expecting people to throw down the best part of a tenner to watch it, that's not enough.
The Good: Jennifer Aniston hopping around in her Daisy Dukes. Rudd's sex-talk scens are pretty funny too, but you can tell that's improvised and has little to do with the script.
The Bad: The expectation you feel looking at the cast list.
The Ugly: A movie hasn't been this predictable since Titanic.
Worth £8+? Fuck, no. You're going to feel shortchanged if you buy it on DVD for a fiver...
Must try harder. It's not godawful enough to warrant a 2, but there's little of interest here.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Two of my favourite things. Star Wars and statistical analysis.
Notes: Round 2: Kenobi won the fight, but with Jinn's green lightsaber. For this round, green won and lost. Round 5: Skywalker won with the red and blue blades, but since he went into the fight with blue, and walked out still with it (and since Dooku lost with the red), I've declared blue the winner. Round 6: Kenobi won the fight with a blaster, but in the saber-duel, managed to disarm Grievous completely. Look, blue won, okay? Round 8: I haven't put Red down for losing or drawing here, as Sidious staged his saber-loss to goad Skywalker into action.
Supporting Data:
Rnd
Location:
Colour
Colour
Won
Drew
Lost
1
Tatooine
Green
-vs-
Red
-
G / R
-
2
Naboo
Blue / Green
-vs-
Red
G
-
R / G
3
Geonosis
Blue / Green
-vs-
Red
R
-
B / G
4
Geonosis
Green
-vs-
Red
-
G / R
-
5
Coruscant
Blue / Blue
-vs-
Red
B
-
R
6
Utapau
Blue
-vs-
Blue/Green
B
-
B / G
7
Coruscant
Blue / Green
-vs-
Red
R
-
B / G
8
Coruscant
Purple
-vs-
Red / Blue
B
-
P
9
Mustafar
Blue
-vs-
Blue
B
-
B
10
Coruscant
Green
-vs-
Red
-
G / R
-
11
Death Star 1
Blue
-vs-
Red
R
-
B
12
Bespin
Blue
-vs-
Red
R
-
B
13
Death Star 2
Green
-vs-
Red
G
-
R
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
It's the magnificent return of the nation's*1 favourite weekly participation-game… #StarWarsTshirtFriday!
02 March 2012. The Imperial Cog shirt. Simple, classic, beautiful.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
Yes, you wanted it*2, you got it!*3 There's no competition and no prize, but here's how to play:
• Make sure it's Friday where you are • Wear a Star Wars t-shirt • Put a photo of you wearing it on the internet, with the hashtag #StarWarsTshirtFriday if you're using Twitter • Tell everyone how awesome you are
That's it, really. Oh, and: • Tell me so I can spread the word!
Now. Go. Have a beer and watch Star Wars. Happy Friday!
*1 - "my" *2 - you probably didn't. *3 - you got it anyway.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
