CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
It's alright folks, it's over. If you're not au fait with the full, sorry debacle, click on this link to catch up.
I'm off to get drunk now, see you guys later.
Feel free to leave comments below!
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Saturday, 26 September 2009
54: A World Without Beer: The Final Countdown
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh lanugage and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Well, the last month's certainly zipped by. Largely helped by the fact that I'm now used to not drinking. But fuck it, we're here now. Today is the 26th September, and on the 27th I can drink again.
It's been an interesting 100 days. I've proved to myself that I can live without beer (with the exception of my gratis days, of course). In fact, I've accomplished exactly what I set out to, and achieved exactly what I expected.
I won't be doing this again unless a doctor tells me to.
I'll be posting up a blog tomorrow in celebration of B-Day. You stay classy, internet!
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, the last month's certainly zipped by. Largely helped by the fact that I'm now used to not drinking. But fuck it, we're here now. Today is the 26th September, and on the 27th I can drink again.
It's been an interesting 100 days. I've proved to myself that I can live without beer (with the exception of my gratis days, of course). In fact, I've accomplished exactly what I set out to, and achieved exactly what I expected.
I won't be doing this again unless a doctor tells me to.
I'll be posting up a blog tomorrow in celebration of B-Day. You stay classy, internet!
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
53: A World Without Beer: Week 14
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Well, we're on the final stretch now, people! The end is in sight. Less than one week until this ridiculous self-imposed charade is over.
Ironically, I've kind of settled into the groove now. While I miss the idea of having a pint, I've been 'dry' for so long that I'm just sort of used to it. Not that it's going to continue. Unless something clicks in the next seven days, I haven't turned into that "actually, I think I'll just give up for good"person twat that I feared was round the corner.
As a result of me being unnervingly content, there's even less to write about it. Oh, I still really miss white wine. our lass had some the other night and it smelled fucking gorgeous. Looking forward to an ice-cold Pinot Grigio may be keeping me sane. Yes, I know how that sounds.
+++
In other news, I was walking out of Sainsburg's on Friday afternoon, and the guy in front of me was leaving with some dry-cleaning he'd collected. Now using my keen skills ofassumption deduction, I noticed he was with his wife/girlfriend and was in fairly presentable clothes. Which is to say the pair of them were wearing casual, clean clothes.
I can hear you from here : "Well maybe he was picking his suit up? Or his dry-clean-only coat?"
Alas, no. He was picking up his army uniform. Not a dress-uniform, like an officer's suit or spangly-parade version; He was picking up his desert-camo gear. I could see it through the bag. Now I know that you're still scratching your head over there: "...and?"
It just set me wondering; how insanely impractical is it to have your military forces wearing dry-clean-only uniforms? Why didn't he just do it in the machine? He looked presentable enough, he's clearly got the facility to wash his own clothes. I'm fairly certain it was his uniform, as his build and hair would suggest he'd be in the armed forces. Even if it wasn't his, it was someone's.
I just don't think it gives off the fearsome-warrior impression if our guys are out in Basra, up to their necks in insurgents, and the sounds you hear in between the gunfire are a mincing "Ooh, look at that! Mud! I'll never get that out! I had to take these trousers back twice last week because of the blood! And he was going to bloody charge me again!"
While I'm sure that the uniforms can be dry-cleaned, I can't believe that they're dry-clean only. That'd just be fucking stupid. Now I know the next thing you're thinking: "Why didn't you go and ask him, then? There are two reasons:
One: The aforementioned thoughts cascaded over the next 5 minutes or so. We went in different directions after Sainsburg's, so by the time I'd reached the conclusion that it was fucking stupid, he was nowhere to be seen.
Two: Inevitably, the question would have worked its way down to me, a thirty-something unfit man, telling him, a thirty-something trained killer, that his choice of garment-cleaning was "fucking stupid". I have little doubt that it would have happened. Because when my twisted logic grabs me, real logic seems to go out of the window.
Fuck it, I'll never know. And neither will you.
...I need a drink.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, we're on the final stretch now, people! The end is in sight. Less than one week until this ridiculous self-imposed charade is over.
Ironically, I've kind of settled into the groove now. While I miss the idea of having a pint, I've been 'dry' for so long that I'm just sort of used to it. Not that it's going to continue. Unless something clicks in the next seven days, I haven't turned into that "actually, I think I'll just give up for good"
As a result of me being unnervingly content, there's even less to write about it. Oh, I still really miss white wine. our lass had some the other night and it smelled fucking gorgeous. Looking forward to an ice-cold Pinot Grigio may be keeping me sane. Yes, I know how that sounds.
+++
In other news, I was walking out of Sainsburg's on Friday afternoon, and the guy in front of me was leaving with some dry-cleaning he'd collected. Now using my keen skills of
I can hear you from here : "Well maybe he was picking his suit up? Or his dry-clean-only coat?"
Alas, no. He was picking up his army uniform. Not a dress-uniform, like an officer's suit or spangly-parade version; He was picking up his desert-camo gear. I could see it through the bag. Now I know that you're still scratching your head over there: "...and?"
It just set me wondering; how insanely impractical is it to have your military forces wearing dry-clean-only uniforms? Why didn't he just do it in the machine? He looked presentable enough, he's clearly got the facility to wash his own clothes. I'm fairly certain it was his uniform, as his build and hair would suggest he'd be in the armed forces. Even if it wasn't his, it was someone's.
I just don't think it gives off the fearsome-warrior impression if our guys are out in Basra, up to their necks in insurgents, and the sounds you hear in between the gunfire are a mincing "Ooh, look at that! Mud! I'll never get that out! I had to take these trousers back twice last week because of the blood! And he was going to bloody charge me again!"
While I'm sure that the uniforms can be dry-cleaned, I can't believe that they're dry-clean only. That'd just be fucking stupid. Now I know the next thing you're thinking: "Why didn't you go and ask him, then? There are two reasons:
One: The aforementioned thoughts cascaded over the next 5 minutes or so. We went in different directions after Sainsburg's, so by the time I'd reached the conclusion that it was fucking stupid, he was nowhere to be seen.
Two: Inevitably, the question would have worked its way down to me, a thirty-something unfit man, telling him, a thirty-something trained killer, that his choice of garment-cleaning was "fucking stupid". I have little doubt that it would have happened. Because when my twisted logic grabs me, real logic seems to go out of the window.
Fuck it, I'll never know. And neither will you.
...I need a drink.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
52: Twelve Movies - Croupier
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 23 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Twelve: Croupier
(1998, 89 mins, Dir. Mike Hodges)
Put Simply: Classic "Film 4", well worth a go.
Stars: Clive Owen, Alex Kingston, Gina McKee and COLIN off of PRESS GANG!
So here we are, 12 days... 14 Movies (Actually, 15 if you include Mallrats on day three, but I know the script backwards so I didn't review that one)
Croupier follows an ex-gambler/author as he starts work in a London casino. While he's not exactly moral in the job, he's a professional, and certainly less professionally-clumsy than those around him. Owen's deadpan performance suits his... how do you say... woodenness? Sounds a little harsh, I know, but this role is ideal for him as he never has to portray any real emotion, just a guy who's unable to let the emotion show. The rest of the cast are on fine form, as are the script and plot. Which, incidentally, are helped enormously by Owen's voice-over. Reading the plot to the audience keeps the film to a trim hour-and-a-half, so everything rolls along rather nicely.
This is classic era of Film-4 output, it's grainy and claustrophobic, and all the greater for it. In fact, if the budget was any lower, it'd be shot on VHS. The editing's a little choppy, and often doesn't show the passage of time well (particularly on the night when Jack and Jani go on their gambling jaunt), but as I said, it's a short movie and it's only glaringly 'chopped' a few times.
Very enjoyable, if a little dated eleven years down the line (the laptop he writes on is almost painful to watch), but they can't all be Trainspotting or Twin Town, right?
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: ...who knows? I'll be honest, I'm a little burned out after 12 days of movies. The general rule of thumb is that 20% of all movies are great, 50% are distincly average, and 30% are fucking awful. So the next time you give a film a go, blind? Chances are it'll be alright. Could be worse, fuck it, just watch your favourite movie again.
Happy watching! :D
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 23 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Twelve: Croupier
(1998, 89 mins, Dir. Mike Hodges)
Put Simply: Classic "Film 4", well worth a go.
Stars: Clive Owen, Alex Kingston, Gina McKee and COLIN off of PRESS GANG!
So here we are, 12 days... 14 Movies (Actually, 15 if you include Mallrats on day three, but I know the script backwards so I didn't review that one)
Croupier follows an ex-gambler/author as he starts work in a London casino. While he's not exactly moral in the job, he's a professional, and certainly less professionally-clumsy than those around him. Owen's deadpan performance suits his... how do you say... woodenness? Sounds a little harsh, I know, but this role is ideal for him as he never has to portray any real emotion, just a guy who's unable to let the emotion show. The rest of the cast are on fine form, as are the script and plot. Which, incidentally, are helped enormously by Owen's voice-over. Reading the plot to the audience keeps the film to a trim hour-and-a-half, so everything rolls along rather nicely.
This is classic era of Film-4 output, it's grainy and claustrophobic, and all the greater for it. In fact, if the budget was any lower, it'd be shot on VHS. The editing's a little choppy, and often doesn't show the passage of time well (particularly on the night when Jack and Jani go on their gambling jaunt), but as I said, it's a short movie and it's only glaringly 'chopped' a few times.
Very enjoyable, if a little dated eleven years down the line (the laptop he writes on is almost painful to watch), but they can't all be Trainspotting or Twin Town, right?
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: ...who knows? I'll be honest, I'm a little burned out after 12 days of movies. The general rule of thumb is that 20% of all movies are great, 50% are distincly average, and 30% are fucking awful. So the next time you give a film a go, blind? Chances are it'll be alright. Could be worse, fuck it, just watch your favourite movie again.
Happy watching! :D
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
51: Twelve Movies - The Departed
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 22 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Eleven: THE DEPARTED
(2006, 151mins (...really), Dir. Martin Scorsese)
Put Simply: Folk getting shot in the head over two and half hours. Great!
Stars: Jack Nicholson, Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone
It's late, I'm tired, there are plenty of in-depth reviews you can read for this movie, so I'll keep it to thoughts-as-I-go...
• Ray Winstone's American accent is fucking awful.
• Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio look too similar to play 'opposite' roles. No, really. Especially when they're both creeping around with baseball caps on.
• The film's about half an hour longer than it needs to be. I like long movies, but only when there's enough plot to sustain it.
• Jack Nicholson plays Jack Nicholson.
• The head-shots (oh, and there are many) are fucking ace.
All in all, enjoyable. Scorcese's good at his job (duh!), and this has a really nice 70's feel to it, despite being set in the present. It just seems like they tried to justify the run-time by making things deliberately confusing; and they're not really, it just looks like they're padding it a bit. Sorry, like.
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: Croupier or maybe The Wrestler.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 22 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Eleven: THE DEPARTED
(2006, 151mins (...really), Dir. Martin Scorsese)
Put Simply: Folk getting shot in the head over two and half hours. Great!
Stars: Jack Nicholson, Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone
It's late, I'm tired, there are plenty of in-depth reviews you can read for this movie, so I'll keep it to thoughts-as-I-go...
• Ray Winstone's American accent is fucking awful.
• Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio look too similar to play 'opposite' roles. No, really. Especially when they're both creeping around with baseball caps on.
• The film's about half an hour longer than it needs to be. I like long movies, but only when there's enough plot to sustain it.
• Jack Nicholson plays Jack Nicholson.
• The head-shots (oh, and there are many) are fucking ace.
All in all, enjoyable. Scorcese's good at his job (duh!), and this has a really nice 70's feel to it, despite being set in the present. It just seems like they tried to justify the run-time by making things deliberately confusing; and they're not really, it just looks like they're padding it a bit. Sorry, like.
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: Croupier or maybe The Wrestler.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
50: Twelve Movies - 30 Days of Night
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 21 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Ten (Part 2): 30 Days of Night+Blood Trails +Dust to Dust
(2007, 104 mins, Dir. David Slade)
Put Simply: Blood... everywhere...
Stars: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George
This evening's horror entertainment was actually a triple bill; 30 Days of Night, with the prequel mini-series Blood Trails and the sequel counterpart, Dust to Dust. A group of vampires take residence in the northermost town in America, where the rotation of the earth means that once a year, nightfall lasts for thirty days...
On the whole... red, bloody carnage. These are savage, animalistic vampires, with no agenda other than the secure continuation of their species. Albeit with a complete disregard for humans, but hey. :P
The Good: Great scripting, fully believable of people in that unbelievable situation. Oh, and the effects. Blood... everywhere... nice.
The Bad: The movie takes place over the entire 30 days. We get day-update-flashes on screen, but it seems a little... implausible? 18 days in and no-one seems in need of a shave? I find it hard to believe that toiletry practices are unnaffected when you become PREY for a month. It's also worth noting that none of the characters get to cracking point (well, before they die) in all of this. If you were held under violent siege for 2-4 weeks by unworldly creatures... the strain would be showing a little more, I think.
The Ugly: Prequel and movie are fine, but Dust to Dust seems to have gone mental on the skaky-cam. I'm all for atmosphere, but did they get Michael J Fox to man the camera here? (...erm... too soon?)
All in all, a thoroughly solid addition to the vampire genre, even if it focuses a little too much on the HOW and not the WHY of things. In fairness, this is expanded (a little) in the webisode prequel/sequel; and while they're in no way essential to the movie, they make nice bookends which bring the carnage into a wider world
Like the zombie-genre, Vampires are tricky to get right, as the target audience are it's harshest critics. While this left no great lasting impression on me, I was engaged for the duration, and that's the important thing :D
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: The Departed
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 21 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Ten (Part 2): 30 Days of Night+Blood Trails +Dust to Dust
(2007, 104 mins, Dir. David Slade)
Put Simply: Blood... everywhere...
Stars: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George
This evening's horror entertainment was actually a triple bill; 30 Days of Night, with the prequel mini-series Blood Trails and the sequel counterpart, Dust to Dust. A group of vampires take residence in the northermost town in America, where the rotation of the earth means that once a year, nightfall lasts for thirty days...
On the whole... red, bloody carnage. These are savage, animalistic vampires, with no agenda other than the secure continuation of their species. Albeit with a complete disregard for humans, but hey. :P
The Good: Great scripting, fully believable of people in that unbelievable situation. Oh, and the effects. Blood... everywhere... nice.
The Bad: The movie takes place over the entire 30 days. We get day-update-flashes on screen, but it seems a little... implausible? 18 days in and no-one seems in need of a shave? I find it hard to believe that toiletry practices are unnaffected when you become PREY for a month. It's also worth noting that none of the characters get to cracking point (well, before they die) in all of this. If you were held under violent siege for 2-4 weeks by unworldly creatures... the strain would be showing a little more, I think.
The Ugly: Prequel and movie are fine, but Dust to Dust seems to have gone mental on the skaky-cam. I'm all for atmosphere, but did they get Michael J Fox to man the camera here? (...erm... too soon?)
All in all, a thoroughly solid addition to the vampire genre, even if it focuses a little too much on the HOW and not the WHY of things. In fairness, this is expanded (a little) in the webisode prequel/sequel; and while they're in no way essential to the movie, they make nice bookends which bring the carnage into a wider world
Like the zombie-genre, Vampires are tricky to get right, as the target audience are it's harshest critics. While this left no great lasting impression on me, I was engaged for the duration, and that's the important thing :D
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: The Departed
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
49: Twelve Movies - Love Actually
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 21 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Ten (Part 1): LOVE ACTUALLY
(2003, 129 mins, Dir. Richard Curtis)
Put Simply: Shit Actually.
Stars: Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson and everyone else you'd expect in this sort of thing...
Fuck me, I picked my timing with this movie, didn't I? Liam Neeson playing a man whose wife has just died? Ouch :(
With the exception of Neeson's story arc, everyone's basically just playing themselves. This is the same Kris Marshall, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy, Hugh Fucking Grant, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Colin Firth etc that you've seen plenty of times before. It'd be more accurate to have called this "Working Title's Greatest Hits".
Let me say now that I wanted to like this, but just didn't warm to it. There are so many threads crammed into this that none of them really come over as convincing, due to the lack of screen-time for each one. This also left me clockwatching quite a lot, as it's so busy jumping around that it completely failed to engage me. About an hour into the film I thought "Am I really supposed to be moved by characters reaching the zenith of their particular story-arc, but that I've only known for 10 minutes?" The flip side of all this, of course, is that the film's about half an hour longer than it should be. And although they tried to bring characters to the same location for the end of the film, it would have been too much of a stretch (even for Curtis) to wrap this up in one place, so instead we get a half-hour long series of endings. A bit like Return of the King, only without an excellent film preceding it.
Had there been THREE, or maybe four intertwining stories here, this would have worked a lot better. Instead, it's just too messy for my tastes.
Oh, and that bit with Hugh Grant dancing to the Pointer Sisters? Shit sandwich. The scene takes place in the evening, and the song's introduced by Jo Whiley. Everyone knows she's done the late-morning show for the last fifteen fucking years. And that's not even why it's shite. I was embarrassed watching that bit, and I was on my own, I can't imagine how all those couples in the cinemas felt
This ain't for me, next time I'll listen to my instinct.
I reckon: 4/10
Tomorrow: The Departed.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 21 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Ten (Part 1): LOVE ACTUALLY
(2003, 129 mins, Dir. Richard Curtis)
Put Simply: Shit Actually.
Stars: Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson and everyone else you'd expect in this sort of thing...
Fuck me, I picked my timing with this movie, didn't I? Liam Neeson playing a man whose wife has just died? Ouch :(
With the exception of Neeson's story arc, everyone's basically just playing themselves. This is the same Kris Marshall, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy, Hugh Fucking Grant, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Colin Firth etc that you've seen plenty of times before. It'd be more accurate to have called this "Working Title's Greatest Hits".
Let me say now that I wanted to like this, but just didn't warm to it. There are so many threads crammed into this that none of them really come over as convincing, due to the lack of screen-time for each one. This also left me clockwatching quite a lot, as it's so busy jumping around that it completely failed to engage me. About an hour into the film I thought "Am I really supposed to be moved by characters reaching the zenith of their particular story-arc, but that I've only known for 10 minutes?" The flip side of all this, of course, is that the film's about half an hour longer than it should be. And although they tried to bring characters to the same location for the end of the film, it would have been too much of a stretch (even for Curtis) to wrap this up in one place, so instead we get a half-hour long series of endings. A bit like Return of the King, only without an excellent film preceding it.
Had there been THREE, or maybe four intertwining stories here, this would have worked a lot better. Instead, it's just too messy for my tastes.
Oh, and that bit with Hugh Grant dancing to the Pointer Sisters? Shit sandwich. The scene takes place in the evening, and the song's introduced by Jo Whiley. Everyone knows she's done the late-morning show for the last fifteen fucking years. And that's not even why it's shite. I was embarrassed watching that bit, and I was on my own, I can't imagine how all those couples in the cinemas felt
This ain't for me, next time I'll listen to my instinct.
I reckon: 4/10
Tomorrow: The Departed.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
48: Twelve Movies - The Hunting Party
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 20 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Nine (Part 2): THE HUNTING PARTY
(2007, 100 mins, Dir. Richard Shepard)
Put Simply: If you thought the Eastern European political situation was too fucked up to be true, you're about right.
Stars: Richard Gere, Terrence Howard, Jesse Eisenberg
Disclaimer: I know bugger all about Eastern European politics. For good or bad, I'm largely indifferent to any politics, and yes, I'm perfectly aware that I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where that viewpoint doesn't dratatically affect my life. So to that end, watching a movie based on real events out there wasn't on my list of ways to spend my time. This was recommended, however, by a mate who knows a good movie when he sees one (although we often disagree on what's a shite one), so I'm boung by geek-law to give it a go.
Three american television journalists go on a mission, inadvertently posing as CIA, to apprehend a Bosnian war criminal. The mission becomes more personal to each of our protagonists as the film goes on, not knowing who they can trust, or quite what they'll do if they catch him.
Sounds heavy? It's surprisingly upbeat actually. It's hardly laugh-a-minute material, obviously, but the gallows-humour in the story is entirely believeable, as is the brutality that accomanies it. The three leads all give convincing, sympathetic performances, and while my heart wasn't in my mouth, I did care what happened to them. Perhaps that's because we're shown what their enemies are capable of, and we know that it's a happy ending or not, with nothing in between. Whatever the reason, I found this very easy to watch, largely thanks to Terrence Howard's opening narration, and Richard Gere's mix of humility and cockiness.
Not a film I'd have watched if it hadn't been recommended, and I don't recall it making a splash when it landed originally, but that also goes for a lot of good movies :)
Cheers T, I'd recommend you a movie, but you'd only tell me it's crap :p
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: Love Actually and 30 Days of Night
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 20 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Nine (Part 2): THE HUNTING PARTY
(2007, 100 mins, Dir. Richard Shepard)
Put Simply: If you thought the Eastern European political situation was too fucked up to be true, you're about right.
Stars: Richard Gere, Terrence Howard, Jesse Eisenberg
Disclaimer: I know bugger all about Eastern European politics. For good or bad, I'm largely indifferent to any politics, and yes, I'm perfectly aware that I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where that viewpoint doesn't dratatically affect my life. So to that end, watching a movie based on real events out there wasn't on my list of ways to spend my time. This was recommended, however, by a mate who knows a good movie when he sees one (although we often disagree on what's a shite one), so I'm boung by geek-law to give it a go.
Three american television journalists go on a mission, inadvertently posing as CIA, to apprehend a Bosnian war criminal. The mission becomes more personal to each of our protagonists as the film goes on, not knowing who they can trust, or quite what they'll do if they catch him.
Sounds heavy? It's surprisingly upbeat actually. It's hardly laugh-a-minute material, obviously, but the gallows-humour in the story is entirely believeable, as is the brutality that accomanies it. The three leads all give convincing, sympathetic performances, and while my heart wasn't in my mouth, I did care what happened to them. Perhaps that's because we're shown what their enemies are capable of, and we know that it's a happy ending or not, with nothing in between. Whatever the reason, I found this very easy to watch, largely thanks to Terrence Howard's opening narration, and Richard Gere's mix of humility and cockiness.
Not a film I'd have watched if it hadn't been recommended, and I don't recall it making a splash when it landed originally, but that also goes for a lot of good movies :)
Cheers T, I'd recommend you a movie, but you'd only tell me it's crap :p
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: Love Actually and 30 Days of Night
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Friday, 18 September 2009
47: Twelve Movies - Lesbian Vampire Killers
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 20 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Nine (Part 1): LESBIAN VAMPIRE KILLERS
(2009, 86 mins, Dir. Phil Claydon)
Put Simply: Very funny. Not a lot else, but what what were you expecting?
Stars: James Corden, Mathew Horne, Paul McGann
I'll get the obvious and obligatory comparison out of the way now; Shaun of the Dead set the bar way too high for comedy/horrors that were to follow. Seriously. As well as covering the comedy and horror bases, it has a lot of depth that's very easy to overlook. It hardly warrants saying that this isn't as good as SotD. Nothing would be. The initial plot setup for LVK is as close to SotD as dammit, so it's hardly surprising that everyone's going to compare the two:
The two male leads from a hit/cult sitcom play a skinny guy who gets dumped by his girlfriend, and a fat guy who swears a lot. To get over this, they go down the pub and get trolleyed. Shortly after this, undead carnage ensues. Luckily, the harsh similarities end there. This film is primarily a comedy. Actually, it's completely a comedy, because if it's trying to pull any other strings, it's failing miserably.
What will disappoint a lot of viewers is the apparent lack of sophistication. Personally, I enjoyed it as an homage to the Hammer Horror breed of vampire films; it's as blissfully clichéd and tacky as those, only with more swearing (to be precise, there's a fuckload of swearing for a 15 cert). It's not trying to be clever, it's not trying to put a new spin on the genre, and it's not trying make you think too much about the subtext. It's there to entertain, and if you like hot vampires, swearing and knob gags, you will be entertained.
James Corden (the fat one) steals the show here, being eerily natural as a bloke who only wants to get drunk, chase women and swear a lot. Matt Horne does his resigned/sighing-face in return, and there's not too much room in here for any other performances. Paul McGann's swearing vicar wears thin a little too soon, and MyAnna Buring is largely "adequate" as the female lead. Like I said, this movie's about the blokes, and anything else takes a back seat. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, mainly down to Corden. This will be a good movie to watch with mates and beer.
For pure, brainless entertainment, this is a winner... if it's your type of humour. The movie will disappoint many, but it made me laugh so my 86 minutes weren't wasted. That's all I ask. I went in with low expectations, and the movie surpassed them; I advise you to do the same. To quote the 'Blossoms...
"and if you don't expect too much of me, you might not be let down"
I reckon: 6/10
Tomorrow: Love Actually and 30 Days of Night
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 20 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Nine (Part 1): LESBIAN VAMPIRE KILLERS
(2009, 86 mins, Dir. Phil Claydon)
Put Simply: Very funny. Not a lot else, but what what were you expecting?
Stars: James Corden, Mathew Horne, Paul McGann
I'll get the obvious and obligatory comparison out of the way now; Shaun of the Dead set the bar way too high for comedy/horrors that were to follow. Seriously. As well as covering the comedy and horror bases, it has a lot of depth that's very easy to overlook. It hardly warrants saying that this isn't as good as SotD. Nothing would be. The initial plot setup for LVK is as close to SotD as dammit, so it's hardly surprising that everyone's going to compare the two:
The two male leads from a hit/cult sitcom play a skinny guy who gets dumped by his girlfriend, and a fat guy who swears a lot. To get over this, they go down the pub and get trolleyed. Shortly after this, undead carnage ensues. Luckily, the harsh similarities end there. This film is primarily a comedy. Actually, it's completely a comedy, because if it's trying to pull any other strings, it's failing miserably.
What will disappoint a lot of viewers is the apparent lack of sophistication. Personally, I enjoyed it as an homage to the Hammer Horror breed of vampire films; it's as blissfully clichéd and tacky as those, only with more swearing (to be precise, there's a fuckload of swearing for a 15 cert). It's not trying to be clever, it's not trying to put a new spin on the genre, and it's not trying make you think too much about the subtext. It's there to entertain, and if you like hot vampires, swearing and knob gags, you will be entertained.
James Corden (the fat one) steals the show here, being eerily natural as a bloke who only wants to get drunk, chase women and swear a lot. Matt Horne does his resigned/sighing-face in return, and there's not too much room in here for any other performances. Paul McGann's swearing vicar wears thin a little too soon, and MyAnna Buring is largely "adequate" as the female lead. Like I said, this movie's about the blokes, and anything else takes a back seat. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, mainly down to Corden. This will be a good movie to watch with mates and beer.
For pure, brainless entertainment, this is a winner... if it's your type of humour. The movie will disappoint many, but it made me laugh so my 86 minutes weren't wasted. That's all I ask. I went in with low expectations, and the movie surpassed them; I advise you to do the same. To quote the 'Blossoms...
"and if you don't expect too much of me, you might not be let down"
I reckon: 6/10
Tomorrow: Love Actually and 30 Days of Night
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
46: Twelve Movies - Diary of the Dead
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 19 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Eight: DIARY OF THE DEAD
(2007, 91mins, Dir. George A. Romero)
Put Simply: This is 'The Phantom Menace' of zombie movies.
Stars: Michelle Morgan, Josh Close, Philip Riccio, Scott Wentworth
Never got round to seeing this at the time, as it was only on for a week at our local. Whereas Romero's zombie movies so far have followed a loose chronology, at least in each stage of the zombie uprising, this is basically a re-boot for the modern era (similar in that respect to Zack Snyder's excellent 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead). As such, there's the heavy-handed realisation that everyone's got a camera these days, and they're no longer the clunky two-handed variety from 20 years ago.
A group of film students are making a hammy horror movie in the woods when word arrives that the dead are rising. As they're conveniently armed to the teeth with filming equipment, they begin documenting the events around them, for posterity at least. They're using pro-cameras (ie, clunky two-handed jobs), so the sight of them with these whopping monstrosities on their shoulders is par for the course for this sort of jaunt. It's only when cell-phone cameras and online uploading make appearances that we're reminded this is happening now. That being said, the scenes with the Myspace page? Very 2007 :p Still, at least the computers in this movie look like they're running real operating systems, instead of clunky audience/idiot-friendly lettering on the screen that 90% of movies seem to love showing. *Tch*
As the cameras are all "in-universe", all of the footage is on shaky-cam (with the exception of the excellently used surveillance-cam footage for the film's final act). As a result, the footage in the 'event' scenes is reminiscent of a first-person-shooter game, minus the gun at the bottom of the screen. A couple of set-pieces in the film (the hospital and the farm/barn) reminded me heavily of the tie-in game they made for Land of the Dead, Romero's previous film. In a zombie movie, the less people there are about, the more dangerous it feels. This also heightens the claustrophobia, as we invariably see only what the camera operator is looking at, only when they're looking. So quite a few "He's behind you, you knob!" moments in here.
The first real introduction to home-video-zombies for me was on the extras for the DotD remake, but as this is the basis for the whole movie, it feels like a nice, natural (...y'know) progression.
As far as textbook-zombies go, George wrote the handbook, so they're perfectly in keeping (although I had no problem with Snyder's running zombies). As well as the headshot-rule (which thankfully they work out very quickly - it pisses me off when nobody in a zombie movie seems to have seen a zombie movie before), there are, of course, some more creative disposals in the film. A good old-fashioned bow & arrow, hydrochloric acid and a defibrilator machine all take turns at dispatching the undead hordes to beautiful (...y'know) effect. The acting is generally above-par for the kind of movie this is, then again, the guy making it is the master, so you'd expect decent casting, at least. It also helps that Dennis Hopper isn't hamming it up in this one [rolls eyes].
Extra props go to Philip Riccio for his fantastic turn as the demented-mummy in the final act; Scott Wentworth as a sort of Happy-Shopper (K-Mart) version of Alan Rickman; and the most fucking bad-ass Amish farmer you've ever seen.
While the writing is excellent, the script sways between good-and-average and the direction seems a little laggy for the first half. Even so, this is still a solid movie. Anyone who saw Mena Suvari and Ving Rhames in the Day of the Dead remake will know that while everyone gets into these things with the best of intentions, it's difficult to pull off a fantastic zombie movie these days. Although I'm going to point out AGAIN that Zack Snyder did.
There are a lot of seriously shit zombie films out there. While this may not scream of greatness, it's still head and shoulders above most.
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: The Hunting Party
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 19 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Eight: DIARY OF THE DEAD
(2007, 91mins, Dir. George A. Romero)
Put Simply: This is 'The Phantom Menace' of zombie movies.
Stars: Michelle Morgan, Josh Close, Philip Riccio, Scott Wentworth
Never got round to seeing this at the time, as it was only on for a week at our local. Whereas Romero's zombie movies so far have followed a loose chronology, at least in each stage of the zombie uprising, this is basically a re-boot for the modern era (similar in that respect to Zack Snyder's excellent 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead). As such, there's the heavy-handed realisation that everyone's got a camera these days, and they're no longer the clunky two-handed variety from 20 years ago.
A group of film students are making a hammy horror movie in the woods when word arrives that the dead are rising. As they're conveniently armed to the teeth with filming equipment, they begin documenting the events around them, for posterity at least. They're using pro-cameras (ie, clunky two-handed jobs), so the sight of them with these whopping monstrosities on their shoulders is par for the course for this sort of jaunt. It's only when cell-phone cameras and online uploading make appearances that we're reminded this is happening now. That being said, the scenes with the Myspace page? Very 2007 :p Still, at least the computers in this movie look like they're running real operating systems, instead of clunky audience/idiot-friendly lettering on the screen that 90% of movies seem to love showing. *Tch*
As the cameras are all "in-universe", all of the footage is on shaky-cam (with the exception of the excellently used surveillance-cam footage for the film's final act). As a result, the footage in the 'event' scenes is reminiscent of a first-person-shooter game, minus the gun at the bottom of the screen. A couple of set-pieces in the film (the hospital and the farm/barn) reminded me heavily of the tie-in game they made for Land of the Dead, Romero's previous film. In a zombie movie, the less people there are about, the more dangerous it feels. This also heightens the claustrophobia, as we invariably see only what the camera operator is looking at, only when they're looking. So quite a few "He's behind you, you knob!" moments in here.
The first real introduction to home-video-zombies for me was on the extras for the DotD remake, but as this is the basis for the whole movie, it feels like a nice, natural (...y'know) progression.
As far as textbook-zombies go, George wrote the handbook, so they're perfectly in keeping (although I had no problem with Snyder's running zombies). As well as the headshot-rule (which thankfully they work out very quickly - it pisses me off when nobody in a zombie movie seems to have seen a zombie movie before), there are, of course, some more creative disposals in the film. A good old-fashioned bow & arrow, hydrochloric acid and a defibrilator machine all take turns at dispatching the undead hordes to beautiful (...y'know) effect. The acting is generally above-par for the kind of movie this is, then again, the guy making it is the master, so you'd expect decent casting, at least. It also helps that Dennis Hopper isn't hamming it up in this one [rolls eyes].
Extra props go to Philip Riccio for his fantastic turn as the demented-mummy in the final act; Scott Wentworth as a sort of Happy-Shopper (K-Mart) version of Alan Rickman; and the most fucking bad-ass Amish farmer you've ever seen.
While the writing is excellent, the script sways between good-and-average and the direction seems a little laggy for the first half. Even so, this is still a solid movie. Anyone who saw Mena Suvari and Ving Rhames in the Day of the Dead remake will know that while everyone gets into these things with the best of intentions, it's difficult to pull off a fantastic zombie movie these days. Although I'm going to point out AGAIN that Zack Snyder did.
There are a lot of seriously shit zombie films out there. While this may not scream of greatness, it's still head and shoulders above most.
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: The Hunting Party
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
45: Twelve Movies - Paul Blart, Mall Cop
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 19 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Seven: PAUL BLART: MALL COP
(2009, 87mins, Dir. Steve Carr)
Put Simply: Like a fusion of Police Academy and Die Hard, but not as funny or clever as either.
Stars: Kevin James, Keir O'Donnell, Jayma Mays
Because laughing at a fat man falling over never gets old, right?
I'm... amazed, genuinely amazed, that a film this... average... got a cinema release in the US, let alone in the UK. It's set around the Thanksgiving holiday & Black Friday, and most Brits don't even know what that is, much less care. I, on the other hand, watch too much US output, so I'm familiar with both of those, although I can't say there's any emotional resonance there for me, y'know? Anyhow...
This has all (and I mean all) the hallmarks of the average US comedy. Let's count them off:
• Underdog, loser hero with a heart of gold and more conviction than most around him
• Pretty girl who he falls for, who happens to see beneath the surface of the hero
• Arsehole would-be love rival
• Hero's arsehole boss
• Semi-supportive friends who underestimate hero, but are still there to back him up
• Stock-characters SO generic, you can't remember their names. During the film.
• Clumsily placed props and plot points (ah-hah! you'd forgotten about the chilli-sauce bottle! Ah! Eh? Oh...)
• A plot so formulaic, you can set your watch by it
• People falling over. A lot.
• Of course there's a fucking happy ending.
It's really no surprise to see Adam Sandler's production company bank-rolling this. It's exactly the kind of movie that Sandler was making 10 years ago (except he was being, just... better). If it wasn't for the fact that the Kevin James wrote this and has the title role, I'd expect Sandler to have donned a fat-suit to try to re-kindle his former glories *cough*EDDIE MURPHY I'M LOOKING AT YOU*cough*
Ultimately, it's not actually a bad film, it's just been done so many times before, and so much better. It's movies like this that make me appreciate my Unlimited card. Harmless, but if I'd paid £7, I'd be fucking annoyed. I only went to see it because it's got "Blart" in the title. Wait until it's on TV. Shouldn't be long before Channel 5 buy it and show it on a Saturday afternoon...
Oh, and why is Keir O'Donnell like a genetic-splicing of Reece Dinsdale and Christian Slater? Without being as good as either? That kept throwing me off. And so did those bags under Jayma Mays' eyes - they should let her sleep during a shoot, jeez. Oh, and it's not filmed at the mall from Dawn of the Dead and Zack & Miri, either. No class.
I reckon: 5/10
Tomorrow: Love, Actually (probably - let's see how the day goes, eh? I might be in the mood for zombies)
Originally posted: 19 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Seven: PAUL BLART: MALL COP
(2009, 87mins, Dir. Steve Carr)
Put Simply: Like a fusion of Police Academy and Die Hard, but not as funny or clever as either.
Stars: Kevin James, Keir O'Donnell, Jayma Mays
Because laughing at a fat man falling over never gets old, right?
I'm... amazed, genuinely amazed, that a film this... average... got a cinema release in the US, let alone in the UK. It's set around the Thanksgiving holiday & Black Friday, and most Brits don't even know what that is, much less care. I, on the other hand, watch too much US output, so I'm familiar with both of those, although I can't say there's any emotional resonance there for me, y'know? Anyhow...
This has all (and I mean all) the hallmarks of the average US comedy. Let's count them off:
• Underdog, loser hero with a heart of gold and more conviction than most around him
• Pretty girl who he falls for, who happens to see beneath the surface of the hero
• Arsehole would-be love rival
• Hero's arsehole boss
• Semi-supportive friends who underestimate hero, but are still there to back him up
• Stock-characters SO generic, you can't remember their names. During the film.
• Clumsily placed props and plot points (ah-hah! you'd forgotten about the chilli-sauce bottle! Ah! Eh? Oh...)
• A plot so formulaic, you can set your watch by it
• People falling over. A lot.
• Of course there's a fucking happy ending.
It's really no surprise to see Adam Sandler's production company bank-rolling this. It's exactly the kind of movie that Sandler was making 10 years ago (except he was being, just... better). If it wasn't for the fact that the Kevin James wrote this and has the title role, I'd expect Sandler to have donned a fat-suit to try to re-kindle his former glories *cough*EDDIE MURPHY I'M LOOKING AT YOU*cough*
Ultimately, it's not actually a bad film, it's just been done so many times before, and so much better. It's movies like this that make me appreciate my Unlimited card. Harmless, but if I'd paid £7, I'd be fucking annoyed. I only went to see it because it's got "Blart" in the title. Wait until it's on TV. Shouldn't be long before Channel 5 buy it and show it on a Saturday afternoon...
Oh, and why is Keir O'Donnell like a genetic-splicing of Reece Dinsdale and Christian Slater? Without being as good as either? That kept throwing me off. And so did those bags under Jayma Mays' eyes - they should let her sleep during a shoot, jeez. Oh, and it's not filmed at the mall from Dawn of the Dead and Zack & Miri, either. No class.
I reckon: 5/10
Tomorrow: Love, Actually (probably - let's see how the day goes, eh? I might be in the mood for zombies)
44: Twelve Movies - Watchmen
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 18 March 2009.
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Six: WATCHMEN
(2009, 158 mins (fuck, yeah!), Dir Zack Snyder)
Put Simply: As long, complicated and dark as the book. With a little bit more gore.
Stars: Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode
I'm going to make this review a short one, largely because you can read reviews of Watchmen all over the internet at the moment. This film fucking ROCKS. I loved the book, and I've seen it twice now (many more to come), and this shit only gets better each time (book and movie). Thoughts:
• Alan Moore was wrong. The piece isn't inherently unfilmable, because they've done it. And how.
• I did read a review at EmpireOnline that mentioned the movie's inaccessibility. In fairness, it's only as inaccessible as the book. That's not a criticism, but it's not a conventional "comic", and subsequentally, neither's the film.
• No doubt the film will get wildly different reviews. While I've yet to read many at all, I'd like to point out that someone who genuinely "dislikes" the film, would dislike it whatever they'd done - this is as close to the source text as you're going to get (with the exception of the one change they made, obviously).
• The closest thing I can compare this to, in spirit and feel, is Blade Runner. It's a beautiful film, you can't take it all in the first time you watch it, and if you go to see it 'cold' you won't have a clue what's going on the first time you see it; but watch it again (even if you are familiar with it), and it just gets more gorgeous in its' detail. For example...
• Noticed Dreiberg's Snow Owl variation on the second viewing. And noticed way more Pyramid Transnational references. Mint :)
• Can't wait for the extended DVD versions with the integrated 'Black Freighter'
• While Silk Spectre II's outfit seems impractical for obvious reasons, I couldn't help but think that someone wearing latex maybe shouldn't go into a burning building?
Ultimately, nothing I say here will change your mind if you haven't seen it yet, you'll either want to see it or you won't. But if you're on the fence about waiting for the DVD - do yourself a favour and catch this at the flicks. It'll be a different version that's released later, and Mars looks fantastic when the screen's 60 feet wide :D
Go see this film.
And while we're on? I would pay money to watch an actual version of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
But then, I still watch Droids on a regular basis. Anyway...
I reckon: 9/10
Tomorrow: Maybe Love Actually or maybe Paul Blart - Mall Cop
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 18 March 2009.
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Six: WATCHMEN
(2009, 158 mins (fuck, yeah!), Dir Zack Snyder)
Put Simply: As long, complicated and dark as the book. With a little bit more gore.
Stars: Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode
I'm going to make this review a short one, largely because you can read reviews of Watchmen all over the internet at the moment. This film fucking ROCKS. I loved the book, and I've seen it twice now (many more to come), and this shit only gets better each time (book and movie). Thoughts:
• Alan Moore was wrong. The piece isn't inherently unfilmable, because they've done it. And how.
• I did read a review at EmpireOnline that mentioned the movie's inaccessibility. In fairness, it's only as inaccessible as the book. That's not a criticism, but it's not a conventional "comic", and subsequentally, neither's the film.
• No doubt the film will get wildly different reviews. While I've yet to read many at all, I'd like to point out that someone who genuinely "dislikes" the film, would dislike it whatever they'd done - this is as close to the source text as you're going to get (with the exception of the one change they made, obviously).
• The closest thing I can compare this to, in spirit and feel, is Blade Runner. It's a beautiful film, you can't take it all in the first time you watch it, and if you go to see it 'cold' you won't have a clue what's going on the first time you see it; but watch it again (even if you are familiar with it), and it just gets more gorgeous in its' detail. For example...
• Noticed Dreiberg's Snow Owl variation on the second viewing. And noticed way more Pyramid Transnational references. Mint :)
• Can't wait for the extended DVD versions with the integrated 'Black Freighter'
• While Silk Spectre II's outfit seems impractical for obvious reasons, I couldn't help but think that someone wearing latex maybe shouldn't go into a burning building?
Ultimately, nothing I say here will change your mind if you haven't seen it yet, you'll either want to see it or you won't. But if you're on the fence about waiting for the DVD - do yourself a favour and catch this at the flicks. It'll be a different version that's released later, and Mars looks fantastic when the screen's 60 feet wide :D
Go see this film.
And while we're on? I would pay money to watch an actual version of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
But then, I still watch Droids on a regular basis. Anyway...
I reckon: 9/10
Tomorrow: Maybe Love Actually or maybe Paul Blart - Mall Cop
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
43: Twelve Movies - Two Tickets to Paradise
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 17 March 2009.
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Five: TWO TICKETS TO PARADISE
(2006, 90mins, Dir. D.B. Sweeney)
Put Simply: It's like a road-movie version of Chasing Amy meets Old School. Yeah...
Stars: John C McGinley, Paul Hipp, D.B. Sweeney
The movie follows a trio of childhood buddies, well into their midlife crises, who take a road-trip across the US to go to a football (not soccer) championship when everything else in their lives is falling apart. They take with them an acoustic guitar, a shedload of beer and a desire to get away from all the shit around them. En route, they get drunk, get high, set fire to a celebrity's house, get cornered by alligators, trash the car, and meet some of those fantastic creepy characters you get in road-movie-comedies. Sounds good, right?
Unfortunately, the film's too melodramatic and too low-budget to be the rip-roaring comedy it would like to be. The America in this film is dirty, and it rains too often to be comparable to Road Trip or Sex Drive. Of course, the heroes of this movie aren't scrawny teen boys - they're scrawny adults (and you will raise an eyebrow when Mark claims to be 28) - but the comedy is too black to sit next to the likes of Anchorman or Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The multiple references to suicide drag it down for a start. They go slightly too far in showing that the lives of two of the three heroes are genuinely shitty. Nothing says 'loser' like three guys approaching middle age, and realising that they never achieved that much, and they've lost most of that.
It's a damned shame, because there are some corking gags in there, but the end result comes out like Chasing Amy; there's some good laughs and an emotional connection the first time you watch the movie, but it's just a bit heavy for repeated viewings. Still, there's Del Amitri, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Georgia Satellites and Bowling for Soup on the soundtrack, so at least it's a chilled ride. The end's a little unconvincing in how 'easily' everything gets wrapped up, but we're at a short 90 minutes here and any more depth is only going to labour the point further.
In short - it's worth a watch, but there's nothing new here.
I reckon: 6/10
Tomorrow: Watchmen
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 17 March 2009.
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Five: TWO TICKETS TO PARADISE
(2006, 90mins, Dir. D.B. Sweeney)
Put Simply: It's like a road-movie version of Chasing Amy meets Old School. Yeah...
Stars: John C McGinley, Paul Hipp, D.B. Sweeney
The movie follows a trio of childhood buddies, well into their midlife crises, who take a road-trip across the US to go to a football (not soccer) championship when everything else in their lives is falling apart. They take with them an acoustic guitar, a shedload of beer and a desire to get away from all the shit around them. En route, they get drunk, get high, set fire to a celebrity's house, get cornered by alligators, trash the car, and meet some of those fantastic creepy characters you get in road-movie-comedies. Sounds good, right?
Unfortunately, the film's too melodramatic and too low-budget to be the rip-roaring comedy it would like to be. The America in this film is dirty, and it rains too often to be comparable to Road Trip or Sex Drive. Of course, the heroes of this movie aren't scrawny teen boys - they're scrawny adults (and you will raise an eyebrow when Mark claims to be 28) - but the comedy is too black to sit next to the likes of Anchorman or Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The multiple references to suicide drag it down for a start. They go slightly too far in showing that the lives of two of the three heroes are genuinely shitty. Nothing says 'loser' like three guys approaching middle age, and realising that they never achieved that much, and they've lost most of that.
It's a damned shame, because there are some corking gags in there, but the end result comes out like Chasing Amy; there's some good laughs and an emotional connection the first time you watch the movie, but it's just a bit heavy for repeated viewings. Still, there's Del Amitri, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Georgia Satellites and Bowling for Soup on the soundtrack, so at least it's a chilled ride. The end's a little unconvincing in how 'easily' everything gets wrapped up, but we're at a short 90 minutes here and any more depth is only going to labour the point further.
In short - it's worth a watch, but there's nothing new here.
I reckon: 6/10
Tomorrow: Watchmen
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
42: Twelve Movies - Capote
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 16 March 09
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Four: CAPOTE
(2005, 114mins, Dir. Bennett Miller)
Put Simply: It's too long and not enough happens.
Stars: Phillip Seymour Hoffman
When Bennett Miller finishes building his time machine, I want my two fucking hours back.
I know that's probably unneccessarily harsh, but I just didn't get what's so great about this. It's deeply ironic that I can tell that Hoffman is brilliant-as-usual in his portrayal of the American writer Truman Capote. You can tell he's so deeply immersed in the role that he's really feeling every word, gesture and emote. It's also ironic that the cinematography here is beautiful, capturing the harsh isolation of the Kansas landscape, and the tense, muted feel of 1960's America. But those lingering shots of Kansas are at the root of the problem for me.
The film's just too damned slow. The establishing shots are all about 3-5 seconds too long, and all the sighing and arkward silences just leave me bored. The thing is, as fine as the acting is (across the board), I just can't sympathise with any of the characters. Consequentally, I didn't care what happened to them. Pfft.
This film won many awards, and rightly so because it's beautifully made. But it's not for me.
I reckon: 3/10
Tomorrow: Two Tickets to Paradise (really, this time)
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 16 March 09
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Four: CAPOTE
(2005, 114mins, Dir. Bennett Miller)
Put Simply: It's too long and not enough happens.
Stars: Phillip Seymour Hoffman
When Bennett Miller finishes building his time machine, I want my two fucking hours back.
I know that's probably unneccessarily harsh, but I just didn't get what's so great about this. It's deeply ironic that I can tell that Hoffman is brilliant-as-usual in his portrayal of the American writer Truman Capote. You can tell he's so deeply immersed in the role that he's really feeling every word, gesture and emote. It's also ironic that the cinematography here is beautiful, capturing the harsh isolation of the Kansas landscape, and the tense, muted feel of 1960's America. But those lingering shots of Kansas are at the root of the problem for me.
The film's just too damned slow. The establishing shots are all about 3-5 seconds too long, and all the sighing and arkward silences just leave me bored. The thing is, as fine as the acting is (across the board), I just can't sympathise with any of the characters. Consequentally, I didn't care what happened to them. Pfft.
This film won many awards, and rightly so because it's beautifully made. But it's not for me.
I reckon: 3/10
Tomorrow: Two Tickets to Paradise (really, this time)
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
41: Twelve Movies - Role Models
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 15 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Three: ROLE MODELS
(2009, 101mins, Dir. David Wain)
Put Simply: Better than you might think, and yet exactly what you expect it to be.
Stars: Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Bobb'e J Thomson
As plots go, this is actually fairly formulaic. A mis-matched pair of friends/colleagues are tired of life and go one step too far trying to assuage the boredom. This results in a court-ordered stint in a social care program where they're assigned 'problem' kids, and through their bonding, everyone comes out the other side as changed and better people. Sorted.
If it sounds clichéd, it is. But that's not to say that it isn't immensely entertaining in the process. Paul Rudd is his usual, subtly-brilliant, self. Seann William Scott is very likeable as his 'hyper' colleague. Mintz-Plasse is, sadly, not quite as good as his performance in Superbad, and comparisons are assured as they're basically the same character. But the real show-stealer is Bobb'e J Thomson as the foul-mouthed Ronnie. As brilliant as he is, it's slightly unnerving to think that there's no trick editing here to accentuate the performance, he really is swearing that much :p
A notable mention goes to Jane Lynch, giving her deadpan (with an extra twist of mental) performance as the project co-ordinator with a corn-dog fixation. Elizabeth Banks does a decent job as Paul Rudd's girlfriend, but never really comes over as that likeable, which makes the final act a little unconvincing. And she can do likeable, because she did it to great effect in Zack and Miri...
That doesn't really matter though, as the movie is essentially a series of gags centering around boobs, geeks, swearing and Kiss, and Banks is in the second row with the supporting cast.
If you liked Anchorman, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Superbad and Zack and Miri Make A Porno, you'll like this. :) Thoroughly predictable, thoroughly entertaining.
I reckon: 8/10
Tomorrow: Capote
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 15 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Three: ROLE MODELS
(2009, 101mins, Dir. David Wain)
Put Simply: Better than you might think, and yet exactly what you expect it to be.
Stars: Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Bobb'e J Thomson
As plots go, this is actually fairly formulaic. A mis-matched pair of friends/colleagues are tired of life and go one step too far trying to assuage the boredom. This results in a court-ordered stint in a social care program where they're assigned 'problem' kids, and through their bonding, everyone comes out the other side as changed and better people. Sorted.
If it sounds clichéd, it is. But that's not to say that it isn't immensely entertaining in the process. Paul Rudd is his usual, subtly-brilliant, self. Seann William Scott is very likeable as his 'hyper' colleague. Mintz-Plasse is, sadly, not quite as good as his performance in Superbad, and comparisons are assured as they're basically the same character. But the real show-stealer is Bobb'e J Thomson as the foul-mouthed Ronnie. As brilliant as he is, it's slightly unnerving to think that there's no trick editing here to accentuate the performance, he really is swearing that much :p
A notable mention goes to Jane Lynch, giving her deadpan (with an extra twist of mental) performance as the project co-ordinator with a corn-dog fixation. Elizabeth Banks does a decent job as Paul Rudd's girlfriend, but never really comes over as that likeable, which makes the final act a little unconvincing. And she can do likeable, because she did it to great effect in Zack and Miri...
That doesn't really matter though, as the movie is essentially a series of gags centering around boobs, geeks, swearing and Kiss, and Banks is in the second row with the supporting cast.
If you liked Anchorman, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Superbad and Zack and Miri Make A Porno, you'll like this. :) Thoroughly predictable, thoroughly entertaining.
I reckon: 8/10
Tomorrow: Capote
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
40: Twelve Movies - Gran Torino
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 13 March 09.
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Two: GRAN TORINO
(2009, 116mins, Dir. Clint Eastwood)
Put Simply: No one fucks with an angry old man.
Stars: Clint Eastwood, his bad-ass fucking attitude, Bee Vang, Ahney Her
Walter Kowalski (Eastwood) is an embittered man, shunning his family and neighbours who insist they have his best interests at heart. The world has gone to hell, and he seems to be the only one who's noticed. He longs to immerse himself in making everything within his four walls perfect, and drinking beer on his porch.
I love this man already.
As far as loveable old bastards go, Eastwood's got it nailed. His abusive, racist banter with his barber stands out especially. The plot is actually fairly generic, with the grizzled old Vietnam veteran gradually befriending his neighbours, as his brash racism crumbles, and his common decency only strengthens. Hailed as a neighbourhood hero for standing up to a gang, Kowalski manages to exorcise his demons, coping all the while with growing infirmity and ill-health. About 90% of this movie is a real pleasure to watch.
Playing Kowalski's young protegé, Bee Vang's got a bit of work to do on his 'angry' mode, but he's largely convincing. However, the film's only real failing is that the violence that serves as one of it's anchors feels so... staged. Eastwood and the rest of the cast are fine waving the guns about, but the minute it comes down to physical blows (and it does, several times), we're suddenly in am-dram territory, and the cast seem to almost slo-mo their own punches. Nothing seems to connect, which undermines the generally fine acting from the cast.
Ultimately, this is a good film, but doesn't strike me as great. The finalé is telegraphed a little too much, but still leaves you with a warm feeling. I'd watch it again, but only with someone who hasn't already seen it, if that makes sense? If this really is Clint's swansong, fair play to the bloke... there are many who've gone out on lower notes than this.
Oh, and Clint singing the title song at the end? Shades of Dennis Waterman there, fo-sho ;)
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: Two Tickets to Paradise
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 13 March 09.
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day Two: GRAN TORINO
(2009, 116mins, Dir. Clint Eastwood)
Put Simply: No one fucks with an angry old man.
Stars: Clint Eastwood, his bad-ass fucking attitude, Bee Vang, Ahney Her
Walter Kowalski (Eastwood) is an embittered man, shunning his family and neighbours who insist they have his best interests at heart. The world has gone to hell, and he seems to be the only one who's noticed. He longs to immerse himself in making everything within his four walls perfect, and drinking beer on his porch.
I love this man already.
As far as loveable old bastards go, Eastwood's got it nailed. His abusive, racist banter with his barber stands out especially. The plot is actually fairly generic, with the grizzled old Vietnam veteran gradually befriending his neighbours, as his brash racism crumbles, and his common decency only strengthens. Hailed as a neighbourhood hero for standing up to a gang, Kowalski manages to exorcise his demons, coping all the while with growing infirmity and ill-health. About 90% of this movie is a real pleasure to watch.
Playing Kowalski's young protegé, Bee Vang's got a bit of work to do on his 'angry' mode, but he's largely convincing. However, the film's only real failing is that the violence that serves as one of it's anchors feels so... staged. Eastwood and the rest of the cast are fine waving the guns about, but the minute it comes down to physical blows (and it does, several times), we're suddenly in am-dram territory, and the cast seem to almost slo-mo their own punches. Nothing seems to connect, which undermines the generally fine acting from the cast.
Ultimately, this is a good film, but doesn't strike me as great. The finalé is telegraphed a little too much, but still leaves you with a warm feeling. I'd watch it again, but only with someone who hasn't already seen it, if that makes sense? If this really is Clint's swansong, fair play to the bloke... there are many who've gone out on lower notes than this.
Oh, and Clint singing the title song at the end? Shades of Dennis Waterman there, fo-sho ;)
I reckon: 7/10
Tomorrow: Two Tickets to Paradise
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
39: Twelve Movies - Get Smart
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 13 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day One: GET SMART
(2008, 110mins, Dir. Peter Segal)
Put Simply: Brick Tamland is the K-Mart Austin Powers.
Stars: Steve Carrell, Anne Hathaway, Dwane Johnson, Terence Stamp
It seems fair to say that this is the 10-years-on version of Austin Powers. That's not to do the movie a dis-service; but as I recall, the first AP movie wasn't earth-shatteringly brilliant. It was amusing, with several laugh-out-loud moments, and (thanks to the source material) was largely predictable. Hapless spy/agent - check. Stock-character evil genius - check. Hot brunette wearing pvc and back-flipping around - check. same rules apply. Could be improved in a sequel (ref: Austin Powers)
That's not to put this movie down, I did enjoy it, it's just instantly forgettable. It's not the finest moment for any of the stars listed above, but it's a vehicle that suits them all perfectly. Although The Rock's I'm-good-oh-I'm-bad role seems eerily reminiscent of Doom (sorry, did I mention... SPOILERS?), Stamp's role as a laconic arsehole is almost exactly the same as his one in Yes Man. By the way, I also enjoyed Doom immensely... what?
The price of entry here is low. There's a fleeting reference to the TV series with the museum-pieces at the start (re-referenced later, as are many of the plot-points), and they can't help but hackney in the codenames of the protagonists organisation (Control), and that of the antagonists (Kaos), which completely reveals the cold-war-timeframe origins of the original. Other than that, it's a simple action-comedy movie, and other than the unconvincing male/female-lead obligatory romance, it works damned well.
I'm sure there are other references that fans of the original TV series will feel pleased about, but frankly, by the time I was born in the seventies it seemed dated then, so I didn't watch it. My loss? Who knows. At 1hr50m, it seems long for what it is, but there are two stories wrapped up in the film. At about 70 minutes in, you'll be looking at your watch thinking 'is it over already?', but that's when it's gearing up for it's second-act/in-built-sequel.
The bottom line... watch this when you've got some mates around and had a couple of drinks. This is the cinematical equivalent of David Hasselhoff: It's largely harmless and it's meant to be laughed at, not taken seriously.
I reckon: 6/10
Tomorrow: Gran Torino.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 13 March 2009
12 Days: 12 Movies
Day One: GET SMART
(2008, 110mins, Dir. Peter Segal)
Put Simply: Brick Tamland is the K-Mart Austin Powers.
Stars: Steve Carrell, Anne Hathaway, Dwane Johnson, Terence Stamp
It seems fair to say that this is the 10-years-on version of Austin Powers. That's not to do the movie a dis-service; but as I recall, the first AP movie wasn't earth-shatteringly brilliant. It was amusing, with several laugh-out-loud moments, and (thanks to the source material) was largely predictable. Hapless spy/agent - check. Stock-character evil genius - check. Hot brunette wearing pvc and back-flipping around - check. same rules apply. Could be improved in a sequel (ref: Austin Powers)
That's not to put this movie down, I did enjoy it, it's just instantly forgettable. It's not the finest moment for any of the stars listed above, but it's a vehicle that suits them all perfectly. Although The Rock's I'm-good-oh-I'm-bad role seems eerily reminiscent of Doom (sorry, did I mention... SPOILERS?), Stamp's role as a laconic arsehole is almost exactly the same as his one in Yes Man. By the way, I also enjoyed Doom immensely... what?
The price of entry here is low. There's a fleeting reference to the TV series with the museum-pieces at the start (re-referenced later, as are many of the plot-points), and they can't help but hackney in the codenames of the protagonists organisation (Control), and that of the antagonists (Kaos), which completely reveals the cold-war-timeframe origins of the original. Other than that, it's a simple action-comedy movie, and other than the unconvincing male/female-lead obligatory romance, it works damned well.
I'm sure there are other references that fans of the original TV series will feel pleased about, but frankly, by the time I was born in the seventies it seemed dated then, so I didn't watch it. My loss? Who knows. At 1hr50m, it seems long for what it is, but there are two stories wrapped up in the film. At about 70 minutes in, you'll be looking at your watch thinking 'is it over already?', but that's when it's gearing up for it's second-act/in-built-sequel.
The bottom line... watch this when you've got some mates around and had a couple of drinks. This is the cinematical equivalent of David Hasselhoff: It's largely harmless and it's meant to be laughed at, not taken seriously.
I reckon: 6/10
Tomorrow: Gran Torino.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
38: File-sharing, theft & whining about the wrong things...
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh lanugage and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
I'm going to break my flow of whimsical sarcasm to semi-rant about a subject that's being largely mis-understood at the moment. Illegal file-sharing. I can't (read: won't) condone an action that is illegal, but some people are speaking very loudly in the media lately, with a viewpoint that is, frankly, invalid. Namely that illegally downloading an album is the like-for-like equivalent of walking into HMV, slipping the CD into your rucksack and sprinting out past the alarms. It's not. I'm going to start with the lovely advert that adorns the start of a lot of DVDs at the moment, spelling out the law to people who've already paid for a product, because they already understand that illegal filesharing is... well, illegal. It seems strangely ironic that these messages aren't built into movies themselves, and therefore never show up on the "pirate" copies they're berating. Anyway, their first point:
• You wouldn't steal a car
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. They're massive and difficult to slip inside your jacket. I'd have to:
• Find a car that I liked
• Make sure it's unsecured (or find a way of bypassing the security)
• Take the car without anyone else seeing me
• Hide the car once I've taken it, because:
• The theft of the car will be reported to the authorities
• Make suitable changes to the car for my continued use, OR
• Sell the car on to someone who can make the changes
But apart from the first step, none of the above points apply to file sharing. An album available on a P2P network isn't secured against theft, it's actually offered for download. Unless a policeman's looking over my shoulder, no-one's going to "see" me taking it. Once I've downloaded it, I don't have to 'hide' the files (or even the burnt CD), because MP3s and copied CDs aren't unusual (or even illegal). The downloading of the album won't be reported to the authorities because a) it was available for downloading, and b) me downloading the files doesn't deprive the original owner of them. I don't have to make any changes to the files I've downloaded (mainly because it's pointless sharing DRM'd tracks), consequentally I can burn/listen/rip the tracks as I wish after that.
But what are the reasons I'd steal a car?
• I'd want to take the car without having to pay for one
That's the main reason. Any secondary reasons will also have that one as a back-up. What are the knock-on effects of me stealing the car?
• I have a car I didn't pay for
• The original owner doesn't have a car
• They then have to make an insurance claim and/or pay for a new one
• The car manufacturers/dealers don't care, because they'll ultimately get to sell another car
Again, apart from the first point there, none of these points apply to file-sharing. Ultimately, the only parties being deprived in the situation are the artist and the record company. Kind of.
It's been said that the record industry is in decline because of file sharing (despite in recent years, bands like Keane and Snow Patrol pushing CD sales to their highest for years). I may be mistaken here, but isn't the car industry also in decline? Factories are closing down in this country and worldwide, workers are being laid off and forced to take extended leave all because car-sales have slumped. Is that because of car-theft? No, it's because there's a global recession on, affecting the sales of essential and non-essential goods alike. If people haven't got money to buy cars to get to work; if people are being laid off from their jobs because banks are collapsing and businesses are going under; if people are struggling to pay their mortgate/rent and put food on the table, they don't have money to buy all the shiny new CDs they'd like. It's that simple.
Of course it doesn't make file-sharing "right", either morally or legally, but that's how things happen. The world isn't "right". Should we have to put up with it? No. Then again, we shouldn't have to put up with car-theft, murder or child abuse either. Okay, that's a little over-dramatic, but the point still stands.
+++
• You wouldn't steal a CD
Again, you're absolutely right, I wouldn't. Apart from having to run away from a security guard built like a brick shithouse, I'd encounter many of the same problems as stealing a car: countering security, not being able to go back in that store again, being caught on the store's CCTV, having a bag full of 'hot' CDs in the middle of town. The smackheads you see on TV documentaries are fucking stupid. At least they have drugs to cloud their reasoning? But for those that do, what are the knock-on effects of stealing a CD?
• I have a CD I didn't pay for
• The store no longer has that CD to sell, denying them staff/store costs and profit
• The store has also lost money on the CD they bought, losing them money on stock-costs
• The record company doesn't care, because HMV's insurance will cover their loss. This will be passed on to the customer in higher prices, and the record company gets to sell the store more CDs. It's not the record company's job to police HMV.
So, as with the car-scenario, apart from the first step, none of the points apply to file-sharing. As harsh as it sounds, HMV aren't "losing" money by people illegally downloading, they're just not "making" money. The same goes for the artists and labels.
+++
So (to me at least), that's the difference many people aren't grasping here. The one between "losing" money and "not making" money. Rail companies lose money every year by people riding on trains without buying tickets. They hide in the toilets and jump security barriers. They're getting a ride at the rail company's expense. That's stealing. What if people decide to take the bus instead of the train? Are the train company still losing money? They're not getting the revenue that they would be if John had gone into London on the train! But it's okay, John paid the bus company instead. But what if John doesn't want to pay the money to get into London? What if he asks Tom for a lift, and his Tom says yes? He's got into London and hasn't paid, and yet Tom has ended up paying to drive into London (as he was going to anyway). Tom said it was okay and allowed John to share what he'd paid for.
Of course, that only applies to the borrowing of CDs (which the record companies used to moan about before file sharing). The key thing with file-sharing is the sheer size of the networks. You no longer have to know someone who has the album you want, there are many strangers who have it and are willing to share it for nothing. It's the digital equivalent of John hitch-hiking to London. He's travelling essentially the same route, he can see the train tracks that the rail company's paid money to put down, and he's seeing the same sights along the way. The ride may take longer, he's not guaranteed a luxurious journey, but he gets there in the end.
So would the rail company be justified in saying they're "losing money" because of hitch-hikers? Of course they fucking wouldn't. That'd be ridiculous. Although, what if there were a lot of hitch-hikers? More than ever? An increasing number of people prepared to take the slow, precarious, free (and in some places, illegal) route into London instead of paying the train company? I'm sure they'd mention it at the next board meeting, when the line is plummeting down the graph. The managing director could rant and moan all he wants, but sooner or later he'd have to ask "Why? Why are people really prepared to take this inconvenient route when we're offering the service at a premium? Shortly thereafter, he'd do well to ask himself if his service is really value for money? And what he could do to improve it?
+++
Let's say, hypothetically, that John (A different John. Doesn't matter, he's hypothetical remember?) illegally downloads ten albums a week. Some he likes and he keeps, some he doesn't like and he deletes after listening to. Some, occasionally, he even likes so much that he goes out and buys the original, but only if it's got a bonus DVD. Often he'll buy them at a later date when they're in the sale for £5-6.
Hypothetical Records finds out about this and decides to sue John for loss of earnings. "Over the last year, that's 520 albums he's had out of us", they claim.
"That's one way of looking at it", his defence says. "But if it weren't for the downloading, would you expect John to have paid for 520 albums in a year?"
It's not very likely, is it? I don't know anyone that buys one CD every week, never mind ten. And it's a common consumer practice for people to wait and buy 'premium' goods in the sale. The stores have enough sales and promos to know this. John downloaded ten albums a week because he could. Because they were there. Because they were "free". He then carried on buying CDs at his normal rate. He probably even got into some new music along the way, that he wouldn't have heard otherwise.
Does this justify John's actions? Of course it fucking doesn't John broke the law and he knows it. Only an idiot believes that the free album they're downloading via P2P is above-board.
So what to do? Ban file-sharing software? That'd be like banning all cars because some are used in robberies. Cut file-sharers off the internet? That'd be like the bus company refusing to take someone into town because they've been caught shoplifting there. Ban the internet? Lord knows it's been used for a lot of morally dubious things since it's inception.
Or maybe, just maybe... the people complaining the loudest over this could take a look at the products and services they're offering and think "If it's worth stealing, it's got to be worth paying for. So something's got to give..."
+++
As a last note, I should point out that the film/cinema industry is going through exactly the same thing. At our local cinema it's £7 for an adult ticket, £5 for a child's one. Drinks are £2-£3.50, and the shitty food is equally inflated. Then they wonder why the family don't come down at the weekend to watch Monsters Vs Aliens? It's not because of the bootleggers (although they don't help). It's because in three months time they'll be able to pay £13 and watch it in the house. At great quality. As many times as they like. Three months after that, it'll be on sale for £8. Within a year, you'll be able to buy it for £4. That's why cinema attendances are down. After years of patronising viewers with "piracy is evil" adverts (again, ironically being shown to people who've paid to sit there), they've finally come up with a more effective message:
• The qulity of cam-jobs is shit
• And thank you for paying to be here.
...It's not rocket-science, people.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I'm going to break my flow of whimsical sarcasm to semi-rant about a subject that's being largely mis-understood at the moment. Illegal file-sharing. I can't (read: won't) condone an action that is illegal, but some people are speaking very loudly in the media lately, with a viewpoint that is, frankly, invalid. Namely that illegally downloading an album is the like-for-like equivalent of walking into HMV, slipping the CD into your rucksack and sprinting out past the alarms. It's not. I'm going to start with the lovely advert that adorns the start of a lot of DVDs at the moment, spelling out the law to people who've already paid for a product, because they already understand that illegal filesharing is... well, illegal. It seems strangely ironic that these messages aren't built into movies themselves, and therefore never show up on the "pirate" copies they're berating. Anyway, their first point:
• You wouldn't steal a car
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. They're massive and difficult to slip inside your jacket. I'd have to:
• Find a car that I liked
• Make sure it's unsecured (or find a way of bypassing the security)
• Take the car without anyone else seeing me
• Hide the car once I've taken it, because:
• The theft of the car will be reported to the authorities
• Make suitable changes to the car for my continued use, OR
• Sell the car on to someone who can make the changes
But apart from the first step, none of the above points apply to file sharing. An album available on a P2P network isn't secured against theft, it's actually offered for download. Unless a policeman's looking over my shoulder, no-one's going to "see" me taking it. Once I've downloaded it, I don't have to 'hide' the files (or even the burnt CD), because MP3s and copied CDs aren't unusual (or even illegal). The downloading of the album won't be reported to the authorities because a) it was available for downloading, and b) me downloading the files doesn't deprive the original owner of them. I don't have to make any changes to the files I've downloaded (mainly because it's pointless sharing DRM'd tracks), consequentally I can burn/listen/rip the tracks as I wish after that.
But what are the reasons I'd steal a car?
• I'd want to take the car without having to pay for one
That's the main reason. Any secondary reasons will also have that one as a back-up. What are the knock-on effects of me stealing the car?
• I have a car I didn't pay for
• The original owner doesn't have a car
• They then have to make an insurance claim and/or pay for a new one
• The car manufacturers/dealers don't care, because they'll ultimately get to sell another car
Again, apart from the first point there, none of these points apply to file-sharing. Ultimately, the only parties being deprived in the situation are the artist and the record company. Kind of.
It's been said that the record industry is in decline because of file sharing (despite in recent years, bands like Keane and Snow Patrol pushing CD sales to their highest for years). I may be mistaken here, but isn't the car industry also in decline? Factories are closing down in this country and worldwide, workers are being laid off and forced to take extended leave all because car-sales have slumped. Is that because of car-theft? No, it's because there's a global recession on, affecting the sales of essential and non-essential goods alike. If people haven't got money to buy cars to get to work; if people are being laid off from their jobs because banks are collapsing and businesses are going under; if people are struggling to pay their mortgate/rent and put food on the table, they don't have money to buy all the shiny new CDs they'd like. It's that simple.
Of course it doesn't make file-sharing "right", either morally or legally, but that's how things happen. The world isn't "right". Should we have to put up with it? No. Then again, we shouldn't have to put up with car-theft, murder or child abuse either. Okay, that's a little over-dramatic, but the point still stands.
+++
• You wouldn't steal a CD
Again, you're absolutely right, I wouldn't. Apart from having to run away from a security guard built like a brick shithouse, I'd encounter many of the same problems as stealing a car: countering security, not being able to go back in that store again, being caught on the store's CCTV, having a bag full of 'hot' CDs in the middle of town. The smackheads you see on TV documentaries are fucking stupid. At least they have drugs to cloud their reasoning? But for those that do, what are the knock-on effects of stealing a CD?
• I have a CD I didn't pay for
• The store no longer has that CD to sell, denying them staff/store costs and profit
• The store has also lost money on the CD they bought, losing them money on stock-costs
• The record company doesn't care, because HMV's insurance will cover their loss. This will be passed on to the customer in higher prices, and the record company gets to sell the store more CDs. It's not the record company's job to police HMV.
So, as with the car-scenario, apart from the first step, none of the points apply to file-sharing. As harsh as it sounds, HMV aren't "losing" money by people illegally downloading, they're just not "making" money. The same goes for the artists and labels.
+++
So (to me at least), that's the difference many people aren't grasping here. The one between "losing" money and "not making" money. Rail companies lose money every year by people riding on trains without buying tickets. They hide in the toilets and jump security barriers. They're getting a ride at the rail company's expense. That's stealing. What if people decide to take the bus instead of the train? Are the train company still losing money? They're not getting the revenue that they would be if John had gone into London on the train! But it's okay, John paid the bus company instead. But what if John doesn't want to pay the money to get into London? What if he asks Tom for a lift, and his Tom says yes? He's got into London and hasn't paid, and yet Tom has ended up paying to drive into London (as he was going to anyway). Tom said it was okay and allowed John to share what he'd paid for.
Of course, that only applies to the borrowing of CDs (which the record companies used to moan about before file sharing). The key thing with file-sharing is the sheer size of the networks. You no longer have to know someone who has the album you want, there are many strangers who have it and are willing to share it for nothing. It's the digital equivalent of John hitch-hiking to London. He's travelling essentially the same route, he can see the train tracks that the rail company's paid money to put down, and he's seeing the same sights along the way. The ride may take longer, he's not guaranteed a luxurious journey, but he gets there in the end.
So would the rail company be justified in saying they're "losing money" because of hitch-hikers? Of course they fucking wouldn't. That'd be ridiculous. Although, what if there were a lot of hitch-hikers? More than ever? An increasing number of people prepared to take the slow, precarious, free (and in some places, illegal) route into London instead of paying the train company? I'm sure they'd mention it at the next board meeting, when the line is plummeting down the graph. The managing director could rant and moan all he wants, but sooner or later he'd have to ask "Why? Why are people really prepared to take this inconvenient route when we're offering the service at a premium? Shortly thereafter, he'd do well to ask himself if his service is really value for money? And what he could do to improve it?
+++
Let's say, hypothetically, that John (A different John. Doesn't matter, he's hypothetical remember?) illegally downloads ten albums a week. Some he likes and he keeps, some he doesn't like and he deletes after listening to. Some, occasionally, he even likes so much that he goes out and buys the original, but only if it's got a bonus DVD. Often he'll buy them at a later date when they're in the sale for £5-6.
Hypothetical Records finds out about this and decides to sue John for loss of earnings. "Over the last year, that's 520 albums he's had out of us", they claim.
"That's one way of looking at it", his defence says. "But if it weren't for the downloading, would you expect John to have paid for 520 albums in a year?"
It's not very likely, is it? I don't know anyone that buys one CD every week, never mind ten. And it's a common consumer practice for people to wait and buy 'premium' goods in the sale. The stores have enough sales and promos to know this. John downloaded ten albums a week because he could. Because they were there. Because they were "free". He then carried on buying CDs at his normal rate. He probably even got into some new music along the way, that he wouldn't have heard otherwise.
Does this justify John's actions? Of course it fucking doesn't John broke the law and he knows it. Only an idiot believes that the free album they're downloading via P2P is above-board.
So what to do? Ban file-sharing software? That'd be like banning all cars because some are used in robberies. Cut file-sharers off the internet? That'd be like the bus company refusing to take someone into town because they've been caught shoplifting there. Ban the internet? Lord knows it's been used for a lot of morally dubious things since it's inception.
Or maybe, just maybe... the people complaining the loudest over this could take a look at the products and services they're offering and think "If it's worth stealing, it's got to be worth paying for. So something's got to give..."
+++
As a last note, I should point out that the film/cinema industry is going through exactly the same thing. At our local cinema it's £7 for an adult ticket, £5 for a child's one. Drinks are £2-£3.50, and the shitty food is equally inflated. Then they wonder why the family don't come down at the weekend to watch Monsters Vs Aliens? It's not because of the bootleggers (although they don't help). It's because in three months time they'll be able to pay £13 and watch it in the house. At great quality. As many times as they like. Three months after that, it'll be on sale for £8. Within a year, you'll be able to buy it for £4. That's why cinema attendances are down. After years of patronising viewers with "piracy is evil" adverts (again, ironically being shown to people who've paid to sit there), they've finally come up with a more effective message:
• The qulity of cam-jobs is shit
• And thank you for paying to be here.
...It's not rocket-science, people.
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
37: Twelve Days - Twelve Movies (Repost)
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Originally posted: 07-Mar-09.
I don't watch enough movies.
I've got an unlimited card for the local Cineworld, which means I get to go as often as I like for £13.50 a month (which is less than going to see two movies at full price anyway), and I usually get down there once or twice a week (with the second one being at the weekend). That keeps me up to date with the new stuff, but it still feels like I don't see enough stuff I've not seen before. I've got a stack of DVDs in the house that I haven't watched yet, but by the time I get in from work, shower, eat, navigate around any TV shows my good lady wants to watch, and whizz through any design jobs that have landed in my inbox... it's too late to put a DVD on. The cinema's different, because it forces you leave the house (...I know) for a set time, but DVDs are just too flexible for the busy person in 2009.
So anyway, my fianceé flies out to the US next week, to go to a friend's wedding, and I'll have 12 days to watch what I like (after doing the other 'stuff' mentioned above, obviously). To that end, I'm going to watch one movie every day for twelve days. I shall make time. No rules as such, but the guidelines are:
• Mostly stuff I haven't seen before
• At least three of which will be the kind of thing I'd normally avoid
• No movies I've seen a lot
• Some of them will be at the cinema, so some new stuff
• I'll update here every day with a brief 'review' of what I watched
So, if you have any suggestions for stuff you enjoy but I may not have seen, fire away :)
All styles/genres are open, but obviously I reserve the right to shake my head and think of an excuse why not :p
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Originally posted: 07-Mar-09.
I don't watch enough movies.
I've got an unlimited card for the local Cineworld, which means I get to go as often as I like for £13.50 a month (which is less than going to see two movies at full price anyway), and I usually get down there once or twice a week (with the second one being at the weekend). That keeps me up to date with the new stuff, but it still feels like I don't see enough stuff I've not seen before. I've got a stack of DVDs in the house that I haven't watched yet, but by the time I get in from work, shower, eat, navigate around any TV shows my good lady wants to watch, and whizz through any design jobs that have landed in my inbox... it's too late to put a DVD on. The cinema's different, because it forces you leave the house (...I know) for a set time, but DVDs are just too flexible for the busy person in 2009.
So anyway, my fianceé flies out to the US next week, to go to a friend's wedding, and I'll have 12 days to watch what I like (after doing the other 'stuff' mentioned above, obviously). To that end, I'm going to watch one movie every day for twelve days. I shall make time. No rules as such, but the guidelines are:
• Mostly stuff I haven't seen before
• At least three of which will be the kind of thing I'd normally avoid
• No movies I've seen a lot
• Some of them will be at the cinema, so some new stuff
• I'll update here every day with a brief 'review' of what I watched
So, if you have any suggestions for stuff you enjoy but I may not have seen, fire away :)
All styles/genres are open, but obviously I reserve the right to shake my head and think of an excuse why not :p
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
36: A World Without Beer: Week 13
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh lanugage and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Short one this week. Fairly uneventful until Saturday night when we went to a wedding reception. Yes, one of the social occasions, like Christmas, where you're expected to drink. Sickly-sweet diet Cola at the function-room bar it is, then. I was fully armed with my faux-excuse of "I'm on a three-month course of anti-biotics", because it's a shite-sight easier to offer that as an explanation all night than tell people why I'm really not drinking. I'm not ashamed, it's just not a 30-second tale.
As luck would have it, no-one* actually noticed (ie cared), or probably assumed there was some manner of spirit in my drink. *I say "no-one", and yet that's not true. My friend Bob did notice I was drinking coke, but that's because he's been reading my blogs. And because he knew exactly why I was drinking coke, I still didn't have to explain it!
I should take this opporunity to thank Bob for just accepting the situation, and not just looking at me and going "yeah, but why?" Like my brother-in-law. I explained (briefly) on Saturday afternoon about the 100 days, and he didn't seem to grasp the concept. Admittedly, part of my explanation was "because I'm an idiot", and he did grasp that part. It seems that, after the initial "it's an experiment and a challenge of self-will" part of the setup, if people aren't getting it; no further explanation is going to clarify matters. They look at you blankly like you're some kind of idiot. They're probably right.
To make matters worse, the wedding reception was also attended by a few of my old work colleagues (from the job I had up until Jan this year). While it was nice to see them and catch up briefly, extended memories of that place really make me want to drink. By 10pm, people were getting slurrier and it was time for us to head home. There's a more formal "reunion" coming up in October, by which time I'll be back to drinking and speaking my mind inappropriately.
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Simon and Jenny on tying the knot. Simon seemed stressed/tired/pissed (in that order), and Jenny seemed de-stressing/tired (in that order), but for the most part, they both seemed happy, which is exactly what it's all about.
+++++
In other news, the new Europe album's a bit alright!
Which is probably as worrying as it sounds, yes. I'd put on Facebook a few months ago that I'd dug out Europe's 1988 album 'Out Of This World', and it wasn't as good as I remembered. Then, the same thing happened as did in 1988. I grew on me again. Sure, the production was a little 'light', the keyboards too loud, and Joey Tempest was in the room at the time of recording; but other than that, some sound riffs and melodies and nice songwriting. Next thing you know, it's permanently on my generic MP3 player.
The new album, Last Look At Eden, is a fast-grower. Sure, if you really don't like Europe, then it's probably best not to bother. But the production's a lot grungier this time round, which tones down the melodity to a more acceptable level. There's a lot of wah-wah pedal on here, and plenty of bass-driven riffs. It's undeniably Europe, but it's also quite mindful of Audioslave... with Joey Tempest singing.
You see, there's no way of toning down Joey Tempest, he just is. He's like the god-equation. You can remove him, but then you don't really solve the problem, you eliminate it all together. So if you can accept Tempest, give this one a go.
Click on here to watch the video. Normally I'd embed it, but that's been disabled on this vid, and quite frankly I can't be arsed to grab the video, re-upload it to my account, only to have YouTube pull it a couple of days later and quite possible suspend my account out of pure spite.
Click the link, 'tis good!
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Short one this week. Fairly uneventful until Saturday night when we went to a wedding reception. Yes, one of the social occasions, like Christmas, where you're expected to drink. Sickly-sweet diet Cola at the function-room bar it is, then. I was fully armed with my faux-excuse of "I'm on a three-month course of anti-biotics", because it's a shite-sight easier to offer that as an explanation all night than tell people why I'm really not drinking. I'm not ashamed, it's just not a 30-second tale.
As luck would have it, no-one* actually noticed (ie cared), or probably assumed there was some manner of spirit in my drink. *I say "no-one", and yet that's not true. My friend Bob did notice I was drinking coke, but that's because he's been reading my blogs. And because he knew exactly why I was drinking coke, I still didn't have to explain it!
I should take this opporunity to thank Bob for just accepting the situation, and not just looking at me and going "yeah, but why?" Like my brother-in-law. I explained (briefly) on Saturday afternoon about the 100 days, and he didn't seem to grasp the concept. Admittedly, part of my explanation was "because I'm an idiot", and he did grasp that part. It seems that, after the initial "it's an experiment and a challenge of self-will" part of the setup, if people aren't getting it; no further explanation is going to clarify matters. They look at you blankly like you're some kind of idiot. They're probably right.
To make matters worse, the wedding reception was also attended by a few of my old work colleagues (from the job I had up until Jan this year). While it was nice to see them and catch up briefly, extended memories of that place really make me want to drink. By 10pm, people were getting slurrier and it was time for us to head home. There's a more formal "reunion" coming up in October, by which time I'll be back to drinking and speaking my mind inappropriately.
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Simon and Jenny on tying the knot. Simon seemed stressed/tired/pissed (in that order), and Jenny seemed de-stressing/tired (in that order), but for the most part, they both seemed happy, which is exactly what it's all about.
+++++
In other news, the new Europe album's a bit alright!
Which is probably as worrying as it sounds, yes. I'd put on Facebook a few months ago that I'd dug out Europe's 1988 album 'Out Of This World', and it wasn't as good as I remembered. Then, the same thing happened as did in 1988. I grew on me again. Sure, the production was a little 'light', the keyboards too loud, and Joey Tempest was in the room at the time of recording; but other than that, some sound riffs and melodies and nice songwriting. Next thing you know, it's permanently on my generic MP3 player.
The new album, Last Look At Eden, is a fast-grower. Sure, if you really don't like Europe, then it's probably best not to bother. But the production's a lot grungier this time round, which tones down the melodity to a more acceptable level. There's a lot of wah-wah pedal on here, and plenty of bass-driven riffs. It's undeniably Europe, but it's also quite mindful of Audioslave... with Joey Tempest singing.
You see, there's no way of toning down Joey Tempest, he just is. He's like the god-equation. You can remove him, but then you don't really solve the problem, you eliminate it all together. So if you can accept Tempest, give this one a go.
Click on here to watch the video. Normally I'd embed it, but that's been disabled on this vid, and quite frankly I can't be arsed to grab the video, re-upload it to my account, only to have YouTube pull it a couple of days later and quite possible suspend my account out of pure spite.
Click the link, 'tis good!
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
35: Me llamo Sr Muerte Pandereta... yo no hablo Inglés
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. This particular one also includes badly (if at all) researched scientific theories. Reader discretion is advised.
So, yeah. In case you didn't know, I'm part of the BFS Street Team, an online/physical promo-army for Bowling for Soup. We spread the word about how great the band are, have a great community, and in return get exclusive merch/content from the band, opporunities to meet them etc.
So a few weeks back, we got to ask the singer, Jaret, a question about the upcoming album, Sorry for Partyin'. He'd record a video answering a bunch of questions and one would get a prize. Now I've done a couple of web-chats with BFS, and my questions are always Star Wars based (I know, surprising, isn't it?). I've asked them if they could be any SW character which would they be, and if they could have any ship/weapon, which it would be.
The bizarre thing is, they always answer my SW questions. Maybe it's a generational thing, I'm around the same age as the band after all. Or maybe it's just a sign of how fantastic Star Wars is. It's definitely a sign of how fantastic BFS is, that's for sure.
So, back to a few weeks back. I asked two questions. The answers were put online in four parts. By the third part, I was no longer expecting my questions to be answered. Mainly because all of the q's by then had been perfectly valid, sensible questions O_o
My questions:
1) Are there any SW references on the new album, and if not, why not?
Short answer, yes.
2) Did you all try on the Wena suit after the video shoot?
Short answer, no.
So imagine my surprise/disbelief when this video cropped up on day four. My username on the site is Harrington, and I've edited this video down to just the bits relevant to this blog (it's meant to be an exclusive for the BFSarmy after all):
So yeah! The guys were going to send me a signed limited edition hand-screened 15th Anniversary poster, and the Tambourine of Death! The tambourine was found in the trash by Jaret, on the day they were in the studio recording No Hablo Inglés. This was also the day that Michael Jackson died. Were these incidents related? The tambourine may well have caused Jackson to die, then fled and took cover in the garbage. Or it could well be that when a callous studio-tech threw the tambourine into the bin and its jangly beat stopped, poor Michael's heart stopped as well. Like the picture of Dorian Gray, or the Grandfather clock in that old song. We'll never know.
The package arrived from Texas this morning, here's the poster:
And here's the Death Tambourine
By now, you either think this is seriously awesome, or you don't know what all the fuss is. Guess which one I think it is? Nothing else I can say now is going to change your mind, though. :P
So I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Bowling for Soup, their techs, their roadies, and all the people that make the magic happen. You guys rule.
So pretty soon I can take to the streets in my shroud, scythe in one hand, tambourine in the other. Pruning humanity with only the rhythmic tinkle of bells as a warning. Jackson was only the first on my list...
Bwaha-ha-ha-ha-haaah!
Bowling for Soup are playing the UK in October, as part of their Party In Your Pants tour.
BowlingForSoup.com
BFS Army
BFS Myspace
Twitter: BFSRocks, MyWena, P.I.Y.P. Tour
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So, yeah. In case you didn't know, I'm part of the BFS Street Team, an online/physical promo-army for Bowling for Soup. We spread the word about how great the band are, have a great community, and in return get exclusive merch/content from the band, opporunities to meet them etc.
So a few weeks back, we got to ask the singer, Jaret, a question about the upcoming album, Sorry for Partyin'. He'd record a video answering a bunch of questions and one would get a prize. Now I've done a couple of web-chats with BFS, and my questions are always Star Wars based (I know, surprising, isn't it?). I've asked them if they could be any SW character which would they be, and if they could have any ship/weapon, which it would be.
The bizarre thing is, they always answer my SW questions. Maybe it's a generational thing, I'm around the same age as the band after all. Or maybe it's just a sign of how fantastic Star Wars is. It's definitely a sign of how fantastic BFS is, that's for sure.
So, back to a few weeks back. I asked two questions. The answers were put online in four parts. By the third part, I was no longer expecting my questions to be answered. Mainly because all of the q's by then had been perfectly valid, sensible questions O_o
My questions:
1) Are there any SW references on the new album, and if not, why not?
Short answer, yes.
2) Did you all try on the Wena suit after the video shoot?
Short answer, no.
So imagine my surprise/disbelief when this video cropped up on day four. My username on the site is Harrington, and I've edited this video down to just the bits relevant to this blog (it's meant to be an exclusive for the BFSarmy after all):
So yeah! The guys were going to send me a signed limited edition hand-screened 15th Anniversary poster, and the Tambourine of Death! The tambourine was found in the trash by Jaret, on the day they were in the studio recording No Hablo Inglés. This was also the day that Michael Jackson died. Were these incidents related? The tambourine may well have caused Jackson to die, then fled and took cover in the garbage. Or it could well be that when a callous studio-tech threw the tambourine into the bin and its jangly beat stopped, poor Michael's heart stopped as well. Like the picture of Dorian Gray, or the Grandfather clock in that old song. We'll never know.
The package arrived from Texas this morning, here's the poster:
And here's the Death Tambourine
By now, you either think this is seriously awesome, or you don't know what all the fuss is. Guess which one I think it is? Nothing else I can say now is going to change your mind, though. :P
So I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Bowling for Soup, their techs, their roadies, and all the people that make the magic happen. You guys rule.
So pretty soon I can take to the streets in my shroud, scythe in one hand, tambourine in the other. Pruning humanity with only the rhythmic tinkle of bells as a warning. Jackson was only the first on my list...
Bwaha-ha-ha-ha-haaah!
Bowling for Soup are playing the UK in October, as part of their Party In Your Pants tour.
BowlingForSoup.com
BFS Army
BFS Myspace
Twitter: BFSRocks, MyWena, P.I.Y.P. Tour
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Saturday, 5 September 2009
34: A World Without Beer: Weeks 11-12
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh lanugage and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
The end is in sight, folks. We're into september, and I can see Sunday 27th leering at me from my Mighty Boosh calendar. This time of year is usually reserved for me being a little more introspective, and thinking about the summer just past which (every year) I seem to spend most of indoors. September's sunny-but-cooler days bring that feeling of melancholy, literally transcribed in the title Last of the Summer Wine (a subtle title often overlooked with the distraction of three old men falling down a hill. In a barrel.). For some, it's a time for looking forward to Christmas and cosy nights in over the Winter months, but for the pessimistic bastard I am, it's been a time more for thinking about the things I didn't get done over the summer.
Anyway, fuck all that, I can start drinking again soon! I'm visiting my buddy this weekend, and we're finally going to have that pint for his birthday that we didn't have at the Zodiac the other week. Nothing too mad, honest, but I haven't been to Margate since I started this damned fool idealistic crusade, and I think he's got a bit of steam to blow off, so let's play it by ear, yeah?
+++++
In other (geekier) news, I popped into Toys'r'Us last weekend for the first time this year. Considering how many SW 30th Anniversary Collection figures I got over 2007-08, it's been a bit of a jolt to the system that I've only bought two action figures this year. That being said, given that I started the year unemployed, and spent the first eight months of the year temping for crap (read: better than no) money, it's probably not that surprising. The fact is that I can't really be arsed with the current output of Star Wars figures. There are a few in the A/W09 collection that I'll want, but I can't see them hitting these shores for a couple of months yet. The Clone Wars line is a littlg e to spindly for my liking, with too much articulation. The Legacy line (ie the movies and anything else outside of the CW line) is patchy. Some good figures, some bloody awful ones. For some reason, everyone at Hasbro seems to have forgotten what Mark Hamill looks like. The ones that are good, I've probably got earlier (often better) versions of anyway. They're also ferociously expensive. £8 is pretty ridiculous for a 3¾" figure; you can get larger scale Marvel and Doctor who figures for the same price, with the scupting being equally good (okay, sometimes better).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not giving up, there's just not too much there to hold my interest at the moment. But that doesn't deter me from other, great looking toys. I'll generally go for the 3¾" scale, just so I can stand them with my SW figures, and have some cool mash-ups. So, the only beauties which have caught my eye (ie wallet) this year are:
Mola Ram and The Terminator! Terminator's slightly under-scale, but still works pretty well. Since 1977, 3¾" figures have been practical on many levels: Cheaper to produce, cheaper to purchase, therefore you can make more and they have a greater "collector" mindset. Which leads to the problem with many 3¾" toy lines; Ultimately, the range of characters.
Where Star Wars has a rich spread of characters who look good in plastic, it's a sad fact that Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter and Narnia just don't. You'll get two or three great figures from each line, and the rest will be mediocre at best. Terminator Salvation's a good example where the manufacturers couldn't secure the rights to Christian Bale's image, so his figure has a cloth over his face with goggles on top. For absolutely no fucking reason.
So, the cyborg based figures were okay, the human ones were pretty drab, and the only real corker was the one you see above.
Indy's only slightly better. The figures look good, but the characters themselves aren't that interesting, outside of Dr Jones and his main adversaries. Sales got so low that Hasbro has actually cancelled the line now. I thought I wasn't going to get Mola Ram at all for a while, there.
So, there's a picture of where I am. No beer, no coffee, and not much in the way of toys. Maybe I should take up fannying about with cars..?
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The end is in sight, folks. We're into september, and I can see Sunday 27th leering at me from my Mighty Boosh calendar. This time of year is usually reserved for me being a little more introspective, and thinking about the summer just past which (every year) I seem to spend most of indoors. September's sunny-but-cooler days bring that feeling of melancholy, literally transcribed in the title Last of the Summer Wine (a subtle title often overlooked with the distraction of three old men falling down a hill. In a barrel.). For some, it's a time for looking forward to Christmas and cosy nights in over the Winter months, but for the pessimistic bastard I am, it's been a time more for thinking about the things I didn't get done over the summer.
Anyway, fuck all that, I can start drinking again soon! I'm visiting my buddy this weekend, and we're finally going to have that pint for his birthday that we didn't have at the Zodiac the other week. Nothing too mad, honest, but I haven't been to Margate since I started this damned fool idealistic crusade, and I think he's got a bit of steam to blow off, so let's play it by ear, yeah?
+++++
In other (geekier) news, I popped into Toys'r'Us last weekend for the first time this year. Considering how many SW 30th Anniversary Collection figures I got over 2007-08, it's been a bit of a jolt to the system that I've only bought two action figures this year. That being said, given that I started the year unemployed, and spent the first eight months of the year temping for crap (read: better than no) money, it's probably not that surprising. The fact is that I can't really be arsed with the current output of Star Wars figures. There are a few in the A/W09 collection that I'll want, but I can't see them hitting these shores for a couple of months yet. The Clone Wars line is a littlg e to spindly for my liking, with too much articulation. The Legacy line (ie the movies and anything else outside of the CW line) is patchy. Some good figures, some bloody awful ones. For some reason, everyone at Hasbro seems to have forgotten what Mark Hamill looks like. The ones that are good, I've probably got earlier (often better) versions of anyway. They're also ferociously expensive. £8 is pretty ridiculous for a 3¾" figure; you can get larger scale Marvel and Doctor who figures for the same price, with the scupting being equally good (okay, sometimes better).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not giving up, there's just not too much there to hold my interest at the moment. But that doesn't deter me from other, great looking toys. I'll generally go for the 3¾" scale, just so I can stand them with my SW figures, and have some cool mash-ups. So, the only beauties which have caught my eye (ie wallet) this year are:
Mola Ram and The Terminator! Terminator's slightly under-scale, but still works pretty well. Since 1977, 3¾" figures have been practical on many levels: Cheaper to produce, cheaper to purchase, therefore you can make more and they have a greater "collector" mindset. Which leads to the problem with many 3¾" toy lines; Ultimately, the range of characters.
Where Star Wars has a rich spread of characters who look good in plastic, it's a sad fact that Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter and Narnia just don't. You'll get two or three great figures from each line, and the rest will be mediocre at best. Terminator Salvation's a good example where the manufacturers couldn't secure the rights to Christian Bale's image, so his figure has a cloth over his face with goggles on top. For absolutely no fucking reason.
So, the cyborg based figures were okay, the human ones were pretty drab, and the only real corker was the one you see above.
Indy's only slightly better. The figures look good, but the characters themselves aren't that interesting, outside of Dr Jones and his main adversaries. Sales got so low that Hasbro has actually cancelled the line now. I thought I wasn't going to get Mola Ram at all for a while, there.
So, there's a picture of where I am. No beer, no coffee, and not much in the way of toys. Maybe I should take up fannying about with cars..?
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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)