First up, the series opener from 2000. This is more solid than I remember, and a lot more 'mature' than the rest of the Marvel cinematic catalogue, it seems.
The Good: The script's a little exposition-heavy at times, but I think that has more to do with its history as a comic. The interplay between Wolverine and Cyclops also made me smile. I'd forgotten how playful the antagonism was.
The Bad: No mention of Sabertooth being Wolverine's brother, this first time around. Odd, given what happened six years later. The first of Marvel's ongoing revisions to its own movie-canon? More on that later.
The Ugly: Toad may be one of the worst characters in movie history, with Ray Park mugging along like more of a cartoon than the comics and cartoons combined.
Overall: Very enjoyable, with more substance than subsequent Marvel outings.
Sort of great, yet sort of unbalanced. Bryan Singer's handling of the X-Men's themes of community, exclusion and self-discovery feels a little too subtle for the type of movie it's meant to be. That's not to say I don't appreciate what he's done; but there's a muted tension about X2 when there should be more colourful explosions.
The Good: Nightcrawler. One of the best characters in the film - interesting, conflicted, likeable, and criminally underused. I'm annoyed we didn't get to see him in the next movie, but we have a great performance from Alan Cumming here. Also great is Mystique. I'd forgotten what a central role she takes in the films until I watched them all back to back.
The Bad: Well, not 'bad', but as above, Lady Deathstrike is completely wasted in the film. It'd be nice to see her appearing earlier in the timeline (and as 'herself') as in X2 we only get to see her in thrall to Stryker.
The Ugly: It just seems like there's the ideas for two movies crammed into one. Only Wolverine gets any decent amount of screentime, and as his Origins film did it better, X2 feels a bit redundant now.
All in all: A good film, but feels underdeveloped.
Bigger, brighter, and with almost no subtlety whatsoever. That bit I said about X2 and Singer underplaying the themes? He didn't direct the third one (he went off to do Superman), and Brett Ratner has decided that if you hadn't quite grasped the subtext of the first two films, he'd beat you over the head with it this time. It's not horrendously done, but it's certainly out-there.
The Good: Another great turn from Mystique, although after she's turned 'human', there's a scene where she helps the authorities trace Magneto which was cut from the final film. A damn shame, because we don't hear from her again.
The Bad: *SPOILERS* If you stick around after the credits, there's a scene with Moira McTaggart (more on her later), where it's revealed that Charles Xavier is still alive. If you pair this with the final revelation that Magneto's still got his powers, you just about remove any sense of consequence from the film. The only real 'loss' is Jean Gray / Phoenix. Still, I'm sure Marvel cound change their continuity if they wanted, as...
The Ugly: Hank McCoy/Beast appears in X2 in his human form. In X3, he's in his blue/furry iteration. The idea was that when Xavier used Dark-Cerebro in X2, the shock waves triggered the change in McCoy. No matter; it's established (on-screen) that McCoy is in human form at the time of X2. The upcoming First Class movie is due to have him in blue-form, approximately 40 years earlier. I'm just mentioning it now, that's all. Speaking of 40 years earlier, Moira McTaggart is played by Olivia (6th Sense, The Ghost) Williams, as a woman in her late 30's or early 40's. She's supposed to be the same age as Xavier and Magneto, seeing as she's due to appear in First Class as one of their contemporaries.
I don't mind movie-continuity being different from comic-continuity, but it irks me when the films trample all over existing versions without a reboot.
All in all: There's way more in this film, and yet somehow it feels like less?
I won't do a good/bad/ugly for this one, suffice to say it's a great movie. A lot smoother and more coherent than any of the X-Men films, probably because there are less characters to shoehorn in? It's got a depth and character development that I wasn't expecting, and only one real flaw...
Why is Liev Schrieber's character 'Sabertooth'? Don't get me wrong, he's a great antagonist, but he bears no relation to any other version of Sabertooth in any media. Am I meant to believe that the scheming, skilled fighter in XMO:W is the same monosyllabic, shambling mess of brute force in the first X-Men movie?
Although, while I'm on...
• Bone-claws are just daft. Completely impractical (as is demonstrated in the log-fight scene). • Please stop CGI'ing Patrick Stewart to look 'younger'. It's creeping me out. • Danny Huston is good as the young-Stryker, but where did that Southern-Drawl from X2 go?
Other than that, an absolutely outstanding film.
And that, dear reader, was my Bank Holiday Weekend. Bring on First Class!
...should I call you Logan, Weapon-X?
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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Before I start, let's have a small musical introduction...
There is nothin' like a dame, Nothin' in the world. There is nothin' you can name, That is anything like a dame!
Or so claims Oscar Hammerstein in his lyrics for the above song in South Pacific. If you've watched the clip, you can see their (ie: Oscar's) reasoning. Even at the time it was written (for a broadway musical in 1949, later adapted into a film), this claim seems to me to be woefully inaccurate.
The example I'll use for my argument is Judi Dench, the British actress, singer and dame.
While she's instantly recognisable due to her variety of screen and stage work, it would be incorrect to say she shares no similarities at all with her contemporaries. For example, Julia McKenzie and Maureen Lipman sit within the same casting demographic, and have a relatively similar body of work. Unless you're a hardcore fan of any of them, they're quite samey.
It's okay, you don't have to look them up. I've made a quick spreadsheet.
^^ Click for bigger
As you can see, they're actually pretty similar. Not identical; I mean you probably wouldn't get them confused with each other, but there's a reassuring pattern between their lives. Besides, the comparison stipulated in the lyrics is "...anything like...", not "...exactly like...".
With this in mind, I think it's fair to say that Julia McKenzie and Maureen Lipman are pretty much like a dame: Dame Judi Dench. Not only have I proved Oscar Hammerstein wrong, but I've returned 200% of the results required to do so. From now on, I demand that the official lyrics to the song be:
There are some things like a dame, Once you examine the evidence. There are two things you can name, That are similar to a dame!
...now, who do I need to speak to in order to make this happen, please?
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.
You can read my original review for Thorover here. This was the first time this year I've actually been able to fit in a repeat-viewing at the cinema. I know, I know. They'll take my card away... So I had to see it in 3D again, because the 2D showing only lasted for a week. That's no biggie, but I'll state again how pointless the 3D is in the movie. It adds little to nothing, and there are no real showpieces for it.
Things I noticed the second time round:
• What I really like about the film, is that we don't see the title-card until the end, after the first batch of credits. The film opens with the names of the cast on-screen, but that's about it. And it's not until the cast have been listed again in the closing that we get 'THOR' across the full screen. It's a stylistic touch, but I liked it.
• I could have sworn when we saw Mjolnir at the end of Iron Man 2, it was just lying in the crater - not embedded in the rock as it is in Thor? I can understand Marvel making adjustments from comic-to-screen, but their inter-movie continuity is getting pretty slack. I'm saying this now, as I'm watching X-Men: First Class in a few days, and I'm wondering what they're going to revise this time around…
• Star Wars comparison? As usual, I'll make something out of nothing and try to forge one... In Revenge of the Sith and Thor, Natalie Portman plays a regular human in a relationship with someone who has shoulder-length blond hair and superhuman powers. In both films, this protagonist can barely handle his own abilities, and these powers are what keeps the hero and his love-interest apart at the end (yeah, I know: Thor doesn't kill Jane). But at the end of both films, the powerful lead character has a scene standing beside his mentor, looking out towards a massive un-operational technological marvel. In RotS, it's Vader and Palpatine, observing the building of the Death Star; in Thor, it's Thor and Odin, looking out towards the destroyed Bifrost. Both characters are ready to 'start afresh' with their mentor, being very different to the way they were at the start of the film. It was just a thought, that's all.
• Dear people-who-make-films: When you put a hot chick in glasses, and expect the audience to believe she's all nerdy and not-at-all-hot? That doesn't work. Kat Dennings (Darcy) is a hottie, and no amount of glasses, ski-hats and shapeless clothes is going to change that.
I enjoyed the second-pass of Thor, but other than picking over potential easter eggs (Southwest Airlines flight 5434, anyone?), I didn't really get any more out of it. I see this as a sign that Branagh did a good enough job for me to grab it all the first time (although it could be argued that the film's simplicity doesn't stand up to repeat viewing).
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Now you know there's been some serious focus-grouping when the ads before a film are all geared towards a specific audience. Selecting appropriate trailers is more common sense; you want to appeal to the punters who have paid to see this movie, so your trailers will likely be the same sort of movie. And there are some ads that play no matter what the film (the current Red Bull / Zebra one, for example).
But just to give you an idea how confident Warner Bros and Cineworld are of the makeup of the Hangover II audience, here's a complete list of the products that were advertised (although not in this order) before the trailers:
Energy drinks: Red Bull, Relentless, Lucozade Energy Alcohol: Peroni, Budweiser, Bacardi Video games: Brink, Rage Deodorant: Lynx
And that was it. Nothing for the ladies. If you're a female and you're watching this in the cinema, the ad-folks don't expect you to be there. I'm not surprised or outraged by this, by the way, it's just not usually this transparent. Anyway, I was reviewing a film, wasn't I?
The rest of this piece will be pretty much exactly what you expect. This is largely because Hangover II, as a film, is pretty much exactly what you expect. The team of Bradley Cooper's Phil, Ed Helms' Stu, and Zach Galifianakis' Alan are back together once more, in a movie that bears more than a striking resemblance to the first installment. It's not bad at all, but there's certainly nothing new here. But then, how much new do you need?
Well, in the first movie, while you 'kind of' knew that the guys would find Doug and make the wedding at the end, there was a freshness in his near-total absence from the film. It was plausible that he may have found his own way home, or even not have turned up at the end. Once he did surface, the formula was balanced and audience-expectation restored. With the second film following the template of the first so closely, when Mason Lee's Teddy goes missing, there's no real tension there (even though we're told early on that he's missing a finger). You know everything will work out alright in the end, so all that's left to do is sit back and enjoy the somewhat formulaic ride.
The Good: For the most part, Zach Galifianakis steals the show as the eccentric Alan, and I particularly liked his meditation-induced flashback, in which he pictures the events of the previous evening with him and his best friends played by 12yr old boys, surrounded by adults. This is genuinely how he sees 'the wolf-pack', and props go to Zach for portraying a borderline-insane character with such humour and sweetness. With perhaps the exception of the part I'll mention later.
The Bad: The photo-montage over the closing credits, as before, has some brilliant shots of the guys' missing-hours. But whereas in the first movie, it was used to visually illustrate some of the things they'd discovered and fill in the rest, this time round it feels like it's being used to tie up all the loose plot-ends they didn't remember to put in the script (how Teddy lost his finger, for example). There's also some unnecessarily heavy language in the first 20 minutes of the film, which seems like it's been put there to get the certificate up to a 15 and lend the film more 'credibility' (much like Your Highness and Hall Pass in that regard). The effing-and-jeffing continues throughout the film, only at a lessened place, and more suitable to the situations the characters find themselves in. Again, I'm not being prudish at the language, but it just doesn't fit the scenes early on.
The Ugly: In the first act, where Zach is ramping-up the mentalness of Alan, his character takes an instant (and for the most part unexplained) dislike to Stu's future brother-in-law, Teddy. This is because he has highly warped social-skills, and sees Teddy as an intruder into the "wolfpack" formed in the first movie. This isn't really explained at the time, though, and as the main cast are Caucasian and Teddy is Asian, Alan just comes off as being a bit of a racist. A couple of 'Chinese' comments later on almost seem to reinforce this, but by the time they finally find Teddy trapped in an elevator, all seems to be forgotten, even if there's no real reconciliation between the two. It's probably just me being a wooly-liberal, but it seems out-of-kilter with the rest of the movie, especially as none of the characters mention it.
All in all: IT'S VERY GOOD, if a little samey. In terms of blokey, gross-out comedy, it's still head and shoulders above the competition, thanks largely to the cast. Personally, I enjoyed it, but I think a third movie would be stretching the concept (even though it'll probably be on the way).
You'll like this as much as you did (or didn't) The Hangover. Make of that what you will.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Ask any cross section of blokes which piece of tech they wish was real and you'll get the same answer in the top three every time. Even from the non-SW-geeks. A lightsaber. We all dream of having a handheld device that will slice through stone and metal like butter, don't we? I know I do.
Yer' regular lightsaber blade is produced by an Adegan crystal (or variants thereof), which occurr naturally at various places in the GFFA. These crystals colour the blade blue or green (and in Mace Windu's case, purple). Some in-universe sources say the colour of the crystal determines the colour of the blade, while others say that the user won't know the blade colour until they turn the lghtsaber on for the first time.
As part of their strategy of remaining hidden over the years, the Sith developed their own synthetic crystals. Amongst those was the Lignan crystal, created from Lignan Ore which amplifies the powers of a Dark Jedi/Sith. The lifespan and intensity of the Lignan Crystal is greater than naturally occurring ones, hence its attraction to the Sith. A ship carrying these crystals to ancient Sith Lord Naga Sadow crashed on the planet Kesh, around 5000 years before the time of Darth Vader, and the crystals became prized artifacts of Dark Side heritage. The process of synthesising crystals results in the lightsaber blade having a red hue, resulting in the Sith adopting this as one of their trademarks.
The power source of a lightsaber is more or less similar to a blaster setup, usually using a Diatium cell as its basis. In 1997, I had a lightsaber that was powered by lager. Going back to the bloke-demographic, Isn't that what we all want?
At the time of the Special Edition cinema release, I was spending a lot of quality time with my bandmates Reed and Clarky. All of us had been obsessed with Star Wars as kids, and all of us were getting hyped for its return, and all of us liked spending time in the pub. And what's the other great thing about pubs next to beer? Crisps (or chips, if you're in the US). In early 1997, Walkers Crisps ran a tie-in promotion for the SE Trilogy. Tazos. They were an already-existing phenomenon with the kids, small round printed cardboard discs that you... erm, collect and swap and that. Oh, and there was an album that you could put them in as well. From what I remember, there wasn't a SW Tazo in every promotional pack, as there were only 50 to collect and that would have made for a low turnaround. I seem to recall it being around a 50% chance of you getting one in a bag of crisps, but the multi-packs also had loose Tazos in the outer bag, so you were guaranteed to get more that way (some unscrupulous collectors used to open the multibags in the supermarkets and steal the Tazos. We did not do this, but we know it happened because we used to have to check the seal of the ones we bought).
Now whenever you collect stickers or trading cards, there are 'chasers'. Fewer of these are produced and are harder to find. It's to increase purchases of the product and the collectability of certain items. On the other side of this, there are always one or two that you're sick of seeing by the end of your run. You open each pack, silently praying for the one Tazo you need to complete your album ahead of your friends, and you see this...
...again. In 1997, this image was the bane of our lives, to the point where it became a running joke. You always have a pocketful of swaps when you're collecting, but between the three of us we had twelve or thirteen of Tazo#38 in addition to the ones we needed. We used to recreate the pose with toy swords, cardboard tubes, broom handles... and then lightsabers.
Hasbro had brought out 'play' replica lightsabers. Which is to say they were't the high-end collectibles you keep kids away from, but they weren't just a torch handle with a plastic tube stuck on. Sculpted to resemble the RotJ sabers, upscaled to fit batteries for the light, with telescopic blades, humming sound and a crashing sound when you smack into things. And smack them we did. Into each other's sabers, legs, torsos and heads. These were toys and we treated them as such.
Myself and Reed were doing Taijutsu training at the time, which took in a bit of Hikenjutsu (sword-work). You can imagine the looks you get from a load of trained ninjas when at the end of the night's session, hyper as hell; you turn the dojo lights off, turn the lightsabers on and start at each other using actual techniques (although for the most part, we were so focused on recreating the movie dialogue and poses that a lot of Hikenjutsu went out of the window). This was, of course, when we were high on the adrenaline from training.
On late summer nights, we'd take a 5 minute stroll down to the park with a bag containing lager, and Luke and Vader's weapons. If you wait until around 11:30pm, people cutting though the park on their way back from the pub have been and gone, and you have a large, expansive, but most importantly dark stage for an epic lager powered lightsaber duel. At one point, we slammed the sabers together so hard that the plastic blade detached completely from the handle of Luke's saber (mine). It's safe to say I lost that fight.
Although I was techincally an adult (and you know how loosely I'm using that term), it unlocked the part of me that will always be a child. As much a part of my youth as playing in the street as a 5 year old with Kenner/Palitoy figures. I don't want to get too introspective, but I miss those days...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Photos and videos appearing in this blog post are for informational and reference purposes only, and no ownership of copyright is claimed or implied by me. The intellectual and physical copyright of such material belongs to its creators and owners.
• 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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
You know that phrase, "...of a certain age", when referring to people? I believe it's a polite euphemism for saying that someone's either in middle-age or old. Well, can we have some clarification on what the age is please? The phrase "of a certain age" should be, in itself, quite specific. It's not "...of an approximate age". In fact, that's almost the exact opposite of what it's referring to. If you use the phrase "...a certain someone", you're alluding to an actual person (and it's usually very clear in context who that person is). Why should the age-version be any different?
You can't use "...of a certain age" as a catch-all for a vague range which could be anywhere from 50 to 70. If you're going to do that, we're all "...of a certain age", it's just the certainty that varies from person to person. In fact, now you mention it, I'm of a certain gender and have a certain haircut.
You may think it's polite to fudge around someone's age like that, but if anything you're inviting people to round it upwards! How is that civil at all? "Teenagers" don't mind as they're always trying to appear older anyway, and that's only a seven-year bracket. But your neighbour who's in her late 40's isn't going to be quite as chuffed, is she?
With this in mind, I'd like the phrase "...of a certain age" to be allocated to an actual fixed (and officially notated) number. Then, everyone will know what the number is. And then you can stop using the phrase, because everyone will know you mean 58 (for example). Once that's in place, you can start saying 'over/under a certain age' if you like, I don't mind.
I'm not asking for much, just be more specific when you're trying to be vague.
Thank you so much.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Kyle Katarn. The most badass Star Wars character most folks have never heard of. Part mercenary, part Jedi, all killing machine.
I was introduced to Kyle back in 1995. We had a pretty casual setup at work where we'd get the day over with, then chill in the evening with a few beers, chatting and gaming (Tip: If you're going to open a design-shop, do it next door to an off-licence, it's awesome). For quite a while, the game of choice was Doom. That served as my introduction to the First-Person-Shooter, still a favourite to this day. Many hours were spent in front of a CRT monitor, Newcastle Brown at one side, gatling-gun in front of me, pounding raw bloody death into the hellspawn of Deimos and Phobos. But eventually, a game that comes on five floppy disks starts to wear a little thin. Our computer-guru Keith, came in with mod he'd downloaded. Star Wars Doom. Instead of demons? Stormtroopers. Again, this was enough to keep me very happy. The only SW gaming I'd done up until that point had been the vector-graphics of the SW and Empire arcade games, and the side-scrolling of the RotJ follow-up. Now I was able to run around, in full expansive 3D, slotting stormtroopers left, right and centre.
Then something really special happened. Keith brought in a game on CD. The game was Star Wars: Dark Forces. Now it's quite a step up from a 8mb game to a 300mb one. Especially as our work hard-drives were under 1gb in capacity (Seriously. You have more than that in your phone). This game didn't just have 5 levels, it had 14. In addition, these levels were massive (even by today's standards, they're still pretty sizeable). And, most importantly, these levels were in the GFFA. And there was an actual plot!
For the first time, you could walk around, exploring every corner and control panel of an Imperial base or Jabba the Hutt's space cruiser. You weren't confined to speeding in one direction down the Death Star trench, or scolling left to right over a fixed landscape. Once you'd wiped out (or just avoided) the fixed number of enemies on that level, you're free to wander around and get a feel for it. Memorise the best routes for repeat attempts, or find hidden weapons and recharges. Added to this is a very solid storyline, with crudely animated cut-scenes between levels featuring Darth Vader, Mon Mothma, Crix Madine and Boba Fett, as well as characters created for the game. The strongest character in the game? That'd be Kyle. The second strongest? The Darktroopers.
In Doom, you play a nameless character. A marine whose backstory (in that particular game) isn't too important. Kyle Katarn, on the other hand, has a history, a family, a career and, most importantly, character development. The game released on PC, Mac and PS1, and was so successful that a sequel was produced (PC only, iirc). Ramping up what'd been accomplished in DF, the sequel found Kyle discovering more about his hidden heritage. Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II used a completely new game-engine, and was so successful is spawned three novels (with audiobook dramatisations) and two Hasbro figures. It also featured live-action cut-scenes. This was real, actual, filmed Star Wars!
So by 1997, Kyle Katarn wasn't just the deadliest bloke in the GFFA with a gun, now he had a lightsaber and The Force, too. That's like giving Chuck Norris a license to use bio-weapons. An expansion-pack game was released using the same engine: Mysteries of the Sith, which saw Kyle falling to the dark side, only to be rescued by Mara Jade. In 2002, Kyle's adventures continued with Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, using a heavily modified Quake3 engine. This, for me, remains the pinnacle of Kyle Katarn gaming. Not least because of the amount of fun I've had playing it online over the years. Jedi Academy was released in 2003, which I certainly found playable, but Kyle takes a back-seat (ie non-player-character) as the instructor of Jedi fledgling Jaden Korr.
As Kyle is primarily a gaming character, it's easier for me to identify with him. Don't get me wrong, I still love Luke Skywalker, but I've only watched his adventures unfolding. There's a connection that you can only get once you've played as the character. All the high-scores, all the unlockable maps and outfits, the cutscenes and alternate endings; all of these are given to you because of your achievements in the game. When Kyle fails to get off a self-destructing ship in time, or watches his co-pilot being executed by Dark Jedi, or just doesn't make it past several hundred Stormtroopers in an Imperial base, his failure is your failure. You're not just willing him to succeed, you're helping him. You are him. And unlike a movie where the story unfolds over two hours, a game can take days in the company of the protagonist (well, it will if you're as bad a gamer as myself).
Much like Fett and Maul, Kyle's popularity arises from his fans wanting more. Sadly, there's not that much Katarn content out there other than the games. He appeared as a supporting character in the New Jedi Order and Legacy of the Force series of books, as well as minor appearances in the games Empire at War and Lethal Alliance. But that was pretty much in the same way that Tarkin appeared in RotS. There because it fits the timeline, not in a starring role.
We did get a KK story, Equals and Opposites, in SW Tales#21 which inspired two new figures from Hasbro, but all this did was made the Kyle-fans want more. As much as we love the various SW comic series we've got at the moment, all we really want is a Kyle Katarn series. There's plenty of room for more development there. Maybe he'll get his own strand in the Invasion series?
If you're reading, Dark Horse, you could make this happen.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Photos and videos appearing in this blog post are for informational and reference purposes only, and no ownership of copyright is claimed or implied by me. The intellectual and physical copyright of such material belongs to its creators and owners.
• 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.
Oh yes, I braved the scurvy seas of Orange Wednesdays to see this on the UK opening night. That's how much I love you lot. It's not at all because I've got a busy period approaching in my social calendar and if I didn't get to see it now, it would probably end up being in a couple of weeks, and who'd give a toss about my review then, eh? No, it's not that at all.
Anyway, on to the film! It's almost exactly what you expect it'll be. And I mean that in a good way and a bad one. There's swaggering, boasting, ropes and swordplay. Sultry chicks, swoony guys, scabby captains and a screeching monkey. It's pretty much exactly like the other three, with one caveat to be detailed below. There's a rather magnificent supporting cast of British actors, including Judi Dench and Richard Griffiths in what are essentially cameo roles at the start.
Depp and McNally are on the usual fine form as Sparrow and Gibbs respectively. Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa almost gets some character development, but even when he's coasting it, he's still great fun to watch. Penélope Cruz is entertaining enough as a feisty love interest, and Ian McShane has decided to interpret his role as "in the style of Ian McShane". He's pretty much Lovejoy with a scruffy wig and beard, and stops trying to do a pirate-voice fairly early on.
The Good: The film has a solid enough plot, with three separate parties all trying to locate the fabled Fountain of Youth. This, as well as the silver chalices needed to use the fountain, makes for a nice MacGuffin. The setpieces are well measured with breathing space in between, and the stuntwork and visual effects are all spot-on as usual. Hans Zimmer's score works well, also as before. Oh, and nice work with the threatening Mermaids, even if the cheeky beggars at Doctor Who jumped the gun on that one by a couple of weeks. I was hoping for more zombies, but the two we get are great (even if they can talk).
The Bad: Ian McShane can act. I've seen him do it. And yet (as I said above), he's not bringing anything to the character of Blackbeard. Other than his magic rope-controlling-sword, he's barely expanded on at all. Even Davy Jones got his backstory told in Dead Man's Chest. McShane's not alone either. There's some fantastic acting-talent in here, but not a lot of actual acting going on, but that's probably more to do with the cast not being given that much to work with. Which leads me to…
The Ugly: With the sole exception of the mostly-missed-opportunity of the missionary and the mermaid, there is no depth or character development of any kind in the movie. It's occurred to me that the reason I love the second and third PotC movies is the arc of Davy Jones and Calypso. Other than the characters who actually die in ...On Stranger Tides, everyone emerges unchanged at the other end of the film. I know I shouldn't expect too much from PotC, but it's capable of more than this. Depp is capable of more. But hey, how much would I convey and emote in a Jerry Bruckheimer-produced Disney film, eh?
All in all: It's great if you've enjoyed the others. In fact, it's even an okay place to start as there's no backstory referenced that you can't piece together yourself. Don't expect too much, and you won't be let down.
A solid actioner, but with nothing new to offer. Will the franchise continue? Of course it bloody will, it's making money. And more power to'em! Now release some decent 3¾" scale figures please...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I think that's me done with mainstream supernatural horror. With the best will in the world, it's been a fun ride, but it's not fun enough these days. Oh, I'll still watch zombie movies and the odd Saw film, but ghosts, possessions and the restless souls of the dead seems to be getting a bit old now.
Insidious, for example, should be a fantastic film. Even though the little boy that's causing the supernatural manifestations is acting like a magnet to the dead, and director James Wan uses that as an excuse to drop in just about every stereotype associated with horror movies (and even drops in a demon that looks a bit like Darth Maul for some reason), it's still VERY nicely made. Unfortunately, it's more formulaic than it is nice. In all honesty, I had more fun counting off the above program against the film than I had with the film itself. The jumps are in the right place, and they're beautifully executed, but there's no real suspense there. In fact, once the reason for the trouble is explained about half way into the film, you can just sit back and enjoy the ride. Because once you have a reason for what's going on, it's even more transparent.
I promise you, I'm not that guy who sits and says "oh, well I had that figured out from the start". I like to get immersed in a film and experience events as the characters do. But when they're this telegraphed, I can't help but sit back and chuckle at it all.
Like so many horror movies these days, this is ideal for the kids who haven't seen many horror movies. For me? It's getting a little predictable if I'm honest. And not in a good way.
Oh, and advice for the director: When your name's on screen at the start of the film, it's not really an easter egg to have your own name written on the blackboard at head-height behind your teacher character ten minutes later. In fact, it really rather draws the eye. As does the chalk drawing of the Jigsaw doll underneath it. We know you directed Saw, James, we read it on the posters.
I'll give it a flat-4 because it is well made, it's just not for me any more. Enjoy, you kids.
EDIT: Further to Tony's comment below, I remembered after publishing that the scene where Patrick Wilson finds his son in apparent coma is put together using two intercut shots. In shot one, the boy is in bed, with his teddy bear tucked up neatly in bed beside him. In the other shot, the bear is at an angle and the blanket is covering less of it. The bear isn't 'background', it's in the main shot. We cut between the two shots about six times. The boy may be comatose, but the bear appears to be doing the hokey cokey. Props to Tony for spotting the others :)
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.
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 didn't expect to like this; the trailer annoyed the fuck out of me.
"Then why did you go and see it?", you ask. Good question. Short version? It had good things said about it by people whose opinion I trust and respect. I'm glad I took heed of these folks, because I enjoyed the film very much.
Yes, the kids' speech patterns irritated me deeply. But I came to realise it's not the patois itself that I find so galling, but all the bravado that goes with it. It's been pointed out in other reviews that by mid-way through the film, the speech is less annoying and you even start to understand it better. It'd be more accurate to say that mid-way through the film, our heroes are shitting themselves, and with the lack of swagger comes the lack of bullshit street-talk. The accents are still there, obviously, but it's not the accents that piss me off. Trust. Isn't it?
Do you see what I did there?
Anyway, director Joe Cornish has made a very good film here. In terms of filmmaking, it's beautiful for the budget they clearly had (seriously loved the lighting during the corridor sequences), and I really liked the alien design. Simple, but beautifully done. Less is more, Hollywood, less is more. The script (if you look past the gang speak) is clean and 'real', and there's more character development than you get in many big movies these days.
Oh, there was a perfect opportunity for an Empire Strikes Back reference in the script where Ron (Nick Frost) opens the door to the gang, only for them to find Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) already in there holding a gun on them. If that's not ripe for a 'There's nothing I could do, he arrived right before you did', then I don't know what is. I guess they didn't want to cheapen the drama?
And there's not really a lot more to say about it. It puts last year's Skyline to fucking shame in terms of low-budget alien invasion, that's for sure. And yes, I did come to like the characters at the end; which I put down to a) their impressive acting, and b) a well told story.
Don't let that bit on the poster about 'From the producers of Shaun of the Dead' fill you with any hopes, though; it's nowhere near as good as that. Besides, for the most part, a film producer has as much creative input into a movie as the owner of a restaurant does with your meal. It's the writer, director and editor you should be keeping an eye out for. But you knew that anyway, didn't you?
Well done, Mr Cornish, we shall watch your career with great interest…
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
And so, 2011 gives us the 11th studio album from Texas' Bowling For Soup, Fishin' For Woos.
This was originally going to be an EP released last October, but various issues pushed it back, and it became the new album. So as not to disappoint the fans too much, BFS released a few of the tracks early, staggered over ensuing months. We also found out that one of the tracks was a song they've been playing for a few years but never got to putting on an album. What this means is, it's hard to be objective about the whole album because I already know four of the tracks off by heart.
Anyhoo, here's a breakdown of Fishin' For Woos…
1. Let's Pretend We're Not In Love This was one of the preview tracks (via the street team). Love it to bits! Classic BFS, if not usual single-material, it's got a steady pounding beat, great melody and harmonies, and nicely flowing lyrics. This is a fave of mine now, and I look forward to seeing it live.
2. Girls In America Another corker. A fast, rocking track about the ladies of the USA. Again, classic BFS, harkening back to the days of Drunk Enough To Dance, with slightly lighter production. This will be another good one for the live shows if you feel like jumping around for three minutes.
3. S-S-S-Saturday This is the first proper single from the album. As a song it's pretty great, but personally I don't think it's one of the strongest tracks on the album. There's no doubt that it's a great live-anthem though (I saw BFS play two acoustic shows in April and it worked even in that setting). I'm not sure why it doesn't gel properly with me, but it almost feels too restrained for The Soup. Probably just me.
4. What About Us The first ballad of the album, and it's an instant attention-grabber. Again, the style of the song is classic BFS in the mould of Where to Begin and When We Die (I'm pretty sure that the three-word-combo / beginning-with-W is just a massive coincidence). Normally, this would be a stand-out, but there's a track later that trumps this, no matter how much I love it. Particularly liked the lyrical reference to losing keys in a snowstorm on Christmas Eve. This was a tale that BFS' Jaret told on an episode of his podcast at the beginning of the year. It's easter eggs like that which geek me the fuck out.
5. Here's Your Freakin' Song From drama, straight to comedy, it's what BFS do best. This one's cut from the same cloth as Scaring Myself and Luckiest Loser, about a girl who's an absolute pain in the arse. With a steady tempo, it's a stomper rather than a jumper, and there are plenty of shouty sing-along lines as well as the title.
6. This Ain't My Day This one hasn't quite bedded in with me yet. Musically I love it, but I can't get my head around the lyrics because a lot of the verse-lines don't rhyme. Smashing chorus though, if a little wordy, and it'll be interesting to hear them play it live as that'll be inevitably faster, and it sounds pretty tight as it is…
7. Smiley Face (It's All Good) Another one that's growing on me but threw me off at first. It remind me of their rendition of 5 O'Clock World from the …Movies album. Also, I'm not sure what it's about, lyrically. It just seems a bit vague to me, and that's not their style. I'd say it's definitely an album-track, but what do I know? I still rate BFS album tracks above most band's singles, so make of that what you will.
8. Turbulence You know a BFS track is a keeper when you can sing along before the end of your first listen. This happened in Oxford and London in April; goosebumps both times - this song just fucking captivates me (and I know I'm not the only one). It's essentially a massive feelgood ballad. Musically, lyrically, just perfect. It's the band's next single, so you'll be able to look out the video soon.
9. I've Never Done Anything Like This This one was previewed through Jaret's podcast and is another one that just instantly clicked with me. The style of song is closer to their Hangover You Don't Deserve album. Ace melody, harmonies and tempo, and female vocals courtesy of Kay Hanley from Palmdale. Kay's vocals give the song that edge to push it above the other tracks on the album. This is another perma-fave for me.
10. Friends, Chicks, Guitars This was the first track to be released from the album (then, EP) back in Oct'10. As great as it is, I've listened it to death since then and it doesn't feel new at all. The only thing that bugs me about the song is that it's fast and wordy, making it difficult to sing along with. But BFS manage it live, and that's what's important.
11. Guard My Heart And this is the one we all know and love! Originally recorded back in '05 for the HBO movie Sardines, it made it onto that soundtrack, but never onto an official BFS release. It's long been a live-fave, and now it' s been re-recorded for this album with a much lighter production sound. This song's great, with the lyrics by bass player Erik being on the more introspective side.
12. Graduation Trip This has a different feel to the other BFS acoustic songs, and I can't quite pin down why. Not a bad thing, by any means, but different certainly. Again, it feels awkward lyrically in places, and while I like the song, it doesn't feel like a BFS song to me (yet). It seems closer in style to the People On Vacation project. Ah well.
BONUS TRACKS:
13. My Girlfriend's An Alcoholic (iTunes/Bandwear exclusive) Why didn't this make it onto the album? Reminiscent of Bipolar and Straight to Video, this is one of the best BFS songs that most people won't hear! It's an air-pounder and a great party-track. You can buy this on its own on iTunes (ie, it's not album-only). I recommend you go get this.
14. Dear Megan Fox (7" Vinyl exclusive) Again, a brilliant track! It reminds me of Other Girls (another b-side track). There aren't any Star Wars references on this album (hey, we got two last time round), but because of the subject matter, this song namechecks Megatron, and what the hell could be better than that?
15. Evil All Over The World (7" Vinyl exclusive) This is like a b-side to Girls In America. Again, a fast rocker, but reminding you that all of the great things said about chicks in GIA aren't exactly the whole story. Bonus points for an old-school metal feel for the whole song.
16. What About Us? (Acoustic) (from the SXSW4Japan album) One of the best things about BFS songs is that they generally work as well with an acoustic guitar as they do with a while band playing them. This song is no exception. This is available on iTunes and Amazon as a single track (or you can buy the whole album, it's for an excellent cause). You pretty much know what you're going to get with this, but that's enough for me to buy it.
All in all:
Some jaw-dropping tracks, some great ones, and some that I'm still waiting to bed-in. In all honesty, there are no sub-standard tracks on here, but the boys from Denton do occasionally out-do themselves.
You can buy the old fashioned compact disc from Amazon, HMV or Play. The ultra modern 12" vinyl for your gramophone player is also available at Amazon and HMV. The 7" single with tracks 14 & 15 (above) is on sale at Amazon and HMV . You could also use one of those olde tyme record shops (if you can find one) to buy your shiny discs of goodness.
If you're living in the 21st century and have no time for the clutter of physical items, you can get magic digital versions of the album from iTunes, Amazon, HMV and Play. Have fun unwrapping your confirmation e-mail, you soulless robot.
Track 14 is available from the ol' iTunes. Track 16 is also at iTunes and Amazon.
There are many, many more outlets selling Fishin' For Woos, but I have neither the time or patience to investigate and link to all of them. It's not difficult to find if you can type. Besides, I already gave you a shit-load of links, what do you want? Go buy the album!
Is it my favourite Bowling For Soup album? Afraid not. Does it have some of my favourite Bowling For Soup songs on?Fuck, yeah.
Best lyric: "It's not like I don't understand the ass of Kim Kardashian has powers beyond anyone's control".
Ace.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Back in 2001, the UK Census was issued. A predominantly online-based campaign did the rounds via e-mail and messageboards. The idea was this: One of the questions in the census asks you what your religion is. This is a voluntary question. If you have no strong religious feelings that you wish to share and would otherwise leave it blank, why not put Jedi in the box? It'll mess with the governments figures and if there are enough responses, get it officially recognised as a religion in the UK.
Before the results were submitted and collated, a government statement was issued, something along the lines of "Look, put what you want. It's a non-mandatory question, and nothing will be made official from it". Still, the campaign continued, and the census forms were returned.
I don't think you'll fall off your chair in surprise when I tell you that I was one of the Jedi.
Obviously, a large percentage of those were "joke answers". People looking to be subversive on a government questionnaire, by answering nonsense to a question which wasn't essential to be filled in anyway. It is, of course, debatable how many of the people who answered Christian actually live their lives by Christian values, let alone how many actually go to church on a regular basis. Now I'm fully aware that you don't need to go to church to be a Christian, but I'm also fully aware that a lot of people who were raised in that religion would enter that as their answer in the census, more as a default reaction than a considered answer.
I put Jedi, largely because I love Star Wars, but also because of that monastic order's aim for tranquility and respect. What comes across in the films has been debated (and claimed by many religions as a tribute to themselves) often, but basically falls towards Buddhism. Now Buddhism's not strictly speaking a religion in itself, more a set of guidelines for being a good person (as any religion should be). The Jedi in the movies don't actually worship a deity, they just believe in doing what's right (all queries regarding the shortsightedness of the Jedi as being instrumental to the fall of the Republic should be directed to another blog entry, thank you). The bottom line is, although I was raised in a Christian household, I don't consider myself 'Christian' as such. It's not that I've rejected it or its principles, I just don't fit in that box. Buddhism seems like a more logical path to me, with the basic commandment of "don't be bastards to each other, eh?" above anything else. It's what the Jedi believe, also. So when I entered Jedi into that box, it wasn't a joke. It's what represents how I look at the world, and surely that's what that question was for?
Back in 2001, I genuinely had a (short) conversation on the subject, when someone asked me with a sneer: "Oh, so if you put Jedi down, does that mean you can lift things up with your mind, then?". My answer was "well, in the same way that everyone who answers Christian can heal lepers and walk on water, yes".
Anyhow, fast-forward to 2011, and we had the UK Census issued again. Question 20 was the 'religion' box. Again, non-mandatory. There was a rumbling about people putting Jedi into the box, but for the most part, people weren't bothered. That was done 10 years ago, so what's the point? Which is a fair assessment, even by my standards. I didn't expect the Jedi-movement of 2001 to change anything, and indeed it didn't (those attention seekers at the "Jedi Chuch" don't count). So where's the harm?
Thanks to a recent resurgence in skepticism and atheism (which, for the record, I'm behind in principle), there was a call this time round for non-believers to state as much on the form. To quote www.yourenotajedi.com: "By ticking ‘No Religion’, you will ensure that the Government receives an unambiguous message about the number of non-religious people in the UK. Any other response may be manipulated into a response in favour of religion and publically funded religious organisations."
Now, to make this clear, I approve wholeheartedly of the idea behind this. In the age we live in, people shouldn't be guilted into writing a religion they haven't practiced since they were a child, and they certainly shouldn't be guilted into denying they're unsure (or even atheist) about the whole thing. In all honesty, though, I don't recall when a Jedi praxeum was last opened in my area, or the last outcry of concerned parents over their children being taught the theories of The Living Force vs The Unifying Force in religious studies. What I gather from it, is that the religion itself is irrelevant, and that the government is using ballpark figures of religion vs no religion in making its decisions.
Anyway, the link for the above site was passed my way with perhaps a slight inference that I was going to put Jedi as a feeble way to annoy the person with the task of collating the data from question 20. Now in all fairness, I didn't respond with this blog post to the people who forwarded me the link. As I said, I actually approve of the sentiment. But make no mistake: When I put Jedi as an answer to question 20, I know exactly what I'm doing.
With the amount of time and money I've spent collecting and obsessing about SW over the years, I'm almost more qualified than most of the other people who'll put Jedi. I've got two SW tattoos for crying out loud, how much commitment do I have to show?
In terms of the values I hold, and how I live my life: I am a Jedi. Deal with it.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Photos and videos appearing in this blog post are for informational and reference purposes only, and no ownership of copyright is claimed or implied by me. The intellectual and physical copyright of such material belongs to its creators and owners.
• 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.
Pre-amble: Now, Water for Elephants isn't aimed at 15yr old girls. But, due to it having Robert Pattinson in a lead role, it does attract them. I expect a higher level of attendance in the cinema on Orange Wednesdays. As much as I despise people, it's nice to see folks in the habit of going to the flicks. What this all adds up to is a cinema full of people, a large demographic of whom are female and in their mid to late teens. This statistic means I shouldn't be surprised when there's a higher percentage than usual who can't leave their fucking phones alone for two hours.
Turn your fucking phone OFF you morons. There are two separate trails running during the ads asking you politely (perhaps too subtly?) to switch the handheld idiot-device to 'OFF'. Not silent, OFF. Because I don't sit in the front row at the cinema, I don't want to be constantly distracted by the blinding glare from your smartphone with a screen the size of a laptop that's apparently smarter than you fucking are. There is nothing - nothing - so fucking important that requires you to text/facebook during a film in the cinema. Waiting for important news? Relative in hospital? Abducted child? Then go home and put on a DVD to watch while you wait for the message, you stupid, stupid FUCK. Switch off from your tedious fucking world for two short hours, and be transported to another one. All those people whose names come on screen at the end? They worked for months, sometimes years on this, apparently so that you can ignore the artform in front of you, and text inconsequential horseshit to your friends, presuambly also in a cinema.
During the ads/trailers? Yep, go for it. During the film? Fuck off.
...and breathe...
I enjoyed Water for Elephants more than I thought I would. The book came highly recomended to me but I found it pretty average (largely down to me not really caring one way or the other for the circus). I was more engaged by the film as a lot of the 'present day' segments have been hugely compressed. I liked the casting of Hal Holbrook as an older version of Pattinson; there's a good facial resemblance which is all too rare in this kind of thing (although he didn't seem old enough to me. In-story, he'd have to be in his late 90's, and even though he's 86 he doesn't look that old). Also worth mentioning; It reminded me of an episode of Young Indiana Jones when it used to be on the TV and was bookended by the old Indy telling a tale from the 1920's to some young whippersnapper. To all intents and purposes, it is Young Indy, but without the important historical figures. And with more actual romance. Ah well.
The Good: Christolph Waltz as August, the tormented ringmaster pretty much owns the show here, even if his portrayal is a little too similar to Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. Tai, the elephant who stars as Rosie is also fantastic. Although I'm not sure how many varied parts she'll get after this (fnar). Robert Pattinson is surprisingly (to me at least) good in his role as the young Jacob Jankowski. He relies on his brooding-face quite often, but it's in-character, so I'll let that one slide. Some of the photography in the first half of the movie is beautiful, but the need for establishing shots in the second half is minimal, so there gets to be less of it.
The Bad: Reese Witherspoon failed to engage me almost completely. She's not bad bad, but this isn't the role for her. The character she plays, Marlena, is required to put over a lot of emotion (and indeed the other characters are acting as if she is), but I found her performance pretty flat. I've seen her be so much better in other films, maybe she's just being overshadowed by an awesome elephant and a pantomime villain?
The Ugly: For the most part it's fine, but some sections of the script appear to have been written by a 12yr old. Cases in point: Hal Holbrook as old-Jacob. Some great acting, but his lines are awful and clichéd. Similarly Jim Norton* as Camel; I know the guy can act, I've seen it, but almost every line of his is filled with soul-crushing exposition, and he's trying to sell it to no avail, I can tell.
All in all: Very good if you're in the mood for it, but if you're thinking that this isn't your thing - it's probably not. I enjoyed it at the time, but it hasn't left me with anything, and I'm still not bothered about the circus.
* Oh yeah, Jim 'Bishop Brennan' Norton ("Len!" - "Don't call me Len, you little prick, I'm a bishop!"). Awesome. This was almost as good as when Henry Sellers was in Mamma Mia! ("I made the BBC!").
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
