CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
And here we are, six months into 2012, and six months into my insane self-imposed vow to go to the cinema 100 times this year. I managed 83 in 2011, and I wasn't impressed with the roundness of the number. Like last year, I've decided to rate and review each film I see at the cinema, including repeat-viewings.
Here's a roundup of the year so far. Clicking on an image will open the review in a new window.
So, that's good is it? It's bang on target, yes. Half way through the year half way to accomplishing my goal.
So, how are you doing, statistically? • Of the 50 films I've seen, 16 have been in 3D. • The average score for films overall has been 5.1 out of 7 • The average score for 3D films has been 5.7 out of 7 • The BBFC rating breakdown has been: Cert U (8 movies), Cert PG (2 movies), Cert 12A (21 movies), Cert 15 (17 movies), Cert 18 (2 movies). • The month I visited the cinema most was February, with 12 screenings.
• All of the above stats have been heavily influenced by repeat viewings of two 3D films I've loved: The Phantom Menace and Avengers Assemble. • No, you don't get a graph. I'm saving that for the post at the end of December.
Will you make the 100-film target? That's debatable. So far this year, there have been films I haven't watched because they didn't appeal, but there have been a lot of titles that my local hasn't shown at all. The thing that's really kept my numbers up is the repeat viewings of films like Star Wars and Avengers. Since we're not likely to get more like that in the latter half of the year (and since Cineworld show no sign of adopting a staggered screening policy to accommodate more films), I think it'll be more luck than judgement if I make the century.
You're not normal. You know that don't you? Yes, thank you.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Despite his extensive work with the sort of comedians I like™, and indeed the actual comedians I like™, I've so far managed not to see Robin Ince live. This, despite everyone in my circle of friends telling me that I really should, and me listening to his various shows and podcasts all the while. So when he's due to play a venue ten minutes walk away from my house, I really have no excuse.
Happiness Through Science, is a two-hour (plus) excited, rambling, enthusiastic and occasionally-angry tour of science and many of its adjoining counterparts, including art, religion, consciousness, mortality. Wow, I've made that sound a lot heavier than it is. The show is very positive, like the title suggests. Robin Ince has a passion for knowledge that can't be contained, and the routines almost burst out of him as he paces, crouches and leaps his way through a set that jumps from topic to topic, with many 'but we'll talk about that later' moments, only a few of which are repaid. In fact, this is what I enjoyed most about the show; there's a feeling that there's not enough time to cover everything he wants to talk about. In fact, there's a feeling that he's barely got started (how do you cram the joy of all scientific achievement so far into two hours?). On more than one occasion, Robin apologised to the audience for keeping them so long and over-running the show, and on every occasion the audience quietly smiled back as if to say 'No, carry on. This is what we're here for. Talk more.' He talks about knowledge and learning in a way that isn't patronising (or maybe I'm too thick to realise I was being patronised*1), because he's not teaching, he's just talking about how great finding stuff out is. The show's a lot more standup than I was expecting given the subject matter, but I can understand why he'd been listed at the venue as "comedy talk" rather than "standup".
I could have sat there all night listening to Robin talk, and I suspect I'm not alone in that, but obviously he had a train to catch and this ain't a Ken Dodd show. Speaking of trains, I've noticed that every stand-up who plays Didcot will make a reference to getting off the train for a change*2, and Robin Ince was no exception. I'm not having a pop at performers for mentioning it, by the way, but it seems that while the audience laugh politely, there's an air of 'Yeah, they all say that'. Although tonight's show also featured the addition of walking the wrong direction out of the station and getting lost as a result, which got a greater (and more understanding) laugh.
In other hands, the show would seem disorganised and/or unfinished, but that's Ince's modus operandi, and I was just happy to hear him performing at great length. As much as he's a talker, the various shows of his I listen to all feature other presenters/guests, and he never talks over people. As a result, I always want to hear more from him, and as a result I didn't really have any reference material I could play Mrs Blackout before the show without subjecting her to seven or eight hours of Infinite Monkey Cage or Utter Shambles. I enjoyed seeing a show where it was about Robin, for a change. Even if he'd insist that it wasn't about him.
Oh, and when he did his Stewart Lee impersonation, and pointed out in character that only three people in the audience were getting this bit, I was one of those three. This made me feel superior to all the scientists in the audience. Ha! I am better than you, you results-obsessed idiots!
Charming, likeable, and kinda nutty. Go and see Robin Ince. You really have no excuse.
Robin Ince has several different shows ongoing over the coming months, including an Edinburgh run. You can see a full listing and buy tickets through RobinInce.com. And you really should.
Wow. That was an objective review of the night, wasn't it? Not at all gushing and fanboyish. I don't care. Robin Ince's show has more content and passion than most mainstream performers manage over their careers. Go and see him, you fools.
*1 Just kidding. I think. *2 Didcot Parkway is a large 'interchange' station between Reading and Oxford, and most trains travelling up the West side of England to/from London will stop there, seemingly regardless of their destination. Chances are you'll spend time waiting for a connection there at some point, but it's rare that you'll actually want to get off the train. We've only had the arts centre for five years or so, so a lot of performers are now finding out that Didcot consists of more than just a train station. Not a lot more, mind you.
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.
It's a rare thing that I'm utterly conflicted by a film, but Rock of Ages has managed it.
The Plot: Country-girl moves to L.A. to follow her dreams (ie, work in a bar), meets and falls for a young aspiring rock star working his way up the ladder (ie, working in a bar), but a rock legend threatens to derail their romance when he makes a return to the venue as a favour to an old friend (ie, he plays in a bar). Meanwhile, the righteous conservatives of the town have other ideas about what the young people of Hollywood should be pursuing (ie, they want to shut down the bar). Russell Brand works in the bar and sounds like someone from Birmingham who's having a stroke.
In short: I won't good/bad/ugly this one, as it's very simple: At two hours, it's too long. The plot is awful. The storytelling is awful. The acting is largely awful. Most of the humour falls flat on its arse. The script is fucking abysmal. The two young leads seem to somehow get more twee and less likeable as the movie goes on, like reverse character development. Catherine Zeta Jones is treating it like it's a pantomime. Tom Cruise is treating it like it's a midlife crisis. Malin Akerman is treating it like it's a paycheck. And last but not least, I know everyone else has mentioned this, but why is Russell Brand making that noise with his mouth?
But… I loved the musical arrangement, and most of the performances. Some of them don't quite work, and some should never have been done, but the ones that do make up for their failed counterparts. And the song-mashups? They're the thing that should offend me the most - as a rocker and an ex-all-out-metaller - but I like what they were doing. Ultimately, I can't say I didn't enjoy the film, but anything that wasn't set to music (and there was a frightening amount of that) is bloody awful.
30% of Rock of Ages is the best thing I've seen this year. And the other 70% is the absolute worst.
So on some levels, it's...
But on others, it's…
I should really rate it a three or a four, but it's more complicated than that…
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.
Under the normal run of things, I wouldn't go to see Al Murray live. It's not that I dislike him at all, but he doesn't really push my comedy-buttons. I get it, of course, but that doesn't necessarily make it any funnier to me. I'm aware that for many of his shows, he's playing to what is essentially a 'non-comedy' crowd. When it was announced that he was playing my local however (a 200-300 capacity room), with a w-i-p show, I was interested. To see a regular act in an irregular setting suddenly made the whole thing very attractive, and I felt I couldn't ignore this happening so close to where I live*1. Now this might sound like a harsh, snobby opening (and let's face it, it is), but it influenced the way I watched the show.
And so, the eponymous Pub Landlord came to my town with a warm-up/work-in-progress for his upcoming Edinburgh Festival run and subsequent tour. There is no stage-curtain at this theatre, and as the audience are seated the minimal stage dressing is visible, a chair with two Union flags sticking out from the back, and a pint of lager placed on the seat. The lights dim, Al introduces himself and storms onto stage with his trademark blazer, and another pint of lager. The show begins…
Having seen clips on TV, and the odd episode of his chat-show, I was familiar with the general banter of his stage-show, but wasn't sure what to expect in overall direction. In terms of tonight's show, that pretty much was the direction. Now don't get me wrong, it was very, very funny, but it did seem to be a smokescreen for a lack of content. Most of the first half of the show was spent chit-chatting with the first two rows of the audience, which is great (especially for them), but the comedy-cynic in me couldn't help but wonder how much of an autopilot this was. I think Al's skill lies not so much in thinking of a witty reposte when an audience member says they're a builder, a teacher, an estate agent etc, but more in remembering which one-liners get the best reaction from his crowd in response. If you think of close-quarters stand-up as Murray's day-job, it shouldn't take too long to build up a mental encyclopaedia of banter with which to pad a little..
He didn't take it too far with anyone of course, another skill evident in his act, and he deftly skipped over audience members who weren't up for it. It was all beautifully done, but I got this impression of stalling. And yes, I'm aware that it was a work-in-progress, so it's not going to be mega-slick, but I counted two actual routines/gags in the first half, and around four or five in the second. It all works as a general act, but doesn't really feel coherent. If anything, the more interaction there was with the audience, the less individual the show felt. I liked the gags, but I wanted more. Like, a show's worth?
There's been much said about Murray's dual-layered performance, but I don't know if he's toning that down somehow, because I wasn't really picking much of it up. It's character comedy, certainly, but the abrasive nationalism that springs to mind when you think of Murray's Pub Landlord was fairly muted in Didcot. Present, but keeping its distance. Maybe it's because the audience was arts centre, rather than comedy club, I don't know.
I sound like a right grump about the whole thing, but I assure you I did enjoy the night. I just feel like I don't really need to do it again. From what I've heard fans say (comedy-geeks and civilians), I think I was expecting some sort of unique magic that doesn't come across on TV or DVD; some cheeky, subversive spark that'd make me get it. As it turns out, I got pretty much what I should have expected - A very funny, crowd-pleasing comedian, who knows his audience but doesn't have to patronise them.
Al Murray is playing warm-up gigs around the UK througout July and August, and then the Edinburgh Festival from August 13th 25th. He'll be performing a full tour of the UK this autumn. You can buy tickets from his website.
Despite what appears to be a lukewarm review, I do recommend you see Al Murray live, if you get the chance.
*1 Unlike when Mr McIntyre played the same room a couple of years ago. He could be doing a gig in my front garden and I wouldn't go. Now there's snobbery for you.
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 me, I'm not really a theatre person. That's why I go to the cinema as often as I do. It's not a question of location or convenience, it's more that the larger the theatre, the more mainstream the production, so I don't usually bother. I don't really have the frame-of-reference (that I think) I need to get the most out of the theatre, so projects like this are ideal for me. The kind of show I'd be interested in, in a format that suits me down to the ground.
Despite the title-prefix, today's showing wasn't "live" live, but recorded from one production last year, so everything you see happens at the same pace as sitting in the theatre watching the play. The show is a new adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein by Nick Dear, directed by Danny Boyle, and starring Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch as the monster and his creator, respectively. Or the creator and the monster, depending on which performance you see. For the live run, the actors swapped parts every night, giving the pair of them a unique insight into their (and each other's) roles.
"Slowly I learnt the ways of humans: how to ruin, how to hate, how to debase, how to humiliate. And at the feet of my master I learnt the highest of human skills, the skill no other creature owns: I finally learnt how to lie."
The Plot: Told largely from the point of view of the monster, Frankenstein follows his journey from a shambling, newborn beast, through his education at the hands of a kindly surrogate father-figure, to the point where his intellect is equal-to and greater-than that of his creator. The point where he learns what it is to be human by causing the same level of destruction as they do.
The Good: Johnny Lee Miller. For the version I watched, JLM steals the show as the monster. I'm confident that Cumberbatch has the chops to equal the performance on his nights in the make-up, but without seeing it, I can't imagine he'll better it. In order for the production to work as it does, the decision was made that the monster would speak. It's handled beautifully, as he learns to talk over the course of the two hours (three years in story-time), progressing through childlike grunts and exclamations to fully coherent sentences that hint of learning difficulties and underlying madness. The fact that he has a fully-developed brain that only has to be filled with knowledge is hinted at, but not spelled out, and it's stunning to watch the literal growth of the monster, yearning for acceptance, understanding and love. There's absolutely no doubt that the monster is more of a sympathetic character than in any other version of the story that I've seen, but it never becomes cloying or forced.
Cumberbatch is also on top form as the crazed scientist who created life because he saw it as an equation to be completed. His whole performance is distant, but always through a lack of understanding, rather than compassion. While the scenes of the play are long enough to justify the sets that have been built, they don't drag, and what appears at first to be a 'minimal' set holds surprises in terms of versatility. It's helped hugely by great lighting, of course, but it doesn't overshadow the cast or the story.
There's little else I can really say without going into theatre-review territory (which again, I don't have the frame of reference to do), so I'll just say that I went to the cinema with an open mind, and left very impressed.
The Bad: Firstly, not all of the acting is as good as the two leads. It's nowhere near AmDram level, but some of the other performers seem to have their tongue in their cheek, somewhat. It's not crisis-point, but it contrasts with Cumberbatch and Miller who play their roles with total conviction. Secondly, it's a bit theatre. Particularly the first five minutes. Yes, I know how that sounds. To the show's credit, there's no attempt to disguise the face that this is a live performance, filmed in front of an audience. The shape and design of the stage means that you can't film all of the required shots without catching them somewhere at least, and while it's minimal, it did keep pulling me out a little. There's a lot of camerawork in the cinematic presentation of the show (ie, it's not just a single static camera filming), so as a cinema audience, you're already seeing so much more than a theatre-patron. But as cool as that is, when a wide/reverse-shot shows the audience sitting enjoying the show, it does pull me out, because that's not what you'd go to the theatre to see. It's a minor-point, and almost nonsensical in mentioning, but it's the only thing keeping me from giving this full marks. It's still better than almost everything else I've seen at the cinema this year.
The Ugly: My only regret is not being at home the other week when they showed the version with Cumberbatch as the monster. Even I can tell that this really does deserve to be watched as part of a duology.
Worth £10? Yes. If you can see this at your local, do. When it finally arrives on DVD/Blu-Ray, I cannot recommend this highly enough. A stunning achievement.
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.
Well, they say five years, but it feels like at least eight. The film's about an hour too long, and isn't funny, charming or (ironically) engaging enough to justify that runtime. Entire scenes go by with apparently nothing to contribute to the story and are of no comedic value. Many of these scenes also appear to feature "ad-libbed dialogue"; this is presumably to give the film a fresh, unplanned feel, but mainly results in Emily Blunt and Alison Brie sitting awkwardly, not knowing what the fuck to say to each other.
There are snort-out-loud moments, but no real laughs. The screenplay lurches from one clunkly by-the-numbers plot-point to the next with precious little warmth or feeling. In many respects, the only time it's worth watching are when Emily Blunt and Jason Segel are on-screen at the same time. But even by the inevitable whining/break-up section of the film, that's put to the test. There are some good, original ideas in there, but they're mashed into a mechanical lumbering NuRomCom™ and it's just ended up being a mess. Frankly, it's not good enough.
Produced by Judd Apatow, Directed by Nicholas Stoller, and co-written by Stoller and Jason Segel, this is the team that gave us Forgetting Sarah Marshall, one of my favourite comedies of all time, since it put the Com before the Rom.The Five Year Engagement features roughly none of the things that make Sarah Marshall so great; Main characters you can feel for and relate to, secondary characters who are consistently amusing and/or likeable, a sense of emotional consequence with the story, recurring gags which aren't spoon-fed to the audience… all missing in action.
Now, I'll admit that my review is coloured by the fact that I went to the 12:30 showing on Friday afternoon, and had planned other things to do after the movie. It only went on for 30 minutes longer than a 'regular' film, but the lack of humour really made it feel longer, and the extended running time meant that my plans for the day were well and truly fucked. I know what you're thinking: "Well, it's not the film-maker's fault if you don't check a running time before you go in!". But had the film been worth watching, I wouldn't have minded. The Five Year Engagement, combined with 25 minutes of ads and trailers aimed at people with a different chromosome configuration to myself, literally ended up being a waste of my time.
Jason Segel and Emily Blunt are capable of (and have starred in) so much better, that it's embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as the way they kept shoehorning the fucking donut analogy into this film.
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.
Imagine, if you will, the aura of Interview With The Vampire, told through the lens of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, with all the rompy fun of Van Helsing, but none of the campy humour. That, ladies and gentlemen, is AL:HV.
Now I'm aware, of course, that a large percentage of you disliked at least two of those three films I mentioned in comparison. Personally, I loved them all, which is why I enjoyed Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. It's not perfect, and it certainly isn't for everyone, but it kept me consistently entertained for the best part of two hours, so it's already ahead of many movies I've seen this year. It's also worth pointing out that Mrs Blackout also rather liked it, so it's definitely more action than horror, despite the Cert.15 rating.
After the BBFC card and the studio logos, there are no opening credits for Abraham, and no title card. And while I'd say the introduction isn't rushed, exactly, there's no slack left lying around in the setup. We're introduced to young Mr Lincoln and the events in his childhood that turned him into the axe-wielding killer we've all come to see, and the story steams through at full pace for about an hour. At around that point, I'd wondered exactly how short this was going to be as it seemed to be cramming a lot in and leaving quite a few loose ends (ie, looking like an 85 minute film). But then it keeps building. It doesn't really slow down any, although there are a couple of lulls before the climactic battle which seem to drag, by comparison. The result is an oddly paced film. It still works (for me, anyway), but it feels like running for a bus and wondering what's falling out of your pockets: you won't know until you've got your breath back, and by then you've got to deal with not having it.
On a more specific level: The 3D is patchy. It looks great in some moments, looks muddy and out of focus in more, and is almost non-existent in more than those put together. I'm not a 3D-basher, but I'd recommend you see this in 2D. Also guilty of inducing a headache is the hand-held shaky-cam at the beginning of the film. It's difficult to pull off at the best of times, but combined with the 3D, it's a bloody mess. Thankfully this doesn't really come into play after the first twenty minutes or so. The rest of the film looks fine, and the effects work is mostly on-par (although the 'ageing' process of Mary Elizabeth Winstead is amazing for its barefaced laziness).
Now, given the preposterous nature of the movie (remember the title?), it's acted extremely well. Not outstandingly or anything, but everyone manages to keep a straight face and deliver a surprisingly 'realistic' script. My brain kept wanting to nitpick and ask questions about certain props, events, lines etc... but AL:HV has a kind of inherent silliness that renders any criticism of historical factors redundant.
Not being familiar with the source material, I was worried that maybe too much money had been thrown at something that should be a low-budget 'quirky' film. But that part in the trailer with all the fire? That's the flashiest bit, and when you see the full sequence, there's no way it could have been done on a smaller scale. Sure, it's over the top, but you remember the title of the film, yes?
Benjamin Walker brings to mind a young Liam Neeson, for all the right reasons (in fact, I was disappointed they didn't hire him for the second half of the film as the 'older' Lincoln), and Rufus Sewell seems to be channelling the spirit of Ian McShane as Adam, the film's bad guy and head vampire. It's kind of like a Muppet Babies of badass, in that respect.
If you run with that silliness, you'll enjoy Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. But if you don't get on with it, I won't hold that against you.
Oh, and it's nice to see the vampire/silver connection used again. Too many movies ignore this.
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.
Review #1 (Spoiler-free) here, and Review #2 (Spoilery) here.
You know the deal by now. I've been to see Prometheus again, and I don't think I'm going to get anything more out of this version of the film. I really need that extended-cut to answer some questions, and of course ask some new ones.
So I've made you a picture!
^^ Click for bigger (1072*857px, 150kb, opens in new window) ^^
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.
The final screening of Avengers at our local Cineworld was on Tuesday 12th June. A six week run is pretty impressive at a five-screener, especially in Summer-season, and it's been long enough since I last saw it for me to 'return' to the film with fresh eyes (so to speak). You can read my firstthreereviews at those clicks, there. Today, I have only one final thought about what's shaping up to be my Film of the Year.
I'm not entirely convinced that Agent Coulson is dead.
In the lead-in movies, as Agent Coulson, he was the quiet, unassuming face of a faceless organisation. Probably one of the good guys to you and I, but the other Good Guys weren't sure of that. The embodiment of efficiency, he's an example of why S.H.I.E.L.D. works as an agency.
In Avengers Assemble, as Phil Coulson, he's still quiet but he's warmer, funnier and holds far more passion for his job than we knew. We learn that he's a trading-card/comic-book geek, and that he's built a rapport with Pepper Potts to the point where they're on first name terms and trust each other more than Coulson and Stark do. He tells us that he's had a hand in re-designing Captain America's outfit, and It's implied that he's so married to the job that he prefers to unwind outside of work by playing the cello. In fact, his faux pas to Steve Rogers about watching him while he was sleeping, coupled with Natasha Romanov's later line, "I thought he was going to swoon" to that same Rogers, pretty much outs him as gay. Which is pretty fucking awesome when you consider they didn't show him snuggling up to a dude in order to do that. It may not be the most subtle way to tackle it, but there's a lot of shouting, screaming and punching going on in that film, so I think they've got the balance pretty spot on.
Anyway, what this leads to is that Phil Coulson is pretty much the most interesting character in Avengers Assemble. In my humble opinion. There are people with zippier lines, mightier powers, and deeper frowns, sure. But in terms of character development; in terms of an audience learning something about a character so they view him or her differently at the end of a film; in terms of the character actually being different themselves at the end of a film; …Coulson gets all the action here. No matter how likeable the Stark/Iron-Man combo is, no matter how much more depth Bruce Banner has this time round, and no matter how much more I want to learn about Hawkeye and Black Widow… everyone else walks off at the end of Avengers Assemble not much different than they were two and a half hours earlier.
Now in all seriousness, why would messrs Whedon and Penn take the time to layer Coulson up like that, only to kill him for no reason? I've mentioned this before, but when he walks into the holding chamber and faces off Loki with his S.H.I.E.L.D. issue BFG, takes a shivving from the Asgardian bastard, and then quietly lays the truth on him before blowing him through the wall, he may get a pleasing pay-off line but five minutes later, Loki's getting into a helicopter like he's just been slapped in the face. And it's not about the lack of brute-force of the blast - all The Hulk does later on is slap him into the ground a few times, and that subdues him for the rest of the movie. Maybe the gun was style-over-substance, but Phil Coulson died for nothing. Apparently.
So we know that Director Fury told a little white lie about the trading cards in Coulson's pocket to goad Iron Man into action (because let's face it, there was only Iron Man and Captain America in the room, and Cap would go to the opening of an envelope in the name of Justice™). So what if he told a larger white lie about Coulson dying? What if the paramedics revived him? Where do you think Fury got that blood from to smear on the cards? It seems a little harsh to be rubbing them over the body of a dead man just to convince an already-sold Stark to keep fighting, so what if he took the blood knowing Coulson was alive? You see it smear on the table, so you know it's someone's blood. Whichever way he's ruined a perfectly good set of trading cards, the philistine.
So what do you think? Is there an argument for Coulson being alive? Is there anything to be gained by leaving the character deceased? Isn't it a little odd that the only named person to die in the entire film does so for no actual reason?
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.
It seems to happen twice a year. Either by virtue of a well-cut trailer, or else my own excess of free-time and an Unlimited Card, I end up going to watch a film that is aimed squarely at 14yr old girls. Last year it was Red Riding Hood and I Am Number Four (okay, and Twilight). In 2012, I didn't go and see Mirror, Mirror (for reasons made obvious by the trailer), and the Breaking Dawn*1 Part II is some months away, which leaves one option…
And so, like a horrific car crash between Twilight and Lord of the Rings, The Other Snow White Movie arrives, with all the heft and attitude you'd expect of a 12A fantasy movie starring Kristen Stewart. Let's be honest, the main selling point of this take on the story is that it looks like the fucking X-Men compared to a Julia Roberts film.
All of the action, darkness and intrigue in Snow White and the Huntsman is in the trailer. By which I mean that there's less than three minutes of it. The film is visually beautiful, full of dirt, desaturated palettes and magnificent costume and set design. But it's twee. So, SO twee. Not content with having Kristen Stewart limply staggering from one scene to the next, being imprisoned /rescued /captured /rescued, and only literally suiting-up the final act, there's also some subplot about her being emotionally torn between two guys. Who will Bella Snow White choose? Her childhood sweetheart, now played by James Blunt, or McThor, with an accent that could be the most offensive thing to Scotland since Mel Gibson's Braveheart? The attempts to divert the myth down avenues of teen-angst derail the story with depressing regularity. In fact, I was genuinely surprised that after spending her formative teenage years locked in a tower with no education or significant human contact, the film doesn't feature Snow White as a socially awkward beserker/simpleton. She seems remarkably well adjusted, considering her stepmother killed her father the day after meeting him, imprisoned her while she systematically kills every other young girl she meets*2, and she's been "watched" by her pervy step-uncle on a regular basis. I suppose an incarceration of that length will at least rob her of the ability to judge the credibility of Scottish accents.
So leaving aside (as I must) the story structure of a literal Fairy Tale™, complete with its Happy Ending™, there are a number of internal stumbling blocks that I couldn't ignore. These range from the small (if the Queen can magically heal the scar running over her brother's eye that Snow White caused, why can't/doesn't she heal the one in the centre of his forehead?), to the baffling (why does the Queen leave Lily Cole alive when we see the dead bodies of her other victims?), to the large (why is there a completely un-barred human-accessible sewer leading from the castle courtyard to the outer-wall, exposed to the sea so that anyone with a small boat could sneak in undetected at any time? The fact that this is used twice in the film only underlines the sheer stupidity of it). But all of this I can put down to the Friday-afternoon draft of a screenplay aimed at people who don't watch films the way I do…
What puzzles me more is the underlying message of the SWatH; A really attractive evil person is killed by an even-more attractive good person, whose power seems to lie in being really attractive. The wicked Queen doesn't drain the life-essence from the munters, she only wants the good-looking chicks. Snow White isn't important because of her robust morals, bravery or inner strength - it's because of how pretty she is. The women of the village have had their faces scarred by their menfolk so the queen wouldn't abduct and kill them, and moreover, this seems to have worked. The Queen envies beauty, not specifically youth. It'd be easy to put this superficiality down to the Queen's twisted personality, but pretty much everyone else in the film fawns over Snow White's beauty, too. Any attempt to convey the idea that inner-beauty is more important than looks is half-arsedly offered up in Snow White's rousing inspirational speech before the final battle, which she delivers with all the gusto of a takeaway order. Even when she's in armour*3, she's wearing a bizarre kind of chainmail minidress, presumably offering the safety of enemy archers and swordsmen putting their weapons down to tug at their collars and let steam whistle out, On The Buses style.
You know who you're marketing this at, Universal. You put enough money into it to make sure the tween makeup and Claire's Accessories crowd is sitting there in the cinema. Is the message of this film the best thing to be shouting at them? No, really? Oh, okay then, if you say so.
Ultimately, I can't hate Snow White and the Huntsman. It just wasn't made for me. Oh, and the Dwarfs. I should probably mention the Dwarfs. They're okay.
And it only gets a three for Charlize Theron. Even if her presence served as a constant reminder that Prometheus was playing in the screen next door.
*1 For the record, I don't mind the Twilight movies. They are what they are and they set their stall out pretty clearly. And I think the wolves are badass. *2 Apart from Lily Cole, who doesn't get killed, only severely aged, and then magicked back into being young again at the end of the film. For reasons best known to the filmmakers and Lily Cole's agent. *3 Armour that offers no protection to her legs, face or head. She's not vain, Snow White. Stupid, perhaps, but not vain.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 40.
08 June 2012. The 'Tie Bombshell' shirt, from TeeFury.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
There won't be a #StarWarsTshirtFriday next week. I'm retiring it… for the time being ;) Look, it re-started as a 10-week run and went on for 15. I think that's pretty good, don't you?*
Also playing this week:
Tammy, who has been an outstanding shirt-companion, in that we've worn none of the same shirts throughout this ridiculous ordeal I have created… *Don't answer that.
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.
Prometheus (3D) - Spoilers. Heavy Spoilers. 124 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott
NOTE: My initial review of the film is here. If you haven't seen Prometheus yet, you should read that, as it's spoiler-free. The following post will not only spoil the plot of the film, but also won't make a lot of sense unless you've seen it, anyway.
After thinking about my first viewing, and discussing some of the finer points in the pub (always a reliable way of analysing subtext), I'm left with a lot of small questions and one rather large one. I'll save the small ones for later posting (because I'll be seeing Prometheus again, I have no doubt of that), and concentrate on the one I have no real answer for…
What's in it for David? David, an artificial person created by Peter Weyland as a surrogate son, is called-out by the human characters (and indeed his own father) on a regular basis for 'not having a soul'. Amusing in and of itself, because obviously a soul isn't a quantifiable object, and the humans seem to miss the point that as a sentient machine (mechanical or biological) with a self-preservation instinct, David is every bit as 'human' as they are. From his introduction aboard the ship Prometheus, spending his free-time watching Lawrence of Arabia, cycling and dyeing his hair, it first appears that David desperately wants to be human, to gain acceptance from his peers. However, from what transpires on the mission, I took it that David is well aware of the frailties of the human-condition, aware of why he's better than that, and is only seeking to fully understand humans so that he can overcome the obstacles that he feels are holding him back. He's fascinated by Dr Shaw's religious beliefs, especially in the face of so much scientific evidence that can provide data, and even by the end of the film hasn't figured out what enables a person to believe unconditionally.
But alongside all of this, he's carrying out his programming. Namely, to aid and assist Peter Weyland as he looks for a way to cheat death by communicating with the race he believes has created humanity. When the hologram of Weyland appears to the ship's crew at the beginning of the mission-briefing, David knows that his father isn't really dead as he claims to be. When the first scouting party enters the vase-chamber, and David furtively steals one of the vessels for further examination on the Prometheus, he knows that Weyland is asleep (or in hypersleep-recovery at least) onboard the ship.
When David has worked out that the black-goo from the canister has mutative effects on the life it comes in contact with, and with a sense of wry mischief deliberately infects Holloway with the substance, he knows that Weyland is only a few rooms away, at most.
What's David's motivation for exposing Holloway to the goo?
It can't be part of his programmed mission, as he's endangering the only (sensible) means of Weyland and himself escaping the planet. Weyland hasn't travelled all this way to find the secret of life, only to spend a prolonged period running around barren LV-223 avoiding whatever creature David has helped spawn. At first I thought that the idea was for infected-Holloway to impregnate Shaw, then to put Shaw into hypersleep to smuggle the resulting creature back to Earth (as per Burke's agenda in Aliens). But there isn't enough data on the life-cycle at that point to think that this plan will necessarily work, and David could have carried out the freezing of Shaw himself, but chose not to, getting the Prometheus' crew to take Shaw to the cryo-chamber (which backfired massively).
So what does David hope to gain by releasing this unknown factor into the immediate environment? Holloway's treatment of him up until that point had been dismissive, but with no real callousness, so it seems odd that David had decided to punish him just for speaking down to him. It's not really until the scene at the pool-table that Holloway shows any real belligerence towards David, and by then he's already got the alien-drop on the tip of his finger. Was there a chance of David chickening-out, if Holloway had been uncharacteristically nice to him?
And while I'm on the subject, why doesn't the black-goo affect David? Yes, he's an android, but it's already been established that he has at least some living tissue on his body, as he's dyeing his hair blond at the start of the film (only the roots, indicating continued growth). If he has organic hair, it stands to reason that he'd have other human-type tissue on his body, if only to help him blend-in (and assist hair/nail growth, etc).
Had the mutating-goo already affected David internally, hence his increasingly erratic behaviour? Were David's actions borne of child-like curiosity as his personality grows unchecked? Had the two years, eights months, fifteen days of solitude on the outward journey begun a neurosis resulting in David beginning to break his programming? Had David just become bored, and decided to do a little research of his own to assist the Weyland Corp?
I don't know. And from what I've seen in the film, I can't work it out. I suspect these questions will never be answered neatly, even with extended-cuts and director's commentaries. After all, people are still arguing over if Rick Deckard was a replicant or not.
If you have a theory on this, leave me a comment below, cheers! :)
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.
Well, hello there! Ian / Yen / Harrington / Blackout, here (depending on where you know me from). Chances are, you're reading this because I sent you a Facebook friend-request. This blog post was too lengthy to realistically include in that message, hence…
About four months ago, for reasons best known to Mark Zuckerberg, my Facebook profile-page stopped working. I could still log into my account, post and share things, and send messages to everyone, but my 'front page' showed this…
…which isn't a lot of good to anyone. It also meant that any posts, photos or comments that included my profile URL resulted in the same error. Now Facebook aren't the easiest people to actually 'contact', which is horribly ironic when you think about it, but after many support-tickets raised, and no individual response or 'fix', I had two options: stop using Facebook altogether, or just start a new account and migrate all my friends over to it. It's starting to be a major pain in the arse now, as I can't look at posts that I've made when they've got comments/likes on them. Despite everything, I am quite fond of FB, so I went for the second option.
Which brings us to where we are now.
So, you've had a friend-request from me, with the address of this page in the message section. Once you accept, I'll un-friend you from my other account. I'll be keeping that account live, but only because I've got images in photo-albums that are being hosted for blog-posts etc. I won't be using the old account any more. All the cool shit is going on over at my new one.
Unless you let me know otherwise, once you're friends with my new account, I'll un-friend you from my old one. This is mainly to keep things neater, but it'll mean any existing message conversations between us will be deleted. If you want to stay friends with my old account, let me know!
Facebook, being the caring considerate corporate beast that it is, will get all sniffy and suspicious if I friend-request loads of people at once, thinking that I might be a bot (yes, the irony is getting heavier), and so this will be a gradual process, probably taking weeks rather than days. So what I'm saying is that you're reading this towards the end of June or later, I didn't forget you, I was just working though a list.
I'm also aware that you and I may not have actually 'conversed' a lot recently. But I make a point of not friending strangers on Facebook, so if you're reading this, I do know who you are, and I still want to be FB buddies with you. You're welcome to disregard this completely, of course, and I won't hold that against you at all.
If you have any questions on any of this, you can either drop me a comment below, or just send a private-message on my old Facebook page.
Hope to see you soon!
Ian / Yen / Harrington / Blackout.
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.
Prometheus (2D) - Spoiler Free 124 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott
It's not really a "spoiler" to say that there are oblique and direct references to 1979's Alien in Prometheus. That fact is what's drawing the crowd, no matter how much 20th Century Fox want to understate the connection. And so, withholding expectations as much as possible, I sat down this afternoon with a nuclear-hot coffee to watch the film that's exciting geeks and civilians alike...
The Plot: In 2089, when anthropologists connect a series of pre-historic cave paintings with a distant star system, the Weyland Corporation funds a scientific expedition to planet LV-426. What they find is an invitation, a warning, and just maybe the very origin of life on Earth…
The Good: Too much for me to take in fully on the first watch. I see that as a good thing, and it's always been an indicator of a great film in the past. The production design and effects in general are nothing short of breathtaking, here. Even the 'old-age' prosthetics are remarkably good, backed up by the mannerisms of the performer wearing them. And as far as I can see, everyone is on great form in Prometheus. You don't doubt any of the characters for a second (although their respect of basic Health and Safety practices is often staggering).
The crew of the ship Prometheus are nicely realised; all rough and ready and full of world-weary sarcasm, which is a sound nod to the crew of Nostromo from that other Ridley Scott film. My only real 'positive complaint' is that I wanted to see more. I could quite happily have watched a version of this that was closer to three hours, and given Ridley Scott's history I daresay an extended version will appear at some point.
The Bad:Prometheus definitely asks more questions than it answers. Certain connections which are suggested (and occasionally used to batter the audience around the head with) don't fit as snugly as your average geek may be wanting them to. In addition to this, a lot of the extra-terrestrial biology on display seems not to run concurrently with 33 years of Aliens sequels and expanded-universe mythology. It's no biggie, but it feels like the film deliberately goes out of its way to step out of line.
There are also whole avenues that feel unexplored. Michael Fassbender's David and Charlize Theron's Vickers are practically screaming for more screentime to get into their motivations. I know that associated promo-material, such as David and Peter Weyland's viral videos, certainly bulks out the background of Prometheus, and I suspect there's a lot more in that vein. But for your average punter in the cinema (who hasn't been geeking out for the last year or so), the lack of that depth could make for a fairly sparse story. And isn't the cinema supposed to be about storytelling? The 'extras' should be just that, not a requirement for understanding the film. [/Reverse Film Snobbery]
The Ugly: According to references all over the internet (but little in the way of actual quotation):
"The Swedish actress Noomi Rapace, who plays British character Shaw, worked on set with a dialect coach to help her achieve an appropriate accent. "
Well, I hope the coach didn't get paid. The vast majority of her lines are passable, and then she slides in a Swedish accent that trips the whole thing up. If it wasn't for flashback scenes of her as a little girl with a very 'British' accent, there'd be no need at all for it to be an issue. Why did you even MENTION this, The Internet? It's like when they tell Jason Statham to do an American accent, or Ewan McGregor an American one. They can't do it, don't waste your time.
Should I see this at the pictures, though?: Undoubtedly. Despite what I've moaned about there, Prometheus is bloody good. I mean, seriously bloody good. Beautifully made and definitely worthy of seeing on the big screen. Just don't expect to walk out of the cinema with all the answers you've been wanting...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 39.
01 June 2012. The only reference you will see to any manner of sport from me. Possibly ever.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
Also playing this week:
Tammy, who's probably going to beat me in the continuation, because I've only got one more to come in this run...
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.
