I can't honestly say I've got much beef with Margaret Thatcher personally. I was alive when she was in power but I was basically a kid so I didn't take a lot of interest in politics (not that I take much more now). All I know was that in the media at the time, a lot of people were making out she was a massive bastard, and all the grown ups I knew were making out she was a massive bastard. But that's probably because I lived in The North™.
So with that in mind, I went to see The Iron Lady as a film, not a historical document.
The film opens in the present day, with MT as an elderly woman suffering (knowingly) with the onset of dementia. The main symptom of this is that she sees and talks with her husband, Dennis, despite him having died several years earlier, which represents her inability to let go, and also her fear at what she'll find if she does. Her career is told progressively through a series of flashbacks, bringing her to the point where she can finally move on*1.
So, how does it do? As a narrative, it's patchy. Being only partly familiar with the history, it seemed to me that they skipped over key points of MT's career in less time than they deserved. The flashbacks are, for the most part, short and frequent, and seem more like a Greatest Hits than a descriptive re-capping. The bias of the film certainly lies in her favour, with the Falklands War and miner's strikes seeming like a fuss-about-nothing. Even I remember that they weren't.
The film's real strength is in Meryl Streep's performance. She is outstanding in this. Seriously. There were only two distinct and very brief moments where my brain thought 'oh, that's Meryl Streep', but for every other second of that film, she's Thatcher*2. Her present-day portrayal is the most affecting, but she deserves all the accolades she'll undoubtedly pick up for this. The rest of the cast are good enough, but poor old Jim Broadbent only seems to be able to play Jim Broadbent™ these days. Likeable, but always himself. Rather like Bill Nighy in that respect.
All in all, it's difficult for me to say that I actually enjoyed it as such, but I'm definitely glad I saw it, if that makes any sense. It hasn't given me any political insight into the times, nor made me want to research it further. It's one of those films that could have been quite happily made for BBC4 and been broadcast with far less fanfare than it's received, but still won the same amount of respect.
A very solid five. Streep's performance is a straight seven, but her co-stars can't shine like she does.
*1 No, not like that. She's alive at the end, no matter what you were hoping for. *2 Well, okay. She does seem quite like Catherine Tate's Nan character for the last 10 minutes or so...
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.
...oh, you didn't think that was my actual review, did you?
And so, January is here. In addition to the self-indulgent last-minute offerings for the Oscars, the traditional post-Christmas release pattern in the UK is for the fucking drivel the studios can't put out at any other time of year because they can't compete with mainstream blockbusters. And there are so many of those that January becomes the graveyard shift for movies. And 2012 is no exception.
Goon is weak. How weak? Look at the poster up there. Go on, click on it and have a look.
Imagine you're in charge of the UK marketing for this one. An also-ran ice hockey comedy starring That Stiffler. I'm not saying that no-one in the UK is into Canadian Ice Hockey, but it is, at best a minority sport. Add in the cinematic qualities of this particular gem, and your only real hope is to market it for the violence. Hence the poster-quotes from Loaded, Nuts, and some website I've never heard of*1. So, apart from the barrel-scraping demographic they're aiming at, even the people who "loved" this film could only bring themselves to give it 4 out of 5. Talk about damning with faint praise.
As for the film itself, as my other*2 review said, it's not really about ice hockey, and even though I know next-to-nothing about it, I get the impression that it's about as faithful to the game as Jurassic Park is to genetic research. The opening act seems to zip by (presumably) months in Doug Glatt's life, where a guy who can't skate somehow gets a place on a hockey team. The main thread of the film comes in fits and starts as we stutter over Rhea's 12-match (ie 12 week?) suspension. Glatt's family are seemingly abandoned half way through the film, and Jay Baruchel's Pat only returns because Baruchel co-wrote the film and wanted to get his face in at the end.
Seann William Scott does bring some charm to the film, but I've seen that so many times before it doesn't really matter any more. Shcreiber's nowhere near as aggressive or wily as his character requires him to be, and he just seems bored for the whole thing. Everyone else stumbles through and phones-in performances, including Eugene Levy as Jewish Dad™, and Jay Baruchel as Swearing, Excited Geek™.
It's not consistently funny enough to be a comedy, and there's not enough feeling for it to be a drama, even when the blood's spraying across the ice. I can imagine it going down slightly better with an actual hockey-crowd, but for the UK market, this should have been straight-to-DVD.
It's not the worst thing I've ever seen (and I'm sure I'll see worse this year), but if you get anything of substance out of it, I salute you.
*2 No offence to heyuguys, I just really haven't heard of you. I'll check you out but, y'know. I only wish you'd been brought to my attention by being quoted over a better film. *2 It was a piss-take. Don't quote me on the fucking DVD packaging.
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.
And so, January is here. The traditional post-Christmas release pattern in the UK is for the more worthy films to be aired just before the Academy Awards ceremony in February. With the festivities and their associated blockbusters out of the way, now is the perfect time to see actual film at the cinema, and 2012 is no exception.
With Goon, director Michael 'Take Me Home Tonight' Dowse brings us a tale of self-discovery and cameraderie, with the rough-and-tumble of Canadian and American mainstream sport as a background rather than the focus, per se. In many respects, it owes a lot to Rod Daniel's 1985 piece, 'Teen Wolf', with the many individual matches themselves being shown purely from the protagonists viewpoint, and often in a few minutes or less.
Sean William 'Dukes of Hazzard' Scott brings the role of Doug Glatt to life. Glatt finds his way from casual door-security work, onto the professional ice hockey circuit, not by being a gifted player, but rather by virtue of his talents as an enforcer, or the titular 'goon'. His mandate within the squad is to keep his violent counterparts on the opposing team in check. A role which he relishes at first, but with which his character struggles when he begins to extend into actually playing hockey, only to be reprimanded by his own manager and more sportingly talented teammates.
Indeed, this struggle is only one of many as Glatt is something of a lost soul, looking to find his raison d'etre. Raised in an orthodox Jewish family, the film paints him as almost an outcast from the offset, with his parents struggling to accept his job first as a 'bouncer', and later as a hockey player (in fact, the thread with Glatt's parents is never quite resolved in the film, making the dénouement particularly hollow).
Elsewhere, tensions rise within the team as Marc-André 'The Chameleon'Grondin plays Xavier Laflamme, the golden-boy of the team whose own focus and determination on the ice is slipping, and is taking out his frustrations on Glatt, whom he holds partially responsible for his waning star. A particularly touching scene sees Glatt making his peace with his enforced flatmate Laflamme whilst talking through an adjoining wall, reminiscent of two characters talking whilst in neighbouring prison cells. Of course, up until this point, the characters had been in cells, albeit of their own psychological making. Similarly, once Glatt moves north to join the Halifax Highlanders, a romantic interest emerges in Eva, played by Alison 'Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen' Pill, who is similarly confused with her position in life. The two disparate souls are brought slowly together, each being an antidote to the weaknesses and damage in the other's psyche. A particularly poignant touch from the director is the scene they share in Eva's car, with the snow outside representing her crumbling reluctance to commit to a relationship with Glatt, and the plastic cherry suspended from the rear-view mirror representing his implied virginity.
And finally, we have the St John's Shamrocks enforcer Ross Rhea, courtesy of Liev 'Mixed Nuts' Schreiber. Rhea spends most of the film as an observer, having been suspended for gratuitously violent conduct. We see Glatt's rise to fame from his eyes as he studies the matches which take place in his absence, knowing that their paths will cross eventually. Like the best grizzled old pro's, Rhea knows the time will soon come to hang up his boots for good, and it is the culmination of Glatt's story and Rhea's career that brings the film to its heart-stopping climax. As I intimated earlier, the film is less about ice hockey, and more about the violence that accompanies it. Blood is spilled frequently throughout the film, but always sparingly, save the final showdown between the last of the old generation, and the first of the new.
Each drop of blood that hits the ice is a metaphor for tears, sweat and dignity. Ice hockey is portrayed as a sport that is less about numbers and points, and more about agression and raw, primal truth. Goon isn't quite perfect, but it's a thoughtful reminder that the same can be said of any one of us. With determination, we should all strive for the goals within our reach.
I shall be sorely disappointed if The Academy fails to recognise the haunting and touching contributions that Scott, Schreiber and Grondin have made to celluloid.
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.
At one point last year, I answered a telephone call on the land-line to someone claiming to be working for Microsoft. The gentleman told me (in alarmingly poor English), that Microsoft had tracked several "error messages" back to my computer, and that they could be indicative of malware, spyware and other related problems. If I could sit in front of my computer, he would guide me to a website which would be able to fix the issues.
Before we go any further, I'll summarise the contents of that link. This phone call wasn't from Microsoft. None of them are.
Now, it was the first one of these calls I'd had, although I found out later from friends that they were becoming more commonplace. Being a cynical bastard (at best), I saw through this ridiculous charade as most people would. Well, I say that, but I can't be entirely sure. It saddens me to know that some people are taken in by this, and they then visit a website and install "software" under instruction from a call centre worker, and basically sabotage their own computer, and in some cases even pay for the privilege.
But back to the phone call: One small, but strongly presented question later, and he hung up on me. The malware-salesman... hung up on me.
I've had three more calls since then, all with the same results. And it's not just one question you can ask. There are several others that'll vex them, and waste their time while you insist on an answer.
THE IMPORTANT FIRST RULE: DON'T give them any information they don't already have, and DON'T do anything on your computer that they ask you to. You don't need to be in front of your computer for the following questions to work. Remember, the only info they have of yours is your phone number, and the surname of the bill-payer, as will become apparent...
#1 - Sorry, what did you say your name was again? And your number hasn't come up on my phone; what number can I reach you on in the future?
Always ask for their full name. They'll make one up, of course, but it pisses them off that they haven't got a sheep on the line, and lets them know that this isn't going to be an easy call for them. Similarly with the phone number, they'll just make one up. Working from a call centre, they'll have an idea of how UK (or wherever you are) phone numbers work, but they won't give you a real one. I've done this one twice, and once the number was too long, and the other one was too short. This question is a delaying tactic, but it'll buy you some time to come back to this page, if you need to, or to dig out the piece of paper you've written the other questions on.
#2 - And what IP address did you log the errors coming from?
This is the big one. They'll try and palm over it, at which point you can ask the others; but if you execute this one properly, they'll hang up on you. In short, your IP address is the number assigned to your current internet connection by your service provider. Some people's change often, some rarely, depending on that provider. You can read more about them here if you like, and you can tell (completely safely) what your IP address is by visiting here. The important thing is, that any "errors" etc which would be logged would include this information. That's how they'd be logged. So surely, this "Microsoft Certified" company (or actual Microsoft, depending on their level of bullshit) would have this as the basis of their report? Well, these clowns haven't. They won't be able to tell you either which IP the errors were logged from, or your current IP. If they make an address up (none have with me, so far), just deny that it's your IP address. You don't have to know what yours currently is, because neither do they. If you DO know your current IP do not give it to anyone over the phone. There's no reason to give these people any ammunition which could be used against you.
#3 - Can you tell me which operating system was generating the errors?
This is another one where 1) they won't be able to answer you truthfully, and 2) you can throw them a curveball if they try to make it up. All the information discerable from your IP address is here. There's not a great deal, but your operating system's on that list. As with the IP address, any "errors" which would have been logged would have captured that information. The goons in the call centre (or rather, their employers) are taking a chance that you're using Windows, hence claiming to be from Microsoft. There's a strong chance you might be, of course, but they won't be able to tell you which version. If they have the brass fucking neck to challenge you on this, tell them "well, I have several machines, each running different operating systems, I'd like to know which one the errors came from". Alternatively, if they make up a "oh, Windows 7" answer, you can tell them "Really? That's odd, because my machine's a Mac." Again, if they fluster, press them for an answer. Don't let them move on until they admit they don't know. It's also worth remembering that of all the info captured via your actual IP address, your phone number isn't in there. These folks are working from a phone-list.
#4 - Can you tell me what the error messages are regarding? Only my security-suite hasn't told me anything's amiss...
As above, they won't have this information. They won't be able to give you error codes or descriptions, because those answers are the kind of the thing that they can't just make up. They'll tell you that they "don't have that information", and that your current security software is malfunctioning.
#5 - Can you tell me what dates and times the errors were logged?
Wow, are they still on the phone to you after four questions? Well, if you're doing them in order, this should be the final straw. Ask them when the errors were logged and you'll get "I'm sorry, I don't have that information". Again. Then you can then really get stuck in with a:
"So, you're calling to tell me that my computer has caused errors to be logged with Microsoft (and/or a representative company), one of the world's leading IT manufacturers, and yet you can't tell me which IP address they came from, which operating system I'm running, or when the errors occurred? Are you actually being serious?"
If they're still on the line at this point, after getting nowhere for 5-10 minutes, they'll get pissed off and hang up on you. They haven't been able to back up their credentials or reason for calling, and they know now that they've been rumbled. They've given you a false name and phone number, so there's no comeback on them. They'll go and bother someone else.
In the event of them still persisting, you can hang up on them now. You've made your point.
The main idea is to keep them on the phone for as long as possible because a) they're paying for the call, b) it's stopping this particular piece of shit from currently bothering someone else, who might not be as knowledgable as us, and c) it's fucking amusing to watch people fluster. Especially someone who's trying to get you to install malware on your own computer.
You don't have to know what you're talking about, you only have to sound like you do. If you can master that, you're already one step ahead of them.
Do me a favour, though, and spread the word, yeah? 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.
