Sunday, June 29, 2008

Brainwashing your children...

People do it all the time... my particular personal experiences with brainwashing were half hearted, but at schools across the country parents give teachers and peers the opportunity every day to influence the beliefs of their children.

Think for a moment... if the government was payingpeople to force your children to sing Muslim religious songs and recite the prayers of those beliefs every morning the public and the papers would be up in arms about such brainwashing...

And what if they preached to your children every morning whether you liked it or not?

The thing is a lot of parents don;t really think about it... they rely on their kids brains overcoming this silliness as a matter of course, but I'll share a little experience from my childhood, maybe it'll ring a bell.

I once got given an essay or lines or something because I refused to sing hymns or recite the lords prayer in assembly. At our lovely school every assembly consisted of hyms, lords prayer the occasional reading of some nonsense meant to be a pointer to our lives and then onto actually relevant stuff like house cricket scores (Hooray for me!). See, the people from other religions didn't have to be in the room when the christian stuff was going on, but being an atheist was, and may well still be, considered tantamount to "dodging out" of part of assembly.

This concept of Atheism being somehow lesser a belief system than, say, Jews who didn't want to say the lords prayer, makes my blood boil even now when I think back. What gives some jumped up German teacher the right to assume relative value of your religious views?

It's probably a result of the authority parents give teachers - you basically say "you teach him" every time you send your kid in. Why wouldn't they think they have the right to teach you your worth, as well as how to say "Ich verstehe nicht"? I will take this opportunity to say "Screw you" to that particular teacher.

Course, I am putting my own beliefs above his. The irony is not lost, believe me.

I will say in my defence I am truly of the opinion that Atheism is the basic state of humanity. No one is born religious, no one. Religion is a result of teaching. There are few who would argue against that. So why was I treated as abnormal when simply displaying lack of successful teaching?

That particular tale of punishment was from secondary school, but almost exactly the same thing occured at my primary schools as well, children being encouraged to join in with Christian ceremonies by people in positions of not just authority but in a position of knowledge and of the teacher. Why would a lot of kids not take this as a lesson, not just a weird ritual?

It went, I recall, as far as a several day lesson in the "meaning" of the Lords prayer, line by line, presented in the same way as the blooming green cross code man!

It's a tricky area I know, because at what stage do we consider those kids capable of making a decision for themselves about this belief system they are being indoctrinated into?

Actually, lets ask that in a slightly different way; At what stage does teaching become indoctrination and at what stage does indoctrination become brainwashing?

Most theistic religions seem to display a couple of similarities
  1. Our God is the only one OR Our way of worshipping god is the only one.
  2. Everyone else is wrong.
  3. We must change their minds
In most of those, such ideas of "required indoctrination" if you will are encouraged, if not actually required to be a "true believer".

What better time to indoctrinate people than the early years, when they are learning at a ridiculous rate... and what better way to create belief than to present it as so normal you observe it as your first thing EVERY DAY! I recall I went to Sunday school a few times to be with friends, but it didn't work out, probably because I was coming away with more questions than answers.

So when are the gaps... I'd say teaching is showing people things as they are.. natural occurences, laws of physics, languages. Indoctrination is when we are talking about "beliefs" or other constructs like Laws, agreed social niceties etc. Now, this is where it gets tricky... but my personal brainwashing threshold is at the point where "faith" enters into things, frequently contradicting the teaching...

To paraphrase an old saying, a little faith is a dangerous thing - it has provided countless years of camoflage for all sorts of atrocities and wars. Often these fly in the face of reason and sense, but who cares? We'll all go to heaven!

So what is the point of my little rant?

I believe (oops - I make no apologies for using this word) is that religions can only continue to exist through teaching. They always have done so and they always will. Who teaches them this? Usually the parents have the first shot at goal - problem is, teaching is taken out of the parents hands at an early age and placed in the hands of others whose beliefs may not be the same as the teachers. Furthermore I believe that without religious teaching being introduced only a small minority would be religious in todays society. All the questions the world posed now simply have better answers than an all powerful deity. In fact, mankinds understanding of the universe has reached a stage where we can ask questions RELIGION cannot answer, like what made God, in a scientific sense etc.

My main point can be summarised like this:

Noone is born religious. Because of young childrens vulnerability to such religious indoctrination and their desire to be "normal", the state should not allow religious teaching of any faith in primary schools. I am personally against any religious teaching for children anywhere until they are able to make their own decisions, but this is unfortunately far too difficult for one man's blog to succeed at.

I agree with Richard Dawkins' outrage at such labels as "a muslim child" or "a christian child", such titles are meaningless when used in relation to the youngest of us. Most children just want to make their parents happy, or at least stop them being upset - this leads many down the path of conformity to the eventual religious brainwashing I have described. The correct word is "child". Just that. Don't impose the parents beliefs on them as if they have no choice!

I hope when I am eventually a parent I am as open minded and supportive as my parents were.

Lets let children decide for themselves what to believe.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Friday, June 27, 2008

Songs in other songs

SWEAR ALERT!

Tomorrow is another gig for the VW Combi van folks... be interesting ot see how many different kinds I see I reckon.

I hope I see some pimped out ones - Westwood style! Bam!

My personal favourite way of keeping the material we do fresh is by sticking other lyrics in the middle of songs. Most prevalently in the Robbie Williams song, Tripping, where I always refuse to do the Robbie Rap because it is shit. Just shit.

So I have done a different song a-capella in that little break every time, the following were some of the best:
  • The Hiphopapotamous vs. The Rhymenoceros - Flight of the Conchords
  • You should be dancing - Bee Gees
  • Crazy - Gnarls Barkley
But - SHOCK HORROR! - its not in our set tomorrow, so I have to think up something else and I think I have cracked it. One of our signature finsihing moves is the Medley and we do a freaking awesome one that goes
  1. Good Times - Chic
  2. Another One Bites The Dust - Queen
  3. Kiss - Tom Jones
And I am lucky that the Ting Tings just released Shut Up and Let Me Go - which fits perfectly over good times by Chic so problem solved... for now!

What are your favourite ideas for this sort of thing? Let me know and they may be coming to a stage near you soon!

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Thursday, June 26, 2008

A mental exercise

OK.. this is how it works

  1. Choose two things to swap the colours of (grass and sky are obvious ones)
  2. Picture how odd the world would look to you if that was how things were...
  3. Realise that maybe everyone else sees things that way
  4. Realise that that means... you are the odd one.
  5. Realise that if we called blue green and green blue they'd still be the same colour.
  6. Go on to realise that the invention of language means that all differences like this are irrelevant.
  7. Admire the power of social agreement to overcome differences in subjective experience.
  8. Start calling chocolate "Ryvita" in the hope that you're wrong.
I hope my point comes over. I first came up with this exercise (without the long words of course) at school aged around 7... I was deffo still in Crawley at that point so I couldn't be older than that at the time. The look I got from the friend I tried to explain this to was priceless...

As I have grown up I of course realise that my revelation was far from original - many people have realised this before, my particular interest in it is the way people use all manner of words and phrases to say something and mean the same thing - what an amazing creature Homo Sapiens is when it not only knows that "Car" describes a four wheeled automobile, but also "motor", "beamer", "Herbie" etc refer to different version of the same thing...

Now.. one man's grass is another man's pot... and yet you should still know what I am talking about,and these two words have gained new additional meanings over the years that we can still discern from little more than the framing context - If I was to say "brand new terracotta pot" you would know I mean something different from "the police confiscated his pot" - though neither is totally exclusive, in the world of stoned gardening based branding for drugs or excessive garden based policing, but the human species is incredibly able to make value judgements to a degree just not required by basic everyday life - or indeed required at the time such abilities were evolved.

I heard a great argument that the human forebrain has evolved too fast for us, that we are capable of far more abstract thought than our tiny differences from other apes' drives and reflexes can cope with.

A Gorilla may well be able to think in such abstract terms as to be, for example, racist or sexist for the reasons a human may be, but such things as genocide of those other tribes with whom this particular racist ape has a beef is just beyond it for whatever reason. Its clear no gorilla has ever made an atomic weapon, or wiped out an entire section species based on its religion - evolution simply doesn't work that way.

We find these things come easily. Any whacko can do his best to blow up people he just doesn't like for totally spurious and abstract reasoning - just this week a man was convicted for just that. And its because of such abilities that we have created such fourth level abstractions such as societally accepted rights and wrongs in the forms of laws... luckily this particular man was caught and convicted by these laws.

Homo Sapiens' forebrain has got to the point where it can see, anticipate and override something as basic as evolution - good thing too for anyone living below the poverty line worldwide since any world society based on evolutionary principles would leave you for dead!

The downsides and upsides are so complex that some of us believe there is a little soul up there telling us what to do... I don't buy that, but that's a subject for another time. I hope I've given you some food for thought anyhoo...

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Is Child Rape as reprehensible as Murder? Duh!

This relates to this story where the supreme court in America has outlawed the death penalty in all cases except that of murder. The main focus of outrage has been as described, around the issue of child rape, one of the most morally repugnant crimes in any society.

It got me thinking... I've always thought that child rape is about the worst crime you can commit - worse than just murder because frequently it is an act that is repeated, and is a betrayal in the worst possible way by someone in a position of trust and authority.

While murder is unquestionably terrible, it is impossible to murder someone more than once, whilst the damage is permanent in both cases.

So... what is more important and a larger thing to rob someone of? Their life or their freedom from rape? It's a tough one for many but I'm in the "I'd rather die" camp I reckon. You may disagree and that's fine.

So why is Rape considered less of a crime than murder?

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion.


And what is? I know the guys gonna get to "toss the salad" in jail, but that's hardly a state sponsored punishment! I'll be interested what they suggest is a proportional punishment (any suggestions in that regard are missing from the article) I guess its being raped by someone they trust... maybe the supreme court justices want that honour?

Darn... its made me angry now.

In Britain things are different of course, we do not impose the death penalty for anything - but I'm interested what the punishments are for Child Rape and the punishments for Murder... anyone know?

It's strange to me because this was so obviously a politically dangerous stance to take... on a gut level everyone I talk to seems to feel that the two crimes are at least equally as bad as each other if not erring on the side of the child rape as the worse! Ah well... maybe the legal argument makes sense with their constitution or something, but they must have known this would be unpopular... with me at least.

In honour of Speak your branes I will say this

IF YOU LIKE MURDER SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU GO LIVE THERE?


Here's hoping for a more cheerful thought next time...

A

See the full post by clicking here...

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Movie Review: Labyrinth

God this film is so good, how is it that shite like Never Forget gets put on in the west end when a top drawer musical for the whole family like this gets left in 80s movie limb0o...

What makes this film fantastic is how it does the very most it can do without overreaching and hits the exact tone for the whole family.

Of course there's lots of wonderful bits, as well as some very silly bits (Trouser package anyone...) including the humour which is top drawer from Terry Jones and pantomime dialogue from the very heights of the art.

I write while watching and every new second of this film reminds me how much I love it, we're just at the scary bit where the baby's vanished and its all silent, except for sub radiophonic workshop stuff in the background. I think we're about to see DAVID! God he looks stupid.

I don't think anyone else could have played this part... its just perfect. I have a tendency to put on my best David impressior n when I watch (it sounds a bit more like Cary Grant than Bowie) but fantastic dialogue demands quoting - "turn back sarah!".

Dwarf killing fairies... a homophobic dwarf! I love doing his voice as well. HEUGH!

I think its probably the best example of humans and puppetry working together. I love the dark crystal as well, but that's a very different proposition (and Mrs Algo won't watch it cos she gets scared) with all puppets its virtually a cartoon.

Oooh... live movie watching update, one of the wrong names for Hoggle is Hogwart! J K Rowling, anyone..?

And it has an appalling synth score thil movie - that I own! sweet.

Why doesn't she just climb the walls anyway?

Anyhoo... f you haven't seen this film then get it and watch it - or come over to mine and I'll putr it on for you.

This film rocks.

Oh yeah! Dance Magic's coming on! You remind me of the babe! I've never realised before how sudden and pointless this first song is... it doesn't actually say anything or express anything much at all... except to make you laugh, and I suppose no more point is required really. It may be tis that really stops it getting to the west end...the songs bear no relation to the plot at all. I prefer it that way really.

I guess we'll just have to hope someone writes some great songs for it... maybe I will...

Catch you later...

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Monday, June 23, 2008

Spain alter fabric of reality

I can't redict anything about this years Euro championships, but I did call Spain beating Italy - a bizarre turn of events if I ever saw it. This is totally overshadowed though by the even more bizarre defeat of Holland by Russia. What the hell happened guys? This means that Germany (for it will be them) will face either Russia or Spain in the Finals! Awesome.

So Germany vs Russia will be an easy German win,

Germany Vs Spain would be awesome and impossible to call I reckon.

The outside chance of a Turkey Spain final(Turkey/Russia is just a ridiculous outside chance) since either of those teams would be incredible. If that happened I would support the Turks because they have been the most exciting team bar the Dutch in this tournament. If they were somehow to beat Germany then they more than deserve to smash the Spanish in what would be a tasty final indeed neither team being known for their reliable defence.

I wish that was the case, but I think I expect the Germany Spain option - difficult to support the Spanish since they are famous for having a racist and bigoted coach, ut I can't possibly bring myself to support the Germans.

So its a tough call... my head says Germany are shoo ins for the cup, but my heart suspects cautiously that Russia have a great chance of repeating the Greece effect... so....

1st Russia
2nd Germany
3rd Spain/Turkey

Feel free to mock me for this choice when I am proven totally wrong.

A

See the full post by clicking here...

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Crimes against reality?

In a memo to Tony Blair, Richard Dawkins mentioned this concept briefly, in the form of an ethical argument.

In short its a question of why purveyors of falsehoods are only prosecuted if there is a victim (human usually) and not for the supply of incorrect information itself that may be damaging to "truth".

Example: someone prints a book claiming that Tony Blair is a child rapist, and the author would quite rightly be sued and destroyed publicly. If a book is released claiming that politicians are more likely than any other section of society to become child rapists (a contention which is wholly untrue) who is going to prosecute the authors?

Actually, I'm sure politicians would find a way to get the authors done in, but substitute any group you like for politicians, say school teachers or priests, and you can see the problem. There's no racial slurs, no individuals being attacked, merely truth itself is being eroded by the production of this tripe.

Can reality be damaged in such ways? Well, newspapers and coverage does this all the time - The truth is often presented in ways that help you to reach conclusions - usually that you want to buy the paper and find out what the story is that the headline relates to. For years on Mondays one paper almost always ran a story about the "Diana conspiracy" - that idea that the British royal family had a hand in the death of Diana Spencer - something that there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for! And yet the coverage itself has led to a significant number of people believing in such nonsense despite all evidence to the contrary - if every paper covered the tragic accident as just that then it is a no brainer that nowhere near as many people would be of the opinion that this was some sort of outrageously inefficient murder method.

This is an interesting question for me in that it raises the issue of damage to something in all of our interests - that of reality itself. The difficulty of this approach is easy to see though.

Who chooses what is real, in the legal sense?

As a scientifically minded person it would be those things that can be tested and proven insofar as anything can - things like the cause/effect relationship of dropping something and its falling downwards, or that humans are simply animals like every other creature on the planet.

In a legal sense its subject to witness and testimony like everything else is.

This sort of law would never be passed for both political and religious reasons - politicians deal in the grey areas, and every manifesto contains half truths and occasional lies of expediency if nothing else - the religious brainwashers would all be prosecuted under such laws, and all faith healers, fortune tellers, astrologers, phone psychics and such would be arrested. It is the religious folk also who double the politicians concern about such things - way to lose votes Algo!

The real problem is that such law would be open to almost ridiculous abuse and misuse for personal crusades, so it will remain a pipe dream until truth and reality can be accepted by the majority consciously as more fundamental than gut feeling or their own opinions and parental influence (religious or otherwise; no one is born more racist than anyone else).

For such examples we need only look at Zimbabwe at the moment, where truth has been subservient to the wishes of Robert Mugabe for years. I do sort of admire, in a perverse way, the sheer balls required to lock up your presidential rivals for treason - a very literal taking of such treason laws indeed. What a bastard he is.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Friday, June 20, 2008

Movie Review: The Number 23

Should have been good - man becomes obsessed with a number that he begins to see everywhere? Cool.

Thing is, this film has a higher opinion of itself than is really deserved - here's the brief, man finds book that appears to be about someone almost exactly like him and its all about a growing fascination with the number in question. It's all a little too knowing for my liking - everyone spends a lot of time pointing out how silly it all is and I agree. Its just silly.

The obsession is irrational to the point where you cannot go with Jim Carrey any more. And this sort of film requires you to connect and start to think about the issue and maybe a little interested, but there is absolutely no sense of that for me here. The more obsessed he becomes, the more of an idiot he seems to be - just get over it already!

It does raise the interesting issue of how you see things when you are looking for it. It doesn't do this well or particularly excitingly. Never mind. Oh... and

Most

Obvious

Twist

Ever!

I can't recommend you waste your time on this one.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Sundays gigs - boys toys in chelmsford.

They went very well thanks...

First up was Boy Who and I think we did very well for a first Gig together despite a couple of problems with on stage sound for the drummer. The first song we wrote together went well ("while others sleep") which is very gratifying. The video below is of the Matt Burgess (on acoustic guitar and lead vocals) penned "into tomorrow". The rest of Boy who are Dave on Guitar and Jim on Drums.



Second performance of the day (!) was with King Khamun, those Chelmsford gods of funk rock as deputy bass player for the day and am pleased to say it went very well indeed.

Very short clip from "What did you do to my hair" off their forthcoming second album.

Check my bass playing!



I learnt my lessons from Bootsy well. Downside is having folks coming up and saying how great the band was and me admitting I'm just depping. Most uncool since I have to go back to trying to write my own stuff rather than nicking glory off others. Annoying.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

I have to get you funked up. Story from Childhood.

I apologise if the load time is prohibitive on this, but OH.... MY... GOD....

Bootsy is legendary for his use of "The One" and here he explains it and how you can use it.

One of the most important minutes of my life was this footage, I think it was on the bbc's dancing in the street programme, and it totally changed my outlook on bass playing but also on music in general. Listen to any parliament or funkadelic track and you can hear them ALL taking this stuff on board. This man was and remains a musical Colossus.

See when you are a teenager you think you know it all, and I loved the Manic Street Preachers and such hard root note based music but I was getting jaded with the bass playing. Guitar seemed to be where that sort of music took you and screw those showboating ego kings of the six strings! This one minute of footage is probably the best value music lesson you or I will every have, so watch and have your eyes opened like I did.



See the full post by clicking here...

Monday, June 16, 2008

Why call it Wall Shadows Algo?

I realise I haven't explained the name for this bloggy, so let me do that quickly...

In India two years ago I had a very strange and hallucinogenic reaction to some malaria pills I was taking and believed that shadows were coming out of the walls and following me around.

This relates to a nightmare I once had about the shadows on the walls of Hiroshima coming to life and rather than being angry or murderous, asking me to explain why the A Bombing of their city was necessary. In the nightmare I couldn't say anything at all even if I tried (always the way with freaking nightmares) but in the weird India days I used to tell them stories to make them go away.

There you go... so this is me telling stories to the ghosts in the machine to make them go away.

Good huh? And yes.. I've already sought help. This whole thing was two years ago.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Chicken and the Egg

This is one of my pet peeves this perennial and retarded question "what came first, the chicken or the egg?". This question is supposed to be one you cannot answer and people look at you smugly as if to say - "what do you think of that then? can you get your head round that?"

Frankly, yes I bleeding well can thanks very much.

There's a quick way around this and a long way around this.

Even quicker is to say "who cares" but so sick am I of the whole thing I really want to to lay the issue to rest for myself and hopefully by osmosis resolve the question for the whole world.

First; the quick way:

DINOSAURS LAID EGGS.

If you mean chicken eggs, read on.

The initial appearance of any species is described differently to people who believe in;

  1. Divine creation
  2. Evolution
NB there is no allowance for intelligent design here because the whole concept is, in my view, little different from divine creation wearing a new coat. Please continue...

Dealing with the first of these is simple and quick too. God created Animals on the fifth day and not their unborn forms, so if my reading of Genesis is correct, you can unequivocally say that the Chicken came first. You may believe that in fact God created the chicken inside the egg in order to start life as he meant to go on. Fair enough, but you in this case would answer "egg".

In neither of the God hypotheses is there any sense that the question is unanswerable. Quite the opposite.

In the evolutionary sense things are a lot more complicated. The way I'd put it is that the first chicken in the modern sense, say chicken(x) was the child of a different animal, not a different species (or it would have been an abberation as opposed to a permanent mutation) so what we have is a parent called chicken(x-1)* which is an intermediate between the two species of chickens as they are now, and their nearest common ancestor with another animal, ducks, say.

The order of births can be shown in the following way. I am showing five generations as ashort hand but I have no idea how many intermediates there were.

Common Ancestor - egg - Chicken (x-5) - egg - Chicken (x-4) - egg - Chicken (x-3) - egg - chicken (x-2) - egg - Chicken (x-1) - egg - Chicken (x)

The issue to think about here is that of the nature of that crucial final egg before chicken(x) hatches. Is it a Egg (x-1) or and Egg (x).

In short is it a chicken egg or an intermediate egg with a chicken in it?

My view is that this is an egg(x-1) with a chicken inside it and therefore the answer to the "unanswerable" question is that the Chicken came before its first egg.

The contrary position is that the egg could be a modern chicken egg. That is to say it is an Egg(x) ratherthan an egg(x-1) and therefore you would be saying that the egg came before the chicken.

However you feel about your conclusion - it is clear to me that without a doubt a conclusion to this question can be reached and we can put the whole sorry subject to bed.

A



*that is to say, minus one intermediate specieslet - the parents of the first chicken if you like. minus two would be the next intermediate backwards, and so on. To describe future intermediate evolutions I would use Chicken(x+1) etc.
See the full post by clicking here...

The importance of fun

I went to a board games club this week, I admit it.

Why is such activity generally frowned on by the rest of humanity? I've been thinking about this up to and since my visit. I had a good time and plan on returning weekly. So why do I feel guilty?

I think the thing people frown on is the perceived frivolous nature of it all. You know - "you spent two hours PLAYING?". Thing is I reckon there's a big crossover between people of that mindset and the sort of folks who spend three hours on a Friday in the pub.

So why is the act of playing a board game worse than sitting with your mates and getting drunk (one should also take into account that the two are not mutually exclusive)? I have a couple of theories, but one is probably that it is viewed in the same way that people like me felt about those freaks who did EXTRA homework, "wait - you voluntarily used your brain?"

It's an odd thought process - but many people view watching TV as more acceptable behaviour than spending the same amount of time playing board games. TV has little interaction and actually stunts communication and connection between people. Board games avoid this and actually are FUN!

I like TV and I like Video Games too, but surely we should all have time in our weeks to sit face to face and play something together that doesn't involve staring at the TV?

You played monopoly when you were young, maybe you played risk too? There is MUCH more to games these days folks.

If you agree, I am always up for a game of something! Let me know and I'll make it happen.

Why not post your own thoughts?

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Movie Reviews from Algolia: Michael Clayton, American Gangster & Death Proof.

Aside from having one of the least inspiring titles in recent years and marketed as a George Clooney star turn, Michael Clayton has proved to be one of the most successful of the "lawyer fights corporate entity" subgenre (and not written by Grisham, either). Expect the acting world to be full of wannabe stars auditioning with Tom Wilkinson's excellent opening monologue and, indeed, it is his performance and that of Tilda Swinton that really make this film work.

The character of Michael Clayton is a fixer, that of the quasi-legal "janitor" for a huge and successful law firm but really he is a passenger for the first 90% of the plot being driven by the British duo (Wilkinson and Swinton) who are really at the centre of events. So in Algo parlance, he is our Han Solo in this film - our link to the story and we see developments through his eyes. As a consequence of this his character lacks a certain something - depth of colour if you will - but this does not hinder the film at all, merely simplifies something it would have been too easy to get bogged down in.

I also was big fan of the structure of the film - the opening segment gaining weight and significance as the layered plot was revealed and the characters of Mr Vern and his associates came into view. A good performance from all then, the late Sydney Pollack included - but Tom Wilkinson utterly steals the show as the Bipolar lawyer at the centre of events. The film is watching just for his performance.

It is this kind of whole cast performance Ridley Scott must have been hoping for when he assembled the ensemble for his American Gangster, but I wasn;t as impressed here. The two worlds, that of Russell Crowe's cop and Denzel Washington's gangster were excellently differentiated and their performances were good enough. I didn't really feel connected with anyone in any of the movie, though its hard not to feel for Frank Lucas's mother at any stage of the film. So universally solid performances from the cast, but nothing I would rave about afterwards.

The story and setting really steal the show here - the tale of the man who smuggled heroin in soldiers' coffins is a really great one and is shown over a long enough time period for things to really develop and take shape over the course of the film. I do feel personally that the Denzel character is seen through rose tinted glasses and we are really manipulated into wanting to like him. He is certainly more palatable than most of the police force present in this movie - most eloquently shown by the in-everything-at-the-moment Josh Brolin. You almost hiss when he shows up. This is an interesting dynamic when you think a crooked cop is played as worse than a multiple murdering heroin dealing crime lord - we don't see any of these cops' back story to feel sympathy. Also it is hard to believe that in the whole of this film only one character is openly and flagrantly racist - and this is someone who has no introduction and little other dialogue, he's just a faceless roadblock who is seen for a moment and then immediately forgotten. I abhor racism in all its forms but it seems the subject is oddly glossed over in this case.

So both of these films are worth seeing in short, but if you can only see one I'd go with Michael Clayton for the Tom Wilkinson performance.

One film I DO NOT recommend is Death Proof. Tarantino's tedious extended cut is the one I saw (the Grindhouse experience being unavailable to us brits) and it is just plain odd. I can't work out the morality of it and it has none of the wacky charm of planet terror. It is episodic, in true cliched Tarantino style and is broadly in two halves, the first (which is too long), follows a group of attractive young women who talk crap for forty five minutes and are then brutally murdered in a car collision... the second half (which is too long) follows a group of young women who talk a lot of injokey movie crap and then are attackec by... wait... why did we have the first half again?

Maybe the Grindhouse thing would have worked but this movie is not very good.
See the full post by clicking here...

Thursday, June 12, 2008

This weekend

Well in true Algo form I am performing a gig on Sunday with two different bands on the same stage. I am trying to decide whether to change outfits, but I think that would be stupid.

I learn music by listening not by playing, a weird approach I am told, though I have an aversion to long rehearsals so maybe its a defence mechanism.

I dislike long rehearsals because once you get past a certain point, equal to twice the length of the set being learned, all progress stops and every sound you hear is awful. Both rehearsals this weekend would not exceed this rule of thumb so I shouldn't be a total vegetable by Sunday morning.

The other upside to all this is that I get to gig as a bass player, something I haven't done consistently for 5 years since Shadowplay got knocked on the head. It's great to be back on the bass thang again. That being said one of the songs needed some serious work to avoid there only being two notes to play in it, and then I would have definitely been envegetablated.

I will hopefully be able to play up to the needed standard since the expected audience is in the thousands! I'll let you know how it goes, dear reader.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Monday, June 9, 2008

Now actually linked! Welcome!

Hello anyone who has come here from my facebook page or anywhere else linked here.

A grateful hello to all first time readers.

Some of my posts are a bit longer than many other blogs I have read. Some are a bit abstract in their subject matter.

Older posts have a short delay in moderation of posts but you can discuss posts in the last ten days instantly. It would be nice to have some discussions going.

Thanks so much for coming!

A
See the full post by clicking here...

Why you should listen to Scott Walker

Hi guys.

I don't believe in God, but Scott Walker is pretty close.

Lets start by explaining who he is.

  • He was in the walker brothers. That's him singing "Take it easy on yourself" and "Sun ain't gonna shine any more"
  • He was a legendary alcoholic and recorded a bunch of appalling MOR albums in the 70s.
  • As an aside the Walker brothers were not brothers. None of their surnames were Walker.
  • His first four albums were just called "Scott" 1-4
  • Scott 4 didn't sell.
  • None of the above matter
So why is he so great? I am no expert on him personally and very few people are, given his hermit like existence and aversion to being prolific or successful.

I first became aware of this entity, person, being, through the entertaining and interesting documentary "20th Century Man" and, recent increase in medication contributing I am sure, sat there utterly hypnotised while the most incredible music I had ever heard was talked over in irritating fashion by fans such as David Bowie, Alison Goldfrapp, Ute Lemper and so on.

What I found interesting is that here was a man who just plain didn't fit into his pigeon hole properly - he should have been an air-headed poster boy star in a boyband of the 60s who vanished into obscurity after they broke up. Surely?

But his first solo albums show the real story.
Scott 1, mostly written by other people for him
Scott 2, a lot more scott songs
Scott 3, Entirely written by him except for a coda of Jaques Brel songs
Scott 4, Entirely 100% Scott. Didn't sell hence his reliance on crappy songwriters for the 70s.

Why did his own stuff cause his downfall? I want to very clear here: it is NOT because it was crap. It was in my opinion precisely because his songs are everything a pop star should not record. Frequently in 3/4 time, they are lyrically out of kilter with pop, but the productions are too pop for any of the Psychedelia or Rock fans to become interested in.

The same day as watching the documentary I went into London and bought 5 CDs.

Scott 3, Scott 4, Climate Of Hunter, Tilt, The Drift. These cover 40 years of music, showing you how prolific he is. Especially if you take into account the fact 3&4 came out a year or so apart.

These albums can be split into three groups. The first two, Climate, and the last two.

First group is still 60s MOR in production though lyrically they don't fit with the mainstream. You could include his songwriting while with The Walker Brothers here. If you just want one song as a highlight of this period so you only have to spend 79p (you cheapskates) it would be "It's Rainin' Today" off Scott 3. Just get it.

The third group is what he's famous for now, and is totally out of step with most music you have ever heard before, or at least that I had. His songwriting has developed to the point where music and lyrics are used to serve mood, and the vocals are used to convey lyrical content and emotion and thus the melody is as changeable as every other note. Its really tough to describe in words, but since The Drift is so hard to listen to (exhausting would be the right word) I will recommend the song "The Cockfighter" off Tilt as the best introduction here, though its not my favourite from that album it shows you what you are in for. My favourites off each album are listed at the end of this if you really want an Algo list.

You'll notice I left Climate of Hunter out on its own in a group by itself. It doesn't really fit with the older stuff or the newer stuff. It appears to be random link in a different chain. This is because there's a bit of the story missing and I left it out before since I was dumb enough to ignore it myself so you can share in my journey. Neat eh?

The missing link is the Walker Brothers reunion of the mid 70s. NO! Not No Regrets (shudders). The important link in the chain and all I suggest you get involved in is the last Walker Brothers album, "Nite Flights". To be more precise and to save you a shedload of money I ONLY refer to tracks 1-4 of that album - the most crucial third of an album I have ever almost missed.

These tracks show Walker returning to songwriting and the song "The Electrician" is indirectly one of the most influential pieces of music ever (Influencing Brian Eno and Bowie's berlin albums and also Ultravox's "Vienna").

So far so useless. What on earth am I saying? I say, buy Climate of Hunter. Do.

Listen to tracks 1-4 of Nite flights first and the progression makes more sense. I didn't and I love the album anyway. The production and fretless bass date it rather badly but the lyrics and songs are so strong I don't care. Off the Climate of Hunter album, my cheapskate pick is "Sleepwalker's Woman".

How does one listen to Scott Walker, Algo? With Patience! Especially with the later stuff where he takes his time severely. Give every record its time to settle in.

Oh and final advice: DO NOT listen to The Drift in bed with the lights off. It gave me nightmares.

So... My Algolian collection for those of you too cheap to buy albums (all of the below are written by Scott Walker and this is the seal of excellence. Don't buy "Til The band comes in" and then balme me when its a bunch of toss):

1. Orpheus - Walker Brothers
2. Always Coming Back To You - Scott 1
3. The Amorous Humphrey Plugg - Scott 2
4. Rosemary -Scott 3
5. Boy Child - Scott 4
6. The Electrician - Nite Flights
7. Rawhide - Climate Of Hunter
8. Farmer In The City - Tilt
9. Jolson and Jones - The Drift

I think that'll fit on a CD!

Hope you look into his music and have as much pleasure from it as I have.

A
See the full post by clicking here...

RetroAlgo: Movie Review: The Last Samurai

Originally posted at imdb years ago.


No, the last samurai is NOT Tom Cruise!!!

In The Last Samurai, we are treated to a glimpse of the effect that modernisation had on the "old ways" of the world. We are given just enough of a taste of what things were like that we begin to dread their eventual, inevitable demise. Stealing the show is Ken Watanabe's Samurai general, who starts the movie with a vision of a white tiger fighting for his life - a motif that comes back during his later attempts to sum it up in poetry. This white tiger is revealed to be the deeply damaged American Captain, Nathan Algren. Captain Algren, despite all that you may hear, a wonderful character, and very well played by Tom Cruise (one of the nicest actors I have ever heard of). He is, in my opinion, representative of the conscience of the film; and it's destiny. He is cursed to live on while others may die around him, he is atoning for the sins of his time. He even puts this into words: "I should have died so many times". The unlikely escapes throughout the film (yes, there are many) as well as his unerring ability to pick up the ancient art of swordfighting over two seasons are merely, as far as I am concerned, the forces of his destiny at work - he does meet his destiny, but it is not through a death on the battlefield; he achieves it through standing up at last for what he believes in above all else - honour, and acts as a saviour for the honour of the Samurai. As I have said, this is my reading of this film's point - of course he is an unlikely hero, but it not Cruise who is the last samurai; it is Watanabe. Algren is an act of fate - the catalyst for the samurai's salvation and adherence to their code of honour. He is prepared to die but does not fear death, he is told. I believe it is this key issue of Captain Algren's >secondary<>

Having said all that (and there was a lot of it) this is in the end a blockbuster vehicle for it's star. He has so much screen time it's scary, but this is due to the fact that the plot is seen through his eyes and hence we are taken on the same journey he experiences towards his own redemption. That having been said, the casting is entirely wonderful; especially in the samurai camp, though arch "baddie" Omura is excellent too. I was especially pleased also, to see "that guy out of ring; you know, the psychic ex husband" in a completely different role as the (sadly) hilariously named "yujio" - I have worked in computer game sales for a while, so I hope you'll forgive this slur on a perfectly reasonable name. Not a weak acting performance to be found, as far as I'm concerned!

It is beautifully, if not particularly innovatively shot, too - a couple of shots smacking (maybe too much) of composition.

I do, however, have several complaints to make (hey, what else is the internet for, huh?)

I) Too much "meaningful" dialogue. In a complex movie like this I can't help feeling that some of the dialogue could have done with a once over by the thousands of ghost writers there must be in Hollywood.

II) The ending would, I feel, have benefitted greatly from not showing Cruise at all, but fading out the way it came in, on Japan's gorgeous horizon.

III) I don't like narration as a means of showing internal dialogue, but I can't suggest a better way of doing it. Maybe I should shut up?

IV) The scale of the battle scenes was all messed up (that didn't look like 4000 troops to me coming round the hill!)

V) (the big one) WE DON'T NEED A LOVE INTEREST, FOR GOD'S SAKE! I didn't buy this at all. Just unnecessary.

I hope you've found my views interesting, I'm always open to discussion. Give us a mail. In conclusion, I would say that it is really worth seeing this film, it won't change your life, or reveal some secrets about the universe to you, but that isn't what going to the movies is all about. You want spectacle, a well shot and acted film, and to share in one man's journey to redemption I would recommend this film with the utmost pleasure.

See you later.

Algo.

P.S. Remember - the use of machine guns at the end foreshadows the changing of warfare forever - no more cavalry charges!


See the full post by clicking here...

RetroAlgo: Mammoth unfinished Star Wars sextology review (

Originally Posted Summer 2006

STAR WARS SAGA - SHITE OR ALRIGHT?

So we finally did it. Over the course of a week we have watched the whole sorry half arsed morality tale in order and I, of coure, have a few thoughts to share with posterior and posterity.

Episode 1 - A Universe Of Tax Breaks and Employment Legislation

It would, of course, be sooo easy to lay into this particular film, but after all this time I think it's worth reassessment. First, it is clear to me that there are two major and crucial factors missing in the newer trilogy (older in timeline I know). These are namely Han Solo and Darth Vader.

The importance of both of these characters is what drives the originals and makes them click - Han because he is the only character who links us ordinary people to this high drama (being the only interesting and non-pompous character in the plot up to then) and Darthy Boy because he gives a solid centre to the danger and to the evil. Without Darth the enemy are fairly simple to vanquish. Witness how a barely trained young Obi Wan manages to destroy the quality character of Darth Maul in one go? Rubbish.

The rot sets in as soon as 30 seconds pass and the opening crawl starts off. Who gives a shit about trade routes in the Naboo whatever? Now the Jedi turn up and all is hunky dory for a while but the next problem soon arrives in the form of a certain little twat with big ears. What's with all the stereotyping? Why are the trade federation japanese? Why would anyone design a robot with a SEPARATE GUN and that needs to TALK OUT LOUD to each other? AT least with C3PO there was a reason for it.

Also Lucas failure number 4000 - the universe, supposedly a quite big place - seems to be based around about 5 blokes and the planet tatooine.

ARE YOU AN ANGEL? No you little shit. I am the worst little actress in the world.

BUT!! Let's talk about the good points. There is, of course, if you're prepared to overcome the anger for two minutes. Quite a bit of cleverness in the plot designed by Palpatine. Convoluted as it is (lord how it is) it sure is clever. There's a great lightsaber battle and a chariot race to enjoy amongst all the politics. But bear in mind while watching this in future, that this is only the beginning, and there is so much more to come! So give it a chance and remember - there is NO way this will ever be different (at least until the next anniversary) so give it another chance. You can never be as disappointed as you were the first time and as a first chapter this is OK - just not what you expected at the time! The less said abou immaculate conception and midichlorians the better.

Line of choice: Anakin: Are you an angel?

Episode 2 - One Pout Against The Enemy

God knows how important George Lucas must have felt this film was - the whole world was one huge lynch mob and what was a lovely little ego trip had become a matter of life and death. Woe betide the bearded wonder, then, if Attack of the Clones didn't measure up!

Strange then to realise that on almost every level, half of this film is total shit (ie any scene featuring the 'love interest', especially 'The Sound of Music' sequence) - he failed on almost every level to build a relationship with any kind of realism (who wants to go out with someone that they knew when they were 10 years old? YUCK!) and succeeds in outdoing his whiny little shit kid character ('are you an angel?') with someone equally as irritating. That Hayden Christiansen can act well is open to debate, but he does not deserve such awful dialogue as this!

The inestimable Mr. P will remember that the cast of Importance of Being Earnest went to see this film at the cinema at midnight the day of release (after our dress rehearsal) and we found two scenes extremely laughable (and so did the rest of the audience). These are namely the sick "MOM!" "wet dream" sequence, and Senator Amidala's sudden recovery from a neck breaking fall from a Clone Transport - "Senator, are you OK? Yup."

Interesting then that on the DVD these are the two sequences that have changed (Lucas is never finished tampering - as my review of Episode VI will testify) the cringe inducing dream sequence is significantly shortened and the "YUP" that made us all laugh our little arses off has been replaced with a far less hilarious "uh... uh-huh". Though there is nothing Lucas can do about her sudden recovery subsequently.

Thank the lord then for the twin saviours of Episode II - Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda!!!

Without the legendary fight scene at the end of this movie (during which I grin like a nutter every time) the film would probably have been just as unpopular as the first one. With it, it will always hold a special place in all fans hearts. Plus - Christopher Lee's machiavellian trip to the casts of every major series of films is gaining pace - expect to see him in Harry Potter and Stormbreaker as well, I shouldn't wonder. His cool sail ship rocks as well.

Plus for added fantasy geekdom, try and draw as many parallels between the 'join me' dialogue between Obi/Dooku, and the Gandalf/Saruman scene in The Fellowship of the Ring. Very Very Similar, but I suppose excusable given the source material for both projects was the ancient myths of the world and this scene (temptation to take the easier, evil path) can be seen in lots of those, I guess. Though none immediately spring to mind. Better forget that point then.

Obi Wan (a character very close to my heart anyway) is finally given a chance to show how cool he is by facing off with Jango Fett (yet another villain who is vanquished all too easily just like his son and Darth Maul) on Kamino and spending a large portion of the film on his own away from Mr Pout and Whingygirl!

No real bravery with Anakin becoming bad here, either. Not that wiping out a whole family of sand people isn't a cool way of unleashing the dark side, but Anakin is far too easily swayed back to being "good" again and as we shall see, his development in this regard is far from convincing. This may seem evil of mem, but I always assumed (up til this film) that he'd raped Amidala as she wasn't interested in him but there you go, clearly not sunday afternoon sky movies fare in my head! Would have been better to focus on his unrequited love and growuing obsession with her, but that may be just my opinion!

On the whole this film is OK, problems mainly coming from the lack of perspective Lucas has on the whole thing. Didn't he think it would be OK if SOME characters from the original trilogy weren't involved earlier? Especially taking Episode 3 into account. Also for anyone who has read the trilogy of books set after the end of ..Jedi (featuring the cool as a fridge Admiral Thrawn) will realise Lucas is seriously fucking with his own house here. Once again the giant scale of the universe is damaged by having all the characters in some way related to each other.

Peace, out!

Episode 3 - Plot Hole Polyfilla

This film is so much better than the previous two movies it's almost embarrassing to think they're part of the same story. That being said (and me being as pedantic as I clearly am) I couldn't help but slate it a bit.

First, and with little doubt, the opening crawl on this film is awesome - just what we want,a nd the massive fight at the beginning is done brilliantly - as is then establishment of Anakin's mistrust of the Jedi. Palpatine really steals the show, though and is finally given a chance to roll out that excellent evil voice (the only voice in which to say "The darrk sssside of of the ffforce!") for real and for extended periods. The cleverest thing here is IMHO the parallel between Mace Windu's death and the choice given to Vader at the end of ...Jedi. He has seen this before! Just cool as!

Ewan McGregor's Alec Guinness impersonation has never been better ('hello there' he says, channelling the old coot almost as well as Brandon Routh channels Chris Reeve). There are countless cool lightsaber moments in this (the king of which is Yoda chucking his into a clone trooper's chest) and a fight between the Emperor and Yoda with James Bond style vocal jousting going on. Just great! Oh, and the coolest Yoda moment is how he avoids becoming a victim of order 66 - watch in awe!

So what's the problem, Algo you big fat beardy moaner?

Well, Dave (as I know that's your response) the problems are mostly caused by the huge amount of work left to do to ensure the first and second trilogies match up and lack of anticipation with regard to what problems this would bring. Plus Lucas puts Chewbacca in as well (note he does not share my concerns on this point at all). These points are all completely cliched now, I suppose, but I'll note them none the less.

1. To hide someone from their father - best not to leave them with family members on his home world (just a thought!)

2. If you are also trying to hide, wouldn't it be advisable to change your name completely rather than from Obi-Wan to Ben (don't know about you, but I'd always assumed that Kenobi was a known and considered defeated enemy, hence why he was left alone)

3. Why does C3PO's mind get wiped when R2's doesn't?

4. If Qui-Gon knows the secret of coming back to visit through the force, why isn't he in the lineup at the end of Episode VI? Why isn't he involved at all?

5. Why does Natalie Portman look like she would rather be anywhere else? The love angle is far from convincing

6. How did the scene containing "You are so beautiful" / "That's because love has blinded you" / "NO! That's because love has blinded you" ever make the final cut?

7. Vader's final giving in is a kind of "Oh, Alright" moment completely against the development so far,when he sold the Emperor out to the Jedi. Hardly a momentous occasion, it is very like someone being given a bit of work to do that isn't really their job - he's just a bit grudging for a bit then gives in (rather than quitting. Maybe that's not altogether an appropriate simile). Before you know it he's wiping out a roomfull of kids. Sorry, younglings.

Line of Choice: Amidala: I'm not going to die in childbirth, Anakin. I promise you!

In the end,

the "new" trilogy will always be remembered, I am sure, as a missed opportunity, and the subject of "how we'd have done it better" discussion for a similar period. Never forget that over the last thirty years, George Lucas has redefined filmmaking techniques and developed new ways of getting his (and other folks') vision to the screen. I just think it's a pity that the story seems to have got lost along the way. Lets hope that he lets someone else have a go at the scripts for the TV series, yeah? Take a step back George, your work is done!


Episode 4 - Oh Thank the fucking lord! Han Solo! (and Wedge)

Don't think the enthusiasm has gone out of me for this little project, but as everyone knows these films really well (who's sad enough to be interested) I thought I'd write a bit about the whole trilogy in light of the new films and try and debunk the myth George Lucas actually wrote these thirty years ago (as Mr P will agree, again - this is very unlikely)

So we open the fourth episode after seven or eight hours of political wrangling and poor dialogue and start off on the same ship everyone ended up on at the end of the previous film. This is really cool, though the question remains why the 70s have returned to Captain Antilles' hairdressers.

So, in light of the earlier encounter with Darth Vader, his first appearance isn't quite so much of a revelation (though after countless viewings I guess we are all at that stage) but he's instantly cooler than anything in the previous three films - ignoring Leia pleas with a dismissive "Take her away" (ironically a request which every father makes about their child at some point).

The major thing that contrasts between this one and Phantom Menace is the pace of it. Within a short while we've had the droid escape, attacks by Jawa "OOtini!" and the first signs of Luke. Far better than the negotiation crap in Phantom Menace and the best thing is NO JAR JAR (though he sort of appears at the end of ...Jedi)!

Here's the first bit of evidence that Lucas didn;t do much planning back then for his "original" trilogy. As previously stated, it makes no sense to hide someone's son on their home planet, with their family for god's sake! Even though Amidala was buried in a pregnancy simulator (as seen in the Iced Tea adverts) it's a colossal and stupid risk to take.

More impact is assured when the Death Star blows up Alderaan. Jimmy Smits is down there, man! Who'll star in Tommyknockers 3? We've seen this planet now from the surface (however briefly) and we get a lot more out of the horror of this massacre as a result.

Yada Yada Yoda - Scum and Villainy etc.

You know, it's weird that Obi Wan is so keen for Luke to become a Jedi after his family history, maybe, like old Tony Blair he is trying to achieve a legacy (and what a legacy) but on first meeting he is merely enthusiastic! Yeah, that's it. Obi Wan is Tony Blair and Yoda is Mandelson!

Right spin on it we must put!

As I put it before we are treated to the most important new feature in this film - the cynic, the everyman - US if you like, needing to be converted. In the original trilogy there was no one who just didn't give a toss. NO freelancers. Even Jango Fett was on a side! Han Solo is his own man, and because of his appearance this universe they created suddenly feels more real - and this ordinary man is just as important to the destiny of the Empire as anyone else. Quality.

It's not all a bed of roses, though. C-3PO could have been played with as much gravitas by Bonnie Langford ("AAAAAHHHH!!!) and the 1997 special edition scenes are useless (though the inserts are cool, like the extra troops etc.), my least favourite "gag" being the bit where Han walks over Jabba's tail. This arose from a problem with the character of Jabba changing from a man to a big slug (obviously). Problems with this scene include the fact that the dialogue is very similar to the Greedo scene ("even I get boarded sometimes"), the fact that any self respecting mob boss would have Han shot for stepping on him , and who's that green alien in the background? Is that Greedo back from the dead, because they ran out of costumes? Nice to see Lucas' "small universe" concept coming back into play as Boba Fett is already there (retconned, if you will)!

If Obi Wan is Tony Blair then George Lucas is Claudio Ranieri!

The showdown between Obi and Darth on the old Death Star (not a star, I know, but a far cooler name than "death moon" or "death station" which sound like 80s heavy metal bands) gains a huge amount from the past relationship we have seen in the first trilogy, though it does appear from what I can infer that both of them have completely forgotten how to fight in the intervening time. I blame all those nights talking to ghosts, Obi!

The attack on the Death Star in X-Wings, as anyone who has played one of the brilliant games of this will agree, is quite a rush! I remember the first time I did it on X-Wing on my PC and it was so great I almost spilled my glass of milk. I forget how old I was! If you're looking for a great game, x-wing would be the place to start - weird that this series was almost universally great when so many star wars games were utter rubbish (or to use a phrase from the same period, complete Rise of the Robots)

This battle also enables us to appreciate for the first time the true hero of all this nonsense.

WEDGE!!!

Wedge is the man! Forget the fact that he acts everyone else off the screen and only doesn't complete the mission far quicker than Luke did because he's not a blonde pretty boy. Long live Wedge (who doesn't get a medal at the end either, Chewie, so I don't know what YOU'RE complaining about)

Other things worth mentioning in passing (and in TIE fighter bullet points):

[o] How cool is Vader's ship? That thing fucking rocks, boy and you know it!

[o] Every time I watch this film I wish I had surround sound for the first five minutes. That would be enough for me I reckon! The only fims that come to mind as having similarly good and exciting starts are Blade Runner, Die Hard With A Vengeance and curiously, M:I:3 (guilty pleasure I know)

[o] TIE stands for Twin Ion Engine. The recent probe SMART-1 that went to the moon was driven by an Ion Thruster. That's pretty cool I reckon. If it had two and a bunch of lasers I reckon no Alien fucker would come near our planet (though the transmissions of Are You Being Served achieve a similar effect).

[o] On this (and all) Star Wars movies, I like to test my ability to go "DAAAAAAAH" at the right moment after the Fox logo. I always get it wrong.

ENOUGH boredom. If you want to debunk my opinions then write comments. If not, hit me with KUDOS!

Line of Choice: Han Solo: Ahhh. Boring conversation anyway.


See the full post by clicking here...

RetroAlgo: Casino Royale is the Second Best Bond Film ever! (Nov 2006)

(Originally Posted on Myspace Blog Nov 2006)

Obviously I can't say that this is official, but I was always a fan of the films that resemble the books closely. As I'm a fan of lists, here is my set of Bond Related Lists. (And yes, I stand by my placing of On Her Majesty's Secret Service)

Best Bond?

1. Connery

2. Craig

3. Dalton

4. Brosnan

5. Lazenby

6. Moore

Bond Films In Order of Preference (With Classic Line)

1. From Russia With Love - Just nudges out Casino Royale thanks to Robert Shaw's outstanding bad guy ("Red Wine With Fish. That Should Have Told Me Something")

2. Casino Royale - Truly genius if you can leave your preconceptions at the door. ("Now the whole world will know you died scratching my balls")

3. Dr. No - Classic ("No, I'm just looking")

4. Goldeneye - The Last time Bond was successfully updated("Her Majesty's Loyal Terrier")

5. License To Kill - The only film up to Casino Royale that captured the grittiness of Flemings original novels ("He disagreed with something that ate him")

6. Goldfinger ("No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!")

7. The Living Daylights - If you can get over the lack of foresight regarding the mujahideen and their Oxford educated leader - D'Oh! ("Good news. You won't be hung in the morning. You will be shot!")

8. Thunderball - Or is that Never Say Never again? ("I think he got the point")

9. The World Is Not Enough - Probably controversial at this position, but I think it's the second best Brosnan, no question (Elektra: "A Fool's Sentiment"; Bond: "Family Motto")

10. On Her Majesty's Secret Service - Best Bond Girl, Bobsledding and the most underestimated of all Bonds. Just think if George had stuck with it we could have avoided Roger Moore altogether! ("This never happened to the other fella")

11. Live And Let Die - Casual Racism and Date Rape aside... ("Names Is For Tombstones, Baby.")

12. You Only Live Twice - Despite several missteps in the climax and a woeful Japanese transformation ("Give him his cigarettes. It won't be the nicotine that kills you, Mr. Bond.")

13. For Your Eyes Only - Yes, I think this is the second best Moore. What's your problem. It's got Topol and Julian Glover in, what more do you want? Oh, and that cool assault on the monastery. ("We can make a deal Mister Bond. I'll get you a delicatessen, made out of stainless steel!")

14. Diamonds Are Forever - I strongly suspect that this film is actually total shit, but Connery basically saves it. ("Double Jeopardy, Mr Bond")

15. Tomorrow Never Dies - A mess, though sequences are good, plus the bad guy just is too mental to be credibly successful in the normal world.("Always give the public what they want!")

16. The Spy Who Loved Me - Cheese, cheese, cheese, cheese, cheese and isn't this basically the plot from You Only Live Twice again? (Tart: "But James, I need you!"; Bond "So does England")

17. Die Another Day - Self referential and shite. Gadgets have just gone too far. The best thing about this film is it scared everyone into starting again. Want more of the same? Watch Captain fucking Scarlet.("That'll teach you to lecture me. Get me another anger management therapist.")

18. Octopussy - Hard to ignore Racism and icky pensioner sex. ("There you are, Vijay. That should keep you in curry for a few weeks")

19. The Man With The Golden Gun - Anti-Climactic, especially given the quality of the villain. This gets panned for missed potential. Oh, and the lousy Britt Ekland. ("There's a useful four letter word, and you're full of it.")

20. Moonraker - Oh dear lord! Where to begin? Best just to let sleeping crap lie. ("A Woman?")

21. A View To A Kill - Another waste of a great (potentially the best) villain actor and Moore is so old it's a wonder he doesn't collapse from a heart attack at any moment. ("If you're the best they've got, they're more likely try and cover up your embarrassing incompetence")

Best Bond Themes (With Mrs K)

1. Nobody Does It Better - Carly Simon

2. We Have All The Time In The World - Louis Armstrong

3. Live And Let Die - Wings

4. You Only Live Twice - Nancy Sinatra

5. Goldfinger - Shirley Bassey

6. Surrender - k.d. lang (A Cheat, I Know - but you listen to the end titles of Tomorrow Never Dies and deny this should have been the theme!)

7. From Russia With Love - Matt Munro

8. Goldeneye - Tina Turner

9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service

10. A View To A Kill - Duran Duran

11. Diamonds Are Forever - Shirley Bassey

12. You Know My Name - Chris Cornell

13. The World Is Not Enough - Garbage

14. Living Daylights - A Ha

15. For Your Eyes Only - Sheena Easton

16. Moonraker - Shirley Bassey

17. All Time High - Rita Coolidge (Well, you try and think of a rhyme for Octopussy!)

18. License To Kill - Gladys Knight

19. Tomorrow Never Dies - Sheryl Crow

20. Die Another Day - Madonna

21. Thunderball - Tom Jones

22.The Man With The Golden Gun - Lulu (Just Embarrassing)


See the full post by clicking here...

Movie Reviews from Algolia: Short Cuts

Short Cuts, a film directed by Robert Altman has possibly the most misleading name in movies. Its 3hours and a quarter more of LA life with lots of intertwining stories from a load of different people; and this is where the films cleverness lies. Unlike a lot of these types of movies where the links between the stories feels contrived (QT stand up and be shamed) this feels a llot more natural and this is mostly down to the tremendous cast and the way the stories are linked by genuine relationships rather than mad coincidence. I will try and give and idea of its flavour...

A helicopter pilot sprays pesticide over LA, his ex wife Frances McDormand is seeing philandering cop and questionable father Tim Robbins, who is in turn married to a cynical and knowing lady whose sister is artist Julianne Moore whose paediatriction husband, Matthew Modine is apprehensive about a visit from a social climber and her husband (who is planning an eventful fishing trip with Huey Lewis) who they met at a cello performance by a young lady whose mother is a jazz singer at a bar where trainee Make Up artist Robert Downey Jr and his partner, discuss housesitting for their neighbours. Robert Downey Jr is friends with pool guy Chris Penn whose wife is a phone sex operator

Etcetera etcetera, despite all these links we never feel crowbarred into a new scenario and every twist and turn feels completely natural. And I haven't even mentioned my favourite little story between Lily Tomlin and Tom Waits (of all people!)

I love this film, though it's quite an undertaking to watch it all in one go. Every story develops and has its eventual punchline - the (only) sudden explosion of violence in the tale comes from a very unexpected quarter indeed and even this feels unsurprising and pays off in the news headlines at the end of the tale.

This film is also exceptional in that it contains a really rather good performance from Andie McDowell of all people! When that happens you know the director must be a genius.

Watch it if only once. Your patience will be rewarded.

A
See the full post by clicking here...