I wasn't expecting much from Dr Who this year, what with Russell T Davies clearly running out of ideas and giving up the ghost after his bug eyed french spouting Doctor bites the dust next Christmas. It was also clear that the episode was going to involve his lame version of the Cybermen, who have sucked ass in every one of his stories, becoming nothing more than the Daleks, but a little dumber (complete with "Delete" scream, in place of "Exterminate")
Suffice to say, I was not surprised by the result.
Just as with the "will he regenerate?" white elephant at the end of the last series of the Doctor's travels through campspace, the cebtral gimmick of the "Next Doctor" was neither interesting nor exciting. I knew Tennant was around for three more specials, I knew David Morrissey was not going to be involved in them. The vain hope I had after five minutes (when it became clear that this Doctor had no recollection of Tennant's) was that this doctor would turn out to be not the next one, but the first one.
Think for a moment about how cool that would have been...
Apart from a couple of funny little moments (like the watch gag and being pulled around through the window of a warehouse) that occurred in the first ten minutes of the episode the whole thing felt like a sleepwalk through a basic baddies vs goodies plot with no depth and probably the laziest script written for Dr Who so far and probably even Torchwood - containing inexplicable unnatural plot explanations (as you know a personal hatred of mine) an obvious and stupid enemy, an even siller big giant robot thing that we combat using a Balloon which was introduced earlier in another wretched scene of setups for later.
Ack... being a Spurs fan I am used to disappointments, but the continued failure of the Christmas special format is particularly galling since it is crucial to the survival of the show that it remains as dear to the hearts of the watching public as ever.
Another christmas institution, though one more consistent, is the occasional visits of Wallace and his loyal dog, Gromit. Their escapades in dramatic contrast to those of the trenchcoated wand waver are never less than thoroughly enchanting and enthralling, and this year's instalment kept up the astonishing quality standards Aardman have set themselves.
It was a truly brilliant and frequently hilarious way to spend half an hour in the company of what must be the best double act around now that Vic and Bob, Eric and Ernie et al are now infrequent visitors at best to our living rooms.
Even better was the fact we got to see the feature length W&G adventure earlier in the day after our game of Shadows over Camelot had finished.
Ah yes, Shadows over Camelot. Well.... it's a game of cooperation mostly, in which the knights of the round table pit themselves against the forces of evil (read; a nasty black deck of cards) and try and create good in the world. The catch with Shadows is, one of the knights may well be a traitor and suspicion reigns supreme as everyone watches what everyone else is doing in an attempt to expose the turncoat. That's the theory anyway. What happened with our motley band of miscreants is that, quoting Monty Python along the way, King Arthur (me) was killed in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy a siege engine aimed at Camelot's pristine walls and the poor remaining knights had to go on without him. Thing is, once I was gone they did a lot better without me and despite several dark moments when all seemed lost the forces of good emerged triumphant to find that there was never a traitor in this particular set of players.
Anyway.... good fun times had by all I hope.
I trust your Christmas (or Pine Tree Presents day) was as pleasant and that you enjoyed all you did.
Happy New Year to all and sundry.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Call me old fashioned...
But i am sure that a christmas number one should be a bit less odd than the inevitable Hallelujah will be.
it's a really weird record anyway, easily as strange a chrimbo present as that Gary Jules one was.
Only the x factor... er... Factor could get such a miserable and whiny version of anything reach the number one spot.
Also, i have this great image in my head of Simon Cowell reading all 80 odd verses to pick the most x factor friendly ones. Seems he failed in his search though.
Like all x factor winning records, the song is impossible to take seriously in a version with something as unsubtle as the full orchestra and gospel choir approach thrown at it. i've not heard the full version but i wouldn't be surprised if they've added a key change and a 'stand up' moment too. i'm not moaning about the song itself, which remains a morose classic, but the sheer stupidity of using the bombastic approach in its execution. Yuck.
It has an evil twin in purveyor of crap, Leona Lewis' version of Run, a lovely little break up song, quite likable indies style, turned into a horrific musical theatre piece with added vocal ad libs (which i always hate) over the cookie cutter gospel choir and full orchestra backgrounds. it's like hell on toast!
What happened to subtlety? Or at least, since it's christmas, a sense of self deprecating irony? A christmas number one should contain one or the other, you know, like that one by The Darkness...
The best christmas song remains, for me, The Fairytale of New York, which is so much better than the usual line up of novelty singles and x factor winners it made the top ten yet again last year. If only we could have it at number one every year.
To be fair, i expect an x factor winners version of it soon that will rival even Ronan Keating's version for missing the point entirely.
I am equally sure that this years inevitable victor has missed it by miles.
Ah well, it'll be another merry christmas at the Cowell household anyhow.
Have a lovely weekend readers!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The First Annual Wall Shadows Awards
Right then, the cut off date of the movie awards you least care about is now officially today, the 18th December.
It's also the only awards where you get an "antagonist" gong, since the most important person in the film is usually not the biggest part I thought I'd chuck one in.
This year has seen some great movie experiences and a couple of shockers, so I hope you enjoy the results below. The only qualifying criteria is that the awards go to films I saw for THE FIRST TIME in the year 2008 whether in the Cinema or on DvD so here we go:
BEST FILM:
The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
(Nearly There: The Dark Knight, Metropolis)
BEST ACTING PERFORMANCE (MALE):
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood
(Nearly There: Casey Affleck in TAOJJBTCRF)
BEST ACTING PERFORMANCE (FEMALE):
Laura Dern in INLAND EMPIRE
(Nearly There: Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton, Anjelica Huston in The Grifters)
BEST LOOKING FILM:
The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
(Nearly There: There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men)
BEST MOVIE ANTAGONIST:
The Joker in The Dark Knight
(Nearly There: Eli Sunday in There Will Be Blood, Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men)
WORST FILM:
Alone in The Dark
(Nearly There: The Strangers, John Carpenter's Vampires)
Since these is all I really care about in films, I don't think I'm qualified to judge their relative technical merits in focus pulling and script doctoring detail, that's all the awards I'm good for this year. I hope you all saw some great movies and here's to another great movie year!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's also the only awards where you get an "antagonist" gong, since the most important person in the film is usually not the biggest part I thought I'd chuck one in.
This year has seen some great movie experiences and a couple of shockers, so I hope you enjoy the results below. The only qualifying criteria is that the awards go to films I saw for THE FIRST TIME in the year 2008 whether in the Cinema or on DvD so here we go:
BEST FILM:
The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
(Nearly There: The Dark Knight, Metropolis)
BEST ACTING PERFORMANCE (MALE):
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood
(Nearly There: Casey Affleck in TAOJJBTCRF)
BEST ACTING PERFORMANCE (FEMALE):
Laura Dern in INLAND EMPIRE
(Nearly There: Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton, Anjelica Huston in The Grifters)
BEST LOOKING FILM:
The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
(Nearly There: There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men)
BEST MOVIE ANTAGONIST:
The Joker in The Dark Knight
(Nearly There: Eli Sunday in There Will Be Blood, Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men)
WORST FILM:
Alone in The Dark
(Nearly There: The Strangers, John Carpenter's Vampires)
Since these is all I really care about in films, I don't think I'm qualified to judge their relative technical merits in focus pulling and script doctoring detail, that's all the awards I'm good for this year. I hope you all saw some great movies and here's to another great movie year!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Movie Review: Screamers
5/10
Philip K Dick has had a patchy posthumous relationship with Hollywood. There are several categories his stories have been adapted into;
The strength of the tale Dick told is probably Screamers' saving grace, as is the fact that they make the phrase "Can I come with you?" genuinely creepy.
This movie is probably the most faithful to the original short story of any of the adaptations that I have previously seen - Minority Report is basically LA Confidential in the future and Blade Runner bears very very little resemblence to the original tale (which is superb if you want to check it out).
This faithfulness may be a slight problem though - Dick's messages were never subtle or nuanced, preferring instead an obvious if likable cynicism and simple moralising. In a movie this seems ideally suited, but there is little of the ironic cynicism present here I gain from many of Dick's stories, including the original Second Variety. The main reasons for this are the decision to place the action on a different faceless planet instead of Earth, and to fudge the ending.
The decisions to fudge the story's original very downbeat ending are inexplicable, and create at least 5 extra plot holes as a result, putting aside the massive one caused by one (type 2) simulant seemingly sharing the memories of its face donor, which makes no sense whatsoever.
What tension there is in not knowing who the bad guys are is subdued by the sheer robotic nature of all the actors, so that they all look like they are fakes and if they're not you don;t really care.
It's not helped by its low budget and ham fisted performances from almost all involved (even a sleepwalking Peter Weller is lame). That hasn't prevented a sequel coming into being and it was an ok way to spend a short amount of time but I wouldn't call it anything more than a 5/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Philip K Dick has had a patchy posthumous relationship with Hollywood. There are several categories his stories have been adapted into;
- Movies based directly on his stories (Screamers fits in here)
- Movies with some of his ideas but using them as a springboard to other ideas (Bladerunner, minority report)
- Movies that rape his memory and his stories (Paycheck, Next)
The strength of the tale Dick told is probably Screamers' saving grace, as is the fact that they make the phrase "Can I come with you?" genuinely creepy.
This movie is probably the most faithful to the original short story of any of the adaptations that I have previously seen - Minority Report is basically LA Confidential in the future and Blade Runner bears very very little resemblence to the original tale (which is superb if you want to check it out).
This faithfulness may be a slight problem though - Dick's messages were never subtle or nuanced, preferring instead an obvious if likable cynicism and simple moralising. In a movie this seems ideally suited, but there is little of the ironic cynicism present here I gain from many of Dick's stories, including the original Second Variety. The main reasons for this are the decision to place the action on a different faceless planet instead of Earth, and to fudge the ending.
The decisions to fudge the story's original very downbeat ending are inexplicable, and create at least 5 extra plot holes as a result, putting aside the massive one caused by one (type 2) simulant seemingly sharing the memories of its face donor, which makes no sense whatsoever.
What tension there is in not knowing who the bad guys are is subdued by the sheer robotic nature of all the actors, so that they all look like they are fakes and if they're not you don;t really care.
It's not helped by its low budget and ham fisted performances from almost all involved (even a sleepwalking Peter Weller is lame). That hasn't prevented a sequel coming into being and it was an ok way to spend a short amount of time but I wouldn't call it anything more than a 5/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, December 15, 2008
Little Rant: When Did Spitting Become Acceptable? And a dig at smokers,..
Walking to our little high street here, I picked my way amongst splat after splat of disgusting phlegm.
Maybe its the first example of me turning into an old man and seeing the past through a haze, but when the hell did it become OK to spit on the road? I don't mean in a legal sense, but in a social sense - anyone who spits openly in public should just be laughed out of town, surely?
What? Your own spit is unswallowable? Why do you think that might be?
I can't work it out. I expect to see tyhousands of tiny icy puddles when the weather gets REALLY cold. It's just horrible!
Similarly, I don't get why if I was to throw a sweet wrapper on the ground I would be littering and get all the hard times and mockery that goes with that, but people throw cigarette butts around like they're invisible - all over the street and sometimes, inadvertently, at passers by.
The film set I worked on recently gained a small carpet of butts as people just flicked them away when they were done, not looking at where they went, just flung away. You wouldn't do it with a burger wrapper or a lollystick and be so blazé so why is your cigarette not as bad?
Gah!
Rant done.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Maybe its the first example of me turning into an old man and seeing the past through a haze, but when the hell did it become OK to spit on the road? I don't mean in a legal sense, but in a social sense - anyone who spits openly in public should just be laughed out of town, surely?
What? Your own spit is unswallowable? Why do you think that might be?
I can't work it out. I expect to see tyhousands of tiny icy puddles when the weather gets REALLY cold. It's just horrible!
Similarly, I don't get why if I was to throw a sweet wrapper on the ground I would be littering and get all the hard times and mockery that goes with that, but people throw cigarette butts around like they're invisible - all over the street and sometimes, inadvertently, at passers by.
The film set I worked on recently gained a small carpet of butts as people just flicked them away when they were done, not looking at where they went, just flung away. You wouldn't do it with a burger wrapper or a lollystick and be so blazé so why is your cigarette not as bad?
Gah!
Rant done.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: One Fine Day
5/10
It's proper Meh!
Noone cares, I am sure, but this was watched since I was doing a big pile of shredding (my rock and roll lifestyle is clear) and it was wonderfully inoffensive, obvious and daft.
I mean, its got two stars in it in George Clooney (still on Batman & Robin payback at this stage) and Michelle Pfeiffer (what did she do to her career again?) but it never really takes off and I didn;t give a flying monkey's butt about either of the self satisfied, overachieving single parents they played.
Screw Em. Why can't they play something decent at three in the afternoon on a Sunday?
Oh, before this was the Parent Trap with two Lindsay Lohans.. It was even worse.
I got the shredding done, though.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's proper Meh!
Noone cares, I am sure, but this was watched since I was doing a big pile of shredding (my rock and roll lifestyle is clear) and it was wonderfully inoffensive, obvious and daft.
I mean, its got two stars in it in George Clooney (still on Batman & Robin payback at this stage) and Michelle Pfeiffer (what did she do to her career again?) but it never really takes off and I didn;t give a flying monkey's butt about either of the self satisfied, overachieving single parents they played.
Screw Em. Why can't they play something decent at three in the afternoon on a Sunday?
Oh, before this was the Parent Trap with two Lindsay Lohans.
I got the shredding done, though.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Quick Movie Review: LA Confidential
8/10
It's a good old movie, this.
A tangled web of good cop/bad cop (without the good cops) and gangland underhandedness, it marked the launching point for the careers of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe, who went on to Memento and Gladiator soon afterwards.
They are joined by ever reliable guys Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito as well as James Cromwell in a rare "dude, where's my accent?" mode.
There's only one femme fatale in this modern noir and its the classic beauty that is (ok, was) Kim Basinger. She's great too.
Despite Cromwell's blink and you missed it accent the performances are top notch, as is the setting and shooting, conjuring up a real sense of time and sleazy place. The twist is when it comes as obvious as the ending to The Parent Trap (and the exact scene, off-puttingly enough, was stolen wholesale for Minority Report, which I saw first) but this is a minor issue, we always know the good guys are getting gypped - so what else is new?
While the coldness of its characters and the lack of a simple "yay! bad guys dead!" ending may put some off, I am confident this is another modern noir which will live on.
Great to be back watching some good films!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's a good old movie, this.
A tangled web of good cop/bad cop (without the good cops) and gangland underhandedness, it marked the launching point for the careers of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe, who went on to Memento and Gladiator soon afterwards.
They are joined by ever reliable guys Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito as well as James Cromwell in a rare "dude, where's my accent?" mode.
There's only one femme fatale in this modern noir and its the classic beauty that is (ok, was) Kim Basinger. She's great too.
Despite Cromwell's blink and you missed it accent the performances are top notch, as is the setting and shooting, conjuring up a real sense of time and sleazy place. The twist is when it comes as obvious as the ending to The Parent Trap (and the exact scene, off-puttingly enough, was stolen wholesale for Minority Report, which I saw first) but this is a minor issue, we always know the good guys are getting gypped - so what else is new?
While the coldness of its characters and the lack of a simple "yay! bad guys dead!" ending may put some off, I am confident this is another modern noir which will live on.
Great to be back watching some good films!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, December 12, 2008
We went on a journey through time and space....
Me and Mrs Algo went to see The Mighty Boosh tonight.
very little Naboo, no Old Greg but still very good fun.
Newsflash: Howard Moon (Julian Barratt) can really, really, really play guitar!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
very little Naboo, no Old Greg but still very good fun.
Newsflash: Howard Moon (Julian Barratt) can really, really, really play guitar!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, December 11, 2008
TV Musing: God is a character in Heroes. And he's crap.
I've been enjoying this series of heroes more than the woeful second series, but in Arthur Petrelli they have made a hideous error.
Be wary of plot spoilers as I explain exactly what I mean:
In the excellent (IMHO) first season of Heroes the only major downer was the fact that every time DR Suresh came on screen I fell asleep, but in creating the big baddie for season three we've reached a new nadir in lame duck scripting.
Arthur Petrelli is ridiculous - a character who is ten times more powerful than anyone else, can do virtually anything and is indestructible. Take this week's idiotic example - a character has shot back in time to obtain something crucial to the silly plot and succeeds, promising to protect it and finally believing in himself - only to lose the crucial thing literally three minutes later to, you guessed it, Arthur Petrelli. Arthur has not only shot back in time to the exact spot needed, but steals the magguffin, throws the character off a building after taking away his powers (a particularly tiresome impotence metaphor) and teleports another away. He then shoots back across time to gain his victory.
You may have spotted the logic error here. Of course, there's no reason he couldn't have just jumped back to earlier and taken the thing from its original owner without any fuss at all but that would be too lacking in tension for the scriptwriters - they want to make the whole thing as wretched as possible, seemingly. The thing is, if you are going to have an all powerful psychic time traveller with super strength, invulnerability and telekenesis you have to explain why he doesn't just take everything he wants all at once rather than ponce about doing things only AFTER the "Heroes" think they've succeeded. I mean, what's the point of hanging about?
The problem with the decisions they made in designing this character is that since he is essentially immortal and all powerful it takes a plot crowbar method to dispatch him. Another irritating thing is that he is the king of the deus ex machina moment (a particular dislike of mine) - a wonderful method for lazy script writers to move the plot along is to just have him magically turn up whenever things are too enjoyable, or the "good guys" have the upper hand and mess it all up. Just crap.
Plus since anything involving the Petrelli family is rubbish by definition, the fact that we've jumped from three of them to four then five then back to four is just dopey. Especially since even an American Producer must realise that we tune in to watch Ando and Hiro or maybe the Bennets or even the nice Parkman/Daphne stuff. Does anyone really tune in for the sole purpose of watching the latest instalment of the soap opera surrounding the whiney loser family?
Their solution - split Ando and Hiro up! That'll have us watching! Gah!
I will watch til the end of the season anyhow, I just think its rubbish and now I have it off my chest.
Til next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Be wary of plot spoilers as I explain exactly what I mean:
In the excellent (IMHO) first season of Heroes the only major downer was the fact that every time DR Suresh came on screen I fell asleep, but in creating the big baddie for season three we've reached a new nadir in lame duck scripting.
Arthur Petrelli is ridiculous - a character who is ten times more powerful than anyone else, can do virtually anything and is indestructible. Take this week's idiotic example - a character has shot back in time to obtain something crucial to the silly plot and succeeds, promising to protect it and finally believing in himself - only to lose the crucial thing literally three minutes later to, you guessed it, Arthur Petrelli. Arthur has not only shot back in time to the exact spot needed, but steals the magguffin, throws the character off a building after taking away his powers (a particularly tiresome impotence metaphor) and teleports another away. He then shoots back across time to gain his victory.
You may have spotted the logic error here. Of course, there's no reason he couldn't have just jumped back to earlier and taken the thing from its original owner without any fuss at all but that would be too lacking in tension for the scriptwriters - they want to make the whole thing as wretched as possible, seemingly. The thing is, if you are going to have an all powerful psychic time traveller with super strength, invulnerability and telekenesis you have to explain why he doesn't just take everything he wants all at once rather than ponce about doing things only AFTER the "Heroes" think they've succeeded. I mean, what's the point of hanging about?
The problem with the decisions they made in designing this character is that since he is essentially immortal and all powerful it takes a plot crowbar method to dispatch him. Another irritating thing is that he is the king of the deus ex machina moment (a particular dislike of mine) - a wonderful method for lazy script writers to move the plot along is to just have him magically turn up whenever things are too enjoyable, or the "good guys" have the upper hand and mess it all up. Just crap.
Plus since anything involving the Petrelli family is rubbish by definition, the fact that we've jumped from three of them to four then five then back to four is just dopey. Especially since even an American Producer must realise that we tune in to watch Ando and Hiro or maybe the Bennets or even the nice Parkman/Daphne stuff. Does anyone really tune in for the sole purpose of watching the latest instalment of the soap opera surrounding the whiney loser family?
Their solution - split Ando and Hiro up! That'll have us watching! Gah!
I will watch til the end of the season anyhow, I just think its rubbish and now I have it off my chest.
Til next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Movie Review: There Will Be Blood
9/10
It's not much fun. It is, however, brilliant.
I recall earlier this year sitting down to watch The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford with my inestimable younger brother and he summed it up very well as "not really a film, more some sort of freaky Movie voodoo!" A pithy description of what is likely to be considered in future one of the true classics of recent years.
The same, gladly, is true of There Will Be Blood, a frankly staggering work that gets over a real level of passion and commitment on the part of every single actor, crew member and writer involved. There is really no way for me to praise the experience enough, but as a summary I think that will do. You may wonder about the 9/10 given the effusive comments I will make below - I will explain this now. I wanted more. For every minute up on screen I felt there was tonnes of backstory, depth and expansion to be inferred and I would have liked a few of the blanks to be filled in, but its a minor problem really and may well attest more to the film's greatness that I still hungered for more after a good two and a half hours.
Beware of minor spoilers below.
It is, of course, Daniel Day Lewis' movie. It is absolutely impossible to see anybody else pull this off - he balances the obvious charisma such a man would have needed against the toughness and guile required to compete in one of the most cutthroat and profitable businesses of all time. Daniel Plainview is a user - of people, of image - a true capitalist in the purest sense. When he talks of improvements to the town and giving back to the community, Day-Lewis somehow simultaneously projects trustworthiness while at the same time there is no question he will let the town burn if it makes financial sense.
He even sees the bright side in an early pit death, adopting a son which then gives him the gravitas of "a family man", a phrase he uses consistently despite preferring to watch a fire burn all night instead of checking up on his injured boy.
But the films strengths lie mainly in its three dimensional main characters - while on the face of it both Plainview and his uneasy ally, Eli Sunday seem initially to be all too one dimensional - Plainview all about power through money, Sunday all about control through religion. To avoid this simplification we are given little moments of light in the darkness - Plainview stops one little girl from being beaten by her father and goes through with most of his promises to the townsfolk, but tellingly never pays Eli Sunday his fee.
The two protagonists are obsessed by one thing above all - winning. We are told explicitly in Plainview's case but things are less clear with Sunday initially, but he soon succumbs to point scoring and humiliation of his foe in an attempt to control the "hearts and minds" of his people. Against Plainviews sheer tunnel vision power he stands little chance and in one of modern cinema's great duologues (see Heat or Unforgiven for others) the final scene is a masterclass in brutal finality.
Given the high bar for cinematography set by superstar of the field Roger Deakins in films like Jesse James and No Country For Old Men it is great to see that Robert Elswit easily matches his contemporary in this film. Every shot is gorgeous, full of detail and beauty even in the darkest moments, and that hideous cliché "cinematic poetry" is about the only useful way to describe the means by which a man can make a oil derrick fire look like the most gorgeous thing on the planet.
I can't recommend this film highly enough, I believe everyone should see it if not own a copy of it to be brought out whenever an older relative says something about them "not making films as good as in my day". Guess what mate, they freaking well do. There Will Be Blood can go twelve rounds with almost any film you set it against. You won't come out the other side with a burgeoning love for your fellow man, and it's certainly not one for all the family, but neither wass recent Empire poll winner, The Godfather, with which it shares a certain tone of inevitable malaise.
It came agonisingly close to a perfect score, but I just wanted it to have another half hour of story - it's not film spoilingly deficient by any means, I just found the last temporal jump a little big for my taste and it took me out of the moment a bit because of the sheer weight of years past and mental filling in required.
See it. Enjoy it. You shouldn't be disappointed.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's not much fun. It is, however, brilliant.
I recall earlier this year sitting down to watch The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford with my inestimable younger brother and he summed it up very well as "not really a film, more some sort of freaky Movie voodoo!" A pithy description of what is likely to be considered in future one of the true classics of recent years.
The same, gladly, is true of There Will Be Blood, a frankly staggering work that gets over a real level of passion and commitment on the part of every single actor, crew member and writer involved. There is really no way for me to praise the experience enough, but as a summary I think that will do. You may wonder about the 9/10 given the effusive comments I will make below - I will explain this now. I wanted more. For every minute up on screen I felt there was tonnes of backstory, depth and expansion to be inferred and I would have liked a few of the blanks to be filled in, but its a minor problem really and may well attest more to the film's greatness that I still hungered for more after a good two and a half hours.
Beware of minor spoilers below.
It is, of course, Daniel Day Lewis' movie. It is absolutely impossible to see anybody else pull this off - he balances the obvious charisma such a man would have needed against the toughness and guile required to compete in one of the most cutthroat and profitable businesses of all time. Daniel Plainview is a user - of people, of image - a true capitalist in the purest sense. When he talks of improvements to the town and giving back to the community, Day-Lewis somehow simultaneously projects trustworthiness while at the same time there is no question he will let the town burn if it makes financial sense.
He even sees the bright side in an early pit death, adopting a son which then gives him the gravitas of "a family man", a phrase he uses consistently despite preferring to watch a fire burn all night instead of checking up on his injured boy.
But the films strengths lie mainly in its three dimensional main characters - while on the face of it both Plainview and his uneasy ally, Eli Sunday seem initially to be all too one dimensional - Plainview all about power through money, Sunday all about control through religion. To avoid this simplification we are given little moments of light in the darkness - Plainview stops one little girl from being beaten by her father and goes through with most of his promises to the townsfolk, but tellingly never pays Eli Sunday his fee.
The two protagonists are obsessed by one thing above all - winning. We are told explicitly in Plainview's case but things are less clear with Sunday initially, but he soon succumbs to point scoring and humiliation of his foe in an attempt to control the "hearts and minds" of his people. Against Plainviews sheer tunnel vision power he stands little chance and in one of modern cinema's great duologues (see Heat or Unforgiven for others) the final scene is a masterclass in brutal finality.
Given the high bar for cinematography set by superstar of the field Roger Deakins in films like Jesse James and No Country For Old Men it is great to see that Robert Elswit easily matches his contemporary in this film. Every shot is gorgeous, full of detail and beauty even in the darkest moments, and that hideous cliché "cinematic poetry" is about the only useful way to describe the means by which a man can make a oil derrick fire look like the most gorgeous thing on the planet.
I can't recommend this film highly enough, I believe everyone should see it if not own a copy of it to be brought out whenever an older relative says something about them "not making films as good as in my day". Guess what mate, they freaking well do. There Will Be Blood can go twelve rounds with almost any film you set it against. You won't come out the other side with a burgeoning love for your fellow man, and it's certainly not one for all the family, but neither wass recent Empire poll winner, The Godfather, with which it shares a certain tone of inevitable malaise.
It came agonisingly close to a perfect score, but I just wanted it to have another half hour of story - it's not film spoilingly deficient by any means, I just found the last temporal jump a little big for my taste and it took me out of the moment a bit because of the sheer weight of years past and mental filling in required.
See it. Enjoy it. You shouldn't be disappointed.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Movie Review: The Mist
6/10
Ah.. horror movies, how patchy I find ye!
The last horror movie I saw was the frankly risible John Carpenter's Vampires, so you may be forgiven for thinking that the choice to see one based on a Stephen King story that isn't The Shining smacks of madness.
After all, how many decent films are there based on the Proto-Marenghi's works? Er...
Well, I will now say "At least one - The Mist" (which, stupidly, I keep typing as The Moist).
It's a super low budget (the cgi suffers most) picture in which a random group of people get trapped in the supermarket while all hell breaks loose outside.
Interesting factoid a quick search revealed is that Frank Darabont, who adapts and directs, wanted the picture to be in black and white (available on the DvD), and I think that would have worked better taking into account the budgets than the colour version I saw.
It's impossible to talk about why the film is good without spoilers so just give it a chance. While it's nothing particularly original in concept or execution at the beginning, it goes on to raise a couple of very interesting points. It also boasts a rare truly bleak ending, although the following further twist is unnecessary and cheapens the immediately preceding events.
To quote a music reviewer when faced with Scott Walker's The Drift, "none more bleak".
There is a turning point when the film changes from the by the numbers Eight Legged Freaks remake it starts out as into something more, and it is the point at which, spared death for some unknown reason, one of the characters begins to see themselves as a messiah of sorts.
Point One: How fast does society break down? Clunky dialogue pointing the fact aside, the barrier between social sanity and social madness is very thin. In this case rather than descending quickly into tribalism (Lord Of The Flies), Science vs Military solutions (Day Of The Dead) or a sort of secular economic competition (Land Of The Dead) the inhabitants of our little small town supermarket become enraptured by a previously despised and mocked Bile bashing loony who sees the bug invasion variously as judgement day, a call for sacrifices and the payment for scientific sin. She's the one who thinks she's the second coming.
It's all too believable sadly, as she quickly gains weight in the light of supernatural events to become nothign short of an evil prophet, and like all such she first and foremost places herself as the sole messenger of God. A scary thought.
Point Two is the big one - the choice of ending director and writer Frank Darabont decided to include.
In one very moving moment much earlier, our main protagonist is made to promise (his extra special, best promise) by his son that he will never, ever let the monsters get him. The sad consequence of this is that eventually, when all hope is lost he is faced with living up to his promise and going through with the only option. That he does really is brave on the part of the filmmakers, and it's unfortunate that they deemed it necessary to then poop on the poor guy even more by having, at that moment, the immediate and very fast revelation coming that the bugs have been defeated and he didn't need to go through with it after all.
I mean, it deepens the tragedy, but why bother? Why not leave it open ended? This seemed a strange and gimmicky choice given the fact the film had the guts to follow its logic through up to that point. This decision has cost it the 7/10 I was going to give it and it now gets a 6.
Still a good film though.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Ah.. horror movies, how patchy I find ye!
The last horror movie I saw was the frankly risible John Carpenter's Vampires, so you may be forgiven for thinking that the choice to see one based on a Stephen King story that isn't The Shining smacks of madness.
After all, how many decent films are there based on the Proto-Marenghi's works? Er...
Well, I will now say "At least one - The Mist" (which, stupidly, I keep typing as The Moist).
It's a super low budget (the cgi suffers most) picture in which a random group of people get trapped in the supermarket while all hell breaks loose outside.
Interesting factoid a quick search revealed is that Frank Darabont, who adapts and directs, wanted the picture to be in black and white (available on the DvD), and I think that would have worked better taking into account the budgets than the colour version I saw.
It's impossible to talk about why the film is good without spoilers so just give it a chance. While it's nothing particularly original in concept or execution at the beginning, it goes on to raise a couple of very interesting points. It also boasts a rare truly bleak ending, although the following further twist is unnecessary and cheapens the immediately preceding events.
To quote a music reviewer when faced with Scott Walker's The Drift, "none more bleak".
There is a turning point when the film changes from the by the numbers Eight Legged Freaks remake it starts out as into something more, and it is the point at which, spared death for some unknown reason, one of the characters begins to see themselves as a messiah of sorts.
Point One: How fast does society break down? Clunky dialogue pointing the fact aside, the barrier between social sanity and social madness is very thin. In this case rather than descending quickly into tribalism (Lord Of The Flies), Science vs Military solutions (Day Of The Dead) or a sort of secular economic competition (Land Of The Dead) the inhabitants of our little small town supermarket become enraptured by a previously despised and mocked Bile bashing loony who sees the bug invasion variously as judgement day, a call for sacrifices and the payment for scientific sin. She's the one who thinks she's the second coming.
It's all too believable sadly, as she quickly gains weight in the light of supernatural events to become nothign short of an evil prophet, and like all such she first and foremost places herself as the sole messenger of God. A scary thought.
Point Two is the big one - the choice of ending director and writer Frank Darabont decided to include.
In one very moving moment much earlier, our main protagonist is made to promise (his extra special, best promise) by his son that he will never, ever let the monsters get him. The sad consequence of this is that eventually, when all hope is lost he is faced with living up to his promise and going through with the only option. That he does really is brave on the part of the filmmakers, and it's unfortunate that they deemed it necessary to then poop on the poor guy even more by having, at that moment, the immediate and very fast revelation coming that the bugs have been defeated and he didn't need to go through with it after all.
I mean, it deepens the tragedy, but why bother? Why not leave it open ended? This seemed a strange and gimmicky choice given the fact the film had the guts to follow its logic through up to that point. This decision has cost it the 7/10 I was going to give it and it now gets a 6.
Still a good film though.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, December 6, 2008
In case you didn't notice
Your good old Wall Shadows just passed its 200th post.
Thanks to all readers for your support and kind words of encouragement! Here's to 500!
Algo Fact: Like Will Proudfoot in Son Of Rambow, the first 18 rated movie I saw was First Blood. I thought it was rubbish at the time. Ah well.
See the full post by clicking here...
Thanks to all readers for your support and kind words of encouragement! Here's to 500!
Algo Fact: Like Will Proudfoot in Son Of Rambow, the first 18 rated movie I saw was First Blood. I thought it was rubbish at the time. Ah well.
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, December 5, 2008
Movie Review: Son Of Rambow
8/10
It's a rare beast this.
A film about children that is absolutely not just for kids, it tells a, let's face it, fantastical tale of two very different boys meeting and bonding over a mutual love of First Blood.
You know, most of Sly Stallone's movies are atrocious, as the slurring gasbag woodenly traipses through nonsense scenarios, but there is no question at all in my mind that First Blood is a mighty fine picture, depicting not only alienation and post traumatic stress but also the dangers of having your perfect killing machine turned on you for a change. That the legacy is tarred forever by the lame sequels says more about the 80s movie business than it does about John Rambo.
This film is also about more than it seems on the face of it. Will is a lad seeking identity - he has no male role models since his dad is very obviously dead, and the only male figure he comes into any real contact with is a total creep. Yes... religion plays a large part in this alienation from the outside world - his family are whatI am told is called "Exclusive Brethren" whose beliefs prevent Will from watching TV, spending much time with outsiders, acting like a child, breathing in the wrong manner etc etc.
Lee Carter also has no parental guidance, but his role model is his ghastly older brother and he will do anything for him, nicking stuff for a birthday present or pirating films like First Blood and the like. In fact very few of the characters in the film are happy - even fewer are balanced sane individuals.
Lee Carter is one of those kids that you believed existed when you were at school - the ones who had the guts to do whatever they wanted and not give a toss what the outcome was. He's a fictional character though (he'd have been expelled years before in real life) so the fact he reminds me of those dreams that never were real - of some legend of the playground who threw mud in your headmaster's face, before setting fire to the school nurse's underwear, you know the sort of thing - is excusable.
Will is persuaded under some dodgy pretext that he has to help Lee win Screentest (an 80s amateur filmmakers competition) and make his sequel to First Blood, eventually called Son Of Rambow due to them not knowing the spelling of Rambo's name (the first film is called First Blood, folks!).
Unlike some, I doubt this name change is entirely down to legal reasons , since a good minute of footage from the original film crops up on several occasions. The lads even cut it into their own picture.
And... er... that's the whole plot. Very little of earth shattering proportions goes on, except the obvious tensions arising from the religious cult's desire to keep Will on the straight and narrow path and his mother's suitor turning out to be even more of a jerk.
That's not really the point of the movie, and it conjured up for me lovely memories of a childhood I may be imagining, but that's just it - it was all about imagination and no bills or rent payments got in the way of these kids creativity as they come up with an outlandish story and just blooming run with it.
It's brought to life even more by the liberal use of fantasy sequences and Will's own drawings coming alive at points. It really captured the joy of being a young guy learning exciting new things and loving it.
As for the acting, well it's very good, the two children will get all the plaudits and fair play to them they deserve it, especially Will Poulter, who plays Lee Carter looking almost exactly like the young River Phoenix did - he may well be a similar talent. Hoorays also to Jessica (still) Stevenson (now Hynes) who is always "skills".
I'm not saying it is perfect - the (funny) French exchange student's entourage were more "Carry On" than "Hammer & Tongs" and Lee's older brother is so obnoxious as to distract from the tone of the piece, but for the most part it was simply good, clean, fun.
Hoorah!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's a rare beast this.
A film about children that is absolutely not just for kids, it tells a, let's face it, fantastical tale of two very different boys meeting and bonding over a mutual love of First Blood.
You know, most of Sly Stallone's movies are atrocious, as the slurring gasbag woodenly traipses through nonsense scenarios, but there is no question at all in my mind that First Blood is a mighty fine picture, depicting not only alienation and post traumatic stress but also the dangers of having your perfect killing machine turned on you for a change. That the legacy is tarred forever by the lame sequels says more about the 80s movie business than it does about John Rambo.
This film is also about more than it seems on the face of it. Will is a lad seeking identity - he has no male role models since his dad is very obviously dead, and the only male figure he comes into any real contact with is a total creep. Yes... religion plays a large part in this alienation from the outside world - his family are whatI am told is called "Exclusive Brethren" whose beliefs prevent Will from watching TV, spending much time with outsiders, acting like a child, breathing in the wrong manner etc etc.
Lee Carter also has no parental guidance, but his role model is his ghastly older brother and he will do anything for him, nicking stuff for a birthday present or pirating films like First Blood and the like. In fact very few of the characters in the film are happy - even fewer are balanced sane individuals.
Lee Carter is one of those kids that you believed existed when you were at school - the ones who had the guts to do whatever they wanted and not give a toss what the outcome was. He's a fictional character though (he'd have been expelled years before in real life) so the fact he reminds me of those dreams that never were real - of some legend of the playground who threw mud in your headmaster's face, before setting fire to the school nurse's underwear, you know the sort of thing - is excusable.
Will is persuaded under some dodgy pretext that he has to help Lee win Screentest (an 80s amateur filmmakers competition) and make his sequel to First Blood, eventually called Son Of Rambow due to them not knowing the spelling of Rambo's name (the first film is called First Blood, folks!).
Unlike some, I doubt this name change is entirely down to legal reasons , since a good minute of footage from the original film crops up on several occasions. The lads even cut it into their own picture.
And... er... that's the whole plot. Very little of earth shattering proportions goes on, except the obvious tensions arising from the religious cult's desire to keep Will on the straight and narrow path and his mother's suitor turning out to be even more of a jerk.
That's not really the point of the movie, and it conjured up for me lovely memories of a childhood I may be imagining, but that's just it - it was all about imagination and no bills or rent payments got in the way of these kids creativity as they come up with an outlandish story and just blooming run with it.
It's brought to life even more by the liberal use of fantasy sequences and Will's own drawings coming alive at points. It really captured the joy of being a young guy learning exciting new things and loving it.
As for the acting, well it's very good, the two children will get all the plaudits and fair play to them they deserve it, especially Will Poulter, who plays Lee Carter looking almost exactly like the young River Phoenix did - he may well be a similar talent. Hoorays also to Jessica (still) Stevenson (now Hynes) who is always "skills".
I'm not saying it is perfect - the (funny) French exchange student's entourage were more "Carry On" than "Hammer & Tongs" and Lee's older brother is so obnoxious as to distract from the tone of the piece, but for the most part it was simply good, clean, fun.
Hoorah!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Quick Movie Review: Enemy Of The State
7/10
Ah.. lets overplay the prescience of this film - the act of congress they are discussing that starts the whole ball rolling is eerily reminiscent of the US Patriot Act but that's really giving the makers a bit too much credit, methinks.
The film is a rollercoaster ride of paranoia and technobabble - featuring one of the first Will Smith movie carrying experiences. That being said the film is utterly stolen by Gene Hackman, who to all intents and purposes is reprising his character from Francis Ford Coppola's classic movie The Conversation.
The whole thing is a classic 90s action movie with very little heart but a lot of bang for your buck. Enjoy
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Ah.. lets overplay the prescience of this film - the act of congress they are discussing that starts the whole ball rolling is eerily reminiscent of the US Patriot Act but that's really giving the makers a bit too much credit, methinks.
The film is a rollercoaster ride of paranoia and technobabble - featuring one of the first Will Smith movie carrying experiences. That being said the film is utterly stolen by Gene Hackman, who to all intents and purposes is reprising his character from Francis Ford Coppola's classic movie The Conversation.
The whole thing is a classic 90s action movie with very little heart but a lot of bang for your buck. Enjoy
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: John Carpenter's Vampires
2/10
The Usual Suspects has a lot to answer for. Only with the presence of one of the (other) Baldwins in that classic piece of cinema could any of the others continue to get decent paying gigs, except for the by-these-standards-a-savant one. This outrageously tepid jaunt through bad goth make up and miscasting features the lamest duck in all of the Baldwin gene pool, Daniel.
Now, one piece of bad casting does not ruin a movie, but this film has so much more to offer. Tae, for example, the rock hard leader of the Vampire hunters, played by James Woods who, rather than looking like a modern day Van Helsing glowering at his immortal foes, resembles nothing so much as a dad's disdain upon meeting his daughter's prom date. To this tower of acting prowess anger strongly resembles a bad case of constipation.
Now, ok. The idea is not to make a classic motion picture - we want to have some fun with this silly tale, right? Well there isn't any. Any tongue in cheek moment (usually some overacting from the laughable "master" vampire) is undermined by the film's inflated sense of its own genius. The film flounders about for a couple of hours, never bothering with character development or pathos, pausing only to clunkily fill in back story - one character even does that crap screenwriters trick of summarising Wood's backstory in one sentence like that guy in Alone in The Dark did. Remember that "careful; she's the head curator of the museum and she's upset because her boyfriend's gone missing". That was a line!!!!
In Vampires they try and dress this up as some kind of "hello" between characters, but it is as clunky as the acting.
This never, ever works. Why on earth do people still think it will?
Add to this the dumbest set of plans and plot holes - one sequence has the hunters, pushed for time before sunset, nevertheless to decide to try and lure the Vampires outside one at a time. Into the light. Where they will die.
And they fall for it! Twice!
The lame twist at the end is also just an afterthought... ooh bad catholics! Who'd a thunk it?
This is lame. Avoid it if you can. It's not even fun enough for a Blue A.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
The Usual Suspects has a lot to answer for. Only with the presence of one of the (other) Baldwins in that classic piece of cinema could any of the others continue to get decent paying gigs, except for the by-these-standards-a-savant one. This outrageously tepid jaunt through bad goth make up and miscasting features the lamest duck in all of the Baldwin gene pool, Daniel.
Now, one piece of bad casting does not ruin a movie, but this film has so much more to offer. Tae, for example, the rock hard leader of the Vampire hunters, played by James Woods who, rather than looking like a modern day Van Helsing glowering at his immortal foes, resembles nothing so much as a dad's disdain upon meeting his daughter's prom date. To this tower of acting prowess anger strongly resembles a bad case of constipation.
Now, ok. The idea is not to make a classic motion picture - we want to have some fun with this silly tale, right? Well there isn't any. Any tongue in cheek moment (usually some overacting from the laughable "master" vampire) is undermined by the film's inflated sense of its own genius. The film flounders about for a couple of hours, never bothering with character development or pathos, pausing only to clunkily fill in back story - one character even does that crap screenwriters trick of summarising Wood's backstory in one sentence like that guy in Alone in The Dark did. Remember that "careful; she's the head curator of the museum and she's upset because her boyfriend's gone missing". That was a line!!!!
In Vampires they try and dress this up as some kind of "hello" between characters, but it is as clunky as the acting.
This never, ever works. Why on earth do people still think it will?
Add to this the dumbest set of plans and plot holes - one sequence has the hunters, pushed for time before sunset, nevertheless to decide to try and lure the Vampires outside one at a time. Into the light. Where they will die.
And they fall for it! Twice!
The lame twist at the end is also just an afterthought... ooh bad catholics! Who'd a thunk it?
This is lame. Avoid it if you can. It's not even fun enough for a Blue A.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Quick Movie Review: The Fly (Cronenberg)
5/10
A movie that doesn't outstay its welcome is David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly, clocking in at around 1hr 25 and telling its classic scientist-regrets-playing-God tale at a breakneck speed.
Indeed, such is the speed at which the movie wants to move we start in the middle of a scene and a burgeoning romance between Jeff Goldblums' Seth Brundle and Geena Davis' Ronnie is rushed to such an extent that there appears to be absolutely no reason for their sudden kiss and sex session.
In fact, it all seems to be sprinting past the plot in favour of classic body horror shenanigans, as a Gibbon is turned inside out and stuff like that.
It's in these sequences that the director really seems to be enjoying himself, pulling all the creepy gore and nasty close ups possible. If that's not your thing you will hate this movie.
As for myself, I think it's ok, if a little extreme in parts allowing the mank to override the story, but you probably don't care much about the story in this kind of movie. One thing it certainly is, is quite sad. You could see it as a metaphor for any degenerative disease if you like, and it's tempting for me to overplay this angle to appear clever and insightful. I actually think that's a side effect of the actual intention, which is to make a 50s style moral horror tale with modern techniques (even if the moral is "do everything in a sterile environment" since the experiment does actually work as planned!). In this sense it is perfectly successful, though there's probably not really enough depth to it to reach true classic status.
A fine way to spend such a short amount of time, but no more exciting or wonderful than two back to back episodes of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A movie that doesn't outstay its welcome is David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly, clocking in at around 1hr 25 and telling its classic scientist-regrets-playing-God tale at a breakneck speed.
Indeed, such is the speed at which the movie wants to move we start in the middle of a scene and a burgeoning romance between Jeff Goldblums' Seth Brundle and Geena Davis' Ronnie is rushed to such an extent that there appears to be absolutely no reason for their sudden kiss and sex session.
In fact, it all seems to be sprinting past the plot in favour of classic body horror shenanigans, as a Gibbon is turned inside out and stuff like that.
It's in these sequences that the director really seems to be enjoying himself, pulling all the creepy gore and nasty close ups possible. If that's not your thing you will hate this movie.
As for myself, I think it's ok, if a little extreme in parts allowing the mank to override the story, but you probably don't care much about the story in this kind of movie. One thing it certainly is, is quite sad. You could see it as a metaphor for any degenerative disease if you like, and it's tempting for me to overplay this angle to appear clever and insightful. I actually think that's a side effect of the actual intention, which is to make a 50s style moral horror tale with modern techniques (even if the moral is "do everything in a sterile environment" since the experiment does actually work as planned!). In this sense it is perfectly successful, though there's probably not really enough depth to it to reach true classic status.
A fine way to spend such a short amount of time, but no more exciting or wonderful than two back to back episodes of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, December 1, 2008
So, this movie's cursed then...
That's what many of you may have thought about the story that appeared in The Sun over the weekend (I forget exactly which day since I was so tired).
Actually, the website version is slightly nearer the truth than that which was printed in the paper, which claimed the fuel truck, which was parked right next to the bus full of us extras (included myself) went up in a "fireball" (there was a small amount of flames that were quickly extinguished), and also claimed that Downey Jr had needed 6 stitches (he'd needed two) and that he'd been knocked out for "minutes" when he'd been out for seconds.
Ah, well... it may well be publicity action on the part of the producers and director. Fair play to 'em.
The slightly galling thing was that us extras were not given any indication of a problem with the truck, which was parked right next to our bus and even after the event noone came to reassure us or to say it was all sorted. Meh, I know we're not important, but we are human beings!
As for my part in the movie (heh, as if it can be called a "part")? Well, this is one you'll definitely be able to spot me in, as in a major fight scene RDJ is chased by another character underneath a log I am carrying with one other fella. The big guy then knocks the log out of our hands and out of shot. We then back off towards the door, as Dr Watson enters and fires his pistol to get all the mob out of the way.
Funny story - the first take RDJ ran round the outside of the log and the other guy carrying the log joked it would look better if he ran underneath instead and the big guy threw it away. Sure enough, two minutes later this became the plan (pretty sure it was decided on independently of us, though).
So that guy is me, if you go and see it.
The rest of the week was slightly less exciting for me unfortunately since that and a couple of short shots are all I was involved in for six days in total - this led to a lot of stir craziness as me and 33 other blokes were cooped up in a bus for 3 days solid at one point, which tends to drive you round the bend a little. Luckily, in my capacity as "bringer of the fun" I supplied a big box of poker chips, a selection of 200 traditional games and my Go set so tried to keep everyone alive for a while at least. In the week I learned to play Halma, Backgammon and also bashed through about 8 games of Go, teaching four others to play.
The things you do to stay sane, eh?
Oh, and to anyone I appear to have ignored over the last week, please bear in mind I've been getting up at 4am and arriving home at 8pm, so it's not been possible to stay as in touch as I may like.
'Til Next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Actually, the website version is slightly nearer the truth than that which was printed in the paper, which claimed the fuel truck, which was parked right next to the bus full of us extras (included myself) went up in a "fireball" (there was a small amount of flames that were quickly extinguished), and also claimed that Downey Jr had needed 6 stitches (he'd needed two) and that he'd been knocked out for "minutes" when he'd been out for seconds.
Ah, well... it may well be publicity action on the part of the producers and director. Fair play to 'em.
The slightly galling thing was that us extras were not given any indication of a problem with the truck, which was parked right next to our bus and even after the event noone came to reassure us or to say it was all sorted. Meh, I know we're not important, but we are human beings!
As for my part in the movie (heh, as if it can be called a "part")? Well, this is one you'll definitely be able to spot me in, as in a major fight scene RDJ is chased by another character underneath a log I am carrying with one other fella. The big guy then knocks the log out of our hands and out of shot. We then back off towards the door, as Dr Watson enters and fires his pistol to get all the mob out of the way.
Funny story - the first take RDJ ran round the outside of the log and the other guy carrying the log joked it would look better if he ran underneath instead and the big guy threw it away. Sure enough, two minutes later this became the plan (pretty sure it was decided on independently of us, though).
So that guy is me, if you go and see it.
The rest of the week was slightly less exciting for me unfortunately since that and a couple of short shots are all I was involved in for six days in total - this led to a lot of stir craziness as me and 33 other blokes were cooped up in a bus for 3 days solid at one point, which tends to drive you round the bend a little. Luckily, in my capacity as "bringer of the fun" I supplied a big box of poker chips, a selection of 200 traditional games and my Go set so tried to keep everyone alive for a while at least. In the week I learned to play Halma, Backgammon and also bashed through about 8 games of Go, teaching four others to play.
The things you do to stay sane, eh?
Oh, and to anyone I appear to have ignored over the last week, please bear in mind I've been getting up at 4am and arriving home at 8pm, so it's not been possible to stay as in touch as I may like.
'Til Next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
