Welcome again to another tale of home studio fun.
This time I engineered for myself, which is a lot of fun, but quite a bit more work.
The first thing about engineering recordings is to know your wiring, virtual or otherwise. I had quite a bit of experience with my two track laptop studio so I knew something about the vagaries of virtual multitrack setups this turns out to be a bonus and a hindrance since every set up is different, my little home studio (for demos and songwriting) runs a rather barebones edition of Cubase, whereas the snazzy setup in Shed Studios uses a rather more jazzy full flavoured SONAR virtual studio thingy.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a huge techie when it comes to software (hardware, yes, software, no) and all that I really care about is being able to record the sound I want as quickly as possible.
The nice thing about virtual studios is that they all follow the basic rules of a normal hardware mixer and recorder setup. That is, that all you need to do is sort out the wiring, choose your input levels, arm the track and then hit record. The only tricky parts then are in performance since you do this as many times as you need overdubs.
In the case of the latest "own song" to roll off the virtual production line, an ancient number called "Mr Indecipherable", I did about 15 tracks worth of overdubs with very very minimal changes of wiring (i.e. from instruments to microphones) and no changes at all of virtual wiring.
Things are made easier because of direct input (D.I.) which means you don't have to worry about mic'ing up an amplifier or two, because you take your lead straight from the instrument into the "interface". Oh yeah, the interface. I have NO idea what all those knobs and buttons do (and frankly, I don't really mind that much) but essentially it's an input/output box (sound goes in, sound goes out) with input and output volumes (which techies call "gain" just to make it sound more complicated) and your main issue when setting volume (or gain, if you prefer) is to make sure you have enough level coming in to work with, without having so much the sound becomes distorted and hideous.
Different things have different natural levels - a guitar (normally) has a very low output level, and an input/output box (i/o) will have the ability to boost that level while at the same time being able to turn down for, say, a powered microphone.
This latter ability is crucial to my next project, which was to work with Mrs Algo on her voicereel. Its a bit easier (since you are only working with one microphone mostly) but is considerably tricky because of the far lower level people talk than they sing.
So I should have the song up soon, and Mrs Algo's agent was happy with the work we did on her Voicereel so I reckon I'm getting quite good at it.
I'll put up the results of my work over the next couple of weeks (though not Mrs Algo, that's all copyright protected and things).
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Movie Review: In Bruges
...apparently it's in Belgium...
7/10
This odd-couple-abroad gangster movie is an extremely original take on the classic "botched hit" story. Two gangsters played by Colin Farrell and the ever reliable Brendan Gleeson are sent by their boss, Harry, to Bruges to hide out after Farrell's first job goes horribly wrong.
That's about it for the premise, and very little new is brought up for the rest of the film. The important stuff is to do with the character's history and their changing ways, and very well played they are, the only person not utterly changed in the course of the movie is that of Harry.
Ah yes, Harry.
To highlight how much better a movie this than the OTHER brit gangster movie maker's recent attempts, we have Harry, on paper a totally stock Guy Ritchie mentalist, a raging storm in an expensive suit, as foul mouthed as a truckload of Liam Gallaghers n a traffic jam on the M1 in the rain. That in this movie we get to see both sides of Harry (albeit the angry nutter side and the just plain nutter sides) is the real trick and sets him apart from a 2D charicature.
His presence, while not on screen until the film enters its third act, hovers in the background like a cockney fog throughout the first two. It's a towering run out for Ralph Fiennes, a truly crazed, scenery chewing performance nevertheless rendered with nuance and utter conviction. An incredibly hard balance to strike, but one at which the film succeeds.
But really this is Farrell and Gleeson's movie, Farrell's Ray getting many of the movie's funniest lines (displaying a rich talent and comic timing, by the way), and his attempts at tough talk just serve to remind us how rubbish a gangster he really is, in one bizarre affray trying to reference the Vietnam War as a put down to an American but just saying .
Bruges is populated with all manner of odd characters, and the first half is neatly summed up by the drugged up Gleeson's description of "Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf". It really is a fine fun hour or so, with dry wit and humour coming out of its behind.
It's at a crucial point in the plot where the film takes a massive change of style and heads into a more gritty and extremely bloody conclusion where Fiennes's Harry is forced to come to Bruges and sort things out. This final section of the movie differs so much from what has come before it totally threw me for a while - the laughs still come, but they are more bitter and ironic (think more "Ha!" than "heehee"). The final images, in one of the movies habits, references Nic Roeg's Don't Look Now, a shoo in given the medieval streets of Bruges.
It also has the elusive "proper ending" a film like this should have, and I was very satisfied by the whole experience - it won't be for everyone, and its sudden change of tone may leave some with a bitter taste in their mouths, but all in all very much worth your time.
Til next time folks!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
7/10
This odd-couple-abroad gangster movie is an extremely original take on the classic "botched hit" story. Two gangsters played by Colin Farrell and the ever reliable Brendan Gleeson are sent by their boss, Harry, to Bruges to hide out after Farrell's first job goes horribly wrong.
That's about it for the premise, and very little new is brought up for the rest of the film. The important stuff is to do with the character's history and their changing ways, and very well played they are, the only person not utterly changed in the course of the movie is that of Harry.
Ah yes, Harry.
To highlight how much better a movie this than the OTHER brit gangster movie maker's recent attempts, we have Harry, on paper a totally stock Guy Ritchie mentalist, a raging storm in an expensive suit, as foul mouthed as a truckload of Liam Gallaghers n a traffic jam on the M1 in the rain. That in this movie we get to see both sides of Harry (albeit the angry nutter side and the just plain nutter sides) is the real trick and sets him apart from a 2D charicature.
His presence, while not on screen until the film enters its third act, hovers in the background like a cockney fog throughout the first two. It's a towering run out for Ralph Fiennes, a truly crazed, scenery chewing performance nevertheless rendered with nuance and utter conviction. An incredibly hard balance to strike, but one at which the film succeeds.
But really this is Farrell and Gleeson's movie, Farrell's Ray getting many of the movie's funniest lines (displaying a rich talent and comic timing, by the way), and his attempts at tough talk just serve to remind us how rubbish a gangster he really is, in one bizarre affray trying to reference the Vietnam War as a put down to an American but just saying .
Bruges is populated with all manner of odd characters, and the first half is neatly summed up by the drugged up Gleeson's description of "Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf". It really is a fine fun hour or so, with dry wit and humour coming out of its behind.
It's at a crucial point in the plot where the film takes a massive change of style and heads into a more gritty and extremely bloody conclusion where Fiennes's Harry is forced to come to Bruges and sort things out. This final section of the movie differs so much from what has come before it totally threw me for a while - the laughs still come, but they are more bitter and ironic (think more "Ha!" than "heehee"). The final images, in one of the movies habits, references Nic Roeg's Don't Look Now, a shoo in given the medieval streets of Bruges.
It also has the elusive "proper ending" a film like this should have, and I was very satisfied by the whole experience - it won't be for everyone, and its sudden change of tone may leave some with a bitter taste in their mouths, but all in all very much worth your time.
Til next time folks!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sports Nostalgia
You know if you read my blog regularly (or have been super keen and read back after finding it) you know that I am a Spurs fan. That's Tottenham Hotspur, if you're American. If you are a Spurs fan like me all you have at the moment is nostalgia since we remain stuck to the bottom of the league below EVEN NEWCASTLE, who don't have a manager and are so badly run, they hire an interim manager who can;t even get to the touchlines due to a ban picked up four years ago when he last had a proper job in football.
Sigh... I remember when I first started watching football and chose Spurs to be my team - where now are such heroes as Mabbutt, Lineker and Klinsmann? When I was a kid you could be certain of two things - a mid table finish and lots of goals for and against. These days we can only be sure of lots of goals against, despite the fact we have a bunch of international first string players as opposed to the olden days, when we just had second string internationals, like Ian Walker, Darren Anderton, David Ginola et al.
So what is going wrong right now? Well, football is changing, and the structure at Spurs was one of the first to convert to a "European" organisational pyramid. In the European system, the person who used to be the manager is now more of a head coach, while a "director of football" deals with all the transfers and signs the players, deals with agents etc etc. Thing is, we haven;t yet reached the stage where anyone except the manager is blamed for poor results, since he is the visible Representative of the club week in week out.
I personally place the blame for our current predicament square at the feet of Damien Comolli and Daniel Levy, the director of football and club chairman. It's not (manager) Juande Ramos' fault we sold three strikers and bought one. It's not Ramos' fault that because of boardroom stalling, the sale of star striker Dimitar Berbatov was delayed until the very last minute and no replacement could be found at such short notice. It's also not Ramos' fault that, on the first couple of weekends after the transfer window closed, we were fielding a team with 6 new players in it - this sort of team being IMPOSSIBLE to gel in such a short time.
These issues are all the fault of Commolli and Levy, so why is Ramos asked about being "under pressure"? When will things change so that the fans call for a "director of football"'s head instead of the head coach's?
Things are like this at Newcastle, where Christ-incarnate Kevin Keegan fell prey to the same system and the fans there didn't let him go quietly like Spurs would if Ramos quit.
So... I don't think we'll go down this year, but we are being humiliated as a result of incompetent transfer dealings which hamstring our manager before the season has even started.
I hope your teams are doing better. Unless you're an Arsenal fan - at least I had that result to cheer this weekend!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sigh... I remember when I first started watching football and chose Spurs to be my team - where now are such heroes as Mabbutt, Lineker and Klinsmann? When I was a kid you could be certain of two things - a mid table finish and lots of goals for and against. These days we can only be sure of lots of goals against, despite the fact we have a bunch of international first string players as opposed to the olden days, when we just had second string internationals, like Ian Walker, Darren Anderton, David Ginola et al.
So what is going wrong right now? Well, football is changing, and the structure at Spurs was one of the first to convert to a "European" organisational pyramid. In the European system, the person who used to be the manager is now more of a head coach, while a "director of football" deals with all the transfers and signs the players, deals with agents etc etc. Thing is, we haven;t yet reached the stage where anyone except the manager is blamed for poor results, since he is the visible Representative of the club week in week out.
I personally place the blame for our current predicament square at the feet of Damien Comolli and Daniel Levy, the director of football and club chairman. It's not (manager) Juande Ramos' fault we sold three strikers and bought one. It's not Ramos' fault that because of boardroom stalling, the sale of star striker Dimitar Berbatov was delayed until the very last minute and no replacement could be found at such short notice. It's also not Ramos' fault that, on the first couple of weekends after the transfer window closed, we were fielding a team with 6 new players in it - this sort of team being IMPOSSIBLE to gel in such a short time.
These issues are all the fault of Commolli and Levy, so why is Ramos asked about being "under pressure"? When will things change so that the fans call for a "director of football"'s head instead of the head coach's?
Things are like this at Newcastle, where Christ-incarnate Kevin Keegan fell prey to the same system and the fans there didn't let him go quietly like Spurs would if Ramos quit.
So... I don't think we'll go down this year, but we are being humiliated as a result of incompetent transfer dealings which hamstring our manager before the season has even started.
I hope your teams are doing better. Unless you're an Arsenal fan - at least I had that result to cheer this weekend!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, September 26, 2008
INLAND EMPIRE Pt.1
I was going to write a review today of bonkers David Lynch/Laura Dern three hour brainmelt mashup fest INLAND EMPIRE, but I am not sure I know how to do it (see the sidebar for my attempt at an appropriate rating).
But! I will not admit defeat, my friends. I intend to watch it again, and with others, to discuss it a bit further.
Let me be honest. I really liked it. That being said, it is impossible to slap an out of ten rating on something that subverts every single rule of filmmaking - the plot is indistinguishable from the lighting, the scenery seems cheaper, and yet more real, than any film I have seen for a long time.
Lynch refuses to even be bound by keeping the same characters for each actress, so in my interpretation we have Dern in a scene with herself as a different character, as well as her being the actress playing that character and AT THE SAME TIME, have a completely diffeent actress playing the same character IN THE SAME ROOM while a bunch of other actresses lounge about representing parts of the actress (or the character's) psyche!
So I'll persevere, and even on one viewing I can say I am utterly in awe of just how many rules Lynch has ignored, even those I had no idea existed until they weren't being followed any more.
It's more of an "experience" than a story, and should really be approached as such - its not even as if it represents a broken timeline, because its as if the plot was crumpled together like a draft piece of sheet music, and then the director conducted, and the actors played, what notes were left visible. Amazing work.
I'll be a bit more balanced and explanatory when I have watched it again. Simple fact is that it is utterly unique, even amongst Lynch's output and a wonderful, occasionally terrifying, annoying, frustrating, pretentious bit of nonsense.
In case you hadn't guessed, I am yet to reach a final decision.
Have you seen it and had a more binary response?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
But! I will not admit defeat, my friends. I intend to watch it again, and with others, to discuss it a bit further.
Let me be honest. I really liked it. That being said, it is impossible to slap an out of ten rating on something that subverts every single rule of filmmaking - the plot is indistinguishable from the lighting, the scenery seems cheaper, and yet more real, than any film I have seen for a long time.
Lynch refuses to even be bound by keeping the same characters for each actress, so in my interpretation we have Dern in a scene with herself as a different character, as well as her being the actress playing that character and AT THE SAME TIME, have a completely diffeent actress playing the same character IN THE SAME ROOM while a bunch of other actresses lounge about representing parts of the actress (or the character's) psyche!
So I'll persevere, and even on one viewing I can say I am utterly in awe of just how many rules Lynch has ignored, even those I had no idea existed until they weren't being followed any more.
It's more of an "experience" than a story, and should really be approached as such - its not even as if it represents a broken timeline, because its as if the plot was crumpled together like a draft piece of sheet music, and then the director conducted, and the actors played, what notes were left visible. Amazing work.
I'll be a bit more balanced and explanatory when I have watched it again. Simple fact is that it is utterly unique, even amongst Lynch's output and a wonderful, occasionally terrifying, annoying, frustrating, pretentious bit of nonsense.
In case you hadn't guessed, I am yet to reach a final decision.
Have you seen it and had a more binary response?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Quick Movie Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age
5/10
This film is a perfect example of why I don't interpret a film's worth in my mind because of its costumes, direction, photography or lighting alone.
It's masterfully shot, beautifully cast with dozens of the most respected actors and looks like a costume designer was given a budget the same size as the Department For Defense (American department, American spelling).
Thing is, despite all that and despite telling one of the most captivating and incredible stories of military daring and absurd luck in British history, it's a little bit rubbish.
I really like the first Elizabeth movie, it struck a fantastic balance between romantic, hollywood necessity and historical overtone. Cate Blanchett is a wonderful bit of casting and she shows real commitment to a tough and unforgiving role.
In fact, all the cast are pretty good, but where The Golden Age falls down is in its storytelling. In the rush to fold several throughlines into one, we have too much Walter Raleigh, no Francis Drake to speak of (Raleigh basically gets his lines) and the whole Bess Throckmorton plot is played like the soap storylines it is reminiscent of.
Even the big speech, given in Viggo as Aragorn style to her trooops is cut to ribbons, and the troop deployment is clearly of about fifty men. The Spaniards are depicted almost as crazed zealots, loony voodoo monsters and psychopaths. Out of all England's enemies, only a captivating Rhys Ifans as the assassin mastermind has much depth.
Add to this some attempted action sequences on the boats which veer perilously close to Pirates Of The Caribbean levels and I had a fairly disappointing and flat experience.
The other problem I had is that the music mix is hackneyed and brutal - smacking every emotional moment into your head with all the subtlety of an episode of Family Guy. This, combined with what now feel like clichéd editing tricks (white outs, focus pulls) means that the whole thing seems cheapened by the post production, which wants to bludgeon "event movie" into your head.
I was very disappointed.
Until Next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
This film is a perfect example of why I don't interpret a film's worth in my mind because of its costumes, direction, photography or lighting alone.
It's masterfully shot, beautifully cast with dozens of the most respected actors and looks like a costume designer was given a budget the same size as the Department For Defense (American department, American spelling).
Thing is, despite all that and despite telling one of the most captivating and incredible stories of military daring and absurd luck in British history, it's a little bit rubbish.
I really like the first Elizabeth movie, it struck a fantastic balance between romantic, hollywood necessity and historical overtone. Cate Blanchett is a wonderful bit of casting and she shows real commitment to a tough and unforgiving role.
In fact, all the cast are pretty good, but where The Golden Age falls down is in its storytelling. In the rush to fold several throughlines into one, we have too much Walter Raleigh, no Francis Drake to speak of (Raleigh basically gets his lines) and the whole Bess Throckmorton plot is played like the soap storylines it is reminiscent of.
Even the big speech, given in Viggo as Aragorn style to her trooops is cut to ribbons, and the troop deployment is clearly of about fifty men. The Spaniards are depicted almost as crazed zealots, loony voodoo monsters and psychopaths. Out of all England's enemies, only a captivating Rhys Ifans as the assassin mastermind has much depth.
Add to this some attempted action sequences on the boats which veer perilously close to Pirates Of The Caribbean levels and I had a fairly disappointing and flat experience.
The other problem I had is that the music mix is hackneyed and brutal - smacking every emotional moment into your head with all the subtlety of an episode of Family Guy. This, combined with what now feel like clichéd editing tricks (white outs, focus pulls) means that the whole thing seems cheapened by the post production, which wants to bludgeon "event movie" into your head.
I was very disappointed.
Until Next Time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Divisive Empire Poll.... The Results!!!
| Empire have finally published their top 500 movies, so lets see where my choices were. Despite the poor showing for Holy Grail (I think a split caused by Life Of Brian is to blame, it was much higher), I was most surprised by how low down Amadeus is - I'm not as surprised by the high place for The Dark Knight and if the same poll was run in a few years, I would anticipate it dropping by about twenty odd places. This sort of thing usually happens. At least all my choices were on there and I'm not some kind of freakish movie simpleton. Oh? The best film of all time? Go look for yourself. It's not on my list, but warrants a 10 on any scale. My greatest movies of all time were... (bold number is poisiton in the top 500) | |
| 1 | 2001: A Space Odyssey - 16 |
| 2 | Amadeus -136 |
| 3 | C'era una volta il West - 14 |
| 4 | The Usual Suspects -61 |
| 5 | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King -34 |
| 6 | The Godfather: Part II -19 |
| 7 | Alien -33 |
| 8 | Monty Python and the Holy Grail - 381???? |
| 9 | Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind -73 |
| 10 | The Dark Knight -15 |
See the full post by clicking here...
Goal Line Technology: I'm no expert, but...
Since this is a sort of film related thing (very tenuously) I thought I'd chime in with my views on Goal Line technology in Football.
It's a thorny issue at the moment, especially with a referee earlier this week awarding a goal that wasn't even between the posts. A real shocker for him then. Thing is, I want to look at what happened next.
The Referee is told that the goal has gone in, he stops concentrating and signals the goal. In this case, the goalie pulls off a spectacularish save on the next shot. When he signals the goal, the ball is still in open play and the players are aghast to find a goal has been given.
We know the technology is there to see if the ball has gone in or not. That's not my issue - my point is, at what point should the referee stop play to look at video evidence? And if there's some sort of "ping" in his ear to tell him it's over then what if he's distracted? Or doesn;t hear it cos some overpaid fool is shouting at him?
Let's look at this week's example. If he stops play the instant the linesman gives the signal, then the attacking team lose the opportunity to take their shot while the ref checks if it was really a goal. If he blows his whistle he is stopping play at a crucial moment, just on the off-chance it's gone in.
So my question and issue with the introduction of goal line technology is not one of the technology involved, its one of "when is this decision supposed to take place?"
There is some talk of "hawkeye" system being used, which seems to be the favoured option, leading to the aforementioned "ping" in the ear. I'm not sure I like that option for previously stated reasons. A short noise is all to easy to miss, and then we're back where we started.
The one option absolutely out of the question is that of "retrospective action", such as the suggestion of replaying the match (which incidentally, Steve Coppell, coach of the benefitting team was happy with). For a start, there simply isn't time to replay matches. Secondly, it's the start of a slippery slope. Any team when a decision is overturned could claim it significantly changed how they played for the rest of a game (especially true with sendings off, like John Terry's overturned red card against Manchester City) and demand that the game be replayed. It just wouldn't work.
I doubt my regular readers will be much bothered by this, but there's my two cents worth, anyhow. I promise not to talk too much about sport in he future.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's a thorny issue at the moment, especially with a referee earlier this week awarding a goal that wasn't even between the posts. A real shocker for him then. Thing is, I want to look at what happened next.
The Referee is told that the goal has gone in, he stops concentrating and signals the goal. In this case, the goalie pulls off a spectacularish save on the next shot. When he signals the goal, the ball is still in open play and the players are aghast to find a goal has been given.
We know the technology is there to see if the ball has gone in or not. That's not my issue - my point is, at what point should the referee stop play to look at video evidence? And if there's some sort of "ping" in his ear to tell him it's over then what if he's distracted? Or doesn;t hear it cos some overpaid fool is shouting at him?
Let's look at this week's example. If he stops play the instant the linesman gives the signal, then the attacking team lose the opportunity to take their shot while the ref checks if it was really a goal. If he blows his whistle he is stopping play at a crucial moment, just on the off-chance it's gone in.
So my question and issue with the introduction of goal line technology is not one of the technology involved, its one of "when is this decision supposed to take place?"
There is some talk of "hawkeye" system being used, which seems to be the favoured option, leading to the aforementioned "ping" in the ear. I'm not sure I like that option for previously stated reasons. A short noise is all to easy to miss, and then we're back where we started.
The one option absolutely out of the question is that of "retrospective action", such as the suggestion of replaying the match (which incidentally, Steve Coppell, coach of the benefitting team was happy with). For a start, there simply isn't time to replay matches. Secondly, it's the start of a slippery slope. Any team when a decision is overturned could claim it significantly changed how they played for the rest of a game (especially true with sendings off, like John Terry's overturned red card against Manchester City) and demand that the game be replayed. It just wouldn't work.
I doubt my regular readers will be much bothered by this, but there's my two cents worth, anyhow. I promise not to talk too much about sport in he future.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Nah, forget her... Movie Musings: American Presidents in Film
I was going to rant about Sarah Palin today, but I feel that since I didn't, I have grown as a person.
So what to talk about instead?
All this talk of politics makes me think of 13 Days, a really good political movie (the plot of which is slightly more believable than real life, but then again so was DAVE!). Thing is, 13 Days concerns itself with JFK, the American's Diana, about whom no bad is ever spoken, and this film is no exception - sure, he's a difficult guy to read, and he sometimes seems a little lost, but he always is depicted as solidly moral and only wanting the best for everyone - there's never any sight of him just going off on one and freaking out, nor is there any hint of his rumoured womanising or other faults. It's set around the Cuban missile crisis, and despite having the ghastly Costner in it, the main performances are good enough to obscure KC's worse moments.
This respectful treatment is incredibly reminiscent of the whole Diana thing, where any downsides or flaws (e.g. she cheated on Charles just as much while he was cheating on her, publicly humiliated him, etc etc) were totally taboo subjects, and still are for many people.
And this is the right thing to do straight after the death of a major public figure,and neither of them were Satan in disguise, right?
My point is, contrast that with Hollywood's treatment of W (dubya, OK?), a soon to be released Oliver Stone picture in which the CURRENT PRESIDENT is going to be represented in all his gaffe prone, quotable glory. Now, given that no revisionist JFK film has been released to my knowledge (in which he's a total political bastard), isn't it incredible that a president is so displayed in a warts and all biopic? Oh, and who plays the big guy? Yep, it's current re-rising star and Mercedes Benz pretentious advertising figurehead Josh Brolin, who has been in an awful lot of good things lately (No Country For Old Men, for a start)
It took twenty years for NIXON to get the same treatment, for goodness sakes! He was even worse, too! Though unlike Anthony Hopkins in Nixon, Brolin is actually looking very much the spitting image of our world's (still) most powerful man. Other casting includes my favourite recent bit of casting (unlike that of Jude Law as Watson), they've only got bloody RICHARD DREYFUSS as DICK CHENEY! How good is that?
I'm sure we'd rather have an American president elected like Dave... or West Wing's Matt Santos... or 24's David Palmer for that matter. Hey... we may actually have a David Palmer as the next president. Democratic and Black? Where's Jack Bauer? I hope the terrorists haven't got his wife and kid again or Barack's gonna need some serious protection!
One thing I do know - this ridiculous American election is going to make a great movie some day. Even if Sarah Palin's stupid ignorant inexperienced face has to be in it. I'd call it "I Can See Russia From Here" or something.
OK... last fact I will say about Sarah Palin - she only got her US passport last year.
Oh, and advocates abstinence only sex-education when it clearly didn't work EVEN ON HER OWN CHILD!!! Jeez... and she's a serious candidate? Damn.. well, I tried to leave her alone.
As for my film idea, I see Parker Posey in the Palin role... what do you think? An elderly Bruce Willis as McCain?
What do you think?
A
P.S. THIS ARTICLE on The Onion is a lot more funny than me, hence me dropping the "slag off Sarah Palin" article. I almost died laughing in the "counterpoint"section. Hint: Count the word "Down".
See the full post by clicking here...
So what to talk about instead?
All this talk of politics makes me think of 13 Days, a really good political movie (the plot of which is slightly more believable than real life, but then again so was DAVE!). Thing is, 13 Days concerns itself with JFK, the American's Diana, about whom no bad is ever spoken, and this film is no exception - sure, he's a difficult guy to read, and he sometimes seems a little lost, but he always is depicted as solidly moral and only wanting the best for everyone - there's never any sight of him just going off on one and freaking out, nor is there any hint of his rumoured womanising or other faults. It's set around the Cuban missile crisis, and despite having the ghastly Costner in it, the main performances are good enough to obscure KC's worse moments.
This respectful treatment is incredibly reminiscent of the whole Diana thing, where any downsides or flaws (e.g. she cheated on Charles just as much while he was cheating on her, publicly humiliated him, etc etc) were totally taboo subjects, and still are for many people.
And this is the right thing to do straight after the death of a major public figure,and neither of them were Satan in disguise, right?
My point is, contrast that with Hollywood's treatment of W (dubya, OK?), a soon to be released Oliver Stone picture in which the CURRENT PRESIDENT is going to be represented in all his gaffe prone, quotable glory. Now, given that no revisionist JFK film has been released to my knowledge (in which he's a total political bastard), isn't it incredible that a president is so displayed in a warts and all biopic? Oh, and who plays the big guy? Yep, it's current re-rising star and Mercedes Benz pretentious advertising figurehead Josh Brolin, who has been in an awful lot of good things lately (No Country For Old Men, for a start)
It took twenty years for NIXON to get the same treatment, for goodness sakes! He was even worse, too! Though unlike Anthony Hopkins in Nixon, Brolin is actually looking very much the spitting image of our world's (still) most powerful man. Other casting includes my favourite recent bit of casting (unlike that of Jude Law as Watson), they've only got bloody RICHARD DREYFUSS as DICK CHENEY! How good is that?
I'm sure we'd rather have an American president elected like Dave... or West Wing's Matt Santos... or 24's David Palmer for that matter. Hey... we may actually have a David Palmer as the next president. Democratic and Black? Where's Jack Bauer? I hope the terrorists haven't got his wife and kid again or Barack's gonna need some serious protection!
One thing I do know - this ridiculous American election is going to make a great movie some day. Even if Sarah Palin's stupid ignorant inexperienced face has to be in it. I'd call it "I Can See Russia From Here" or something.
OK... last fact I will say about Sarah Palin - she only got her US passport last year.
Oh, and advocates abstinence only sex-education when it clearly didn't work EVEN ON HER OWN CHILD!!! Jeez... and she's a serious candidate? Damn.. well, I tried to leave her alone.
As for my film idea, I see Parker Posey in the Palin role... what do you think? An elderly Bruce Willis as McCain?
What do you think?
A
P.S. THIS ARTICLE on The Onion is a lot more funny than me, hence me dropping the "slag off Sarah Palin" article. I almost died laughing in the "counterpoint"section. Hint: Count the word "Down".
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Movie Review: The People Vs. Larry Flynt
8/10
Mikos Forman, director of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest and Amadeus, only makes films when he REALLY likes the script. This film concerns the exploits of the eponymous head of the Hustler empire, played with considerable skill by Woody Harrelson.
It's a film about whether boundaries can be put on free speech and also a ilm that debates the question of whose responsibility it is to make decisions about being exposed to extreme viewpoints (in this case, that a full shot of a lady's reproductive system is an important contribution to the newstands).
Whatever your views on pornography, the issues the film deals with are very much wider than simple censorship - should there be boundaries on free speech? Is avoiding felt emotional distress more important than the right to satirise major public figures? Or should those public figures roll with the punches since being in public office has satire in the job description?
All the relationships in the movie revolve around one - the love (genuine love, one feels) between Flynt and his wife, Althea (played with surprising skill by Courtney Love, of all people) and, despite the polygamous set-up of their marriage, sticks with him through thick and thin, even after he loses the use of his legs.
It also provides another run out for Ed Norton (rapidly and unintentionally becoming a regular featured artist in my reviews) who once again is excellent in the role of Flynt's lawyer. This role is actually representative of three lawyers in the true story, but movies are forced to blend characters together to get some through line.
It's a fascinating story, and with performances like those in it, it knocks on the door of becoming a classic picture. That it doesn't is primarily to do with the playing of several bits for broad laughs (movie fact: they considered Bill Murray for the lead) - it's fair enough since Flynt was by all accounts totally over the top and silly in all his court appearances, but it is genuinely tough to sympathise at times with the spoilt millionaires playing up in court and stuff. This coupled with occasional blunders from Love's performance just keep it from being as good as it could have been for me.
That being said, it's a really fine film and one that I believe may grow in my estimation with time - this was my second viewing and I was pleased to see it was as good as I remembered.
So see it, and think about the issues - is it right to say that you don't have to like porn to believe in the right to publish it?
Until next time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Mikos Forman, director of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest and Amadeus, only makes films when he REALLY likes the script. This film concerns the exploits of the eponymous head of the Hustler empire, played with considerable skill by Woody Harrelson.
It's a film about whether boundaries can be put on free speech and also a ilm that debates the question of whose responsibility it is to make decisions about being exposed to extreme viewpoints (in this case, that a full shot of a lady's reproductive system is an important contribution to the newstands).
Whatever your views on pornography, the issues the film deals with are very much wider than simple censorship - should there be boundaries on free speech? Is avoiding felt emotional distress more important than the right to satirise major public figures? Or should those public figures roll with the punches since being in public office has satire in the job description?
All the relationships in the movie revolve around one - the love (genuine love, one feels) between Flynt and his wife, Althea (played with surprising skill by Courtney Love, of all people) and, despite the polygamous set-up of their marriage, sticks with him through thick and thin, even after he loses the use of his legs.
It also provides another run out for Ed Norton (rapidly and unintentionally becoming a regular featured artist in my reviews) who once again is excellent in the role of Flynt's lawyer. This role is actually representative of three lawyers in the true story, but movies are forced to blend characters together to get some through line.
It's a fascinating story, and with performances like those in it, it knocks on the door of becoming a classic picture. That it doesn't is primarily to do with the playing of several bits for broad laughs (movie fact: they considered Bill Murray for the lead) - it's fair enough since Flynt was by all accounts totally over the top and silly in all his court appearances, but it is genuinely tough to sympathise at times with the spoilt millionaires playing up in court and stuff. This coupled with occasional blunders from Love's performance just keep it from being as good as it could have been for me.
That being said, it's a really fine film and one that I believe may grow in my estimation with time - this was my second viewing and I was pleased to see it was as good as I remembered.
So see it, and think about the issues - is it right to say that you don't have to like porn to believe in the right to publish it?
Until next time!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Movie Review: Cronos
7/10
Let me be straight with you, this is a really good film. It's not for everyone.
Seems a shame to go into the plot and spoil it for everyone - the little I will say about that is that it concerns a girl and her grandfather who make a strange discovery in an old statue. Thing is, a dying billionaire and his son are looking for exactly the same thing, and will stop at nothing to get it. What are they after? That would be telling.
This is Guillermo Del Toro's first feature film - I do like his films as I have said before - this is no exception, and features the excellent Federico Luppi (who impressed me in The Devil's Backbone) as the grandfather in question.
The performances are universally excellent and again, despite the surreal and occasionally horrific story, Del Toro's usual trick of making horrific material without ending up with a genre horror picture is in evidence again. The main and most important performances in the film are those of the grandfather and his grandchild, and it is pretty much by these characters that the film lives or dies.
Luckily the acting is very good on both parts, the girl's character is particularly well acted despite saying absolutely nothing for 99% of the movie, she manages to outact virtually every Hollywood child performance you will usually see.
The supporting cast is up to the challenge too, with fantastic turns from all concerned, especially from Ron Perlman, who is a mainstay of Del Toro's movies and a far better actor than his usual casting implies.
The movie is all about the fear of death and our obsession with it. The fact that noone can avoid their eventual fate is the main point. The colour palette is heavily influenced by the Hammer and Italian Horror films that are the directors passion, lots of hyper-red blood and really really black, blacks. This adds to the surreal nature of the film, and that is the thing, as horror films go, it's not reallty all that horrifc - it's surreal, creepy and a bit melancholy but not pant wettingly scary.
This is a fine start for Del Toro, and he has gone on from here to become something of a rising star is Hollywood - the line from here to Pan's Labyrinth is very easy to draw. His next projects include The Hobbit and for once I am not worried about the change of director from Lord Of The Rings, especially since Peter Jackson and his collaborators Fran and Philippa are still involved.
So, should you see Cronos? I'm not really sure that I can say yes, as it entirely depends on what you are expecting. If you know Del Toro's work and enjoyed it, then I would heartily say yes. If you are expecting a horror movie, then no. It's neither scary enough or bloody enough to warrant such a tag, and many may view the box art (which features an image nowhere in the movie) and certificate as misleading. I enjoyed it, but I think the slow pace and relationship based story may put some off. Hence 7/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Let me be straight with you, this is a really good film. It's not for everyone.
Seems a shame to go into the plot and spoil it for everyone - the little I will say about that is that it concerns a girl and her grandfather who make a strange discovery in an old statue. Thing is, a dying billionaire and his son are looking for exactly the same thing, and will stop at nothing to get it. What are they after? That would be telling.
This is Guillermo Del Toro's first feature film - I do like his films as I have said before - this is no exception, and features the excellent Federico Luppi (who impressed me in The Devil's Backbone) as the grandfather in question.
The performances are universally excellent and again, despite the surreal and occasionally horrific story, Del Toro's usual trick of making horrific material without ending up with a genre horror picture is in evidence again. The main and most important performances in the film are those of the grandfather and his grandchild, and it is pretty much by these characters that the film lives or dies.
Luckily the acting is very good on both parts, the girl's character is particularly well acted despite saying absolutely nothing for 99% of the movie, she manages to outact virtually every Hollywood child performance you will usually see.
The supporting cast is up to the challenge too, with fantastic turns from all concerned, especially from Ron Perlman, who is a mainstay of Del Toro's movies and a far better actor than his usual casting implies.
The movie is all about the fear of death and our obsession with it. The fact that noone can avoid their eventual fate is the main point. The colour palette is heavily influenced by the Hammer and Italian Horror films that are the directors passion, lots of hyper-red blood and really really black, blacks. This adds to the surreal nature of the film, and that is the thing, as horror films go, it's not reallty all that horrifc - it's surreal, creepy and a bit melancholy but not pant wettingly scary.
This is a fine start for Del Toro, and he has gone on from here to become something of a rising star is Hollywood - the line from here to Pan's Labyrinth is very easy to draw. His next projects include The Hobbit and for once I am not worried about the change of director from Lord Of The Rings, especially since Peter Jackson and his collaborators Fran and Philippa are still involved.
So, should you see Cronos? I'm not really sure that I can say yes, as it entirely depends on what you are expecting. If you know Del Toro's work and enjoyed it, then I would heartily say yes. If you are expecting a horror movie, then no. It's neither scary enough or bloody enough to warrant such a tag, and many may view the box art (which features an image nowhere in the movie) and certificate as misleading. I enjoyed it, but I think the slow pace and relationship based story may put some off. Hence 7/10.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Why no movie reviews?
Yeah... er, I've been a bit lax on the reviewage recently and I thought some explanation was in order. I (shock horror) haven;t seen a film for a week. A whole week. I'm starting to feel withdrawal symptoms.
It's all this looking for a job nonsense that gets in the way of the more fun things in life, like watching films or spending time in the recording studio (which I did today) so my apologies.
Of course, the other reason I had less time is because I actually did two days on set this week which is brilliant. Next thing you know, they'll actually PAY US for the Walkers Crisps ad we did three months ago. That would be something.
I am going to rectify the situation by watching Guillermo Del Toro's CRONOS tomorrow. I'll have a review posted soon after (after washing up! you read regularly, right?)
Cheers and thanks for your patience!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It's all this looking for a job nonsense that gets in the way of the more fun things in life, like watching films or spending time in the recording studio (which I did today) so my apologies.
Of course, the other reason I had less time is because I actually did two days on set this week which is brilliant. Next thing you know, they'll actually PAY US for the Walkers Crisps ad we did three months ago. That would be something.
I am going to rectify the situation by watching Guillermo Del Toro's CRONOS tomorrow. I'll have a review posted soon after (after washing up! you read regularly, right?)
Cheers and thanks for your patience!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
My little talents
Just thought I'd share with you that I spent three hours today impersonating Take That.
Not physically, but vocally.
Be impressed!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Not physically, but vocally.
Be impressed!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, September 19, 2008
Bizarre Casting
Guy Ritchie is making a Sherlock Holmes film.
He has cast Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes. Ok, a bit young, but a bit eccentric too and not too awful a bit of casting. He has proven his accent credentials already on Chaplin so no worries on that score (Downey's involvement worries me nowhere near as much as Guy Ritchie's, for example).
My beef is with today's rumour/news that he has cast JUDE LAW as Watson. That's right - Alfie.
Look, if you want to save your career, Mrs Madonna, I would suggest that casting turkey bait like Jude Law is about the worst thing you can do. I mean, the comedy version with Will Ferrell will be certainly dreadful, but seriously, can it be any stranger than casting the star of The Holiday as a divorced Doctor down on his luck? Maybe Guy got confused because Law was in Sleuth? Or perhaps he was the person who enjoyed Sky Captain and The World Of Tomorrow (2/10) (the only film I have turned off halfway through for TEN YEARS)
Plus, how young are you casting here? If I recall my Holmes, they meet when both already middle aged, if not later - are you trying to "sex up" Sherlock? Next thing we'll have Jason Statham as "Moriar'y" and see him "'aving a giraffe" on the Reichenbach Falls. All you then need to do is add a buxom blonde love interest for Holmes and I will have to shoot you. Actually, I bet Jennifer Ellison is free.
I am starting to think Ritchie can do no right.
Or maybe it's just that for me Jeremy Brett IS Holmes. I can't read any of the books without recalling his portrayal - or that of grey haired, mustachioed Dr Watson (sorry, can't remember the actor's name). Johnny Depp.... now wouldn't that be interesting... if only I had Tim Burton's number and a couple of hundred million dollars.
So, what is the strangest casting you guys can remember?
Bad casting that comes to mind (or maybe just odd casting) is for me (and Mrs Algo) the decision to have King Henry VIII played by both Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Eric Bana, two actors who bear very little resemblance to the "big hairy king". Sure, he is reputed to have been quite a hottie in his youth, but by the time these films are set he was verging on portly and more like Mike Ashley than Michael Douglas. Plus, and lets face it, Henry VIII was a ginge. Now, good ginger actors are indeed thin on the ground but you could at least throw a bone to Damien Lewis?
Never mind all the other historical inaccuracies that populate these shows - this casting is just weird.
Hey, I am not the man to judge their attractiveness, and they may be really good in the role (I have seen neither the Tudors or The Other Boleyn Girl) but this just seemed odd.
Over to you, occasional and single-digit numbered readers - comments and opinions below as usual.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
He has cast Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes. Ok, a bit young, but a bit eccentric too and not too awful a bit of casting. He has proven his accent credentials already on Chaplin so no worries on that score (Downey's involvement worries me nowhere near as much as Guy Ritchie's, for example).
My beef is with today's rumour/news that he has cast JUDE LAW as Watson. That's right - Alfie.
Look, if you want to save your career, Mrs Madonna, I would suggest that casting turkey bait like Jude Law is about the worst thing you can do. I mean, the comedy version with Will Ferrell will be certainly dreadful, but seriously, can it be any stranger than casting the star of The Holiday as a divorced Doctor down on his luck? Maybe Guy got confused because Law was in Sleuth? Or perhaps he was the person who enjoyed Sky Captain and The World Of Tomorrow (2/10) (the only film I have turned off halfway through for TEN YEARS)
Plus, how young are you casting here? If I recall my Holmes, they meet when both already middle aged, if not later - are you trying to "sex up" Sherlock? Next thing we'll have Jason Statham as "Moriar'y" and see him "'aving a giraffe" on the Reichenbach Falls. All you then need to do is add a buxom blonde love interest for Holmes and I will have to shoot you. Actually, I bet Jennifer Ellison is free.
I am starting to think Ritchie can do no right.
Or maybe it's just that for me Jeremy Brett IS Holmes. I can't read any of the books without recalling his portrayal - or that of grey haired, mustachioed Dr Watson (sorry, can't remember the actor's name). Johnny Depp.... now wouldn't that be interesting... if only I had Tim Burton's number and a couple of hundred million dollars.
So, what is the strangest casting you guys can remember?
Bad casting that comes to mind (or maybe just odd casting) is for me (and Mrs Algo) the decision to have King Henry VIII played by both Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Eric Bana, two actors who bear very little resemblance to the "big hairy king". Sure, he is reputed to have been quite a hottie in his youth, but by the time these films are set he was verging on portly and more like Mike Ashley than Michael Douglas. Plus, and lets face it, Henry VIII was a ginge. Now, good ginger actors are indeed thin on the ground but you could at least throw a bone to Damien Lewis?
Never mind all the other historical inaccuracies that populate these shows - this casting is just weird.
Hey, I am not the man to judge their attractiveness, and they may be really good in the role (I have seen neither the Tudors or The Other Boleyn Girl) but this just seemed odd.
Over to you, occasional and single-digit numbered readers - comments and opinions below as usual.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, September 18, 2008
My bad luck
Finally I got a casting for a booze advert, after ages of trying to find work, and I draw the ultimate short straw in group auditions. I had to go first, without any time for preparation or relaxation.
Never mind that the "script" was appalling, but I had absolutely no time to prepare, I didn't even know what the advert was for, let alone what I was supposed to be doing. Needless to say you won't be seeing me on TV any time soon.
I wasn't really expecting to get the job, but it would be nice to get an equal opportunity.
Ah well.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Never mind that the "script" was appalling, but I had absolutely no time to prepare, I didn't even know what the advert was for, let alone what I was supposed to be doing. Needless to say you won't be seeing me on TV any time soon.
I wasn't really expecting to get the job, but it would be nice to get an equal opportunity.
Ah well.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
To Vote or not to vote?
Right, the Americans have got their election coming up, and if you believe the press our next one is pretty much over already.
It is my opinion that it is the fundamental duty of every member of a democracy to vote in every election.
Many of you will say that you don't vote (more than half usually). The reasons for this are many, apathy, disliking all the candidates, got hit by a bus etc etc.
Aside from the last one these views are nonsense. Even me, at the height of anhedonic depression, found the time to walk the five minutes to my polling station and vote in the last London mayoral election. Apathy is simply another word for laziness. Many people would GENUINELY rather stay in and watch TV or drink beer or eat some more cereal than apply one of the most fundamental rights we have. It's sad but true, and I don't really see what I can do to get those people interested. That of course doesn't reduce the number of the EXACT SAME people moaning about the government who DID get in at every opportunity, despite their non-participation.
I have even less time for the other argument, the "none of the candidates are any good" argument. An election is all about you having your say as to which candidate you want elected, not whether they are exactly what you want! Sure, it's a sad situation when you have to choose between racists, Eton old boys, corrupt foils, lame duck figureheads and the like - but election day is NOT the time to state this annoyance. There is ample opportunity, even in the most deprived of areas, to put forward your agenda, to drum up support and get things done. Success in these cases is a function of EFFORT.
This is of course the thing; it's just plain easier to sit around and moan about how you're not represented by any of the political parties out there rather than actually do anything about it. Sure it's hard folks, but it's always the extreme ends of the scale who try hardest. Look at the maniacs in the BNP. If people as insane as that can drum up support with empty promises and good old fashioned lies then surely someone like you can get some support with genuine effort?
It's sad that people view this as being just too hard. But it's even worse when despite the fact they can't be bothered to get involved earlier in the process, they moan about the results of their apathy.
No candidate will be perfect. As an example in the last London mayoral election the choice was between Ken, Brian and Boris. Now, my preference here was complicated, Ken had been a fairly popular mayor for years, but his methods were a little questionable and was seen as possibly corrupt; Brian, while keen, clearly couldn't debate his way out of a brown paper bag; whereas Boris was seen as a laughable buffoon, a frivolous celebrity candidate, an unknown quantity.
None of them was really my idea of an ideal Mayor.
The argument of those I have described is simple. Don't vote.
Well screw that. I had a "least worst" from the candidates and voted for them. In the situation where no-one fits the bill exactly, then just vote for the one who'll do the best job, Goldilocks! The reason for this is democracy is all about your opinion. The question is not, "Who is the best mayor" it is "who, out of these guys, do you want to run your city?"
The thing is, a minority opinion is an awful thing to have from an election. Many people made an awful lot of the low turnouts at the last general election saying that the government didn't have a mandate from the people since so few wanted it in place.
I say if those people wanted someone else so badly they should have voted for them. Simple, really. All that not voting showed was that they didn't care which way it went.
What does not voting achieve? Does it make a point?
Well, no. There's no register of why you didn't vote, so your non-vote means the same as the drug addict dying in a doorway's, or the lazy unemployed guy sitting in front of the TV. Absolutely nothing.
The reason, pre-election, why no-one seems to be speaking to you guys may well be because there's no point! You don't vote, so why should anyone expend an inordinate amount of effort trying and win your non-vote?
Simply put; no-one has ever changed anything by doing nothing.
Next election of any kind. If you don't usually vote - seriously think about why, and what this inaction really means for the election. If you don't vote, you have ZERO right to moan about the outcome - you should have made some noise months earlier.
Whatever you decide, I hope you are happy with your decision and understand exactly what it really says to those in power.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It is my opinion that it is the fundamental duty of every member of a democracy to vote in every election.
Many of you will say that you don't vote (more than half usually). The reasons for this are many, apathy, disliking all the candidates, got hit by a bus etc etc.
Aside from the last one these views are nonsense. Even me, at the height of anhedonic depression, found the time to walk the five minutes to my polling station and vote in the last London mayoral election. Apathy is simply another word for laziness. Many people would GENUINELY rather stay in and watch TV or drink beer or eat some more cereal than apply one of the most fundamental rights we have. It's sad but true, and I don't really see what I can do to get those people interested. That of course doesn't reduce the number of the EXACT SAME people moaning about the government who DID get in at every opportunity, despite their non-participation.
I have even less time for the other argument, the "none of the candidates are any good" argument. An election is all about you having your say as to which candidate you want elected, not whether they are exactly what you want! Sure, it's a sad situation when you have to choose between racists, Eton old boys, corrupt foils, lame duck figureheads and the like - but election day is NOT the time to state this annoyance. There is ample opportunity, even in the most deprived of areas, to put forward your agenda, to drum up support and get things done. Success in these cases is a function of EFFORT.
This is of course the thing; it's just plain easier to sit around and moan about how you're not represented by any of the political parties out there rather than actually do anything about it. Sure it's hard folks, but it's always the extreme ends of the scale who try hardest. Look at the maniacs in the BNP. If people as insane as that can drum up support with empty promises and good old fashioned lies then surely someone like you can get some support with genuine effort?
It's sad that people view this as being just too hard. But it's even worse when despite the fact they can't be bothered to get involved earlier in the process, they moan about the results of their apathy.
No candidate will be perfect. As an example in the last London mayoral election the choice was between Ken, Brian and Boris. Now, my preference here was complicated, Ken had been a fairly popular mayor for years, but his methods were a little questionable and was seen as possibly corrupt; Brian, while keen, clearly couldn't debate his way out of a brown paper bag; whereas Boris was seen as a laughable buffoon, a frivolous celebrity candidate, an unknown quantity.
None of them was really my idea of an ideal Mayor.
The argument of those I have described is simple. Don't vote.
Well screw that. I had a "least worst" from the candidates and voted for them. In the situation where no-one fits the bill exactly, then just vote for the one who'll do the best job, Goldilocks! The reason for this is democracy is all about your opinion. The question is not, "Who is the best mayor" it is "who, out of these guys, do you want to run your city?"
The thing is, a minority opinion is an awful thing to have from an election. Many people made an awful lot of the low turnouts at the last general election saying that the government didn't have a mandate from the people since so few wanted it in place.
I say if those people wanted someone else so badly they should have voted for them. Simple, really. All that not voting showed was that they didn't care which way it went.
What does not voting achieve? Does it make a point?
Well, no. There's no register of why you didn't vote, so your non-vote means the same as the drug addict dying in a doorway's, or the lazy unemployed guy sitting in front of the TV. Absolutely nothing.
The reason, pre-election, why no-one seems to be speaking to you guys may well be because there's no point! You don't vote, so why should anyone expend an inordinate amount of effort trying and win your non-vote?
Simply put; no-one has ever changed anything by doing nothing.
Next election of any kind. If you don't usually vote - seriously think about why, and what this inaction really means for the election. If you don't vote, you have ZERO right to moan about the outcome - you should have made some noise months earlier.
Whatever you decide, I hope you are happy with your decision and understand exactly what it really says to those in power.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, September 15, 2008
Quick movie review: First Wives Club
4/10
Ok, lets deal with the important issue first. Why was a guy like me watching a chick flick like this considering he doesn't even like Atonement?
Sunday afternoons tend to feature an inordinate amount of room tidying, a pastime reserved normally for one of the circles of hell and lightened only by the guilty pleasues strand on filmfour.
Sadly, contrary to my recollection this movie isn't much cop. I mean, what is meant to be a fun feminist romp turns into a long winded pseudo-moral moanfest as the three leads take on the mission of ruining their ex husbands.
i've nothing against that since all of the straight men in this film are portrayed as crooks or bastards. To reach a new low, they even blackmail one of the husbands with his inadvertent statutory rape, as if avoiding jail and giving money to charity makes up for rape!
Ah yes. The charity. On watching the film again the whole thing was a lot more obviously an attempted sleight of hand by the writers as if to say 'its ok! They have been selfish the whole movie but now they've started a charity instead'
Needless to say they only do this once they've got what they wanted. Real charitable, ladies.
Oh, and the charity is a guilt trip. They lost a friend who committed suicide afetr her husband left her because she was so lonely (the oher girls didn't feel charitable at the time, it seems.
sigh... And noone should have a waistband as high as diane keaton in this film.
The only reason i can cope with the movie at all is that the supporting cast are good (if broadly drawn - there's even a mobster called Carmine) and you get to see sarah jessica parker's original body. And her nose.
Other than that, i think its themes have dated badly and its leads are average at best (goldie hawn even messes up a part clearly based on herself.
Thumbs down
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Ok, lets deal with the important issue first. Why was a guy like me watching a chick flick like this considering he doesn't even like Atonement?
Sunday afternoons tend to feature an inordinate amount of room tidying, a pastime reserved normally for one of the circles of hell and lightened only by the guilty pleasues strand on filmfour.
Sadly, contrary to my recollection this movie isn't much cop. I mean, what is meant to be a fun feminist romp turns into a long winded pseudo-moral moanfest as the three leads take on the mission of ruining their ex husbands.
i've nothing against that since all of the straight men in this film are portrayed as crooks or bastards. To reach a new low, they even blackmail one of the husbands with his inadvertent statutory rape, as if avoiding jail and giving money to charity makes up for rape!
Ah yes. The charity. On watching the film again the whole thing was a lot more obviously an attempted sleight of hand by the writers as if to say 'its ok! They have been selfish the whole movie but now they've started a charity instead'
Needless to say they only do this once they've got what they wanted. Real charitable, ladies.
Oh, and the charity is a guilt trip. They lost a friend who committed suicide afetr her husband left her because she was so lonely (the oher girls didn't feel charitable at the time, it seems.
sigh... And noone should have a waistband as high as diane keaton in this film.
The only reason i can cope with the movie at all is that the supporting cast are good (if broadly drawn - there's even a mobster called Carmine) and you get to see sarah jessica parker's original body. And her nose.
Other than that, i think its themes have dated badly and its leads are average at best (goldie hawn even messes up a part clearly based on herself.
Thumbs down
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Quick Movie Review: Metropolis
10/10
Why a quick review of a film I have given 10/10 to? Well, this particular film is so well covered by other sources, its imagery is well known and it is hailed as a classic piece of cinema by almost everyone.
So this is primarily just to give my response to this film. Why is it nigh perfect? Well - you can't usually use the same criteria to judge a film from this period usually - it's silent German Sci Fi for goodness sake.
However, this particular example of silent cinema is a true lone giant. Its images are all so wonderfully imagined and realised and its story has such resonance today- the encroachment of technology on more spiritual ideals, in this case religion and ironically enough, socialism - that it deserves a permanent place in the lists of truly great films.
Fritz Lang is well known as a giant of German cinema. Films such as "M" are just unbelievably good given the now obvious limitations of the form at that time. Metropolis not only overcomes these limitations but also blows them out of the water. Some of it is lost but mostly it is looking great after all these years. Hooray for digital.
The plot is that the spoilt son of the leader of our crazy future dystopia is captivated by a woman and goes in search of her, while the leader tries his best to maintain control over the populace with the help of the requisite mad scientist.
It, for me, is almost unique in films in that however good it starts it just keeps getting better, better and better. Things spin out of control as the despot tries to manipulate the mob as an excuse to impose martial law (sound familiar?) and events reach a riot based crescendo.
It's truly brilliant, and I hear now that the missing footage may have been found and this is great great news. The only downside for me is i kept expecting to see Freddie Mercury come round a corner and sing "Radio Ga Ga" all the time.
So do see it. I think it is without doubt a true classic, and well deserves the "as close to perfect as it gets" tag I have given it.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Why a quick review of a film I have given 10/10 to? Well, this particular film is so well covered by other sources, its imagery is well known and it is hailed as a classic piece of cinema by almost everyone.
So this is primarily just to give my response to this film. Why is it nigh perfect? Well - you can't usually use the same criteria to judge a film from this period usually - it's silent German Sci Fi for goodness sake.
However, this particular example of silent cinema is a true lone giant. Its images are all so wonderfully imagined and realised and its story has such resonance today- the encroachment of technology on more spiritual ideals, in this case religion and ironically enough, socialism - that it deserves a permanent place in the lists of truly great films.
Fritz Lang is well known as a giant of German cinema. Films such as "M" are just unbelievably good given the now obvious limitations of the form at that time. Metropolis not only overcomes these limitations but also blows them out of the water. Some of it is lost but mostly it is looking great after all these years. Hooray for digital.
The plot is that the spoilt son of the leader of our crazy future dystopia is captivated by a woman and goes in search of her, while the leader tries his best to maintain control over the populace with the help of the requisite mad scientist.
It, for me, is almost unique in films in that however good it starts it just keeps getting better, better and better. Things spin out of control as the despot tries to manipulate the mob as an excuse to impose martial law (sound familiar?) and events reach a riot based crescendo.
It's truly brilliant, and I hear now that the missing footage may have been found and this is great great news. The only downside for me is i kept expecting to see Freddie Mercury come round a corner and sing "Radio Ga Ga" all the time.
So do see it. I think it is without doubt a true classic, and well deserves the "as close to perfect as it gets" tag I have given it.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Quick Movie Review: Volver
8/10
Yes. I think its a better film than Atonement.
Volver is an oddity. A foreign language film in a glorious super coloured world, with a leading lady straight out of my more inappropriate dreams and a ghost flecked plot. This had a lot going for it from the start.
Raimunda (Penelope Cruz) is right at the centre of things when protecting her daughter leads her into a new freedom and a second chance to start her life. She grasps the opportunity with both hands. Thing is, she recently lost her mother and father in a fire, but her auntie insists mummy is still around and.... baking!
That the film resists any temptation to drop into guardian angel territory is to its credit, as is almost every single acting performance. The story is patently ridiculous, but heartwarmingly rather than irritatingly so. Overall this is a fine example of how to make a small scale movie; time is taken to establish every character and events move on to a more than satisfying conclusion.
In a word; tasty.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Yes. I think its a better film than Atonement.
Volver is an oddity. A foreign language film in a glorious super coloured world, with a leading lady straight out of my more inappropriate dreams and a ghost flecked plot. This had a lot going for it from the start.
Raimunda (Penelope Cruz) is right at the centre of things when protecting her daughter leads her into a new freedom and a second chance to start her life. She grasps the opportunity with both hands. Thing is, she recently lost her mother and father in a fire, but her auntie insists mummy is still around and.... baking!
That the film resists any temptation to drop into guardian angel territory is to its credit, as is almost every single acting performance. The story is patently ridiculous, but heartwarmingly rather than irritatingly so. Overall this is a fine example of how to make a small scale movie; time is taken to establish every character and events move on to a more than satisfying conclusion.
In a word; tasty.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Atonement
7/10
It's been a long day of work for me here, what with all the posts from earlier and finally getting someone to give me a day's work on Monday. At least I always have my blog as a cheapish outlet for sounding off.
Right... Atonement.
Firstly, I haven't just given it a lower mark than, say, Michael Clayton, because Keira Knightley's in it. That may have had an effect on my enjoyment (she is the Colatterlie Sisters of movies as far as I'm concerned) but after rationalisation the point has been restored.
The acting is patchy. Miss Knightley is her usual vapid clothes hanger self, James McAvoy does a pretty good job of a tough part, and most of the supporting cast are ghastly stereotypes (poshies, housekeepers and the stern but generous matron). The real star of this film, and its central character is that of Briony (who, unlike the big names, is tiny on the films cover and posters) who is a budding writer and is seeing very edited highlights of the other two leads flirting and falling in love. Everything I enjoyed in this film (saving Dunkirk) was Briony based, from her first misunderstanding to sitting by a dying man's bedside.
So good is the casting of this character that she goes through three ages in the film (Saoirse Ronan plays her at 13, Romala Garai at 18 and Vanessa Redgrave at old age) and all of them are convincingly the same person physically. Of the three, despite the difficulty and obstacles, Ronan is the standout performance. Of course, she gets the best bit of the movie to herself but she seizes it with both hands and succeeds in utterly destroying the other child actors (seemingly hired from a remake of The Box Of Delights) followed swiftly by outperforming all the other actors on screen. Good job, young lady!
Her story is done extremely well, and the 18 year old Briony is convincingly haunted by the decision she made about in act 1 and we see the consequences of in act 2.
Tragedy is a hard thing to do properly. Do it too quickly and it becomes trite, do it too slowly and it becomes tiring. Then you've got the risk of coming over as Oscar baiting cynical costume drama tripe ).
While Atonement doesn't quite feel THAT contrived, the film for me fails to provide a good sense of convincing tragedy. It comes on too strong with how horribly unjust the whole situation is, and then double barrels you with it AGAIN AND AGAIN right up to the end. Like Titanic before it, every compounding of tragedy on tragedy, injustice upon injustice, just ground down what little involvement I had left and I was actually quite grateful when the Redgrave bit ended so I could go back to thinking about the bits that I enjoyed so much earlier on.
It's a film, then, of two halves. This is ironic since the whole film centres around a divide. The love across divide story has been around for thousands of years. Nothing too bad about that since billions of stories use such predicaments as their starting point. This particular divide is a class one - Keira Knightley's Cecilia is in love with the housekeeper's son.
However, no-one really seems to mind much - this is the early twentieth century after all and things class war-esque were starting to shift inexorably to our current virtually class war free existence. When it does matter though, all those feelings of class superiority come flooding back and for some inane reason the word of a small upper class girl is worth more than even the most basic police investigation is. Realistic? I couldn't possibly say, but this is the absolutely crucial conceit of the film - that Briony genuinely holds the future of her sister and her lover in her hands and does exactly the wrong thing.
I have no problem with this conceit. It's utterly essential that Briony realises she misused the power she had when she could have done the right thing - otherwise there is no Atonement to name the film after.
Nah - my real problems with the film start after this first section (which I really enjoyed, leading lady aside) when we move into the "War" section. This feels like, intentionally I am sure, a very different beast of a film. The famous tracking shot of Dunkirk is marvellous and really quite affecting - especially having worked as an extra and knowing that only one guy has to not be paying attention and the whole thing is screwed. Great work to the 3rd and 4th ADs on that one!
The film decides at this point to pummel and pummel and pummel its point into you: these two lovers should be together. BUT LOOK WHAT THE BAD GIRL DID!
We know... we saw, guys!
Every moment does this, every hallucination of the very peaky Robbie, every cow faced sigh from Keira is calculated to hammer the point home again and again. BAD GIRL! BAD GIRL!
Damn it! We Know! Give the audience some credit!
Look, the story I am interested in (Briony's) is being distracted from by these two repeating themselves over and over. Instead of heightening the tragedy, it had the effect on me of blunting it, of leading me to the conclusion that rather than being great tragic lovers, Robbie and Cecilia are actually a little self indulgent, and that is the wrong emotion to induce in your audience.
I know in this case I am in the minority. I probably have a heart of stone. I know many of you will disagree until you're blue in the face and that is your right, but Atonement's stars actually nearly ruined the movie for me. Not because it was Keira and James specifically, but because the laws of movie making require your marquee names to be on screen as often as possible.
If half the scenes with Robbie and Cecilia were gone and we had the film basically as Briony's perspective of events I would have enjoyed it a lot more, but the sheer star wattage undermines the main thrust of the picture, that one decision that destroyed everyone's lives forever, even Briony's. I should be honourbound at this point to say that I have not read the book on which this is based, and multiple narratives in a book will surely work much better than trying to shoehorn them into the screen.
So, is it any good? Yes. It's very good. As stated above, I have certain issues with the film-makers decisions, but most people should enjoy it. It's beautifully shot and the production design is excellent, if you're into your historical accuracy the horses fate on the beaches of Dunkirk will impress you too. It's a good film.
Now, this is the reason for the 7 - I am egomaniacal enough to think that maybe some people worldwide will agree with me over my primary issues, and since these reviews are my opinion I'd have thought you'd allow me that conceit. So the film is very good (a 7 these days still means very good) but these issues meant it couldn't, for me, get anything higher than the 7 I gave it.
But hey,what does my opinion matter? If you loved it, great! Why not tell me why? Comments and opinions below as always.
A
P.S. If you don't know who Collaterlie Sisters is, (shame on you!) she was the business presenter on Chris Morris' biting satirical classic spoof news programme, "The Day Today", and the quote from him on handing over to her in episode one was "turn off the monitors I don't want to see her face" and when it cuts back to him he puts down an UZI he was inexplicably holding. I hope that explains that reference.
She basically had a monologue that was random words and numbers strung together ("The one was up an eighth against the fifth, across a third" sort of thing)
See the full post by clicking here...
It's been a long day of work for me here, what with all the posts from earlier and finally getting someone to give me a day's work on Monday. At least I always have my blog as a cheapish outlet for sounding off.
Right... Atonement.
Firstly, I haven't just given it a lower mark than, say, Michael Clayton, because Keira Knightley's in it. That may have had an effect on my enjoyment (she is the Colatterlie Sisters of movies as far as I'm concerned) but after rationalisation the point has been restored.
The acting is patchy. Miss Knightley is her usual vapid clothes hanger self, James McAvoy does a pretty good job of a tough part, and most of the supporting cast are ghastly stereotypes (poshies, housekeepers and the stern but generous matron). The real star of this film, and its central character is that of Briony (who, unlike the big names, is tiny on the films cover and posters) who is a budding writer and is seeing very edited highlights of the other two leads flirting and falling in love. Everything I enjoyed in this film (saving Dunkirk) was Briony based, from her first misunderstanding to sitting by a dying man's bedside.
So good is the casting of this character that she goes through three ages in the film (Saoirse Ronan plays her at 13, Romala Garai at 18 and Vanessa Redgrave at old age) and all of them are convincingly the same person physically. Of the three, despite the difficulty and obstacles, Ronan is the standout performance. Of course, she gets the best bit of the movie to herself but she seizes it with both hands and succeeds in utterly destroying the other child actors (seemingly hired from a remake of The Box Of Delights) followed swiftly by outperforming all the other actors on screen. Good job, young lady!
Her story is done extremely well, and the 18 year old Briony is convincingly haunted by the decision she made about in act 1 and we see the consequences of in act 2.
Tragedy is a hard thing to do properly. Do it too quickly and it becomes trite, do it too slowly and it becomes tiring. Then you've got the risk of coming over as Oscar baiting cynical costume drama tripe ).
While Atonement doesn't quite feel THAT contrived, the film for me fails to provide a good sense of convincing tragedy. It comes on too strong with how horribly unjust the whole situation is, and then double barrels you with it AGAIN AND AGAIN right up to the end. Like Titanic before it, every compounding of tragedy on tragedy, injustice upon injustice, just ground down what little involvement I had left and I was actually quite grateful when the Redgrave bit ended so I could go back to thinking about the bits that I enjoyed so much earlier on.
It's a film, then, of two halves. This is ironic since the whole film centres around a divide. The love across divide story has been around for thousands of years. Nothing too bad about that since billions of stories use such predicaments as their starting point. This particular divide is a class one - Keira Knightley's Cecilia is in love with the housekeeper's son.
However, no-one really seems to mind much - this is the early twentieth century after all and things class war-esque were starting to shift inexorably to our current virtually class war free existence. When it does matter though, all those feelings of class superiority come flooding back and for some inane reason the word of a small upper class girl is worth more than even the most basic police investigation is. Realistic? I couldn't possibly say, but this is the absolutely crucial conceit of the film - that Briony genuinely holds the future of her sister and her lover in her hands and does exactly the wrong thing.
I have no problem with this conceit. It's utterly essential that Briony realises she misused the power she had when she could have done the right thing - otherwise there is no Atonement to name the film after.
Nah - my real problems with the film start after this first section (which I really enjoyed, leading lady aside) when we move into the "War" section. This feels like, intentionally I am sure, a very different beast of a film. The famous tracking shot of Dunkirk is marvellous and really quite affecting - especially having worked as an extra and knowing that only one guy has to not be paying attention and the whole thing is screwed. Great work to the 3rd and 4th ADs on that one!
The film decides at this point to pummel and pummel and pummel its point into you: these two lovers should be together. BUT LOOK WHAT THE BAD GIRL DID!
We know... we saw, guys!
Every moment does this, every hallucination of the very peaky Robbie, every cow faced sigh from Keira is calculated to hammer the point home again and again. BAD GIRL! BAD GIRL!
Damn it! We Know! Give the audience some credit!
Look, the story I am interested in (Briony's) is being distracted from by these two repeating themselves over and over. Instead of heightening the tragedy, it had the effect on me of blunting it, of leading me to the conclusion that rather than being great tragic lovers, Robbie and Cecilia are actually a little self indulgent, and that is the wrong emotion to induce in your audience.
I know in this case I am in the minority. I probably have a heart of stone. I know many of you will disagree until you're blue in the face and that is your right, but Atonement's stars actually nearly ruined the movie for me. Not because it was Keira and James specifically, but because the laws of movie making require your marquee names to be on screen as often as possible.
If half the scenes with Robbie and Cecilia were gone and we had the film basically as Briony's perspective of events I would have enjoyed it a lot more, but the sheer star wattage undermines the main thrust of the picture, that one decision that destroyed everyone's lives forever, even Briony's. I should be honourbound at this point to say that I have not read the book on which this is based, and multiple narratives in a book will surely work much better than trying to shoehorn them into the screen.
So, is it any good? Yes. It's very good. As stated above, I have certain issues with the film-makers decisions, but most people should enjoy it. It's beautifully shot and the production design is excellent, if you're into your historical accuracy the horses fate on the beaches of Dunkirk will impress you too. It's a good film.
Now, this is the reason for the 7 - I am egomaniacal enough to think that maybe some people worldwide will agree with me over my primary issues, and since these reviews are my opinion I'd have thought you'd allow me that conceit. So the film is very good (a 7 these days still means very good) but these issues meant it couldn't, for me, get anything higher than the 7 I gave it.
But hey,what does my opinion matter? If you loved it, great! Why not tell me why? Comments and opinions below as always.
A
P.S. If you don't know who Collaterlie Sisters is, (shame on you!) she was the business presenter on Chris Morris' biting satirical classic spoof news programme, "The Day Today", and the quote from him on handing over to her in episode one was "turn off the monitors I don't want to see her face" and when it cuts back to him he puts down an UZI he was inexplicably holding. I hope that explains that reference.
She basically had a monologue that was random words and numbers strung together ("The one was up an eighth against the fifth, across a third" sort of thing)
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, September 12, 2008
Entertaining Movie Rant Poll Comments Thread
This is a thread for you to add comments (on the site please) about the first poll, "Most entertaining Algo Movie Rant"
Please add whatever comments, encouragement, future nominations and responses you wish.
Cheers
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Please add whatever comments, encouragement, future nominations and responses you wish.
Cheers
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
