tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32209429749271844122024-02-21T08:17:31.684+00:00Freethinking: a journal of popular culture .Welcome to Freethinking which will include dvds, rock music, graphic novels, science fiction,horror,etc.
Freethinking supports anything which promotes true equality irrespective of gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, etc.
Caution: contains the occasional rude word, strong views on religion and politics, and will probably upset those of an intolerant disposition.
His cat rescue blog can be found at
http://catrescuesunderland.blogspot.com/IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.comBlogger625125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-4504424332773146702014-09-11T12:56:00.000+01:002014-09-11T12:56:46.108+01:00BLUEPRINT FOR A SANE SOCIETY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
Don't expect anything too complicated
as I'm not that kind of a thinker. What follows isn't an argument so
much as a series of statements. Take from it what you will.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
1. The <b>S</b><b>tate</b> exists to
serve the society it nominally governs. It has a duty to its
citizens. It has It has a duty to behave ethically.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
2. <b>Citizens</b> have a duty to the
community of which they are a part.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
All else follows from that.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<b>Capitalism</b> works. This is an
undisputed fact. Unrestrained Capitalism doesn't. It results in a
movement towards self-perpetuating monopolies whose function is to
keep perpetuating. The State, therefore, in the interests of its
citizens should put restraints on Capitalism where it is deemed
necessary to the point that it works for society and not against it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
In the interests of its citizens, the
State should control: <b>land transport, water, </b><b>health </b><b>and
education</b>. The benefits of the first two are obvious, the third
and fourth require further explanation.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
All <b>education</b> should be free
from nursery to university. The function of education is to create an
informed citizen who has the necessary resources for whatever role(s)
they choose in society. Because education is the responsibility of
the State there will be no private schools, either religious or
secular, which result in the promotion of divisiveness or elitism.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<b>Healthcare</b> must be free to all
and to whatever degree is necessary. Private healthcare must not
detract from State healthcare.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
Because of the vagaries of the
capitalist-based economic system, the State must be prepared to
<b>support</b> those who can not find work. In turn, the unemployed
will be expected to voluntarily perform community work as part of
their duty to their community (see above).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
The State has a duty to care for the
<b>environment</b> so that future generations do not live in one
degraded. Similarly it should ensure that animals are not cruelly and
unnecessarily exploited.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
The individual has
the right to a <b>lifestyle</b> of their choosing so long as it does
not impact negatively on others.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<b>Freedom of speech is absolute.</b>
No organisation or ideology, secular or religious, shall be immune
from criticism, mockery, or satire. Nothing is sacrosanct in so far
as the use of freedom of speech does not transgress laws of libel and
slander or actively promote harm to other citizens.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<b>Final thought:</b> it is more
rewarding on every level to do good than to do harm</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-90053900271874158952014-08-08T11:12:00.004+01:002014-08-08T11:12:54.687+01:00TV: IS NEW SCI-FI DRAMA SERIES "THE 100" THE DUMBEST DRAMA SERIES ON TV?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Answer: probably not but it has to come close and I'll tell you why after the obligatory picture.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://fairreviews.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-100-Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://fairreviews.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-100-Poster.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm halfway through watching the first series and it's been renewed for a second so it's obviously popular. Hell, I keep watching it even though it annoys the piss out of me so it has to have something. Intelligence and logic, however, aren't among its dubious virtues.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's nearly a hundred years since a nuclear war ruined the planet. Humanity -all 2,400 of it- lives in the <b>Ark</b>, a merged conglomeration of space stations called the ark and systems are failing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Notable Stupidity 1</b>: There is only one child allowed per family which means every succeeding generation is half the size of the previous one which would pretty much lead to the extinction of the human race in a couple of hundred years.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However in order to control the population growth, not that it's necessary as we've established that that wouldn't happen, any crime is punishable by death -thrown out of the airlock- for adults 18 and over.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Notable Stupidity 2-4</b>: As systems are failing they need to establish if it's possible to survive on Earth so they send down one hundred under 18's who have committed crimes. Rather than send down a small trained crew, well-armed with lots of devices to check radiation levels, etc, they send down the most inexperienced people possible, with no weapons or other means of survival, and only the location of a place where they could find stuff they need to survive. These are also mostly the dumbest people as they've committed crimes in a tightly controlled system where it's hardly possible to get away with any infraction. They have no radio, only wrist bands which transmit a signal that the wearer is still alive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Something to consider</b>: given that there are thousands of spy satellites currently orbiting the planet, you'd imagine that some could still be working, or that the habitat would have some of its own -toss it out of the airlock with a small propulsion system to get it to the right altitude and there you go.It really is hard to believe that being so close to the Earth (see below) they've no way of telling what it's like.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Something else to consider</b>: given that systems are failing and that within a relatively short space of time life on the Ark will be impossible, it might not be a bad idea to tell people and give them the short of going to Earth. If it can't sustain life then the humanity is finished anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No matter, down to Earth the 100 go and find themselves crashed some distance from the safe place but, surprise surprise, life seems to be thriving even if they do see a deer with two faces, one of them deformed. The kids themselves act stupidly, selfishly, thoughtlessly, and only a handful seem to be intelligent and sensible with the ability to think more than five minutes ahead. This also means that the title should change from episode to episode as there aren't even a hundred left by the end of the first one.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, our gang of 100, counting down, 99, is dominated by a bad kid (who'll probably be redeemed eventually) who declares there are no rules and no leaders, not even him, though of course he is, so they can all do anything they like (unless he doesn't like it). He also decides to smash the wrist bands (whether the wearer likes it or not) so everybody on the Ark thinks they've died. Our hero, sorry heroine, sets off with a handful of not so stupid kids to try and get to the haven only to find there are people (? -we haven't actually seen any yet) who will shoot arrows into strangers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this week's episode, for reasons I can't be arsed to go into, our 93, 92, counting down, have to fire rockets so as to let the Ark know that they aren't dead. Conveniently the Ark is either in a geosynchronous orbit right above where the kids went down and can't be more than a couple of hundred miles above the surface (in which case, why does it take hours to reach ground?) or is conveniently right above the spot where the rockets are fired from.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm sure there's more stupidity to come so, as I continue to keep watching the show, I may do an update or a sequel. But for now, having just watched <b>Veronica Mars: the Movie,</b> I'm resuming watching <b>Veronica Mars Seasons 1-3</b> where I find plenty of intelligence, wit, and interesting characters, plus really good acting for a teen drama.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzhBEt45b0wdLYGzR3R4n4dauFenV02iujMSkyM6SnneNEZPDuWj7wXdlpSZrjJSKSmde8wtQI8uF3t_K_CEWJr7c3wxekTv0Od549ZiEWV4rM9hx6jdvY-wYH_Nwv8U54uUmpHEcv6CHl/s1600/The-100-Season-1-Episode-4-08_595_slogo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzhBEt45b0wdLYGzR3R4n4dauFenV02iujMSkyM6SnneNEZPDuWj7wXdlpSZrjJSKSmde8wtQI8uF3t_K_CEWJr7c3wxekTv0Od549ZiEWV4rM9hx6jdvY-wYH_Nwv8U54uUmpHEcv6CHl/s1600/The-100-Season-1-Episode-4-08_595_slogo.jpg" height="394" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>PS.</b> What does the post-holocaust Earth look like? Answer: a Canadian rain forest as seen in countless other American TV series (but not Veronica Mars).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-11919744171483924362014-08-07T08:29:00.001+01:002014-08-07T08:29:19.644+01:00FILM REVIEW: GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Meet-The-Guardians-of-the-Galaxy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Meet-The-Guardians-of-the-Galaxy.jpg" height="330" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So who needs a review of this movie from me? It's the summer blockbuster. It's been, mostly, glowingly reviewed all over the place. The only people who haven't heard of it are those completely uninterested in new films in the cinema. So what can I say about it that hasn't been said already? Probably nothing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But that's never stopped me before.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First off, it's got all the depth of a blank sheet of cheap paper. It's a pure popcorn movie. It also happens to be a very well done superior popcorn movie which is pretty much what I expected. Director and co-writer <b>James Gunn</b> hasn't done a lot of stuff but I've seen most of it -<b>Tromeo and Juliet</b> (writer, for Troma, and head honcho <b>Lloyd Kaufman</b> gets a cameo in GOTG), <b>Dawn of the Dead</b> (writer, the surprisingly good remake of the classic George Romero film), <b>Slither </b>(writer/director, excellent horror-comedy), and <b>Super</b> (writer/director, a dark look at an ordinary but obsessed man who dresses up as a superhero to get his wife back)- so I was expecting him to come up with a really good movie and he did. He's now hero of the month just as <b>Joss</b> <b>Whedon </b>was with <b>The Avengers </b>a couple of years back and it's nice to see someone with real talent and a geek sensibility getting some deserved acclaim. But then I would because his stuff touches so many of my cultural and movie bases.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what's good and what's less good about it? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First let's skip all the action scenes, particularly the space battles, of which there too many, if well done, and also the rather frenetic pace which can be a little hard going at times.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The good guys get all the good dialogue, especially the witty lines. the bad guys are very bad and very humourless. The women tend to get short-changed. While <b>Karen Gillan</b> proves she can be an effective bad guy/girl she's largely wasted. <b>Zoe Saldana</b> is okay but not as interesting as her other heroes. Yes, even less interesting than a walking plant with a three word vocabulary but then it's not what he says as how <b>Groot </b>says it and he delivers the film's most poignant line when he changes a personal pronoun near the end. <b>Rocket</b>, the angry furry experimented-on bipedal creature is great and, like Groot, you forget he's a cgi creation. Wrestler <b>Dave</b> <b>Bautista </b>has won a lot of fans with his portrayal of the revenge-obsessed <b>Drax </b>who completely fails to understand the concept of metaphor. <b>Chris Pratt </b>has vaulted to the status of superstar with his layered witty <b>Peter Quill</b> aka <b>Starlord </b>("Who calls him that?" "He does."). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All the heroes (except Groot unless I missed it) get their back stories slotted in albeit often rapidly or info-dumped.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film is also packed with excellent actors in either supporting or cameo roles including <b>Michael Rooke</b>r, <b>Benicio Del Toro</b>, British character actor <b>Christopher Fairbank</b> (who's in it for more than the one scene I was expecting) and many more including <b>Nathan Fillion </b>as the voice of a one-scene cgi character who gets two of Groot's fingers up his nose. It's the sort of film that, on DVD, film buffs and geeks (like myself) will be pausing to check the background details for in-jokes, esoteric references, and easter eggs, and replaying scenes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I've got minor quibbles but I enjoyed it a lot and I'll probably like it even more when I can follow all the dialogue on the DVD (hooray for subtitles) as, because of the frequencies used for cinema viewing, I tend to miss odd bits.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/guardians-galaxy-nebula-karen-gillan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/guardians-galaxy-nebula-karen-gillan.jpg" height="330" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://scifimafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/rocket-and-groot-560x282.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://scifimafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/rocket-and-groot-560x282.jpg" height="322" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-60310499864687436612014-07-29T18:45:00.002+01:002014-07-29T18:45:44.147+01:00DVD REVIEW: VIDEO NASTIES: THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE 2.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.brutalashell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/video-nasties-ii.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.brutalashell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/video-nasties-ii.jpg" height="640" width="464" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="crVerifiedStripe"><span class="tiny verifyWhatsThis"></span></span>
<br />
<div class="tiny" style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="h3color tiny">The Amazon review.</span><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Video-Nasties-Definitive-Limited-Edition/dp/B00KE2BWE2/ref=cm_aya_orig_subj"></a></b>
</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, here we are again horror fans and enemies
of censorship for anyone over 18. And it does indeed seem like we've
been here before. Of course it's a good place to be, no doubt about
that, but the fact remains that it's a familiar place.<br /><br />I may be
wrong but this feels very much like the material, the content, was
compiled at the same time as this DVD's predecessor and omitted simply
for space reasons. The locations of the guest reviewers are the same
and, though I haven't checked, I wouldn't be surprised if they were
wearing the same clothes. The story does, of course, continue with the
films that the powers that be thought were<b> video nasties</b> but probably
couldn't get a jury to convict them so, fuzz, confiscate any you think
you can get away with. It also highlights idiots like David Alton MP
instead of Mary Whitehouse and the stupid fuss over <b>Child's Play 3</b>.<br /><br />The
best parts are the critics' perceptive and witty introductions to the
films themselves and they usually contain so much footage it's hardly
worth watching the actual trailers.<br /><br />I loved the original documentary, this one I just liked quite a bit. But then we all know about sequels, don't we?</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Further comments.</b></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
If find issues of censorship to be fascinating because censors are almost always invariably wrong, particularly in the case of the so-called video nasties. The original furore was superbly analysed in the first documentary which is essential viewing for anyone interested in censorship, not just in film. This sequel takes the story on a little further which looks at the films which the authorities couldn't ban because they'd already been passed by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification/Censorship) albeit often with cuts, but which the authorities had decidedly uneasy feelings about so encouraged the fuzz to confiscate stock from video stores. Films like <b>John Carpenter's The Thing. </b>The reaction of anyone who has seen this film is -you what? Yes, it is scary and gruesome but it's fantasy violence. There is no way on earth that it could deprave or corrupt anyone. There are no women in it so no sexual violence. Quite often, as the reviewers point out, a film was nicked because they either didn't like the title, the way the distributors publicised it (emphasising horror that just wasn't there) or without even watching it all the way through. </div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
It's worth noting that most of the original video nasties have now been released uncut in the UK. One, <b>Contamination </b>(contains mild unsadistic disembowelling) with a <b>15 </b>rating. The few that remain either banned or noticeably cut involve either animal cruelty or hard sexual violence (or both). And yet civilisation hasn't crumbled. How strange. </div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
Now I should come clean here and state that I haven't seen most of the original nasties or those included in this second volume and that despite being an avid lover of horror movies. The reason for this is that the type of horror I prefer contains elements of science fiction, fantasy, the supernatural, but, most importantly, monsters. While I've seen a few slasher movies, most of them didn't do much for me. I certainly don't like films which have explicit sexual violence or violence against women (like many of the cannibal movies do).</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
Glancing at a couple of shelves of DVDs near me, all I can see in the horror genre are <b>The Evil Dead Trilogy</b> and a couple of movies by cult Italian director <b>Mario Bava</b> including his superb and still scary as heck 60s anthology film <b>Black Sunday </b>(not to be confused with his <b>Black Sabbath </b>his 1960 b/w scary almost as heck vampire movie). </div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
What gets me about would be censors, such as David Alton MP and James Ferman of the BBFC, is their arrogance and elitism. Their attitude is: <i>I have seen these films and while they have not affected me (superior middle/upper class person that I am) they could clearly affect lower class and lesser intelligent adults who lack my ability to discriminate between fiction and reality, therefore I must protect these inferior beings (not that I'd ever admit to thinking of them as such) in order to prevent their baser natures becoming inflamed by the violence and sexuality as seen in these films.</i> An attitude to which I can only respond by saying, "Fuck you, asshole!" </div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
Sorry about that, just my baser nature coming out.</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
Another reason to get this DVD is because of the informed, perceptive and often witty and lengthy introductions to the trailers by critic, writers, and academics such as Alan Jones (who seems to have known everyone in Brit Horror for the last forty years) and the always congenial Kim Newman, though there are several more and all very good too.</div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="reviewText" style="text-align: justify;">
Oh all right, let me lay my position on the line in case I haven't been clear enough: <span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>FUCK THE CENSORS!</b></span> (As painfully as possible.)</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-68209088143034478082014-07-06T18:26:00.000+01:002014-07-06T18:26:20.025+01:00DVD REVIEW: CLOUD ATLAS (2012)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.davidbelbin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/cloud_atlas_quad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.davidbelbin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/cloud_atlas_quad.jpg" height="424" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I actually bought the Blu-ray months ago but for some reason, possibly its length (172mins), possibly it's assumed complexity, I kept putting it off.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Idiot!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Okay, I was confused somewhat by it at first but it wasn't long before it clicked and I got it. It actually isn't that complicated it's just a matter of understanding the structure. There are six individual narratives presented in chronological order of the their internal events. These narratives are intercut with each other so that, while the stories are very different, each sheds light on and affects the others. The intercutting is one of the things that makes this film so amazing and if it didn't it should have got masses of awards for editing. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The acting is outstanding. Tom Hanks gets the best of it because he's in it most, or it seems like it, though it's very much an ensemble piece. He plays a vile seagoing rogue in the historical slavery sequence, a London gangster turned author in the present, a sleazy hotel owner, a primitive with a guilty secret living in the aftermath of worldwide collapse, and more. Hugo Weaving appears as a recurring villain most notably in the contemporary comedic sequence as the brutal (female!) nurse of an old peoples' home from which Jim Broadbent is trying to escape. We all know that Halle Berry is a good actress (still underrated in my opinion) and she delivers the goods as a crusading journalist in the early days of feminism (the 70's) in an almost Shaft-noir type thriller and in the farthest future setting as a woman from a dying but high tech society trying to contact extra-planet colonies; again, and more. And all that is just the tip of the iceberg.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A weakness is that it can too easy to be distracted by trying to work out who the actor is under layers of makeup -Hugh Grant playing a 70-something and a heavily tattooed and scarred future savage cannibal, for example, and in the latter case, I assume, for no reason other than it's a very good joke (though the two characters are not as dissimilar as it might appear). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Characters can play variations of their nature throughout their different lives and, for at least one, there is a final salvation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The dialogue is literate which is no surprise coming from a complex literary modern novel as it does. The technical aspects and the photography are exemplary.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Am I stating the obvious when I say that I loved this film and intend to watch it again soon in the expectation that I'll enjoy it even more?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it is a film which polarises people. For everyone who, like myself, find it bold and daring and a near-masterpiece there will be others who consider it boring and a case of the Emperor's new clothes -they're wrong of course- but give it a chance and find out for yourselves.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(I've come to the end of this review and I haven't mentioned directors Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski who created this fascinating original film. Shame on me.) </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://iamnotanexpert.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/faces.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://iamnotanexpert.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/faces.jpg" height="470" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2012/06/Cloud-Atlas-2012-Movie-Banner-Poster-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2012/06/Cloud-Atlas-2012-Movie-Banner-Poster-3.jpg" height="334" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.impawards.com/2012/posters/cloud_atlas_ver9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.impawards.com/2012/posters/cloud_atlas_ver9.jpg" height="334" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.10wallpaper.com/wallpaper/1920x1080/1211/Cloud_Atlas_Movie_HD_Desktop_Wallpaper_02_1920x1080.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.10wallpaper.com/wallpaper/1920x1080/1211/Cloud_Atlas_Movie_HD_Desktop_Wallpaper_02_1920x1080.jpg" height="360" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://righteousfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Halle-Berry-and-Keith-David-in-Cloud-Atlas-2012-Movie-Image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://righteousfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Halle-Berry-and-Keith-David-in-Cloud-Atlas-2012-Movie-Image.jpg" height="424" width="640" /></a></div>
I could go on.</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-77510134905279475962014-07-02T19:56:00.001+01:002014-07-02T19:59:38.833+01:00THE ANNOTATED VIEW FROM MY COUCH<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For absolutely no reason whatsoever other than my own amusement (I've an odd sense of humour) I decided to take a series of photos of things I can see when sitting on my couch today at 7.00pm. I may do a followup of things I can see from my computer chair (it swivels round so there'll be more than just the computer screen).</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzZikUvxueOjQ5zGIucgJPsKfi6Teg7xNu7eEqeQjNSiGGqHMt0bTbm5CQxDv1ekQ5-nr8VaphRXdfnFnk0ru0CAKyhjdF7uqk1sHQ2Q48J1K80vjwvSGr8m4egV3MyiRkZeELg5C-gpg/s1600/P1050151.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzZikUvxueOjQ5zGIucgJPsKfi6Teg7xNu7eEqeQjNSiGGqHMt0bTbm5CQxDv1ekQ5-nr8VaphRXdfnFnk0ru0CAKyhjdF7uqk1sHQ2Q48J1K80vjwvSGr8m4egV3MyiRkZeELg5C-gpg/s1600/P1050151.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
My young cat Emma sitting in the bay window. If it wasn't her it would be one of six others.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizSvEXQAk38BxJie9Rr1XUYbrEqfNuA5VlsX2cUCQnZumaLa6LTV1nISuFuo5S9DbIhX54pYTjmi3WXgxLT6d83mFkeKodt8V4LxYhwc_IUGvN27dSo8oFfAukBHJV02vcBohRpzujhTI/s1600/P1050152.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizSvEXQAk38BxJie9Rr1XUYbrEqfNuA5VlsX2cUCQnZumaLa6LTV1nISuFuo5S9DbIhX54pYTjmi3WXgxLT6d83mFkeKodt8V4LxYhwc_IUGvN27dSo8oFfAukBHJV02vcBohRpzujhTI/s1600/P1050152.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
My fireplace. I'll comment on certain items in later photos. I like cream painted walls. Cats can't scratch paint like they can wallpaper, though they can be hell on gloss.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdm3GNeh0rhnuhK-4e6qFZe4GMzvkmC_CXT5cuE27f6GaW9lcbvzD0_44eWzeuzBeYaJzkgSzad-gEWowu9BmwInrcC2DmnFGqZnu1phrbN37zOztRyrJ0lVU1KQ3ylZ5Etlg8oEDk2xc/s1600/P1050153.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"> <img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdm3GNeh0rhnuhK-4e6qFZe4GMzvkmC_CXT5cuE27f6GaW9lcbvzD0_44eWzeuzBeYaJzkgSzad-gEWowu9BmwInrcC2DmnFGqZnu1phrbN37zOztRyrJ0lVU1KQ3ylZ5Etlg8oEDk2xc/s1600/P1050153.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
Computer, desk, and CD shelving unit. Is that stating the obvious?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_OTkXbRkAbN026fjmJlyw9RyBcPBmiyeV8rnpxutdGOnaat6P_KEISSGjD4CjFS2kCoBLRdgnuFDAO0mdjdlzrctxCLJKvhBdme8CB04GQ75IbUhzqCDB4Faxu93T7CBPnbJU3XzLhDg/s1600/P1050154.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_OTkXbRkAbN026fjmJlyw9RyBcPBmiyeV8rnpxutdGOnaat6P_KEISSGjD4CjFS2kCoBLRdgnuFDAO0mdjdlzrctxCLJKvhBdme8CB04GQ75IbUhzqCDB4Faxu93T7CBPnbJU3XzLhDg/s1600/P1050154.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
The conservatory with kitten. Intended as a place for me to sit in the sun and either doze or read, it has been permanently taken over by kittens to be re-homed and by fostered cats (ditto). I've never used it for anything else.<br />
<br />
The next few photos are closeups of things previously seen.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYZZHoOitT9O4hEcGaVd2efFZRM6VukEV6-n1bi5U-gr6okNwYns0b4PXzigAF8RN_jQsjtR3Bi3Sb2jxfZHw6DRERLGzwT_i2Zffmj18A4EAW4dK2X7imigooXBccqXGKkYIjVTG_Q5k/s1600/P1050157.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYZZHoOitT9O4hEcGaVd2efFZRM6VukEV6-n1bi5U-gr6okNwYns0b4PXzigAF8RN_jQsjtR3Bi3Sb2jxfZHw6DRERLGzwT_i2Zffmj18A4EAW4dK2X7imigooXBccqXGKkYIjVTG_Q5k/s1600/P1050157.JPG" height="320" width="640" /></a></div>
Comment superfluous.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1OY7f7vBmrwkWWWU9pN4BT1XzeMqLMXK7bTIhKarKGJJsfzwqWcmBxeSOn6DNuw1aC439cyhWYB13r4BjbHpYomxzQiCpzMgYslYi5SJzO4JdxlPtwlJR1nTuQoghc2H7sGHYu1ZNcxw/s1600/P1050155.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1OY7f7vBmrwkWWWU9pN4BT1XzeMqLMXK7bTIhKarKGJJsfzwqWcmBxeSOn6DNuw1aC439cyhWYB13r4BjbHpYomxzQiCpzMgYslYi5SJzO4JdxlPtwlJR1nTuQoghc2H7sGHYu1ZNcxw/s1600/P1050155.JPG" height="170" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My mantlepiece which I'm in the process of re-organising. Far left is a figurine of <b>Gollum</b> from vol 3 of the Lord of the Rings de luxe box set which was previously on the hearth. I moved to counterpoint the newly acquired figurine (with several points of articulation) of <b>Godzilla </b>modelled on the 2014 film. It cost £25 and if that seems a lot you should look up Godzilla figurines on Ebay and prepare for a shock. The film itself was reviewed a couple of posts ago in this blog. Here's a closeup.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwucOUtqKbPoD04Cirxby73rrJy7ZyQz64ewYrKLQboLTxoIDRUxv5IaqnMj3yKn2VUYu23tyxWU_UvzqFk0EFoFURwT9nJmTcMkXeqnvmeFGkynmtZKEK5UzO8y4vFAXOKTGTCWYDZhE/s1600/20140702_193339.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwucOUtqKbPoD04Cirxby73rrJy7ZyQz64ewYrKLQboLTxoIDRUxv5IaqnMj3yKn2VUYu23tyxWU_UvzqFk0EFoFURwT9nJmTcMkXeqnvmeFGkynmtZKEK5UzO8y4vFAXOKTGTCWYDZhE/s1600/20140702_193339.jpg" height="470" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLp0FJW9HSKhBqarZC7MyEk3AdFyb_uHIIMHv4unIL2wWTepUb3w6NyvBaq_PSIjnI0FeW603zptfKvkQpQCZLzerQF8PVbd1yeDQ2MAsYQEU6jB5x83L1VTlF_eUAOJeVeLle1xMEJsM/s1600/P1050158.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLp0FJW9HSKhBqarZC7MyEk3AdFyb_uHIIMHv4unIL2wWTepUb3w6NyvBaq_PSIjnI0FeW603zptfKvkQpQCZLzerQF8PVbd1yeDQ2MAsYQEU6jB5x83L1VTlF_eUAOJeVeLle1xMEJsM/s1600/P1050158.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a><br />
There's something odd about this fireplace. I didn't realise it until a friend pointed it out a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4DYGb8lPm9q0f43yJVrz9rGMUAXVR7cwIQK1fMtedwbrzCRu4org9jbZHkkfjbtMmcPzWOB82W9aIrCHpiCMvPlR7mWeGKfLRvg0gF7gak6Y8-w0C39HVcRarVdDGxs0M4GwmLlc81K8/s1600/P1050159.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4DYGb8lPm9q0f43yJVrz9rGMUAXVR7cwIQK1fMtedwbrzCRu4org9jbZHkkfjbtMmcPzWOB82W9aIrCHpiCMvPlR7mWeGKfLRvg0gF7gak6Y8-w0C39HVcRarVdDGxs0M4GwmLlc81K8/s1600/P1050159.JPG" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
The painting are Japanese. They actually belonged to Susan but I liked them so much she let me have them when we split up. No, they aren't lopsided, it's just the way you're sitting.<br />
<br />
So that's my living room where I spend much of my time. Amateur psychologists can start psychoanalysing me- NOW!</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-6742712246404738702014-06-24T17:32:00.001+01:002014-06-24T17:32:54.558+01:00MUSIC: ROCK COMPILATION CDs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I rarely, if ever, listen to music in the house. Stupid really as I've a got a neat Bose CD player. But mostly it's on CD in the car or, less often when I'm not using the car but am out and about, on my Ipod. In the last few days while browsing Amazon I came across really cheap multi-disc (usually 3 but one has 5) Rock music compilations starting with <b>NME Classics: 61 Classic Tracks From The History of the NME</b> which I picked up second hand (around four quid and change including postage). As you'd expect, it's quite eclectic and mostly covers the 70's and 80's. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I thought this sounded a good idea and ordered a cheapo <b>like ne</b>w copy of <b>Ultimate Collection: Drivi</b><b>ng Rock 100 Hits</b>, a 5-disc set. When I came to play it/copy it to my PC, disc 5 turned out to coated with some white stuff and wouldn't (play that is) but it cleaned off okay. (I wonder if I should have sniffed it?) Now as someone who never does anything by halves, I also ordered (this time at only a fiver each through Prime -free postage) <b>Greatest Ever Soft Rock The Definitive Collection</b> (54 tracks) and <b>Latest and Great Guitar Heroes </b>(58 tracks, and included the name of the lead guitarist on the listing which was nice).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, 212 tracks and a total price that worked out at £1.00 for one hour of music which is pretty good value no matter how you look at it but given that the quality of the music is also pretty high and I only had a grand total of 8 tracks already duplicated in my collection then I really can't complain at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not that I'm going to let that stop me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, well maybe a tiny carp, a minnow-scule of a criticism but nothing really fishy. 31 of the 212 tracks are duplicated between the four sets, two particular tracks are shared by three of them which works out roughly at about 14%, so I'm really only getting 171 different tracks which I didn't have before. Considering they came from three different labels, that's not such a bad ratio and I wouldn't have not bought them all (probably) if I'd poured over the track listings before ordering. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As each individual CD has a running time of a minimum of 75 minutes (usually more) that works out at about 19 hours continuous playing time so I'll be listening to them in the car for quite a while. Plus, of the tracks I've heard in the past, there are none I dislike and as for the stuff I haven't I imagine I'll like quite a bit of it and may even lead me to investigate further. All in all a win-win.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I do still have one on order: <b>Greatest Ever Prog Rock The Definitive Collection</b>. I think there's a 2-track overlap and I'm surprised there's that many. As it's got <b>Owner of the Lonely Heart </b>on it I can now get rid of the <b>Yes </b>collection I picked up at our charity shop for coppers.<br />
<br />
Time to go for a ride I think. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/89461293/NME+Classics+00+++61+Classics+T.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/89461293/NME+Classics+00+++61+Classics+T.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-24150029304096925902014-06-03T16:59:00.001+01:002014-06-03T16:59:54.841+01:00FILM: GODZILLA (1954, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2014)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqkfOC3IACzkvEyLgMTsd6KSWUH-R2gc8Iu4FI7TtGiYwd0lOQUQN6672cM2c7muMzNPNM7bBe1pV-wto-k9gwO6r1VzyhKwEdDY01IGD7S4w3hXq2rDrKgtqDk_O66hyphenhyphenNajjZBDHVNpvV/s1600/Gojira1954.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqkfOC3IACzkvEyLgMTsd6KSWUH-R2gc8Iu4FI7TtGiYwd0lOQUQN6672cM2c7muMzNPNM7bBe1pV-wto-k9gwO6r1VzyhKwEdDY01IGD7S4w3hXq2rDrKgtqDk_O66hyphenhyphenNajjZBDHVNpvV/s1600/Gojira1954.jpg" height="640" width="456" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
(<b>Brief introduction</b>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I watched my first Japanese giant monster movie back in 1963 at a local flea pit. It was <b>The Thing</b> (one of the many titles of the first <b>Mothra</b> movie) and was rated X (no-one under 16 allowed) because the <b>British Board of Film Censors</b> thought giant monsters would upset children, despite mostly lacking the slightest trace of gore, when in fact they were its likely biggest audience. Since then I've seen most but not all of the Godzilla movies (maybe missing about three) and several other similar/related Japanese films like <b>Rodan</b>, etc. So I'm quite well versed in this eccentric subgenre.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b>The first problem with doing Godzilla seriously</b> is that you can only do it once and it's already been done back in 1954. There are two versions of this film, the Japanese original and the slimmed down with added Raymond Burr American version which is in every respect inferior to the film from which it was edited. <b>Gojira</b>, to give it its proper name, is a bleak movie in which the monster clearly symbolises the atomic bomb which had been used only nine years earlier on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cut from the American print are the quieter moments which focuses on individuals. One brief scene has a young mother in the rubble, while noise of destruction continues off-screen, cradling her young child and murmuring, "Hush, we'll be with your father soon." That is, not to put too fine a point on it, dead.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If you only see one Godzilla movie then this should be it. All the others pale in comparison and all you can do next is to make a series of giant monster fights. Rather than repeat giant monsters every other sentence, I'll use the Japanese term <b> kaiju </b>to stand for giant monsters and the giant monster sub-genre itself. That said, this post is actually a review of the new American British-directed version but after seeing it I felt like watching the most recent era of Japanese movies which run from 1999 (with <b>Godzilla 2000</b>) to 2005 (ending with <b>Godzilla: Final Wars</b> which, so far, it is, though the Japanese also whipped out <b>Godzilla 2000</b> after the critical disaster of the American <b>Godzilla 1998</b>) and have just completed doing so and will be commenting on, though I've also just got the Blu-ray of <b>Godzilla 1998 </b>which I'll watch before completing this post. And if I was speaking that sentence aloud I'd be out of breath by now. Let's take a breather anyway and look at some DVD covers.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A7V4AZZBL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A7V4AZZBL.jpg" height="400" width="272" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
On second thoughts, let's not. The new series of Godzilla is technically the best of the three eras, the special effects notably the models, the detailed miniatures and the kaiju themselves, with the puny humans being less irritating and/or boring. There is some use of cgi but it's carefully done and the kaiju are always, always, always, men in suits. Unless they're giant moths, flying skinny insects, or spiders, but including Mothra larvae. Of the first three, the best is easily the third with its multi-monsters and elements of mysticism, though there's always magic around when Mothra's involved as her spokesperson are two tiny women who hold hands all the time and speak in unison but aren't twins. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTIxMTM3ODMyMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTg2NTQyMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR1,0,214,317_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTIxMTM3ODMyMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTg2NTQyMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR1,0,214,317_AL_.jpg" height="400" width="270" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>This is one of the top 3 Godzilla movies ever. </b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b>The one below, not above! And there's a neat put down of Godzilla 1998</b>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHp5nGNMOZtx4DSQHWcgPIZsWZCHnSIzVaX9NQi5rjuu2UsAkS72J7DnIILt0Qsk8iFq0HcY58gxHUgNfaqqC9OShB3QYUbukYSUYl4lSNob4y3ReAjXQ68gkKgOnxfk1hqPMfpuiCpiIM/s1600/GMK.1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHp5nGNMOZtx4DSQHWcgPIZsWZCHnSIzVaX9NQi5rjuu2UsAkS72J7DnIILt0Qsk8iFq0HcY58gxHUgNfaqqC9OShB3QYUbukYSUYl4lSNob4y3ReAjXQ68gkKgOnxfk1hqPMfpuiCpiIM/s1600/GMK.1.jpg" height="640" width="544" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
A new incarnation of <b>Mechagodzilla</b> marked another revamp of Godzilla himself and <b>Tokyo S.O.S</b>. is a direct sequel albeit with mostly new characters. They're both reasonable fun and everyone's favourite giant moth is back but that's about it. <b>Godzilla: Final Wars,</b> however, has everything a G-fan would want (except Mechagodzilla) and, alas, even more.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://content9.flixster.com/movie/11/15/82/11158211_800.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://content9.flixster.com/movie/11/15/82/11158211_800.jpg" height="400" width="285" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2005/12/Godzilla-Tokyo-SOS-dvd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2005/12/Godzilla-Tokyo-SOS-dvd.jpg" height="400" width="281" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.affenheimtheater.de/cover_br/cover_godzilla_final_wars_jp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.affenheimtheater.de/cover_br/cover_godzilla_final_wars_jp.jpg" height="640" width="500" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
A group of young people have mutant genes making them faster, stronger, and more resistant to human damage than ordinary people. They're so tough that, with big guns, they can take down one of the lesser kaiju <b>Ebirah the monster lobster</b>. There's also a super-submarine that can fly and go underground as well as under the sea and a few years ago it took down Godzilla, burying him/her at the South Pole.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Just as well as a sneaky bunch of aliens have disguised themselves to look like humans, secretly unleash all the monsters from previous Godzilla movies, pretend to rescue the Earth from them, and also lie about wandering planet that's going to destroy Earth in a few years unless we co-operate with them. But really they're slimy ugly things who just want to eat us.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It looks like they've won but a small group of humans and mutants escape in supersub and free Godzilla who, with a little help from Mothra, takes on all the other monsters one, two, even three at a time. Godzilla 1998 version, here called <b>Zilla, </b>is casually brushed aside by the real one causing the villain to throw a tantrum for its being so tuna-eating useless.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It's big, dumb, stupid and didn't make as much money as everyone expected but I love it. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b>The second problem with doing Godzilla, if not seriously, but properly</b> is what to do about the puny humans and this where we come to-</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u670/alexleow81/Movies/GodzillaPoster2014_zpsabd604a1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u670/alexleow81/Movies/GodzillaPoster2014_zpsabd604a1.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b> -Godzilla 2014.</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
And that is the film's major weakness and has been pointed out by just about every reviewer so don't expect any devastatingly original insights from me here. With the exception of <b>Bryan Cranston</b> who gets offed somewhat under halfway through, you just don't give a flying fuck about any of the characters. They aren't annoying, they just aren't interesting. <b>Aaron Taylor Wotsisname </b>is <b>Soldier-technician solely concerned about getting back home to make sure his wife and son are okay</b>. While he gets involved in some fantastic set-pieces you just don't care about him as a person. <b>Ken Watanabe</b> is <b>Intensity-sama</b>, The lively vivacious British actress <b>Sally Hawkins</b> is <b>Ms Infodump,</b> <b>Elizabeth Olsen</b> is <b>Nurse Working-wife in Peril,</b> <b>Juliette Binoche</b> is <b>Mrs Blink and you'll miss her</b>, and none of the other characters raise even a remote flicker of interest.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Honestly, all the Japanese movies I've mentioned so far have more interesting characters than this one which is really really sad. Even worse, so does <b>Godzilla 1998</b>.This is a much and unfairly maligned film which I've just watched since typing the previous sentence. The problem is that the Japanese are right: this is <b>not</b> Godzilla. If they'd given it a different title/name it wouldn't have attracted anywhere near the crap on from a great height criticism it received. It's a good fun giant monster movie (<b>not</b> kaiju in this case which has to be a man in a suit) with a good cast (including Jean Reno, Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria, Michael Lerner, and Harry Shearer) and engaging lead <b>and</b> supporting characters who are proactive rather than reactive -the main problem with G:2014. At two hours I never once felt the urge to fast forward through any of it. There's also a decent selection of extras on the 2009 Blu-ray (which only cost me a fiver) and I'll probably watch them tomorrow.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
However, back to Godzilla 2014 and what it actually does get right. And also wrong.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Big complaint from many reviewers is that the title character hardly appears in his own movie. However, much as I would want to see more of the big guy, the director has it right on this score. Let's face it, the idea of giant monsters on the rampage is a silly one and there's little you can do to disguise it unless you create a mystique by building up the suspense about when he's going to appear and what he's going to look like when he does. Similarly for the other two kaiju featured in the film. Holding them back, showing only glimpses increases the expectation and this works well in terms of the film when it finally does show its hand. By this time you're psychologically prepared to take the damn things seriously. And leaving the audience wanting more is lot better than leaving them wanting less.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Of course they're cgi, not men in suits which should be a shame but isn't. The kaiju are well done and the set pieces of destruction and the fights with Godzilla are very well done indeed. The special effects are magnificent. In fact you can't fault the technical level of the film.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
What didn't set so well with me was the sheer size of Godzilla, by far the largest he's ever been in any movie. It just didn't feel right. He's too damn big and too unstoppable even though the other creatures give it at fair shot, at least briefly. Also it's too easily accepted that he's the good guy who just wants to stop the other creatures from breeding and thus ending up destroying humanity if they do. You get the ludicrous sight of the U.S. navy acting as his escort across the Pacific to L.A. rather than trying to blast him to bits.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Overall I really liked what was good about it and could tolerate the not so good.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
As we all now know it's become a blockbuster with a second film commissioned with the same director which poses the question: how are they going to do it without it becoming either a monsterfest or a repeat of the first film? I'd prefer the former provided it has a really good human story to provide the film's spine. Can anyone think of a third alternative?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1380152_594717477276008_1253720184_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="412" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1380152_594717477276008_1253720184_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.godzilla-movies.com/media/godzilla-attacks-golden-gate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.godzilla-movies.com/media/godzilla-attacks-golden-gate.jpg" height="410" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-15569737087366560422014-05-11T08:35:00.002+01:002014-05-11T08:35:54.769+01:00CD REVIEWS: 'TIL TUESDAY -COMING UP CLOSE, A RETROSPECTIVE (1982-88) and THE BOTH (2014) <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blog-imgs-11.fc2.com/h/e/n/henleyspecial/20071017204855.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://blog-imgs-11.fc2.com/h/e/n/henleyspecial/20071017204855.jpg" height="398" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Music/v4/5e/61/7c/5e617ca3-6f60-4273-ac27-208093a1de1a/886444477598.600x600-75.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Music/v4/5e/61/7c/5e617ca3-6f60-4273-ac27-208093a1de1a/886444477598.600x600-75.jpg" height="400" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Quick Quiz: What's the connection between these two CDs?<br />
<br />
If this was a pub quiz, the question would be on the hard side. If this was a music quiz it would be easy.<br />
<br />
The Answer: <b>Aimee Mann.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
And to those of you who said: who? your musical education is sorely lacking.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mmone.org/wp-content/gallery/aimee-mann/44590659-aimeemann15.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://mmone.org/wp-content/gallery/aimee-mann/44590659-aimeemann15.jpg" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Til Tuesday </b>(forget the apostrophe which is annoying) was Aimee Mann's band and she wrote, either singly or in collaboration, all the band's songs. You could call them intelligent pop-rock with great hooks, good harmonies, and great and very distinctive lead vocals from Mann who also played bass. If you can't afford all three albums (which I'm now regretting not buying instead of this compilation) then this compilation is essential. That said, apart from one big hit they never really enjoyed the commercial success they deserved.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Five years after the band split up, and due to contractual problems, Mann finally emerged in 1993 as a solo artist and proceeded to release, somewhat erratically, a series of excellent albums. Typically they enjoyed massive critical acclaim and lousy sales condemning the talented Mann to cult status. There is one compilation available but it was released by Mann's previous label and she is vociferous in asking people <b>not</b> to buy it. Her own authorised compilation has yet to appear. When it does, grab it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile you can enjoy her collaboration <b>The Both</b> with <b>Ted Leo</b>, another cult artist and one of whom I'd never heard. They recently toured together and enjoyed it so much they went into the studio and produced this excellent album. What makes it special is that it's a genuine collaboration. All the songs, apart from one by Phil Lynott, are co-written. Vocals are dictated by the song's content and harmonies are plentiful. Leo's electric guitar gives Mann's more laid back style a good jolt of energy making this a definite rock album rather than singer-songwriter territory and Mann adds substance to Leo's rockist style. The result, an album acclaimed by the critics, loved by everyone who buys it, and almost certainly doomed to mediocre sales. Me, I want them back in the studio together and I want Mann to release her authorised compilation of her solo work.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/tg/austin/music/aimee-mann/paramount/20130927-tsg/aimee-mann-46.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/tg/austin/music/aimee-mann/paramount/20130927-tsg/aimee-mann-46.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Basically, Aimee Mann is great. Give her a listen whether it's Til Tuesday, her solo stuff, or The Both. She's so good that her and her band appeared in an episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer where she was heard to say, "Man, I hate playing vampire towns."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-5445088625148557902014-04-22T12:42:00.000+01:002014-04-22T12:42:02.561+01:00A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I'll get to that in a minute, but first something else.<br />
<br />
<b>1. On an actor.</b><br />
<br />
Is this phrase racist? <b><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">A popular black actor. </span></b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Permit me to explain the context. I was watching TV when a trailer flashed up for tonight's <b>Holby City, </b>HC being one of two medical drama soaps I watch. In the trailer it was revealed that the arrival of a possibly extrovert new character could cause a fuss and bother for the regular cast. I smiled when I saw who it was -<b>Don Gilet</b>, a popular black actor who's been regularly working on TV for some time now. I remember him in lots of things, notably a cop series <b>The Night Detective</b> set up the road in Newcastle. Gilet played the lead. Not long ago he played a psycho killer in <b>Eastenders</b> and I remember him playing Donna Noble's deceitful fiance in <b>Doctor Who</b>. Good addition to the cast, I thought, and while I always watch HC I was actually looking forward to tonight's episode.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">And then I thought to myself: Whoah Nelly! Did I just think of Gilet as a popular<b> black </b>actor rather than just a popular actor. I wouldn't of think of <b>fill in your favourite name</b> as a popular <b>white</b> actor would I?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">So, is the phrase racist? It obviously wasn't intended to be as I find Gilet a good and engaging actor who always brings a certain something to whatever role he plays. But the question remains: is the phrase itself racist? I could have called him a popular <b>bald </b>actor for example, but I chose to single him out as black even the parts he's often played aren't race-specific. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Here's a Holby City photo of the worthy gentleman in case you don't know who I'm talking about. (To be honest, I forgot his name and had to look it up but that's just an ageing failing memory.)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i2.cdnds.net/14/16/618x348/soaps-holby-city-don-gilet-jesse-law-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i2.cdnds.net/14/16/618x348/soaps-holby-city-don-gilet-jesse-law-2.jpg" height="360" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>2. Is This a Christian Country? </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">And on that note I'll leave and return to today's main dish: David Cameron and how dare he call this a Christian country!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Cue outrage, frothing at the mouth, racism, whateveryouhaveism, ignoring minority group feelings, the insensitive swine, pandering to the conservative heartland or what have you.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">As regular readers or even anyone who's read anything about me in the sidebar will realise, I'm an atheist with no time for organised religion so you'd naturally expect me to be one of the hounds baying for our not particularly beloved Prime Minister's blood.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Well I would be if history wasn't on his side.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Britain<b> is</b> a Christian country. Its history, literature, and traditions are steeped in Christianity. It seems pointless to provide any examples because it's all pervasive and the contemporary secular tone of our era doesn't change that. Britain is traditionally a Christianity country and that Christianity shaped our society for both good and ill. We may well be in or emerging into (hopefully) a post-religious era but that doesn't affect the past and there is a lot in our past to be proud of. From it we've emerged as the most open, in every sense of the word, of all western nations with our acceptance of that which and who is different. We may no longer need religion but we can't deny it, deny Christianity, in shaping what we have become. So, yes, in that sense we are and remain a Christian country and it is nothing to be ashamed of or to deny. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Just don't expect a photo of either Dave or Jesus in this blog.</span></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-36397746499026787052014-04-15T11:05:00.000+01:002014-04-15T11:05:12.704+01:00BOOK/MAGAZINES/DVD: XEROX FEROX by JOHN SZPUNAR, MONSTER!: 2, WENG'S CHOP: 5 (all 2014); CREATURE (2013)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For much of my life I had an uneasy fascination with horror movies which was hindered by my belief that I was too squeamish and often looked at the gory/scary bits over the tops of my glasses which meant everything over two feet away was a blur. That became pointless after two cataract operations about fifteen years ago which resulted in me only needing them for reading and, at first, only just. By then, however, I'd already discovered that I wasn't particularly squeamish anyway and was busy exploring all those films I'd never dared even watch before and discovering joys like <b>The Evil Dead</b>,<b> Re-Animator</b>, and so many more. In the process I also developed an interest in cult and exploitation movies, things with an oddball, offbeat charm, though perhaps 'charm' isn't the right word.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What I missed out on during that period was the plethora of 'fanzines' (I've put the word in quotes because it has a different much more amateur meaning for me as a once active member of Science Fiction Fandom) dealing with horror/exploitation/cult movies. These fanzines do range from the admittedly, amateur but also include professional magazines like <b>Fangoria</b> and the UK's <b>The Dark Side</b> (i.e. they were printed on glossy paper and could be found in chains like WH Smiths). I did pick up a few related books, however, like the excellent four volume series <b>DVD Delerium</b> to enhance my knowledge and guide me to movies I'd like which DVD D still does even after multiple readings. So, having been a member of what is now called, and more respectfully (just), geek culture, it's no surprise that I'd be interested enough to pick up-</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/7823218//bmmg/books/Xerox-Ferox-The-Wild-World-of-the-Horror-Film-Fanzine-Paperback-P9781909394100.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/7823218//bmmg/books/Xerox-Ferox-The-Wild-World-of-the-Horror-Film-Fanzine-Paperback-P9781909394100.JPG" height="640" width="424" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It's a massive 800 page volume consisting of interviews with 42 individuals who played a significant role -usually as editor/publisher/writer of horror film fanzines (with a considerable overlap with cult and exploitation as there's a definite mindset which makes it highly probable you'll be into all three to varying degrees. To be honest, it isn't the sort of book you sit down and read straight through. I did try that but eventually I moved it to my toilet and placed it near the loo seat so I could dip into it while having a crap. This isn't an insult as It's where I go through my DVD Deleriums over the course of a year. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
(It's written/compiled by <b>John Szpunar</b> whose surname I pronounce in my mind as Spooner. Sorry, dude.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It's interesting to me partly because there are clear links to SF fandom and also to Comics fandom. One of the earliest dabblers was the late SF fan <b>Bhob Stewart</b> and, much later as a reviewer of horror fanzines in The Dark Side, UK SF fan <b>Steve Green</b>. The very first interview is with writer/artist <b>Steve Bissette</b> who was part of the team on <b>DC's Swamp Thing </b>which helped transform <span style="font-size: x-small;">Alan Moore</span> into<span style="color: #990000; font-size: large;"><b> !Alan Moore! </b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
As you'd expect if you have any knowledge of geek culture, most of the people involved are intelligent, talented, literary, and arty but basically normal ordinary people with a rather specialised interest. They are not weirdo freako neurotic oddballs, except for the handful that are. But shake any tree... So I found it interesting, learned a lot of new stuff and when I've finished this review will pop it on my Amazon Marketplace shelf (literally -I have a shelf in a cupboard of all the stuff I have available for sale on Amazon Marketplace) because while I enjoyed it it isn't the sort of book I'm likely to re-read. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It may be coincidence or I may be displaying my lack of knowledge, but publication of this has coincided with what may be a minor resurgence of the horror fanzine.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wengschop.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/thumbnail_image.jpg?w=547" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wengschop.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/thumbnail_image.jpg?w=547" height="640" width="493" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
After a series of covers of varying effectiveness, they've hit the jackpot with this slick piece which hits all the right bases, especially in the background. (You'll have to trust me on this because I couldn't find a bigger sharper image.) Can you name all the movies referenced? I think I got about 70% of them, maybe more.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Anyway, <b>Weng's Chop</b> is more broad-based than just being a horror fanzine, though it doesn't short-change the horror fan either, as it covers cult, exploitation and just downright odd movies like the look at Jungle movie babes which is the opening piece in this issue. It also includes, along with a load more, the Johnny Wadd movies (porn starring John Holmes), Mexican monster movies, Indian exploitation, as eclectic a bunch of film reviews as you could find anywhere, and even stranger stuff. And all of it written by knowledgeable people who can write. Incidentally, the magazine has gone from being a slim smallish paperback to a large-format 260 page monster and it's still quite reasonably priced -I paid £7.47 for this issue (post free as I'm on Prime). Look like it's going to be a wild and crazy ride and I'm clinging on while it lasts.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yXVrF3xQL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yXVrF3xQL.jpg" height="640" width="412" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b>Monster!</b> is a spin-off from Weng's Chop. It is purely devoted to monster movies. That is MONSTERS pure and simple: <b>monster movies</b>. Got that? No slashers allowed. And this slim 60 page magazine could have been made for me. I loved monsters long before horror. I still remember, age around 9, seeing<b> Ray Harryhausen'</b>s giant stop-motion octopus in <b>It Came From Beneath The Sea</b> at a cinema in <b>Scarborough</b> while on holiday. I remember exactly where I was when I saw <b>King Kong</b> (still my favourite all time movie ever) for the first time -in a <b>Liverpool</b> cinema on a double bill with, bizarrely, <b>Don't Lose Your Head</b> (before it gained the <b>Carry On hyphen </b>prefix).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Despite being a slim little cheaply produced (printed by Amazon, as is WC) paperback with lots of photos, there is also plenty of reading material to enjoy. If they can get it out on a regular basis, it may have the honour of being kept in my loo. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It opens with a five page look at a cheapo 1959 ripoff of <b>Creature from the Black Lagoon</b> called <b>The Monster of Piedras Blancas</b> which I remember showing in <b>Sunderland</b> in the early 60's but never got to see. It's so cheap that you never see the monster in the water despite it being aquatic, though it is quite gory for the time. Needless to say that the piece made me want to see it immediately. And, at the back, is a list of all films mentioned and their availability. Or lack of it in this case. Then there's twelve pages devoted to last year's critical and audience flop, the widely despised <b>Creature</b> written by Steve Bissette which made me want to get hold of it and so I did from Amazon for the acceptable price of £2.46 (post free cos I'm on Prime) and see review below. There's Hong Kong and Indian monster movies. One of the former took my fancy but I could only find a single copy available for £36.00 so screw that.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Only three quid. Great magazine. More please. Now!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CreatureCover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CreatureCover.jpg" height="640" width="460" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<b>Creature</b> opened just long enough for audiences to decide they didn't want to see it -Bissette was alone in the cinema when he saw it the first time and the audience doubled the second- and for critics to shit on it from a very great height. Bissette, while not pretending it's an undiscovered masterpiece, argues that it aint all that bad. And he's right.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
There's is plenty in it to pick fault with if you decide you don't like it. But if you can go with the flow then it's quite reasonable fun. After a prologue in a which a young woman, strips naked and goes for a swim in the bayou and gets her legs bitten off, we meet three young couples who just got lost and shortly thereafter they meet a bunch of seedy and sinister locals, led by cult actor Sid Haig, who it soon becomes apparent have seedy and sinister designs on our six (six?) heroes. It's not long before they're being stalked by the creature who seems to be some kind of human-alligator cross. Who will survive? Spoiler 1: the likeable black dude and his likeable girlfriend. Usually the black guy is notoriously the first to go (standard rule in horror movies). Spoiler2: it wasn't an accident they got lost, it's a trap. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It's all done reasonably efficiently and it's certainly competently made in terms of production values, photography, and acting. The monster suit certainly looks good but it's here the budget shows its limitations. The jaw never moves. The headpiece is a complete unit so the mouth has to be open all the time. They also obviously ran out of money by the time they got to shoot the climax because -massive spoiler!- you don't see the hero kill the monster. Talk about breaking the rules of horror movies. You always see the monster die even if it comes back to life just as the credits roll. Oddly enough it kinda sorta maybe works if you've gone with the flow and quite like the movie, which I did. Or, you might want to wrench the disc from the player and jump up and down on it. I could cite other examples of dumb things but I really didn't care while I was watching it. As far as I'm concerned I got my £2.46 worth.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
And soon: <span style="color: #783f04; font-size: x-large;"><b>Godzilla 2014.</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I feel faint with excitement.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-15904581223426390532014-04-13T17:45:00.000+01:002014-04-13T17:45:37.022+01:00TV/DVD: CONTINUUM SEASONS 1 & 2<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Continuum_season_2_boxset.png.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Continuum_season_2_boxset.png.jpg" height="640" width="450" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I picked up Season 1 last year on a whim and enjoyed it a lot, so much so that I watched it again just before Season 2 arrived which I then watched (all 13 episodes) in a couple of days and enjoyed it at least as much. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The premise is superficially simple. A group of terrorists in 2077 are about to be executed but somehow escape to the present (2012) dragging along a Protector (cop) with them. Their intent is to change the past so that their future never materialises. The cop wants to stop them and get back to her own time and her husband and son.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The execution is far from simple. Our hero <b>Kiera</b> befriends <b>Alec</b> a teenage genius (who will become very powerful by her time), gets in with the local cops and partners up with good looking cop <b>Carlos</b>. Villains do villainous ruthless things except they think they're heroes and the problem is that they actually might be.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's a flashforward at the beginning of each episode which gradually reveals more and more about Kiera's world which starts to look more and more like a dystopia run by and for the benefit of mega-corporations. It soon becomes apparent that Kiera was set up to go back in time, possibly by the old Alec.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The more the series goes on, the more devious it becomes. The bad guys turn on each other. Not everyone is what they seem. Not every thing is what it seems. Is Kiera there to stop the bad guys (Liber8) from preventing the future to happen as it did which does not seem to be a good thing? In which case she actually may be the villain. Or is everything pre-determined? And then, towards the end of Season 2, we get the appearance of a third party with a different agenda that suggests a different possibility.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Basically this is really good intelligent,well thought out TV science fiction. There's plenty of action, plenty of character beats, more mysteries than you can count, and it's really impossible to predict what's going to happen next as revelation piles on revelation. In at least one case a man who is accused of murdering millions, and actually has done that, but the situation is far from what the viewer has been led to believe.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here's a photo of some of the cast. Speculation on time travel in the series is continued below.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://aparoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/continuum-cast.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://aparoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/continuum-cast.jpg" height="428" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>From l-r: ambiguous guy, our hero, good guy, bad guy, good guy (for now), very very bad guy.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>How this series is going to end: the three possibilities.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The scenario which annoys me the most: the closed loop. Everything is self-contained. The future dictates the past which makes the future possible. See also: <b>Dr.Who-Blink</b>, <b>Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies"</b>. I absolutely hate closed loop stories because they depend on there not being a first cause which makes them logically impossible. It also makes the series totally pointless and if the series ends this way, fans will burn down the studio. I think it's the least likely option but I could be wrong.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The past is changed, therefore the future is changed. The fun with this scenario is how the future is (being) changed. It makes everything open-ended.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Changing the past does not change the future. It creates a new world with a different future; in other words, the alternate world shtick. This possibility is hinted at near the end of Season 2. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think that whatever happens, whichever of these three happens, Kiera will end up being re-united with her son and, possibly, her husband. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I also happen to think that time travel is one of science fiction's most stupid tropes because on any logical level it doesn't make sense. Unless you accept that travelling to the past automatically creates a new alternate world. I'm not saying it doesn't make for entertaining and thought provoking stories because it most certainly does, as does the parallel/alternate world concept. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, Series 3 will be on Sky later this year and I'll be glued to it. Unless, of course, the past is changed and the show was never given the green light in the first place and you never read this post.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-2824263125717659352014-04-07T17:33:00.000+01:002014-04-07T17:33:05.504+01:00MOVIE REVIEWS: THE MACHINE (2013), THE HIDDEN FORTRESS (1958), FRIDAY 13th (1980), FRIDAY 13th PART 2 (1981)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.bajanreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Machine-Movie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.bajanreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Machine-Movie.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This has been hailed as the best British Science Fiction film since <b>Moon</b>. Well, I thought, on reading that comment, it wouldn't take much as I thought Moon was very overrated, admittedly one of the few who had that reaction. So it's hardly going to be surprising when I tell you that The Machine is certainly a lot better than that film, though it's not exactly perfect either.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's set a couple of decades in the future when the West's economy is on the skids as a result of a cold war with China. A secret government unit is trying to create cybernetically enhanced soldiers by experimenting on those severely injured in battle. If they don't work they're callously disposed of. Computer expert <b>Caity Lotz </b>is hired by cyberneticist <b>Toby Stephens</b> (who works for evil <b>Denis Lawson</b>) because she's created a computer which can pass the Turing Test -i.e. when talking to it from elsewhere it's impossible to tell if it's human or not. He uses an experimental machine he's created to map her brain (which he also uses on his young dying daughter) and when she's murdered by Chinese agents uses it to create a humanoid robot. What's interesting is not that Lotz's personality reappears in the machine, it <b>doesn't</b>, but the machine appears to have a consciousness and begins to the explore the world around it -not the physical world, but the world of moral choices which naturally brings it into conflict with Denis Lawson who wouldn't know a moral choice if it bit him on the arse.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What's not so good about the film. The science for one thing. It's not bad science, I was just a bit confused about exactly what science they were doing. It's almost all set indoors/underground/at night which makes for a murky viewing, though it's tonally appropriate for the film. I was never really sure about a group of subjects as to whether they were humanoid robots with/without bits of brains in them or cybernetically/surgically enhanced humans. Maybe I should watch it again and pay more attention. Though it could be because there are <b>no fucking subtitles on a fucking Blu-Ray disc</b> which is fucking inexcusable and fucking annoying as hell when you're somewhat deaf like me!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Still, there's a lot good about it too. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The cast for one. You'd expect Stephens and Lawson to be good and they are. But it's <b>Caity Lotz</b> who is the revelation. A friend of mine (also called Ian but isn't me) saw her first appearance in the TV series <b>Arrow </b>and declared her to be a useless actress. All I can say to that is: her and Jennifer Lawrence, crap, crap, crap. She is good as the human scientist but her part as the machine is subtle and nuanced and riveting. Plus, as a trained gymnast, she also does most of her own stunts. Plus, she's gorgeous. Up yours, other Ian.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite the low budget and the murk, it looks good. And sometimes hideous. A character who appears early in the film has had part of his skull blown away and just covered with skin -I've seen this in real life, though here it's cgi, and to my shame I find it repulsive to look at.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And there's Caity Lotz. And a bitter-sweet sting in the tail.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, flawed but good and intelligent, which, when you see what abortions pass off as SF movies these days, is no mean achievement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71PBHZNdJAL._SL1224_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71PBHZNdJAL._SL1224_.jpg" height="640" width="450" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every so often I like a dose of authentic samurai drama and/or a fix of legendary director <b>Akira Kurosawa</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is what passes for Kurosawa being playful. Two farmers have gone off to war thinking they'll get rich but their side loses. General Toshiro Mifune has to save the Princess and the gold in order to get the clan's ruling family up and running again and get back home all the while being hunted by the victors. The farmers join up with General and Princess. And that's the plot in full. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The two farmers, however, are actually the main characters and they are as venal and as stupid people as you've ever seen in a film. They think of nothing but themselves and not even of each other. If one can gain something over the other (usually gold) they'll try and get it. Throughout the film whenever there is a chance of them to gain an advantage without hesitation they take the selfish option and every time it makes things worse for them. And they never learn. They even consider raping the princess while she sleeps and while the general is off somewhere. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For all that it is quite a likeable film if, for me, a touch overlong at 138 minutes. There's an introduction by George Lucas because, as well all know, don't we, it was one of the inspirations for some little SF movie of his.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/CoverArtUnverified/8871.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/CoverArtUnverified/8871.jpg" height="640" width="450" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Surprisingly, given my love of horror movies, this is the first time I've seen this one. I have seen <b>Jason X</b> (or Jason in space) which is a highly enjoyable piece of gory fun, though it isn't canon as there were more FT13 movies made after, and <b>Freddie Vs Jason</b> which has its moments but not enough of them. I did see a clip of one of the killings not long after it originally came out and thought it was hideous and that put me off for quite a while. However, I've reading a few books/magazines that deal with exploitation cinema like the older (British) <b>Shock Xpress</b> and the newer (American) <b>Weng's Chop</b> which put me in the mood to check out stuff I hadn't seen before.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over 30 years on Friday 13th is far less shocking than it was at the time and that includes the scene -Kevin Bacon is lying on a bunk when an arrow erupts from the front of his throat makes a mess- that made me want to run over the hills and far away. Now I just admire how effectively it's done and it still looks convincing even by today's standards thanks to gore effects maestro <b>Tom Savini.</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's really not a lot to say about this film. It's a highly competent slasher which holds the attention throughout. It also introduces tropes which have become cliches. I do think the blurb on the box shouldn't have given away the killer's identity as, possibly, even now there might be someone who doesn't realise that Jason<b> isn't</b> the killer in this first installment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Friday the 13th Part 2</b>, unlike the previous film, holds back a while on the killing after the initial opening which is mostly a recap, otherwise it's the same stalk and slash now with added Jason who hasn't yet found the iconic hockey mask. Apart from a mean-spirited killing of the nice guy in the wheelchair, it's pretty much same as it ever was. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've got <b>Part 3</b> on my pile to watch but I may quit while I'm ahead after that as I've plenty more films to watch. Like the recently acquired super-special edition of <b>Dario Argento's Inferno</b> to watch among others.</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-44752160995855144172014-04-02T17:09:00.000+01:002014-04-02T17:09:22.943+01:00GRAPHIC NOVEL: BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR -JULIE MAROH (2010/2013) and FILM REVIEW: BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR dir. ABDELLATIF KECHICHE (2013)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.arsenalpulp.com/titleimages/book%20covers/9781551525143_BlueIsTheWarmestColor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.arsenalpulp.com/titleimages/book%20covers/9781551525143_BlueIsTheWarmestColor.jpg" height="640" width="448" /></a></div>
<br />
Okay, I bought this mainly because I was so fascinated by the film and also frustrated by the film's confusing timeline that I thought the graphic novel might help with this and clarify my thoughts on the film. Which it did. If you haven't read my review of the film a couple of posts ago, please check it out first as this post is a postscript to it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://feeds.democratandchronicle.com/entertainment/images/medium_de8353079d035f795d62e16212879e6b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://feeds.democratandchronicle.com/entertainment/images/medium_de8353079d035f795d62e16212879e6b.jpg" height="410" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://lanetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/filmslikedreamswordpressBlueWarmestColor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://lanetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/filmslikedreamswordpressBlueWarmestColor.jpg" height="424" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's important that I show you the above two images because I'll be making a point about them later on. If I could have figured out how to include a clip from the film I would.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The graphic novel begins with Emma visiting the parents of Clementine (Adele in the film) after Clementine's death. The rest is a flashback with the only narrative coming in the form of extracts from Clementine's diary (often referred to in the film but never quoted from). Other than that (plot differences aside) the structure of both is similar. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The graphic novel, however, is focussed on the relationship between the two young women and is very much a work of lesbian fiction. It also provides a clearer timeline than the film, for which I was grateful, as it made it easier to understand a significant aspect of how the story developed in the film as stages were signified and the span of the story covers Clementine/Adele's life from 15 to 30. It's delicately done and I've no doubt that, as a graphic novel, it makes a substantial contribution to the genre of gay fiction,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But, and I'm not underestimating its importance to that, that's all it does. Kechiche's film, while substantially adhering to the GN's text, turns it into a transformative experience by broadening the substance of the text into something which transcends its genre roots. It is still a film about an enduring affair between two young women but it is so much more than.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film is focussed on Clementine (now Adele) and her life beyond her problematic relationship with Emma. The demonstration she attends in the book is supporting a railway strike, in the film it is significantly a protest against cuts to education. Adele's sexuality is never really specifically defined as lesbian and she has sex with boys/men. Her inner life is explored as well as the inadequacy she feels when surrounded by Emma's arty friends and the significant contrast between her working class parents whom she keeps ignorant of her true relationship with Emma while Emma's parents happily accept her as their daughter's lover. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's been a lot of fuss over the explicit sex in the film but really, apart from the scissoring, it's not much different in terms of the amount shown in the book. The difference is, and I know this is obvious, the former consists of still images and realistic but still stylised drawn images on paper. In the film it is two real young women making love. The graphic novel consists of frozen moments, panels, in other words selected extracts of the act itself. The film depicts movement with one act flowing into another. In the graphic novel the reader accepts and appreciates the aesthetic style of what is shown. In the film there is no such distancing effect.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm making it obvious that, as a work of art and irrespective of format, I prefer the film. Would I have preferred it had I read the graphic novel first? I like to think not, though I can hardly make a definitive statement on that, as preconceptions always colour an opinion. I can certainly understand why a gay audience would prefer the book because it is aimed directly at depicting their experience whereas the film opens it out, transcending its origins so that it speaks more directly to a wider audience. But I still think that, as an adaptation, the director has done the author proud and many people will be guided to the source material as a result.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-57374297769823089212014-03-31T09:29:00.000+01:002014-03-31T09:29:11.942+01:00DVD/ BLU-RAY REVIEW: HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE (2013)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It immediately ocurred to me to compare this to the <b>Twilight</b> films and to <b>Ender's Game</b> to the detriment of both. In the case of Ender's Game, it's based on a science fiction novel (albeit the middle part of a trilogy) but unlike that movie it doesn't water down its source material. And, really, there is no comparison to Twilight which is a cliche-ridden trite vampire romance. <b>Catching Fire</b> (and I also include its predecessor in this) is vastly superior to both. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This series is rich in substance, packed with subtext, drenched with genuine emotion, and feels completely believably real. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As the film opens, Katniss is back home in District 12, the most depressed, downtrodden and oppressed of the 12 districts, though most of the others aren't much better. She's become a symbol of hope to the masses though, as she admits to the President who wants to destroy her, all she wanted to do was survive. Despite that she's forced by events to be that symbol and, at first, even her phony boyfriend, previously a bit of a wimp, displays more moral strength than she does. As they go on nationwide tour to publicise their victory of the previous year and demonstrate how powerful the government is, discontent spreads. So, in order to first destroy her heroic image and then kill her, a new Hunger Games is announced consisting of previous winners which then takes up the second half of the film.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second part of a trilogy (though the films have been extended to a quartet and may the inventor of the word <b>quadrilogy</b> burn in hell forever) is always the hardest to pull off but this works well building on the first film and intensifying certain aspects of it. It'll be interesting to see how the two films based on the third book do when there are no Hunger Games to focus on.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Jennifer Lawrence</b> is, as I've said before, the best young (under 25) actress around and here she displays as thoughtful a nuanced performance as she does in more mainstream roles. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Two films in, this is the best blockbuster series around: exciting, intelligent, thoughtful.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn-s3.thewrap.com/images/2013/11/Jennifer_Lawrence_Josh_Hutcherson-Hunger-Games-Catching-Fire-clip-618x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn-s3.thewrap.com/images/2013/11/Jennifer_Lawrence_Josh_Hutcherson-Hunger-Games-Catching-Fire-clip-618x400.jpg" height="414" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-14908678649289247502014-03-29T17:31:00.001+00:002014-03-29T17:31:51.257+00:00DVD BLU-RAY REVIEW: BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR (2013)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02741/BlueWarmestColour_2741575b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02741/BlueWarmestColour_2741575b.jpg" height="398" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, this really is a terrific film but there is one thing about it which makes it, at times, a problematic watch. There is no clear time scale or indication of how much time has passed. Now this may be because of cultural indicators; there may be signifiers which are clear to a French audience but not to non-French viewers, or it may be deliberate. The only one time when the age of one of the protagonists, Adele, is stated is when it's her 18th birthday; everything else is left for the viewer to work out for themselves. It's not helped by the blurb on the DVD box which states that the age of Adele at the beginning of the film is 15 when it seems clear, to me at least and it could be my misreading, that she is in the French equivalent of the UK's sixth form and she has to be 17. I then, naturally, assumed that only a few months passed between the opening of the film and her birthday. But this may not be the case. Shortly after that, she (seemingly) goes straight from school to teaching a reception class with no indication of college in between. She is also now living with Emma. If, for no other reason though there are many others, I'm going to have to give this a second viewing to see if it becomes clearer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As the film opens Adele is in the full flush of confusing exploratory adolescence. She's in love with literature (which she's studying at school) and ideas and philosophy, and just beginning to explore her own nature, who she is becoming, though her girlfriends seem to be more interested in talking about sex. She finds a slightly older boyfriend at school and has sex with him but things don't seem to work out for reasons she's not sure of. It's around this time she sees a blue haired girl walking around hand in hand with another girl. When one of her girlfriends kisses her, Adele finds herself responding but, later, when she wants to take it further the girl says it was just a spur of the moment thing and didn't mean anything. After school, and after having had a fight with another girl who accuses her of being a lesbian which she denies, she goes to a gay bar with a male friend, wanders off as he's more interested in snogging a guy, and finds herself in a lesbian bar where she meets Emma who briefly looks after her. It isn't long (or is it? I'm not sure) before they meet up again and eventually fall in love.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And that's pretty much the first half of the film. In the second half Adele and Emma are living together. Emma's painting seriously, having completed her degree in Fine Art and Adele is her muse. Adele is teaching full time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's all you need to know about the key events and the film's structure, at least without me spoiling it for you. Now I can talk about it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And we all know why the film is so controversial so let's get to it. There are two very explicit scenes of lesbian lovemaking separated by a short gap. But if anyone is tempted to watch this film specifically for those scenes then they're wasting their money. Everyone knows you can download for free off the Net videos of girls kissing, and both softcore and hardcore lesbian porn. So, are these scenes justified? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The simple answer to that is that there's no simple answer because it partly depends on how you view the film. If you are calling it a film about a lesbian romance then, I suppose, yes it is. However, that isn't what the film is about. The focus is always Adele, not Emma. It's Adele's story, the story of an intelligent working class girl trying to discover who she is and about how her experiences affect her and how she changes. Even though her long love affair with Emma forms the central core of the film it's a long way from being the whole of it. That said, it is the centrepiece and the love scenes reveal the intensity of their feelings for each other and their intense desire for each other and form a strong contrast with one scene of Adele's sex with her boyfriend. So, yes, the scenes were justified. Whether or not they were justified in being so long is another question and one I'm not going to answer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, there is so much more to the film than that. It's a film of many nuances in which important things can be revealed by the hint of a gesture. Sensationalistic (if that's what they are) sex scenes aside, this is a low key film and actress Adele Exarchopoulos is absolutely stunning as Adele (which came first, I wonder, was the character named after the actress or was it just a coincidence?). Her performance is so convincing and naturalistic that she takes your breath away. Also, mostly makeup free throughout, she is very beautiful but again in a naturalistic way. In contrast and as a personal reaction, I didn't find Lea Seydoux (excellent though she is) as Emma anywhere near as appealing; there was just something about her face and her teeth which put me off. But, though the film covers many topics such as class, politics, sex roles, etc, it's never overt, never hammering home any message, though they may be there subtly embedded. Instead it unfolds gradually, easily over its three hour length and it never feels like three hours.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is this a classic film, deserving of all its awards? Maybe. Brilliant directing, superb acting, riveting to watch, etc. One thing I do know is that it's one which will repay repeated viewings as things I missed the first time, though they were always there in plain sight, reveal themselves and I intend to watch it again soon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-16154315808417831012014-03-24T09:59:00.000+00:002014-03-24T14:16:54.216+00:00DVD/BLU-RAY REVIEW: ENDER'S GAME (2013)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51e94d526bb3f7f155000000/enders-game-director-i-dont-want-it-to-be-a-violent-film.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51e94d526bb3f7f155000000/enders-game-director-i-dont-want-it-to-be-a-violent-film.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wae.blogs.starnewsonline.com/files/2013/11/Enders-Game-Footage-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wae.blogs.starnewsonline.com/files/2013/11/Enders-Game-Footage-1.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, it's as decent an adaptation as you could expect given an enormous budget which dictated a rating that meant it had to be suitable for kids. Despite that though it was always going to be a simplification of the novel. For all that, it did make an attempt to keep the spirit of it despite being watered down.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The cast is good and Asa Butterfield as Ender is excellent. Harrison Ford is fine as does his grumpy win at all costs commander. The supporting cast, young and old, do what is necessary. And the special effects are terrific.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While I quite liked it and never found it dull there just seems to be something missing. By that I don't mean the reduction of Ender's brother to a cameo role and the complete omission of the political text in the form of Demosthenes which would have been too intellectual for a film that had to appeal to a younger audience. Also omitted are the effects of time dilation. Perhaps it just lacks the intensity of the book and might have been more effective as a TV miniseries where there would have been more room to explore both ideas and characters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, though I quite moderately liked it, if anyone wants a cheap copy 'like new', mine will be up on Amazon by the time you read this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Update:</b> It sold within three hours.</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-3335091467713509582014-03-21T15:48:00.001+00:002014-03-21T15:48:58.405+00:00DVD/BLU-RAY: PRE-REVIEWS or WHAT I'M ABOUT TO WATCH AND WHY<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After getting my arse kicked by a couple of mates over the previous post -and yes guys I will get round to putting your comments in the comments section- I thought I'd go for something a bit lighter.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm coming to the end of a<b> Doctor Who</b> marathon; that is all the box sets of the new Who: the Eccleston one, the three Tennant ones plus Christmas Specials and the half season, and two of the three Smiths (the third is too close). So, what to follow them up with?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, films/tv series I'm not going to mention include:<b> Lois & Clark Season 2</b>, <b>Flavia the Heretic</b>, <b>The Ghastly Ones/Seeds of Sin</b> (by writer/director <b>Andy Milligan </b>whose name will crop up later), <b>Combat Shock</b>, <b>Naked Lunch</b>, <b>Superman Blu-Ray Box Set</b>, <b>Dogma</b>, <b>Universal Monsters Blu Ray Box Set,</b> and a few more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
But the obvious follow up to Doctor Who is-<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120110095425/doctor-who-collectors/images/9/94/Sarah_jane_adventures_complete_collection_uk_dvd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120110095425/doctor-who-collectors/images/9/94/Sarah_jane_adventures_complete_collection_uk_dvd.jpg" height="400" width="292" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Watered-down Dr Who, perhaps. Kids TV, certainly. But I make no apologies or excuses. Good kids TV/books/films are simply good TV/books/films that can be enjoyed by all ages. Plus it's good to see the character again after her four year stint on Dr Who back in the 70's and to see the sadly late Elisabeth Sladen who, by all accounts, was an even nicer person than the character she portrayed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I seem to be connecting the dots then the next to watch has to be-</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thgaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/cfdvd3_-671x1024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://thgaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/cfdvd3_-671x1024.jpg" height="400" width="261" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've read the books and they are very good teenage SF novels. I enjoyed the first film and <b>Jennifer Lawrence </b>is the breakout young actress of the last ten years simply because, with only <b>Saoirse Ronan</b> on her heels, she's the best young actress to turn up in the last ten years.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a Science Fiction reader for pretty much all of my life I can state, with little fear of contradiction, that the novel on which the following film was based is one of the best SF novels of the 80's.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.ozgameshop.com/dvd_and_bluray/bluray/films/fantasy/enders_bluray_raw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.ozgameshop.com/dvd_and_bluray/bluray/films/fantasy/enders_bluray_raw.jpg" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's a shame that the controversy over author Ors<b>on Scott Card'</b>s homophobia and objection to gay marriage has obscured why the book was filmed in the first place, though it's deeply ironic on several levels that the name given to aliens was changed from <b>buggers</b> in the book to <b>formics</b> in the film. It's very probable that Card didn't know that bugger was a derogatory British term for a gay man, a theory which is supported by the two immediate sequels in which the hero Ender attempts to make amends for his act of genocide. Most of the novels by Card which I've read contain strong humanitarian elements and a well of compassion and it's a shame that these have been tarnished by his bigoted Mormon faith.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm also a bit of a fan of cult movies, schlock horror, grindhouse, and the like. Having recently read an interesting piece about writer/director <b>Andy Milligan</b>, whose oeuvre covered psychodrama, horror, early gay cinema and sometimes all of them at once, I thought I'd see if I could find any cheap and came across this one, not only in Blu-Ray but issued by the<b> BFI </b>(the prestigious British Film Institute for you non-cineastes) but with an excellent booklet containing essays by film director <b>Nicholas Winding Refn</b>, well-known writers on horror/cult movies <b>Stephen Thrower</b> and <b>Tim Lucas</b>, and biographer (Neil Young, et al) <b>Jimmy McDonough</b>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://images3.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/33368_large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images3.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/33368_large.jpg" height="400" width="303" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Although American, Milligan came over to London and, when not looking for rough trade, made a few films there and made them fast and cheap as always.<b> Nightbirds</b> (1970) is a psychodrama and the disc also includes another complete movie <b>The Body Beneath. </b>One of the things about Nightbirds is that it stars <b>Berwick Kaler</b> who happens to be a local lad. He comes from <b>South Shields</b> just four miles up the coast on the mouth of the River Tyne. He's possibly best known to soap opera fans for a stint in <b>Coronation Street</b> but has made his living for the last decade and a bit masterminding (writing/directing and probably playing an ugly sister in) the annual pantomime in a York theatre. He also appears in a bit part in The Body Beneath as well as all the other London movies Milligan made. He also contributes a commentary to Nightbirds.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Oh okay, I'm going to treat you. Here's the jacket image of-<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.popmatters.com/film_art/g/ghastly-ones.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.popmatters.com/film_art/g/ghastly-ones.jpg" height="400" width="281" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;">Moving on swiftly we come to an award-winning subtitled teenage lesbian psychodrama which, if one of the lesbians had been a flesh-eating alien, would have a ranked 100% on Ian's criteria for a perfect movie. Curiously there actually is a film which almost matches that description except that it's British, it never came within shoelace-sniffing distance of an award, and the carnivorous alien is humanoid who can look human and comes between a lesbian couple who live in an isolated cottage. It's called <b>Prey</b> and was directed by <b>Pete Walker</b> in the late 70's. And it's not actually that bad. This one, however, is, and I'm sure you've guessed-</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images4.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/88477_front.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images4.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/88477_front.jpg" height="400" width="313" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: left;">And there we have it, my near-future viewing. Feel to make comments on my obvious dubious character made on the choices and comments on them therof above. I reserve the right to review any or none in future posts depending on whether I can be bothered or not.</span></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-9586880294977378282014-03-16T18:30:00.002+00:002014-03-16T18:30:31.883+00:00POLITICS: UKRAINE AND THE SECESSION OF THE CRIMEA<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well golly gosh but isn't this a bad thing?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I mean, it has to be as the entire western world and great big enormous chunks of the rest of the world seem to think it is. Bad boy autocrat <b>Putin</b> is rattling sabres (well, lots of really powerful guns and a big army) because of what's happened in most of the <b>Ukraine</b>, except <b>The Crimea</b> that is. But, let's look at a few facts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First off, the Ukraine's democratically elected president was ousted as the result of what appears to be massive popular show of discontent at his policies. Wait, what were those two significant words -<b>democratically elected</b>, that's them- and by the majority of the voters. That means over 50%. In other words, he was given a mandate. Okay, so he turned out to be a corrupt power-hungry greedy bastard who promptly imprisoned his predecessor <b>Yulia Tymoshenko </b>on mostly trumped up charges (she wasn't exactly an angel herself and the voters seemed glad to be shot of her). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly this massive protest came about with the connivance of western politicians (say hello, <b>Angela Merkin </b>and<b> William Hague</b>) who weren't happy about the president's rejection of closer links with the EU in favour of close ties with Russia. There is a strong case for saying that this overthrow wouldn't have happened without western support. So you can see why Putin isn't happy -having a pro-western EU let me in wannabe on his doorstep.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, most of the inhabitants of The Crimea are Russian-speaking and of Russian descent. Why? Because The Crimea used to be part of Russia until <b>Nikita Khruschev</b> moved the borders so that it was incorporated into the Ukraine back in 1953. While the majority of Ukrainians supported getting rid of the president, the majority of the inhabitants of The Crimea certainly weren't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Everybody on the UN Security Council, except Russia, has denounced/condemned/what have you the current ballot in The Crimea to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. It's undemocratic! they cry. Sure it is. It's about as undemocratic as a Scotland voting on independence from the UK. Okay, it's been shoved through in a hurry and Putin has sent in the troops which, technically is an invasion, but when the vast majority of the inhabitants are welcoming them with open arms you could well see it as <b>liberation</b>. It's only hours away from the result being known and it's estimated that around 80% of voters will have voted in favour of becoming a part of Russia. Hastily organised or not it still has more legitimacy than a mass protest forcing out a democratically elected president no matter how much of a shit he was.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now I'm no fan of Putin by any means but it seems to me that he's only protecting Russia's own security and coming to the defence of an area that wants to be a part of Russia and once was.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The EU has to bear a large responsibility in this case and to portray Putin as a villain and aggressor is somewhat wide of the mark. </div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-39716223232421695462014-02-17T16:14:00.000+00:002014-02-18T13:36:20.392+00:00TV/DVD: DOCTOR WHO, SHERLOCK, TORCHWOOD, (AND GIRLS) BOX SETS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I seem to have gone off reviewing of late. I've lots (i.e. many, as opposed to loads i.e. weight & mass) of books, graphic novels (which are also books of course), CDs and DVDs which I've read/ listened to/ watched but haven't reviewed in this blog. Not uncoincidentally, as I re-use them on Amazon, my reviewer's ranking has plummeted lately, though I don't really care overmuch.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first three titles (in the title) are all linked (which is stating the bleeding obvious if you've ever watched any of them and how many people reading this blog won't have done so? Damn few, if any.) But I'm throwing Girls into the pot because I've meaning to mention it for ages and now I don't have an excuse not to do so.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It all started when I picked up Season 1 of <b>Torchwood</b> (minus box but otherwise intact and in good condition at our charity shop and for which I paid more than was asked because I felt guilty at paying so little). And one thing lead to another. Specifically-</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.doctorwhocollectables.com/DVDs/Box-Sets/full/Series-1-4-Box-Set.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.doctorwhocollectables.com/DVDs/Box-Sets/full/Series-1-4-Box-Set.jpg" height="614" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.kasterborous.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/dw-specialdvds-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.kasterborous.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/dw-specialdvds-large.jpg" height="640" width="484" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And, as yet unviewed-</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://julalien.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/s5-dvd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://julalien.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/s5-dvd.jpg" height="320" width="228" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The sign of whether or not a show is any good is how well you remember it. This notably applies in my case as a never reliable memory has grown steadily worse with my advancing age (pass me the zimmer frame, baby, I want to boogie -whatever that is). I've never watched any of these <b>Dr Who</b> shows since they were first shown. However, I found that while I may have forgotten numerous incidental details, my broad memory of the individual shows was very good. The result is that this mixture created a feeling a mild feeling of freshness and familiarity and an appreciation of how good the show was the first time around. Out of all of the episodes there was only one I skipped through because it was boring (spaceship plummeting towards a sun). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are so many things that are impress in that I can't think of anything about the show which isn't (ignoring the odd minor cavil here and there) -script, cast, music, sfx, direction, etc. Not a weak link anywhere and it's a great pleasure to watch them all again after a gap of several years. The many gay references Russell T Davies throws in there are even more, unobjectionably but noticeably, obvious on a second viewing. Davies, it has to be said, did a brilliant job of updating the show and making it fit for the modern world. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.dvd-covers.org/d/261961-2/Torchwood_Series_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.dvd-covers.org/d/261961-2/Torchwood_Series_1.jpg" height="414" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.undertheradarmag.com/uploads/review_images/US_Torchwood_S2_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.undertheradarmag.com/uploads/review_images/US_Torchwood_S2_3.jpg" height="640" width="436" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And the same can be said about Torchwood which started the whole thing off. The same pedigree as Dr Who, three actors who appeared in it, notably the charismatic if annoying Mr Barrowman -even the same character more or less in Naoki Mori's case- limited location (Cardiff) but a whole lot ruder and more violent (great!). So what's not like? The third and shorter series is on my pile but not the appalling fourth.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71DtzFWFRyL._SL1323_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71DtzFWFRyL._SL1323_.jpg" height="640" width="456" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From the hands of those complicit in Dr Who as writers and one, later, as showrunner comes this marvellous updating of Sherlock Holmes, a character whose become such a cliche I long ago lost any interest in him. This retelling manages to be both faithful and iconoclastic (and often hilarious). I've only just finished the first season which also includes as an extra, apart from an interesting making of, the original hour-long pilot. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A second viewing confirms my opinion that the first and third episodes were brilliant but the second, which had neither hands of Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffitt involved, nor any of the regular supporting cast, to be woefully inferior and easily skipped. Thankfully this lapse has never been repeated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Season 2 will be watched this week but I'll hold off a few months before buying S.3 by which time the edges will have blurred somewhat.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And now for something completely different.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.mightyape.net.nz/images/products/21730598/Girls-The-Complete-First-Second-Season-Box-Set-15549808-7.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.mightyape.net.nz/images/products/21730598/Girls-The-Complete-First-Second-Season-Box-Set-15549808-7.jpeg" height="640" width="408" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This show is genuinely astonishing and, if you aren't prepared for it, can be genuinely shocking. It's also possibly the bravest show on American TV, at least for its auteur <b>Lena Dunham</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ah yes, Lena Dunham, let me count the ways: creator, main writer, often director, co-producer, lead actor (in an otherwise ensemble cast) and most likely to appear nude and/or having sex. If you're looking for another <b>Friends </b>or <b>How I Met Your Mother</b> then look away now.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Set in New York,<b> Girls</b> is about a dysfunctional group of four women friends (and their various associates) in their early to mid twenties who are all self-absorbed fuckups trying to find their places in the world and generally doing a very bad job of it, with Dunham's character <b>Hannah</b> being about the worst of the lot. This is of course an oversimplification as it's, you'll pardon the expression, more like shades of grey. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Incidentally, while it is often funny, it isn't a sitcom it's a comedy-drama (I refuse to use the word dramedy even though I just have). At one point, Hannah descends into the depths of a horrifying bout of OCD from which she is ultimately rescued by her boyfriend Adam who is, almost up to that point, perceived by the viewer as a complete self-centred pile of shit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sex is portrayed extremely realistically, with nudity and simulated sex, as far from erotic by people with normal looking bodies -Dunham's is short, dumpy and with small breasts- having an often unsatisfying time and frequently with people they shouldn't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sometimes this show feels like a train crash -horrendous but you can't look away. </div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-44361344788596312032014-02-11T13:22:00.001+00:002014-02-11T13:22:42.566+00:00SOCIETY: THE IMPENDING BAN ON SMOKING IN CARS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It would be nice if this boiled down to a simple matter of facts but it doesn't. So, in order to be as fair as possible given that I'm completely in favour, first my biases. Or prejudices, if you will.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. I smoked cigarettes from the age of 21 to the age of 48. My actual views on smoking have remained the same in that I believe myself to be one of the few smokers who had no illusions about, or justifications for, the habit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. Politically I'm on the <b>libertarian centre-left</b>. Essentially that means, as far as this subject goes, I believe the government should not interfere with its citizens so long as what they do does not impact negatively on other citizens and on the community as a whole. I also believe that citizens of the state have a responsibility towards the community.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clear? Yes -good. No -tough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>On smoking. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is a habit with no virtues at all. The smell is mostly unpleasant, particularly with regard to cigarettes -opinions on the smell of pipe and cigar smoke varies. It is dangerous to your health, particularly in the long term, and to the health of those around you (second-hand smoke). It is addictive. Were smoking to be attempted to be introduced today I have no doubt that it would be banned on health and safety grounds.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If smoking was to be done inside a glass helmet then I would have no objections at all as it would not affect other citizens. It would also be funny to look at. Unfortunately this is not practical.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Given my libertarian views I am not in favour of banning smoking (though I wouldn't shed a tear if that were to happen). I do believe, however, it should be restricted to places solely occupied by consenting adults.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Needless to say, this does not include cars with children in them. I would also, on the grounds of it increasing the risk of an accident, ban drivers of moving vehicles from smoking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On health grounds alone, children should not be exposed to potentially dangerous cigarette smoke and that, as far as I'm concerned, includes in their own homes. Adults have a moral responsibility to ensure that this does not happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>On the enforcement of the ban.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the subject cropped up in <b>The Times</b>, I read the article online and the many comments which followed. Many of those against the ban argued, and probably rightly, that it's unenforceable. I wrote a comment to the effect that it didn't matter. What the ban will actually do is to increase awareness of the potential effects on children who have no say over their parents smoking and increase the moral opprobrium against smoking, particular in this case. It increases the numbers of those holding the view that smoking is an anti-social act. It is the moral disgust that will be the most effective factor in reducing smoking in cars with children rather than a handful of police actions against transgressors.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusion.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, I already stated that in my second sentence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Go, baby, go!</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-51730066197209694642014-02-03T19:40:00.001+00:002014-02-03T19:40:31.962+00:00SOCIETY: FREEDOM OF SPEECH (THE CONDENSED VERSION)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">Introduction:</span></b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm a regular reader of <b>Spiked</b>, a libertarian left online magazine of political and in the very broadest sense) cultural comment. It's a direct descendant of the print magazine Living Marxism/ Marxism Today, which was unjustly sued into non-existence, and publishes a number of their writers. While I don't agree with everything they write about, being on the libertarian left (if you have to label it) I'm generally on their wavelength.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently they've begun a campaign about the importance and meaning of freedom of speech or free speech in contemporary society and I'm firmly behind their way of thinking on the subject. This then is basically a rehash of their ideas filtered through my own perceptions on the matter so I make no claims to an attempt at originality and I apologise if I've subconsciously (I haven't re-read anything on the subject) plagiarised stuff. I shouldn't have because I don't pretend to be as articulate on the subject as Spiked's columnists and I've got a terrible memory.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So here we go. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">The Argument:</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm having a conversation with someone. It might be my next door neighbour, or a teacher or a rabbi, or a nurse, or you.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
They say, "I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but..."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At which point I metaphorically punch them/you in the face for being a hypocrite and an arsehole.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll put it like this: there is no <b>but</b> in freedom of speech.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'll say it again. Louder.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: blue; font-size: x-large;">There is no <b>but</b> in freedom of speech.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you put a but in there then you aren't advocating freedom of speech, you are advocating only freedom for those views you can tolerate, not those you can't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone and that includes those whose views you find poisonous. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Simply on that basis: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I defend the right of the BNP to spout its racist poison.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I defend the right of radical Muslims to spout their hatred of western values.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I defend the right of people to advocate female circumcision (while personally wanting to impose a worldwide ban on it).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I defend the right of homophobes and fundamentalist Christians/Muslims whatever to deplore homosexuality as a sin (sad little inadequate bastards that they are, probably with something to hide).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so much more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh yes, including my right to express how much contempt I have for the values of all these people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why? Two reasons.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, the simple face that freedom of speech is indivisible: it is for everyone, not just those with views that society as a whole deems acceptable. If it isn't, it's not freedom of speech.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, it is only by having these views placed in the public forum that they can be challenged and found wanting, where they can be shown up for the repressive anti-humanitarian values that they are, that they are the views of the past.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And -and here you really aren't going to like this- <b>then if you disagree with me then you're one of <span style="color: #cc0000;">them </span>too</b>, you nice cosy little liberal you.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-37770807031979146052014-01-21T23:10:00.000+00:002014-01-21T23:10:11.942+00:00FROM HANK JANSON TO THE POSSIBILITY OF INTELLIGENT EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL LIFE, WITH APPROPRIATE DIVERSIONS.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqOshsL4G7nl6-KbzBJuwQiArizRClOooYEFDghhh2D_uRZA0G2URXiM8QfEAT7rK6O4pTneFT-RQWwrLqPp5vm9w3dAZvGBFTpn-Hroc_67eNisRtQYk6NWYK3Z66JJy4xvx6BBkwLZ4/s640/HJCrime.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqOshsL4G7nl6-KbzBJuwQiArizRClOooYEFDghhh2D_uRZA0G2URXiM8QfEAT7rK6O4pTneFT-RQWwrLqPp5vm9w3dAZvGBFTpn-Hroc_67eNisRtQYk6NWYK3Z66JJy4xvx6BBkwLZ4/s640/HJCrime.jpg" height="640" width="412" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="" name="_GoBack"></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Who is <b>Hank Janson</b>?
some of you are wondering. He’s someone who doesn’t exist. He’s the hero of
over a hundred lurid faux-American tough guy crime novels, which are ostensibly
written by him but in reality are the work of more than a dozen hack British
writers, published during the 40s and 50s and now mostly and deservedly forgotten.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But wait! I want you to imagine that this is the standard
by which <b>Crime Fiction</b> is judged by
those not familiar with the genre. When people (such as The Sunday Times’ AA
Gill) think of <b>CF</b> and judge it, they
think, not of writers of the likes of Conan Doyle or Raymond Chandler or PD
James, but of Hank Janson and lesser writers of ‘his’ ilk. It is a genre to be
sneered at as those who pontificate on this genre imagine its fans to dress up
in trench coats and wear fedoras, secreting .45 calibre guns on their persons
while female fans dress like sluts, exposing legs and cleavage and wearing
bright red lipstick and fish net stockings. People to be mocked.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But this is a fantasy. It doesn’t happen because those
who perchance to write on the subject all know better than that. And yet it <b>does</b> happen. It happens to <b>Science Fiction.<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In his monthly online newsletter of the SF community, <b>Ansible</b>, <b>David Langford</b> regularly includes a brief section entitled “How
others see us” featuring published quotes by people on SF which show their
ignorance and lack of understanding of the genre. It is both funny and saddening.
Over 50 years ago Kingsley Amis (or it might have been Robert Conquest; memory
fails with age alas) wrote words to this effect: “SF’s no good the critics cry/
But this is good/ Well then it’s not SF!” In over 50 years nothing, despite the
enormously increased popularity of SF in literary form and in other media, has
changed. It remains a genre judged by its worst examples.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Space opera and alien monsters basically, invasions and
zooming about the galaxy in five seconds flat, massive space battles, aliens
who are basically humans with enlarged ears or odd noses, lurid covers from
pulp magazines, EE ‘Doc’ Smith (a turgid writer of intergalactic war who wrote
long past his sell by date) and Edgar Rice Burroughs Martian novels. They have
their place in the history of SF but the genre has evolved and become so much
more. Much more than Star Trek and Star Wars which are their inheritors.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">These people are, if not unaware which they mostly are,
ignore the quality work of writers like Ursula K Le Guin, Brian Aldiss, Gene
Wolfe, Nobel-prize winning Doris Lessing (who cheerfully admitted to writing
several SF novels), Samuel R Delany, Iain M. Banks, and so many many more. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So too do they misunderstand the nature of SF. While
admittedly SF can be about any damn thing an author wants it be, cheerfully crossing
genres like a cross-dresser, the best of it is often about aspects of contemporary society but
tackled indirectly. Who can forget Fredrik Pohl’s vitriolic satires about advertising
back in the 50’s, Johanna Russ on sexuality in The Female Man, Delany on
mutable identity, or Leguin on political ideology in her masterpiece The
Dispossessed which opens with a simple description of a wall that is a piece of
symbolism and metaphor on a level with the tortoise crossing the road at the
beginning of Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, or Banks on the supposedly
discredited (not to me, by the way) ideology of socialism?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Lesser writers, however, are unable to transcend their
era and merely reflect it, their fiction being an echo of contemporary values
with no attempt to imagine anything beyond them. Inevitable, I suppose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Which brings me to
<b>Poul Anderson</b>, a writer who is a
paradigm of almost everything I’ve written thus far, whose recent reading by me
(with only two volumes completed to date) of his massive 7-volume collected <b>Polesotechnic League/Technic Civilisation</b>
future history stories has sparked me (I’m not going to be presumptuous and use
‘inspired’) into writing this piece which actually brings together a small
number of things that have been knocking around the inside of my head for a while
and wanting to be let out and resulting in a simplification of them all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ikVoHvFmL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ikVoHvFmL.jpg" height="400" width="267" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://aidanmoher.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sir-dominic-flandry-by-poul-anderson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://aidanmoher.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sir-dominic-flandry-by-poul-anderson.jpg" height="400" width="263" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First of all Anderson is a very competent writer who has
won several of SF’s major awards and when I started reading adult SF in the
early 60s was one of the first writers (along with Asimov and Heinlein of
course) to catch my attention. Although extremely prolific and with a career
stretching from the late 40s to his death in 2001, he was no hack. With a
scientific background, a gift for the creation and description particularly of
aliens and alien landscapes, he wrote hard traditional SF. He also wrote
Fantasy and many critics consider that side of his writing to be his best. I
also remember a short novel of his (last published and probably never likely to
be reprinted) published as half of an <b>Ace
Double</b> (look them up) about a beer-powered space ship (so yes, he also had
a sense of humour).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But a significant amount, albeit still a small proportion,
of his writing came in his future history series. (Note: <b>future history</b> is when a writer produces a series of stories/novels
with a consistent timeline.) And
basically Anderson’s came in the form of space opera albeit a highly superior
form of it. It’s in this series that his strength and relative weaknesses are
to be found. But it’s the latter that I’m more interested in here. Anderson
(who probably voted Republican though that could be unfair of me) is an avowed
advocate of capitalism which is the driving force in the first half of the
volume until external pressures turn it into an Empire, not a republic and
nothing so wishy washy as a commonwealth. Socialism appears long forgotten. Men
are men and rule the spaceways with women as support. People still smoke like chimneys
as they did when the stories were written. Racism, however, appears to be a
dead issue as many characters are non-white and nothing is made of this, so fair
do’s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Technology is the one thing that always dates SF just as
mobile phones do in ‘contemporary’ films made over the last twenty years. Here,
while we have sentient computers their actions are still restricted by their
programming and secret messages are passed on by microtape.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But what characterises this series is the premise that
not only are so many worlds on which mankind can live that Earth can pick and
choose. Also there are countless species of aliens at various levels of
technology with whom our merchants can trade. All this is accomplished by space
ships which can travel faster than light, much much faster than light. This is
basically a standard cliché of SF and I’m not singling out Anderson. My reading
his stuff came from a whim in which I wanted to investigate the SF of my youth
to see if I still enjoyed it in my dotage -I already have several collections
of other writers in nice NESFA Press editions- Anderson was a good writer, and
these collections were cheap.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But it also got me wondering about the possibility of
intelligent life existing on other star systems. No, actually it didn’t. Of
course there is. What I wondered was that if this SF cliché of a fecund
universe is correct then how come we haven’t found any evidence of it and the
only conclusion is that…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Well let’s see.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">First off we have to consider our innate intelligence. I’ve
believed for some time that there is much about the universe that we are
incapable of understanding or being aware of. If we can not conceive of it then
how would we know to look for it? The simple divergence of intelligence in our
own species is proof of that. I’m not a stupid person by any means, though I’m not
that much above average either, and there is so much in everyday life that I
don’t and can’t understand that other people do; the reverse also applies. From this position it’s not unreasonable to
suppose that we could be being studied by an alien intelligence without ever
being aware it. I should not that I put anal probes from outer space in the
same box as the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, demons, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">That said I also think it’s highly unlikely. My view,
which could be completely wrong, is that Einstein got it right and that faster
than light travel is impossible. Theoretical Physics can conjure up
self-contained mathematical proofs that it is possible but it’s basically a
circular argument.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It’s also pretty obvious from recent discoveries that
planets which are even remotely Earth-like are very rare indeed. Which isn’t to
say that alien intelligences don’t exist on planets which aren’t earth-like
but, apart from the fact of the near impossibility of ever encountering them
they would be impossible to communicate with on any meaningful level if we
could even recognise them for what they are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If there are any travellers between the stars they would
have to be machine intelligences able to endure the enormous time taken to
travel between solar systems. Their progenitors, a biological species would probably
have died out before they’d visited even a dozen so one has to ask: what is the
point?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I’m not arguing against SETI -the search for
extra-terrestrial intelligence- I just think it’s unlikely to bear fruit. But then,
like my certainty that there is no god, I hope I’m wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But we need our dreams, our hope for something more. It
can be found in religion (though not by me) or in the visions of SF which are
no less transcendent. And no less needed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-63270442952523424372014-01-20T10:10:00.000+00:002014-01-20T10:10:08.697+00:00THE DAILY MAIL AND THE HOUNDING OF LOUISE WOODWARD<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many of you will remember the case of the the 19 year old English nanny who was found guilty of the murder of a baby in her care in Massachusetts back in 1997. I'm going to simplify what happened next but a fuller, if still concise and clear, account can be found on <b>Wikipaedia</b> which I used for reference.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Woodward always denied harming the baby. When she stated that she 'popped' the baby on the bed she didn't realise that the word, innocuous in the UK, had connotations of severe violence in the US. For various reasons her defence attorney refused to allow a lesser charge of manslaughter and she was found guilty. It was later revealed by a juror that none of the jury believed she was guilty of murder but, although half believed her to be completely innocent, went along with the rest who would not let her off. On appeal, the murder verdict was overturned and reduced to involuntary manslaughter and her sentence reduced to time served. After 279 days Louise Woodward was freed. To me this suggests that the appeal judge himself had pretty strong doubts about her guilt over even this lesser charge.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A medical expert at the trial recently said that, given the results of improved medical knowledge over the intervening years, he no longer believed that the damning testimony he gave was correct.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So why, after sixteen years, has the Daily Mail plonked large colour photos of the woman on the Mail Online? Simple: Woodward has had a baby with her husband.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And here's the headline.</div>
<br />
<h2 class="linkro-darkred" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 2.5em; margin: 5px 0px 10px; min-height: 1px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542281/New-mother-Louise-Woodward-pictured-walking-daughter-Holly-time.html" style="color: #cc0000; cursor: pointer; margin: 0px; min-height: 1px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Killer ex-nanny Louise Woodward pictured walking with her daughter Holly for the first time</a></h2>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/19/article-2542281-1ACC01E300000578-820_634x816.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/19/article-2542281-1ACC01E300000578-820_634x816.jpg" height="320" width="248" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I find it difficult to express just how appalling I find this and this is actually the second time in recent days that the Mail Online has featured this story. If anyone wants an example of how low British journalism can sink to then this is a pretty good (though that's hardly the appropriate word) example. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After her American tragedy, Woodward has gone on to lead a blameless life. She got a degree, worked as a solicitor, got married, and has now had a baby. It's obvious what the Mail is implying even though it never states it outright and neither will I.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But frankly this whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. And, to their credit, it has the same effect of the readers of the Mail Online. Out of over 300 comments, 98% say effectively the same thing -leave her alone. A number mention the dubiousness of the original conviction. Not that I'm all that surprised as I've noticed before that only a minority of the Mail's readers belong to the racist, sexist, homophobic, generally all-round bigoted brigade. With this story they have really upset a lot of their readers as I imagine the reaction is also reflected among the many, like myself, who read the story but didn't comment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't imagine that there's any way Woodward could sue the Mail which is a shame because it represents British journalism at its worst and, despite being an ex-union steward, I believe those responsible should be sacked.</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3220942974927184412.post-40486424266776411152013-12-28T11:19:00.001+00:002013-12-28T11:19:56.577+00:00FILM REVIEWS: TOTAL RECALL (2012)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://half-decent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Total_Recall_Movie_Wallpaper_1680x1050.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://half-decent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Total_Recall_Movie_Wallpaper_1680x1050.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Warning: strong language from the very beginning (of the review not the film).</b><br />
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the most fucking blindingly stupid SF film I've seen in ages. It is so unbelievably fucking stupid that I thought it was going to be a complete con and reveal itself as something clever albeit derivative. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The scenario. About a hundred years from now, the almost the entire world has suffered an environmental collapse except for a British dominated western Europe. And Australia known as The Territories. Is there some invisible barrier which prevents the environmental collapse from moving into these regions? And what we see of Australia (The Territories) is a massively overcrowded city along the the lines of Ridley Scott's <b>Bladerunner</b> only much much worse. And -you really are not going to believe this- there is massive tunnel right through the earth -including the molten core!- that connects (I'm assuming) London with an unnamed Australian city. And people travel between the two in a giant lift which takes -wait for it, wait for it!- about 15 minutes to complete the journey which means an average speed of around 32,000 mph. I may be wrong but I think this is faster than escape velocity -the speed needed to get a spaceship into orbit. Apart from that, given the sheer amount of resources it would take to create such a thing it would surely be easier to create Earth-orbit habitats. And people commute every day as a matter of course. The energy this involves must be enormous -and all on an environmentally damaged Earth.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
God help me and I haven't even got on to the story yet. If you've seen Arnie's vastly superior original then you've probably got a good idea of what happens next. Working class bloke visits a place that implants memories and wants to be a secret agent only something goes wrong. The police conveniently arrive within seconds, kill the staff (why? they didn't do anything wrong) and are killed in turn by Colin Farrell discovering fighting skills he didn't know he had. He goes on the run hunted by his secret agent 'wife' and discovers he's really a top government agent gone over to the rebels. The rebels, incidentally, haven't been letting off bombs. That's been organised by the head of the government who wants an excuse to kill everybody in Australia -or at least the city we've seen- because, according to him, they support the rebels but really they want the territory for their expanding population. Why? The place is a fucking tip! </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is lots of mindless sfx/cgi-filled action before it's announced that a few (like maybe three) thousand android soldiers are going down in the elevator to kill everybody at the other end. All millions of them. Wouldn't this take quite a while? Meanwhile everybody down under is told to go to the environmental collapse zone which probably isn't the healthiest place in the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, Colin and rebel girlfriend are trying to plant bombs on the elevator. I couldn't understand why the down-unders didn't destroy the arrival station and have the elevator crash destroying everyone on board but what do I know?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At this point I should inform you that very much earlier in the film I decided that the scenario was so stupid that it would all be an induced memory and that Colin Farrell really was just a working class bloke. A little later, not much later, I decided that even that part was induced and Farrell really lives in a utopian society and felt the need to escape into a hideous dystopia in order to appreciate what he really had (this idea is stolen from a short story).</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Spoiler Warning!</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No it wasn't. Everything is face value. As a film this is one of the biggest piles of shit that I have ever seen. It's so shitty it's an insult to the word shit. Did no-one reading the script, or treatment, realise what an illogical inane piece of crap this was? Clearly not which leads me to conclude that people in Hollywood are the most ignorant thickheads on the face of the earth (except for religious fundamentalists).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This film is so bad that I almost think self-harming is preferable to watching it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And to add insult to injury, in the UK it was given a very lenient 12 certificate (triple breasted nudity, attempted genocide, violence, strong language) which means impressionable kids who don't know any better have to suffer it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If there is any reason to watch this putrefying corpse of a film it's to see how bad a big budget film can be. But, for your own sanity, just take my word for it and don't bother. This really is one of the worst films I've seen in years.</div>
</div>
</div>
IanWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13864128439788522183noreply@blogger.com0