My niece doing her best Harry Callahan impression.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
She STILL got out early!
Paris Hilton left gaol yesterday. Her sentence was halved. Disgusting.
Worse: she's set to make millions from interviews about the experience.
I thought it was meant to be illegal to profit from the proceeds of crime?
Worse: she's set to make millions from interviews about the experience.
I thought it was meant to be illegal to profit from the proceeds of crime?
Review: Die Hard 4.0
All you need to know about this sequel is whether or not it follows the template of its predecessors.
So...
So...
- Yes; it features Bruce Willis as wisecracking Det. John McClane.
- Yes; it's stupidly, cartoonishly violent.
- Yes; it features thrilling stunts.
- Yes; there's a pantomime villain.
- Yes; there are incompetent senior officers getting in the way.
- Yes; a member of McClane's estranged family ends up involved in the action.
- Yes; it's full of plot-holes and absurdities.
In short, yes; fans will love it, the rest of us will be entertained.
In truth, the wisecrack quotient is down and those which are there aren't nearly as funny, the characters are weak cyphers to the point where you don't care what happens to any of them and - since the plot revolves around the American secret service getting its comeuppance for ignoring warnings - it's hard to not want the bad guys to win. Indeed, the Live Free or Die Hard title used in the States is dropped here, wisely, because of the jingoistic tone so sadly common over the Atlantic post 9/11.
Maggie Q is criminally underused, the bad guys are - as is becoming depressingly common in Hollywood flicks concerning terrorism - mostly French and Justin Long plays the same character he always does. If you can believe Warren P. Cheswick from Ed as a hacker extraordinaire he won't irritate the arse off you as he did me. The same goes for the depiction of all computer users as sci-fi obsessed geeks.
Check your brain at the door and enjoy the big bangs.
Clangers: Watch out for the abysmal lip-synch'ing in several scenes.
Review: Hostel 2
I've never seen the first of these films. I wasn't getting to press showings when it came out and I really wasn't interested enough in the theme to pay money to see it. However, I decided to see what all the fuss was about this time around. Having gone to the sequel I have to say that my opinions have not been changed, rather confirmed.
Now, before anyone says I had made up my mind before I went along, you may well be right, but I was prepared to be persuaded so I kept my mind open. If they had managed to make anything scary, disturbing or said anything about what might motivate someone to do the things done in this script it could have been forgiven. Despite excellent cinematography, sound design and surprisingly good acting I cannot even begin to recommend this reprehensible piece of dross.
The original, along with Saw and its sequels, have coined the new genre of torture porn and that is exactly what this is. Random people are kidnapped and sold to rich perverts to be tortured, humiliated and ultimately murdered. Unless you share the mental deviance of the idle rich who indulge their sick fantasies in these films there is no reason whatsoever to watch one. There is no tension, no drama and nothing to be gained from the experience other than a voyeuristic indulgence in watching twisted mutilation and depravity of the sort rarely indulged in by anyone outside of the Inquisition.
That porn' is becoming more mainstream is one thing and whatever your opinion on it, it is here to stay. The difference is that most of us have a healthy interest in sex and can relate in some way to watching beautiful people doing it for our entertainment. Human bodies are designed to be attractive to us. Ironically, those who suppress those desires and make sexual acts out to be depraved and dirty tend to be those who wander down the paths into sado-masochism. I do not refer here to the majority of modern SM players who indulge in a bit of spanking, bondage & nipple-clamping. For someone to develop a desire to inflict serious damage and or humiliation on a 'lover' it requires misogyny, a deep-rooted hatred of sex, one's own sexual desires and the other involved who 'makes' one feel these desires. Exactly the type fostered by the religious right. The more the Victorians publicly denied sex the more perverted they became in private. (Sweeping generalisation, I know but you get the drift.)
**Spoiler alert***
Given that Manhunt 2 has just been banned by the British Board of Film Classification, which condemned its “ unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in a game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing,” and “sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed and encouraged” why has this not met the same fate?
There is no redemption, no retribution upon the bad guys (with minor exceptions) and the only motivation for this film is to 'enjoy' the pain & humiliation of the characters. The only character to survive this slaughter-fest is - contrary to the usual rules of horror films where only the morally corrupt get killed - the only one with sufficient money to buy her way out, along the way killing the guy who 'bought' her. If the implication under usual horror rules is that the immoral will suffer retribution then the implication here is that only the wealthy will survive, possibly even that only they deserve to survive. Had they not made a point of killing off the sole survivor of the first film (twice - once in a dream & once for 'real') in the opening scenes then they could have avoided that accusation, but they didn't and money and power won out over determination to survive. The added implication is that the 'heroine' is not going to do anything to end the situation which saw her friends tortured to death and finishes up with her committing a 'shock' murder in the most obvious 'twist' I've seen since M. Night Shyamalan lost his originality to ego.
If society is reflected in what we allow to be seen in our entertainment media this muck makes me very worried indeed by the state of our society. In a culture where images of adults indulging in consensual, natural erotic behaviour is considered to be the very definition of a pornographic image (defined as 'likely to corrupt or deprave the viewer' rather than the more recently accepted 'designed to sexually arouse') and therefore subject to the strictest regulation, restriction and censure but this is considered to be fit for mainstream consumption what does that say about us? Nothing good, I'm afraid.
Remember, too that one of the supposedly strongest taboos remaining about porn' is depictions of sexual violence. This is about nothing else. Just because actual rape doesn't feature, don't think for one minute that sexual gratification is not what's on these characters' minds.
Now, before anyone says I had made up my mind before I went along, you may well be right, but I was prepared to be persuaded so I kept my mind open. If they had managed to make anything scary, disturbing or said anything about what might motivate someone to do the things done in this script it could have been forgiven. Despite excellent cinematography, sound design and surprisingly good acting I cannot even begin to recommend this reprehensible piece of dross.
The original, along with Saw and its sequels, have coined the new genre of torture porn and that is exactly what this is. Random people are kidnapped and sold to rich perverts to be tortured, humiliated and ultimately murdered. Unless you share the mental deviance of the idle rich who indulge their sick fantasies in these films there is no reason whatsoever to watch one. There is no tension, no drama and nothing to be gained from the experience other than a voyeuristic indulgence in watching twisted mutilation and depravity of the sort rarely indulged in by anyone outside of the Inquisition.
That porn' is becoming more mainstream is one thing and whatever your opinion on it, it is here to stay. The difference is that most of us have a healthy interest in sex and can relate in some way to watching beautiful people doing it for our entertainment. Human bodies are designed to be attractive to us. Ironically, those who suppress those desires and make sexual acts out to be depraved and dirty tend to be those who wander down the paths into sado-masochism. I do not refer here to the majority of modern SM players who indulge in a bit of spanking, bondage & nipple-clamping. For someone to develop a desire to inflict serious damage and or humiliation on a 'lover' it requires misogyny, a deep-rooted hatred of sex, one's own sexual desires and the other involved who 'makes' one feel these desires. Exactly the type fostered by the religious right. The more the Victorians publicly denied sex the more perverted they became in private. (Sweeping generalisation, I know but you get the drift.)
**Spoiler alert***
Given that Manhunt 2 has just been banned by the British Board of Film Classification, which condemned its “ unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in a game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing,” and “sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed and encouraged” why has this not met the same fate?
There is no redemption, no retribution upon the bad guys (with minor exceptions) and the only motivation for this film is to 'enjoy' the pain & humiliation of the characters. The only character to survive this slaughter-fest is - contrary to the usual rules of horror films where only the morally corrupt get killed - the only one with sufficient money to buy her way out, along the way killing the guy who 'bought' her. If the implication under usual horror rules is that the immoral will suffer retribution then the implication here is that only the wealthy will survive, possibly even that only they deserve to survive. Had they not made a point of killing off the sole survivor of the first film (twice - once in a dream & once for 'real') in the opening scenes then they could have avoided that accusation, but they didn't and money and power won out over determination to survive. The added implication is that the 'heroine' is not going to do anything to end the situation which saw her friends tortured to death and finishes up with her committing a 'shock' murder in the most obvious 'twist' I've seen since M. Night Shyamalan lost his originality to ego.
If society is reflected in what we allow to be seen in our entertainment media this muck makes me very worried indeed by the state of our society. In a culture where images of adults indulging in consensual, natural erotic behaviour is considered to be the very definition of a pornographic image (defined as 'likely to corrupt or deprave the viewer' rather than the more recently accepted 'designed to sexually arouse') and therefore subject to the strictest regulation, restriction and censure but this is considered to be fit for mainstream consumption what does that say about us? Nothing good, I'm afraid.
Remember, too that one of the supposedly strongest taboos remaining about porn' is depictions of sexual violence. This is about nothing else. Just because actual rape doesn't feature, don't think for one minute that sexual gratification is not what's on these characters' minds.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Game pulled over Bulger complaint
BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Game pulled over Bulger complaint
Why is this a big issue all of a sudden?
When I first heard the story this morning I was as annoyed by it as everyone else is at present, but having read the article I'm now more confused than anything else.
Yeah, yeah; I'm an insensitive moron etc, etc. My point here, though is that contrary to the way it's being reported the game does not show the video and does not make Jamie's abduction a part of the action. If I'm wrong about that, it's because I cannot find any reference in any of the articles about what connection the still has to the game.
Furthermore, since the game has been out for years why is this happening now? Or is it just that the white label version has just been released and this is stirring up some free advertising?
Why is this a big issue all of a sudden?
When I first heard the story this morning I was as annoyed by it as everyone else is at present, but having read the article I'm now more confused than anything else.
Yeah, yeah; I'm an insensitive moron etc, etc. My point here, though is that contrary to the way it's being reported the game does not show the video and does not make Jamie's abduction a part of the action. If I'm wrong about that, it's because I cannot find any reference in any of the articles about what connection the still has to the game.
Furthermore, since the game has been out for years why is this happening now? Or is it just that the white label version has just been released and this is stirring up some free advertising?
Daily Mail
We're just back from a weekend with the in-laws where I had the unfortunate experience of reading the Daily Mail. Several pages of Scotland-bashing at its worst.
This contemptible rag has always been discriminatory and inflammatory, with the emphasis on the last syllable. Last weekend they spent several pages whining about how NHS patients in Scotland can be prescribed drugs those in England can't. Apart from the fact that they seem to think the border somehow prevents people from each country living in the other and suffering the whims of the local NHS the articles were derogatory, factually inaccurate and divisive.
They imply that Scotland's NHS budget will increase because of the Executive's decision to prescribe these drugs. It won't. Scotland's NHS will have to find the money to fund these treatments from within their allocation. Why this becomes an excuse for such racist and unpleasant jock-bashing I can't quite comprehend. Surely, instead of bitching about how we've decided to use NHS money to save lives or improve the quality of life for some of our patients should be a cause for celebration? Or are we supposed to continue to spend the money on consultants & managers? I can see that people would be unhappy to be denied these drugs by their NHS, but that's an issue with how their MPs and local Trusts are running their local health boards, not with how Scotland is running hers.
Of course, these pathetic whinings are not printed in the Scottish version of the rag. Oh no, that might cost them readers. If they're going to have these opinions they should have the courage of their convictions and say them to our faces, not talk behind their hands. Have a mature debate about it and argue about what the real issues are, not this tripe. The more this kind of sludge is passed off as reasoned debate the more it makes the English look churlish and petulant. "If you're not playing by our rules we want our ball back." kind of thing.
Except it wasn't their ball in the first place.
This contemptible rag has always been discriminatory and inflammatory, with the emphasis on the last syllable. Last weekend they spent several pages whining about how NHS patients in Scotland can be prescribed drugs those in England can't. Apart from the fact that they seem to think the border somehow prevents people from each country living in the other and suffering the whims of the local NHS the articles were derogatory, factually inaccurate and divisive.
They imply that Scotland's NHS budget will increase because of the Executive's decision to prescribe these drugs. It won't. Scotland's NHS will have to find the money to fund these treatments from within their allocation. Why this becomes an excuse for such racist and unpleasant jock-bashing I can't quite comprehend. Surely, instead of bitching about how we've decided to use NHS money to save lives or improve the quality of life for some of our patients should be a cause for celebration? Or are we supposed to continue to spend the money on consultants & managers? I can see that people would be unhappy to be denied these drugs by their NHS, but that's an issue with how their MPs and local Trusts are running their local health boards, not with how Scotland is running hers.
Of course, these pathetic whinings are not printed in the Scottish version of the rag. Oh no, that might cost them readers. If they're going to have these opinions they should have the courage of their convictions and say them to our faces, not talk behind their hands. Have a mature debate about it and argue about what the real issues are, not this tripe. The more this kind of sludge is passed off as reasoned debate the more it makes the English look churlish and petulant. "If you're not playing by our rules we want our ball back." kind of thing.
Except it wasn't their ball in the first place.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The Hilton Shuffle
As Her Matchsticky returns to jail in California, crying & yelling for her mom, those of us who give a damn about law & order breathe a collective sigh of relief.
Nobody in their right mind believed the spoilt little brat when, on a red carpet hours before handing herself in, she avowed that she was going to face the music, use this as a positive experience and grow stronger from it.
When her own family doctor turned up, diagnosed her with a mystery medical condition condition which required her to be released from the holiday unit she was in to face a 'punishment' of 40 days grounded in her own luxury mansion, we all knew that this was a faithful family retainer or paid-off lackey working a flanker to get her out. Apparently, not only was she 'ill' but she was cold due to only having three blankets in her cell, had been crying and wasn't eating. Awww, diddums! I mean, it's not like she does much of the latter anyway!
This spoilt, talentless waste of oxygen thinks she's above the law. Her contempt for it was shown when she ignored her driving ban in the first place. How she could get time off for good behaviour when spotted still driving as she awaited sentence I never understood. So a thunderous roar of approval is due to her judge who, incensed at not being consulted on her even earlier release, has now returned her to jail to serve the rest of her full 45 day sentence. The only thing that could make me respect him even more is if he now insisted that she serve her term in the general population of a real prison.
I can bet you there will be some kind of addition to her 'reality' show where she & that other vacuous bimbo she works with go to jail, maybe with one of them as a warder. The morons who signed online petitions to 'free Paris' before she even went to jail would lap that up.
Nobody in their right mind believed the spoilt little brat when, on a red carpet hours before handing herself in, she avowed that she was going to face the music, use this as a positive experience and grow stronger from it.
When her own family doctor turned up, diagnosed her with a mystery medical condition condition which required her to be released from the holiday unit she was in to face a 'punishment' of 40 days grounded in her own luxury mansion, we all knew that this was a faithful family retainer or paid-off lackey working a flanker to get her out. Apparently, not only was she 'ill' but she was cold due to only having three blankets in her cell, had been crying and wasn't eating. Awww, diddums! I mean, it's not like she does much of the latter anyway!
This spoilt, talentless waste of oxygen thinks she's above the law. Her contempt for it was shown when she ignored her driving ban in the first place. How she could get time off for good behaviour when spotted still driving as she awaited sentence I never understood. So a thunderous roar of approval is due to her judge who, incensed at not being consulted on her even earlier release, has now returned her to jail to serve the rest of her full 45 day sentence. The only thing that could make me respect him even more is if he now insisted that she serve her term in the general population of a real prison.
I can bet you there will be some kind of addition to her 'reality' show where she & that other vacuous bimbo she works with go to jail, maybe with one of them as a warder. The morons who signed online petitions to 'free Paris' before she even went to jail would lap that up.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Legit
So, I've been and done the shoot for this. Can't say I was thrilled. It was clearly extra work despite being paid at proper Equity rates. Another example of being used as a cheap stunt man. Not as cheap as the poor extra they got to hit me with a bottle, right enough.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that this fight-directing lark, although making me money, is hindering my acting career. This kind of job is bad enough, but with the stuff that happened on Rebus this season I'm beginning to think I should drop it altogether.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that this fight-directing lark, although making me money, is hindering my acting career. This kind of job is bad enough, but with the stuff that happened on Rebus this season I'm beginning to think I should drop it altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
