Two Pints of Lager - Spilt

Warning: This Post Contains Spoilers For Season Seven of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet Of Crisps

"Jumping the Shark" refers to the point where a series is so past its best-by date that it's started to rot.

It comes from Happy Days, where they became so desperate to keep the series fresh and exciting that they had the Fonz jump over a great white shark on water skis, and this has since become iconic of the point of utter desperation.

It probably seemed like a good idea to have season seven of Two Pints begin with Johnny literally jumping the shark off-screen. It was quite funny - ironic, tongue-in-cheek, and with at least one person saying "eeeeeeey".

However, the series actually jumped the shark by killing off Johnny, played by Ralf Little. Off-screen too.

It's understandable that actors want to move on, and have other commitments - but couldn't they have just done one last series, to round everything off? Johnny's death is incredibly sudden, with no build up whatsoever for his trip to Hawaii (to jump the shark, in both senses).

Another thing I hate about season seven is Gaz's love affair with Janet.

It seems that every male in the series has been waiting for Janet to become single, in order to move in on her. Janet now, essentially, seems to be the main girl of the series with Donna and Louise as her backing singers - and that's unfortunate, because I always liked her least.

As far as I'm concerned, season seven of Two Pints is not canon - except for Louse's pregnancy. That's interesting, and another indication that the series is winding down. Friends did the same, having all the characters grow up and move on before leaving them to it. However, Friends managed at least some semblance of natural growth - rather than simply tacking on a highly unlikely happy ending for everyone concerned. It's unbelievable, sappy, crude, and frankly, a complete sell out and betrayal of the shows fans and the characters.

I'm quite hurt.:(

I Want DVDs

I found a leaflet stuck in one of my magazines, which admittedly, isn't usually a newsworthy occurance. They tend to be about tigers, and I would like to adopt one, but it wouldn't fit in my bedroom.

Anyway, this leaflet advertised a new site - iwantdvd.co.uk. The basic idea behind it is very interesting. Their advertising claims;

Unlike other DVD stores, www.iwantdvd.com has been specially designed to make online shopping more fun. Rather than finding yourself surfing through ten million DVDs waiting for a title to catch your eye, you can simply use the website's DVD selector to narrow down the search!

First, you need to put in who the DVD is for, with choices including everybody from yourself to your parents, siblings, children, best mate or other half. Then refine your quest by putting in the recipients age, film preference (comedy, horror, drama, etc) and details about their personality (are they funny? Romantic? Stylish?). The DVD selector will then use this information to rummage through the websites extensive library of content, choosing suitable DVDs to fit your criteria. You can also watch trailers and read information on its choices before you decide to buy them or not - perfect! Why waste time when www.iwantdvd.com can do all the hard work for you?

...well, because they've mistyped their own website address twice would be a good reason.

Ignoring that embarrassing error, the copy does look interesting, but I'll admit to having doubts as to how well it works. Sites like Amazon and LoveFilm, among others, also feature a recommendation feature, but this is based on votes given by their customers, and your history with the company. Anyone who uses Amazon regularly will generally be able to find a good choice or two among its many, many recomendations - and the fact that, at times, it's only batting 1/10 doesn't matter, since that feature isn't Amazon's main selling point (the books are). So far, LoveFilm's recommendations have only served to remind me to watch the next season of a series, but I remain in hope. After all, I've already got 300+ films on my list, so it's not like they've got many to choose from. And again, since that isn't the company's main selling point, it simply serves as a rather nice bonus.

But, iwantDVD is going beyond that. Rather than simply having the feature, they've decided it to make it their main selling point against the many, many other DVD sites out there. And how do they do it?

They could hook into a larger database, like that of IMDB, and use their long history of user ratings to sort films. Or they could categorise the films by themselves - say, have a given film score highly for a gift for a grandchild, and lower for one for a girlfriend (I'm assuming the film is Happy Feet, or Igor, or something). Give it a higher score for the younger age groups, and lower for older groups. Higher for people who are funny and like comedies. Then, when someone inputs the options, find the film which scores highest overall.

The problem with that system is the lack of user feedback. Sure, the system can be tweaked as the site grows, and people actually buy the DVDs, but during its delicate time, while the system is still finding its feet, that's not going to help. Honestly, I'm not holding out a fantastic amount of hope for this site.

So, I decided to test it, with my boyfriend. The objective was simple try to find a film which one of us owns, or at least wants to own, without actually lying about any details.

The first option you need to input is the recipients relationship to you, and there are quite a lot of options to choose from - dad, mum, brother, sister, son, daughter, me, girlfriend, boyfriend, best mate, husband, wife, evil twin, mistress, friend, partner, the ex, grandfather, grandmother, grandkid, cousin, aunt, uncle, mother-in-law, father in law, family pet, neighbour, nanny, teacher, boss, bribe, room mate, imaginary friend, secret santa, charity, arch enemy, and other. I think someone was having a lot of fun with this. I also think it would make more sense to have a separate 'gender' option, so they could cut a few options off this list, but that's just me.

Then age; 0-6, 6-12, 12-15, 15-18, 18-35, 35-55, 55+. These categories are much broader, and have some overlaps. I think that's a bad sign. Maybe whoever wrote the options was having slightly less fun at this point.

I also think that more weight should be given to age, rather than relationship. Or even to any of the later options, the next of which is which genre they prefer - action, classic, comedy, rom-coms, drama, family, horror, musical, romance, seasonal, sci-fi, suspense, or television.

I don't think I need to point out that television isn't a genre, do I? They're also missing indie, among others (I noticed that one, because I had a go at making it show Juno). Fantasy, too.

You can't tell, but I have my sad face on right about now.

The final option is for personality type, and I truly doubt the legitimacy of that option. Firstly, why would a funny person want to watch a comedy (which is what the system is going to find, if you say that)? They're already funny.

The options are also quite limited, when compared to the vast range of humanity; neurotic, observant, spontaneous, misunderstood, funny, romantic, stylish, flirty, strict, popular, stressed out, workaholic, loyal, outrageous, charistmatic, optimistic, charitable, laid back, streetwise, paranoid, troublemaker, hard to please, sympathetic, moody, gossip, player, smart arse, arrogant, or chilled out.

I'm not entirely sure why any of those - particularly stressed out and chilled out, which are temporary states - would effect one's choice in films. I also think that they should allow one to choose three or so of these, since I'm guessing they're using it to establish themes within the chosen genre.

Now, my boyfriend the horror fan, can be quite neurotic, but that doesn't mean he likes The Butterfly Effect (I do, because of the chaos theory, and because I don't like horror films and this isn't one). He didn't think much of Gremlins either, when I focused on him being misunderstood. The set of "six iconic films" was really cheating, but since he only liked one of them, it didn't do them much good (True Romance).

For me, the site suggested Micky Blue Eyes, Miss Congeniality, Dave and Doc Hollywood. I've only seen two of those (the same two I've heard of), and neither was on my list of "DVDs I want for Christmas" (which included Persepolis, Juno, Happy Go Lucky and the second season of Green Wing). I do like Miss Congeniality - it's one of those happy, witty little films that one can watch over and over (well, this one can). However, if I were going to get one of those on DVD (and I should), I'd be going for Legally Blonde or The Devil Wears Prada.

The site then, with a tweak of options, suggested The Batman Legacy for him and The Prestige for me - both of which were met with a resounding 'meh'. And not the positive kind.

I did manage to find one that he owned by claiming he liked sci-fi and was misunderstood - The Matrix Reloaded. Unfortunately, that film also got a 'meh', since he's now sick of it. To be fair though, the site didn't know how long he'd owned it, or even that he did. Action and neurotic came up with The Batman Legacy again, which he's sure that he wouldn't like (I double-checked).

All in all, not a fantastic start. It might work better if one could input a few films that the recepient already owns and likes, to help narrow it down a little. In fairness, I'm not a member of the site, and it may allow you to do that if you are - at least with your own films. There might even be a user-feedback system. This site could be fun for finding films you wouldn't have considered otherwise, but the choices are far too mainstream for that to really be an option.

Anyway, in conclusion, I'd say that if you're going to use this to actually help choose a present, don't use it for someone you're quite close to without double-checking their choices. On that note, my six-year-old arch enemy (who is hard to please and likes musicals) would, apparently, like a box-set of Elvis films. Funny, I thought she might prefer Igor.

Australia

It is curious to note just how little Australia impacts the cinematic world. While I'm aware that Australia has a burgeoning film industry and has produced many good films, these probably will not be widely advertised, and almost certainly won't be competing with the latest Hollywood blockbusters. Most famous Australian actors and actresses - Guy Pearce, Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman and the late Heath Ledger, to name a few - will not be using their real accents in their most famous films, except, perhaps, on the commentary. And at the moment, I can only think of one film which is set in Australia.

So, with that kind of history, this film seems to be an Australian light in an all too American world. Australia, directed by Baz Luhrman (New South Wales), starring Hugh Jackman (also New South Wales) and Nicole Kidman (born in Honolulu, but raised in Sydney), and filmed in Queensland, may be Australia's big break into the commercial film market.

I do, however, find it rather amusing that Nicole Kidman is playing an English woman.

I also suspect that, epic as the film is, it may be slightly too heavy in tone for most audiences.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

I think I know why director Kevin Smith doesn't have a day job. If his character's work ethics are even vaguely similar to his, he's better off doing something creative, far, far away from real people.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno does exactly what it says on the tin - best friends since high school, Zack and Miri decide that, in order to pay off their bills, they should make a porn film. While one character is easy to sympathize with, it's easy to believe that the other one is getting far, far more than he could possibly deserve.

Miri is a beautiful girl, with low confidence and few friends apart from Zack, who continually tells her that she's just as unattractive as she once was in high school (and really, if she did look like that in high school, her classmates were clearly blind). He also steals her handwarmer (that's just mean), and has such an utterly terrible working attitude that's it's hardly surprising that they can't pay their bills. Later in the film (and here's a bit of a spoiler) he runs away completely, abandoning Miri to their debts. What a nice guy. What a great friend.

The chemistry between Miri (Elizabeth Banks) and Zack (Seth Rogen) seems utterly fake. The sexual tension is written in but not felt, and laid on with a trowel. Zack and Miri don't feel like friends or potential lovers, however desperately the script wants you to think that. The film does have some funny moments, and a great scene from Justin Long, but generally speaking, it has the same problems I've seen in other Smith films, and other Rogen films, with very few of the good points. Although, you do get to see Jason Mewes naked (yum). Definitely worth the wait. I was honestly expecting just the gratuitous female nude shots - well done for being non-sexist.

I should probably confess here that, while I don't mind Kevin Smith, I really don't like Seth Rogen, because I think he abuses his position as a writer and/or producer in order to act out his fantasies with beautiful actresses. Despite purposefully making himself less attractive than the people leading male roles traditionally go to, he still always gets the girl. And that would be admirable if he didn't make sure that the 'girl' in question is a stunning up-and-coming actress. It would be good if someone at least acknowledged that these girls are way too good for him, even in the films that he's written - and I don't just mean his own character, in some kind of self-deprecating scene designed to make us think he's obviously really sweet and romantic and has hidden depths. To quote from an article on Alternate Takes (a fantastic film site, go take a look);

Laura Mulvey famously argued that in classical Hollywood cinema, the female serves as the “bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning” - that women are objectified by the implicitly male gaze of the camera, the audience, and the male lead.

Now, that may be true of most movies, but there's no need to be quite so transparent about it, is there Rogen?

Zack and Miri is funny, but forgettable, and supremely irritating in several ways. It's also quite amazing just how Miri's character manages to keep her curls intact with no water or electricity.

Things Look Scarier from Three Feet High

This blog is called The Real Ratings because I don't always trust the BBFC, especially not in regards to children's films. I'm not a mother myself, but I'm an older sister, and I babysit. And, moreover, I remember what it's like to be a child, watching films, and I'm not sure that many of the classifiers do.

One simple thing should always be remembered, when deciding whether to allow children - your own or anyone else's - to watch a film. And that is that children are smaller, have much shorter concentration spans, and tend to feel things more intently.

When I was younger, watching a film used to seem like a huge commitment. Sitting still and paying attention for a whole hour and a half? That's a skill that comes with time.

When I was even younger than that, say three or four, films were an incredibly intense experience. And what I remember most about them, years later, is how scary they were. Like The Little Mermaid, for instance. My strongest memory of that film was the deep purple water during the storm at the end, when Ursula was taking revenge. And the golden signature Ariel made. That's what made the most impression on my young mind. It makes no difference that, together, they made up barely fifteen minutes of a ninety minute film - that was what I remembered.

Even worse was All Dogs Go To Heaven, which was released a year after I was born. I must have been three or four the first time I saw it.

The film was released with a G rating in America, and a U rating in the UK. This was after removing the word 'damn', cutting a few minutes from the nightmare in hell scene, and removing the shot of a car hitting the main character (a dog named Charlie B. Barkin, voiced by Burt Reynolds).

The first line of IMDB's plot summary is as follows; A dog returns from the dead looking for revenge on his killer using an orphan girl who can talk to animals.

Let me repeat that.

A dog returns from the dead looking for revenge on his killer using an orphan girl who can talk to animals.

...yeah.

There's also a crocodile, someone who is executed by being strapped to an anchor and lowered to some kind of snapping thing (possibly the same crocodile, it's been a while), begging to be released the entire way down, someone is hit by a car, and the devil comes for the hero's soul at the end.

Also, the voice actress, Judith Barsi, who voiced Anne-Marie, was shot around a year and a half before the film was released. Which isn't really relevant to how scary the plot is, but adds an extra surreal effect when watching it as an adult.

So, yeah. Childrens films are scarier to children than they are to adults. And All Dogs Go to Heaven is to children's films as Heathers was to teen movies.

Which isn't to say that I don't adore All Dogs Go to Heaven - just that it utterly terrified me, far beyond the range of what an adult might have expected.

David Walliams

Not as funny as he thinks he is, in a nutshell.

David Walliams is one of the stars and creators of TV show Little Britain, along with his partner (in comedy, not life) Matt Lucas. He was born as David Williams, but changed his name on joining actors union Equity, as they already had a David Williams on their books (incidentally, something similar happened to Michael Caine, who was born Maurice Joseph Micklewhite Jr.)

Little Britain was very successful. It made fun of various British stereotypes and archetypes, and lead to David Walliams being named in a survey as the person most British people would like to have to dinner. It also won him a host of female admirers, despite spending most of his time dressed as a woman or a man breastfeeding. This included long time stalker Sarah Bartholomew, who, admittedly, turned out to have mental health problems.

However, it seems that this success has gone to Walliams head. Taking his behaviour on 8 Out of 10 Cats as a guide, quite frankly, he's a twat. He hams it up, and behaves in a manner that is not so much funny as utterly unprofessional, especially when attempting to upstage other guests, or even the host of the show. And attractive as he is, Jimmy Carr will always be better looking (I am attracted to funny men).

However, as a runner, I do admire his swimming the English Channel and the Strait of Gibralter in order to raise money for charity. I do admire David Walliams in general, it's just his behaviour when he's not the star that bothers me.

Batman Sues Warner Bros

The original article is posted here.

In short, the mayor of a city named 'Batman' in Turkey is suing Warner Brothers, for using their name without permission. The film The Dark Knight is also being blamed for increased crime in the area.

Honestly, you'd think they'd have thought of this at some earlier point in the sixty-nine years since the creation of the Batman in question.

James Arnold Taylor

James Arnold Taylor is a voice actor, and, while perhaps not the most famous, he does have a very good range. He also sometimes dubs the work of some rather more famous actors, should they not be available.

The bio on his website is as follows;

James Arnold Taylor’s versatile vocal range has given him success in every facet of the Voice-Over Industry. He’s had lead roles in animated films such as TMNT (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), The Animatrix, Hellboy: Blood & Iron and Atlantis: Milo’s Return. On TV James has guest starred on all the hits from What’s New Scooby-Doo?, The Powerpuff Girls, and Johnny Bravo to Kim Possible, Legion of Super-Heroes, and Avatar. He also stars as Johnny in Johnny Test, Axel in A.T.O.M., Wooldoor Sockbat in Drawn Together, and most notably Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Clone Wars. James keeps busy from his home studio with promo work for networks like Fox, The CW, Spike, G4, and Game Show Network. Some of James’ most celebrated work comes from Video Games: Tidus in the Final Fantasy X series, Ratchet in the Ratchet & Clank series, Gabe in the Syphon Filter series, and numerous voices in games like Shrek, Spiderman, X-Men, Lord of the Rings, and Pirates of the Caribbean to name a few. A unique aspect of James’ work is Voice-Doubling. When big time celebrities aren’t available to do their own voice, James seamlessly fills in: David Spade, Michael J. Fox, Billy Bob Thornton, Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Nicolas Cage, Johnny Depp, and the list goes on. James’ greatest honor is following in the footsteps of greats Alan Reed and Henry Corden by providing the voice of the cartoon icon Fred Flintstone.

Speaking of his website, it's awesome. Seriously, go take a look. The first page will display examples of voiceovers when you roll over the characters.

Drawn Together

Drawn Together is a series, originally released in 2004, which lampoons reality TV shows like Big Brother. The essentially premise is that several characters, from a variety of different styles of animated TV shows, have been 'drawn together' into one house, and forced to live there, in harmony, or some approximation of it.

The main characters are;

• Princess Clara, voiced by Tara Strong, inspired by the Disney Princesses.
  
• Toot, also voiced by Tara Strong (Tara Strong happens to be the actress who's played the most voice-over roles, including Rikku in Final Fantasy X and X-2), inspired by Betty Boop.
  
• Captain Hero, voiced by Jess Harnell (who played Doctor Finklestein in Kingdom Hearts), inspired by all those super hero TV shows.
  
• Foxxy Love, voiced by Cree Summer (Lenne and Belgemine in Final Fantasy X and X-2), a black, mystery-solving musician, inspired by Scooby Doo and Josie and the Pussycats.
  
• Waldor Sockbat, voiced by James Arnold Taylor (Tidus, from Final Fantasy X and X-2, among others), inspired by such cartoons as (ugh) Spongebob Squarepants.
  
• Ling-Ling, a Japanese Battle Monster, inspired by Pokemon and voiced by Abbey McBride (newcomer to the field).
  
• Xander P. Wifflebottom, a gay RPG hero, loosely inspired by Link, and voiced by Jack Plotnick (another newcomer).
  
• Spanky Ham, voiced by Adam Carolla (Death on Family Guy, among many, many others). A parody of internet Flash Cartoon characters.

The show is hilarious. In terms of obscenity, it ranks somewhere between South Park and The Simpsons (only less stale than the latter). Unfortunately, the three seasons are now complete, but there are rumours of a film, to be released in 2009. Fingers crossed.

Bridge to Terabithia

I think I'm in love with a twelve-year-old.

Not in a kinky way. But AnnaSophia Robb's portrayal of Leslie Burke in Bridge to Terabithia is eminently lovable - all you want to do is protect her, and hope that she stays happy forever and ever. It's clear why her parents are so happy. She seems luminescent almost, lit by an inner glow. Almost intangible, at times.

Inducing that kind of emotion from the audience is perfect for this character, and makes the film far more powerful. Good for her. It also made the twist far more painful.




Generally speaking, Bridge to Terabithia is quite suitable for the PG audience it is designed for - until the last twenty or thirty minutes. I don't want to give the ending away, but very, very sad things happen, that had me in tears, nevermind an eight-year-old. To be quite fair, I also cry at Casper the Friendly Ghost, but this was more upsetting.

The trailer also misrepresents the film slightly. It seems like a Narnia or Harry Potter copy, about two children who find themselves in a magical world. That's not exactly the case, and this may be why it took me over a year to get around to watching the film. It's about the friendship between two children, and the imaginary world they create together - and how this gives them the strength to cope with things in the real world.

This one's going on my DVD list (incidentally, the DVD has a bunch of extras, including two sets of commentaries). And I've already reserved a copy of the book from my library.

Of Cinema Tickets, Downloading and DVDs

I watch a lot of movies. That may or may not be obvious.

Mostly, I watch films at the cinema. I have an Unlimited card, which is actually a pretty good deal. £11.99 a month, and I can see as many movies as I like for free. Considering that, some weeks, I watch three or four, and the prices range from £4 to £7.80 (3D movie, Saturday evening), they're definitely making a loss on this deal.

I really like going to the cinema. It doesn't have the strange feeling of a special event any more, but it's a nice place, and I know my local cinema as intimately as one can who doesn't work there. It's nice. I like the smell of popcorn (although I never buy any), I like the trailers (although I avoid the first ten minutes of adverts as often as possible), and I like the fact that it's on my way home from work, or ten minutes away from here by bus.

That 'on the way home from work' thing isn't as helpful as you might think. I work odd hours, which mean that I cannot see films, on days when I'm working, which start after 11:30am or before 10pm. This limits my options somewhat. Fortunately, sometimes I have three or four days off in a row, which allows me to get my fix of movies (although I am fully capable of watching three in one day).

I don't just watch new films; I also rent films and, more often, TV series. I have an account with LoveFilm if anyone's wondering. Might not be the best deal out there, but I like them, and they tend to be punctual and helpful. Only problem with their site is the fact that it can be a little tricky to move movies from one list to another when you have as many on there as I do (341 at last count). You have to dig right through the list to find it - if you use the search function, it will tell you that it's on your list, but won't allow you to move it to another one. But, to be fair, the list feature in general is excellent.

My collection of DVDs is relatively small, which may be surprising. I have a long list of DVDs that I want to own, but I rarely get around to buying them (Waterstones is right next to HMV, and it always distracts me on the way there). I have a few unusual things that I really love, like the first season of the Twilight Zone and the two animated series' of Discworld, and a few foreign films, which are difficult to find to rent, but I would say that I don't own more than twenty or so DVDs. I rarely download movies either - the last one would be Flower Drum Song, which I can't find to rent or buy anywhere (except as a region 1 disc, which wouldn't play on my PS2). I also download the odd foreign film which has no plans for a European release. Generally speaking, though, I prefer to rent, buy, or watch films at the cinema. I just think they seem more special that way.

I am sorely tempted to break this personal guideline in certain other cases, though. Like for A Muppet Christmas Carol. Although the VHS version, which I owned as a child, has the full movie, all DVD releases have a key scene missing. I refuse to buy a dvd with part of the film missing, but my VCR is long gone, and I have a tradition of watching the movie every Christmas.

Bartelmy

Gender Differences in Film

In Scar 3D, there is one character, a male, who intends to remain a virgin until marriage. His girlfriend taunts and teases him, and begs him for sex. When he repeatedly says no, she leaves, yelling that she'll find someone who will.

This is typically a trick employed by males to females, rather than vice versa - or at least, so most people perceive. Women are usually seen to be the victim. I think, if the gender roles here were reversed, the scene would have felt different.

There's also the film My Super Ex-Girlfriend. It's about a woman who, when broken up with, decides to physically attack her ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend. With her super powers.

The film is a comedy.



Again, I suspect that if the film had been My Super Ex-Boyfriend, it would have had a very different feel. It wouldn't have been funny, or cartoon-y, and it would have been extremely hard to pull off if it was. It would have been about a stalker, and domestic violence.

The reason the film is funny, or is perceived as a comedy, is because people don't really believe that women can damage men. Sure, sometimes they do, both in real life and the media - Fatal Attraction, for instance - but they switch between the roles, of threatening and harmless, far more easily. Sometimes, women are scary. More often, they aren't.

I can't recall, at the moment, a single film which includes a angry man attacking a woman, which is considered to be comedy. Angry men attacking women are scary. Angry men attacking men can be either funny, in a black way - Fight Club - or, tense. Angry women attacking women can be sexy or scary - Single White Female. Angry women attacking men are funny. Or sometimes scary, although in the examples I can think of, either a woman is the main target, or the man's family are attacked.

There may be instances I cannot think of, where women are given more traditionally masculine roles, but, generally speaking, women are treated differently by the media. Since there are also differences in real life, this may not be entirely unrealistic. I'm not sure if it's "wrong" or not, but they're interesting to notice.

Bartelmy

Scar 3D

It would be fair to say that I am not, typically, a horror fan.

It would, in fact, be true to say that I cry like a little girl at gory films.

So, when I watched Scar 3D yesterday, I didn't watch it, as such, since most of it was viewed from between my fingers. Or simply enjoyed audibly instead of visually (that is to say, with my eyes closed).

Scar 3D is about the survivor of a serial killer. After Joan managed to escape from Bishop, she left town and began a new life elsewhere. This was probably for the best, considering that, the instant she returns, the killings begin again, with a new generation. Joan believes it's Bishop - despite having killed him with her own hands.

As I said, I'm not a horror fan, but I was able to make fairly accurate predictions about how the movie would unfold. The storyline doesn't really break new ground, and, gory as the gore scenes are, they're not terribly innovative either (or so I hear). In fact, I'd say that the most creative thing in the entire movie is the method by which one character is killed - with a plastic glove superglued over her nose and mouth. How someone came up with this, and why they are not being carefully watched is a mystery that will plague me.

In an interview (with Cineworld's Unlimited magazine), the director stated that in previews, the flashback scenes and the last thirty minutes seemed to be the most disturbing. Considering that those are the scenes with the torture, that would seem to be expected.

Despite, as I've said, watching the film from between trembling fingers, it didn't seem to haunt me once I'd left the cinema. Unlike The Orphanage (El Orfanato), The Ring, or even The Eye (that scene in the elevator), the film didn't make me leave all the lights on all night, and nor was I terribly nervous about being left alone (I did stay up till 3am, but that was for a different reason, to be quite honest). To be fair though, I have been slightly twitchy today, continually thinking that I see a figure in the dark, or, at one point, a hand in a vat of boiling oil (it was five chips, floating together). Still, I don't think I'll be losing much sleep.

The main difference between Scar 3D and the other films mentioned is, I think, that Scar focused on a kind of physical horror, which I didn't fully partake in (difficult to, with ones eyes closed). El Orfanato especially focuses more on a kind of mental horror, and seems far more plausible. Scar's attempt to scare with physical horror didn't seem to apply to me - it seems far more likely that I might lose a child than that I might be abducted and tortured.

The main reason I saw the film is because it was in 3D. For the past few years, 3D has been more of a gimmick than a legitimate method of film-making. I can count on one hand the number of 3D films I've heard of and/or seen - and at least two of those were only converted into 3D afterwards. The technique has been sadly neglected.

Using 3D imaging in a horror film is a good start. I'm sure there must be things that one can do in 3D that wouldn't work, or at least, wouldn't be so effective, in 2D. Admittedly, I can't think of any, but I'm sure there must be some (apart from simple tricks like the torch in Journey to the Centre of the Earth).

Scar 3D wasn't the best horror film ever made, but I hope that other film-makers think about using 3D imaging for other films.

Bartelmy

Burn After Reading

They're all mad.

Seriously. Many of the characters in this film are insane (apart from the straight men who stand around looking bemused).

When CIA agent Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) is fired, he believes it is political. He storms out after being told he has a drinking problem - and then there's a predictable cut to him pouring a glass of something alcoholic for himself.

Cox decides to write his memoirs, despite his wife asking why anyone would possibly be interested in those. However, when a disc containing those memoirs and some financial information is lost, some people turn out to be very interested.

Unfortunately, these people are also insane.




Believing themselves to be in possession of top secret CIA info, gym employees Chad (Brad Pitt) and Linda (Frances McDormand) attempt to blackmail Cox. When he refuses to play ball, they attempt to sell the information to the Russians (yes, the Russians). Meanwhile, having checked that Cox has relatively limited access to anything interesting, the CIA looks on in bemusement, as the characters convince themselves of their own importance.

Every single character appears to believe they are in a film (I said the characters, not the actors). Well, that's an exageration. Lots of characters seem to believe they are starring in spy or gangster movies, with a variety of government agencies interested in their activities. This is, in fact, false - they are nowhere near as important as they think they are. Although they are all sleeping with one another.

The film is hilarious, in a dark way. Many of the roles were written specifically for the actors who played them, which is probably why they fit so well. The film is unpredictably comic, and not nearly so violent as one might expect for the R rating (although the sensitive may wish to close their eyes during the axe scene). Clooney is so incredibly tanned that, for much of the movie, I didn't recognise him, assuming he was some Asian actor (and by 'Asian', I mean south-east - India or Pakistan, probably). I've never been a huge fan of Clooney or tans, but I'm sure some people will swoon over that. His character gave me some good ideas about running, so kudos for that.

Bartelmy

Ghost Town

I should probably confess that I am not Ricky Gervais' biggest fan. Or a fan at all. I, generally speaking, find the man odious, detestable, and downright unfunny. In fairness, I have never watched an episode of The Office. However, one should bear in mind that this was because the first few minutes annoyed me too much.

I've also never watched any other film he has appeared in, never seen his stand up, and never listened to any of his podcasts.

Well, I also never claimed to be entirely fair.

Gervais doesn't annoy me in this, and I suspect it's because he didn't write it.


Ghost Town is a little like A Christmas Carol, if you hear the one-sentence description - "Grouchy man starts seeing ghosts, becomes less grouchy". A relatively simple premise. The slightly longer version goes something like "after a near-death experience, dentist Bertram Pincus (Gervais) is able to see the dead. Once they realise this, they decide to cash in. Everyone knows that ghosts have unfinished business, and he can help them - only he doesn't want to".

In many ways, the film is predictable, but it keeps a certain charm by knowing just how predictable it is - and occasionally second-guessing the audience. Many elements of the story are cliches given a new twist, and this works. It's both fresh and original and familiar and comforting at the same time. Pincus' revelation, near the end (explained to Gwen (Téa Leoni)) is sweet, and the entire montage had me in tears - although I still managed to realise that the film had glossed over exactly how Pincus explained that he knew the letter was under the carpet. However, plotholes like this are perfectly forgivable. It's a sweet film. Rated 12A in the UK.

Bartelmy

Igor

Not every film needs a romantic subplot.

I'll repeat that, for the many people who may have missed it. Not every film needs a romantic subplot.

That's something a lot of filmmakers seem to have trouble with. Well, I promise you, directors, writers and producers of the world - the earth will not stop turning if the male and female lead of your movie don't end up together at the end. You will not - well, for the most part - lose ticket sales without a big romance. And no, it's not necessary to have everyone pair off in order to create a touching ending.

I'll repeat that, too; it's not necessary.

It is especially not necessary in a film like, recent Exodus Productions creation, Igor.




Igor is about a city of Mad Scientists, all competing to create the most evil invention in order to win the evil science fair, and be the most evil. Or something. Evil.

The word evil is thrown about like a brand name in this movie, as you might have guessed. To be quite honest, that made me cringe every single time. Evil is not a brand name; it's not even a simple concept, except to the very young. It's an opinion.

To be fair, this film is animated, and is (in the UK) a PG. This would, theoretically, enable one to forgive the abuse of the word 'evil', since those two facts indicate that the film is indeed intended for a young audience. However, to understand the underlying humour of the film, it helps if you are familiar with the hammer horror tradition of the slurring Igor lisping "yeth marther!" in reply to a loud cry of "pull the switch!". And one might get even more out of it if one is familiar with Terry Pratchett's tongue-in-cheek portrayal of the Igors native to the Discworld (a large family who pass on spare body parts like other families do old clothes, and have a number of traditions). I may not be giving them enough credit here, but I'm not certain the eight to twelve year olds I picture as a 'PG' audience will get as much out of those parts of the movie as older viewers.

Scamper the bunny (voiced by Steve Buscemi), one of Igor's inventions, is also fairly adult in style. He's an immortal, depressed rabbit - leading him to attempt to commit suicide every other minute, in a variety of ways. That dark, bleak humour is amusing, but maybe not for the more delicate types. Fans of The Book of Bunny Suicides will be happy, though.

I did enjoy the film, I won't deny that. Some elements of it - such as Scamper - wouldn't be entirely out of place in something like Tim Burton's cult classic The Nightmare Before Christmas, while others will appeal to children. But, these two parts don't gel particularly well. The film seems confused as to who its audience is, meaning that, in many ways, it's too juvenile for adults while many jokes will probably sail over a young audience's head.

But anyway, back to my first point. A romantic subplot was not necessary for this film. The essential message of friendship, loyalty, truth to oneself and choices would be equally well served with a simple friendly relationship - instead of complicating the movie with a romance between an Igor and his creation. That's rather Freudian. Especially when one considers the jokes, around Igor's paternal feelings for Eva - early on in the film, he remarks that he feels like a father sending a child off to her first day of school (to learn to kill people).

So, to reiterate;

Romantic subplot; not necessary.

Romantic subplot, in fact, pretty damn creepy.

However, it is probably worth taking a look at the wiki articles for Discworld Igors and Hammer Horror.

Bartelmy