Wife Swap and Beauty

So, today I'm watching Wife Swap USA on channel 4.

This time, one family consists of a self-proclaimed "short, fat" motorcycling rocker, with a tall blonde wife. His wife, Gloria, does all the work in the house. She says at the beginning that she entered the program because she wants her husband and son to appreciate her more. Later, she criticises her current husband, by saying that real men let women take care of him. She insists on taking on her previous role as house-slave.

Her husband constantly proclaims himself to be 'the King'. To him, his wife is a status symbol - he likes having the tallest, sexiest blonde on his arm. She's had a breast enlargement, and a tummy tuck, and does all the housework - and she does all the housework - wearing weights on her feet.

Their child, who is nine, spends up to five hours a day playing videogames. Generally, he seems to be a good kid. He's polite, and quite intelligent. He knows that too, and comes across as quite arrogant. The way he expresses his anger is very disturbing. He wants people to "burn", for annoying him. He's extremely offended by anyone who makes him do anything he doesn't want, and despises them for it. He says he has no objection to hard work, but wonders why he would want to do anything nice for someone who "tortures" him.

Later in the show, the swapped-wife, Jill, has him take part in a debate, over whether videogames or chores are more useful. He handled himself very well there, considering he was debating with people who are older. However, what struck me the most was the way his dad was looking at him as he talked.

This family does love each other. Gloria isn't classically beautiful. She's tall, with large breasts, and she's quite slim. However, the blonde dye has made her hair look very dry, and the make-up ages her. When she's forced to remove it, she comments on how she feels unprotected and unattractive.

I found that quite sad. There's more than one way to be attractive. You can be sexy, pretty, cute, beautiful...perhaps not all at the same time, but you don't have to pick one and make that your "thing". You can be sexy one day, cute the next -

There's more than one way to be attractive. Just because you can't do one doesn't mean you aren't.

So, I'm watching Young, Dumb and Living off Mum on the BBC iPlayer. The program is about 6 or so completely spoilt 16-25-year-olds put in a house together, with no one to cook for them, or clean, or pay their rent.

In the first episode, they're put to their first real day of work. It's gone dreadfully.

One of them is the heir to a prosperous nightclub business. Never had a job, parents pay for everything. First day, he's meant to be cleaning a hotel room, with another spoilt brat. He fails to stock up certain things, such as toilet paper, biscuits, whatever, because he believes they're out of them.

The hotel manager, who's come in to inspect the room, asks if they asked the housekeeper, their immediate boss. They say yes, he offers to call her, and they suddenly realise the people they've been calling 'housekeepers' are chambermaids. It's a simple misunderstanding, not even their fault. If the other chambermaids say they're out, then they believe it. They didn't know to check, they can fix it. But, no, he chooses to throw a tantrum instead. He starts screaming at the manager, telling him not to raise his voice, that his parents would never hire him, and blahblahblahblah. Then, in a clip afterwards, he claims that the manager doesn't deserve his job, and that he, the nightclub heir, will be far more successful and make more of himself than "that asian" (I'm pretty sure the guy was Italian, actually).

It reminded me a little of some customers I had once. Seventeen-year-olds, at that stage in their life where they truly believe they're special and untouchable. Old enough to be out alone, but young enough to have mummy tucking them in every night and teling them how great they are. This kid told me that, by the time he was eighteen, he'd be earning far more than me (highly doubtful in this economy, since I'm on quite a bit more than minimum wage, and nowhere else is hiring). The kid also claimed that franchises didn't exist, at all, and that anyone who believed otherwise was an idiot who needed to go back to school.

So, I really feel for that manager. I hope the BBC compensated him well. Who is this self-centred, spoilt little brat who dares to look down on him, a man who works hard and does the best he can? Does that idiot really believe he'll ever get a decent job that's not bought for him, with that work ethic?

I hope his parents are proud of themselves, and realise they've raised a son that they wouldn't employ. I hope they have the balls to ream him out for his behaviour. But, then, they've let him get to this stage, so maybe not.

That might be a bit unfair though. The impression I have is that his parents are hard-working people, who probably didn't come from wealthy families, and so wanted to give their child the childhood they wished they could have had. Sad, really.

Then there's the 25-year-old who says her mum is her best friend - and yet, she complains about the things her mother is kind enough to cook for her, reckons her job is getting money out of her mother, and generally treats her like a slave. That's not friendship. She claims she doesn't work because it makes her stressed and tired. She seems to think this is somehow unusual.

I think what really gets me is that some of these people come from quite wealthy families. They don't have to work their way up from the bottom - they could go to school and study whatever they wanted at their leisure, and then grease their way into a job they really want, while I have to struggle my way through a job with no respect to pay for my degree, and then work even harder to get a low paying job as a teacher. It really isn't fair.

You know, when I was a kid, it was considered a bad thing to let tv raise your children.

Bugsy Malone and Heathers

The original ending of Heathers was quite different from the one it was released with. But perhaps I should backtrack a little, and explain the basic plot of Heathers. Or, at least, just enough to be relevant without being spoileriffic.

The original ending of Heathers involved everyone dying, and having a party in heaven. Here, they all got along, and different cliques were happy to talk to one another.

Bugsy Malone is a child-friendly gangster film. The actors are all around twelve-years-old, and all gun violence is portrayed with cream pies. And then splurge guns. Every character hit by cream is removed from the film, the other characters reacting as if they're dead, without ever actually stating that.

Now, more spoilers.

At the end of the film, absolutely everyone is creamed. After a few discussions, they start singing together, everyone getting along. Previously splurged characters return for this final, happy reunion.

Now, is that really so different from Heathers? It seems to me that it's a perfectly valid interpretation of Bugsy Malone, to assume that everyone died at the end and got along better in heaven.

Bartelmy; making child-friendly films mildly disturbing since 1988.

Brady Life vs The Republic of Gilead

So, recently, I've been watching the first season of The Brady Bunch, from the beginning. I'm enjoying it, which surprised me a little. It's more interesting than I expected.

One thing that does shock me about it is the blatant sexism. It's more a sign of the times than the show itself, but viewed today, forty years later, it's stunning.

There's one episode where all the girls are united in their desire for a sewing machine, while the boys want a rowboat. Then there's the one where they go camping. All the girls - including Alice, who must have been camping with the Brady boys in previous years - are jumpy, nervous and very, very girly. To be fair, that could be due to the fact that they've never (except Alice) been camping before. However, in yet another episode (and all of these were within the first fifteen aired, since that's how many I've watched), the girls want a clubhouse to match the boys. The boys refuse to share, so Carol (the mother) suggests that the girls build one of their own. One of the daughters protests "But mother! We'll do it terribly!" to which their mother replies that that's the point.

So, the Brady girls start building a clubhouse, and do so terribly. The boys and their father pitch in to help, just as the girls had planned.

Thinking about this, I started thinking of feminist literature in general, but specifically The Handmaid's Tale. Written a few decades after The Brady Bunch, in 1985, The Handmaid's Tale is about a dystopian future society, where women have all rights taken away. Their jobs are lost, and their bank accounts given to their next of kin. Several of the lower class men also lost rights, so it's not purely about men diminishing women - it's about a few strong men seizing power.

In the Republic of Gilead, the society described in The Handmaid's Tale women weren't permitted to do a lot of things, or think a lot of things. But, no one claimed they were incapable of it. The Brady girls truly believe they can't do things that the boys can.

Is it better not to be allowed to do something, or to not even realise that you can? To actively deny it, in fact, and use that to your advantage?

On reflection, it may be better to be a Brady than a Gilean. At least you're in a position to change your way of thinking, and therefore, your life. Whatever a Gilean woman thought, she still had to do the same things.

How very strange that there was once a time when people truly believed that women couldn't hammer nails.

New Movies!

So, it's finally happened. The film of The Time Traveler's Wife is finished, and has a release date. Two days after my birthday - Friday the 14th of August.

Watching the trailer, it seems they've stayed relatively faithful to the book. Neither Rachel McAdams nor Eric Bana look exactly like I pictured Claire or Henry, but they are both very good actors, and the film seems to have kept the major plot points. I'm looking forward to seeing it. The trailer can be viewed here.

Another book-to-film being released soon is My Sister's Keeper based on the book by Jodi Picolt. The trailer for that, again, seems quite faithful to the novel. I'm hoping it can revive my original love of the book, especially with Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin - who appeared in Definitly, Maybe - in two of the lead roles. It's interesting to see Cameron Diaz playing a character who's entire point is that she's a mother, but she seems to pull it off. That's out this Friday, and the trailer can be viewed here.

Finally, I'm afraid to say that I've cancelled my Unlimited Card. As anyone who reads this blog might have noticed, I'm no longer able to spend as much time in the cinema as I was before. I hope to get it back once I'm a little further through my degree.

Dreams to Dream

There's a scene, An American Tail: Fievel Goes West which may be the most hauntingly beautiful and sad thing I've seen in animation.

This one.

That cat, Cat R. Waul has tricked a large group of mice into coming out west so he can take first their money, and then their lives.

The American Tails series is essentially a metaphor for several conditions faced by immigrants to America. The first film was set in 1885, and Tanya and Fievel's family are Russian Jews, who are continually victimised by the cats, which tend to represent any corrupt power they need to. They come to America believing that there are no cats there, and the streets are paved with cheese. They quickly find this isn't the case, and are forced to pay the cats not to eat them. They beat them, of course, but then there was this sequel.

So, Cat R. Waul. A dreadful piece of work. If this wasn't meant to be a kid's film, I've no doubt he'd shoot and/or torture his associates occasionally, just so none of them got any ideas about disrespecting him (incidentally, that worked very well for Captain Hook in the original book of Peter Pan).

But, when he hears this young mouse singing, he's enchanted. He doesn't notice, in that scene or later, that the other cats wonder what's got into him, or that they're making fun of him. Considering that Miss Kitty, the other cat in the scene, doesn't seem to notice, the fragile bond between Cat R. Waul and Tanya seems entirely personal.

This doesn't change Cat R. Waul as a person. He's still perfectly willing to kill all the other mice, only panicking when "the Diva" seems about to be caught in the trap. Since he and Tanya have no contact with each other other than this (and she never really mentions him), he's never forced to confront this hypocrisy. At the end he suffers a symbolic death, and is, of course, never seen again, until another villian is needed for one of the spin offs.

I guess I can't really sum up why that scene touched me.

Incidentally, An American Tail, released in 1986, was the first Don Bluth film to beat out a Disney film at the box office, grossing more than Basil, the Great Mouse Detective (also a very good film about mice). All Dogs Go to Heaven, which I've also discussed here, another Don Bluth film, was later released opposite The Little Mermaid. An American Tail: Fievel Goes West was not directed by Don Bluth, and went up against Beauty and the Beast.

You can see why they tend to be cult films.

Don Bluth against Disney, in some ways, mirrors the development of Sacnoth against Squaresoft. Don Bluth originally worked for Disney, as the creators of Koudelka were refugees from Square. Interesting bit of trivia.

Why I Won't Be Watching X-Factor in 2009

I admit, this post has been a long time coming.

I'm not the nicest person in the world - I admit that. I watch Britain's Next Top Model and listen to the girls worry about their weight while eating ice-cream. I usually watch the X-Factor auditions just for the bad ones.

However, in 2008 the X-Factor crossed a line. It came out that the auditionees, both good and bad, go through several interviews before getting near the cameras. And, with the bad ones, it is Cowell's own team that are telling them that they're good, that they're bound to get through, before Cowell, his lapdog Louis and that-bitch-Cheryl-Cole tear them down (I won't say Dannii doesn't (or didn't) join in, but they seem to have turned on her recently).

See, when it's the person's own arrogance that is causing them to be turned down, and it's an overbearing, unpleasant ego being taken down a peg, that's one thing. But when it's a young teenage girl - and honestly, we all have those dreams - whose been massaged through those auditions merely to face public humiliation, or an old grandfather being made fun of for being on the wrong show, then it's not the same.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, when one could believe the contestants had it coming, that was one thing - but when the producers of the show has purposefully engineered their public humiliation, based upon their own hope - that's pretty damn low. That's how con artists work, preying on those with dreams in order to take their money - only, on the X-Factor, it's pride and dignity that's taken, and exchanged for ratings.

In 2007, Rachel (from Wales) did seem to be a very unpleasant girl. She was arrogant, conceited, and generally, yes, it was a pleasure to see her taken down a peg and cast as a witch. But, contrast that with Ariel Burdett in 2008.

Ariel, a holistic vocal coach, has a degree based around music and singing. The peice she performed was a four line composition, with each line in a different style - from pop, to jazz, to metal to stage musical.

In both cases, Cowell claimed that they couldn't sing. This was untrue. What he meant was that he didn't like them, and didn't want them going through - both were perfectly passable singers with pleasant voices. Cowell's criticisms have gone from being cruel to be kind, to being cruel to be a bitch.

In Ariel's case, she was cast as the witch because she liked metal and alternative music. Yes, she came across as slightly arrogant when it seemed she was actually going for confident and in control of the situation (on the advice of the x-factor employees she'd met before the actual televised bit). Still, she had a very powerful voice, and knew how to use it skilfully.

The X-Factor judges claimed that they'd never heard of Bullet For My Valentine - and these people claim to work in the music industry? Cowell also appeared to have a low opinion of holistic vocal coaching.

Holistic teaching involves tuning into the person's mind, body and energy - in other words, making sure they're thinking about what they're singing, using their body well, and that they're, for want of a better word, pacing themselves properly (yes, this is a very simplified version). All of those are things that Cowell has criticised auditionees for not doing well.

Ariel's audition was heavily edited - like all of them - and she was generally abused by the panel. Even on the edited version, the bouncer seemed to be following her merely to make her look like someone who needed to be escorted off the premises.

Across the internet, there seem to be two main views on Ariel - the reasonable one, who watched the clip and thought about it, and the "omg, scary metal roary witch" version that started on the X-Factor.

Basically, I'm going to be boycotting the x-factor this year because it's become a circus of human cruelty, carefully planned and staged by those who work on the show. It's dishonest, and it's cruel, and that isn't entertainment - it's closer to brainwashing.

The changes of judges over recent years hasn't helped either. Louis has always been Cowell's pet, but in Cheryl Cole, he seems to have found a very powerful ally. Both skilfully play their parts in humiliating the contestants. Cowell by being the big-I-am, and that-bitch-Cheryl-Cole by pretending to be stupidly honest, rather than just an out-and-out bitch.

I'd wonder how they sleep at night, but of course, we all already know. On a big pile of money.

That was a great line to finish on, but I do have a little more to add. One thing that everyone has lost sight of is the fact that the X-Factor is essentially a job interview. And to those who claim that this is their one big chance, and that they need it...please, don't humiliate yourselves more than the judges already have. If you're really serious, then there's a secret to success.

Want to hear it?

Go out and buy a copy of The Stage. You probably won't find it in every newsagent. Maybe you'll need to go to one of the larger branches of WHSmith, or even subscribe to it online. Or just check the listings there.

The Stage lists many, many auditions that are being held for new recording artists, among others. If you are really, really serious, then the X-Factor is not your only chance. Yes, you will get a head start, since most of the country will know your name before your first record is ever recorded, but it is not the only way. If you wanted it that badly, you'd be attending all the auditions possible, not just the one that gets you on TV. Not just the easy one. And yes, for all its faults, the X-Factor is one of the easier routes to fame.

If you wanted it that badly, you'd go to as many auditions as you qualified for. Or you'd record your own demo CDs, and pester studios until they listened to them. If you wanted it, you'd work for it - and getting on your knees for Simon Cowell isn't the only option you should consider.

Finally - and this really is finally - I'd like to end with a quote from Jimmy Carr.

"I heard that Simon Cowell spends over £500k on his personal security every year.

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper if he tried to be a little bit less of a cunt?"

Trailers (a few thoughts)

I like trailers.

The Young Victoria - Royalty is very popular these days. The Other Boleyn Girl started it, and now it's just snowballed.

Valkyrie - it doesn't look like what I'd think of as my kind of film - but I kind of want to see it anyway.

Confessions of a Shopaholic - I love the books, but, honestly, this looks like a cheap knock-off, along the lines of Angus, Thongs and the Butchered Title. They've completely changed the books, changed key roles, and just made it into something completely different. That said, I'll probably see it anyway. And Isla Fisher does look kind of how I'd always pictured Rebecca.

Role Models

The other day, I was discussing, via text message, the possibility of my going to see Role Models with a close friend of mine. He'd seen it, and described it as "LOLtastic". I replied "...oh dear", but sent him another message as I left the cinema.

"You were right."

Seann William Scott has announced his fear of typecasting in interviews. I'm afraid of him becoming typecast, too. Although he does play the Stifler kind of role really well, I've also seen him carry off different roles - Southland Tales is the one that comes to mind, although I suppose his characters in Evolution and Dude, Where's My Car? were slightly different too.

Still, Scott is a great comedic actor, and he was good in Role Models. I'm less familiar with Paul Rudd, although he and Scott worked very well together, contrasting when needed and working nicely as a double act at other times.

Another actor who should probably start to worry about typecasting is Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who plays Augie in Role Models, and is probably more familiar as Superbad's McLovin. So far, he's always played the geek, and it does suit him. But, I'd like to see him try sexy, or cool, or just not completely gauche. That would be interesting.

Role Models is literally laugh-out-loud hilarious. I especially love the dramatic conclusion (and the make-up). I think I've actually been coverted to a KISS fan by proxy.

The film's a little like Drillbit Taylor or Superbad, only not quite as cliched as either of those.

The film's rated an R in the US and a 15 in the UK, in both cases, for sex and language (the UK has slightly different attitudes towards both).

He's Just Not That Into You

For those who want to try Yuna (Hedy Burress) spotting, she's playing one of Jennifer Aniston's sisters.

I've already introduced this movie in a few other posts, so I won't bother repeating myself here. A film with eight or nine main characters was a little hard to follow, for a start. Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) goes on a date with Conor (Kevin Connolly) who is in love with Anna (Scarlet Johanssen), who is having an affair with married man Ben (Bradley Cooper), who is married to Janine (Jennifer Connelly), who works with Gigi and Beth (Jennifer Aniston), who is not-married to Neil (Ben Affleck). Conor is also working with advertising executive Mary (Drew Barrymore) to increase his real estate business while Gigi is relying on Alex (Justin Long) to remind her to ignore the "signs". If a guy is that into you, he'll be asking you out. End of.

Did I miss anyone? Probably.

The film's not a huge, fantastic drama. It's a sweet chick-flick with far too many famous faces (I spotted Hedy Burress by narrowing it down to the three people with speaking parts whose faces I didn't recognise). It's a little hard to keep track of who isn't returning whose phone-calls, but it's still generally quite enjoyable in spite of that.

The film is rated 12a in the UK or PG13 in the US. You probably could take teenagers to see it, but they most likely wouldn't get as much out of it as twenty to thirty-something women, who would seem to be the film's main audience.

It was fun. It was two hours long but didn't feel like it. And the buzzword thing wasn't nearly as irritating as it might have been, since only one character really did it, and she was barely on screen.

This isn't the best movie any of these actors have made, but it's nice. Just not really special.

Big Chef Takes On Little Chef

I've been watching the first episode of this program on 4OD and one thought has struck me so far;

Fuck off, you up-yourself git.

The Little Chef boss guy is perfectly within his rights not to discuss the profits of his business on camera, particularly after you were a rude bastard to him about the menu. Just tell him it needs to go, don't string him along. And he didn't refuse to tell you, don't lie when we've all just watched that scene. He refused to tell you on camera.

Christ, I hate that fake drama thing channel 4 does sometimes. Back to the show now.

Edit 1:

Little Chef used to work because of its classic British food, which we don't get nearly enough of. That's started to fail, mostly because of the quality. The boss guy's tried to add exotic flavours and strange recipes, such as Hawaiian hamburgers and pasta to the menu, to make it more exciting. That isn't working.

Chef guy's trying to create traditional yet delicious and unusual British recipes, to take the brand back to what it used to be. Boss guy is muttering about Blue Sky thinking and how it's not original enough.

Fucks sake. The 'blue sky thinking' approach hasn't worked so far. Why don't we try thinking outside the box, letting the lemurs run free, and returning to traditional values in food?

(I've been watching that Will & Grace Episode where Grace is taught how to do that corporate speak).

Also, boss wanker dude, send the figures already. Losing sympathy fast. Chef guy is a successful businessman and is doing you the favour.

Fashionably Cute

For the past few years, the fashion for "the cute guy" in teen movies has been a slightly scruffy looking guy with hair just past his ears (Zac Efron, Patrick Fugit, Chad Michael Murray, etc). Honestly? I hate it. I don't see the appeal - it's clean-cut attempt at scruffy, and I just don't get it at all.

Happily, with Robert Pattinson in Twilight, we seem to be heading back to the good old days of "good looking" meaning, to popular media, dark and brooding, wild yet sleek déshabillé. Yum yum.

Now that's style.

He's Just Not That Into You

I've decided I'm definitely seeing that film. I've just found out that Hedy Burress (Yuna, Final Fantasy X and X-2) is in it, and I want to see if I can recognise her.

I am very suspicious

New film He's Just Not That Into You has no less than nine famous actors shown in the trailer; Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, Justin Long, Jennifer Connelly, Ginnifer Goodwin, Kevin Connolly, and Bradley Cooper (I couldn't find the actual trailer I've seen at the cinema - the link is just the first one I found on youtube).

This makes me very suspicious, and I can see only two explanations. Firstly, that the script is so good that all of these big names agreed to accept a lower fee than normal to appear. Secondly, that they blew their entire budget on the cast.

The film is based on the self-help book of the same name by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo. Turning a self-help book into a film has worked before, in Mean Girls (ignoring all those weird tribal sequences), which was based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabes, by Rosalind Wiseman.

He's Just Not That Into You (the book) came, in turn from an episode of Sex and the City, as discussed on Wiki.

Honestly, at first glance, it looks like an non-christmassy version of Love, Actually (which, to be fair, I haven't seen). And that whole myspace/facebook/text/buzzword/buzzword/buzzword thing? N00bs. I hate that thing, where people on TV inhabit either an entirely fictional version of the internet, or the glossy surface - as opposed to the gritty underbelly. Where everybody writes 'you' with one letter (that's in media world, not the real one).

I'm a bit of a purist. Like one of the original punks seeing a fifteen-year-old stick a pin through his ear, because that's what one does, these days, to be rebellious, don't you know.

Anyway, back to the film. I'll probably see it out of curiosity. Cynical as I may be, I hope that it will actually be an interesting film, not just a glittering one.

Inkheart

I like Brendan Fraser. I liked him in Scrubs (he was my favourite character, despite only appearing in two episodes), I liked him in the Mummy films, and I like him in this (perhaps a little less than in the Mummy films, although the effects are just as good).

Based on the trilogy by Cornelia Funke, Inkheart concentrates on Mortimer Folchart (Brendan Fraser), a man with a love of books and a strange ability. When he reads aloud, things leave their books, and are swapped with something from this world - as he finds out to his dismay when he accidentally swaps his wife for the villainous Capricorn.

Mo, and his daughter Meggie (Eliza Bennett), begin fleeing from Capricorn, while searching for another copy of the book, Inkheart, in order to read their wife and mother out again. This is further complicated by Dustfinger (Paul Bettany), who wants Mo to read him back into Inkheart, and Capricorn, who, as well as chasing Mo, has no intention of ever returning to his former world - and so seeks to destroy every copy of the book.

All of the actors did well in this film - particularly Eliza Bennet, who is very young - but I mainly noticed Paul Bettany and Rafi Gavron, who played Farid. Gavron is very good - his accent is noticeable and effective, but not irritating, which can be hard to pull off. Sienna Guillory also deserves congratulations - she did brilliant things with a role in which, for the most part, she literally has no voice.

It is curious to note how many film studios copy each other. Finding Nemo and Shark Tale, for instance. And recently, Hotel For Dogs, Bolt and Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Inkheart is out currently, along with Bedtime Stories. I cannot reasonably compare, since I haven't seen the latter, but I think it's the better of the two.

The film is rated PG, which I'd agree with. The Shadow might be quite terrifying to extremely young children, but generally, no one will be too traumatised.

Let Me Be Surprised

I need Brazil,
The throb, the thrill,
I've never been there,
But someday I will.

Adventure and danger,
Love from a stranger,
Let me be surprised.
Ladadadada...

Today there's sun,
They said there'd be snow,
When all's said and done,
It's fun not to know.

What keeps my heart humming,
Is guessing what's coming,
Let me be surprised.

Oh, ain't it great?

Ain't it great...

When fate makes you wait,
The world seems mirthless,
You feel worthless,
And suddenly there's a big bone on your plate.

Oh Charlie, please remember,
Down there's a world of used cars,
And single's bars,
Broken dreams and out-of-reach stars,

But it isn't over,
Not for this Rover,
I don't like to steal,
But I don't buy this deal.
In about three seconds, she'll have realised...

And she's gonna be...

Charlie, what are you doing?

Wait'll you see...

What's that you have behind your back?

She's gonna be...

Charlie, don't wind that watch!

Surprised....

Warning: This Post Contains Some Spoilers for Red Dwarf and All Dogs Go To Heaven.

I'm not entirely sure how many people are intimately familiar with both Red Dwarf and All Dogs Go to Heaven. And I'm not entirely certain how many of them notice the similiarities

between Arnold J. Rimmer (Chris Barrie) and Charlie B. Barkin (Burt Reynolds).

With both characters, we enter their stories shortly before their deaths - Charlie, at the hands of his double-dealing partner, Scarface, and Rimmer, at his own. They then spend much of the story (I'm using the word 'story' in place of 'film/series') dead. They are also both weirdly

attractive (considering one is an animated dog, and the other is a cowardly gimboid), but that's neither here nor there.

Now, the original dead Rimmer eventually becomes Ace Rimmer, his ultimate self. He is then reborn when the Red Dwarf is rebuilt by nanos and dies once again. This time, he defies death - as does Charlie.

Both do so out of fear. Rimmer, through fear of the unknown, and Charlie, through fear of the known. They are both cowards in their own way.

Charlie rejects heaven with the above song, claiming that he has too much left to live for, and

that the predictability of heaven would drive him crazy. Incidentally, there is one version of the Twilight Zone with a similar idea to this. A man dies, and believes he is sent to heaven. There, everything he tries works out. Everything he wants, he gets, and every time he gambles - which was his hobby in life - he wins. Which, most would say, defeats the point of gambling. Eventually, he realises he's in hell. For Charlie, a conman (dog), this heaven would have a similar effect.

Rimmer never learns what this afterlife would consist of. It's unlikely he'd be brought back as a hologram again. So, rather than Charlie's elegant song-and-dance, Rimmer simply knees Death in the groin (I need to say groin, since it's the only part I can reliably state that Death has) and makes a run for it.

It's ironic that Annabelle's warning to Charlie - down there's a world of used cars, and single's bars, broken dreams, and out-of-reach stars - consists of what doesn't bother Charlie, but that which would terrify Rimmer. While Charlie's heaven would probably suit Rimmer a lot more than it does Charlie (except for all the dogs), Charlie might also prefer Rimmer's slightly threatening, unknown end to his safe, structured heaven.

It could be said that both Red Dwarf and All Dogs Go To Heaven follow, respectively, Arnold J. Rimmer and Charlie B. Barkin from their deaths to their heavens - Rimmer's as Ace Rimmer, the man he both hates and always wanted to be, his ultimate self, and Charlie's as someone who has actually earned a place in heaven, and come to terms with the end of his life. Or perhaps not, as the reprisal It's Too Heavenly Here states in the sequel.

Heath Ledger

Sometimes, I take care of a small child. An eight-year-old boy. And while The Dark Knight was on in cinemas, we went past one on the bus. And he asked why the film was so well-advertised.

Now, there's a curious kind of power you have when in the care of a small child. You can tell them whatever you like, and for a few years, your word is gospel. It's especially cute when my grandmother tells me he's been repeating what I've said.

Anyway, instead of talking about Batman, or it being a sequel to quite a famous film, as well as a sort of requel of a lot of earlier films...I told him about Heath Ledger. And he didn't understand.

I am twenty years old. I was nineteen then. Heath Ledger's big break came, in my opinion, with Ten Things I Hate About You, released the summer I turned eleven, if memory serves. He was young, and new then. I haven't seen all of his films, but I've seen several over the years - notably, The Brothers Grimm and A Knight's Tale. While I haven't watched his every film, it's fair to say that I've known of and loosely followed his career since the start.

And then, as we all know, he went and died.

For most people of our generation, while this wasn't the first time a celebrity we knew of had died, it was, probably, the first time a celebrity who's career we'd known of from the beginning had died. We'd watched him grow, in fame and ability, right from the start. And suddenly he was gone. And you realise how your parents, and older generations felt, or feel, when their stars die. The people they've seen grow from humble beginning to whatever they become.

And this child couldn't understand, because, for him, Heath Ledger was before his time. Ledger was famous before the child was born. The child wasn't even old enough to watch most of his films. So how could he understand?

I suppose this is how my grandmother felt when Elvis died. I wouldn't say that we mourn him like a family member - that right is reserved for his actual family - but he was one of ours. He was the first one, for most of us. And he was too young. And every time I see one of his films, I remember, again, that he's dead. Not with depression, but with surprise. Because it's so downright silly for Heath Ledger to be dead.

Klaatu barada nikto

I spent part of the morning reading the new year issue of New Scientist - and, honestly, it's rather depressing. Following the lack of success of the Kyoto protocol, the threat of global warming is now more than merely a threat, and the talks in Poznan are not optimistic. Except for the politicians, of course, who fervently believe that dangerous climate change can be avoided if we stop the average global temperatures rising by 2°C - and that this can be achieved by halving CO₂ emissions by 2050. However, it would be more accurate to say that we need an 80% cut by 2050 - and that still only gives us a 70% chance of avoiding the 2°C rise.

Long story short, after our long and strenuous efforts to kill it, the Earth is beginning to die. Well done.

So, following that kind of morning, it made a curious sort of sense to watch The Day the Earth Stood Still this afternoon. A requel of the infamous 1951 sci-fi film, The Day the Earth Stood Still seems more poignant today than it probably did back then, what with the focus being shifted from nuclear war to environmental damage. Or perhaps not. Think of the phrase "Jesus wept", from the Biblical event of Jesus weeping tears of blood. This is said to be because he could see the future, and see what humanity would do. Children - and adults - have accepted this without question. Before World War I. After World War I. Before the Holocaust and afterwards. As David Sosnowski pointed out in Vamped, isn't it funny how we keep moving the bar on that?

Of course, the original dealt with the space race, and humanity's first ventures into space. It criticised our violent natures, and basically said that we couldn't be trusted to play nice with other races. This film says something similar, only it's more personal. We cannot be trusted to get along with other races on this planet, not on others.

The film focuses on astro-biologist, Dr Helen Benson, played by Jennifer Connelly, her young stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith), and the strange invader, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), who claims to be a "Friend to the Earth".

...now what could that mean? I wonder.

The film's gripping and absorbing, and yes, suitable for twelve-year-olds. The special effects are fantastic - they're not too flashy or showy, which, after the many years of lasers we've suffered, is a good thing. They're such good quality that, without concentrating, you're unlikely to pay attention to the fact that they are special effects. Good use is made of light - after all, since the audience is sitting in a darkened cinema, blinding them with light is a very dramatic way to bring them into a film where the characters are suffering from the same affliction.

A lot of critics have given this film bad reviews, and I honestly suspect that they were watching a completely different film altogether. The main criticism levied is against the plot, which some say is slow-moving, or against Keanu Reeve's infamous stone-face. Perhaps these critics have seen the original 1951 film, and already had some idea of where the plot was going? Coming to the film fresh, I really enjoyed it. And I also think that Keanu's deadpan was very effective.