Things To Do In Bristol When You're (OCD)ead: Films

Jesus Christ - Vampire Hunter

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:14:57 GMT

If you're anything like me, just a title like the one for this entry alone should have got your attention.

About 18 months ago, whilst browsing through EBay's DVD section, I came across a DVD called 'Jesus Christ - Vampire Hunter'. Now that's a title that screams to be looked at and, as a developing prospector of filmic crap, promised to yield a sizeable nugget. So after having a look, decided to bid on it - purely on the strength of its title and because the tagline on the front of the dvd cover ('The power of Christ impales you') made me chuckle for an hour solid.

£8 later it was mine.

But...such a film requires certain viewing conditions. Watching the first 10 minutes with Lizz confirmed this and led to me turning it off on that run. A film which has, in its first 10 minutes, lesbian vampires asking where all the lesbians have gone, a vicar with a mohican on a moped and JC fighting vampires on a local beach with kung-fu before launching into a musical number after a haircut - AND has been made on a true budget of $0 which makes some YouTube creations look like Close Encounters - well that can only be appreciated by true followers of the crapola path.

And so there it sat awaiting such an audience. 3 nights ago, it found it in myself, Pete and Angie. At 1am, after a few beers and silly games. The perfect viewing time and audience had been discovered.

It has been many years since a film has reduced me to such laughter that I was in intense physical pain, scraming for someone to stop the film because I was in danger of some kind of enormous prolapse. Years since I watched a film that gradually dropped my jaw to the point where people were using it as a footrest. I'd feared - god knows how I'd feared - something so dreadful as to reach the level of 'Manos, Hands of Fate' (it haunts me still). But not JC:VH - here we have such a level of inept sincerity, of honest endeavour to make a proper film against the insurmountable problem of having no money and a complete disregard for such petty things as taste, acting ability, mood, generic consistency that it transcends rubbish...it is triumphantly awful.

It's hard to describe the plot, not because there isn't one but because you won't particularly care about it after the first 5 minutes. To give it a stab anyway...vampires appear to be targetting lesbians across the city and the church (which apparently has a huge lesbian element in its congregation - this may be a cunning plot invention) is troubled by how few people are turning up as a result. The answer is to get the big JC on the case who, rather then needing some kind of summoning ceremony, appears to have been baptising people for the past two millenia on a beach in Los Angeles. As he goes into battle against the vampires and occasional atheist through the art of kung-fu and the odd musical number, he's aided by red jump-suited sidekick Mary Magnum and (for reasons which even now make no sense) famous masked mexican wrestler El Santos. No - really. We haven't even told you about the desserts.

There are too many highlights to do justice to. What's admirable is that despite the terrible budget, the writers (possibly accidentally) actually do a reasonable job. There are some fantastic references to, and comedic uses of, Bible verses throughout - not sacrilegous in my opinion but, as at one point Jesus has a chat with his 'Mom' via the medium of a 5cm tall plastic, day-glo Virgin Mary figure lit up with a torch, they'll probably not see the joke. Jesus' main mode of transportation appears to be either moped or dirt-bike and a 1/3 of the way through the film, he goes for a haircut and clothes refitting which leaves him looking like a normal person entirely. We can only assume the JC costume in the first 10 minutes was borrowed from the shop for an hour and they had to get it back. Why the climax is filmed in a car scrapyard remains something of a mystery but, by that point, you'll go along with anything (the chance to jump off car bonnets in slo-mo may explain it), even the villains that pop out of the car boots that for some unknown reason have masks on.

The following moments stick in the mind though:

- JC has a mass kung-fu fight with around 50-60 atheists pretty early on. All of which appear to come from the same SUV vehicle. I know these things are spacious but, once you got past number 15, it was taking it too far.

- Every fight has the kind of wonderfully bad, dubbed-on karate sound you dream of. Blows land which are literally a few FEET away from the target and it appears the sound-effect for JC hitting his head is one of knocking your knuckles on a hollow tree.

- JC blessing the beer in a barful of lesbian vampires and spitting it upon his foes as an alcoholic holy fosters spout attack.

BUT...halfway through, 2 lines in around a 5 minutes spell will have the same effect on you as an Ali left-right combo. The first comes from Dr Pretorius, evil scientist for the vampires:

"We're running short on skin. We'll need to harvest more lesbians."

Now, however bad a film is, that's not a line you EVER expect to hear. What you REALLY don't expect is for it to be followed up within minutes by JC being sat at a restaurant table with a dessert dish in front of him, the contents of which suddenly (I shit you not) smile at him and for him to mutter the immortal phrase:

"Is that you, bowl of cherries?"

3 days on, my sides still hurt from that double whammy. Before that we were still wondering how even a film like this was going to lever in the appearance of a masked Mexican wrestler as a main character - when God tells Jesus to go fetch him via the medium of a bowl of cherries and ice-cream (which JC still eats in a monumental act of deity cannibalism), you realise it really doesn't matter.

It is impossible not to admire the sheer lenghts - and depths - that the film-makers here have gone to in order to create their film. Making any kind of film, let alone one with moments of such inspired (awful, but inspired) invention as this, with no cash deserves a huge round of applause and some recognition. A cult following has deservedly built up around it and long may it continue, as it is far more worthy of the tag then many other far more expensive oddities. Just make sure you watch it with the right people, in the right atmosphere, with the right amount of alcohol and without any muscular injuries that could be triggered by laughter convulsions.

Spiderman 3 - Review

Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:08:26 GMT

Ok, so it isn't dressed up in the standard glitz and glam presentation (yeah right) but, having finally gotten around to seeing Spidey 3 this morning, thought I'd leave a brief review/thoughts on it.

Spiderman 3 (12A)

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco

Synopsis: Months have passed since the end of 'Spiderman 2' and all looks rosey in the life of Peter Parker - a gorgeous girlfriend he wants to marry in MJ, a blossoming college education, regular cash for his pictures and, best of all, near-universal adulation for alter-ego Spiderman throughout the city. Even former best friend Harry is back onside after an attack of amnesia which fortuitously wipes out his memory of Daddy's (aka the Green Goblin) death. However, what kind of a film would that make? Hence MJ becomes disillusioned as her own career fails, Pete becomes arrogant and meets a new love interest, new evidence emerges about Uncle Ben's death which leads to a quest for vengeance against mysterious mutant the Sandman and competition with newcomer Eddie Brock at The Bugle leads to tragic consequences. Oh, and a certain sticky black symbiant has crash-landed on Earth and hitched a ride on the Spidey costume...

There comes a point where you can have too much of a good thing. Leave a child alone in a room full of ice-cream and the thing will explode hours later without responsible adults stepping in (spoilsports). Leave George Bush alone in a room full of buttons labelled 'do not touch' and, without his Generals to stop him, WW3 would be inevitable. At some point, everyone needs someone to step in and say 'enough's enough'. The problem is, after two phenomenally successful Spiderman films, it seems no-one was there to step in and say it to Sam Raimi.

The resulting movie is a sincere mass of promising ideas and set-pieces smothered into confusing diappointment by a complete disregard for tight editing, a lack of focused narrative and such an obsessive need to meet the balance between emotional drama and action that 'S2' excelled in that the film becomes choked by it.

Indeed, it's that last factor that really destroys the film. Whilst the symbiant (and, later, Venom) is by far the most interesting thing in the entire script, the whole plotline is woefully underused - often reduced to a gimmick to get some cheap laughs and clumsy emotional material. Even the Sandman character (a surprising choice pre-production) shows the potential to have become the film's main focus, offering some excellent potential emotional conflict and visual feasts. Yet Raimi is repeatedly dragged into retreading the same melodramatic ground between Parker, MJ and Harry as in 1 & 2 - and this time both he, his cast and the scriptwriters seem terribly bored with it. 'S2' already proved that Raimi could manage serious emotional material and his efforts to re-emphasise the point here backfire terribly.

As a consequence, those bits of the film that are left for anything else seem rushed (astounding in a film so long but it's true). Harry's amnesia is a plot gimmick that will have audiences grimacing in pain, the repeated habit of some characters just 'being in the right place at the right time' in order to clumsily drive the plot along stretches belief to its absolute limits (and then some) and you can almost hear the writers saying 'we need a pearl of anaemic wisdom - wheel out Aunt May'. Even the parts that clearly have been edited appear to be the wrong parts - look for a lab scene with Dr Connors and you'll see what I mean.

The thing is, even the bits in 'S3' that any Raimi or superhero fan would be inclined to like seem awkward within this framework of wildly veering emotional tones. Stan Lee's cameo is horrendously cliched, Bruce Campbell's slapstick waiter seemed badly misplaced (though, being Bruce, still impossible to dislike) and the whole 'Saturday Night Fever' pastiche is just painful.

Ultimately 'Spiderman 3' isn't a bad film. It's just hugely disappointing compared to the previous two, and frustratingly so as a decent Spidey film concentrating on just one main villain (and a little less sunk in melancholic morass) was clearly achievable. Whether it'll have another chance remains to be seen but, if so, someone tell the director that the saying 'less is more' can sometimes be true.

5/10

Scooby Doo - Satan's Spawn

Fri, 04 May 2007 14:09:53 GMT

Apparently yes.

Was trawling around the 'net for some reviews of the stage show currently touring the UK (lets face it, how funny would it be if drunk or intoxicated by some means?) and stumbled across this little comment gem from 'Christian Answers' movie section, in response to their negative review of the first film:

Negative - Although I like the old cartoon version of Scooby Doo, this live action is too trendy for my taste. Not that but there is a lot of necromancy and demon possession which is nothing more than a doorway for Satan to plague peoples minds. I must warn you, don't be fool be it subtle, cartoonish appearance, this movie is a tool for the devil.
My Ratings: [Average / 1.5]
—Sly, age 18

I always suspected Scrappy...

Movie Trailer Round-up

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:42:26 GMT

In a crap OCD spell so thought I'd check out some new movie trailers to cheer me up - the following may be worthy of consideration (along with the Simpsons, Transformers and Spidey 3 movies naturally, but you all know that):

Live Free or Die Hard

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/livefreeordiehard/

4th Die Hard film arrives in July - hmmm. All-action trailer (with a particularly good 'car taking out a helicopter' bit) but all seems a bit action-yawn. Also hints of a female sidekick in it - worryingly latter Lethal Weapon overtones.

Hot Fuzz

http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/hotfuzz/hd/

The 'Shaun of the Dead' cast and makers reunite for an ode to the cop/buddy movie, set in rural England! Looks absolutely superb and the trailer itself is hilarious - arrives in March.

Shrek the Third

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/shrekthethird/hd/

Was never a big Shrek fan in truth - was a little hit-and-miss joke and parody-wise. This looks to be more of the same with an updated list of film references to target (Pirates..., Kill Bill etc).

F4 - Rise of the Silver Surfer

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/fantasticfourriseofthesilversurfer/hd/

Assuming the trailer doesn't just show the best bit of the whole film, this looks a promising sequel (and the original showed some potential). And theree's the promise of huge mega-villain Galacticus popping up. Well worth a view. Out mid-June.

300

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/300/hd/

Early shout for the film of 2007, an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel that mixes 'Gladiator', 'LOTR', 'Zulu' and more. Looks astonishing and early test screening results suggest the rest of the film matches up to the looks.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/teenagemutantninjaturtles/hd/

No, really - the 2nd trailer has appeared and the signs are that Warner Bros may just have successfully resurrected the green-shelled heroes for a whole new audience. Far more effective as animations then the live-action disasters of the 90s, mid-March may just surprise us all with a good film.

Reo 911: Miami

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/reno911miami/

Big screen outing for the inept police force from FX/Comedy Central which, if the trailer is anything to go by, could be a real surprise giggle. Think Naked Gun meets Borat meets Jackass and you'll get the idea. Out next month.

Ghost Rider

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/ghostrider/

Was in development hell for years but Nic Cage's portrayal of a man/skull/demon thing who drives around a motorbike that can drive up the side of buildings at night as he hunts down evil (look, I dunno - it looks like that, ok?) at least appears nice if the trailer is anything to go by. Out next month so we'll soon find out.

2007 Oscar Noms in full - and thoughts...

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:21:55 GMT

Best picture
Babel
The Departed
Letters From Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen

Best director
Clint Eastwood, Letters From Iwo Jima
Stephen Frears, The Queen
Paul Greengrass, United 93
Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, Babel
Martin Scorsese, The Departed

Best actor
Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Peter O'Toole, Venus
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

Best actress
Penelope Cruz, Volver
Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal
Helen Mirren, The Queen
Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada
Kate Winslet, Little Children

Best supporting actress
Adriana Barraza, Babel
Cate Blanchett, Notes on a Scandal
Abigail Breslin, Little Miss Sunshine
Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls
Rinko Kikucki, Babel

Best supporting actor
Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine
Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children
Djimon Hounsou, Blood Diamond
Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls
Mark Wahlberg, The Departed

Best foreign language film
Efter Brylluppet (aka After the Wedding), Denmark
Indigenes (aka Days of Glory), Algeria
El Laberinto del Fauno (aka Pan's Labyrinth), Mexico
Das Leben der Anderen (aka The Lives of Others), Germany
Water, Canada

Best animated feature film
Cars
Happy Feet
Monster House

Best adapted screenplay
Borat
Children of Men
The Departed
Little Children
Notes on a Scandal

Best original screenplay
Babel
Letters from Iwo Jima
Little Miss Sunshine
The Queen
Pan's Labyrinth

Best music (score)
Babel
The Good German
Notes on a Scandal
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen

Best music (song)
I Need to Wake Up - An Inconvenient Truth
Listen - Dreamgirls
Love You I Do - Dreamgirls
Our Town - Cars
Patience - Dreamgirls

Best documentary feature
Deliver Us From Evil
An Inconvenient Truth
Iraq In Fragments
Jesus Camp
My Country, My Country

Best documentary short subject
The Blood of Yingzhou District
Recycled Life
Rehearsing A Dream
Two Hands

Best visual effects
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Poseidon
Superman Returns

Best cinematography
The Black Dahlia
Children of Men
The Illusionist
Pan's Labyrinth
The Prestige

Best art direction
Dreamgirls
The Good Shepherd
Pan's Labyrinth
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Prestige

Best animated short film
The Danish Poet
Lifted
The Little Matchgirl
Maestro
No Time for Nuts

Best short film
Binta and the Great Idea
Eramos Pocos (One Too Many)
Helmer & Son
The Saviour
West Bank Story

Best costume design
Curse of the Golden Flower
The Devil Wears Prada
Dreamgirls
Marie Antoinette
The Queen

Best make-up
Apocalypto
Click
Pan's Labyrinth

Best sound mixing
Apocalypto
Blood Diamond
Dreamgirls
Flags of our Fathers
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Sound editing
Apocalypto
Blood Diamond
Letters from Iwo Jima
Flags of our Fathers
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Best film editing
Babel
Blood Diamond
Children of Men
The Departed
United 93

Bet that 'sound editing' one is the biggie, huh folks?

Anyway, interesting selection and quite open this year. A little surprised not to see Brad pitt get a nod after his turn in 'Babel' and at 'Volver' for not getting a nod for 'Best Pic'.

There's a lot of people that are 'due' for an Oscar here, which always throws a spanner in the normal mix - Scorsese, O'Toole, Di Caprio, Smith, (hell of a best actor category) and the possibility of American social politics playing a role (what a surprise) - a big Latin American feeling could favour Cruz and 'Babel' as a whole. Also, the politically tense subject matter of 'Last King of Scotland' may make Whitaker a little less of a shoe-in then imagined.

Anyway, it's near-impossible to second-guess the Academy but we'll try:

Best Picture - Babel

Best Director - Scorsese

Best Actor - Whitaker

Best Actress - Mirren

Best Foreign Film - Pans Labyrinth

Best Supports - Possibly Barraza and Arkin

Clerks II - Review

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:23:13 GMT

Clerks II

Dir: Kevin Smith

Starring: Jeff Anderson, Brian O'Halloran, Rosario Dawson, Jason Mewes, kevin Smith

Rating: 5/5

Synopsis - It's been 11 years sinces Dante & Randall worked in the convenience store of the first film. One fire later, the two now find themselves working at a fast food outlet with Dante on his last day as supervisor before moving to Florida with his rich fiancee and leaving Randall minus one best friend. Yet, aside from the ever-dependable drug-dealing external activities of a now god-fearing, rehabbed Jay and Silent Bob, nothing in this day is going to be predictable...

Review - Let's make one thing clear first - if you're not between around 28 and 35 years of age, move right along to another film. If you're easily offended by bad/explicit language then do the same. And if you are between 28-35 years of age and in a state of total denial and incapable of self-reflection and self-honesty, don't even get started. Gone? Good.

Those left - welcome to seemingly the final visitation upon Dante, Randall, Jay, Silent Bob and the rest of the Jersey crowd and it's been well worth the wait. Like its predecessor, you're only REALLy gonna get 'Clerks II' if you've been there or are there. Kevin Smith's target audience is very specific - they star in the film.

If 'Clerks' was a picture for every late 80s/early 90s teen who didn't fit into the 'in' crowd, who was never part of the 'norm', who could never figure out where the fuck he/she was going and what the fuck he/she was meant to do with their lives - and was sick of people forcing them to make a decision they were never ready for - then 'Clerks II' is for those of us (I'm one of them) who are still there - who, 15ish years on, still don't seem to fit. Who've watched friends and colleagues drift away to desperately try and conform to societies expectations, to find the wife and 2.4 children and fill their days with an illusion of happiness and fullness that doesn't exist. Who;'ve dropped their dreams for the American one. Here's a film for all those people who've either got off, fallen off, been thrown off or never climbed aboard the roundabout marked 'how a respectable adult should live and what he/she should achieve' and either won't or can't face getting back on again. Does it answer the questions? Not really - this is real life. But it does reach out a hand and say 'you know what? You're not the only one, no matter what shit is thrown at you - just hang in there and let your future find you, don't let it be forced down your throat, don't conform, don't pretend, don't give up, even on giving up. Do what you want to do and enjoy life'.

Of course, all that is filleted within yet more wonderful randallisms at vulnerable targets (disabled people blogs & the fight between the Star wars trilogy and the LOTR trilogy catch it gloriously from him), some great skits from the ever-likeable Jay & Silent Bob and quite possibly the most cataclysmic series of disasterous events ever seen in a 15 minute section of one film towards the end in which you'll alternate between complete open-mouthed shock and screaming with laughter.

Is it as sharp as the first 'Clerks'? Probably not - that was a film that defined a culture. This, on the other hand, is a film consoling and comforting one. Too many critics didn't get it because they aren't THERE - if you are, do not miss this. You'll regret it.

Matty

(more reviews both here and @ http://www.flixster.com/theycallmemrdrew)

Stick it to the man

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:53:42 GMT

Just watched 'School of Rock' - after 'nacho Libre', my faith in Mr Black has been fully restored. What a great film - any classic rock fans who haven't seen it yet, go rent it now. Some really clever rock jokes and great tunes.

Flixster - most impressed

Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:03:36 GMT

http://theycallmemrdrew.flixster.com

Most impressed by this - Flixster (who i think must be affiliated to Microsoft in some way) have an excellent personalised movie site, kinda like MySpace for film freaks where you cn create the above and more. Well worth a visit.

If You're Going To Buy Something Random on EBay...

Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:14:49 GMT

...then I figure you have to do it properly.

Have I ever seen the film i'm bidding on?

No.

Know anyone who has?

No.

Seen any reviews?

No.

Ever even heard of it?

No.

BUT that's not the point...how CAN'T you bid for a film called 'Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter'? I'm there 'til the bitter end, baby.

(FRev) Pre-release review of Jack Black's 'Nacho Libre'

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:38:21 GMT

Nacho Libre (12A)

Length: 1h 32m (approx)

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Hector Jiminez

Director: Jared Hess

T2D Rating: 5 out of 10

In Short: Shallow sports comedy which disappears up the latex-clad ass of it's star actor.

Second Opinion? Try http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457510/

Synopsis: A friar in a remote Mexican monastery, Ignacio (Jack Black) dreams of fame, fortune and success as a wrestler amidst his duties as a chef and caring for the orphaned children. Teaming up with acrobatic street urchin Esqueleto (Hector Jiminez), he becomes the mask-wearing 'Nacho' - yet will his secret life help him woo Sister Incarnacion (Ana De La Reguera) and improve life for the children, or will he be discovered and thrown out in disgrace?

Verdict: Part comic homage to the Mexican amateur wrestling scene (there's an obscure niche), part sports comedy, part religious comedy and part send-up of ever dramatic, overblown heroic epic ever produced (of which Latin American cinema is especially guilty), nobody could accuse 'Nacho Libre' of casting its net too narrow. Unfortunately, despite all of its charm, that very lack of focus is one of the primary things that hamstrings 'Nacho Libre' from start to finish.

Whatever and whoever the humour is trying to snare, it just never seems to really hit the mark consistently enough. Funded by Nickelodeon, there are elements of slapstick that a younger audience would love - but the film's 12A rating means many of them won't get to see it. Then there are clearly some jokes aimed at an older audience that will fly way above any non-adults who may be watching. Then there are in-jokes that only lovers of Latin American cinema will enjoy. Add the many bits thrown in specifically for Jack Black fans (the song near the end being a prime example) and the consistent over-emphasis on heroic film character cliches (which tire far before the end of the film) and you end up with a film that starts to smack of desperation in its attempts to make you laugh. oh, and let's not forget skits so surreal that you wonder who finds them funny. The 'toast-eating' scene springs to mind - you can see that it's meant to be funny, yet it never quite bridges the gap between 'strange' and 'humorously weird'. None of the comic elements ever really gel enough to get consistent laughs all the way through. The odd joke may get a chuckle or raise a smile but, for a Jack Black vehicle, it's disappointingly uneven.

And that's the other big problem the film has - Jack Black. Ok, so I can hear the collective gasps of shock from the general public - "how dare you criticize the Black??!!" - but just hear me out.

That JB is talented isn't in question. He's a great comic character actor, alongside being a pretty decent musician and singer, but there were times during 'Nacho Libre' where I started to worry whether he'd put his career into reverse an headed down the same comedy cul-de-sac that Jim Carrey did with 'Ace Ventura 2'. Too many times the film changed from being a gently entertaining, if completely untaxing, morality tale into a flimsy framework that existed simply as something for Jack to demonstrate his repertoire in - as a result, both the film and the actor end up getting lazier as the reel plays out. Ultimately, the whoel concept of black 'acting' as someone else almost disappears entirely Black's whole exaggerated performance eventually starts to grate - the mock Mexican accent slips with horrifying ease at times - and, by the end, there's an overwhelming feeling of having seen it all before, and far less cynically executed.

Frustrating really, as 'Nacho Libre' does have a certain gentle charm about it (though only during the wrestling sequences does it ever truely gain a sense of real energy rather then a pleasant lethargy) and you sense a real love for the subject matter running throughout. A shame that all this ends up being eclipsed by the presence and performance of someone who should know, and is capable of, far better. Let's hope there's a 'Truman Show' on the horizon.

T2Ds Essential Film/TV/Trailer Round-up

Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:55:14 GMT

This week's dose of film and TV news courtesy of lots of websites, newsfeeds, trailers, studios and vague whispered rumours in darkened corners of smokey pubs where men wear overcoats and speak in Russian accents....errr, yep. Scroll down for the trailer links.

Biggest news by far this week surrounds the next Batman film. WB have confirmed that both The Joker and The Penguin will appear in the sequel to 'Batman Begins' (subtitled 'The Dark Knight'). As for who's playing them? Well, somewhat of a surprise is that the role of laughing boy himself will be played by Heath Ledger but, most appealingly, rumour has it that no lesser an actor then Phillip Seymour Hoffman is about to put pen to paper to play the flippered one. Inspired stuff.
Anyone fancy a remake of 'Pet Semetary'? Tough - as it's going to happen (courtesy of Universal) sometime next year. Confirmed is that George Clooney will have a part in the film (though there's reluctance as to saying WHO he'll play) - perhaps that means we'll finally see an SK horror novel get the big-budget treatment so much of his work deserves. 'It' with an all-star cast and huge studio financing? Here's hoping.
Some things witchy this way come - all from books with the same idea. First off, casting news on the Dark Materials trilogy. As expected, Nicole Kidman has picked up the role of main female villain Mrs Coulter with the equally delectable Eva Green (about to star in 'Casino Royale' and formerly in 'Kingdom of Heaven') starring as head witch. Meanwhile, at the Hogwarts ranch, cast additions for the 5th Harry Potter movie have been announced. Helena Bonham Carter heads them up as Voldemort-following Bellatrix Lestrange though, for us, Imelda Staunton has got the best part in the film - that of the truly repugnant Ministry official Dolores Umbridge.
No thanks to Total Film for bringing us news on the much-feared 'Die Hard 4' film. Plot details have now been released and it's no surprise to find out that, this time, Bruce Willis will be brought out of retirement to fight terrorists who have a fiendish plot to take over the USA using the internet. If that wasn't bad enough, 'Underworld' director Len Wiseman is at the helm. One quarterback who we fear will be toast, post-release.
Speaking of potential train wreck films, news from the set of the big-screen adaptation of 'Dallas' does not bode well. Already down a director even before shooting has started, this time Jennifer Lopez has quit her role as Sue-Ellen. Perhaps, having been in enough bad films herself, J-LO has managed to read the writing on the wall this time - with an 'eclectic' cast rumoured to include Travolta as JR, Luke Wilson as Bobby and Shirley Maclaine as Miss Ellie, you'd have to be blind not to.
Not much TV news around this week, but that which is is not good when it comes to 'Torchwood', the Dr Who spin-off. It seems that much of it is having to be reshot due to lighting problems with the camera equipment they were using. No news yet on how that may affect when the series goes to air, but we're guessing November now.
Time for some horror news. First up, Fangoria have released the release date for the next Hallowe'en film. Expect Rob Zombie's much-anticipated reimagining to hit screens in time for All Hallows Eve of 2007, replete with Zombie's own reimagining of Carpenter's cult original film score. Also appearing on the best horror/sci-fi site on the web is news on Alien Vs Predator 2. 'Survival of the Fittest will apparently be set on U.S. soil and most of the production crew will return from the first AvP film. Another interesting snippet appears on horror website Bloody Disgusting, this time talking about new Hilary Swank film 'The Reaping' which is due to hit us in November. The daughter of a missionairy who's lost her faith, she suddenly has to find it again very quickly when she comes across a small town which appears to be suffering from a series of Biblical plagues. Let's hope it goes down the 'fun' route as the plot has potential.
T-U-R-T-L-E Power! Yep, quake in fear at the news of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being remade and released next year! Unknown director Kevin Munroe is at the helm of this one but, before memories of the dire 1990 effort spring to mind, remember that the comic book was actually pretty damn good - and, in truth, the license picked up too early for what the FX merchants were capable of doing. This time it looks like they've dropped the 'kiddie appeal' focus of the first attempt (hence the word 'Ninja' is back instead of 'Hero') and the early promo shots look quite promising (as does this trailer which is stacked with some gorgeous animation). Cowabunga dudes.
Finally...pop across to the following for a look at some trailers which T2D likes a great deal:

Film Review - Wolf Creek

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:28:40 GMT

Wolf Creek (2005 - 18)

Length: 1h 44m (approx)

Starring: John Jarret, Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips

Director: Greg McLean

T2D Rating: 7 out of 10

In Short: Effective (if slightly overhyped) horror/thriller in which the real star is the cinematography.

Second Opinion? Try http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416315/maindetails

Synopsis: Three young backpackers, stranded after their car breaks down while visiting the mystical Wolf Creek, think a wandering Aussie bushman is their salvation when they are discovered. But things aren't always what they seem...

Verdict: So, the UK finally gets a decent free-to-air film channel in 'FilmFour' but, while most eyes were watching the premiere of 'Lost In Translation' last Sunday, there were others amongst us - probably hiding in the shadows - who were waiting for the REAL gem of the channel's opening week. Last night FilmFour aired it - 'Wolf Creek'.

So why the review? Well, simply because it's a film that over the past 18 months since its release has built up a huge cult reputation. Almost like a whispered apocryphal tale of terror around a camp fire, any discussion on recent horror finds people looking at you hesitantly, almost nervously, and asking in hushed tones if you've seen THAT film. Even stranger is that so many people haven't - often including the person who's asked you and proceeded to murmur tales of horror and despair about its very contents. A film with a huge reputation yet seemingly no-one has actually seen it, 'Wolf Creek' lurks in the darkest, deepest part of the horror river that films like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'Evil Dead', 'Last House on the Left' and 'The Hills Have Eyes' all set up permanent residence throughout the 70s and 80s. Such a film was begging to be watched and reviewed. So, at 11pm last night, I turned off all the lights, settled down on the sofa with the obligatory cushion if needed, and turned on the film...

...and at 12:45am switched off the TV having seen an excellent thriller with horror overtones that, though not quite deserving its place in the deep, could certainly deliver an almighty bite to the occasional unwary viewer wading into the shallow end a little too far.

What's clear about 'Wolf Creek' is that Greg Mclean has watched all of those legendary films in the horror canon (especially 'Texas' & 'Hills', and perhaps 'Deliverance' as well) and learnt his lessons well. Like it's oft-compared predecessor 'Blair Witch', here are three young, likeable people who have done nothing to deserve what we know is probably going to happen to them (and boy, it certainly does). The first half-an-hour, which serves simply to set character and location, doesn't teach us much about them but opens that chink in our armour enough to make them matter later on. They are simply nice people....and they could be any of us.

A word here about the location and the filming of it, as 'Wolf Creek' could almost be a quite beautifully-shot piece of film about the wonders of the outback with the odd piece of psychosis and splatter of blood edited in. It looks simply stunning - huge, panoramic shots of endless plains, stunning filmwork of the Wolf Creek crater and some breathtaking nighttime shot of a huge, pale moon hanging over a multi-hued, deserted landscape...if it wasn't for the presence of the psychotic bushman amidst it, the Aussie tourist board would embrace this film.

It serves a narrative purpose too, of course. These kids really are stuck in the middle of nowhere. They don't require cheap Blair-esque misdirection, they don't need to be set aboard the Nostromo - it's clear that, in the outback, no-one is going to hear them scream.

And scream they certainly do. After laying a few possible trails that might be picked up on again later in the film including an unnerving cafe encounter (or might not - what matters is that we think they might, which just adds to the mental fun later on), the kids finally break down and are met by bushman Mick. He seems nice enough at first (don't they all, though - even Jeffrey Dahmler shook peoples hands, though he probably ate them later), a pally mid-50s Aussie with a slight lack of education and blunt mode of speech and humour. And yet....there's just something not right about ol'Mick. The odd look, odd turn of phrase. Just enough to make us think that, when he tells Nathan how he could tell him what he does for a living but he'd have to kill him, Mick might not be joking. Not only that but what the hell is he doing driving about in the middle of the outback in the middle of the night? Just how do you 'happen' to stumble across people there? Of course, our intrepid youngsters don't think about such questions 'til it's far, far too late...

What follows in the second half of the film are games of cat and mouse, intercut with some supposed 'torture' scenes during which far more is implied, hinted at and promised then actually delivered (this is no Eli Roth), as the three try to escape from the hands of a brutal madman with fantastic hunter/tracker skills. Yet strangely, after a first half that pitches unease to a nigh-unbearable level, 'Wolf Creek' never quite delivers on its promises - it never makes good on those whispered tales of frightened awe. In fact, in terms of horror, it owes far more to a film like 'Se7en' then anything else. A bleak, unrelenting and nihilistic tone with suggestions of past horrors and implied psychotic violence is perhaps twice - maybe three times - cut through with a bloody camera shot of shocking, visual, actual horror. It's effective when it appears, yet (without wanting to be called a gorehound) it doesn't really happen enough. When it comes down to it, 'Wolf Creek' shys away from the butcher's hooks and sledgehammers it promises and would rather be an effective thriller/chiller and once the audience cottons onto that, part of its power is lost.

Performances are good (better then that in the case of Jarret's bushman - a truly vile creation) and the plot does its work well though, in its need to try and straddle both the suspense and horror genre, it does commit some cardinal genre-cliche errors that Randy would spin in his cinematic grave about. Too much running back to the scene of the crime, too much time-wasting in life-threatening situations...just a few too many moments of stupidity from the main characters, really - even the films infamous 'spine' scene comes after such a sequence and a tiny part of you thinks 'serves them right'. Harsh - but true.

So there you have it. Not quite what I expected and not quite what it promises, 'Wolf Creek' is nevertheless a fine piece of Australian cinema with enough tension and scary moments to keep the average filmgoer satisfied. Fanboys of the horror genre may feel a little let down, though.

X-Men 3 - The Last Stand (Review)

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:20:51 GMT

X-Men III - The Last Stand (12A)

Length: 1h 44m (approx)

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry

Director: Brett Ratner

T2D Rating: 6 out of 10

In Short: Spectacular, surprising but slightly disappointing end to the trilogy - much due to the Ratner effect.

Second Opinion? Try http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_3_the_last_stand/

Synopsis: In the not-too-distant future, a so-called 'cure' has been discovered for the gene that causes mutation. Yet can Xavier and his X-Men survive when faced with a government that betrayed mutantkind in the past and whilst fighting Magneto's 'Brotherhood of Mutants'? And for one X-Man in patricular, death seems to have been far from the end...

Verdict: So, after giving birth to the phenomenally successful new breed of superhero films and providing the genre with two commercial and critical successes, the third (and seemingly final) instalment of the X-Men franchise has arrived - minus Bryan Singer at the helm. So does Brett Ratner's ('Rush Hour', 'Red Dragon') interpretation of how it all ends serve as a fitting ending?

Weeeellll.......not really. We're not talking about a truly stinking sequel here ('Superman 3'), or even a particularly poor one ('TM:Revolutions') - instead, we're in ROTJ and BTTF3 territory. X3 isn't a bad film...it just doesn't do the others justice.

"Why not?" I hear you ask? Three reasons...

Firstly, the director. The departure of Bryan Singer for the 'Superman' flick and subsequent replacement by the less-then-cerebral Ratner provides a real body blow to the film. It just doesn't feel like an X-Men flick. What Ratner does, he does extremely well - there are some fantastic set-pieces here to rival anything in the previous films - and when dealing with such action sequences Ratner's in his element. But X1 & X2 had far more then that - a real sense of emotional involvement, character depth and development and a subtle use of the bigger background issues of prejudice and difference - and, at that, he's lost. The result is some truly desperate and cliched dialogue spread amongst a number of half-developed, poorly executed plots and sub-plots which are often almost thrown away so Ratner can get to the next explosion. Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman aside, we're looking at amateur hour for drama here. And that's annoying, as there are some truly intriguing themes here. Rogue's dilemma regarding whether to surrender her powers to be 'normal' again, set against the bigger question of whether mutation really is a disease that warrants a cure - and what it means to treat it as such - is a theme that really deserves far more attention then Ratner is capable of giving it. Singer would have.

Secondly...Halle Berry. After some well-publicised hissyfits from her before signing up for X3, it's clear that her 'demanding nature' has been indulged in a big way...and the film suffers for it. True, Storm was a much underused character in the first two films but X3 over-compensates, giving the character more screentime then her role and talents with the X-Men universe demand. Even worse, Berry uses all that screen time to continue to undo all the good reputation her Oscar gave her, giving an unemotive and barely interested performance that contains all the emotional credibility of a Labour politician.

Finally (and perhaps most crucial) is that it fails to deliver on many of the things the fanbase would expect from a trilogy closer. Most would doubtless have heard about the surprising deaths and the outrage they've caused amongst mainly comic-book fans. Well, as a fan of the film and cartoon franchise but not a comic devotee, even I admit some frustration and annoyance at them (one, in particular, is dealt with in such a brutally casual and throwaway manner that you're not even sure if said person has been dealt with at all..they could just as easily have popped out for a coffee). Some characters are there for purely cosmetic reasons and horrendously underused/histories abused (Archangel, Beast, Juggernaut), some suffer strange continuity errors compared to the previous films (Colossus now has a broad american accent!) and X2's best character - Nightcrawler - has just disappeared altogether, with no mention at all. There are some nice touches for the fans - we briefly see Bobby Drake fully 'ice up' during his duel with Pyro, there's a fantastic start section with a giant robot (which makes you think of what might have been, had the 'Sentinel' plot ever been used) and the whole 'Dark Phoenix' storyline is great (though warranted a whole film on its own, really) - but the disappointments and frustrations outweight the satisfactions.

Ok, so it's not quite a cynical cash-in on the success of 1 & 2, but it's clear that the making of X3 was constantly influenced by the knowledge that most of the cast either couldn't or wouldn't sign up for more films - or, at least, not without a LOT of money - and so a need to try and tie-up the loose ends and cram in as much as possible severly hampers it. That the film works as well as it does is surprising and there's enough entertainment to make it a worthwhile viewing experience for anyone who's seen the previous 2 films and fancies a lightweight DVD night. Just be prepared for a fair few disappointments and 'if onlys' afterwards.

Return of the Film Reviews

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:08:06 GMT

It's back for Summer 2006 - T2D's film reviews section!

If there's one thing T2D has learned, it's that everyone's a critic - especially as I used to be one!

Anyway, this section will have regular reviews of the current movies being served up by the nation's cinemas and whether (in our humble opinion) they're worth the admission price. Expect lots of critical analysis and a bit of irreverant humour alongside some pre-release reviews thanks to a handy press screening pass!

Plus..why don't you exercise your penmanship as well? If you've seen a film that you want to share your views on with the world then let T2D know. Maybe you disagree with the review of a film already covered - no problem. Tell us what YOU thought of it.

Send your reviews to:

t2d.bristol@virgin.net

We'll make sure they go on the site in all their glory. One thing though - no essays! Anything too huge will be trimmed in order to fit. Send 'em in now!

Superman Returns - Review

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:45:08 GMT

Superman Returns (12A)

Length: 2 + 1/2hrs (approx)

Starring: Brandan Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey

Director: Bryan Singer

T2D Rating: 5 out of 10

In Short: Not a bird OR a plane, but an adequate return for the Man of Steel hamstrung by a pedestrian pace and vacuous plot.

Second Opinion? Try http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

**WARNING** - SPOILERS

Synopsis: After a 5-year hiatus during which he was making sure Krypton really had been destroyed, Superman returns to Earth to find that things have changed. Lois Lane is engaged and has a young child and Lex Luthor is hatching a new, dastardly plan to rule the world. A world that doesn't know whetehr it even needs Superman anymore...

Verdict: It's been a long and winding road with many a director, story and superstar discarded along the way but finally the new Superman movie has arrived. With a lead (Brandon Routh) who looks uncannily like Christopher Reeve at times, the best actor in the business today playing the villainous adversary (Kevin Spacey) and X-Men director Bryan Singer at the helm, you'd expect a super film to match the likes of Batman Begins & Spiderman II and really put the franchise back on the map.

You'd be wrong.Though no one element is actually bad, there are too many that are mediocre and disappointing - and precious few that really hit the mark.

The faults that have plagued the storyline during production are still there for all to see. The script lacks sparkle and fails to convey anymore then the basest, most surface of emotion (the death of his adopted father while he was away causes not even the faintest ripple of feeling in anyone, it seems).

The plot just seems...well, empty. Aside from Lois' change of status (and a painfully transparent plotline there too), NOTHING has moved on in Metropolis - Clark Kent's reappearance after 5 years is greeted with barely a whimper, the whole setup for whether SM is even needed is resolved within the first 45 mins...it hardly builds momentum. Even the plan of Lex Luthor seems rather garbled and under-developed - again, potentially good but just lacking in any real sense of dramatic tension.

In fact the lack of momentum here is the film's key failing. Surprisingly, when you consider how spectacularly well-paced Singer's previous ventures into the superhero genre have been (and Usual Suspects of course), SR moves at a laboured jog throughout with only brief moments of true excitement. It's not dissimilar another failed superhero movie in Ang Lee's 'Hulk', but lacks the emotional gravitas and masses of detail & information that made 'Hulk' such an interesting failure. Instead, it's a 90 minute film stretched way beyond both its (and the audiences) breaking point.

So what does work? Well...Spacey is great as Lex Luthor, adding a sadistic, truly unpleasant edge to Hackman's cartoonish, megalomaniacal portrayal in the original films. Routh looks the part and does well with a poor script at times, yet him & Spacey are never given any real screen time together to shine and really build a sense of frission. As for Bosworth, the failings of Lois Lane aren't down to her but down to a terrible characterisation. Anyone who remembers Margot Kidder's hard-nosed, acid-tongued Brooklyner will be horrified by Lois being...well, just lame. Some set-pieces are great (the shuttle in particular) though the effects to wobble a little at times and, of course, using the original score is a stroke of genius.

Ultimately, SR isn't a bad film. It won't entertain the kids who'll get bored very quickly but may provide a mildly diverting escape for people who want to watch an adequate drama with some superheroic asides thrown in. Yet as a superhero movie it fails because it takes itself way too seriously and lacks any sense of fun - in fact, the almost total absence of Clark Kent highlights this more then anything, along with missing the chance to add any kind of endearing charm and vulnerability for the audience to warm to. Pair that with its other faults and it simply doesn't tick anywhere near all the boxes that such a film needs to.

'Clerks' + Spidey 3 trailer

Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:15:00 GMT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A movie-type entry for you...

Finally got round to seeing the much-heralded 'Clerks' last night (yeah I KNOW I should have seen it already, thanks) - and was pleasantly surprised that it lived up to its reputation. Kevin Smith is a fantastic director/writer (though I haven't seen 'Jay & SB Strike Back' and am told I'm wise not to) - kind've what Cameron Crowe promised he'd be with 'AF' and 'Singles' before the lure of the mainstream sucked the soul of the streets from him - and is now easy to see why with a debut like that one.

Didn't see the dead guy sex bit coming, though - had nipped out for a ciggie in the prelim discussion Caitlin had with Randall, so was sure she'd got lively with the Bob. Very funny.

Oh, and I strongly advise you all to go to:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_3/

Have 11 months to wait until the greatest comic book hero of 'em all has his 3rd outing but a quick glimpse of the Venom suit and Sandman (along with what I think may've been Gwen Stacey...?) has sated my appetite for now. A little worried they may be trying to cram too much in - Raimi has more-or-less said its his last Spidey and perhaps he wants to go out with a bang, but Venom AND Sandman AND GG AND a Gwen subplot? Hmmm...

MAJOR T2D NEWS - The film's are coming...

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:40:20 GMT

Coming Soon....

The New, Revamped and EXCLUSIVE Film Review Section
(from preview screenings, no less!)

Ok, it's history lesson time folks.

As those who've read the 'about me' bits (or who know me in rl) will know, my cosen career path hasn't always been a layabout moaning about his OCD, life in general and occasionally running stupendous radio broadcasts to make money for charity *grin*.

Nope, before the 'D finally got me, I was an editorial assistant and freelance film reviewer writer who'd been trying to get his break into the magazine world after graduating in '99 with a degree in film/media/culture blah blah.

As a hopefully-reading Mr Richardson would tell you, T2D was actually conceived about 3-4 years ago between the two of us...the idea being, before life/circumstances set in, that it'd cover the entertainment scene in Bristol and eventually become a full-time revenue making prokject for us both.

Well, am happy to announce the first steps back towards that vision are being taken. Initially thanks to the folks at Vue Cinemas (hopefully some others will also respond), the site will now be hosting reviews of brand new up-and-coming films written by yours truly, thanks to them allowing T2D access to their press screenings.

The aim's are:

- On a public level, provide you guys (and Bristolians particularly) some details on what's going on in the local/national cinema at the moment along with some decent early reviews of new material exclusive to this site alone. Am also going to bring in a new section dedicated to film showtimes etc in those cinemas happy to work with me on this (nothing for nothing). Long-term, am looking more at developing a T2D spin-off website devoted to film.

- On a private level, my portfolio has gotten a tad dusty over the past 2 years out of work ill. As I'm slowly improving somewhat, it'll give me something extra to focus on in a voluntary way..and perhaps help me find some way in to the ideal scenario for me and the OCD - working from home.

Anyway, is a significant thing for me personally...plus we'll finally get the site doing what it was first meant to do - actually showing some things to do in Bristol!!!

Matty

PS Oh, and did I mention the reviews may well be part of a half-hour weekly podcast I'm working on?

Moist Wars

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:58:02 GMT

As promised (and in the spirit today of lowering the tone of T2D entirely), here's a list of film titles that become far funnier if a word in them is substituted with the word 'moist':

Star Wars: A Moist Hope
The Moist Strikes Back (- known as the 'Moist Trilogy')
Return of the Moist

The Good, The Bad And The Moist
Lethal Moist
Close Encounters of the Moist Kind
LOTR: The Fellowship of the Moist
Things To Do In Denver When You're Moist
I Am A Fugitive In A Moist Gang
Moist-Hand Luke
Butch Cassidy and the Moist Kid
A Streetcar Named Moist
Touching The Moist
The Fast and the Moist
Moist Saddles
Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Moist
No Sex Please, We're Moist
Moistfinger
Superman IV: The Quest for Moist
Village of the Moist

Many thanks to Pete & Vicky for some of those - feel free to contribute more underneath!

Bargain, thy name is CEX

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:01:02 GMT

Stumbled across CEX today (a chain of game exchange shops, not dyslexic intercourse) - highly recommended. For a change, here's a dealer that actually lists the exchange prices on their site rather then make them, up on the spot. Swiftly invested in Final Fantasy X, LOTR: 3rd Age and the DVD of Poltergeist for £2 (is 5-6 times that on Ebay).

Nice.

Manos The Hands of Fate - Seen It!

Sun, 15 Jan 2006 12:25:59 GMT

Very nearly had to create a new category for this entry - possibily 'excrutiating agony' or the like.

Yep, finally got hold of a copy of Mystery Science Theatre 3000's version of what's regarded by some as the worst film ever made....'Manos The Hands of Fate'. Currently sitting at #14 in IMDB's bottom 100 worst films ever list (and believe me, that's REALLY being generous), many regard it as simply the worst film ever made. Ok, so I wasn't brave enough to try it without the wisecracks of the MST3K bunch (and besides, the likelihood of finding a copy 'as is' is unlikely - no doubt they've all been tortured and burned by now I hope) but I took it on with an unsuspecting Kev.

My god.

It's hard to describe just how bad 'Manos' is. The plateau of 'so bad it's funny' is so far away for 'Manos' that it may as well be in another universe. Made in '66 by first-time (and, thank god, only time) director Hal Warren, it's no wonder his career both started and stopped here. That the guy was also a fertilizer salesman (I shit you not *wokka wokka wokka*) makes the joke so easy it's not even worth typing it. In fact, this is a film that truly has no redeeming features about it. We're not talking your standard 'bad' here, folks. I mean, 'Godzilla' (the remake) was a bad film. 'Lost In Space' (the remake) was a lousy film. Countless horror sequels tend to be rubbish. But in all of them there's always SOMETHING watchable...there's always one actor who you think was ok (or at least showed potential). There's always one visual effect, one line etcetc...

Not in 'Manos'. Every shot (when they can hold the camera steady enough that is) seems to have been brutally examined with Hitler-like sadism and had any conceivable worth ripped from it. It's tempting to say that manservant Torgo is the highlight of the film, but that would mislead you to thinking there was a highlight or anything remotely redeeming about his performance - let's just say that if you were being anally probed by a blue whale and then the whale went off-shift and was replaced by an elephant which then picked up where the whale left off, the miniscule lessening of discomfort would be something close to the increase in entertainment when Torgo is on-screen.

It's a horrific analogy but, dear lord, it's the closest I could get.

Even the genius of MST3K (and, after 15 years having not seen it, it weas good to discover that it was as funny as I remembered) was struggling against the sheer terribleness of the film - and these are people who got through 'Santa Claus vs the Martians' (next on the list, folks).

So that's Manos - if you must do it, be REALLY drunk.

Trust me.

'Life of Brian' funnier than 'Airplane'?

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:57:32 GMT

I think not!!

Still, the '50 Greatest Film Comedies' poll held by C4 did throw up some very strange results.

Here's the top 20:

1. Monty Python's Life Of Brian

2. Airplane!

3. Shaun Of The Dead

4. Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery

5. South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

6. Monty Python And The Holy Grail

7. American Pie

8. Blazing Saddles!

9. There's Something About Mary

10. This Is Spinal Tap

11. Annie Hall

12. Blues Brothers

13. Groundhog Day

14. The Naked Gun

15. Wayne's World

16. Some Like It Hot

17. Dumb And Dumber

18. Meet The Parents

19. Clerks

20. Young Frankenstein

I can live with most of that list - I may not be a huge Python fan but can appreciate how clever their stuff was. But...AP at no.4? A one-view film only. SP at no.5? It's funny but come on...no.5 funny? Dumb & Dumber is just terrible and Meet the Parents? I liked it and laughed, but it's not the 18th best ever comedy film. Underachievers in the list include A Fish Called Wanda (23), Ghostbusters (24), Dr Strangelove (30), Beverly Hills Cop (44), The Princess Bride (46) and The Producers (a ludicrously low 50). And how on earth can films like 'The Man With 2 Brains', 'Bringing Up Baby' & 'Jackass: The Movie' miss out to the likes of 'Team America', 'School of Rock' and 'Best In Show'?

Bizarre.

New vid clip

Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:04:30 GMT

Ok, so normally the clip is something stupid and not an official trailer or anything....

...but I'm HUGELY looking forward to 'The Producers' coming out. Was Mel Brooks first great film of his 'golden' period and, if reports of the musical are anything to go by, the remake is as good (if not better) then the original. Nathan Lane and Will Farrell are always funny, Uma Thurman is always hot and Matthew Broderick.......well, is long overdue a good film by quite a few years.

Plus I still can't hear 'Springtime for Hitler' without falling about with laughter.