RANDOM RANT- Why when reading some bloggers posts you get the distinct impression they don’t care about forming coherent sentences for you to easily digest, they only want to talk and talk until you just want to reach through the screen so you can shake some actual sense out of t-t-t-t-them

I was reading Emily Bell’s column in the Media Guardian on Monday, and she had am interesting slant on newspapers and their inflexibility.

“Is this article already too long?” she enquired, but went on to explain that even if the answer is yes, she still has to “carry on writing until the space is full.”

Only problem was, her article itself demonstrated this issue better than she could have ever imagined. Her incisive opening paragraphs told you all you needed to know. The subsequent paragraphs were nothing but empty waffle. She might argue, but it is the sad truth. The article could have easily been half it’s length without surrendering anything of note.

Writing can be a superbly rewarding pastime. The fact you can carve out lyrical, emotive passages as well as rip-roaringly close to the knuckle arguments from mere words is a wonderful thing.

Newspapers’ slow death may mean the end of rigid structure and writer defined content, but I fear its replacement is a far bigger threat to truly great and worthwhile writing.

With blogs now commonplace, it is all too easy to find someone who rambles for paragraphs on end. On and on they go, with no clear structure, puking over you with their incessant and seemingly endless stream of consciousness.

Trying to remain enthusiastic while reading someone’s thoughts but seeing you are only a small fraction of the way through several hundreds of words can be a difficult task. In most cases it’s not worth wading through the verbal stodge.

So I ask; is it possible to have an easy halfway solution? Is there a middle ground that can be reached between newspapers rigid chains and the internet’s infinite word dump?

I fear not. The incentive to ramble on is far too tempting for some. Where else are they going to get their thoughts off their chests? But I won’t take any more of your time. I’ve gone on too long already.

FILM REVIEW- Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll

Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll (15)

Gives you plenty of reasons to be cheerful*

Where?

At the Empire cinema at Tower Park

Plot?

The biopic of eccentric 70’s-80’s rocker Ian Dury, who had to fight through childhood of suffering polio, and then years later faced another struggle, having to balance both his band and family commitments.

Thoughts?

Opening with a flurry of quick cut editing alongside a dizzying cocktail of animation and live action, many viewers will be begging only a few minutes in for the the film to slowdown so they can catch up.

Luckily for those easily susceptible to migraines it does. But throughout this biopic there are enough flashes of the films manic opening to keep you engaged with ease.

This film is eager to show you some of Dury’s more bizarre mannerisms, but it is more than eager to go further under his skin to show you why he was a man who was always fighting back against difficult circumstances.

Not eager to offer you a straightforward, clear cut three act structure, the film ambitiously blends flashbacks from Dury’s troubled past with the highpoints of his career to impressive effect. It helps to create a rambunctious but surprisingly coherent tale.

But easily the most convincing element of this biopic is Ian Serkis’ as Dury himself. Stepping into such a maverick and unique character must have been a huge challenge, but Serkis pulls off a totally believable version of Dury on and off the music stage, but never slips into offering a one-note impersonation. His skill is making us see him as Dury, and not simply as an actor playing him, and for this he deserves all the inevitable Oscar speculation.

Ray Winstone (Dury’s soft spoken father), Naomie Harris (his loving but emotionally torn assistant) and Bill Milner (his confused son) all offer up solid support, but much like Dury himself, no-one out performs the main man.

The film doesn’t cover everything however, and those uninitiated in Dury lore may not be convinced, that he is worth his own film. At least a little knowledge of Dury’s exploits are a necessity here.

And for hardcore fans, there may not be enough of Dury’s actual music and gigs shown, with a surprising lack of coverage of the actual songs and records being made that made his legacy.

As well as this the film does feel a little stretched, and could have done with exorcising some seemingly superfluous scenes to cut down the near two hour running time.

But excess baggage (of the emotional kind) is the overiding impression you get from Dury, so this is quite a fitting flaw.

Despite being an occasionally frustrating and flawed persona, Dury was capable of entertaining in a way that was funny as well as moving. The same can be said of this admirable effort at documenting him.

Verdict?

A bumpy ride, but one worth taking thanks to Serkis’ great performance and Whitecross’ assured and unique direction. (3/5)

Go further…

· With this and Nowhere Boy, as well as Telstar from last year the British film industry seems on a roll making solid music biopics.

· Ian Serkis seems to have a future in voice-overs if his film career goes downhill- he can not only do Dury gravelly tones, but he has also lended his vocals for the voice of Gollum in Lord of the Rings.

Haiku Summary…

Eccentric story,

Made by people who love it,

Enjoyable stuff!

Second Opinions?

Times writer Kevin Maher thought Serkis was convincing, perhaps unerringly so, in this article-

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6942759.ece

Mark Kermode thinks Serkis’ performance goes beyond mere impersonation, in this video-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spopVKc9vMk&NR=1

Trailer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMKjx8ilLCY

*Other obvious taglines included- Hit Me With Your Decent Film Stick, Back to Blighty For Another Music Biopic, Just a Load of Cacka Boom?, Does This Have Delusions of Grandeur?, Will Make You Happy Hippy, and What a Waste (if the film was bad).

VIDEOGAME REVIEW- Mario and Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story

Here’s my view of Nintendo DS game Mario and Luigi-Bowser’s Inside Story, from the Geeks.co.uk website.

http://www.geeks.co.uk/11874-mario-and-luigi-bowser%e2%80%99s-inside-story

Enjoy!

LARGE NOSE MAN- Chapter 4

*What is this? A continuing story about a superhero I made up, Large Nose Man. I wrote much of this many years ago, so I have edited it to make (some) sense, although it’s just a bit of fun really. One new chapter up every fortnight!*

Chapter Four

“Welcome to Nuclea Nuclear plant, where we can take any dream and mutate it horribly” said the Nuclea secretary disturbingly sweetly, as Alex Kent walked into reception. She smiled broadly at him. Alex didn’t smile back.

“Where’s the Coburn suite?” Alex asked demandingly, no time for this smiley, happy, jolly small talk.

“Do you have an appointment sir?” Asked the secretary, with a less broad smile than before, starting to suspect Alex was a bit of a moody twat, and in no way a potential partner.

“Yes, the names Alex Lane, and I’m here for a meeting which ‘moves the plot along’, apparently.” Informed Alex, matter of factly.

“Oh good, I know quite a few people have been waiting for you, the plot’s getting a little thin at the moment.” Said the secretary, while pondering if a tank could beat a nuclear powered gibbon in a fight.

“Eh? Thin plot?” Said Alex, quite clearly confused at all this third wall breaking.

“Oh…never mind” the secretary blustered. “You want the Coburn suite on floor 2, right next to the nuclear reactor room” added the secretary, deciding, in her mind, that the tank would probably win. Just.

With that, Alex took the elevator…walked down the hall…and knocked on the door.

“Come in Mr Lane” said a deep voice that permeated through the door.

“Hello, I’m here for the meeting” said Alex.

“Yes, hello, I’m Mr Webb, head of this company, and I just wanted you to sort a few papers out, my staff seem to be dropping like flies at the moment. A lot of mysterious murders, that type of thing. You don’t mind, do you?” Asked Mr Webb kindly.

“I’m not sure I can solve the problem, but I’ll try my best.” Said Alex, wishing he could of answered ‘yes I do mind, I don’t have time for you and your second rate character.’

“Thank you. I’ll just call in my secretary for some hot liquid drinks,” said Mr Webb, pressing the relevant button to contact the secretary. “That’s strange…the line’s gone dead…” said Mr Webb, suddenly concerned.

Suddenly, a knock on the door. Then a stronger knock. Then, the door flew off its hinges. Four men in camouflage suits and one in an all black suit burst in, as Alex and Mr Webb watched in amazement. The man in the immaculate black suit had a monocle on one eye, and a four inch red scar below the other. He stepped towards Alex and Mr Webb, and his monocle glinted menacingly. He smiled a smile that suggested nothing but danger. He spoke.

“Its time for the plot to start moving boys, the Doctors here!”

Part One-

http://ebtksonline.blogspot.com/2009/11/large-nose-man-chapter-one.html

Part Two-

http://ebtksonline.blogspot.com/2009/12/large-nose-man-chapter-two.html

Part Three-

http://ebtksonline.blogspot.com/2009/12/large-nose-man-chapter-three.html

FILM REVIEW- Commando (1985)

For when you just can’t find enough words to write a full review about a film… you must employ the ancient Japanese wisdom of the haiku…

Arnold must fight back

As daughter taken from him

Those bad guys will pay

Those wondering what exactly a haiku is, see here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku

If anyone has any others feel free to contribute.

FILM REVIEW- Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are (PG)

A film so wild it won’t be caged by narrative…

Where? Empire Multiplex in Poole

Plot? Child Max (Records) loves to be wild and play outside, and one day he angers his other and runs away from home, and ends up on the island of the Wild Things, and ends up as their king. Will he manage to be worthy of such a title?

Thoughts?

Where Fantastic Mr Fox failed as a child friendly tale this does a little better.

First off, the dialogue is more child orientated friendly. There are no jokes about existentialism here. Many of the characters say and form ideas only a child would think up.

The Wild Things are part of this, as they are children in all but appearance.

There are no winks to the audience, no pop culture references or big explosions. This simply aims to give you the grit and rough edged thrill of childhood and for the most part it delivers.

But for many this will prove tiresome, and they will wait for a major plot point or just some kind of structure to come along and help them understand it all. For them it will be a painful experience.

This film lives and dies purely on its setting and mood, and director Spike Jonze has managed to pull it off to a impressive degree. Autumnal brown and oranges, the random switching of locations (going from lifeless desert to lively forest in the blink of an eye), as well as the frequently evocative cinematography mean that, at the very least, this is a world that can immerse a willing viewer.

The actual Wild Things, made through puppetry and not the easy route of cgi, are also well integrated, and you will find yourself accepting their bizarre appearance much faster than you would expect.

A mix of animal anatomy and human expressions they are incredibly odd but not once do you see them as puppets controlled off screen.

But despite all these tricky hurdles successfully leaped, along with your expectations set accordingly, the film still doesn’t quite lift off as you expect and want it to.

A lack of a satisfying character arc for Max is to be somehow expected, considering the films loose approach to narrative convention, but in the end the film is less about the characters in the film changing and developing, and more about what you personally think the film represents about childhood.

For some adults it may be a throwback to their younger days of play fights and building forts with garden chairs, and for younger patrons it may just be something to relate to, another world to escape within.

Then again, for some, it will just be a some furry animals jumping, fighting and moping around, within an unstructured rambling bore of a film. It will annoy and enthral with equal measure.

Verdict? A film that stretches a thin premise to breaking point, but possesses a convincing dreamlike world that has a physicality many children will love. (3/5)

Go Further?

· A book that is only 48 pages, made into a 101 minute film. The Gruffalo was only 32 pages and the BBC just managed 30 minutes for that…

· Quite the coincidence that actor Max Records plays the main character that is also named Max…

· I actually think the films’ trailer is more uplifting and enjoyable overall than the actual film…

Trailer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NOkQ4dYVaM

FILM REVIEW- Fantastic Mr Fox

Fantastic Mr Fox (PG)

By Simon Reed

Does what it says on the tin.

Where- At my local Independent Cinema (Wimborne Tivoli)

Plot?

Mr F Fox is being hunted down by three local businessmen for stealing their produce, and must find ways of continually avoiding them.

Thoughts?

Wes Anderson doesn’t do mainstream. In fact it’s hard to find anything nearing cookie cutter in any of his films.

Obsessed with minor details alongside a penchant for laid back dialogue and characters, his attempt at a ‘kids’ film was always going to be interesting.

The result? A kids film that isn’t for kids. This is the films biggest strength and flaw.

Instead of dumbing down his dialogue for a younger audience, Anderson has simply made it come out of furry mouths in place of human ones.

Best described as intelligent and thoughtful, at worst over elaborate and smug, the discourse that floods over this film is an acquired taste indeed.

But for Wes devotees this is a dream come true. It may even win over people unsure of Anderson’s previous work, thanks to it considerably lighter tone. This is helped by the charmingly ramshackle stop motion. Yes, it’s even lighter than Tenenbaums, Zissou, Bottle Rocket or Darjeeling.

There’s none of the clumsy action of Zissou, uneven pace of Darjeeling or the slow story of Rocket. At only 90 minutes long this film is snappy, colourful, coherent and engaging.

This means that, ironically, in trying to make a kids film, Anderson has actually succeeded in making his most accessible adult film yet. But unfortunately kids will most likely be underwhelmed.

What isn’t underwhelming is the star studded voice cast. The mix of Clooney, Streep, Murray, Schwartzman, Gambon, Dafoe, (Owen) Wilson and, er, Jarvis Cocker could be overwhelming, but it ends up working quite well.

Anderson’s easygoing methods has seemingly spread across the cast, meaning no-one ends up dominating and unbalancing the film. Performances are subtle and satisfying.

A small exception is Wilem Dafoe as a murderous, dancing rat, but as he is involved in one of the best deaths scenes ever (seriously) you can let it slide.

Hopefully with this new experience under his belt Anderson can finally make a completely coherent and satisfying live action movie, without surrendering his unique style. But even if he doesn’t his films will still be some of the most intriguing, idiosyncratic and imaginative around.

Verdict?

As a childrens film it’s a failure, but for the older crowd it’s a understated winner. (4/5)

Go Further?

• Owen Wilson has a small cameo as a Gym teacher, but where’s his brother and Wes mainstay Luke?
• Try to go to a late night viewing with the least amount of kids present if possible…in my showing the youngsters grew a little restless with all the quirky dialogue, and became quite distracting.
• This isn’t Anderson’s first crack at animation. Check out the underwater scene at the end of the Life Aquatic.

Trailer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2igjYFojUo