17 June, 2011

CC32: Tom Six: A man who can’t have his mouth and anus stitched together because they’re one and the same......

Having recently watched Human centipede 2: (Centipede Harder) and observing the furore surrounding its banning (not really as movies refused classification can still be shown) I made the following assessment: people are idiots. How did I come to that assessment? People LOVE being treated like idiots.

This isn’t just a Censorship argument. As I believe the price you pay for being able to express yourself is having to put up with everyone else who does. It’s a price worth paying in my opinion. A censorship board is a fairly arcane establishment and, along with witch-finder generals and Oracles, their time has come and gone and they now seek only to scare-monger in an age where more information is disseminated than ever before and even less is understood. So while a person would object strongly to being told by you or me that they can’t see a movie when a board comprised of people no-one knows and they didn’t select tells them this they simply baa complacently and go see next Jack Black atrocity.

The film board banned the movie because they felt the content was “So obscene as to be potentially dangerous to viewers.” They also go on to say “the fact that "the viewer” is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist, opens up the possibility that the film could "deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see it”. This is an incredibly patronising view of the movie-going public. The movie was banned for our own safety? Are you fucking kidding me? I can take care of myself thank you very much. That’s why we’ve been given rights. Regardless of whether you’ve seen it or not nothing a movie shows me could more offensive then the assumption that I need to be protected from a fucking movie.

For any who have not seen Human Centipede 2:(Centipedes on a plane), it’s your typical gory, slice-em-up-and put-em-back together slasher fare. A man inspired by the first movie seeks to re-create it, only this time, one better. I’ll repeat that: a fictional character inspired by an actual movie (although I wish the existence of the first movie WAS a fiction but, hey, life’s a bitch) seeks to re-create it. And that’s it. That’s the plot. In fact that simple four-line description has actually over-complicated it.

This is why it’s also a taste issue (rather than the bad one you’ll have in your mouth after sitting through this dreck). The reason I’m surprised at the surge of complaints is that none of the people making them seems to have seen the movie. I know this because their complaints make no sense. It’s a really, really, really bad movie. Why are people making up stuff to bash it about? Just watch the fucking thing and you’ll have more than enough ammo (and determination) to lash the movie until the end of time.

It truly is an atrocious movie. The writing is awful and the dialogue inserts itself in every scene with an audible “clunk”. The acting is so sub-par I doubt it would’ve passed on an episode of CSI. The camera-work is shoddy and the direction is virtually non-existent. Or maybe it is there it’s just so feeble it barely registers I’m still not sure. Hell, even the effects aren’t that good. It’s all too in-your-face. I wasn’t reviled by this, I was bored. Really bored. And insulted. Insulted that this is what is apparently so shocking I can’t be allowed to see it lest I go the rampage tonight with a bat and a needle and thread.

This is the second place we’re getting patronised from. From directors who think shit like this is what entertains us. I want a plot that engages me. Yes, even in a horror movie plot is essential. It’s what makes you want to see what’s next like an engrossed viewer not a condemned person. I also want characters with backgrounds, back stories or lives. A developed character is good for two reasons: Firstly it helps the actor do a good job (imagine trying to personify a character with as much life as a cardboard cut-out) Secondly, if a character is well-fleshed out the audience is more likely to care about what happens to them and therefore more likely to be disturbed or frightened when it does.

Plot and character. The two wheels on a cart of a good movie. In fact not just a good movie a good story and that is ultimately what all movies strive to convey. This basic tenet is what Tom Six has missed completely. He based one movie on the flimsy premise of another and is now complaining that people don’t “get it”. He claims it was meant to be humorous but if there is one word you could not possibly use to describe this movie it’s “humorous”. Along with words like “good” or “worthwhile”. I think he’s trying to get away with making a bad movie by claiming it was a joke nobody got while failing to realise (or not wanting to admit to) the fact that the reason no-one “got it” it because there’s nothing to get. Often, when people don’t laugh at a joke, it’s because it’s wasn’t funny not that they missed the point.

He crammed his movie so full of gore and (attempted) shocks to the expense of everything else and is now complaining that people wanted more. It’s not the “stiff upper lip” (his words for explaining why it was banned, which also give much insight into the sheer shallowness of his talent.) it was the “rational mind” that got this movie banned. Because when looked at it’s nothing but poorly done, cheap schlock horror. And trying to justify it by claiming it’s a sick joke smacks of immaturity.

Not that we couldn’t have known this movie was going to be pants before we saw it. All you’d have to is take a look at the first one (which wasn’t banned incidentally enough, the inclusion of a plot mayhap?) to realise that this idea had already been taken as far as it could go and it wasn’t even that good an idea to begin with.

After two of these movies I’d rather have my mouth stitched to another person’s anus then watch another installment. ....................

22 January, 2011

CC 31: Rupert grint - Requiem for a ginger...........

First off I'll set something straight. I like Rupert Grint as an actor. I think he easily has the same level of skill as his two harry potter counterparts if not the same , more so. Okay so it's easy to overlook because he doesn't have the same sex appeal but, trust me, look for it and he got the talent. It's the ending of the aformentioned series that brings me to make the following observation.

Sometimes there occurs a curious pidgeon-holing of actors to the point where you wonder if they brought it on themselves of if some press moron has it in for them. Other times an actor (or agents, see nic cage)will make bad choices that lead them to falling down this well. But, for the most part, it's the actors fault they slip into a sort of limbo where good roles float by and they're handed parts for the next steven segal movie in which they're forced to play a rock that's been victimised by a mining company so segal can come in and kick some ass.

I mentioned Nic cage in the last two posts so I'll elaborate on that. I barely recognise him from the edgdy, talented scamp in films like snakeeyes or leaving las vegas. Nowadays he floats from one boring role to the next. Sorcerer's apprentice, Season of the witch and what the fuck was up with the Wicker man? You'd think at some stage he'd of thought “hang on, why am I being asked to dropkick this woman?”Or “Ehhhh.. a bear costume? You fucking kiddin' me?” But no, He just rolled with the flow. And produced one of the (if not THE) most unintentionally funny movies ever made.

In Ireland a role which comes to both define and confine an actor is known as a “dougal”. After the end of Father Ted, Ardal O'Hanlon struggled massively to maintain a career. Why? He's was Dougal, pure and simple. Everytime anyone looked at his gorm-less, vacant face they see dougal. Not anything else. This has proven quite straining on him as he was a stand-up (quite a good one by all accounts and still is) before starring in Father Ted and every branch-out he's tried since has failed because no-one can take him seriously.

It's this fate that awaits the young Grint. With the end of the potter franchise around the corner, he needs some good dramatic roles to flex his acting muscles and show everyone he can do it before his career is suffocated and thrown down a well. His screen counterparts have branched-out into alternate mediums in an attempt to achieve this. Radcliffe went naked onto a stage with a horse and Watson modelled for Burberry to show that she's not just a pretty face while moving but also while standing still.

It's not as if he needs the money. His pay-check for EACH of the potter finales is rumoured to be in the 15 million range so he can afford to disregard the pay for a good role. His previous attempts outside the franchise were mostly awful. “Driving lessons” was about him and some old bat who teaches him all about the world through her gruff exterior, despite the fact she'd struggle to work anything more advanced than a book. In “Wild” he estentially plays Ron Weasley again only without the supernatural backing he just comes across as someone with brain-damage. “Cherrybomb” was a grab for the sex appeal previously denied him but his attempt at “mean and cynical” is laughable, especially when he's paired with the inherently likeable and scathing Robert Sheehan. He just looks like Sheehans' retarded younger cousin.

I'm sure there's a role out there that will give him the platform to showcase his skills. If not, sure there's always the Harry Potter Porno franchise..............................

12 January, 2011

CC30: Because Windows 7 Is Too Stable

This blog's motif is frankly rather hideous, and seeing as I have neither the skill, time or inclination required to fix it I figured I'd accentuate it.

So things have gotten a little bluer:
The side-bars which were still light blue have now been made the same colour as the rest of the page.
This makes the page look more like the BSOD (which I find relaxing as I have spent so much time in it's company) and has the added benefit of stopping the blog from doing that thing where it flickers light blue in the middle while loading.

(Don't get me wrong, it will still be doing that because I broke a theme when I was setting it up, you just wont see it anymore.)

I might come back and switch us to the same blue and font as the BSOD if you piss me off.
-ANkh

CC29:Little fockers: Yet another reason to hate children..... and Ben Stiller.....and Humanity.

2011 saw the release of "Little Fockers" (or, as it should be known from now on, "DeNiro's agent says yes to the funniest things") and we've pretty much already got a front runner for worst movie of the decade. The third (yep, third) instalment of the abysmal series dredges the bottom of the barrel yet again and manages to come up with some more high name actors willing to shame themselves for a fast pay-cheque. It's full of the general pratfall bullshit hacks come up with when they don't have the wit to write by lines.

It's rare that you can watch a movie for free and still feel robbed. As if somehow the theft goes beyond the material world and affects your soul (or should that be infects?). This was a comedy that had no jokes, just situational slapstick. There's an enema scene (guess what happens there), there's a scene where someone cuts themselves carving up a turkey (which involved a fucking HUGE amount of blood now that i think about it) and some shit involving jessica alba which will ensure she is forever typecast as a ditzy slut. This movie is so boring that it almost defies satire as nothing really happens in it.

If this movie is remembered for anything (and it will unfortunately be remembered as the highest-grossing live-action comedy EVER) it will remembered as the time the great Robert DeNiro started doing dick-jokes. Why does he keep doing this hit? He won an oscar for the fucking godfather for christs' sake! He can't need the money. They even got Dustin hoffman back into it (although not without a fight, that's probably his conscience at work) and somehhow roped Harvey, muthafuckin', Keitel into doing a part! He just comes on, shames his career, picks up his cheque and gets the fuck outta dodge. I wonder what Hollywood charges for human diginity these days.

It even parodies godfather 2: DeNiro's greatest achivement! In the film he has a heart condition and thinks over who the "transfer of power in the family" will go to and decides it's Ben stiller who will be henceforth known as.............wait for it.........................the "godfocker". Who the fuck thinks up this shit!? Even the cretins who made the god-awful "genre" movies didn't have the gall to rip on the classics! They must've drugged DeNiro to do this because there is.no.fucking.way he was shown this script and said "you mean he sticks a pin into my erect dick? That's fuckin awesome!"

What really shows the total lack of any actual writing ability is that the title references the children mainly yet they're hardly in the movie at all. In fact, they only exist to set up gags for stiller and DeNiro. They aren't really central to the plot even as the main plot involves DeNiro thinking Stiller is banging Jessica Alba (although the lengths he goes to to try and figure it out are absurd, he could've just looked at her) and that's it. Shit, I can't even watch Raging bull without being reminded of this dreck and crying my eyes out.

Next in our series "agents say yes to the funniest things" : Nic Cage in Season of the witch!........