Six hours later I emerged from screen 8, blinking in the light. That's six hours I spent looking around a cinema to see if anyone else looked as unimpressed as I did. I was, of course, sitting in the new Harry Potter film, entitled, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1', or as I like to call it 'Harry Potter and the Magical Mystery Tour of Britain'.
Unfortunately this was only part one of the final film, so I am now obligated to see the second. Kudos JK, have some more money. Harry Potter part one seems to be an advertisement for the British Tourist Board and National Heritage. Off they'd go, woosh, another area of outstanding national beauty, woosh, oh and another. I've never seen these places! I notice that they never once thought to hide in Margate.
Oh and that fucking tent. I was sick of the site of the fucking thing. A good hour and a half of the new HP film is not needed, because it features Harry and Hermione dragging the same bloody MAGIC tent around from place to place and going, "phew, aren't times difficult" - but hey, we have a magic tent and a magic bag with literally everything in it. At one point Hermione suggested that she and Harry stay out in the wilderness, with the tent, with the bag, and grow old together. I almost screamed at the suggestion, partly because I could physically feel myself getting older as the film went on, partly because it didn't seem beyond the film that we would have to watch that happen. Still, that tent was one prop worth its weight in gold. It was a sound investment and the prop man on Harry Potter should be praised.
So apart from these sweeping views of British landscapes, a cinematic technique that was only the tip of the iceberg when it came to ripping off Lord of the Rings, there were a few other moments in the film...though, predictably, they were stupid. The film began well but lost momentum after ten minutes. After seeing the scene with Death Eaters & Snape and the scene where everyone turns into Harry, it became rubbish.
For a start, the film is lacking in detail: "Oh, hi, we're back. Hm? Oh yeah, that's right, I'll tell everyone - guys, just to let you know Mad Eye Moody has died so I wouldn't bother to look out for h...what? Mad Eye...Mad Eye Moody. Squiggly eye with...oh nevermind, but, let's just all be aware; he's dead. He died, off camera so. Don't expect to see him again, that's all". The HP films are notorious for glazing over such details, but here it's abysmal.
Hey wait, don't the kids still go to school? I swear a school was involved once. Something about witchcraft and wizardry? Yep. Ok, let's see it. Uuum. OH HEY, LOOK, A TRAIN! Why would there be a train if there wasn't a school? That PROVES it, those students must be going somewhere! Yes, but I wouldn't mind seeing a potions lesson, or a Quidditch match or - ["LOOK; ok? The train means that they're going to school, and the school is out there somewhere, but that's not what it's about anymore, it's waaaaay bigger and more important than that now! No Hogwarts for you"!]
Hogwarts. Remember Hogwarts? That's good, because Harry Potter doesn't. Not a mention of the bloody place. It's not fun anymore! There, I said it. I mentioned Quidditch. I'd have killed for a game of Quidditch in this film. Or even a cauldron blowing up in Ron's face or something, ANYTHING that suggested I was in the world of Harry Potter and not, instead, a childrens second-rate good vs. evil Lord of the Rings rip off.
What happened everyone? Remember when it used to be enjoyable watching a Harry Potter film? Remember when you used to crack a smile while you watched it? There'd be some mild peril, they break some rules, Harry steps up to a challenge, he and his friends defeat the threat...and then they'd all sit down to a big feast and Dumbledore (god rest his soul) would go "FIFTY points to Gryfindor!" and everyone would cheer and they'd all lift up the house cup, and go yeeeah!
Here instead we have Harry weeping into the face of a bloodied up house-elf with parkinsons and digging a shallow grave for him in Cornwall; Jesus. Wingardium leviosa!
The thing that really let's this rubbish down though is simple and it's hardly the films fault really. J.K.Rowling...how are you even published? This is why I stopped reading your books. I read Bukowski now man.
While the film can be held responsible for the ridiculously uninformed, poorly crafted scenes that are always meant to mean a lot more (romance with Ginny spanning many, many pages - yeah he zips up a dress and...we'll just take it as given that there's some sort of romance there, good, that's been alluded to, moving on...) Ahem, anyway, the director can not be held to ransom for Rowling's blatant cheating.
Yes, cheating. It's quite clear that she never, ever planned on writing these awful epic titles later in the series. The really huge books where it all becomes a serious battle between good and evil. Welcome to Harry Potter, where everything is something! We're going to take a look back at all the things you used to enjoy and we're going to tell you what they really were!
Harry's invisibility cloak was a seemingly innocent, inventive magical device for sneaking around school. OH-HO, not so fast, in fact Harry's cloak was a powerful, world-ending artifact the whole time! And look at this, Harry's glasses are a horcrux into another dimension where Dumbledore is alive as a phoenix and gives Harry the legendary fez of invulnerability which he must use to defeat Voldermort's postman, thus cutting the dark lord off from bills and magazine subscriptions of everykind kinds! Have at you brute! Or, whatever is convenient to J.K.Rowling's story at the time. Honestly, it's as bad as Sabrina the Teenage Witch! Sorry, that's not fair really. Sabrina was pretty good.
Douglas Adams did a lot of mad stuff with Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy but he obeyed the logical laws of the universe he created. The babel fish is convenient, but was explained and operated within an established world of Adam's creation. Rowling set up some rules in about three books, became a too powerful author, refused her book to be edited, and started blowing apart her own world, twisting it into some half-baked epic of two-part film sized proportions. Secret codes, mystical swords, old legends, one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them...oh, sorry...I get those two mixed up sometimes because one of them ripped off the other one. Dementor? More like Black Riders mate.
ALSO, how the fucking hell do Harry, Ron and Hermione get caught by a man impersonating Johnny Depp but then manage to defeat several powerful dark wizards at a leisurely stroll? It's ridiculous! I couldn't believe people were buying it. Another thing; "Shit, how do we get out of here"! said Ron. "Don't worry", said J.K.Rowling, who suddenly decided that she could draw on some old forgotten character, say, Dobby the house-elf, and decide that he could teleport everyone out of the impenetrable fortress. Good stuff. Good, good stuff.
Still, as ever, the Harry Potter franchise gave us another nice example of British actors...although there are so many of them now that they each get 5 minutes screen time at most before another lot come in. There were more cameos here than an E4 film countdown. Did you see the guy from Gavin & Stacey? That was cool.
So, in short, Harry Potter has lost the magic. And with that magic, it has lost its charm. No longer does anyone slip into the magical world via a telephone box, no longer do we get to see clever uses for post-boxes and things, oh no, now we get an intense ride of poor decisions and a poorly crafted plot that makes the DaVinci Code look plausible.
Meanwhile, this year at Hogwarts, one of the girls in Ravenclaw found a magic shoe that released a dragon into the Quidditch cup final, but it was defeated through some clever magic and dynamic broom flying and she won 50 points for Ravenclaw and they won the house cup. Ah, much better.
A distinct 5.5/10
Still...it was better than Inception.
Saturday 20 November 2010
Monday 8 November 2010
Passing the Torch; Film 2010
Claudia Winkleman was handed the hefty mantle of continuing Jonathan Ross' legacy on Film 2010 and made her debut a month ago now. I've watched about three of the four now aired and...look, it was always going to be hard to follow in the steps of Jonathan Ross...but first, let's take a look at the new structure of the show.
Film 2010 (or whatever year was featured in the title) was always a very well balanced programme. It was both easy to watch and informative, it made incisive and intelligent points without being inaccessible (like, say, The Culture Show might be to certain people). It was a BBC big hitter, by which I mean it had a wide audience, appealing to a variety of people types. And, naturally, rather than try and replicate the show exactly, some changes have been made to the format of the show - but importantly the show's target demographic seems to have shifted, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of that explains the awful new tone of what used to be a fairly regular event in my week.
Apparently , rather than giving a fair, detailed and broad review of new films, Film 2010 has opted for a more select audience it seems. The word 'broad' is fairly key here. So often used as a fairly negative word, 'broad' is usually used alongside undeserved bedfellows like 'dumbing down', 'mass appeal' and plain 'stupid. Broad doesn't necessarily have to mean X-Factor. I'm mentioning this because it seems that Film 2010 has chosen to make itself less broad and to develop a somewhat different dynamic to itself.
For me, and fuck off I'm usually right about this stuff, Film 2010 has degenerated into a pretentious, indie hipster, film student, overly opinionated, nightmare [with due respect to reading film students].
The beginning of every review seems to begin with a flurry of name dropping, old 'classic' film references and the mention of technicalities, just so that none of us are in any doubt that Claudia Winkleman and her sidekick Dobby [name unknown] know what they are fucking talking about - "let's get one thing straight here guys, I've seen this film, this film and this film, one of them was in black and white and I know the work of this direcotr who made a film that not many people have seen but I have because I fucking know film" - thanks Claudia, we get it, but I presumed you knew about film by virtue of your hosting this programme so let's skip the pretentious bullshit from now on eh? It's exhausting.
Winkleman can't help but proceed everything with "For me" and "I've always" and "His early work" - the sorts of phrases that tell you that your order of the big pile of crap is on its way in just a sentence time. This isn't so bad you say, but she literally barks all of these comments at this bloke Dobby [name unknown], who is just as bad as her really and returns her service with some film opinions that are equally high art, high literature and so richly full of themselves that to consume one as food would be to give yourself diabetes of the idiot gland. Shut up, it's a real condition.
My point is, this show is for everyone. It's on BBC 1 for fuck sake. But it's like they go out of their way to prove what an exclusive club it is. At the beginning it ought to play the piano music, the title should come up with Film 2010 and then Claudia Winkleman's head should pop up and go "keep up if you can stupid" at which point her brain should explode, revealing an excess of film tape. GOD SHE KNOWS SO MUCH ABOUT FILM!!
There are strong overtones of hipster-ness in the show, which is probably why I'm reacting so furiously towards it. Anything trying to be anything and it's not for me. I mean, FOR ME Film2010 would be better with Jonathan Ross, I'VE ALWAYS liked Film2010's EARLIER WORK. Oh look at that, I'm a wanker as well. But then I haven't ruined a perfectly good platform for film review by rendering it some pompous excuse for these two presenters to vomit up their conceited yet mysteriously repetitive views, not on the film itself, but on film as a medium, man. It's the way Winkleman and Dobby both talk to each other in argumentative way, fully believing that their opinions on film define their very being. And that's just pathetic.
Come back Jonathan Ross, you gave a well rounded, accurate opinion on film and didn't have to roll out the obscure references and pro-subtitle stance to prove just how much passion you had for film. As such, I found you both likeable and believable. Film 2010 and Claudia Winkleman are neither of those things.
Film 2010 (or whatever year was featured in the title) was always a very well balanced programme. It was both easy to watch and informative, it made incisive and intelligent points without being inaccessible (like, say, The Culture Show might be to certain people). It was a BBC big hitter, by which I mean it had a wide audience, appealing to a variety of people types. And, naturally, rather than try and replicate the show exactly, some changes have been made to the format of the show - but importantly the show's target demographic seems to have shifted, or at least that's the only explanation I can think of that explains the awful new tone of what used to be a fairly regular event in my week.
Apparently , rather than giving a fair, detailed and broad review of new films, Film 2010 has opted for a more select audience it seems. The word 'broad' is fairly key here. So often used as a fairly negative word, 'broad' is usually used alongside undeserved bedfellows like 'dumbing down', 'mass appeal' and plain 'stupid. Broad doesn't necessarily have to mean X-Factor. I'm mentioning this because it seems that Film 2010 has chosen to make itself less broad and to develop a somewhat different dynamic to itself.
For me, and fuck off I'm usually right about this stuff, Film 2010 has degenerated into a pretentious, indie hipster, film student, overly opinionated, nightmare [with due respect to reading film students].
The beginning of every review seems to begin with a flurry of name dropping, old 'classic' film references and the mention of technicalities, just so that none of us are in any doubt that Claudia Winkleman and her sidekick Dobby [name unknown] know what they are fucking talking about - "let's get one thing straight here guys, I've seen this film, this film and this film, one of them was in black and white and I know the work of this direcotr who made a film that not many people have seen but I have because I fucking know film" - thanks Claudia, we get it, but I presumed you knew about film by virtue of your hosting this programme so let's skip the pretentious bullshit from now on eh? It's exhausting.
Winkleman can't help but proceed everything with "For me" and "I've always" and "His early work" - the sorts of phrases that tell you that your order of the big pile of crap is on its way in just a sentence time. This isn't so bad you say, but she literally barks all of these comments at this bloke Dobby [name unknown], who is just as bad as her really and returns her service with some film opinions that are equally high art, high literature and so richly full of themselves that to consume one as food would be to give yourself diabetes of the idiot gland. Shut up, it's a real condition.
My point is, this show is for everyone. It's on BBC 1 for fuck sake. But it's like they go out of their way to prove what an exclusive club it is. At the beginning it ought to play the piano music, the title should come up with Film 2010 and then Claudia Winkleman's head should pop up and go "keep up if you can stupid" at which point her brain should explode, revealing an excess of film tape. GOD SHE KNOWS SO MUCH ABOUT FILM!!
There are strong overtones of hipster-ness in the show, which is probably why I'm reacting so furiously towards it. Anything trying to be anything and it's not for me. I mean, FOR ME Film2010 would be better with Jonathan Ross, I'VE ALWAYS liked Film2010's EARLIER WORK. Oh look at that, I'm a wanker as well. But then I haven't ruined a perfectly good platform for film review by rendering it some pompous excuse for these two presenters to vomit up their conceited yet mysteriously repetitive views, not on the film itself, but on film as a medium, man. It's the way Winkleman and Dobby both talk to each other in argumentative way, fully believing that their opinions on film define their very being. And that's just pathetic.
Come back Jonathan Ross, you gave a well rounded, accurate opinion on film and didn't have to roll out the obscure references and pro-subtitle stance to prove just how much passion you had for film. As such, I found you both likeable and believable. Film 2010 and Claudia Winkleman are neither of those things.
Thursday 21 October 2010
Whatchyou Talkin' About Andrew Neil?
The less you have to do, the more unemployed or studenty you are, the more you will encounter Andrew Neil on television. There is a positive correlation between the two. The veteran presenter features on both The Daily Politics and The Week, usually positioned cautiously into a sort of velvet, purple background.
Andrew Neil is frequently a perceptive and intelligent political commentator and interviewer; a professor of television, who seems an authority to us, the masses who don't understand a bloody thing about politics we don't.
Unfortunately, Professor Neil frequently lets himself down with his eccentricities. During his broadcasts he can launch himself from one piece of particularly strong journalism, before throwing himself violently into a surreal commentary of his own design, like, "but can you deny the cuts hit the poorest hardest? Anyway, moving on, and the monkey pheasant doesn't wear a hat in the morning, am I right?" *smirk smirk smirk*...a lot of people don't understand politics as it is, ok, and so they're going to be pretty fucking puzzled by all this I can tell you.
But he doesn't deliver it with the required volume of a red nosed eccentric, but does it with a creepy intimacy.
"There now, that's ALL the politics done. Come in close. A little closer now, come on, don't be shy! Have you ever wondered, WHY GEORGE Osborne, looks into the little nutshell house, that paint's the eyes of the moose God yellow - I know you do, yes, you and I are well aware of the candy land that exists on the moon [he whispers quietly to you the viewer, until you snap back into reality] - NOW WE GO, to Westminster, where I understand Mr. Clegg is ready to address the cabinet...and, as we all know, pearls make the girl" *smirk smirk smirk, I've just made a joke he says*
...which apparently is all a big wink and a nudge to us the viewer, but we literally have no idea why, because he is the only one involved in this weird in-joke between presenter and viewer. Watching Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics leaves you reeling; brocolli creates anarchy in March? Really? I thought we were talking about budget cuts, how curious, still, he is a venerated authority on political broadcasting. I guess politics is just too complex for our mere human minds.
He's not senile yet, but the problem is that when Andrew Neil does finally descend into lunacy over the next few years, no one is going to notice until it's too late and he's up on the sofa wearing little red pants and thrusting his groin into the faces of some of his bewildered guests, who even now are forced to bend to his whims and play ridiculous politics games with like...coloured balls and...soft parody that act as hideous innacurate satirical questionnaires on public opinion...God it's awful. I'm going to watch cartoons now, it makes so much more sense.
Andrew Neil is frequently a perceptive and intelligent political commentator and interviewer; a professor of television, who seems an authority to us, the masses who don't understand a bloody thing about politics we don't.
Unfortunately, Professor Neil frequently lets himself down with his eccentricities. During his broadcasts he can launch himself from one piece of particularly strong journalism, before throwing himself violently into a surreal commentary of his own design, like, "but can you deny the cuts hit the poorest hardest? Anyway, moving on, and the monkey pheasant doesn't wear a hat in the morning, am I right?" *smirk smirk smirk*...a lot of people don't understand politics as it is, ok, and so they're going to be pretty fucking puzzled by all this I can tell you.
But he doesn't deliver it with the required volume of a red nosed eccentric, but does it with a creepy intimacy.
"There now, that's ALL the politics done. Come in close. A little closer now, come on, don't be shy! Have you ever wondered, WHY GEORGE Osborne, looks into the little nutshell house, that paint's the eyes of the moose God yellow - I know you do, yes, you and I are well aware of the candy land that exists on the moon [he whispers quietly to you the viewer, until you snap back into reality] - NOW WE GO, to Westminster, where I understand Mr. Clegg is ready to address the cabinet...and, as we all know, pearls make the girl" *smirk smirk smirk, I've just made a joke he says*
...which apparently is all a big wink and a nudge to us the viewer, but we literally have no idea why, because he is the only one involved in this weird in-joke between presenter and viewer. Watching Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics leaves you reeling; brocolli creates anarchy in March? Really? I thought we were talking about budget cuts, how curious, still, he is a venerated authority on political broadcasting. I guess politics is just too complex for our mere human minds.
He's not senile yet, but the problem is that when Andrew Neil does finally descend into lunacy over the next few years, no one is going to notice until it's too late and he's up on the sofa wearing little red pants and thrusting his groin into the faces of some of his bewildered guests, who even now are forced to bend to his whims and play ridiculous politics games with like...coloured balls and...soft parody that act as hideous innacurate satirical questionnaires on public opinion...God it's awful. I'm going to watch cartoons now, it makes so much more sense.
Monday 18 October 2010
ASK RHOD GILBERT (if you can shout loud enough)
HELLO AND WELCOME TO ASK RHOD GILBERT, THIS NEXT ONE IS FROM CHARLES MEYRICK AND HE ASKS:
“Rhod Gilbert, is there any point in the show, or indeed your life, when you are not furiously shouting?”
NO CHARLIE, THERE ISN’T, he would reply, although this would all suggest that ‘Ask Rhod Gilbert’ on BBC1 actually began at any point during it’s half hour slot. It does, of course, eventually kick-off, but only after literally ten minutes. Whilst a panel show traditionally begins with neat introductions and a concise joke, Rhod Gilbert first launches into a bit on 'menus' – a bit where he predictably shouts and repeats the joke five times, using the word lasagne no less than twelve times. Count it. I dare you. It's well observed, but impossibly beaten to death. Then revived. Then killed.
Once this is taken care of and the viewer has had time to turn the televisions volume down to 1, in order to compensate for his twelve-packs-a-day lion roar, there is then time to introduce the entirely annonymous, completely unrecognisable panel. A regular is “Greg Davies”. Who the hell is that? Don’t worry, it’s the headmaster from the Inbetweeners, a seemingly funny guy but who actually, when you get down to it, is not without a good script in his hands. There’s also Lloyd. Presumably he is also a comedian, but opts for the role of bookend on this panel of four...there are no teams, it’s just a panel of four...that’s too many surely for one team? Dear Rhod Gilbert, am I watching Family Fortunes?
The other two are just people you really will not have heard of...'joining Greg & Lloyd today is Romanian bronze medallist Ezra Labondt and south east todays transport correspondant Paul Siegert – geezuz. H. Crisps, is this the recession in it’s full effect? I’ll just watch old QI repeats on Dave thank you very much.
The guests aren’t done there. Then we get a two minute introduction on another celebrity. Probably a chef or something. He gets a little computer to 'answer' Rhod's questions, but otherwise has a com-pletely irrelevant role in the...game? Is this a game? There’s no competitive element because there are no teams and in fact, literally no point to the programme whatsoever, unless consuming time counts as a purpose now; if it does, this programme is the equivalent to Job Centre Plus (hiii-ooh!).
Rhod delivers a number of tame yet volumess jokes which receive a luke-warm response from the studio audience...a studio...audience...these are the same sort of people who actually take the time out to go and see X-factor. The colour yellow probably makes them laugh. The same audience get to ‘Ask Rhod’ a question. They’re not great at generating comedy, as any improv comedian probably knows, and they come up with desperately surreal things about guacamole and swimming pools. In defence, this is because they have no brief in this painfully aimless show – the whole thing is like a hospital patient who has escaped onto the Yorkshire downs with concussion. It’s a living nightmare.
This whole thing really belongs on Five. It screeeams Five. No one contributes anything, its just starts off as being loud and garish and finally ends with mild disappointment. It's probably what supporting Manchester City feels like.
This was half an hour of boring people, sitting around a boring dinner table and exchanging dull stories over a store bought lasagne. I don’t want to watch that. I can live that if I want to.
Towards the end there was a 'you’ve been framed-esque' video of a dog jumping into a wall...in response, we receive a story about waking up in a tent. Finally the poor celebrity chef charged with a computer of information comes in with some Wikipedia information and a buzzer goes off. Is that the end? I don't know. The word "answer" comes up but I don't seem to have any.
But the show doesn’t end. Dear government...if you’re making cuts, please start with this piece of television and everyone responsible for comissioning it. It’s just not necessary, the show has no point except to slowly sap your energy, like a hideous, talentless poision or a feminist.
OH, and it all ends with a sketch. Well, I say sketch, it’s like the end bit of Shooting Stars meets I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here; not a winning combination. In the episode that I observed, a guy had to eat a chille and then got yoghurt shoved in his mouth with a spoon, messily. Then some ice-cream. Then water was thrown at him. Then he got an ice machine in his face. It was like Looney Toons, only with none of the intellect. Or Fun House, without the...sexy twins? In fact, any comparison would give the show too much credit.
Finally Rhod ends the show by saying “I’M RHOD GILBERT AND YOU CAN ASK ME, LITERALLY, ANYTHING...”. Dear Rhod Gilbert, will you please, never do anything again, ever. Thanks.
“Rhod Gilbert, is there any point in the show, or indeed your life, when you are not furiously shouting?”
NO CHARLIE, THERE ISN’T, he would reply, although this would all suggest that ‘Ask Rhod Gilbert’ on BBC1 actually began at any point during it’s half hour slot. It does, of course, eventually kick-off, but only after literally ten minutes. Whilst a panel show traditionally begins with neat introductions and a concise joke, Rhod Gilbert first launches into a bit on 'menus' – a bit where he predictably shouts and repeats the joke five times, using the word lasagne no less than twelve times. Count it. I dare you. It's well observed, but impossibly beaten to death. Then revived. Then killed.
Once this is taken care of and the viewer has had time to turn the televisions volume down to 1, in order to compensate for his twelve-packs-a-day lion roar, there is then time to introduce the entirely annonymous, completely unrecognisable panel. A regular is “Greg Davies”. Who the hell is that? Don’t worry, it’s the headmaster from the Inbetweeners, a seemingly funny guy but who actually, when you get down to it, is not without a good script in his hands. There’s also Lloyd. Presumably he is also a comedian, but opts for the role of bookend on this panel of four...there are no teams, it’s just a panel of four...that’s too many surely for one team? Dear Rhod Gilbert, am I watching Family Fortunes?
The other two are just people you really will not have heard of...'joining Greg & Lloyd today is Romanian bronze medallist Ezra Labondt and south east todays transport correspondant Paul Siegert – geezuz. H. Crisps, is this the recession in it’s full effect? I’ll just watch old QI repeats on Dave thank you very much.
The guests aren’t done there. Then we get a two minute introduction on another celebrity. Probably a chef or something. He gets a little computer to 'answer' Rhod's questions, but otherwise has a com-pletely irrelevant role in the...game? Is this a game? There’s no competitive element because there are no teams and in fact, literally no point to the programme whatsoever, unless consuming time counts as a purpose now; if it does, this programme is the equivalent to Job Centre Plus (hiii-ooh!).
Rhod delivers a number of tame yet volumess jokes which receive a luke-warm response from the studio audience...a studio...audience...these are the same sort of people who actually take the time out to go and see X-factor. The colour yellow probably makes them laugh. The same audience get to ‘Ask Rhod’ a question. They’re not great at generating comedy, as any improv comedian probably knows, and they come up with desperately surreal things about guacamole and swimming pools. In defence, this is because they have no brief in this painfully aimless show – the whole thing is like a hospital patient who has escaped onto the Yorkshire downs with concussion. It’s a living nightmare.
This whole thing really belongs on Five. It screeeams Five. No one contributes anything, its just starts off as being loud and garish and finally ends with mild disappointment. It's probably what supporting Manchester City feels like.
This was half an hour of boring people, sitting around a boring dinner table and exchanging dull stories over a store bought lasagne. I don’t want to watch that. I can live that if I want to.
Towards the end there was a 'you’ve been framed-esque' video of a dog jumping into a wall...in response, we receive a story about waking up in a tent. Finally the poor celebrity chef charged with a computer of information comes in with some Wikipedia information and a buzzer goes off. Is that the end? I don't know. The word "answer" comes up but I don't seem to have any.
But the show doesn’t end. Dear government...if you’re making cuts, please start with this piece of television and everyone responsible for comissioning it. It’s just not necessary, the show has no point except to slowly sap your energy, like a hideous, talentless poision or a feminist.
OH, and it all ends with a sketch. Well, I say sketch, it’s like the end bit of Shooting Stars meets I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here; not a winning combination. In the episode that I observed, a guy had to eat a chille and then got yoghurt shoved in his mouth with a spoon, messily. Then some ice-cream. Then water was thrown at him. Then he got an ice machine in his face. It was like Looney Toons, only with none of the intellect. Or Fun House, without the...sexy twins? In fact, any comparison would give the show too much credit.
Finally Rhod ends the show by saying “I’M RHOD GILBERT AND YOU CAN ASK ME, LITERALLY, ANYTHING...”. Dear Rhod Gilbert, will you please, never do anything again, ever. Thanks.
Saturday 14 August 2010
Inception the Cinema Infection
Inception is a film that is much cleverer than it really is. This was the only thing I could relate to in the entire four billion hours it felt like I spent watching the fucking thing.
Alright, yes, Leo Didlidi Caprio is a good actor - for example he can do intense...and...also...intense...and sometimes he also plays really intense characters and, er, oh..
I'm not even going to say spoiler alert at any point in this interview because if you can't see how obvious the film is when you innevitably go along to watch it then you are stupid.
Several times over it tries to make you think something else, but it is essentially equivalent to watching Dick Dastardly turn road signs around in Wacky Races - every times its painfully obvious what dream they're jumping into or who exactly is asleep or whatever. And the stale old trick of putting the end of the film at the beginning didn't sodding fool anyone (or rather it did, but shouldn't have). Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did the same thing. It was obvious from the start too!
Oh and then Inception, in what is a really very desperate attempt to bloody mistify the audience, ends with a stupid little spinning doo-hickey that Leo uses to see if he is in a dream or not, BUT, aaah, aaah, oooh, AAAH - DARGH, oh no, the film has cut to credits and I'll literally NEVER know if it stopped spinning or not! So many questions! Was he out of the dream? Was he ever in a dream? WAS HE EVER OUT OF THE DREAM? If only I cared enough, because Inception is a long fucking film and my bladder has exploded all over the aisle.
Inception is like the pseudo-intellectual bastards you get at university who like to name drop all sorts of bloody novelists and sound all enthusiastic about them, without ever knowing anything important about them or having any real opinion about anything - those people are Inception - it seems impressive on the surface, but it becomes quickly obvious that this person has little of worth to say. Inception doesn't raise any philosophical questions or make me question my own reality or anything like that at all, and that would be fine, only it REALLY thinks that it DOES make you question those things. This would be Inception when it was at univeristy:
"Hm, that Hemmingway reference I made really struck a chord with every tonight at the cheese and wine social - I must be sure to always mention how much I love Hemmingway, they thought I was the bomb after I used the name Hemmingway...GOD, I JUST HOPE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY ASK ME ANYTHING ABOUT HIS BOOKS"
Except Inception wouldn't have that level of self-awareness.
Look, the Matrix worked because it immersed you into its world, slowly. Plus it was true to itself, it made no qualms about the fact that it was asking the audience to believe that we could go inside computers or that this world isn't real, blah, blah, blah - but it took the time to build this all up and we all said "this is new, THIS is good"...Inception on the other hand gets far too excited about its 'ideas' and shoots them all off in your face. As a caveman, Inception would have invented something like...cheese toasties...before inventing fire...cheese toasties are ok, but without fire (or heat or whatever) it's not a cheese toastie, now is it Inception.
"Noowh.. I guess not"
Darn tooting. So we the poor, saps of an audience have to be all like "What? Yeah, no, I totally instantly buy Leo didlidi Caprio being a 'dream agent' of sorts and launching himself around the place and yes I also believe that all these characters would take to his ideas straightaway and I also buy these instant-noodle rules that exist in the dream world, sure, why not" - here's why not, BECAUSE INCEPTION HAS NOT EARNT OUR BELIEF. It all just gets flung at us like a load of diving gear and then we're expected to jump into the reef...good greef*
*sorry.
And just, I have to give mention, to the dickhead from 100 Days of Summer, he's in the film being a stupid faced stupid and that stupid girl from Juno is also in the film, being a stupid faced stupid. Boy, those indie films of yours sure were ready made contrived crap guys - but at least you stayed true to your indie roots by featuring in this GIGANTIC PLACEBO BLOCKBUSTER.
So, in conclusion, if you see one film this year, don't, because it could all be a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream - or not, whatever, who can say, but I bet you're totally questionning reality now.
p.s. Toy Story 3 is incredible, go and see that and see how a film should be made. I experience every emotion going. Top notch stuff.
Alright, yes, Leo Didlidi Caprio is a good actor - for example he can do intense...and...also...intense...and sometimes he also plays really intense characters and, er, oh..
I'm not even going to say spoiler alert at any point in this interview because if you can't see how obvious the film is when you innevitably go along to watch it then you are stupid.
Several times over it tries to make you think something else, but it is essentially equivalent to watching Dick Dastardly turn road signs around in Wacky Races - every times its painfully obvious what dream they're jumping into or who exactly is asleep or whatever. And the stale old trick of putting the end of the film at the beginning didn't sodding fool anyone (or rather it did, but shouldn't have). Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did the same thing. It was obvious from the start too!
Oh and then Inception, in what is a really very desperate attempt to bloody mistify the audience, ends with a stupid little spinning doo-hickey that Leo uses to see if he is in a dream or not, BUT, aaah, aaah, oooh, AAAH - DARGH, oh no, the film has cut to credits and I'll literally NEVER know if it stopped spinning or not! So many questions! Was he out of the dream? Was he ever in a dream? WAS HE EVER OUT OF THE DREAM? If only I cared enough, because Inception is a long fucking film and my bladder has exploded all over the aisle.
Inception is like the pseudo-intellectual bastards you get at university who like to name drop all sorts of bloody novelists and sound all enthusiastic about them, without ever knowing anything important about them or having any real opinion about anything - those people are Inception - it seems impressive on the surface, but it becomes quickly obvious that this person has little of worth to say. Inception doesn't raise any philosophical questions or make me question my own reality or anything like that at all, and that would be fine, only it REALLY thinks that it DOES make you question those things. This would be Inception when it was at univeristy:
"Hm, that Hemmingway reference I made really struck a chord with every tonight at the cheese and wine social - I must be sure to always mention how much I love Hemmingway, they thought I was the bomb after I used the name Hemmingway...GOD, I JUST HOPE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY ASK ME ANYTHING ABOUT HIS BOOKS"
Except Inception wouldn't have that level of self-awareness.
Look, the Matrix worked because it immersed you into its world, slowly. Plus it was true to itself, it made no qualms about the fact that it was asking the audience to believe that we could go inside computers or that this world isn't real, blah, blah, blah - but it took the time to build this all up and we all said "this is new, THIS is good"...Inception on the other hand gets far too excited about its 'ideas' and shoots them all off in your face. As a caveman, Inception would have invented something like...cheese toasties...before inventing fire...cheese toasties are ok, but without fire (or heat or whatever) it's not a cheese toastie, now is it Inception.
"Noowh.. I guess not"
Darn tooting. So we the poor, saps of an audience have to be all like "What? Yeah, no, I totally instantly buy Leo didlidi Caprio being a 'dream agent' of sorts and launching himself around the place and yes I also believe that all these characters would take to his ideas straightaway and I also buy these instant-noodle rules that exist in the dream world, sure, why not" - here's why not, BECAUSE INCEPTION HAS NOT EARNT OUR BELIEF. It all just gets flung at us like a load of diving gear and then we're expected to jump into the reef...good greef*
*sorry.
And just, I have to give mention, to the dickhead from 100 Days of Summer, he's in the film being a stupid faced stupid and that stupid girl from Juno is also in the film, being a stupid faced stupid. Boy, those indie films of yours sure were ready made contrived crap guys - but at least you stayed true to your indie roots by featuring in this GIGANTIC PLACEBO BLOCKBUSTER.
So, in conclusion, if you see one film this year, don't, because it could all be a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream, within a dream - or not, whatever, who can say, but I bet you're totally questionning reality now.
p.s. Toy Story 3 is incredible, go and see that and see how a film should be made. I experience every emotion going. Top notch stuff.
No More Shit Please Sherlock
The usually reliable Guardian managed to cram this little gem onto the cover of its G2 supplement the other week: "SHERLOCK: It keeps getting better!". Hmm. DOES it though Guardian? Does it ACTUALLY keep getting better, really, or has it maintained and even dropped its standards as it has gone on? LET, me stop you from answering; I already know the answer.
A lot of people seemed to have bought into this programme and I have given it a fair run of three full episodes. Now, the reason you think it's great (but, let's keep in mind that it's not) is because you probably like Dr. Who. What the BBC have cunningly done is identified that the reason 10% of the public don't like Dr. Who is because they dislike sci fi. So they wrangled up "Sherlock" - not Sherlock Holmes you understand, I mean, you're not stupid are you, one word should tell you all you need to know. Oh, and plus, ITS AS EDGY AS FUCK TO USE ONE WORD AS THE TITLE OF A PROGRAMME. Anyway, the actor who plays Sherlock Holmes was indeed up for the roll of the new Doctor (Matt Smith, now) and I also understand the the lead writer of Dr. Who has a hand in writing Sherlock...HAVE YOU ENJOYED SWALLOWING A SECOND RATE, RECYCLED DR. WHO EVERYONE? Watching Sherlock Holmes is like eating a nice meal, eating the resultant shit and then commenting on how nice the shit tasted; somehow familiar...somehow different.
So, edge and lack of creativity established, we can see that Sherlock is very much an Emperor's New Clothes situation. To the show itself then...
Basically, Sherlock doesn't quite get society - dooowh. But he sure does get crime! Yeeeah! You know what he needs is a - oh Martin Freeman what are you doing here, sit down - I was just explaining how Sherlock needs a foyle who gets reinvigorated by him but who also offers him a human connection with a society who he otherwise feels isolated from...and it goes without saying of course that the actor playing this role, this Dr. Watson, would have to be a recognisable and highly likeable British actor. What? YOU? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH. This contrived relationship is ridiculous to the extreme, down to the fact that Sherlock has a souless modern armchair to sit in when the pair are at home, whilst Watson has a comfy, soft chair; mmm - British!
"Urgh - Sherlock - why is this a human head in the fridge?"
"Yes, why?"
"People don't usually keep human heads in the fridge"
"Most people aren't doing important research"
Ooooh, SHEEER-LOCK - dear oh dear, what is he like eh? And it goes on like this! They're the original odd couple. Good old imaginative writing there.
When these engaging, three dimensional characters aren't bantering away like Punch & Judy, they're solving crimes. Sherlock does this by watching words, in the style of a text message usually, appear before his very eyes all over a victims face or a crime scenes walls. No one else can see this and it is of course actually for the audiences benefit. Boy do I feel immersed! As a young person, I felt alienated by a character who I always felt was a little antiquated for modern crime fighting, but your texting-come-deducting has hooked me right in. Plus I saw the movie of Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr, so I'm, like, well into all that shit now. Excuse a moment, I have to pull this face:
¬_¬
The storyline of "Sherlock" is not that hard to swallow due only to the fact that any pill holding this level of shoddy plotting would surely come as a suppository. A big suppository. That you then accidentally swallowed. Are we seriously to believe that a man of no employment would be permitted to mosey around the police force and various crime scenes, casually talking in riddles and being eccentric. Note to anyone else raping the literary nuance of Sherlock Holmes...this is you too Hollywood...Sherlock Holmes is not:
(a) An action hero
(b) A Topman model
Sherlock Holmes is:
(c) A detective
This BBC show asks a great deal of its audience and at first I said, ok, fine, take me on your ride I'll allow this to slide...and this...and this...and this...until eventually it was just taking the piss when it turns out that Moriarty is a gay guy that Sherlock had met briefly in the episode for a single minute. Oh, and we find this out at the local swimming pool. Which he easily breaks into (apparently)...and Dr. Watson has a bomb tied to him...and about twenty snipers are concealed somewhere around the swimming pool. I mean, by this logic, it will probably turn out that the whole thing was a dream and that Sherlock himself was actually a pot plant all along. It would make for better conversations in the show. A real detective could use Sherlock to spruce up his office.
There are a billion more things wrong with this programme, but it essentially it just takes the fucking piss out of the audience watching it. If you are one of many idiots having a whale of a time with the whole thing and if you're defending it right now with phrases like "it's a bit of fun" or with words like "romp", then next time you're sitting at home watching it, imagine the BBCs big gorping face, pointing out from the screen and laughing at you. HA-HA-HA.
A lot of people seemed to have bought into this programme and I have given it a fair run of three full episodes. Now, the reason you think it's great (but, let's keep in mind that it's not) is because you probably like Dr. Who. What the BBC have cunningly done is identified that the reason 10% of the public don't like Dr. Who is because they dislike sci fi. So they wrangled up "Sherlock" - not Sherlock Holmes you understand, I mean, you're not stupid are you, one word should tell you all you need to know. Oh, and plus, ITS AS EDGY AS FUCK TO USE ONE WORD AS THE TITLE OF A PROGRAMME. Anyway, the actor who plays Sherlock Holmes was indeed up for the roll of the new Doctor (Matt Smith, now) and I also understand the the lead writer of Dr. Who has a hand in writing Sherlock...HAVE YOU ENJOYED SWALLOWING A SECOND RATE, RECYCLED DR. WHO EVERYONE? Watching Sherlock Holmes is like eating a nice meal, eating the resultant shit and then commenting on how nice the shit tasted; somehow familiar...somehow different.
So, edge and lack of creativity established, we can see that Sherlock is very much an Emperor's New Clothes situation. To the show itself then...
Basically, Sherlock doesn't quite get society - dooowh. But he sure does get crime! Yeeeah! You know what he needs is a - oh Martin Freeman what are you doing here, sit down - I was just explaining how Sherlock needs a foyle who gets reinvigorated by him but who also offers him a human connection with a society who he otherwise feels isolated from...and it goes without saying of course that the actor playing this role, this Dr. Watson, would have to be a recognisable and highly likeable British actor. What? YOU? DONT MAKE ME LAUGH. This contrived relationship is ridiculous to the extreme, down to the fact that Sherlock has a souless modern armchair to sit in when the pair are at home, whilst Watson has a comfy, soft chair; mmm - British!
"Urgh - Sherlock - why is this a human head in the fridge?"
"Yes, why?"
"People don't usually keep human heads in the fridge"
"Most people aren't doing important research"
Ooooh, SHEEER-LOCK - dear oh dear, what is he like eh? And it goes on like this! They're the original odd couple. Good old imaginative writing there.
When these engaging, three dimensional characters aren't bantering away like Punch & Judy, they're solving crimes. Sherlock does this by watching words, in the style of a text message usually, appear before his very eyes all over a victims face or a crime scenes walls. No one else can see this and it is of course actually for the audiences benefit. Boy do I feel immersed! As a young person, I felt alienated by a character who I always felt was a little antiquated for modern crime fighting, but your texting-come-deducting has hooked me right in. Plus I saw the movie of Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr, so I'm, like, well into all that shit now. Excuse a moment, I have to pull this face:
¬_¬
The storyline of "Sherlock" is not that hard to swallow due only to the fact that any pill holding this level of shoddy plotting would surely come as a suppository. A big suppository. That you then accidentally swallowed. Are we seriously to believe that a man of no employment would be permitted to mosey around the police force and various crime scenes, casually talking in riddles and being eccentric. Note to anyone else raping the literary nuance of Sherlock Holmes...this is you too Hollywood...Sherlock Holmes is not:
(a) An action hero
(b) A Topman model
Sherlock Holmes is:
(c) A detective
This BBC show asks a great deal of its audience and at first I said, ok, fine, take me on your ride I'll allow this to slide...and this...and this...and this...until eventually it was just taking the piss when it turns out that Moriarty is a gay guy that Sherlock had met briefly in the episode for a single minute. Oh, and we find this out at the local swimming pool. Which he easily breaks into (apparently)...and Dr. Watson has a bomb tied to him...and about twenty snipers are concealed somewhere around the swimming pool. I mean, by this logic, it will probably turn out that the whole thing was a dream and that Sherlock himself was actually a pot plant all along. It would make for better conversations in the show. A real detective could use Sherlock to spruce up his office.
There are a billion more things wrong with this programme, but it essentially it just takes the fucking piss out of the audience watching it. If you are one of many idiots having a whale of a time with the whole thing and if you're defending it right now with phrases like "it's a bit of fun" or with words like "romp", then next time you're sitting at home watching it, imagine the BBCs big gorping face, pointing out from the screen and laughing at you. HA-HA-HA.
The New Intro on MotD
I just have to ask the BBC who designed the new intro sequence on Match of the Day...I really do...hang on...ok I've asked them.
Instead of being greeted properly by actual footballers what I got was some floppy disk rip-off computer generated nightmare that tried to cram too many presents into my eyes. It was like the entire history of football had puked up on the screen and then wiped it all around a bit with it's hands, sat back and in it's furious drunken smuginess gone "weeeroah - yeah man - jawesome".
Putting up all the past players of the Premiership doesn't instill Match of the Day with some semblance of heritage, instead, it highlighted how much extra cash they must be sitting on, that they can piss all of it away on some bloody brainiac to clip art a few dead footballers in alongside Eric Cantona. Ooo it makes me mad.
ALSO, everytime something is analysed in a match now some new futuristic analysis logo+noise comes into play, as if Match of the Day is still trying to convince me that I am living in the future. Dear BBC; I am not living in the future. If I were you'd be charging me for oxygen as your strangle hold on the media reaches an all time high and humanity crummbles in your hands like the Channel Five of today, but until then, keep all your bleeding special effects for Dr. Fucking Who and let me watch the football in peace.
Thanks! Sincerely, Charles Meyrick
Instead of being greeted properly by actual footballers what I got was some floppy disk rip-off computer generated nightmare that tried to cram too many presents into my eyes. It was like the entire history of football had puked up on the screen and then wiped it all around a bit with it's hands, sat back and in it's furious drunken smuginess gone "weeeroah - yeah man - jawesome".
Putting up all the past players of the Premiership doesn't instill Match of the Day with some semblance of heritage, instead, it highlighted how much extra cash they must be sitting on, that they can piss all of it away on some bloody brainiac to clip art a few dead footballers in alongside Eric Cantona. Ooo it makes me mad.
ALSO, everytime something is analysed in a match now some new futuristic analysis logo+noise comes into play, as if Match of the Day is still trying to convince me that I am living in the future. Dear BBC; I am not living in the future. If I were you'd be charging me for oxygen as your strangle hold on the media reaches an all time high and humanity crummbles in your hands like the Channel Five of today, but until then, keep all your bleeding special effects for Dr. Fucking Who and let me watch the football in peace.
Thanks! Sincerely, Charles Meyrick
Sunday 23 May 2010
The National Movie Awards - ITV out do themselves again.
The National Movie Awards 2010!
After the BAFTAS, The European Film Awards, The Cannes International Film Prize, The Golden Globe Awards, The Sundance Film Prize, The Oscars and of course, The Kids Choice Awards, NO trophy event is more anticipated than ITVs National Movie Awards! Pinch yourself, because it's FINALLY here, the most important and anticpated event of the entire summer! What do you mean World Cup? Never heard of it. Is it a kind of fish?
If the National Movie Awards sound like someone made them up, there is actually a very good reason for that. It's because, apparrently, someone made them up. ITV, who nowadays seem to quiz their brain-dead audience on most everything they broadcast, (TEXT NOW IF YOU HAVE AN IQ GREATER THAN THE NUMBERS ON YOUR PHONE) have managed to get behind a film award ceremony that takes into account the precious public opinion; boy, do I feel important? I feel like one of them film critics darlin'.
One would have had to have ventured onto the ITV website in order to vote for the awards months ago - that means that the people making these decisions are the kind of people who browse the internet long enough to make it onto the ITV website without looking at pornography or youtube. What kind of cold husk of a human being could do that? Why does ITV so highly value public opinion (I mean, apart from all the money they get from the text messaging and phone calls, obviously). But honestly, is ITV run by an indecisive neurotic? And no, I haven't found work yet. Is their head of programming sitting in a leather chair everyday sweating excessively over what to so put on television, who to send through to the next round, who to give a precious MOVIE AWARD to?
-"Mr.ITV we need a decision; do we send through this troop of break-dancers or do we send through this singing dog"
-"Er, er, deserves it most?"
-"They both have sob stories sir"
-"Oh God.."
-"We need a decision sir"
-"Er, argh - um - OH! I know what we could do again"
-"Sigh; sir?"
-"We could ask the public to decide again"
-"Ok sir, but this is the last time, soon we're going to have start paying them a wage"
-"Nah, they love it, makes 'em feel part of the show"
-"We can only be grateful than no one has anything better to do"
ANYWAY (ahem), the point is, a good film needs to be judged by people who watch lots of films and who know about film. Not fucking Joe Public who spends most of his time in 'Bet Fred' and wouldn't know a kebab from a...bloody...montage. Haha; surreal.
Here are my ITV Movie Award predictions, 2010:
-Action/Adventure: AVATAR [it had special effects and shit]
-Superhero: IRON MAN 2 [it had special effects and shit]
-Musical: CHIPMUNK [they'll only realise that it's not a movie afterwards]
-Comedy: HOT TUB TIME MACHINE [it has everything, a hot tub AND a time machine...no laughs though, not many of them]
-Family: ALICE IN WONDERLAND [I don't fucking know, these aren't funny, they're just terrible films that will win awards]
-Performance (Male): DAVID CAMERON
-Performance (Female): NICK CLEGG
-Special Recognition: ITV
There's genuinely a category called "Superhero". That's not a film type or a bloody genre, that's a passing fad that will be gone in less than a decade. OH, I know, why don't we have a category called "BEST TELEVISION PROGRAMME ADAPTED INTO A FILM!". Oh, because it's ridiculous, I see.
I mean for fuck sake, they called them the fucking MOVIE AWARDS. How gloriously generic, seriously, these people have the imagination of a pistachio...a utilitarian pistachio. Anyway, 2010 is it's third outting so we can expect it to have a long, cheesy life, as many of ITVs shows do - break out the production values ITV, because one day a prestigious MOVIE AWARD might be just as valuable as the Metro Manila Film Festival Awards; they're held in the Philippines! Exotic!
After the BAFTAS, The European Film Awards, The Cannes International Film Prize, The Golden Globe Awards, The Sundance Film Prize, The Oscars and of course, The Kids Choice Awards, NO trophy event is more anticipated than ITVs National Movie Awards! Pinch yourself, because it's FINALLY here, the most important and anticpated event of the entire summer! What do you mean World Cup? Never heard of it. Is it a kind of fish?
If the National Movie Awards sound like someone made them up, there is actually a very good reason for that. It's because, apparrently, someone made them up. ITV, who nowadays seem to quiz their brain-dead audience on most everything they broadcast, (TEXT NOW IF YOU HAVE AN IQ GREATER THAN THE NUMBERS ON YOUR PHONE) have managed to get behind a film award ceremony that takes into account the precious public opinion; boy, do I feel important? I feel like one of them film critics darlin'.
One would have had to have ventured onto the ITV website in order to vote for the awards months ago - that means that the people making these decisions are the kind of people who browse the internet long enough to make it onto the ITV website without looking at pornography or youtube. What kind of cold husk of a human being could do that? Why does ITV so highly value public opinion (I mean, apart from all the money they get from the text messaging and phone calls, obviously). But honestly, is ITV run by an indecisive neurotic? And no, I haven't found work yet. Is their head of programming sitting in a leather chair everyday sweating excessively over what to so put on television, who to send through to the next round, who to give a precious MOVIE AWARD to?
-"Mr.ITV we need a decision; do we send through this troop of break-dancers or do we send through this singing dog"
-"Er, er, deserves it most?"
-"They both have sob stories sir"
-"Oh God.."
-"We need a decision sir"
-"Er, argh - um - OH! I know what we could do again"
-"Sigh; sir?"
-"We could ask the public to decide again"
-"Ok sir, but this is the last time, soon we're going to have start paying them a wage"
-"Nah, they love it, makes 'em feel part of the show"
-"We can only be grateful than no one has anything better to do"
ANYWAY (ahem), the point is, a good film needs to be judged by people who watch lots of films and who know about film. Not fucking Joe Public who spends most of his time in 'Bet Fred' and wouldn't know a kebab from a...bloody...montage. Haha; surreal.
Here are my ITV Movie Award predictions, 2010:
-Action/Adventure: AVATAR [it had special effects and shit]
-Superhero: IRON MAN 2 [it had special effects and shit]
-Musical: CHIPMUNK [they'll only realise that it's not a movie afterwards]
-Comedy: HOT TUB TIME MACHINE [it has everything, a hot tub AND a time machine...no laughs though, not many of them]
-Family: ALICE IN WONDERLAND [I don't fucking know, these aren't funny, they're just terrible films that will win awards]
-Performance (Male): DAVID CAMERON
-Performance (Female): NICK CLEGG
-Special Recognition: ITV
There's genuinely a category called "Superhero". That's not a film type or a bloody genre, that's a passing fad that will be gone in less than a decade. OH, I know, why don't we have a category called "BEST TELEVISION PROGRAMME ADAPTED INTO A FILM!". Oh, because it's ridiculous, I see.
I mean for fuck sake, they called them the fucking MOVIE AWARDS. How gloriously generic, seriously, these people have the imagination of a pistachio...a utilitarian pistachio. Anyway, 2010 is it's third outting so we can expect it to have a long, cheesy life, as many of ITVs shows do - break out the production values ITV, because one day a prestigious MOVIE AWARD might be just as valuable as the Metro Manila Film Festival Awards; they're held in the Philippines! Exotic!
Friday 16 April 2010
The Death of Cookery
"ITS BLAND AND UNENTERTAINING, IT LACKS PERSONALITY AND QUITE FRANKLY IM NOT IMPRESSED. I WOULDN'T WATCH THIS ON TELEVISION MATE, I REALLY WOULDN'T".
That was for anyone that had ever wondered what it would be like if the hosts of Master Chef reviewed their own show. They are big shouty nightmares, with all the charisma of wet lettuce, a fact that the pair of them make up for with big collars and swearing at sandwiches. I mean they don't actually swear but you can see they want to. They're so bold and brash, cookery shows are an almost theraputic observation of cooking, a visual enjoyment of food that makes me think "yeah, I'm gonna make that, I'm hungry".
Instead, Master Chef has two presenters bereft of any class or style and a female narrator who talks like people do when they suddenly touch something cold. She describes the food about as passionately as filling in a tax return, opting instead for a hollow and clinical description of exactly what the food contains, in what must be a misguided aim at 'food with status' e.g. Damian has constructed a futon of spinach for his north-atlantic lemon drizzled oxford educated salmon. It's all just crap.
And then of course Idiot 1 & Idiot 2 shout at the "contestant" and at the each other...I mean, contestant cookery shows shouldn't have contestants, cooking isn't competitive, it's an art!
Gordon Ramsey shouts, be it just seems less like a character defect; he is aware that he is shouting. The presenters on Master Chef seem like the kind of guys you would want to punch in the face at a bus stop. "WHERE'S THE BLOODY BUS, I HAVE A BIG APPOINTMENT WITH THE QUEEN" one of them explodes at no one at all. They are both incredibly detestable and this is not what cookery shows should be - but it gets worse.
Iron Chef is on it's way to England. Its presenter is a wine expert that you may have seen on Saturday Kitchen and he is something of an eccentric, a blow-hard with a taste for big words and pulling big faces. "AHA, to our main contestants who stand, poised and ready to fight in a battle of cooking prowess, titans of the kitchen, who will emerge victorious, etc, etc"...so, as if this farcical presenter for Iron Chef UK wasn't enough, here is the show itself.
Iron Chef is quintessentially American. They took your common cookery show and turned it into a Die Hard film. It has a samurai or ninja guy or something who adds a lot of tacky pseudo asian pazzazz to the affair. Then, in front of a huge studio audience, contestants cook UNDER A TIME LIMIT (oh because that's what cooking should be like) intensley and competitively. Then, and this is the worst bit, hundreds and thousands of graphics, explosions, sound-effects, literally slow-mo action replays of chopping vegetables, are all thrown into the mix and left to simmer; less a stew, more a stewpid.
Why Channel 4 thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but the British public won't go for this, unless I have under-estimated them. Come Dine With me is more our style. Like Master Chef, Iron Chef Uk is and will be a completely charmless stab at what producers think people want as they desperately try and find somewhere else to go in the world of television. Unnecessary fanfare and shouting are not it - that's why we don't all love the Go Compare Advert...we really fucking hate it and we mute it or turn it off. What next, strapping fireworks to the letters and attaching the clock to a huge time-bomb in Countdown? Please.
Although Countdown could do with a younger, hipper demographic. It needs to appeal to todays younger, more blood-thirsty word puzzlers. Oh and can we get Jeff Stelling to ride a skateboard? Get my pyrotechnic guy on the phone, let's a put a rocket up this mother! WOOSH!
That was for anyone that had ever wondered what it would be like if the hosts of Master Chef reviewed their own show. They are big shouty nightmares, with all the charisma of wet lettuce, a fact that the pair of them make up for with big collars and swearing at sandwiches. I mean they don't actually swear but you can see they want to. They're so bold and brash, cookery shows are an almost theraputic observation of cooking, a visual enjoyment of food that makes me think "yeah, I'm gonna make that, I'm hungry".
Instead, Master Chef has two presenters bereft of any class or style and a female narrator who talks like people do when they suddenly touch something cold. She describes the food about as passionately as filling in a tax return, opting instead for a hollow and clinical description of exactly what the food contains, in what must be a misguided aim at 'food with status' e.g. Damian has constructed a futon of spinach for his north-atlantic lemon drizzled oxford educated salmon. It's all just crap.
And then of course Idiot 1 & Idiot 2 shout at the "contestant" and at the each other...I mean, contestant cookery shows shouldn't have contestants, cooking isn't competitive, it's an art!
Gordon Ramsey shouts, be it just seems less like a character defect; he is aware that he is shouting. The presenters on Master Chef seem like the kind of guys you would want to punch in the face at a bus stop. "WHERE'S THE BLOODY BUS, I HAVE A BIG APPOINTMENT WITH THE QUEEN" one of them explodes at no one at all. They are both incredibly detestable and this is not what cookery shows should be - but it gets worse.
Iron Chef is on it's way to England. Its presenter is a wine expert that you may have seen on Saturday Kitchen and he is something of an eccentric, a blow-hard with a taste for big words and pulling big faces. "AHA, to our main contestants who stand, poised and ready to fight in a battle of cooking prowess, titans of the kitchen, who will emerge victorious, etc, etc"...so, as if this farcical presenter for Iron Chef UK wasn't enough, here is the show itself.
Iron Chef is quintessentially American. They took your common cookery show and turned it into a Die Hard film. It has a samurai or ninja guy or something who adds a lot of tacky pseudo asian pazzazz to the affair. Then, in front of a huge studio audience, contestants cook UNDER A TIME LIMIT (oh because that's what cooking should be like) intensley and competitively. Then, and this is the worst bit, hundreds and thousands of graphics, explosions, sound-effects, literally slow-mo action replays of chopping vegetables, are all thrown into the mix and left to simmer; less a stew, more a stewpid.
Why Channel 4 thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but the British public won't go for this, unless I have under-estimated them. Come Dine With me is more our style. Like Master Chef, Iron Chef Uk is and will be a completely charmless stab at what producers think people want as they desperately try and find somewhere else to go in the world of television. Unnecessary fanfare and shouting are not it - that's why we don't all love the Go Compare Advert...we really fucking hate it and we mute it or turn it off. What next, strapping fireworks to the letters and attaching the clock to a huge time-bomb in Countdown? Please.
Although Countdown could do with a younger, hipper demographic. It needs to appeal to todays younger, more blood-thirsty word puzzlers. Oh and can we get Jeff Stelling to ride a skateboard? Get my pyrotechnic guy on the phone, let's a put a rocket up this mother! WOOSH!
Monday 29 March 2010
Bye Honey, I'm Off to my TV Book Club.
"WHO AM I!?" cries The TV Book Club, the hideous schizophrenic monster show as it wearily drags itself up the Channel 4 satellite building.
The TV Book Club is a stupid persons clever show and has therefore found something like a home on More Four. More Four of course only shows television programmes that no one wants to watch. It's like Channel 4 saying, "I don't entirely have faith in you".
It's another show that really does it's best to get to know you and crawl into your home as part of your daily routine - like a nectar card. The TV Book Club thinks it's a nectar card. Because no one seems capable of actually ever meeting or speaking to each other in person in our modern society, The TV Book Club caters for people who don't know anyone and must therefore discuss their books with celebrities, instead of anyone they can actually touch, or smell.
So, if I wanted advice on a good book, I would ask a writer or a really keen reader. I would not at any point ask Gok Wan. If I want to know what colour pumps I should be wearing this summer, then boy howdy, he'd better be by the phone. In the meantime, he can keep his book opinions to himself.
The TV Book Club is too cliquey, I don't feel part of the gang. A specially selected elite of celebrities, two horribly unfunny comedians (Dave Spikey & Jo Brand, with her disgusting black & white glasses that make her look like she has a permanently raised eye-brow which, ironically, I also have when I watch The TV Book Club). There's Gok, and then a man and a woman that no one has ever seen before, but might have read some news or written a newspaper article before or something. Out of all these..."CELEBRITIES"...it is hard to work out which one is the presenter. Is it Jo Brand with her gentle, gentle humour? Is is the unknown bloke with the gi-GAN-tic face? Or is it Spikey with his...northern accent?
I can only hope that this ill-matched group of people solve mysteries in their spare time, because to watch them discuss books with a put-on sincerity and pretend interest in what they are doing is more than I can bare. Some mad scientist/market researcher obviously worked out how to appeal to the entirity of society by choosing a group of..."CELEBRITIES"...that can draw in every demographic around. Oh, apart from that key demographic, PEOPLE WHO CAN READ FOR THEMSELVES.
The TV Book Club is a pompous, fart of a show! It's full of hyperbole and hot air and emotionally manipulating musical renactments of the content of the books and it's just awful. It's like reading one of my English essays. The background is bland and they all sit round on a big DFS sponsored chair and it supposed to make me think "OO, now there's something that would enhance my lifestyle, I'm going to get a bottle of wine and invite my friends to start a book club with me" - on second thoughts, I'm going to drink a a beer and read something good. All they fucking do is review..."REVIEW"...books involving child abuse, or murder or painful personal growth. Yuck. Nobody wants to read that, they really don't, unless they're the most dull people I've ever met and I bet they are the wankers.
Of the show, Gok says: "I think the idea of a book club is to recommend a book or not, and I think I would recommend this book"
I say: "A good TV Show is one that doesn't make you want to throw books at the television in the hopes that one of them smashes the screen, and I think that The TV Book Club does quite the opposite of that"
And then the show ends with some ill-chosen dramatic violin nightmare. As I said, it's just awful.
The TV Book Club is a stupid persons clever show and has therefore found something like a home on More Four. More Four of course only shows television programmes that no one wants to watch. It's like Channel 4 saying, "I don't entirely have faith in you".
It's another show that really does it's best to get to know you and crawl into your home as part of your daily routine - like a nectar card. The TV Book Club thinks it's a nectar card. Because no one seems capable of actually ever meeting or speaking to each other in person in our modern society, The TV Book Club caters for people who don't know anyone and must therefore discuss their books with celebrities, instead of anyone they can actually touch, or smell.
So, if I wanted advice on a good book, I would ask a writer or a really keen reader. I would not at any point ask Gok Wan. If I want to know what colour pumps I should be wearing this summer, then boy howdy, he'd better be by the phone. In the meantime, he can keep his book opinions to himself.
The TV Book Club is too cliquey, I don't feel part of the gang. A specially selected elite of celebrities, two horribly unfunny comedians (Dave Spikey & Jo Brand, with her disgusting black & white glasses that make her look like she has a permanently raised eye-brow which, ironically, I also have when I watch The TV Book Club). There's Gok, and then a man and a woman that no one has ever seen before, but might have read some news or written a newspaper article before or something. Out of all these..."CELEBRITIES"...it is hard to work out which one is the presenter. Is it Jo Brand with her gentle, gentle humour? Is is the unknown bloke with the gi-GAN-tic face? Or is it Spikey with his...northern accent?
I can only hope that this ill-matched group of people solve mysteries in their spare time, because to watch them discuss books with a put-on sincerity and pretend interest in what they are doing is more than I can bare. Some mad scientist/market researcher obviously worked out how to appeal to the entirity of society by choosing a group of..."CELEBRITIES"...that can draw in every demographic around. Oh, apart from that key demographic, PEOPLE WHO CAN READ FOR THEMSELVES.
The TV Book Club is a pompous, fart of a show! It's full of hyperbole and hot air and emotionally manipulating musical renactments of the content of the books and it's just awful. It's like reading one of my English essays. The background is bland and they all sit round on a big DFS sponsored chair and it supposed to make me think "OO, now there's something that would enhance my lifestyle, I'm going to get a bottle of wine and invite my friends to start a book club with me" - on second thoughts, I'm going to drink a a beer and read something good. All they fucking do is review..."REVIEW"...books involving child abuse, or murder or painful personal growth. Yuck. Nobody wants to read that, they really don't, unless they're the most dull people I've ever met and I bet they are the wankers.
Of the show, Gok says: "I think the idea of a book club is to recommend a book or not, and I think I would recommend this book"
I say: "A good TV Show is one that doesn't make you want to throw books at the television in the hopes that one of them smashes the screen, and I think that The TV Book Club does quite the opposite of that"
And then the show ends with some ill-chosen dramatic violin nightmare. As I said, it's just awful.
Sunday 17 January 2010
Why The Simpsons Will Always Be Great.
As has been well documented, and exploited by Sky1, The Simpsons has recently turned 20. But at this presumably late stage in its life (I imagine that television shows age like dogs, or in the case of Gavin & Stacey, like hamsters) why do so many people end up criticising The Simpsons instead of venerating? I'm aware that a lot of people in the media have "celebrated" The Simpsons because of it's 20th year, but these are frequently the same people who condemn it on a regular basis for not being funny anymore and these nostalgic reviews of 'Televisions First Family' always contain something along the lines of "The Simpsons peaked many years ago".
I'm certainly not going to argue that the most recent series is as funny as series eight, that is, the series where Homer becomes the Beer Baron and where he has to deal with Frank Grimes - no, I am not going to suggest that the episodes of 2009/10 are as classic as that. But given the sheer brilliance of those old episodes, what I will demand from literally everyone is a little faith in The Simpsons.
Surely Matt Groening and co have earnt that haven't they? There is literally no television show in history that is as quotable or as memorable as The Simpsons. If you asked a room of twenty people what their favourtie episode was, ninteen of them would come up with a different one each. The twentieth one would be somebodies Mum, who never liked the Simpsons because they used the word 'butt' too much when you were an impressionable eight year old.
The Simpsons has frequently hit every single level of humour, it can be both high brow and low brow and also middle brow and mono-brow. Many people see Family Guy as its successor, but come on, well into its eighth season, it is obvious that Family Guy is already running out of steam. Why? Because it is far less dynamic than The Simpsons. Family Guy has one brand of comedy, it grows only one crop in its humour field, whilst The Simpsons ensures its longevity with the intelligence and variety in its scripts. Family Guy is clearly very easy to write, whereas The Simpsons is multi-layered, a forest gateaux to Family Guys pancake.
Comedy moves in trends, and Family Guy has very much surfed upon that trend (btw, I am a big Family Guy fan, and I am using it only as a singular example). The Simpsons has fallen by the wayside a little in modern times because it does not entirely follow the in-fashion comedy at the moment, that is, the surreal and the nonsensical. Comedy today is much more Adult Swim than...the...well, The Simpsons. Where The Simpsons slips down in modern times is when it tries to adhere to what people want, and you get odd random moments that just don't suit the show. You can see the same mistakes much more obviously in the new series of Futurama, which, if I may say so, was fucking terrible.
What I'm saying is, if you hear ANYONE saying that The Simpsons isn't funny, slap them in the face. Really hard. Because The Simpsons is the greatest television show ever made. Its cast of characters is huge and each one is brilliant, like your favourite episode, everyone has their own favourite character (one of mine is Moe, obviously - and you can't go wrong with a bit of Lenny).
The Simpsons is the most quotable show ever made and I given how much pure goodness they have dispensed our way for the past 20 years, I think a show of faith that they can go on recapturing what people believe to be the best work, is very little to ask. If you can find me any other show that will be able to traverse the dangerous waters of two decades-worth of television, then I will call you a liar, because you can't. Don't just celebrate 20 years of The Simpsons nostalgically, believe in it delivering quality comedy for years to come.
p.s. The Simpsons Movie WAS funny, those who say it wasn't ought to be thrown into a briefcase and drowned.
I'm certainly not going to argue that the most recent series is as funny as series eight, that is, the series where Homer becomes the Beer Baron and where he has to deal with Frank Grimes - no, I am not going to suggest that the episodes of 2009/10 are as classic as that. But given the sheer brilliance of those old episodes, what I will demand from literally everyone is a little faith in The Simpsons.
Surely Matt Groening and co have earnt that haven't they? There is literally no television show in history that is as quotable or as memorable as The Simpsons. If you asked a room of twenty people what their favourtie episode was, ninteen of them would come up with a different one each. The twentieth one would be somebodies Mum, who never liked the Simpsons because they used the word 'butt' too much when you were an impressionable eight year old.
The Simpsons has frequently hit every single level of humour, it can be both high brow and low brow and also middle brow and mono-brow. Many people see Family Guy as its successor, but come on, well into its eighth season, it is obvious that Family Guy is already running out of steam. Why? Because it is far less dynamic than The Simpsons. Family Guy has one brand of comedy, it grows only one crop in its humour field, whilst The Simpsons ensures its longevity with the intelligence and variety in its scripts. Family Guy is clearly very easy to write, whereas The Simpsons is multi-layered, a forest gateaux to Family Guys pancake.
Comedy moves in trends, and Family Guy has very much surfed upon that trend (btw, I am a big Family Guy fan, and I am using it only as a singular example). The Simpsons has fallen by the wayside a little in modern times because it does not entirely follow the in-fashion comedy at the moment, that is, the surreal and the nonsensical. Comedy today is much more Adult Swim than...the...well, The Simpsons. Where The Simpsons slips down in modern times is when it tries to adhere to what people want, and you get odd random moments that just don't suit the show. You can see the same mistakes much more obviously in the new series of Futurama, which, if I may say so, was fucking terrible.
What I'm saying is, if you hear ANYONE saying that The Simpsons isn't funny, slap them in the face. Really hard. Because The Simpsons is the greatest television show ever made. Its cast of characters is huge and each one is brilliant, like your favourite episode, everyone has their own favourite character (one of mine is Moe, obviously - and you can't go wrong with a bit of Lenny).
The Simpsons is the most quotable show ever made and I given how much pure goodness they have dispensed our way for the past 20 years, I think a show of faith that they can go on recapturing what people believe to be the best work, is very little to ask. If you can find me any other show that will be able to traverse the dangerous waters of two decades-worth of television, then I will call you a liar, because you can't. Don't just celebrate 20 years of The Simpsons nostalgically, believe in it delivering quality comedy for years to come.
p.s. The Simpsons Movie WAS funny, those who say it wasn't ought to be thrown into a briefcase and drowned.
Monday 4 January 2010
Shutting the Fuck up About How Good Your iPhone is; is there an app for that too?
This was written some time ago, but is still relevant today:
Honestly. What sickens me most is how fucking DOWN with the kids iPhone thinks it is. "Boy" thought Apples hideously slimey marketing department one day "Aren't these kids the darnedest things" and all the suits nod so it continues "I mean just the other day I hear this one young fella, AFLUENT AS HELL, using a youthful colloquialism - I'm talking words that aren't real here. But he was the toast of the party, with his compatriots nodding in agreement and such" and then the marketing department guy walks up to the window and looks outside "And I think to myself - why can't we whore out that kind of lyrical genius huh? I mean, why not make up words like 'funnest' to describe our products - hell, they can relate to it!"
And so, a year later, I feel infuriated in an arm chair when I see that the new iSomething-or-other is being described as the "funnest" iPod ever. Brilliant.
Has anyone, EVER, thought to themselves while they were using their iPhone, "This is great and all, what with the device performing its function and all, but what I'd really like to do is move this glorified mP3 player and steer a rollercoaster, at the same time...*sigh* but I know that's just a pipe-dream, a crazy, crazy pipe-dream". WELL WISH NO MORE GUY, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN COUGH UP THE EXPLETIVE WORTHY SIMOLIANS TO BUY SUCH A FANCIFUL ITEM THEN YOU REALLY CAN STEER A ROLLERCOASTER! I'd buy one myself but I purchased a coca-cola last week and I'm a little strapped for cash.
What I hate about Apple is how bloody convenient they are trying to be. Life isn't convenient (ok?) and so the result is the advert equivalent of one of those waiters that keeps coming up to you to ask if everything is ok; everything ok sir, everything ok sir, everything o-fucking-k sir? NO!? Well no worries baby! Trousers on fire? Cleft palet? Lost the will to live? There's an app for that too! If it was me I'd tell him to fuck off and let me finish my soup in peace. BUT WHY EAT SOUP WHEN I CAN HAVE ALL THE NUTRIENTS FROM SOUP TELEPORTED DIRECTLY IN MY BLOODSTREAM, he'd say, IT'LL LEAVE YOU TIME TO DO ALL THOSE AFLUENT LEISURE ACTIVITIES YOU NEVER HAVE TIME FOR! *que me, snowboarding*
As ever Apples most recent advertising campaign features a song picked out by NME specialists so that it all sounds cool enough and unthreatening enough to convey a real easy-going, hip piece of technology, sorry, not technology, I mean, this hip-piece of life-support. I want my technology shiney and laden with golden buttons thankyou very much, not moseying up to my place at about half 2 in some low slung jeans and with a general shrug of it's casual shoulders "hey man, wanna latte, I know a place" - no, piss off, I'm throwing balls of paper into a bin in just my pants.
I mean for goodness sake, I am a human-being! I'm supposed to demand things of technology, not the other way round! Why am I suddenly "bumping fists" with somebody to exchange a phone address with someone, explain that to me! It's the equivalent of a cowboy-iPhone with a gun making me dance by shooting bullets at my feet, "weeeell, looky here fellas, he's a dancing, he's aaaa daaancing - now bump fists bitch".
I mean seriously you are going to look like a right prick with an iPhone clenched in your clamby mits, BUMPING FISTS with some other equally impressionable iPhone owner, every, single, time you want to exchange information. Call me old fashioned, but I still have:
(a) the use of my voice, and
(b) the use of my brain.
If I utilise both these items, a rare thing occurs. For you see, I can send the details incredibly easily to a person that has an iPhone or that doesn't AND, they can be anywhere in the world; they don't have to be sitting across from me in Starbucks, or in an unoffensive white limbo, where everyone where's one colour and dances to trendy remixes.
People don't know what the hell they're doing on an iPhone, they're fingers zip around on invisible roller blades not knowing where the fuck they are going until eventually they've ordered 600 copies of Ghostbusters II on DVD and have booked themselves in for a haircut at 8, 9 and 10pm for the following day. "DO YOUR SHOPPING ON THE BUS!" NO, I say again, I DEFY YOU iPHONE! People, do it yourself! Feel your wrist, find your pulse? You're alive aren't you? Perhaps try putting your iPhone away for once and embrace that, stupid.
Honestly. What sickens me most is how fucking DOWN with the kids iPhone thinks it is. "Boy" thought Apples hideously slimey marketing department one day "Aren't these kids the darnedest things" and all the suits nod so it continues "I mean just the other day I hear this one young fella, AFLUENT AS HELL, using a youthful colloquialism - I'm talking words that aren't real here. But he was the toast of the party, with his compatriots nodding in agreement and such" and then the marketing department guy walks up to the window and looks outside "And I think to myself - why can't we whore out that kind of lyrical genius huh? I mean, why not make up words like 'funnest' to describe our products - hell, they can relate to it!"
And so, a year later, I feel infuriated in an arm chair when I see that the new iSomething-or-other is being described as the "funnest" iPod ever. Brilliant.
Has anyone, EVER, thought to themselves while they were using their iPhone, "This is great and all, what with the device performing its function and all, but what I'd really like to do is move this glorified mP3 player and steer a rollercoaster, at the same time...*sigh* but I know that's just a pipe-dream, a crazy, crazy pipe-dream". WELL WISH NO MORE GUY, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN COUGH UP THE EXPLETIVE WORTHY SIMOLIANS TO BUY SUCH A FANCIFUL ITEM THEN YOU REALLY CAN STEER A ROLLERCOASTER! I'd buy one myself but I purchased a coca-cola last week and I'm a little strapped for cash.
What I hate about Apple is how bloody convenient they are trying to be. Life isn't convenient (ok?) and so the result is the advert equivalent of one of those waiters that keeps coming up to you to ask if everything is ok; everything ok sir, everything ok sir, everything o-fucking-k sir? NO!? Well no worries baby! Trousers on fire? Cleft palet? Lost the will to live? There's an app for that too! If it was me I'd tell him to fuck off and let me finish my soup in peace. BUT WHY EAT SOUP WHEN I CAN HAVE ALL THE NUTRIENTS FROM SOUP TELEPORTED DIRECTLY IN MY BLOODSTREAM, he'd say, IT'LL LEAVE YOU TIME TO DO ALL THOSE AFLUENT LEISURE ACTIVITIES YOU NEVER HAVE TIME FOR! *que me, snowboarding*
As ever Apples most recent advertising campaign features a song picked out by NME specialists so that it all sounds cool enough and unthreatening enough to convey a real easy-going, hip piece of technology, sorry, not technology, I mean, this hip-piece of life-support. I want my technology shiney and laden with golden buttons thankyou very much, not moseying up to my place at about half 2 in some low slung jeans and with a general shrug of it's casual shoulders "hey man, wanna latte, I know a place" - no, piss off, I'm throwing balls of paper into a bin in just my pants.
I mean for goodness sake, I am a human-being! I'm supposed to demand things of technology, not the other way round! Why am I suddenly "bumping fists" with somebody to exchange a phone address with someone, explain that to me! It's the equivalent of a cowboy-iPhone with a gun making me dance by shooting bullets at my feet, "weeeell, looky here fellas, he's a dancing, he's aaaa daaancing - now bump fists bitch".
I mean seriously you are going to look like a right prick with an iPhone clenched in your clamby mits, BUMPING FISTS with some other equally impressionable iPhone owner, every, single, time you want to exchange information. Call me old fashioned, but I still have:
(a) the use of my voice, and
(b) the use of my brain.
If I utilise both these items, a rare thing occurs. For you see, I can send the details incredibly easily to a person that has an iPhone or that doesn't AND, they can be anywhere in the world; they don't have to be sitting across from me in Starbucks, or in an unoffensive white limbo, where everyone where's one colour and dances to trendy remixes.
People don't know what the hell they're doing on an iPhone, they're fingers zip around on invisible roller blades not knowing where the fuck they are going until eventually they've ordered 600 copies of Ghostbusters II on DVD and have booked themselves in for a haircut at 8, 9 and 10pm for the following day. "DO YOUR SHOPPING ON THE BUS!" NO, I say again, I DEFY YOU iPHONE! People, do it yourself! Feel your wrist, find your pulse? You're alive aren't you? Perhaps try putting your iPhone away for once and embrace that, stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)