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.
Monday, 8 November 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)