Madonna and Mr Madonna to split up

I know, I know, he's got a name. He's an esteemed director. Did I say "esteemed"? Sorry, I meant "steaming pile of shite", my bad.

Anyway, here the BBC News website promises us "the marriage's memorable moments". I wonder if it includes my favourite memorable moment: the one where Guy (see, his name is just like guy, dude, bloke) sneakily glances at his watch while Madge is trying to adopt some little African kid.

What's up, guy, things moving a little too slow for you? Got something better to do, another flop to make maybe.

Losers!

My only regret is that they should announce this just as Madge's biggest fan has had a glamorous wedding in Vegas. Big love to Candy and the Stagg Man, and congrats!

Stuff, with a bias towards clothing

So, the weekend was nice. No need to work, which is always a bonus. Instead the wife and I shopped, watched films and football, chilled, and did a little bit of house-cleaning type of stuff.

I'd been to a work meeting in London on Friday, and whenever I get ready to leave for one of those I tend to lose my mind, realizing I have no clothes to wear. There are very few downsides to working from home 99 per cent of the time; the downsides come, though, when you remember that you don't know what real people look like in a business environment.

Fortunately, being in a "creative" industry means that most people (except managing directors and the like) tend to dress down. Smart casual, y'know. What a great catch-all, almost offensive term that is, right? Jeans are fine, a pair of Converse no problem. T-shirts even.

Except... because I've made the decision to tattoo my forearms, I tend to cover them for meetings at which I'm looking for work. This, in turn, means that, come the hot months, I have to choose lightweight long-sleeved attire. And that's usually my first hurdle when it comes to choosing my "meeting clothes". But like they say in Italy, "Volevi una bicicletta... Pedala." ["You wanted a bike... Pedal." Akin to our "You made your bed, you better lie in it."]

That problem tends to be overcome quickly (if not necessarily always comfortably). The great British summer poses the next hurdle. You never know if what you see through the window at 9:30am is anything like in the same ballpark of what might be happening 50 miles away and one hour later. It's likely, at this time of year, that it will stay warm (if it's already warm), but that doesn't mean you won't get rain, sleet, snow, or who-knows-what else.

So it came to pass that I went looking for a lightweight, mid-season jacket. And I got one, too. Which is a miracle, since when I shop with intent for clothing I'm usually left empty-handed. The best jacket I tried on was a Hugo Boss blazer. Very nice and an absolutely beautiful fit. You can't go wrong with a man who clothed the Nazis, but I wasn't thinking of spending £300 (US$600), so back it went on the hanger. Afterwards I wished I'd haggled. "I'll give you 200," I should have said. What's the worst that could happen?, as Dr Pepper might ask. I'll wait for the sales, perhaps.

In the end I bought something far less dashing but arguably more multipurpose for a third of the price. It'll do the job.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough about my sartorial woes. I'm gonna go have some breakfast and head off into London again. Today, though, it's pleasure not business, for it's time for my next tattooing session on my backpiece. Another three hours of fun.

Have a good week, amigos.

And now the Oscars

Best Film: No Country for Old Men
Best Directing: Coen Brothers, No Country for Old Men
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood
Best Actress: Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose
Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men
Best Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

So, acting-wise, it seems the rest of the world is giving America a masterclass. No surprises there, given that most American movies these days don't require much work of their actors: hence they don't build their talents in quite the same way.

Controversial opinion maybe, and certainly I'm not denying that there are some great American actors out there. But most of those who are truly great have tried spreading their wings a little beyond their own comfort zones.

Truth be told, of course, No Country for Old Men was not the best film of the year. I mean, it wasn't even the best film of the year that I saw, and I saw very few new releases. It was okay, nothing more. Honestly, I thought Sweeney Todd was better, and you'll be able to read my review of that soon, over at that other blog of mine.

Oscar day, part 2

So the noms are in, and No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are the big hits by number of nominations.

I can't say I'm unhappy with this result. I've long been an admirer of the Coen brothers' work, even though some of their more recent output has been seriously subpar. Word is that No Country is a return to form, and I am looking forward to seeing it.

There Will Be Blood director Paul Thomas Anderson may well be dead to my wife, but I tend -- to my disappointment usually -- to give people second chances and the benefit of the doubt. I didn't love his last movie, but I certainly didn't hate it anywhere near as much as Red did, so I'll be more than happy to catch this film too.

So here are my hopes/predictions for some of the major categories, based purely on what I want and having no idea how good or bad any of the films or performances are.

I hope No Country for Old Men wins Best Picture
I hope Paul Thomas Anderson wins Best Director
I hope Johnny Depp wins Best Actor
I hope Ellen Page wins Best Actress
I hope Javier Bardem wins Best Supporting Actor
I hope Tilda Swinton wins Best Supporting Actress.

Nice to see Viggo get nominated for Eastern Promises, though, and Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, both of which are also on my to-see list.

Oscar day!

So today is the day they announce the Oscar nominees. At 1.30pm I will be sat in front of the TV, watching them unveiled live and then seeing what Mark Kermode thinks of it all. And then I'll be back with my own thoughts and maybe a few predictions, too.

Hasta luego, amigos.

This made my head explode

First, a brief apology to those (such as Wife) who couldn't give a flying fuck about David Lynch, but I'm having to post this here for my own reference first and foremost. Also, though, I know a few of you do dig the Lynch.

The following theory is what has fuelled the debate that the first 40 minutes of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me is actually all a dream dreamed by Agent Cooper. I have lifted this directly from the thread "Theresa Banks' investigation - que?" over at the Twin Peaks Gazette Message Board.

From John Thorne's "Dreams of Deer Meadow", from issue 60 of Wrapped in Plastic magazine, August 2002

(Paraphrased and quoted with respect)

Vision and Revision

Lynch/Engels Goal: FWWM was intended to be about the Dale Cooper investigation, BOB and Mike, and other characters from the show.

FWWM had to be self contained and work within the framework of established facts of events prior to the series. It had to be integrated into the Laura Palmer story without adding too much new storyline/resolution.

The investigation allowed Cooper to be in the film and part of Laura's living world (and afterlife) just as the TV show hinted in ep 2009 that they shared a dream that would trigger his intuition and he would send an alarm to Laura (in which she receives his warning), and he comforts her/shepherds her in the Red Room.

Problems: this would have been three hours long; Kyle's refusal to commit to his time also led to revisions. It was implied in the show that Cooper investigated the Banks murder, and The Autobiography of FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper -- by sometimes Peaks script writer Scott Frost -- has Cooper examining her body with a partner, meeting Cable, etc. With so few Cooper scenes, why bother with the prologue?

The first 30 min and Laura's story feel separate, but...

The Dreams of Dale Cooper

Cooper is actually a dominant presence and Chet only seems to investigate.

In the original script, Cooper has Desmond's lines.

In the working script, Desmond meets a mysterious fate and Coop is sent out, now a passive role. Just as he reworked the Mulholland Dr. pilot in a feature, he adds critical dialogue and restructures the opening as Cooper's dream. (It's in character for Coop and supports Lynch's fascination with dreams.) The dream has to be necessary and contribute to the story, or else it would be arbitrary.

Purpose: Every dream element leads to Cooper's better understanding of Teresa's Owl Cave ring. His subconscious seeks answers while other being enter to aid him, and information gleaned will help with the Laura Palmer case. He can enter the Red Room world in dreams, and the random/confusing elements of the prologue can be solved.

Part 1: Chet

Cooper dreams the real events of Teresa's death and floating body.

First Doubling: two secretaries at Gordon Cole's, blonde and brunette, are symbols of aspects of a double personality. (There was only one in the original script.)

The Chet dream is based on Cooper's memory of his own experiences. Lynch was able to keep his original concept (both CD and DC have the same line -- and the same initials reversed.) Just as Cooper fails to solve the case in reality, so must his dream manifestation of himself.

The blue rose is not in the original script. The blue rose is a figment of Cooper's mind, meaning like a blue rose, the case is an impossibility. Desmond can't explain the rose to Sam because Cooper doesn't know what it means but recognizes it as a case involving the supernatural OR as a subconscious clue to "look beyond the rational." Sam later asks if he's "going back" for it.

Cooper intuits the importance of understanding the missing ring in his dream, which could not be located in reality. When he (as Chet, who goes back to the trailer park for the rose) sees it on a mound of dirt (Laura's necklace is also found on a mound of dirt) and reaches for it, he can't "grasp" it.

Second Doubling: The old man at Hap's asks "Are you talking about that little girl that got murdered?" twice. (It was only asked once in the original script.) Meaning, Cooper is investigating Teresa's death for a second time.

Third Doubling: Sam repeats "We sure do need a good wake me up, don't we Agent Desmond?" (in the script, Sam asks, "You really do like that coffee, don't you Agent Cooper?"), Cooper may be trying to wake himself,

Then, the old woman, the phone pole/whooping noise (the Man From Another Place's call from the pilot), and Carl Rodd says: "I've already gone places, I just want to stay where I am." If Cooper awakens, Rodd will cease to exist. (This was a spontaneous improvisation that Lynch kept, as he sometimes does.)

Cooper submits to the inevitable and abandons his dream persona, but his dream continues. He enters (in Philadelphia) as soon as Chet disappears and tells Cole enigmatically: "I'm worried today because of the dream I told you about." A reference to the Deer Meadow dream?

Fourth Doubling: Cooper sees himself on the closed-circuit camera monitor, re-enacting his doubled presence in the Deer Meadow dream while not stating it explicitly to Cole.

Part 2: Jeffries

Jeffries appears, walks past Cooper's double, relates his experiences, then disappears -- this was changed radically from the original script to appear more dreamlike. This scene is too bizarre to reconcile with reality. In the script, Cooper's double follows Jeffries into Cole's office. After he says "it was a dream, we live inside a dream," Jeffries cries, "the ring, the ring." Cole tries to call his intercom for a stenographer, "static begins to build and the fluorescent lights start to hum," Cooper checks the hall for help and only Albert witnesses Jeffries disappear. (Wouldn't Albert be less sarcastic about the existence of BOB in the series after witnessing this?) The "we" refers to Cooper, Cole, Albert and Jeffries. Jeffries asks "Who do you think this is there?" about Cooper. The answer is: the dreamer, or Jeffries knows Cooper has changed dream identities.

Jeffries subjective experience of the Red Room (Lynch says it changes depending on whoever walks into it) is a sign that he's an entity who has forced his way into Cooper's subconscious mind. Lynch edits the scene as if Cooper's mind is overloaded with information and struggling to process it.

Jeffries supplies Cooper with crucial information (The Little Man says "with this ring, I thee wed," also unscripted) that he is able to warn Laura with. The ring is deadly when taken from the Little Man.

Part 3: Cooper

Cooper returns to the Fat Trout and intuitively looks at the space with the empty trailer, where Desmond found the ring, and sees "Let's Rock" on the car (a line of the Little Man's from the series.) The lines "sorry to wake you" and "I was having a bad dream anyway" were scripted for the earlier Chet scene, then moved to Cooper's visit to emphasize the continuing dream of the prologue.

Fifth Doubling: The last TWO previous tenants were Chalfont, just as Donna finds two Tremonds next to Harold's in the series.

Cooper awakens after his dictation to Diane.

----------------

Oh, man! I really want to watch this again now, but I'm holding off until I've finished watching Twin Peaks series 2 again...

In other Lynch-related news, my INLAND EMPIRE DVD is en route to me, so I'm excited about that. And go to Lazy Eye Theatre for a cool look at scene-making David Lynch style. Have a great weekend, and don't have nightmares!

Ain’t mates great?

Sometime back in March it was Buy A Friend A Book week, and my blogmate Karen was kind enough to give me a gift voucher for Amazon.co.uk

At that time, shortly after my birthday, I had a few books that I had yet to get around to reading. Birthday gifts some, but also some Christmas ones. Hell, who am I kidding? I've got books from years ago that I've never got around to...

Anyway, bottom line is, I didn't want to rush out and buy the first thing that came into my head only to have it sitting there doing nothing. I wanted to pick the appropriate gift. And I wanted to pick something as close as possible to the value of the voucher, so that Karen bought me a whole book.

The book I eventually bought, just a couple of weeks ago, was Digital Film-Making by Mike Figgis, director of Leaving Las Vegas and Internal Affairs and one of the biggest proponents of DV in Hollywood.

What a book! I couldn't put it down. For about a week it felt as though I was superglued to that book. In a good way. And it's small enough to carry with you wherever you go. If you are interested in low- and no-budget film-making, this book is an essential purchase. It will now take pride of place on my bookshelf alongside that other low-budget film-making bible, Robert Rodriguez's Rebel Without A Crew.

So, thanks Karen, for buying a friend a book. Sorry it took so long for me to redeem your voucher, but I hope you know it was worth the wait!

Where’d the week go?

Forgive me, reader, for I have sinned. It's been four days since my last blog post...

It's been one of those weeks where not much seems to happen worthy of writing:

1. Watched a couple of movies (16 Blocks and le dîner de cons), so they'll make it over to Such As They Are sometime in the distant future. Latest review over there at the moment is the highly recommended Manon des Sources.

2. Been working -- same ol', same ol'.

3. Got the year's expenses receipts organized for the accountant.

4. Bought some jeans from The Gap for £13.59 ($27), which was a total bargain. They were discounted anyway, and then I had a further 20 per cent off for a missing button on the fly!

5. Heard some disappointing news from my brother in his bid to get on The X Factor: in short, he didn't make it.

6. Watched more episodes of Seinfeld. Wife and I are working through all the episodes on DVD in chronological order. It opens it up to a whole new level of brilliance, seeing how the storylines run through entire blocks of shows. Genius.

7. Bought an aerial lead so I could get the Freeview channels on our TV. That way we can now record one channel while watching another, a luxury we haven't been afforded for years. Sure, I know there's fuck all on TV, but you can guarantee that, like buses, two good shows always come along at once.

8. I haven't shaved.

So, that's it. A week in the life of a 30-something self-employed man who blogs.

What will next week bring? Well, among other things I have the series finale of Heroes to look forward to. That's on Monday night. Beyond that, friends and loved ones, it's a blank canvas. Wish me luck...

The things people say

Sometimes people say things to us that we remember for a long time. They stay with us for years. I occasionally remember things from my childhood that mean nothing. Maybe a nice thing that a friend or teacher said that no doubt meant nothing to them, but somehow it has stayed with me, inexplicably "meaning something" to me.

And of course there are occasions when people say mean things. They don't always mean them to be mean, but they kind of are anyway. Like the first time I went to a hairdresser in central London, and she told me I was going thin on top.

But I want to focus on the nice things people say. Just as with mean things, though, the nice things aren't necessarily always intentional.

Here are two things people have said to me that I hold on to as compliments, though I know they maybe weren't meant to be.

1. An acting teacher once told me: "You remind me of Marlon Brando. You don't act so much as you react." Now, I know some people don't dig on Marlon, but many people regard him as one of the finest actors in the history of cinema. I'll gladly take that comment!

2. A friend once said: "You talk as though you are in a movie." Once again, some might perceive that as meaning I talk in a contrived, overly expletive-laden fashion with a few Americanisms thrown in. I think that means I talk like a cool and hip motherfucker!

So, dear readers, what have people said to you that you have decided to hold on to and consider compliments?

New DVDs to watch

Saturday, Red and I went out to buy a new hi-fi* because our old one had given up the ghost. First the tape deck went wonky; then the CD trays began playing up and being fussy what discs they would play; and finally the minidisc slots started swallowing minidiscs.

And while we were out shopping at the wonderful Bluewater mall in Kent, I took the opportunity to use some of the funds still on my Virgin gift cards.

What goodies did I purchase?, you might be wondering. (Equally, you may well not be wondering, but I shan't let that stop me from sharing regardless.) I bought the following discs:

Brick, the one-disc version; I didn't even realize there was a two-disc version. Bugger! Not to worry. I don't even know yet if I like it, cos I ain't bleedin' sin it yet. I have high hopes.

The Three Burials of Tommy Lee Jones (or whatever it's called). Again, I have yet to see this, but the trailers look well wicked, so fingers crossed.

Open Water. You know the one about the two people who get left behind in the ocean after a diving trip. Uh-oh, shark bait! I enjoyed this film and thought it worth having on the shelf.

At £20 (US$40) for the three, I thought they were a bargain. So I guess these flicks will be getting reviewed over the coming weeks. As ever, though, I am somewhat behind in my reviewing.

For your information, these are the films I have seen in recent weeks but have not yet reviewed:

The Libertine
Domino
The Rundown (aka Welcome to the Jungle)
The 6th Day
Crimson Tide
Mulholland Dr.
Tsotsi
25th Hour
The Family Stone

Anyone seen any of those? What did youse think?

* I use the term "hi-fi" very loosely, since for the sort of money we were paying and the size of system we bought, high fidelity is highly dubitable, but it seems okay so far. Its dinky size meant we could put it on the same side of the lounge as the TV and stuff, so for the first time in several years we've routed the TV and DVD players through it, too.

Inland Empire

Now don't tell me you don't know what Inland Empire is. It's the new David Lynch film, and I've mentioned it here before.

I've just finished reading a great article about it in the latest issue of Sight & Sound, and I am more excited than I've been about a movie in yeeeaaars, let me tell you.

And it comes out on 9 March, perfect timing for it to be my birthday-week movie.

Trouble is, I feel bad for Wife. It's no secret how much she hates Lynch and his films (with the possible exception of The Straight Story), and she has previously told me in no uncertain terms that she won't sit through another. (Mulholland Dr. drove her to the ice-cream stand, and she doesn't even eat ice cream.)

I felt compelled to point out that she has hated the last two films we sat through as her birthday movies (Lost in Translation and Brokeback Mountain), so how much more fun should she expect to have watching a film that she didn't choose?

Looks like she might concede... as long as she can bring the iPod. Well, what more can I ask for?

Thinking about things, like a walk in the park, things, like a kiss in the dark

Actually, I'm not thinking about things like that at all. Well I do occasionally go for a walk in the park, and that's nice. I'm enjoying walking more often. And it's the best way to explore a new city when you go away for a break.

I'm not thinking about a kiss in the dark, either. Although I do occasionally have kisses in the dark. Best not say any more about that, though ;-)

What I am thinking about follows.

1. My birthday. It's only four weeks away today. In four weeks -- that's two fortnights, twenty-eight days, etc -- I will be 37 years old. It's weird, because just yesterday I was thinking that I was 38. So realizing I'm not even 37 yet makes me feel even younger. Maybe this is one of the greatest things about being a toy boy: you already see that being older is not so bad.

2. Valentine's Day. It's only one week away, guys, so don't forget to buy something nice and/or make a special effort for the loved one in your life. At the risk of sounding like a brown-noser (or should that be "pussy-whipped wuss"?), I try to do nice stuff year round for my woman. Sometimes I fail, though. It seems I criticize more than I ought to. I don't even realize I'm doing it, so I'm gonna make a real effort to fix that.

3. Work. Face it, we all gotta do it from time to time. It's taking me away from blogging as much as I'd like, too. Oh well. Actually, that's not strictly true. I somehow find time to write a post each day, but I'm struggling to find time to visit all my fave hangouts. Sorry to you all, but I am making efforts to rectify that too.

4. The weather. Apparently we're going to be hit with a shitload of snow over the next 24 hours. Brrrrrr. The logs are in the cellar ready for a nice open fire.

5. Spring cleaning. Yes, I know that's a bit of a girlie thing to think about, but our cellar is a damn mess. There are two DVD players to throw out (they don't work) and one 24-inch TV, which I suspect no longer works because it's been in the cellar too long. There's also a huge stack of videotapes to sort out, and a big box full of paper to recycle. PLUS we have to sort out the lounge because we have a new piece of furniture coming soon, so we need to make room for it.

6. Cat. He hasn't blogged in a long while, and I fear his few readers are losing patience. It's not through want of trying; he just never gets a look in on the computers these days. He sends his apologies.

7. Films. I am loving watching movies again recently, so much so that I can't keep on top of my reviews (such as they are).

8. The new David Lynch film Inland Empire. This is the film I am most looking forward to this year. Tomorrow there is a screening in London, with a Q&A with Lynch afterwards. I entered a competition to win tickets, but I doubt I'll get them. And even if I do, with the impending snowstorm set to paralyze the nation, I'm not sure I could get there and back...

Anyways, I think that's all I'm thinking about today. Oh, and you, of course.

Movie reviews

I have finally finished transferring my backlog of movie reviews over to my movie review site Such As They Are.

Additionally, of course, there are quite a few that are exclusive to that blog, including the most recent additions, United 93 and Inside Deep Throat.

Coming soon: Junebug, The Break-Up, Domino, and more...

Are you going to bark all day, little doggie, or are you going to bite?

A recent post at Adam's blog Counting Down The Hours got me to thinking. And I left a comment at his post about my thoughts. But I'm briefly going to mention it all here.

Films.

Good films, great films, action-packed films, intelligent-dialogue films, slow films, fast-paced films, high-octane chase films, etc, etc.


Compare Reservoir Dogs (pictured) with Pulp Fiction. Did you catch them both at the cinema when they were released? Sure you did, just as I did, and weren't they great? (In fact, if you live outside of Europe there's a very good chance you didn't see Reservoir Dogs at the cinema at the time of its release, since it did really bad box office in the States.) Anyway, like me, I'm sure you've watched each of those films several times since. And they're still the best of Tarantino's work.

But which do you like best? Which, for you, is the more enjoyable film to sit and watch on a Sunday afternoon, say?

I'll tell you now, for me the clear winner by a country mile is Reservoir Dogs. Yes, yes, I know Pulp Fiction is multilayered, multifaceted, multi-angled, multiracial, and multi-whatever-the-fuck-else, but fuck me it goes on, huh? The theatrical release clocks in at a whopping 154 minutes*, that's more than two and a half hours in proper money. And if you opt for the Special Edition, you can expect to remain seated for 168 minutes -- 12 minutes short of three hours. That's a whole lot of bed sores. Now, don't fucking tell me there's nothing in there that could be cut to make for a tighter movie.

Reservoir Dogs, on the other hand, runs to just 99 minutes. That's an hour and a half plus an extra 540 seconds. No time. Reservoir Dogs is so short, in fact, that you can almost always find time to squeeze it into your day, should you be so inclined. Small. But not only that, it's also perfectly fucking formed. It's tight as a motherfucking drum. There is nothing you can cut from that film to make it better in any way. It's that rare beast in cinema that you almost wish ran longer. And you know what else, it's absorbing for all of that time: you want to know who's double-crossed whom, just as Nice Guy Eddie wants to know. You are taken into this world.

Okay, of that last point you could probably say the same about Pulp... first time around. But the more you watch Pulp, the more you wish it was shorter. The more you wish you could fast-forward through some of those scenes that have become hackneyed. Not so with Dogs.

Of course, all of this is personal opinion, so let me know what you think: compact, bijou, and perfectly formed; or big, rambunctious, and a bit flabby around the waist? When it comes to films, tell me, what's your flavour?

* Of course, for the sake of this post, I'm not considering PAL speed-up for those of us watching on home cinemas that use the PAL system.

Movie time!

I've fallen a bit behind with film reviews (such as they are) lately, and I've got a bit of a backlog, so without further ado, let's get on with them.

From Hell
I approached this film with caution, since I know it's been disowned by comic-book legend Alan Moore, who wrote the original graphic novel on which it is based. He was also the man behind The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and V for Vendetta, and he has also disowned those two films too. So it's safe to say that this man believes film-makers are doing a disservice to his stories. That said, I am a sucker for Johnny Depp films, even ones in which he adopts dodgy Cockney accents. At least his Cockney wasn't as bad as Heather Graham's Irish attempt. Who knew we had travelled such a short distance from the days of Dick Van Dyke as the chimney sweep? I like Jack the Ripper tales, though, and as it happens I don't think this was too bad. Opium wasn't Depp's only addiction, and when he fell for Graham's whore, I couldn't help but wonder whether absinthe makes the heart grow fonder. This one gets a throat-slashing 62 points.

Hercules in New York
It would be unfair to score this since I really saw only 20 minutes or so over lunch the other day. This is Arnold Schwarzenegger's first movie role, and he is so fresh-faced that it's hard to believe that he had even started shaving. This is unmissable if you get the chance. So terribly bad that it's great. In the scenes I saw, Arnie, playing Greek god Hercules, demonstrated his all-round prowess to a New York athletics team, before going off for a horse-and-carriage ride through Central Park with the daughter of the team's coach. Meanwhile, a European brown bear escapes from the zoo and finds its way into the park, whereupon Arnie wrestles and boxes the beats to the ground, thankfully subduing rather than killing it (not like that cunt from Metallica, who goes shooting bears in Russia for fun). The great thing about the bear scene, which takes place after dinner one autumn evening, is that it moves from dead-of-night-darkness to midday daylight. Fucking insane! This fish-out-of-water tale is really the forerunner of Borat, but 30 years earlier. Not scored.

Historias Mínimas (Minimal Stories)
From the maker of Bombón El Perro comes another wonderful little flick. I enjoyed this much more than Bombón because I wasn't expecting danger at every turn. It's a story of three folk from the same small Patagonian town heading to the city, some 200 miles away, for various reasons. There's barely a word more suitable for this than just "delightful". In the best possible way. Not much happens really for us as viewers; the journey here is all about the characters. I can't say fairer than 75 for this one.

Night Watch
This is currently in rotation on Film 4 in the UK, so if vampires are your thing, why not check it out? It's a Russian movie, apparently the first in a trilogy, and it was actually quite enjoyable. Not wholly original, though, since it clearly draws a lot of influence from both the Blade and Highlander franchises. What I will say, though, is that it is über-fucking-stylish. Also, I watch quite a lot of subtitled movies, and this one absolutely takes the cake for its subtitling. The humble text at the bottom of the screen almost becomes a character in its own right: coloured red it shifts in the water like the blood flowing from a child's nose; when a computer geek talks, the letters appear on screen one word at a time, as though being typed; when someone shouts, the words grow to half the size of the screen; when a character gasps, the words shimmer and flutter. They also sit on a plane somewhere within the action, so a person might walk past and wipe the words away as they move. The subtitling in this movie is great. And the movie's okay, too. A blood-sucking 64 out of 100.

Cape Haute and Rue Ander

Don't they sound like exotic locations: Cape Haute and Rue Ander? The one could be a French-speaking part of Africa and the other a tiny side street in Paris, maybe. But they're not, are they? I'm just being very silly, aren't I? They are, rather, pretty rubbish clues to my two movie reviews this Thursday morn.

First up, Cape Haute, or Capote as it may be known to some of you.

To be fair, my knowledge of Truman Capote pretty much begins and ends with what I learned during this movie. Of course, I already knew that he wrote Breakfast at Tiffany's and In Cold Blood and that both of those books had been turned into successful movies. But beyond that, zilch, zero, nada, niente. But I'd been looking forward to the Oscar-winning tour de force performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman as the eponymous scribe.

The plot is simple: It's 1959, and author Capote goes on a magazine-column mission to report on the shock random murder of an entire family in a small town in the middle of nowhere. But when the perpetrators are tracked down and arrested, Capote's involvement grows, as does the scope of his article, which turns into a book: "the first non-fiction novel".

But he can't finish his book until the legal process is over. The ending of the story dictates the ending of his story, you see. And a string of appeals drags the process out and tries Capote's patience. It is here that we start to see Capote as nothing more than a self-serving arrogant prick, and yet his charm and intelligence are such that you know he would be good fun to hang out with, as long as the booze supply was limited.

I thought this was a truly great film. Naturally Hoffman was a standout. But then he is probably the finest actor working in the world today. Catherine Keener, as Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird, was great, too. I think she is a fantastic actor, and time after time I get so pissed off at how underused she is in everything. People should go to the gallows for the talent they waste when employing her for a job, seriously. And Chris Cooper, too: great job.

In fact, this has landed a spot in my list of Films You Should Watch If You Want To Know How To Act: it's right up there with Citizen Kane and Raging Bull. Kudos to Hoffman.

The film doesn't fully hold up to the lead performance, but then how could it? But I do believe that in years to come we will ask ourselves, "How the hell did Brokeback Mountain beat this to Best Movie?"

The Blog About Nowt score for this flick is a shotgun-pumping 82 out of 100.

And so to Rue Ander, or rather Shooting Dogs, which is set in Rwanda and is about the genocide there in 1994.

It's obvious that I'm going to compare this with Hotel Rwanda, which I watched a wee while back. Much of the background info is obviously the same, but the setting is new: this time we're in a technical college rather than a hotel, and the heroes of the hour are a Catholic priest and his young protegé.

Immediately after watching it, I felt that it wasn't as strong as that other film. For example, I hated the young male lead. Hated, hated, hated. Maybe it's a class thing, but he just came across as an annoying wimpy ponce, which, granted, the script kind of implied he was, when his character says something like: "I grew up with everything, so I came here to give something back. Sometimes I give myself a pat on the shoulder and say, 'You're starring in your own Oxfam ad'." Indeed, he realizes what a terrible cliché he is. Still, it didn't stop me from finding him annoying as fuck.

And John Hurt as the priest. I don't know... I just don't get priests. He just came across as a deluded, crazy old fool.

Of course, all of this can't take away from the horrific situation that people like this were living through. But at the end of the day, most of them walked away back to their safe European homes and left the locals to be machete'd to death. Nice. This period in such recent history should be a huge blot on the UN's conscience. But I fear it is merely indicative of what a shitty, toothless waste of space it really is.

On the plus side, this film at least didn't have the happy Hollywood ending that Hotel Rwanda had (I'm talking within the setting of the film, rather than of the war itself, obviously), and I can't help thinking how much better this film might have been if made by the team behind that other movie and with different actors. (Although even this film had to have a tacked-on "five years later" happy coda.)

Bottom line: Good horrible story, unappealing actors, annoying epilogue. 62 out of 100

To see how these two films rank alongside all the others I've reviewed in these pages, check out this post.

TV sucks; films rule

All I'm doing at the moment is working and watching films. I love watching films. It's way better than watching TV, for example. With a few exceptions, such as great wildlife series that have taken years to make, or the occasional documentary, television is mostly shit. Sure, we all watch the odd reality show or soap or whatever, but deep down we know it's shit. We watch it just for the escapism, or to look at someone less fortunate than ourselves, glad that we're not in their shoes.

But films are art. It may sound shallow, but I can never truly trust someone who says they don't like films. Y'know, people have actually said to me that they can't watch films. They don't have the attention span. Or they're just "not interested". Huh? I don't get that. It doesn't matter what you are into in life, there is a film for you, just as there is a book for you, or a painting, or even a TV show. To simply be "not interested" in films is ridiculous.

So -- didn't you just know it? -- all of this preamble is leading up to yet another film review (such as they are). The film I watched most recently (two nights ago) is a rare second viewing. Rare these days, that is. I used to rewatch films often, but not so much now.

Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is a real class act that works on several levels. Despite being a film noir, this was actually made more than a decade after The Maltese Falcon, and this distance has helped Fuller to get a bit post-modern on the genre. There is a humour throughout the picture that you just don't see much of in those earlier noirs. The speed with which Candy falls in love with Skip, for example, is laughable, but you go with it because you know you're going to get paid off in spades later. But not in Sam Spades, because this is Fuller's world, and the detective can never be the guy you root for.

The plot revolves around some pickpocketed microfilm of US governmental secrets that is on its way to being sold to the Commies. Well, it's 1953, folks, and the red threat was all around. But this isn't really the point. The microfilm is the MacGuffin that drives the story. Don't get me wrong -- the story is slight, but what do you expect in 80 mins?

What you should expect is fun and action and the subversive take that Fuller brings to all his pictures. Never one to shy away from the ugly truth, Fuller takes the Bogart-style slaps across women's faces that are so commonplace in noir and shows us the deep bruising and swollen jaws that follow. The wide-angle tracking shot that Fuller uses to shoot the brawl between Candy and her traitor boyfriend Joey is a real eye-opener. It's brief, but in these days of fast cutting and close-ups and half the time not having a clue where you're supposed to be looking, this approach looks as fresh now as it did then. Gritty and real. A true tussle unfolding before you in real time.

Aaahh, you know, I liked this film. It's not a great film, as I said, in terms of story, but it's a simple tale brilliantly told and expertly made. If you're not familiar with Fuller's work, pour yourself a Scotch on the rocks, get your best dame beside you, and check this out. Shit, even if you like Fuller and you know this film well, why not pour yourself a Scotch on the rocks, get your best dame beside you, and check this out again?

What's the scores on the doors, then? I'll give it 72.

Movie time!

It's been a loooooong time since I did any film reviews (such as they are), so I need to rectify that here. I'll keep it brief, though, because... well, because I don't have much time, to be honest. What little "spare" time (if you can call it that) I had today has already been spent shopping and eating burgers. Mmmm... burgers.

So, dear reader, what have I seen recently? I'll tell you, shall I?

Palindromes
I gotta say, I like director Todd Solondz. This is the fourth film of his that I've seen, and ooh yes I detect a theme. Paedophilia, child abuse, sexual abuse, incest. Indeed, all of the above. Solondz frequently dwells on all of these subjects at length, in the process making incredible, touching pieces of cinema that dare to confront subjects that make people feel uncomfortable. Palindromes takes Solondz's normally realist style into a new direction, though. The lead character is played by several different girls, despite most of the action taking place within a time frame of just a few months. These girls go from black to white and skinny to fat. To be honest, the end effect is nowhere near as frustrating/irritating/whatever as you might imagine. And in many ways it works beautifully, suggesting that this is one girl under discussion, but it could be anyone. Solondz either is your thing or he ain't. He's definitely mine, and I think this is one of his strongest works. I give this a massive 71.

Bombón El Perro
Already reviewed by my dear wife, this film will indeed warm the cockles of your heart -- once it's over. You know what? I found it just a little stressful to watch. You so rarely see films that are this nice and rewarding and optimistic; so when you do, you get the terrible feeling that it's all going to go horribly wrong at every turn! It didn't. Beautiful, both to look at and as a story. 74 points.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
Getting our Halloween viewing off to an early start, we sat down to watch this over the weekend. I really knew nothing about this film, so it was all fresh to me. And I've got to say, I was gripped. What performances! What a tale! What (melo)drama! I love good old movies, and I'm amazed that this one has passed me by for so long. Catch it on TCM or pay to rent the DVD. It's well worth it. Number 73 for this one.

Next: Caché (Hidden) and whatever else we dig up for All Hallow's Eve. Mwuhahahahahahahaha!

Death of a President

Event television, that's how they describe stuff like Death of a President. And even if "they" don't in this particular case, I would.

I'd heard of this movie for the first time just a few short weeks ago, but I didn't realize it was British-made until yesterday. I also didn't realize that it was going to get a theatrical (cinema) release in the US, while we would get a best-seat-in-the-house TV screening.

As ever in my reviews (such as they are), I don't want to give too much away here. The premise of the movie, though, is a look at the sequence of events following the assassination of George W Bush on 19 October 2007, including the arrest of the prime suspect.

This was a compelling movie. Indeed, it was so well made, generally speaking, that it felt totally real. There are some visual effects used here and there -- placing actors playing Secret Service men into scenes with Bush, for example -- but it's handled with expertise and nothing really jars on that front.

The film holds up well, too, in tone and feel in comparison with similar movies, documentaries, etc that we've all seen on the JFK evidence and conspiracies, meaning that it has good "real" feel to it, even though there are a couple of instances where it was perhaps overacted a tiny bit. Nothing too over the top, but just the odd chink in the armour of naturalism.

What is key, though, is how scary are the prospects of what would happen in such a situation. The erosion of personal liberties in the post-9/11 world fully informs this film, and it takes but the smallest of leaps in imagination to guess what type of shit would be acceptable after the assassination of a president in the third millennium.

Stirring stuff, this. I give it 66 out of 100.

Flicks galore

These are the movies I've watched over the past week or so...

Duma
I watched this coming-of-age-with-a-cheetah movie several days ago but have fallen behind somewhat ni the posting of my reviews (such as they are). Wife has already posted her own review, and her opinion pretty much echoes mine on this one. Check it out. I give this movie 60 out of 100.

Eye of the Beholder
To be fair, I didn't watch all of this. By the time I switched it on, about 25 minutes had passed. Even so, I think I am in an okay position to judge, despite the fact that I didn't have the faintest idea what the premise was until I looked it up online. I'm not the world's biggest Ewan McGregor fan, although I think he has put in some fine performances in a handful of films. Given the silliness of this movie, I think he did a pretty good job. He starred opposite Ashley Judd (pictured above). I happen to think Judd is an okay actress, but she wasn't required to do much here but smuggle peanuts once in a while. Not that that wasn't appreciated, but it's hardly acting. A rather disappointing 45.

Message in a Bottle
I have a strange, and largely inexplicable, liking of Kevin Costner. Despite the fact that he's hardly been in a single decent movie for more than a decade, I kind of admire him. It may have something to do with how likable he came across on Inside the Actors Studio when it was his turn to chat with James Lipton. Oops, I guess I've just given away how I feel about this picture, haven't I? Booooooring. Slooooooow. Unsatisfying. That said, if you do find yourself watching it through no fault of your own, Paul Newman does put in a great performance. And it's not as bad as the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I give Message in a Bottle a lowly 33 points.

(By the way, if you've seen both the remake and the original of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, feel free to go here and voice your opinions over which is best. It's been getting pretty heated...)