So, t-shirt designs seem to have added themselves to the things that really annoy me over the last couple of years to the point that there are only one or two high street shops I'll look for my own t-shirts in, with the majority of my t-shirt shopping happening online these days at places like T-Shirt Hell and Last Exit To Nowhere. But this isn't just me being a grumpy old man at 25 (well, not entirely, I reserve the right to be partly grumpy and old), there are good reasons for the t-shirt designs I don't like.1. T-shirts with Mr. Men on them - I like the Mr. Men. I haven't seen anything of the new version of the TV series, but I love the classic series with the late Arthur Lowe (a.k.a. Captain Mainwaring from Dad's Army) narrating and I love the original Roger Hargreaves books. But to my mind, these t-shirts serve no nostalgic purpose. These t-shirts are either bought by "lads" who want a way to be arrogant through their clothing, loosely masked in "wittiness" (as in "Look at me, I'm wearing a t-shirt with a picture of Mr. Strong on it that says 'Mr. Strong' underneath, aren't I a witty bloke, whilst at the same time still actually thinking that I'm fuckin' awesome and actually very strong? I could lift anything you like, just tell me what to lift and I'll fuckin' lift it. That alsatian. I could lift that fuckin' alsatian right above my head with one arm. 'Cos I'm fuckin' strong and I don't give a fuck") or their girlfriends who want to buy them a witty present (as in "I bought my bloke a t-shirt with Mr. Grumpy on it 'cos my bloke's so fuckin' grumpy. It's so funny when he wears it 'cos it's like he's Mr. Grumpy, and he's wearin' Mr. Grumpy, geddit? It goes with his Mr. Strong t-shirt an' all"). All that it achieves is making me think that if you're wearing a Mr. Men t-shirt you're a bit of a twat and you need your humour simple to understand it, i.e. you're a bit thick too.
2. T-shirts with Muppets (and occasionally other children's TV characters) on them accompanied by an inane slogan - really the title for this section should say it all. As with the Mr. Men, I like the Muppets. But these shirts again don't seem to have any real grounding in nostalgia. They just all seem a bit shit. Why does a grown man want a t-shirt that has a picture of a Sesame Street character on it in the first place? And then, to top it off, a generic slogan is slapped on to make the shirt seem a bit "quirky" and "off the wall". But it's not, it's just annoying. Whoever came up with "Vote Ernie" and "Cookie Monster's World Tour 1987" as t-shirt designs is just a bit of a tosser.
3. T-shirts with Oriental writing on them - the picture for this one isn't the best example, as the t-shirts I'm referring to are the ones that have Oriental writing on them for no apparent reason other than whoever designed the t-shirt thought that Oriental writing looks "cool". It's just slapped on the shirt somewhere as part of the design, or an animal or cartoon character has a speech bubble coming off them with some Oriental symbols inside. In a way I find it a little offensive, as I highly doubt that t-shirt designers in the Far East are producing t-shirts with randomly chosen symbols of the Roman alphabet all over them. I just think that, unless you can read the language you're wearing, you shouldn't be wearing it, and anyone who does wear these t-shirts without understanding the words and symbols they're wearing comes across as fairly pretentious.
So there we have it, yet another aspect of popular culture that irritates me a great deal. Coming soon: a rant about chart music.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
I hate your t-shirt
Gathering dust
Charlie Brooker mentions a feeling in this excellent article which I experienced recently also, and which ties in with one of Bambi's recent posts. I had the deep personal revelation that even if no more media is produced from this day, there is too much in existence already that I want to see for me to watch it all. No matter how much of my free time I spend on it (assuming I'm not blessed with immortality or a lottery win), there will be some aspect of entertainment media which I want to experience that I will never find time for.
And on top of that, there is ever more media being generated every day. I've had to stop watching trailers (and not just because they frustrate me), because they taunt me with films I'm never going to see. "Look", they say, "a dark sci fi thriller with a good script - no chance you'll ever get to watch it, even though it's probably amazing". "And look at this, a modern action film with incredible special effects - you know you'd enjoy it, but you'll never persuade yourself to spare the time because there are so many more worthy films to see. I bet you haven't even watched Raging Bull yet, have you...". Apparently shouting at the trailers to shut up is grounds for removal in some cinemas.
Anyway, it struck me reading Brooker's article (and Bambi's post) that if buying stuff I'll never watch is stupid, then everyone buying the same things they'll never watch is multiply stupid. Even buying a film in case you want to watch it starts to feel a little dubious when there is almost total availability of films for free, if not online, then on other people's shelves.
What we need is a system whereby a group of people (say "friends") who are able to meet up (say "locally") arrange within themselves that they won't buy a DVD that another one of them already has. Instead, if they want to watch it, they can arrange a time to borrow and watch their friend's copy. With n people involved, they either spend n times less on DVDs, or have access to n times as many DVDs as before. And best of all, the purchases are actually used. There's very little point in me owning a copy of a film (even the best film in the world *cough*Primer*cough*), if I watch it once and then it sits on my shelf forever. A product that serves no purpose for 99.99% of it's life is not something that we should all be buying and filling our homes with identical copies of. If all your neighbours bought copies of that soup can painting by Warhol and kept them under the bed, only taking them out for a few minutes a year to look at, you'd think they were mental. Far better if I own a film and yet it gets watched by various people all the time.
For an added benefit, if nobody is watching the film, sell it on ebay. If you want to watch it again in the future, borrow a copy, or buy it back. Second hand films won't depreciate much, so you shouldn't lose any money if you then simply sell it again afterwards. Obviously if a film is likely to become scarce in the future, then hanging onto a copy or two is a good idea, but in general I think the principle is that millions of copies of the same DVDs are sitting on shelves all over the world not being watched and it makes no sense. There's nothing to be done about consumerism in general, but there are surely more efficient things we can do in our own lives that make more sense.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
'Tube or not 'Tube
A horrendous and tenuous pun as a title for this post, but never mind. I thought I'd share a few of my favourite cinematic representations of arguably the most famous moment in any of Shakespeare's plays. I'm talking about Hamlet's soliloquy at the start of Act 3 Scene 1 of Hamlet, usually known as the "to be or not to be" speech. If you're not familiar with the story of Hamlet, firstly shame on you, and secondly have a read of Wikipedia's synopsis before you continue.
Olivier's Hamlet (1948)
Largely traditional in his presentation of this famous scene, Olivier's portrayal of the troubled prince is still incredibly powerful. In many ways very simple, but hugely effective at the same time. Throughout the whole thing, Hamlet is very clearly considering killing himself either by chucking himself into the sea or by stabbing himself, and Olivier really makes you believe that he might do it at any moment. Despite being over sixty years old, the simple camera effects help set the scene well, and focus on the fractured mind of Hamlet at this point in the play.
Branagh's Hamlet (1996)
Branagh's four-hour long uncut film version of Hamlet is my favourite version of the play, possibly my favourite Shakespearean film and certainly one of my favourite films ever. However, on the surface, Branagh's version of "to be or not to be" seems relatively unimpressive compared to what it could be in Branagh's cinematic epic. On closer inspection it's a masterclass in subtlety by the actor and director. Despite not wearing his emotion on his sleeve, the intensity of Branagh's performance belies the prince's mental state. Add to this that he is looking at his reflection the whole time, plus the fact that the mirror is in fact two-way and Claudius (played by Derek Jacobi) is looking into Hamlet's eyes throughout the entire thing, and the speech has gone from underplayed and unspectacular to being woven into an incredibly complex and cerebral moment in the film.
Hawke's Hamlet (2000)
Director Michael Almereyda's postmodern Hamlet, even if it is not entirely consistent or successful in what it attempts, is compelling viewing (and definitely worth a look if you enjoyed Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet or 10 Things I Hate About You). However, Ethan Hawke's version of the Act 3 Scene 1 speech is my favourite of all. Hawke's troubled film geek walking down the "Action" aisle in Blockbusters, the genre name displayed all around him in exquisite irony and beautiful cinematography, is simply sublime. As Hawke's Hamlet walks back and forth between screens displaying violence and explosions and a sign telling him to "GO HOME HAPPY", I can't help but grin at the way Shakespeare's script is simultaneously being turned on its head and adhered to so very closely, even referenced in its own portrayal.
A slightly (alright, very) Shakespeare-geeky entry, but you guys can put up with them every so often. To finish, one of the best moments from so-so '90s action comedy The Last Action Hero, with Arnold Schwarzenegger uttering the infamous line. Enjoy.
Rubbish Mail
So I've been having a pretty frustrating time with the Post Office lately. The whole system for getting parcels delivered seems pretty inflexible given that most people are going to be out of their homes during working hours. Every time I order something online, I put in my address in the almost certain knowledge that someone will try to deliver the parcel when I'm not there, and that seems crazy. Every time I order something, I know I'm going to have to get up early and go to the depot before work. And so will everyone else, so there will be ten people there before the depot is even open.
So everyone who works standard hours ends up standing in a queue in the freezing cold for an hour to get their parcels. That's not delivery, that's collection, and given how big of an issue it must be, it seems very strange that there is no alternative.
For some people, getting the delivery at their work is an option, but for others it is not. My workplace doesn't have a post room, and large volumes of employee mail can be frustrating for the administrative staff to deal with, so we are asked to avoid doing it if possible. This leaves me with no option but to pay for Saturday delivery (and many sites don't even have that option) if I want to ensure I'm at home when a package arrives, and that seems like an unacceptable solution for something that must be a common problem.
I'd love to see some way of registering with Royal mail that I am out during the day. If enough people signed up (and surely there are enough people to make it worthwhile doing), alternative deliveries could be made to those addresses in the evenings or early mornings, at a time better suited for all.
If someone still wasn't home, then the parcel could be returned to the depot for collection or redelivery as standard. Even at the depot, though, things seem archaic. There is no computer system in place, and no package tracking, in any Royal Mail depot I've been to - the parcels are piled in a back room ordered (as far as I can tell) by postcode and size, and then when someone requests their package, the attendant has to search (occasionally unsuccessfully) to find it. Even if a fully computerised system is not possible, at the very least, there should be a better way of tracking down a particular package than sifting through stacks of them in a room. Some sort of unique code on each card that could be copied onto the parcel, allowing it to be filed in an exact location in the storage area, for example. Anything to avoid turning up and being told "Sorry, mate, I don't know where your parcel is - try again later in the week". That's not the way to run a public service, or at least not one that is concerned with customer satisfaction.
Striking postmen may be a major issue in the news at the moment, but in terms of getting hold of parcels, I'm not sure my experience will change that much if they do stop working.
Anyway, if I really want to get my post delivered at a particular time, I can always pay 3 grand a year for the privilege.
Monday, 12 October 2009
File under: "to watch"
Some would say that I own a lot of DVDs. Others may say I own too many DVDs. Whilst that is entirely based in opinion, my DVD collection is something of which I am proud. It's taken a while to build up, mainly compiled through the fact that if I enjoy a film or a TV series (or indeed anything else that you can buy on DVD) enough, then I like to own it. At least, most of my DVDs fall into that category. But there is a significant fraction of my collection that I've bought, or have had bought for me, that I haven't seen before and now own with the intention of watching. And here is where the problem lies. A lot of the DVDs in this fraction have been there for quite some time. A few have crossed over as I get round to watching them, becoming films that I have seen and enjoyed and own to watch again at a future date, but not as many as I would like.
So why do these DVDs remain unwatched? It's certainly not because I don't want to watch them. I really, really do want to watch all of them, as they are all things that I would love to see rather than just hear about or have a vague idea of. Looking at it objectively, I suppose it is a combination of things. The first is that I live in a DVD democracy. When Hayley and I have time to sit down and watch a film, we first have to agree on what we're going to watch. Not a problem as such, but this does mean that some of my DVDs are automatically consigned firmly to the "watching on my own" list. This list includes Apocalypse Now, Lions For Lambs and my Alien & Predator "Total Destruction" box set. As I said, a reason but not a problem, as Hayley and I have enough films that we both enjoy that we can watch together and plenty that we both want to see that we haven't already.
The second reason is what we shall call the "ease of watching" factor. Within the "watching on my own" list, there are those DVDs that, despite being films and series that I really want to watch, and despite having been recommended to me by countless friends and reliable sources, I really have to be in the right mood to be able to watch them. I'm sure this mood will turn up at an opportune moment some day. But so far, when I've been at work all day having braved Staffordshire's public transport system there and back, this mood has never come upon me on a weekday evening. And with weekends rightfully given over to the DVD democracy, this leaves very little time when these films have a chance to be watched. On this list we can find such unwatched gems as Apocalypto, Raging Bull, the entire Sergio Leone Dollars trilogy, and numerous Akira Kurosawa films.
If I wanted to, I could force myself to watch these DVDs even when I'm not in the right mood to do so, and see what happens. But part of me feels that these films and series deserve better than that. They deserve to have me watching them when I'm in the right frame of mind to fully appreciate them. If I started watching them and switched off halfway through simply because I wasn't mentally in the right place to take them in and enjoy them, I'd feel very disappointed in myself and possibly ruin the chance and experience of watching them at a later date. Is it laziness? I honestly don't think so. But it is a quandary out of which at the moment I don't have a pleasing route.
Mark Twain said, in reference to literature: "A classic is something everybody wants to have read, but no one wants to read". I think this in a way is the case for me and some of my DVDs. I wish I had already watched those ones that are sitting on my shelf longing to be viewed and enjoyed, because at the moment, the chances they receive for being viewed are few and far between. One day they will have their moment of glory in the DVD player, and no doubt I will wonder why I had waited so long to watch them.
Review: Pointless (TV)
I watched the last episode of Pointless on iPlayer today. It's a game show that I'd not been aware of at all before now, but the concept is intriguing. Contestants compete in pairs to give answers to a question that will have many correct responses (such as "Name an EU currency replaced by the Euro"). Each contestant gives one answer in turn and gets points for it. At the end of the round the team with the highest points is eliminated. Yes, highest points.
Before the show, 100 members of the public were given 100 seconds to answer the same questions the contestents are given, and the score given to the contestents is equal to the number of people who gave that answer in the survey. So by coming up with an obscure answer, contestents will score fewer points and survive to the next round. Obvious answers score higher and are more dangerous, while wrong answers automatically score 100 points.
I like the concept a lot - in the manner of all good game shows, it rewards trivia knowledge, with the twist that even being right isn't always enough. Seeing how many members of the public thought of that answer is interesting, and there is an analysis of the best and worst answers that could have been picked at the end of the round, which is also entertaining. The show itself is fine, and I'd be happy to watch it or a variation on it again. The problem I have with it is the presentation.
Pointless is 45 minutes long. The actual content of the show would take about 25 minutes, maybe even less, but there is a lot of totally needless time wasting. There are interviews with the contestents beforehand, which seems to be a new strategy in quiz shows, perhaps to get a better connection between public and contestent, but it is one that frustrates me. I'm happy to know the name, age and occupation of the contestents, but any more information about them seems to be window dressing. The point of the show is for them to compete against one another in trivia, and we don't need to know anything more about them to enjoy that competition. Or at least what we could learn in a two minute "interview" is unlikely to be enough to make us empathise with them, and yet wastes 10 minutes of the programme.
In addition, there is a lot of explaining and re-explaining the rules, and a lot of totally needless tension building. I like Alexander Armstrong, who presents it, in his comedy show, but in this he wastes so much time that I start to irrationally despise him. He seems to pop up between each answer and state something totally obvious about the rules or the scores. And the scores pop up so often it's unreal. There is no need to spend a minute of the programme reminding us of the scores in detail every half-round. We can remember 5 numbers. If you're that worried about us forgetting, put them on the screen the whole time, but don't bore us by constantly bombarding us with filler material.
Anyway, the upshot of all this time-wasting is that you get one topic per round, rather than the two or three you would get if the pace was a little more urgent, which means people who might have a really good knowledge base can get caught out and eliminated without having shown what they can do. Multiple questions per round would force people to be consistent to get through, and would seem fairer to those who do get eliminated, since they'll have more chances.
The situation we have in the final round in the episode I linked above is a good example. The contestents had to name Premier League football grounds, and it was obvious from the first two answers who was going to win the round, since one team obviously knew far more obscure grounds than the other. The rest of the round was just a totally unneccesary exercise in dragging the result out.
Basically, I don't see why it had to be that long, and the sooner television escapes from the frustratingly simplistic idea of linear scheduling, and allows programmes to be as long or as short as they need or want to be, the better. I don't care if a show is 37 minutes rather than 30 when I'm watching it in my own time rather than when a network says I can, so there's no need to cut good elements or pad with poor ones. And the sooner shows like Pointless can be made without the needless filler, the happier we'll all be.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
9 things I learned this weekend
Sorry, but I had a ridiculously fun and tiring weekend, and am in no state to do anything beyond a bullet-point post. (P.S. Happy birthday for yesterday, Bambi).
It is possible for me to get up at 5:30 am. It is not fun.'night all. :)
The AA journey planner can be disarmingly inexact about where to turn off to get to your destination.
Some roads go a long, long way before giving you and opportunity to turn around.
It is not particularly reassuring to hear the B&B manager say "Don't worry about getting back late - we never lock the door anyway".
It is strangely thrilling to run across a dual carriageway at night.
My jeans are not loose enough to allow me to vault the central barrier of a dual carriageway with any sort of dignity.
While a full English breakfast and a bag of Haribo is technically enough to sustain me until 8 o'clock at night, it does leave me hungry enough to literally eat anything that is in the fridge when I get home.
Eating a big slice of cheese on an essentially empty stomach is not the greatest idea in the world.
Writing a blog post when every cell in my body is telling me to just curl up and go to sleep does not engender creativity.
Review: "Up"
My experience of Pixar films has largely been positive, but the studio has by no means a flawless record with me. I've never been disappointed with their animation, as in my opinion when it comes to computer wizardry at the cinema, Pixar set the standard and are the ones to beat. The key, for me, to the success of Pixar's films is their ability to weave such emotion into the stories they tell, producing characters who you truly care about. Their last feature, Wall-E, is a prime example of Pixar doing this at their very best, as my review of that film explains. Any film that can make you care about a robot that looks like a box and his cockroach friend is a triumph. Ratatouille, which directly preceded Wall-E in the Pixar timeline, is almost the direct opposite. The animation, as I said before, was top notch, at times mind-blowing. But I just didn't care about the characters. I was never given any reason to do so.
So heading into the cinema to watch Up, I was unsure of exactly how I would be feeling the ninety or so minutes later when the credits rolled. In many ways, Up presents us again with a similar set-up to Pixar's past tales: Ratatouille gave us a rat and his unlikely companion, a young chef; Wall-E presents the eponymous robot and his insect chum; and in Up, our hero is a grumpy, elderly widower, and his companion a loquacious boy scout. Not the most obvious choice for a duo set for an adventure involving a floating house and the jungles of South America. But the way that co-directors Pete Docter and Bob Peterson make the film work from the very first scene to the last, is by making you care - and care a great deal - about the characters being presented to you.
So, within the first twenty minutes of the film, Carl Fredricksen has not just been introduced to the audience as the film's main character, but through a beautiful segment cataloguing the life of Carl and his late wife, you know such a great deal about Carl and why he's so cantankerous at times that you can't do anything else but care about everything that happens to him for the rest of the film. In less skilled hands, Carl's initially futile attempts to save his house from a major construction company's wrecking ball would simply seem like straightforward comedy, producing a laugh and not much more; under the control of Docter and Peterson, you see it as an old man's staunch attempt to preserve his memories of the woman he loved his entire life, and still loves now. You still laugh, but you also understand more deeply exactly why it's happening, and have a reason to root for Carl every step of the way.
The supporting players receive a similar treatment. Boy scout Russell could very easily have been an incredibly annoying character throughout the film, but again the way his story is presented makes him loveable and, most importantly, believeable. Even Kevin and Dug, a giant bird and a "talking" dog respectively, despite clearly being primarily there for laughs, are given stories so that we care about them too. The characters wouldn't be there, of course, without the actors providing their voices, and thankfully these performances are all of a very high quality too. Funny and touching in the right measure and at the right time, truly bringing the computer generated sprites to life and making them feel incredibly real. The villain, Charles Muntz and his technologically enhanced pooches, are slightly less fleshed out and played more for laughs, but again they feel authentic and provide ample antagonists for our heroes.
Ultimately, Up rarely puts a foot wrong. Beautiful images, a fairly simple but highly imaginative story, and that intangible Pixar magic come together enchantingly. Things slow down at one point during the beginning of the second act, and the ending was ever so slightly oversimple considering the adventure that had preceded it, but these really are minor niggles in what is yet another triumph for Pixar. Fourteen years after Toy Story was first released (a fact that makes me feel very old), the master storytellers are still conjuring original and infectious modern fairytales for (and featuring) both the young and the old. The animation is unquestionably still flawless, but, most importantly of all, I still care a great deal about whoever (or whatever) Pixar decide to tell a story about. Up is a cinematic wonder, and I'm already looking forward to Pixar's next film.
9/10
The death of the book?
Two things on the Guardian website today make interesting reading: first it's Angela Merkel decrying Google's attempts to put every book everever online so they can be searchable. She is, it seems to me, rightly worried about the implications for copyright protection.
The second is one writer's negative experience negative of the new Kindle.
In its own defence, Google has apparently said it wants to put all these books online in order to make out of print and rare books accessible. That's as maybe, but unless there's some sort of system that stops you from being able to view the whole book in one hit, it does seem to be just mass copyright theft.
Google styles itself as a champion of information freely accessible to all, yet it restricts search engines in China, in order to get in in the first place, and while they are providing other people's information for free, they are making a killing. You can understand why people like Rupert Murdoch (quoted in the Guardian article) are getting a little pissed off with this.
It has been argued that music piracy doesn't kill music, because people who actually like the music make a point of buying it after having perhaps sampled it illegally. With technology like Kindle it does seem that this is already possible for books but, and admittedly this is anecdotal, is doesn't seem that the technology is quite there.
The writer of the Guardian piece doesn't like the screen because it's grey. This is to avoid backlighting, which is hard on the eyes after a long time, apparently. And the Kindle itself is a bit like iTunes used to be before it got rid of its DRM (and is a bit like Apple generally in that it only works with its own software and formats). By the sound of it, the Sony Reader is a much better designed e-book and can handle a multiplicity of formats. And if you've got an iPhone or iPod touch, you can read Kindle books on those because, I suspect, it's economically prudent, for Amazon to allow it.
If I ever buy an e-book, it's not going to be for a while. What I want from my all purpose device for books, music, internet, phone, computing and TV is just not there yet. Lack of backlight is certainly an attractive proposition. But, unsurprisingly, this makes it difficult to read in the dark. But why can't everything be like that? If they can invent electronic paper without a glare, why isn't someone working on an equivalent for the internet? With the option of lighting if required. I wrote three years ago now about what sort of multimedia device I wanted, and there's still nothing that fits that description. Come on techgeeks, get those thinking caps on.
I think digital is the future. But as for the argument that something like Kindle is better for the environment, I am sceptical. I have a friend who works in environmental engineering. I asked him once if the digital adverts they have up the sides of some escalators in the tube were better for the environment than all the stick-up ads. He said it was highly unlikely given how much power they used. Ok, Kindle is a different type of screen, but it would be good if someone did a proper study into it.
Fundamentally, I like the feel of a book in my hand. I like the way they get slightly battered the more and more I read them. I like the sense of accomplishment I feel as I survey the many tomes I have ploughed my way through. And I'm also a compulsive hoarder. I like the cover illustrations and the fact that you don't have to plug them in or charge them up, they are just there. And they're more tangible. Along with letters, newspapers and now books, the evidence of our society and our way of life is disappearing. Maybe we don't necessarily need to leave a record of ourselves for future generations, but we always have up to now and it's provided us with a fascinating insight into how humanity and our culture has evolved. What are we going to do, set up some archive system that prints a set number of things just so we copies? It could be the Time Capsule Institute or something.
For all these reasons, I shall be sad when/if books disappear for good.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Twenty five things I've learned in twenty five years
Bit of a cop out entry, but as it's my birthday today I haven't spent a huge amount of time either on my laptop or thinking about blog posts. So, here's my list...
1. Do all the reading you can before you begin your career. Once that's started, books become ornamental rather than things you actually read.
2. The fact that there are always more CDs you can add to your collection does not necessarily guarantee that you'll always have something that you want to listen to.
3. The older you get, the less you care about what other people think and the more you care about what you think.
4. No matter how much you think you and your cat have a loving, trusting relationship, he will always at some point scratch the living hell out of part of your body for no apparent reason.
5. Robbie Williams was, is, and always will be, shit.
6. You will always call (or think of) your own school teachers as "sir" and "miss", even when you have become a teacher yourself.
7. No matter how much cutting down, trimming, culling and simplifying you do, you can never quite bring yourself to entirely delete your Facebook account once you have one.
8. Spam email will eventually find your new email address.
9. American English will never find a more irritating nonsensical idiom than "I could care less".
10. Even if you know in your heart of hearts that reality TV is complete cack, you will end up getting drawn into the voyeurism of it if it is playing on a screen in the vicinity of your vision.
11. The more you stare at it, the more you believe the word "from" shouldn't be a real word.
12. Nothing has a more worthwhile price-to-fun ratio than putting Mentos in cheap bottles of diet cola.
13. If there are no significant advances in telecommunications, eventually the letters F and S will be replaced with one new member of the alphabet.
14. The word "awesome" will never be able to fully regain its original connotations thanks to '90s youth culture.
15. Sequels are rarely better than the original film, but those sequels that manage it are some of the best films ever made.
16. Once you've watched The West Wing, you'll compare every other TV drama series to it.
17. Few words in the English language hold more influence when placed together than these four: "All you can eat".
18. Farts are, and always will be, hilarious (whether you are honest enough to admit it or not).
19. Finding something that you and someone you have just met can both quote from copiously and with ease is one of the quickest ways to break the ice and make friends.
20. Some of the best words in English really are the four letter ones.
21. Even though they are all exactly the same amount of time apart, some ages sound a lot older than the one before them.
22. Dinosaurs were, are, and always will be, awesome.
23. You will always have mornings where, in the first five minutes of being awake, you imagine all the feasible ways you could get out of going to work, before succumbing to reality and getting on with your morning routine with five minutes less than you should have.
24. Fast food is bad. But you will still always have times that you crave it (anyone who claims that they don't has either never tried it or is a compulsive liar).
25. No matter how settled into the idea of being perpetually single you ever become, you will never be able to predict how much more wonderful meeting the person who you fall in love with will be.
Pointlessly visual.
You may well already have seen it, but if you like David Mitchell, you should definitely check out David Mitchell's soapbox - a weekly 5-minute monologue where he talks about whatever issue particularly appeals to him, released in the form of a video podcast. The topics range from man flu to flowers to eliminating waste, and Mitchell brings his usual mix of quiet, erudite slightly-naive-upper-middle-class-British-liberal ranting and interesting and insightful connections and opinions that anyone who reads his guardian column/blog will be used to. The segments are short enough that there's no time for him to run out of ideas, and so it's generally five minutes of very enjoyable comedy.
The only problem I have with it is its format. I don't really see why it needs to be a video, when the whole thing is David sitting in front of a greenscreen talking. Topical imagery floats along aimiably behind him, and occasionally he ends up as part of the picture himself, but the video aspect really adds nothing to the shows. I can't necessarily guarentee that, because I stopped watching them after a few episodes and just started listening. It's just as funny coming through your ears only, with the added advantage that you can do something else with your eyes.
I'm not sure whether it was a desire to be groundbreaking and go beyond mere podcasting, or whether it was felt that his spiel would be more affecting coming out of a visible mouth, or perhaps his publicist feels that his appearance is a vital element of his comedy. Whatever the reason, I disagree. I love the 'casts, and I hope he does more of them. Preferably in audio form, though, so that they don't take quite so much time to download.
If they were longer and more frequent, I certainly wouldn't be complaining either, but I'll settle for just more of them. And if you haven't seen any, go find them now - they're on iTunes and online, here.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Review: "Inglourious Basterds"
Let me add a disclaimer to this review before I get going. Anyone who knows me knows I'm a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino and his work. That said, when reviewing a film, I do my utmost to remain unbiased and evaluate what I'm watching from an objective viewpoint. So I am being entirely honest when I state that Inglourious Basterds is a mesmerising and astounding piece of cinema.
Brad Pitt is flawless as Aldo Raine, bringing the perfect balance of humour and menace to his character. Raine is the leader of the eponymous crew, and from his first appearance on screen Pitt owns the role in a unique delivery, simultaneously hilarious and disturbing. The supporting players do so admirably, and Tarantino's choice of largely unknown actors (not within European cinema, but certainly to me and presumably the vast majority of IB's audience) adds a feel of authenticity. Whilst a small part of the cast, who may or may not be Eli Roth, feel like they've been cast simply because they're mates with QT, this takes nothing away from the film. There isn't an actor or actress who doesn't give a great turn throughout the film, but within this cornucopio of solid performances - ranging from a short but powerful turn by Michael Fassbender to a cheeky but worthwhile cameo by Mike Myers - it is Christoph Waltz who gives the standout performance, stealing every scene he's in and out-acting even the heavyweight Pitt. Waltz's performance is masterful, captivating and indescribable, and the character he creates - the toe-curlingly uncomfortable "Jew Hunter" Colonel Hans Landa, who drips smarm from every pore - is one of cinema's unforgettable villains, and one of Tarantino's finest creations.
The plot takes a little while to take hold, reflecting the frenetic journey this film has taken to the screen in the first couple of chapters. However, once things get going they don't let up for a second. From the first scene, in which the tension is unbearably tangible from the opening lines, to the literally awesome finale, the film runs the gamut of emotions, styles, genres and homages without missing a beat and nailing each and every one. Tarantino has created a truly brilliant film which sets the bar high for what it aims to achieve. In a less skilled pair of hands, and borne from a less masterful mind, this film could have been a two-and-a-half hour mess. Instead, Tarantino has created a fantastic cinematic masterpiece. Watch this film.
10/10
Don't hold the front page
One of the amusing aspects of my job is the number of e-mails we get at work telling us how to enlarge our penises or where to buy cheap viagra. Given that both me and my fellow journalist at arms are female, it usually gives us a chuckle or two, especially when the author appears to be only semi-literate in English.
Take this example, the subject line was "Never bone-off!"
Swallow one doze and tell your girl to get down on all fours! Tonight your bedroom will be a hotter place than sun surface! Enter the universe of amorous might and endurance! Try this mix! You will make love like you only did in fantasies! Try today! Continue taking her until the night will be over! This mix will burn you from inside, creating mighty wave of desire! More than 100000 of men worldwide trust their carnal well-being to our products! Easy method to make you a Super Man with ladies! Your lovegun can't be feeble with our supplements! Arousal is fast and mighty with our vigor-pilules.
What's a pilule? A cross between a pill and pustule? Call me crazy, but I don't want to be burned from the inside by a small capsule of pus that can be taken internally. Although entering the universe of amorous might and endurance doesn't sound too bad.
Then there's the press releases masquerading as news. They're often surveys carried out by private companies with some sort of angle to push, and hey, in the instance, it's going to have worked -at least in publicity terms - because here I am writing about it.
According to a survey for Confused.com more people in Britain are confused as to why Cheryl Cole stays with Ashley Cole than they are by credit card interest rates. What the hell does this have to do with Confused, which is after all a comparison site? Bugger all as far as I can see, but if anyone prints it, it helps insert them into people's consciousness. Because anyone writing it would have to say where the information came from, otherwise the story would be somewhat thin.
Apparently they surveyed 4,979 people between the ages of 16 and 65 living the length and breadth of the country. But they don't tell you which country, they refer to "Brits" but nothing specific is said. Does this mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Were the population of Eire canvassed as to what they were confused about? We don't know.
This press release tells us precisely nothing of use, except maybe for a lazy generalisation that those who answered the survey should perhaps start worrying about more important things.
For your information, the top 50 most confusing things according to this survey were:
1. Foreign call centres - are they actually confusing? It's fairly obvious why we have them, it's cheaper. Don't people just find them inconvenient?
2. Algebra - Without current maths lessons, I am with them on this one.
3. What women see in Russell Brand - it's the androgyny, and it's a generally accepted urban myth women are more likely to be bisexual than men.
4. Why Cheryl Cole is still with Ashley - because she's an idiot/has low self-esteem/doesn't care that he's a cheating scumbag? None of the above? Why do you even care?
5. Credit card interest rates
6. Buying a house
7. Politics
8. The laws of cricket - "Laws of cricket" What? Is cricket some sort of universal physical maxim now?
9. Insurance policies
10. Loan interest rates
11. Football's offside rule - It's perfectly simple, all it says is that there must be at least one player of the opposing team between a striker and the goalie when the striker has entered the scoring area. Or when I knew what it meant, that's what it meant, Unless it's changed recently? But you see, I'm not confused, I'm just potentially ignorant.
12. Religion
13. Converting currency
14. Languages
15. Filling out insurance forms
16. Setting up wireless networks
17. Men
18. Stephen Hawking's theories
19. Figuring out nutritional information on food labels
20. Kerry Katona - I'm confused, why is she on this list?
21. All the different lottery draws
22. Fixing printers
23. Predictive text
24. Poker
25. Twitter
26. Small print - Well d'uh. That's the whole POINT of small print.
27. Automated phone systems
28. Why and how Stonehenge was built - This isn't confusing, it's just unknown.
29. Women
30. Donnie Darko - Fair point.
31. Filling out passport forms
32. Reverse parallel parking - I don't get confused by this, I know exactly where I go wrong, I'm just not very good at it.
33. Clocks going back / forward - Really? Really really?
34. Packaging on kids toys - You're shitting me, aren't you?
35. Crop Circles - Urm, it's a circular pattern, in some crops. Which bit of this is confusing you?
36. Computers
37. Birmingham's Spaghetti Junction
38. Train fares
39. Fruit machines
40. People who crack their knuckles - How is that confusing? They're just people who like making freaky noises with their hands.
41. Reading a map
42. Re-tuning the TV
43. The M25
44. Train timetables
45. Setting an alarm on a cooker/oven
46. In the Night Garden
47. Reading a train timetable
48. Magic Roundabout in Swindon
49. The tube - Hah, lies.
50. Fax machines
And lastly, in our round-up of not news, we have: The BRUGO mug.
"Are you looking for that perfect gift that looks cool and has a real wow factor? Look no further that the Innovative and unique BRUGO Travel Mug.
The BRUGO travel mug is an innovative solution designed with tea and coffee-lovers in mind. Spero Pavlos reached the end of his tether one morning while trying to drink a fresh cup of coffee. Sitting in his car, he removed the lid to cool it slightly... the cup slipped. Coffee spilled and spattered all over his clothes and his new car. Spero then embarked on a mission to find a solution that plagued every tea and coffee drinker on the go. BRUGO was born."
So he set out to invent a product that made it easier for you to drive dangerously? Ok, I'll admit this press release doesn't explicitly mention the car being driven, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I read it. Anyone driving and drinking coffee and being upset when they spill it over themselves just seems a little stupid to me.
It continues: "Until now, tea and coffee lovers faced a compromise - either by blowing on it, adding ice, waiting patiently or burning your mouths but no more. With Brugo you can drink your tea or coffee immediately, yes! no more waiting 20 minutes! It's so simple to use, just Tip & Cool or Sip."
Ok, so I know I don't drink tea or coffee, but I've never known anyone who did put ice in it to cool it down...
"Brugo is the evolution of thermal travel mugs and is the only one to have the Innovative Perfect Temperature Zone technology.
The Brugo Travel Mug has 3 lid settings:
Tip & Cool: Tip your 450ml BRUGO away from you and then swill in a circular motion, this reduces the temperature of one mouthful whilst the remaining beverage stays hot.
Lock: the Mug is locked and spill proof.
Sip: Drink directly from the central chamber."
If it works, it's neat, but it still seems an awful lot of effort to go to. And what are you going to do in a coffee house? Hand it over and say "What ho barista! I demand you furnish me with hot beverage of choice in my own receptacle!"?
"With BRUGO by your side, you will never again have to wait before you can drink your tea and coffee! And in its own gift box it is the perfect cool present this Christmas especially in the current fiscal climate."
Yes, in these straitened times, this delightful coffee-drinking contraption will set you back a mere £14.99. From www.brugomug.co.uk.
Snort. Yes. Well. Laters.
My week in superlatives
This post may be a little bit of cop-out. I'm away over the weekend at a Warhammer tournament, so not only have I got to come up with three posts today, but a lot of my free time has been spent preparing for that, rather than thinking up interesting blog topics. Without further ado, then:
The creepiest thing I experienced this week: Turning a corner in Tooting at night to find twenty workmen in fluorescent jackets standing completely still and completely silent, staring at me...
The funniest thing I experienced this week: Being at the counter in a post office when it started to rain, and turning round to find the neat queue behind me that had stretched outside when I began my transaction had turned into a silent mass of damp people crammed into the small room and all staring at me.
The most frustrating thing I experienced this week: Having to get up early to get to the post office before work three times to retrieve two parcels. The second time, I got there ten minutes after they opened, and was waiting for 50 minutes. The third time I got there before they opened, and was still 15th in the queue.
The most disgusting thing I experienced this week: Tasting "Deep Heat". The deep-clensing muscle feeling does not translate well to the tongue.
The most embarrassing thing I experienced this week: Coding a bug which caused potentially sensitive patient data to be sent to random people in the NHS.
The most satisfying thing I experienced this week: Spending six hours slowly tracking down the cause of an incredibly frustrating problem in the software, only to be able to fix it by changing 8 characters in a source file.
The most fun I experienced this week: Playing 5-a-side football on a rutted pitch that was essentially ploughed and then dried to a rock hard finish. Added to this, half the pitch was a steep slope down which chasing the ball was an exercise in futility and the other half was full of knee-high stalks poking out of the ground that would stop the ball dead when they hit it. Fortunately (somehow) no one broke an ankle while playing. Then we went back at night and played again in pitch darkness.
Most my blogathon score has been this week: 9
I have somewhere to live
Hurrah
But first a bit of back-story:
About 5 months ago we were coming to the end of our 12-month tenancy agreement and agreed with our landlady on a one month revolving contract whereby either of us could give one months notice and then the other party would either have to find new tenants or leave the flat.
Ha hah we thought, our landlady lives in America and seems a few bills away from complete bankruptcy so we can happily and lazily look for somewhere we might like to live whilst she relies on our tenancy as one the only things providing her with food and water. Then when we've found a suitable, ground floor, large-roomed, quiet-streeted, train-accessible flat we can simply up sticks.
But it turns out our landlady was not as debt-riddled as we thought and also not as in-America as we thought and one month ago she phoned to say she would very much like to move back into her flat and so could we please vacate the premises within one month. Suddenly our search for a property took on a severe sense of urgency which was not helped by estate agent incompetence (see earlier blog). Anyway we've now found somewhere and whilst not perfect it fits all the criteria above and crucially didn't have people moving into it the next day (as was true of one property we were shown - yes, really).
So the moral of the story is first making agreements that you think only help you can sometimes come and bite you in the arse and also estate agents are useless (bit of a recurring moral there but I feel it needs reiterating).
Thursday, 8 October 2009
You have been responded to
Aha - cleverly, rather than responding to Bambi's post with a comment, I'll make a post out of it, and thus fill my quota for the day.
As has been mentioned, I'm a real fan of Charlie Brooker - I feel he is unabashedly honest and straightforward in his views and appearance, and as well as having the quick-wittedness and sense of humour to back up his comedic leanings, he never believes his own hype, and is marked through and through with sarcastic cynicism combined with good old fashioned British pessimistic self-abasement.
So, You Have Been Watching. A panel show with a difference. Or... not, really. Just a panel show. A panel show which seems confused about whether it is a platform for Brooker's acerbic analysis, or a more general exercise in poking fun at TV. Brooker gets so much screen time that his guests often seem insignificant onlookers - occasionally with a point to make, but regularly one not as funny or relevant as the ones that Brooker makes.
I take issue with the idea that Bambi put forward that the show "uses the panel show format fairly loosely and rips it apart at the same time." I saw no evidence of the "ripping apart" of the panel show format in the programme (though admittedly I didn't see all of the episodes, so maybe it turned up later on), simply a panel show that was... just being a panel show. Maybe all of the very clever elements of the show that undermine the done-to-death strategy of assigning arbitrary points to professional-panel-show-guests passed me by, but I really didn't see anything of the sort. I would love to see Brooker given free reign to produce a really subversive panel show, and I believe that he would produce something groundbreaking and ingenious, but this is certainly not it.
Bambi also says "If nothing else, it's used so that Brooker doesn't have to explain why he and three other people are sitting there talking about TV programmes each week". I don't really understand why Charlie should have to explain this. I want to do a post about panel shows in the future, so I won't labour it too much, but what is the point? Why should we have this structure imposed on the Screenwipe idea, when all it does is dilute the things that can be done, and add in people who aren't as funny as the presenter, and overlay a totally unecessary studio audience? There's just no way that this is better than Screenwipe. We get less analysis, lower production values, fewer insights and less invention, all for the gain of a few cheap jokes from people who are seen so regularly behind desks with point scores on them that they might not actually possess legs.
A programme in which Charlie presents his analysis of television would be hilarious, and indeed is, in the form of Screenwipe and Newswipe. A programme in which Charlie discusses TV with other funny people in some sort of inventive format that allows for free debate and banter would be excellent too. A programme in which these concepts are forced into the straightjacket of the marketable-panel-show feels odd and awkward, with some guests seeming not entirely sure they want to be there.
I've repeated myself a bit there, so I shall try and summerise: Brooker is intelligent and insightful enough, especially in the realm of television, to make really groundbreaking programming, and this felt safe, flat and very very easy for him. It felt like the kind of programme that he would ridicule, if not for the content, which genuinely approached the heights of his previous work at times, then for the needlessly bland structure and the lack of any sort of invention in the process.
I certainly wouldn't describe it as unwatchable, just very disappointing.
Charlie Brook-err?
This post is something of a call out to Telf to satisfy my curiosity and because I like arguing. Mr. Telford has on more than one occasion expressed his dislike/disdain for You Have Been Watching, a TV panel show/pseudo-panel show/postmodernist satire of TV panel shows. As a fan of the show, I was surprised to hear this as I know Telf to be a fan of the show's host, Charlie Brooker, as evidenced by several of his entries on this blog, most recently his post about another Brooker show, Gameswipe. Essentially, Telf has never explained exactly why he dislikes You Have Been Watching so much. So, I want him to do just that.
To keep things even, here's why I do like the show. For a start, I'm also a fan of Brooker, regularly reading his Guardian column and having watched bits and pieces of TV series he's done before. I find his sense of humour unashamedly honest, envelope pushing and very funny. Whilst I may not always agree 100% with his opinion, I can always respect his feelings towards anything he decides to turn his attention to, and usually end up with a wry grin or a wicked laugh at the end of any acid-tipped point.
Secondly, I like panel shows. Not all panel shows by any stretch, but when done well (Have I Got News For You and 8 Out Of 10 Cats spring to mind as two examples) they serve as a good showcase for some very funny people to riff on whatever the chosen topic might be. YHBW's format essentially uses the panel show format fairly loosely and rips it apart at the same time. If nothing else, it's used so that Brooker doesn't have to explain why he and three other people are sitting there talking about TV programmes each week.
Thirdly, the guests. Some of them I didn't care for (Frank Skinner was never funny, and now that he's trying to get back on TV, he still isn't). But most of them I found to fit in well with the show's premise. Reece Shearsmith and Richard Herring are inspired choices, and whilst Frankie Boyle is a fairly obvious pick for this kind of TV, he is regularly hilarious.
Finally, the subject matter. The mix of the familiar and mainstream with the obscure and bizarre, all roundly cut down to size by Brooker and his cronies, kept me interested for the whole series, with only a couple of the shows featured seeming like slightly bland choices for discussion.
Essentially, compared to a lot of the dross that is churned out on TV today, I found YHBW to be, if not entirely original, then a fresh and funny spin on a familiar format, elevated further by Brooker's sense of humour. In all honesty, Telf isn't the only Brooker fan who has expressed their dislike for (or at least disappointment towards) You Have Been Watching. So I'm curious as to why this is, and I hope that Telf chooses to respond.
Your view on the kindle
The kindle is an electonic book or rather a viewer to read lots of books from. Anyway I've been thinking they look pretty cool and like just the amount technology I can handle; buying things to download, having some sort of harddrive where all my e-books are stored, but nothing too complicated. Also I always like having something to read on the train and getting hold of books I want to read can be a pain (to find something in the library) or expensive if I have to buy them. Obviously the kindle is pretty expensive as a one-off and it also takes away the option of filling up a bookshelf or lending books I've found and like to others. Overall I'm torn between thinking it's cool and thinking it's a waste of money.
What do you guys think, waste of money or useful device? Also, if I should get one what books should I put on it?
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Review: (500) Days of Summer
I'm a massive fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, even though I haven't seen him in all that many films (Mysterious skin and Brick before this). He's a very subtle screen presence, and eminently likeable and relatable, even when playing a less sympathetic character. Hence I was all too happy to go and see him in non-rom-com (500) Days of Summer.
The film charts the ups and downs of his character's relationship with "Summer", a girl he meets through his job at a greeting cards company, and I found it pretty enjoyable. Gordon-Levitt is great as Tom, and Zoey Deschanel is very solid as his love interest, with ample comedic support provided by a slew of secondary characters.
There is certainly an effort to make the film stand out with quirky diologue, and experimental presentation, and to an extent it works - the experience never feels tired, and there are some genuinely impressive moments of invention in the way the story is told. The slightly off-beat feel about the film in general fits well with the script, which wobbles the full gamut between abstract comedy and more subtle emotional stuff. However, the decision to take such daring editing and directing decisions also weighs against the film - there is a loss of consinstancy and coherence when events are presented differently from scene to scene, and there is some loss of character development in the snappy diologue.
There is also the presence of an annoying and entirely unecessary voiceover, which provides no insight or information, and makes the segments over which it runs feel like they've been picked out of a seventies sit-com. It betrays a lack of confidence in the actors and the script to have an explanatory monologue, especially one which clashes with the style and pace of the film so badly - the lines read are devoid of humour or style in what is otherwise a genuinely funny and stylish film - and it is an element that noticeably detracts from the quality of the experience.
In general, then, I enjoyed (500) days of summer - it was light and funny, while taking enough risks to feel much more than a run-of-the-mill rom-com. It doesn't all stick together, and the characters didn't feel as fully developed as they might have done, but the story skips past pleasingly, and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone interested in a new take on an old story.
Verdict: 7/10
Good scenes in not-so-good films
Okay, so not all these films are what I'd call "bad" per se, but certainly none of them are classics. Here's my offerings, although I'm sure there's plenty more that I could mention.
You Don't Mess With The Zohan - opening chase scene
Zohan by and large is a stinker. Misfire after misfire at political and ethnic satire, crude sex jokes that are about as subtle as a baseball bat to the scrotum, and Rob Schneider as a "foreign" cab driver. It sits firmly in the Adam Sandler pile labeled "ones to miss". But watching the first ten minutes, you would be mistaken (as I was) to think that maybe the film is a well-observed action/secret agent film parody. The chemistry between Turturro and Sandler is excellent, and the jokes by and large mainly hit the mark fairly well. Not perfect, but a very funny scene. Shame the rest of the film is such a steaming pile of Schneider.
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - The Beatles scene
Walk Hard is not a bad film. It's actually a fairly good film in many ways. But it's also a film that suffers from having long sections that are distinctly average, jokes that either don't go far enough or are done to death, and some parts that you really wish were funnier. The standout scene for me was definitely the fantastic Beatles parody provided through cameos from Paul Rudd, Jason Schwartzman, Justin Long and Jack Black. The Liverpudlian accents range from poor to almost unrecognisable, but that just makes it all the more funny. The reference to Yellow Submarine works well. But it's the interaction between the four "Beatles" that just cracks me up every time. "I've got a song about an octopus!".
Matrix Revolutions - The final battle between Neo and Smith
Towards the end of the third and final Matrix film, after all the needlessly drawn out stuff about giant mechanoid fighting machines and all the religious imagery, the Wachowskis remembered what a lot of people went to see The Matrix to watch: kick ass kung fu fighting scenes with ace choreography. And whilst it's not flawless, the final fight between Keanu Reeves and Hugo Weaving under a raging thunderstorm whilst an infinite number of Weavings watching this shit go down, is simply great.
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End - Jack in Purgatory
Much like the third Matrix film, the third Pirates film suffers from simply being too long and overindulgent, giving us overlong sea battles, a huge amount of confused pirate mythology and folklore and generally not a great deal to care about. This scene is one of the film's few saving graces, being as it is gloriously surreal and very well executed, so much so that it doesn't really feel like part of the same film. Johnny Depp is on top form, giving us a truly classic Jack Sparrow moment that rivals any other from all three of the Pirates films so far. It's a shame that for the majority of the film Depp's character takes a backseat to the long list of other characters and scenes such as Geoffrey Rush marrying Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley during a pirate battle, with Rush in full Captain Birdseye/Sea-Captain-from-The-Simpsons mode.
I'll leave the list there for now, but there are a few more that are coming to mind even as I type this, so I may do a second installment of something along these lines. Essentially, the way I've presented these clips - by the power of YouTube - shows that having one standout scene in a film isn't necessarily a hindrance to the film these days. The internet, and even DVD scene selection, means you can enjoy the ten minutes worth watching out of a two hour film full of mediocrity with relative ease. Then move on to the next bitesize piece of entertainment, I guess. Good or bad, it's the age in which we live.