A Study of Sherlocks

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created one of the most famous detectives in the world, so famous in fact some people around the world believe that the occupants of 221B Baker Street exist. I am talking about Sherlock Holmes, the super sleuth who dabbles with narcotics and has a knack for deduction. At the moment the media is currently awash with two depictions of the great detective, on the small screen and on the silver one. Here I shall compare the two franchises and see who takes the proverbial biscuit. Mmm biscuit.

Sherlock Holmes:

Let's start with the great man himself. Played by Benedict Cumberbatch in Steven Moffat's reimaging and Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) in the two new Guy Ritchie movies. Each bring their own interpretation to the much played detective, actors include Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Mr Cumberbatch brings an aloofness to the character which is apparent in the novels, and his unability to read social situations is expertly delivered. Whereas Downey Jr. is less aloof and more erratic, manic if you will. His Holmes is more frantic than the more laidback version on television. Downey Jr's detective is more hands on, literally, he is handy with his fists and his feet. Both offer different aspects of the character and play them brilliantly opposite Watson.

Winner: Cumberbatch, as good as Downey Jr is, Benedict seems closer to Conan-Doyle's creation.

Dr. John Watson:

Cher to his Sonny. Butch to his Cassidy. Sooty to his Sweep. Dr. John Watson has to put up with Holmes' constant shenanigans but although he moans about his friend he can never leave him. He's the rock, not as in Dwayne Johnson, I mean a man men can rely on. Embodied by Martin Freeman and Jude Law. Freeman brings his great everyman quality to the role like he did as Arthur Dent in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but he can also turn on the darker side. He plays a former veteran of war with great empathy. But let's face it, he isn't as good looking as Jude. Ah Jude. Ok man crush aside. I'm not a big Jude Law fan but he fits Watson's shoes perfectly. A perfect foil for Downey Jr.'s slapdash Holmes and sports an impressive moustache.

Winner: Jude Law. More believable as a doctor and has more facial expressions than Martin Freeeman.

The Past or the Present:

A Study in Scarlet was the first Holmes novel and appeared in 1887, a Victorian P.I. amid the muck and smog of a London which was a hive of scum and villainy. Thank you Obi-Wan. The time period is very much part of the novels and most adaptations have kept the dynamic duo in the 19th Century until now. Guy Ritchie gives us a London that is a melting pot of nationalities, where the upper classes rule and the streets are paved with mud. Not much different from today then. But Moffat has replaced London of then to London of now. It's still dangerous but hansom cabs are now black and Baker Street contains are cafe.

Dead heat: It doesn't matter what time period it is set in, the themes are the same. As clever as the television has been updating the stories to the 21st Century it is still enjoyable seeing Holmes and Watson in the 19th Century.

Professor Moriarty:

The Napoleon of crime doesn't appear much in Conan-Doyle's novels, but he is the arch nemesis of the great detective. Embodied by Jared Harris the son of Richard, he plays the master criminal as the antithesis of Holmes but is equally as charming and smooth. He never over camps it like say Alan Rickman as the sheriff of Nottingham, he could be a Bond villain. Whereas Andrew Scott, taps into the psychotic side and equally pulls it off. He is Jim, not James. More menacing than Harris but just as effective.

Winner: Jared Harris. Although I like Scott's interpretation I prefer Harris' cool, calm and collected take on Moriarty.

Overall Winner: The audience. I know it's a cop-out but both depictions are both fantastic in their own way that we are the winners. This blog was just an opportunity to praise both of them.

Wow, I managed to get through that entire blog without making an obvious Sherlockian pun. That is elementary. Bugger.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II review

Hello, I know the film has been out for a while but here's my review.

This is what it was all about, the final film in the Harry Potter saga. Will Harry go out with a bang or a whimper? He most certainly goes out with a bang, and it is a pretty big one. Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows was extremely disappointing, an over-long film setting up the final battle between Mr Potter and Mr Voldemort. Part II continues where it left off but is much more thrilling and as a film it is almost flawless.

I'll be honest, I'm not a massive fan of the HP series. I remember seeing the first film on the opening night, a spritely 14-year-old and being let down trememdously. Over the next ten years I managed to see the other films in the series barring 2 of them, and the ones I have seen never blew me away. But Part II is on a different level.

The best films grab you straight away and doesn't let you stop for a breather. Part II does exactly this. The Gringotts break in is exciting and tense as the trio plus a drugged up goblin try to find a horcrux (a piece of Voldemort's soul). All of the action sequences are gripping and much better than the earlier films. The epic battle of Hogwarts could've been removed from a Lord of the Rings film, it was that good.

It seems funnier this time around as well, I mean aside from Rupert Grint's gurning there are some chuckles especially from Professor McGonagall surprisingly. Where the others claim to have been the 'darkest yet' this one definitely takes the biscuit, bourbon if you will. Voldemort's pet snake, Nagini, is pretty terrifying and when it is unleashed on unsuspecting wizards it does its master proud. The tone of the film is quite bleak albeit with a happy ending, Harry loses some loved ones and faces up to his foe but there is always a sense that Harry would win, I mean it's not that dark.

Emotions run high in part II from love to loss. Love is depicted rather well, but it's the loss that loses some of its emphasis. Some of the deaths and they are quite a few, don't worry it doesn't turn into a Jacobean drama, are quite underwhelming. Those that die deserve better.

Verdict: 4/5

Harry and co are given a brilliant send off. By far the best film of the series, but where will the Potter franchise go from here?

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Plot: The Autobots are scattered around the Earth surveying the planet while the Decipticons are hiding away causing havoc. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky has a new beau and facing the tough task of trying to find a job.

Dark of the Moon is a strange film. A summer blockbuster and the third part of a series based on toys. After the dismal reaction to the second instalment in Revenge of the Fallen, has Mr. Bay bettered himself. Well, Mr Bay knows how to do action and there is plenty of that. There are robots fighting robots, humans fighting robots and humans fighting humans in toilet cubicles. The action is jaw-droppingly amazing and yes pretty darn good in 3D. The epic battle of Chicago which lasts for about 45 minutes is one of the best set pieces in the trilogy.

It turns out the moon landing mission in 1969 was all a ruse to find an Autobot which landing there of on the darkside if the moon, who knew? But where Doctor Who recently played with the past and done it much better, this film tries too much plot-wise and just becomes too convoluted.

What Mr. Bay doesn't know how to do is comedy. There are so many comical characters that it becomes like an episode of Mock the Week. Whereas the quirky comedy worked in the original this time it feels like we are being hit over the head with a joke book every five minutes. Even Agent Simmons (John Tuturro) and John Malkovich who is on good form fails to make the audience raise a smile.

What he does know how to do is piss off Megan Fox as she has been replaced by the curvaceous model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. The camera oggles and perves on her as probably do most of the male section of the audience, maybe some women do as well. She's very pretty but Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) seems to get more emotional when he sees his car. Something's not right there.

This time around the Decepticons seemed more ferocious especially Shockwave who had a giant mechanical worm that tore through buildings. Megatron on the other hand seemed a tad subdued and was experimenting with some fancy headgear which didn't suit him. Never trust a Decepticon and be wary of humans as well for that matter.

Verdict: 2/5 stars

Too long, too much and too unfunny. What could have been a return to form after the disastrous Revenge of the Fallen, Bay has forgotten what was so good about the first one. What next for toy-based films. Well, Battleships is in post-production and Ridley Scott wants to do a film about Monopoly. Can I suggest Mousetrap or Kerplunk. You never know.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

In a recent interview Geoffrey Rush claimed that the Pirates franchise could go as long as the James Bond films. On this showing, I'm afraid Mr Rush is extremely wrong. If the big movie cheeses can persuade Johnny Depp to do his thing til he is in his seventies then maybe. On Stranger Tides is the fourth installment of the multi-million box office blockbuster, and here be my review.

This time, there be mermaids, Blackbeard and Penelope Cruz. Captain Jack and a band of miscreants are off to find the Fountain of Youth, for some reason or another, as are the Spanish, the Royal Navy and Blackbeard. Tides features a series of impressive set pieces, most notable of all in London, Greenwich to be precise. The Royal Naval College provides a terrific backdrop for a horse and cart chase as Cap'n Jack tries to evade His Majesty's guards.

The opening scene is reminiscent in tone and style of the original Pirates outing but once we leave London it fails to pick up the pace. It has all the ingredients to be a worthy entry in the Pirates canon (no pun intended) ok, pun intended, but fails to live up to the hype. The charm and wit have disappeared, possibly to the depths of the Mediterannean. Even Jack Sparrow is lacking something. Johnny Depp does his best drunk Keith Richards impression, but isn't as funny or as engaging. Perhaps its because he can't be bothered or we are tired of the same shtick.

The are flashes of the old Jack, and some funny cameos from Keith Richards as Jack's dad, Richard Griffiths as King George and Judi Dench who comes in for a shock. These moments are fleeting and soon forgotten. The supporting cast don't help and can't hold a candle to Depp and his wacky wily old sea dog.

Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey (stop giggling), are the new replacements for Keira and Orlando. Their plight is tied to the fountain of youth as the searchers are need of a mermaid's tear, and Mr missionary decides to fall in love with the fishy lady. Both actors wouldn't have gone amiss on board the Queen Anne's Revenge (Blackbeard's ship) as planks.

The previous films have been a jumpy in parts but this time it's difficult to be scared. One moment made me jump at the beginning, but that was it. The character who we were meant to be afraid of was about as scary as a puppy wearing a hat. Captain Blackbeard, played by Ian Macshane, brooding and dark, is just a bit wet. He never strikes fear in other pirates or the audience even if he can control ropes with a magical sword.

The swordplay is impressive, especially in the fight between Sparrow's love interest Angelica played by the heavily bosomed Penelope Cruz. The fight is similiar to the one Jack has with Will in the first movie. She holds her own and is a sassy Spanish match for Sparrow. Captain Jack can't do it all by himself and is admirably let down by the supporting cast.

Once again Hans Zimmer's impressive score adds to the piratey flavour but that can't save the film too confused by adding every piece of pirate lore in it.

Verdict: 2/5

What could have been a return to form to a sinking-ship of a franchise in need of rescuing, isn't, it just re-hashed the same problems with 2 and 3. Too convoluted, characters are two dimensional and even Jack Sparrow can't save the day. I think the ship has definitely sailed on this one. Play the Lego game on the Xbox instead, its amazing.

The Apprentice

Dum-de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, dum. It's back and in its seventh series. If you haven't read the title, I'm talking about The Apprentice. This time around the winner is given £250,000 to start up a business with Lord Sugar, instead of a job. So, why has it lasted this long? Yours truly shall rack his brains and work out why we keep going back to the country's most belligerent boss.

Are you up for a challenge?

They're tough, they're exciting and they can be extremely simple for the outsider looking in. Earlier in this series, the two teams were given £250 to spend on fruit and veg, and then make a profit on the money by selling the produce in a variety of ways. I don't know if Lord Sugar thinks of the tasks or if the BBC do, but they are interesting and almost Crystal Maze-esque. Is it a physical, mental or skill. Most tasks require all three of these obstacles. Of course business nous should shine through but it normally doesn't. As a viewer we are screaming at the television telling them where they are going wrong and how to rectify it (well I do). There's almost a sense of dramatic irony as you can see the team cocking up fantastically. But that's why we tune in, isn't it?

It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.

The candidates are meant to be business-minded, but what does that actually mean? Many of them leave jobs already in business to join Lord Sugar's quest for a new apprentice. Surely that's not a very business-minded. They make the show as well as Lord Sugar, their ineptness and idiocy are why we watch the show. These people are human after all, and their business sense goes missing when they need it the most for some reason. Maybe its nerves or pressure but they seem to implode. But its pure entertainment.

Sadism

We all like watching people fail, don't we? Well, I do. What's more satisfying is watching these so called business-minded bods, who know what they're doing fall flat on their faces. I watch with a smile wider than a Cheshire cat (which don't exist, I only found out the other day) when a Mr or Mrs know-it-all loses. That moment in the boardroom when Lord Sugar proclaims those immortal words is the climax we are all waiting for. We don't root for the winner we want to see who doesn't get the job. Tee hee.

Funny how?

The Apprentice is a funny programme, not only do you have the ineptitude of some of the contestants but you also have the clown prince of business, Lord Alan Sugar. I am positive he has a group of writers feeding him zingers. Some of his one-liners are priceless, but there was one candidate who we were definitely laughing at, than with. Stuart 'the brand' Baggs. Not a one-trick pony he was a whole field of ponies running toward the job, to paraphrase one of his many witticisms.

Nick, Margaret, oh and Karren

Where would we be without them? Nick the man with a thousand faces, Margaret, who could kill you with one raise of the eyebrow and Karren, who according to a friend is the 'thinking man's crumpet.' Lord Sugar's trusty aides, his eyes and ears, possibly other body parts help him ascertain who is the weak from the chaff. Their comments are incisive and cutting, perfect foils for his lordness and never have a wasted word.

Thor

When the script for Thor landed on Kenneth Branagh's floor you can see why the experienced thespian took charge of the Norse legend cum Marvel superhero. Sibling rivalry, a complex relationship with his father and a boy who would be king, sounds like it could have been written by the Bard himself. But this isn't Shakespeare, this is Marvel's take on Norse mythology.

Thor, played by Australian Chris Hemsworth complete with full flowing blonde locks and beard bashes his way through the film with his trusty hammer, Mjolnir. Loki, Thor's brother, played with superb anger by Tom Hiddleston, lives his life in Thor's shadow,and slides his way like a slippery eel hellbent on getting the throne.

Thor decides to take his band of fighters, complete with a a Gimli lookalike, to the land of the frost giants after they mysteriously entered the kingdom of Asgard. Odin, his father and the King is pissed off and banishes him to Earth.

Whilst on Earth he must prove himself while falling for Natalie Portman, who wouldn't? Fending off giant metal men who shoot fire from their eyes and getting drunk with Stellan Skarsgard, who wouldn't? Hemsworth plays the troubled God with great bravado plus he is good at shouting and wielding a magical hammer. For fans of Marvel there are little teasers to the Avengers film currently in production.

Earth and Asgard both look very pretty, as does Portman, but that's another blog. Asgard is a shiny place made of gold tin foil and Gods sport funky eye-patches. It has a feel of the Viking mead hall but there is also something futuristic about the decor in the city in the clouds. New Mexico, is an ideal place for Thor to be banished, lots of open desert space for a hammer to be stuck in the ground.

Thor certainly lives up to its god-like status with some humorous moments especially when the God of thunder is on Earth. The film starts with a thunder-clap and doesn't slow down. Even the relationship between Thor and Portman's astrophysicist Jane Foster is engaging and heart felt. A comic book classic which will want you begging for more Norse action.

Film 2010: WTF?

Bring Wossy back, was my first thought after watching the new 'live' version of BBC's flagship film review programme Film 2010 now with Claudia Winkleman. I have cast my eye over the new format and here are my musings.

Where to start. The set. It looked like a cross between Newsround and Daybreak, without Adrian and Christine brightening our television screens in the morning. Wossy's set was a lot more elegant and the red fixtures in the background made you feel at home. The new one is an Ikea catalogue reject and more like The Xtra Factor, if you care to tune into ITV2 after the song contest on ITV1 is finished.

The presenters. Let's start with Miss Winkleman, a Davina McCall clone with fuzzy hair which looks like it belongs to puppet in Avenue Q. The whole set up has changed, we no longer have the presenter sitting behind a desk looking into the camera and giving their learned opinion on a particular film. No, now Winkleman slouches on a garish sofa talking to Danny Leigh (who I have no problem with, he seems to know what he is talking about), about the latest movies. The style of the Film programme has been surgically removed and thrown in the nearest dustbin. Her manic, wacky presenting style is incongruous with the show's ethos and is more suited to a teenage news show.

Ooh we have more presenters, Chris Hewitt Empire News Editor, Antonia Quirke a journalist who is quirky (sorry) and an annoying blogger Charlie Lyne who looks as if he has just escaped the womb. Each give their opinions which are duly noted and much more engaging than the hosts. The voxpopsy style with the others works as we get someone else's opinion about their fave film or a guilty pleasure.

And we're going live in five, four, three...why? What does going live for a film show broadcast at 2245 do for it? It turns it into Live from Studio Five, well maybe not that bad. I can't find a positive of making the show live, other than an interview after a premiere which they did with Keira, Carey and Andrew.

The usual in-depth review is done well, with clips from the film and interviews with the stars. At least they never changed that to an interview on the edge of a cliff or something silly like that.

In short, the phrase pops into my head, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Yes, Jonathan Ross left and they needed a new presenter but, why not choose someone with more gravitas and that is more recognised in the movie critique world. Barry Norman would be turning in his grave, if he was dead of course.

Have a blast

Hello there, sorry i haven't written for a while. I know you have all been wondering where I have been. The answer: unemployment land. I have finally gotten round to writing something. But, now I have something to write about. I've been to the cinema twice in the past two days and seen two comedies. Two very different comedies, Hot Tub Time Machine and Four Lions. Both funny, both completely different. Let's jump in the hot tub shall we?

It is The Hangover meets Back To The Future + a squirrel. See and be disgusted, but in a good way.

From four men in the tub to four men who want to blow themselves up. Not the normal premise for a movie, but neither is a hot tub that is a time machine. Not one to be controversial, Chris Morris of Brass Eye brings us Four Lions, the tale of four inept suicide bombers. This film has seen a lot attention due to its subject matter, but let's forget that for the time being and concentrate on the film as a film.

Before seeing it I found the idea of mocking suicide bombers funny, but then when the film kicks in with a poor attempt at a threatening video by one of the four, it hit me that this film could be dangerous. But that thought soon passed and what you get is The Ladykillers of jihadists. It doesn't mock those affected in the July 7th bombings but the idea of blowing oneself up for a cause they don't quite understand. I can see why people will be upset, but I think they should see the film before they make their mind up.

Why are some subjects untouchable? Religion, war and politics have all been satirised to highlight the absurd nature of them, and this is exactly what Four Lions is doing. That's the whole point of satire isn't it, to mock the establishment and remove the veneer to show what it really is. The idea of martyrdom is mocked, not the people who have been injured in blasts, otherwise that wouldn't be funny. Putting a bomb on a crow is funny, isn't it? Even the police aren't untouchable, they are unable to tell a wookie from a honey monster. In the end

Some critics have called it the Life of Brian of our generation, I think they may have a point there. Satire is a clever form of comedy that shows the fallibility and idiocy of human nature. For some people this may be too close to the truth if that is the case avoid it, but if you want to see a film that is funny throughout, I highly recommend it.

It makes you think part II

Welcome back to the second half of the list of awe-inspiring films. The list continues...



6. Blade Runner

Based on Science Fiction author Philip K. Dick Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (read it, the film isn't anything like it). Ridley Scott's dystopian pits Harrison Ford's cop Rick Deckard on a deadly mission to retire robots called replicants. Blade Runner is a fusion between science fiction and 1940's film noir. The scenery may be scientific but the plot is basically taken from Hammett or Chandler.

Scott's film features a fine performance from Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty the ringleader of the rebellious androids. A villain who you feel sorry for at the end of the film. The film is visually stunning, watch the opening of Los Angeles 2019 (only 9 years to go, til flying cars!!!) Deckard's mission is to kill five replicants but there are six on the loose leaving a massive conundrum at the end of the movie, who is the sixth? A must see for sci-fi lovers out there.

7. Saving Private Ryan

Steven Spielberg's war movie violently tugs on the strings of ones' heart as a band of soldiers in Nazi-occupied France search for the last brother of the Ryan family. The D-Day landings is both harrowing and exhilarating. Spielberg cleverly uses point of view shots to make the audience feel part of the action and you become embroiled in the battle scene.

You go on the journey with Tom Hanks and his motley crew, plus you are completely shocked by the twist, I won't ruin it for you. Yes, Spielberg's other war film Schindler's List could also be in the list but I decided on this one instead. I mean I like Saving Private Ryan. I like Schindler's List. But which one's better? There's only one way to find out. FIGHT!!!

8. Die Hard

It is the quintessential action film so therefore deserves to be in this little list I have compiled. Screenwriters pitch movies using the Die Hard analogy, it's Die Hard on a bus (Speed) or Die Hard on a boat (Under Siege) the list could go on. It's tense, it's funny and Bruce Willis has hair. What more do you want. There is a Alan Rick man doing what he does best being the OTT villain, and he is German!

Released in the late eighties it can still hold a candle and a AK-47 to action movies of today you know the Jason Statham ones. It works because it doesn't take itself too seriously and John McClane must be the ultimate action hero, he's up their with a Mr Jones, Indiana that is oh and Mr Bond. Great fun and a great film.

9. The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy

Yes there are three films but, oh (blows raspberry). Bringing J.R.R Tolkein's masterpiece to the big screen was some mean feat but Peter Jackson pulled it off with aplomb. He couldn't fit everything in like Tom Bombadil, can you imagine him singing and prancing, no me either. It boasts of amazing visual effects from Gollum to the Balrog and acting performances from stalwarts like Sir Ian Mckellen and Viggo Mortensen.

It is not every one's cup of tea and I can understand why, elves and goblins aren't for everyone. Put the fantasy aside for one moment and see the human nature of two people's struggle to destroy this powerful object. All three films have moments of pure emotion all from the original source material. I don't like the third one because it ends. But don't despair, Guillermo Del Toro is bringing The Hobbit to the silver screen next year, get ready for talking dragons, a man turning into a bear and several oddly-named dwarves (no Dopey I'm afraid).

10. Alien

Another one from Mr Scott and another science fiction film, I think my one solitary reader has worked out my favourite genre. A suspense sci-fi horror which features a truly disturbing robot-going-bonkers scene and one scene not to eat your breakfast to. Ellen Ripley was originally meant to be a man, just wouldn't have worked. Three followed the 1979 original but none cannot surpass the tense feeling this film has on the audience, watch with a pillow.

The scariest thing is the thing you can't see, something is lurking in the dark you don't know what it is, oh my god it's bitten my mates' head off. In an essence that's what happens but much better. A must see, just remember in space no-one can hear you scream.

Good night and good luck.

It makes you think...

The Oscars are over and Bigelow triumphed over Cameron beating the highest grossing film of all time. Avatar is an awe-inspiring movie and has jaw-dropping special effects, so on that note what other films out there deserve that title of awe-inspiring (in no particular order). Tom Perry investigates...

1.2001: A Space Odyssey.

If you haven't seen this, you must. Your mind will be boggled, blown and according to Will Ferrell bottled. It has the single greatest cut in film, from a bone thrown by an ape to a spaceship floating in the atmosphere. The story is in three parts 1.primitive civilisation 2.more technologically advanced and 3. The distant future. The action moves forward every time this unexplained black monolith appears, why it appears? You have to figure that one out for yourself.

Directed by Stanley Kubrick it has influenced so many films, would there be Star Wars without it? Homages can be seen from The Simpsons to Pixar's Walle. Kubrick worked on he film with legendary Sci-Fi novelist Arthur C. Clarke, it is an intelligent look at life and evolution with no explanation. In the middle of the film it turns into a tense sci-fi thriller, you can see where Ridley Scott got his inspiration from. I could go on but I won't, just see it for yourself and be amazed.

2. The Godfather Part I and Part II

Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece, let us ignore part III. I know they are individual films but let's just put them together for the sake of an argument. The tale of the Corleone family is so rich it deserved every Oscar it received. As a viewer you are transported into their lives, you live and breathe it which may be a bit dangerous.

The score is incredible and the cinematography is untouchable, take the wedding in the part one or the Don Fanucci chase in part two. I think part two is better than the the original, few sequels can claim that feat. It has been parodied but never bettered which I think is the ultimate mark of respect. It is part of our culture, where would we be without Marlon Brando's magnificent phrase 'I'll make him an offer he can't refuse' I think Fabio Capello should adopt it.

3. Pulp Fiction

Originally called Black Mask after a popular 'pulp fiction' magazine from the 20s with such contributors as Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett. Quentin Tarantino's second film is quite simply breathtaking. From its non-linear structure to its cool as a row of cucumbers in a fridge characters, it has everything. The film works on so many levels mainly because of the dialogue a Tarantino trait which Guy Ritchie has tried to emulate in his fast-paced Cockney love-ins.

Anyway back to Pulp Fiction, it deserves to be in this list because there isn't a bad moment in the film, each separate episode adds something different. After watching it you want to watch it again and again. The film is coolness personified in celluloid, I mean it has one of the greatest ensemble casts. It's a shame that Mr. Tarantino hasn't made a film comparable to it since.

4. The Matrix

What is the Matrix? An amazing, visually stunning and ground-breaking piece of cinema. Released in 1999 it must be the movie of that year. It works on so many levels action/adventure, thriller and even a film noir if you think about the visual stlye. Neo could have been Will Smith or Tom Cruise it just wouldn't have worked. Keanu Reeves deadpan acting style suits the man who is finding himself well.

It paved the way for technological advances in film and even though bullet time was invented in the Max Payne game it still looked stunning on the big screen. Let's ignore Reloaded and Revolutions, two films that are hard to watch because of the green tint. Anyhow, take Morpheus' advice follow the white rabbit, take the red pill and stop trying to hit me and hit me. Classic.

5. Apocalypse Now

Where do I begin, another entry for Mr Coppola and another epic. Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness the action is moved from the Congo to the Vietnam War. A tough and heavy film but definitely worth the running time of 153 minutes or the redux version of 202 mins. The plot, an American soldier played by Martin Sheen is sent on a mission to kill a former US army Colonel played by Marlon Brando in the backdrop of the Vietnamn War.

Where can you get such ranges of music from The Doors to Wagner. Like its source material it deals with complex issues of the nature of empire and the search of a renegade person or the search of oneself. There are so many war films that could be in this list, but this film is truly amazing and even features a cameo from the director himself. See if you can spot him.

To Be Continued...

Inept.

I know this blog claims to be about films but I may have to change that and add TV as well. This rant comes courtesy of ITV's sport's coverage. Where do I start? At the beginning, when the Beeb lost MOTD (match of the day) to ITV1 a couple of years back, football viewers had the unpleasant choice of watching The Premiership.


Now, The Premiership hasn't been on our telly screens for a while now, thank God (He watches as well, he's a West Ham fan). But they do have the rights to the FA Cup this season and I have suffered listening to Peter Drury or Clive Tyldesley (left) try to commentate their way through 90 minutes. Here's one from the man Clive- “He’s not George Best, but then again, no-one is.” Last night's England game was a prime example of the poor quality of commentary displayed on the channel. He was joined last night by another poor pundit Andy Townsend, who on Tuesday was Irish but miraculously swapped nationalities on Wednesday evening. He was English not Egypitan, keep up. A cracker from Clive here 'The Egyptians were apparently passing in pyramids' not triangles. *sigh*.


We now head to the pundit's box where Steve Wilson who escaped BBC's Grandstand (remember the theme tune?) was with the most boring man in football Gareth Southgate, nice tie and Paul Robinson, why? What was he meant to add, he could have been out there. Was that ITV making a sly dig at Paul making him watch the match in the studio. I bet they were all cracking jokes during the game when Rob Green made a save or catch, I would have done. Then we have the analysis, they didn't even show Egypt's goal! We must go to a break, you see the little black and white flashing thing in the corner as soon as the ref's whistle blows. Then another break, and you have to suffer 'We buy any car' advert, don't get me started.


This week brings the FA Cup back to our screens, what punditry delights await us. I wait with bated breath. They have all four games, hopefully Mr Tyldesley can make his way to all of the games to commentate, please Clive do it for Tom. The highlights package is also terrible as they show the game they aired a couple of hours ago on first. Whoever is in charge of their sport's output, should take a long look at the footage they are broadcasting and have a re-think.

Now, the BBC are not invincible from criticism or Sky for that matter, take Andy Gray and John Motson for example. Andy gets on my tits, I don't see why he thinks he can say the things he does and Motty, well, he is just past it. 98 days to go till the World Cup and I have some advice for my readers out there (if there are any) watch BBC's coverage and when England's games are on the other channel turn off the volume and listen to the radio's commentary.

Peace out.

Arrrr, a vast behind.

Ahoy me hearties! Tie up the mizzen mast mateys and yo ho ho and a bottle of rum etc. With the recent news of Ian 'Mr sweary' McShane donning the beard that is black in the next Pirates of the Caribbean film On Stranger Tides. Mr Perry asks the question, what strange tides will be crashing this way? Well, rumour has it that Orlando Bloom who makes Vinnie Jones look like a good actor and Keira Knightley aren't returning. There won't be any reason to stay after the credits then.

So, what pirate folklore could Jerry Bruckheimer bring to the big blue this time. Edward Teach aka Captain Blackbeard is on board (I couldn't help myself) apparently he was reported to have tied his beard and lit fuses under his hat to frighten his enemies. ooh scary. Jack is back and this time he is looking for the Fountain of Youth, so there may be more sequels to come. Well I for one hope they go back to the original and try to get the same feeling that film had, similar style to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Fast paced and funny like Lee Evans, but less sweaty.

The thing is, do we need another one? At World's End finished with Jack Sparrow in his boat looking at his map. Actually it finished 10 years later after the credits where a wet Will Turner came ashore and met his offspring if you bothered to stay after the credits, I did. The series can't get any worse I mean it's not Jack Sparrow fight little furry creatures and then have a big party. hang on. I don't think it will add anything to a series which was on its way down to meet the Titanic anyway.

If they follow 2 and 3 they will be in deep water and could face a strong current. Dead Man's Chest and At World's End tried to do too much, yes the battles were immense but in the end the characters empathy was lost and the trilogy bore a similar resemblance to the Matrix sequels. What they did wrong was introduce characters the audience couldn't give a toss about namely Davey Jones (despite amazing CGI) Calypso, isn't that some sort of ice lolly and Culter Beckett. Plus the story became so convoluted it was like walking through a Labyrinth in the dark on the Moon whilst being watched by the clangers, which is too much.

Pirates 4 needs to hark back to classics such as Crimson Pirate or Captain Blood and really swash its buckle. I was so disappointed by the 2nd and 3rd installments I refuse to recognise their existence, despite commenting on them in this blog. Contradiction. So bring on Pirates 4 and we will see what happens. Finally why couldn't the pirate play cards, because he was standing on the deck. I know it's bad but what are you going to do eh? Exactly.

Land hoy!

What the world needs now is love, sweet love.

The 14th February has been and is gone, so shouldn't they remove valentine's day (you know, that film) from the cinema's now i haven't seen that film but I did have to sit through P.S. I Love You on valentine's night. It was a originally novel by Cecelia Aherne set in Ireland, but the film version moves the action to America. It stars Hilary Swank who has too many teeth and Gerard 'I can't do an Oirish accent to save me life' Butler. So, sitting down like in A Clockwork Orange I suffered the emotional story of a woman who has lost her soul mate and has to deal with his death but can't because he keeps on sending her bloody correspondence from beyond the grave.

The film is flawed when ever Mr Butler opens his mouth. His Irish accent is as convincing as a seagull dressed up as a crow trying to be a magpie, it doesn't work. He is amazing in 300 and RocknRolla but here he makes me want to frisbee the dvd out of the window. It is quite morbid in a sense a man who is dead can't leave his lover alone to live her own life, he dictates it while he is burning in a firing pit (yeah, he is in Hell). Swank's friends add to the annoyance of the overall tone of the film. Lisa Kudrow plays an over-sexed 'Phoebe Buffay' and Gina Gershon pouts like a fish. The story should be an emotional heart-tugging tale but it leaves a sour taste on the old palate as the characters aren't believable plus think of the cost of stamps.

If you want a romantic movie look no further than The Princess and the Frog, Disney's retelling of the classic fairy tale. It is full of fun and romance, if you're into that sort of thing. There are colourful characters and a deliciously evil villain beautifully voiced by Keith David. It's so good I've secretly stuck the soundtrack on my spotify. So, if you want to feel loved up do it in the company of animated characters rather than ones who you feel nothing for.

That is all.

P.S. I Love you.

Hey, you. Yes, you. I want you, yep you.

This week I will be mostly talking about adverts, not films. Aren't they fun? Well, some are and some aren't. Being an avid channel hopper I regularly see a wide range of adverts and I have recently noticed one thing, they are bloody annoying. They talk to you as if you are a little child who has never heard of this thing they are selling and it is extremely belittling. I invented Windows 7, I couldn't give a toss mate. The most annoying adverts are those that feature 'regular' people, I mean if these idiots can tackle a website so can you! Yes you! I think the problem is that they talk directly at you, so you can't escape their glare. It's like Lord Kitchener telling you to sign up. Most people do not like being told what to do especially by various members of the public who know a different word for money. Even the nauseating Tescos' adverts tell us that every little helps and Asda condescendingly pat their back pocket to save you money. One advert which has been removed was the McDonald's pound saver which stated a 'bob' is a another term for a pound (makes the wrong answer noise from Family Fortunes). A bob is a shilling and there are 20 shillings in a pound, so this is a major factual inaccuracy on behalf of McDonald's, tut tut. Some adverts just don't work, what do they do round that advertising table and decide the best way to sell insurance is with an annoying fat man belting out opera telling you to GO COMPARE, so much so you want to hit him over the head with your remote control. People in adverts just come across as the archetype which places them on a pedestal which they shouldn't be. Let's get a celebrity couple to parade around in an idyllic setting and prance about on a beach then tell you to book a holiday be just like them. The best advert around is the strange idea to get a meerkat (puts on a ridiculous Russian accent) sell you cheap car insurance who ever thought of that is a genius, simples.

Disneyfied

Disney has had a love affair with the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen and folklore, with the release of The Princess and the Frog out next week. Walt has dabbled in the world of literature and put their own spin on the goings on, i mean was Robin Hood a fox? What is it that they changed to the original work to please those kiddiwinks. Well Captain Hook was never a codfish, he is a tough old Etonian who strikes terror in Peter Pan and his motley crew. Ariel bites the dust, (I know!) and has to kill the prince to become a mermaid again, I guess they decided to leave that bit out. Why do Disney do this? Add a saccharine taste to the original dark material. Kids like being scared, I was petrified by the witch's transformation in Snow White. Don't get me wrong I love Aladdin but just wonder if Disney had some original ideas in that magic castle of theirs. So what will Disney's take on the Brothers Grimm The Frog Prince be like, I am going to guess singing anthropomorphic animals and a tale of dreams that come true if you wish upon a star, oh and a happy ending. There has been unrest over the skin colour of their latest princess, princess Tiana is the first black regal protagonist in Disney history. But, oh no, Disney have completely sidestepped the racial issues in 1920s New Orleans, can you blame them that would go against the Disney ethos. I know she has dreams and has to find her place in the world but not against a backdrop of racial hatred and prejudice, it wouldn't appeal to the target audience. Some people in America have even boycotted it because it depicts voodoo magic (please). Well, a true adaptation is too much to ask for but I wait with eager anticiptation with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, to see how far down the rabbit hole he actually goes.