Django Unchained: Gunfights and Human Rights

You go into a Quentin Tarantino movie with a certain amount of expectation. Not of general quality necessarily, although that's there. No, the expectation one possesses is more one of violence, profanity, awesome characters and a stupidly fun time. Django Unchained follows Inglorious Basterds, hailed by many as being the best all-round film Tarantino's ever done. Does Django fly free as Tarantino's greatest hit? Or does Inglorious Basterds have its record on lock?

They skip the bit where you have to spend 4 hours playing liar's dice to afford the good horse.

What should be pretty obvious is that this is the most controversial Tarantino movie yet. There is a balance in violence between fun shootouts and genuinely powerful, graphic scenes of torture. Profanity is prolific, with an obvious example being tossed around like it's a 'dude' or a 'bro'. I wouldn't be surprised if it's set a record for most utterances of said word in a film. Controversy was to be expected. The story and performances? Less so.

The casting for Django Unchained is just about perfect. Jamie Foxx and Christopher Waltz are believable and lovable as Bounty huntin', rod trippin' buddies, and both are stellar in their own right. Waltz takes the character trope of seen-it-all veteran and gives it a sense of energy rarely seen before. Foxx plays the lead expertly. Believable yet not, he delivers just enough one-liners to be enjoyable, while still being realistic and relatable. He doesn't steal every scene, but he brings something different to it every time. Although having said that, about half an hour of the film is just him making this face:

Though, in fairness to him, there are a lot of reasons in the film for him to make that face. QT films are famous for having incredible villains, and Leo di 'Rio sets a new standard as Candice. He is a scene stealer, turning that award winning (although not Oscar winning) face into the most punchable thing known to mankind. Look at this. LOOK AT IT:

I love you and want you to die, you wonderful monster.
Really, the only bad acting performance in the film is Tarantino himself. Just like it's been in all his movies. Only he knows for sure why he has to have speaking roles in his films, but when his performance stands out like a putrid pink polo shirt in a power plant of wonderful white (phrasing), maybe it's a sign it should be toned down to Hitchcock levels of intervention.

What QT doesn't suck at, however, is screenplay. Django Unchained is a two hours and forty minute piece of awe-inspiring, funny, gripping and satisfying storytelling, that never slows in pace, nor feels rushed. The plot is kept fairly simple, allowing both it and the characters to develop around it. It sounds obvious and pointless to be typing it, but way too many films write a little about a lot, not the other way around. You can dislike Quentin as a person as much as you want (and I do) but gosh darn, does he know how to write and direct a movie.

It could be argued that Django Unchained has everything you could ever want from a movie. Action, romance, amazing characters, quality soundtrack, controversy and an immerse-ive, and complete, story. Does it trump Inglorious Basterds? You can bet your painted wagon it does.

What's that? Does it top Resevoir Dogs? Pfft, getouttahere.

Mitchell Monday: Progression of Machines

David discusses the necessity of technological progression. Guess what his opinion of it is, considering he's over the age of 20?

Miranda: Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back, Attempts to Step Forward, Falls Over

Miranda is currently one of the most popular comedies in Britain. It's being heralded for its supposed innovation, wit and alternative take on the traditional sitcom. Namely, a woman creating, writing and starring in it. Sadly, the only equality that results from it is it proves that women are just as capable of  terrible comedy as men.

By all accounts, Miranda should be a step in the right direction for gender equality in comedy. It reverses the typical sit-com gender tropes, starring Miranda Hart as the unattractive and unsocial yet lovable Miranda as she attempts in vain to win the affections of handsome, successful, kind-hearted Gary. She has a disapproving mother, friends who struggle to understand her, and has something of a dead-end job. Seem familiar? Yes, the premise is completely unoriginal, yet it's made interesting by Miranda, an actual human female, being the protagonist. And while there have been other comedies that have a woman as the star, New Girl, Ugly Betty and Absolutely Fabulous to name a few, none of those seem to feature such a strong female influence and heart than Miranda. It's truly a progressive step. So it's a real shame that it's terrible.

Not long after one begins watching Miranda, it's very apparent that the entire arsenal of jokes consist of cringe-worthy slapstick, lazy innuendos and all the subtlety of a holophone opera. The refreshment of a less attractive, tall, upper class woman as the focus quickly turns sour, once you realise that every joke on the show is about how she's less attractive, tall and upper class. Many jokes genuinely consist of her simply pulling a face at the camera (yes, there's an obscene amount of fourth wall breaking) while the audience (yes, there's a laugh track) literally soil themselves laughing at other things that aren't sodding funny. Many critics have branded the show a throwback and "old fashioned", but what Miranda lacks when compared to the likes of Only Fools and Horses and Blackadder, is the ability to balance slapstick and silliness with genuine intelligent humour. Miranda is so serious about not taking itself seriously, the gags come off as forced, not helped by performances that are at best camp, predictable normally, and painful at worst. 

I wanted to like Miranda, and in many ways I respect it for its success, telling various TV tropes where they can go in the process, but looking at it solely as a situation comedy, it is incessantly dire. However, it's rave reviews, awards, and three whole series' (though only 18 episodes in total, thanks to the mysterious wonder of British season lengths, right now being one of the few times I'm thankful for it), means I probably just don't get it. Maybe it's actually a satire, a parody of the tired sit-com format, reversing gender roles to emphasise the ridiculousness. Maybe the laugh track whoops and claps at so much of a raised eyebrow because it is in fact, mocking its audience for having to be spoon-fed laughs. Maybe it's actually one of the smartest comedies Britain has ever seen, appealing to a full range of audiences, from those who love familiar formulas and revel in the comfort of them, to those that crave parodies and sophisticated jabs at the old and clichéd. 

Maybe.





Probably not, though.

Big Nothing: From Con Man to Another

I was saving this piece for a later date. But I noticed I'd been negative for the last seven or so posts, and thought it was high time I stopped being such a miserable wretch and talked about media products I liked. So I am.

Big Nothing didn't cause much of a stir when it was released in 2006. Despite generally favorable reviews and starring the likes of Simon Pegg and David Schwimmer (and a young Alice Eve), it made only around $80,000 from a three million dollar budget. Why was it ignored? Why is it one of the most underrated films of the decade? Why is everyone in the film American, when it was produced and filmed in Britain?

That's nothing compared to the Jaffa Cakes he has in his back pocket.

The plot of this film is deviously beautiful. Three terrible con artists attempt to blackmail a vicar for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and just about everything goes wrong. There are plot twists, foreshadowing and a sickening sense of satisfaction as you watch all of these ridiculously horrific events unfold. It's like a perverse game of Cluedo, but without the colourful (literally) characters. It allows for multiple watchings, that give the viewer a sense of morbid superiority by knowing which characters are trustworthy and which aren't. 

The performances range from suitable to superb, with no character seeming out of place, or inserted to try and boost box office sales. Simon Pegg is slimy but lovable as Gus, David Schwimmer is more down to earth, if somewhat typecast, as Charlie, Alice Eve is perfect as the half naive, half evil Josie, and all the supporting characters play their parts as well as they could have. Big Nothing does not exaggerate its performances; nothing is camp, but at the same time, nothing is totally serious. It's supposed to be a black comedy, where the audience is forced to question themselves for laughing at the tragedies before them.

Where Big Nothing truly shines, however, is in the mirror it holds up to the average Joe. Unlike action films where an unsuspecting citizen is taken under the wing of a bad-ass, violent douchebag, Charlie never stops being innocent. he never becomes a heartless killer, even when he wants and tries to be. At the back of his mind, he's always thinking of his daughter. That's a far more powerful character than a wuss who's taught how to be cool. Essentially, Charlie represents the person we all should be in society, while Gus represents the man we want to be. Both characters have major pros and cons, and the film suggests that no matter how you try and be as a person, nothing is set in stone.

Big Nothing is a shit bust sweet Naughty Bear of a film, where you can't help but gain pleasure from the incompetence of the wannabe con men. It doesn't have the deepest plot in the world, and a couple of jokes fall flat, but it deserves better than the melancholy shrug it's receiving from movie fanatics today.

Seriously, it's probably like, two dollars on Amazon at the moment. Buy it, you'll enjoy it. Promise.

Mitchell Monday: TV Credits

David Mitchell tackles the much resented subject of arses smushing up the credits into a corner and talking over them.

Yes, you will need to watch it several times to notice it all.

Tomb Raider: From Ground-Breaking to Water-Treading

The newest Tomb Raider has been a long time coming. For 16 years the formula of the once jaw-droppingly innovative franchises had gone unchanged, resulting in games that were nostalgically enjoyable at best and broken at worst. Prior to this, the only other times the celebrated heroine had strayed away from her one-woman pack was the cataclysmic-ly bad Angel of Darkness, and the decent but unoriginal Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, perhaps providing more logic to Core and Crystal's reluctance to stray from the blueprints that had satisfied loyalists for well over a decade. But Tomb Raider 2013 seems different. Crystal Dynamics seem proud that they've mixed things up a bit, it's a whole new story arc for a whole new generation, and, most importantly for them, established fans, reviewers and newcomers alike are loving it. So, does it really match the ambition and forward thinking that the original Tomb Raider had? Or is it just Unchar--DAMMIT IT'S JUST UNCHARTED.

Apparently Lara auditioned for The Hunger Games before making a new game.

I tried to like this. I really did. There's a good balance of open world and linear, scripted battles and spontaneous encounters, and the story's effective in its evolution from simplicity. Simply put, wee lass Lara's boat crashes, and most of the game is about her finding her friends and escaping the crazed island. Lady Croft is more of a human being here than in her previous efforts; she gets burned, cut, bitten, and you see this all via wounds on her body that eventually heal as you play. It's a nice touch. Lara controls nicely, with a magnetic platform-homing thing that means falling to your death is more your own fault than in previous Tomb Raider games, and the simple to learn controls means there isn't much of a tutorial, so you don't feel like you're being spoon-fed how to play. It's also lengthy for a Tomb Raider game, with a little over double the amount of playing time than her other next-gen attempts, all of which were under 10 hours.

Unfortunately, that's where the positives end. For the most part, Tomb Raider is one big exhale of a game. Firstly, there are about six hundred quick-time events during the course of this game, which is about six hundred more than there should be in a game. Lara's character development is incredibly inconsistent. One minute Lara is weeping at the prospect of killing a deer to stop herself from dying of hunger, ten minutes later she's setting dudes on fire and popping bullets through their heads like she's Pam Grier, in what was presumably a gameplay retcon for fans that don't care about emotions and just want the hot lady to kill bad guys already. This isn't hyperbole, the first time she (you) kills a man (via quick-time event), it triggers a cutscene where Lara is talking incoherently to herself, crying and vomiting. It's a shocking, and presumably realistic presentation of a young woman completely ripped of her innocence and optimism. What follows said cutscene is you escaping the location, killing about thirty men without a second's thought as you do so. If you don't take it seriously, it can be pretty funny. But Tomb Raider clearly does take itself seriously, resulting in visceral, brutal melodrama one minute, and thoughtless, blood-thirsty Rambo-ing the next. It's dumb.

There are other aspects of the design that are thoroughly lackluster. The level up system, that allows you to upgrade weapon's and abilities, feels tacked on so they can talk about "customization" on the back of the case. The upgrade's are unoriginal and unnecessary, and is simply a lazy attempt to insert some kind of progression in the game. The various collectibles in the game also feel like an empty addition. Tomb Raider Legend (still the best next-gen Tomb Raider game, despite being, like, 40 minutes long) had a simple and effective collectible system. Easy things to find were bronze, hard things to find were silver, and in each level there was one gold item that you had to scour the area from top to bottom to even hope of finding it. In Tomb Raider 2013, nothing feels distinguished. There are about 6 different types of things you can collect during the game, but nothing seems easier or harder to find, nothing seems more beneficial to your progress, and overall it just doesn't seem very ambitious. The parts of the game that are linear are way too linear and go on way too long for what they are. Put it this way; anyone that played through the game would play those parts the exact same way you did. If that sounds appealing to you, go ahead. It'd be cheaper for me if I just watched a walkthrough on YouTube.

Worst of all, though, Tomb Raider 2013 just isn't very original. As mentioned earlier, it's essentially a worse version of Uncharted, and you can bet your hide Crystal Dynamics did that deliberately, minus the worse. It's truly sad that what was once the genre-defining franchise is now meekly following in the footsteps of a similar, superior series. It brings nothing new to the table, and at its lowest point, feels like Mr. Burns dressing up in a skull shirt and beanie in an attempt to disguise himself as one of the kids. False. Attempting to keep up with an age it doesn't have the stamina for anymore.

Some franchises just aren't meant to span multiple generations. Just let it go.

Don't Tell The Bride: ...or anyone else that this show exists.

BBC Three is not a channel intended for me, and that's fine. It's more for the people who talk about their human rights before heading to a bar to smash a bottle over some unsuspecting citizens head. The people that claim all women are beautiful, then cry anorexia when they see a girl under 10 stone. Their key demographic, essentially, are un-ironic, unapologetic idiots, and I understand that. Cynicism aside, the channel serves an important purpose to retain the focus of people who, left to their own devices, would probably just take to making homophobic slurs on Twitter. I hate just about every program on BBC Three, but I get the purpose of all of them; I understand why they enjoy millions of viewers every week. All of them, except one. Don't Tell the Bride is the most pointless, tasteless, brainless and offensive tripe that has ever stumbled drunkenly onto a television screen, and anyone who genuinely enjoys it should be banned from having any sort of judgement on whether any form of entertainment is credible or not.

Is that a Zorb with wheels? Sort of defeats the purpose, really.

Don't Tell the Bride revolves around the concept of working class loving couples being given £12,000 to make a wedding, with the condition that the groom plans everything and the wife has no say in what is arranged. What appears to be an exploitation of the poor quickly becomes much worse as the magic of editing presents every groom as being clueless, uncaring and generally unfit to plan a wedding, and the bride is presented as shrill, demanding and distrustful. At the end of the episode, everything goes to plan (BIG REVEAL: because, despite what you saw, the groom actually did pretty well) and the two of them enjoy their special day, with the bride proclaiming her love for her other half (ALSO BIG REVEAL: because she's a rational woman and trusts the man she's committed the rest of her life to). This would be worth an eye-roll and a channel change - perhaps accompanied with a w*nker gesture if it's been a bad day - if this was a one off Channel 4 documentary, but has been going on for six series'. EIGHTY episodes. All following this exact formula. Not once does the groom actually balls up the wedding, and you'd be hard pressed to find an episode where the bride walks out on the poor guy in disgust. Awfulness is damning, predictable awfulness is unforgivable.

I've touched on the despicable editing on the show, but the other aspects of the design deserve condemnation as well. Every episode is narrated by a sickeningly smug woman, who I suspect is playing the part of your annoying friend who watches movies with you, spelling out every scene to make them feel like an expert, when in reality she's just spelling it out for the brain dead and passive target demographic. You think what she tells you to think, and her ruthless determination to find drama in the most mundane problems results in some truly terrible television.

What hurts the most, though, and this is why I truly despise Don't Tell the Bride as opposed to simply not care for it, is how it panders and caters to some of the laziest gender stereotypes in Britain today. All women want to do is get married. That's what they need, what they crave. Ever since they were five and dressed up as princesses, they've dreamed of their perfect day with the perfect prince. All women have planned this day out to the most intricate detail but OH HELL NO, the man I love, the joint most important person on this day is arranging it?! Cue two weeks of tears, complaining to friends and her mother and at least three utterances of "YOU'VE RUINED EVERYTHING". And all men choose beer and video games over their fiances, and are too stupid and selfish to commit any attention to something as trivial as a marriage. Who cares about weddings, anyway? Men don't. They could get married at Shotgun Pete's, for all he cares.

If you stood up and applauded any of that last paragraph, or hell, even think more of me as a writer and a human being, then Don't Tell the Bride is for you. Otherwise, nice job on being a decent member of society.

Bad TV has been around forever, but Don't Tell the Bride, I believe, has reached a pinnacle that few will be able to match. And the scary thing is, it shows no sign of letting up. It has sapped into the British public's minds like brain slugs, and won't be satisfied until we are all unable to tell what is and isn't acceptable entertainment. Until then, I'm just stuck being uptight about it on here. Whatever, what else is on? Channel 4 are usually better at getting the balance between mindless and tasteless right, what have they got on?

.............you're f***ing kidding.

Mitchell Monday: Sports on TV

Yes, this is a series now. For me more than you, it gives me a chance to revisit my favourite videos of this glorious channel. Enjoy.

Page vs. Screen: A Series of Unfortunate Events

I'm going to say something that seemingly a lot of people don't know; different media platforms require different qualities to be popular. What makes a book good won't always make a TV series good. What makes a film good won't always make a console game good. When you expand a single platform product, alterations need to be made to make sure they succeed on their own merit, while still appealing to die-hard fans. Sometimes this happens, and everyone is happy. Often it isn't. Guess which one A Series of Unfortunate Events is?

Don't get me wrong, the film adaptation of A Series of Unfortunate Events is not a bad film. Jim Carrey is lovably hate-able as all incarnations of Count Olaf, Billy Connolly and Meryl Streep are both stellar in their minor roles, and Timothy Spall, though arguably a rather basic role for his talents, portrays a frighteningly accurate Mr. Poe. The children are probably the least interesting characters in the film, which reflects the book nicely, as three ordinary (well, ordinary compared to the world around them) kids struggle to deal with the weird and ever-changing world around them. The script is slick enough to not feel all over the place, despite the jumpy narrative that comes with mushing three books together. The film is good. The books are better.

It's not hard to see why A Series of Unfortunate Events managed to get a film deal considering its inspiration. The books target a type of child audience no one thought even existed. The gloomy, yet humorous lexis appeal directly to young teenagers that may be feeling similar emotions. The consistent 4th wall breaking helps ease the reader if things get too dark, and at times Snicket feels like a guide, or a companion, giving you a tour of these children's terrible lives. That's the kind of immersion all children's books need, regardless of genre, and it there was a children's literary canon, you can bet you hide I'd be pulling for this to be in it.

So what's the difference between the books and the film? Well, Lemony Snicket isn't funny anymore. Jude Law plays it straight as the unorthodox author who lives in a clock. Carrey takes the comedy torch for the film. The kids don't stay with Mr. Poe like they do in the first book, and, sadly, Olaf's henchmen don't have nearly as big of a part as they do in the books. But overall, not a whole lot. And that's the problem.

A Series of Unfortunate Events: the film, doesn't know what it wants to be. It wants to appeal to kids and parents, and it wants to be a series, so it's light on the graphic imagery that the books contain. But it's still there, and can be quite unforgivably brutal for a PG film. The moral of the film is that good things will eventually override the bad things, but that doesn't really make sense when not a single good thing happens to these kids. But you can't have a big kids blockbuster without a moral. The books don't really have a moral, they're more like a book-umentary. And this is the films big problem. It doesn't know whether to stay true to the source material, or go with its own flow. It ends up in the middle and makes for a slightly disorientating experience.

If you want to see the film, do. You'll enjoy it, probably. But because it is neither a literal film version of thhe book, nor a separate entity from its print counterpart, I can't choose the film over the books.

BOOK OR FILM: BOOK

A Hard Days Night: More like Fab BORE, am I right

The Beatles did it first. Mention just about anything in terms of music and that's often what you'll hear. Like it or not, The Beatles are one of the most influential bands in history, inventing tried-and-tested formulas that are still used to this day. Something that's substantially more debatable, however, is if all of these inventions have been entirely beneficial to music. A Hard Days Night: The Film, is a bizarre creation made solely to promote an album. But does it have any credibility on its own? That depends on how strong your rose-tinted glasses are.

Not even the Upper Class Twit of the Year contest featured this much Tomfoolery.

A Hard Days Night is unique in that it has virtually zero plot. The Beatles get picked up at a concert, do silly things, then do another concert, do more silly things, then do another concert. Credits. There are some loose nods to some kind of continuity and story arc, the band teasing Ringo and Paul's Granddad being unusually clean (?), but the film could literally be played backwards and it would be exactly the same film. Music videos have more of a story than this. And I understand that that's all this really is, a 90 minute music video, but does that really sound that appealing when you think about it?

The movie is meant to be real, so it's shot like a documentary, with lazy camera angles and an unnecessary black and white rendering. The trouble is, nothing goes far enough in its execution to be truly entertaining. No one in this film can act, so nothing ever seems spontaneous, or even fun. The lazy, albeit original at the time, docu-style means the film can't be enjoyed from an artistic standpoint. And the terrible writing leads to me not even finding The Beatles likable half the time.

Look, I love The Beatles, just like you probably do. But let's be honest here. A Hard Days Night is tripe. We need to stop looking at it as 'thing The Beatles did' and look at it as 'film that was actually made for people to pay actual money to see', and maybe things'll seem a bit clearer. I get the lovable rogue thing and I get the mindless innocent fun thing. If you want to watch a lovable rogue, watch Big Nothing. If you want to see mindless innocent fun, watch Airplane!. But there is nothing about A Hard Days Night that makes it enjoyable to watch. Nothing.

John Lennon can mend wars, but not crappy movies. We are learning the extent of his powers. But hey, at least there aren't any terrible, pandering movies about music acts today, right?

Well, yes, but that was a long...

Okay, fine, but he's different. He's got a more specific audience. There isn't someone with true worldwide appeal that...

...bugger.

David Mitchell's Soap Box.

My favourite Youtube channel right now. There's a video that can be used as a response to anything. In the interest of this blogs theme, this one will be used.

Everyone should aspire to achieve the levels of cynicism he reaches.

The Devil Inside: Possessions for some, miniature American flags for others!

You know when you accidentally open an unregistered version of Photoshop, and before you get rid of it you have to sit through all the introductory crap and decline to register? It's like, I didn't enjoy this, why would I go out of my way to have more of it? That's The Devil Inside. A messy, boring, infuriating piece of tripe that has me frenzy clicking Esc.

She had the last laugh. She didn't have to see this film.

I'm aware plot isn't something that is traditionally too important in horror films, but this is impossible to overlook. Isabella Rossi travels to Vatican City where her mother is being kept for murdering priests. Ma Rossi clearly doesn't like it there, because she's cutting herself. Convinced her mother's possessed, Isabella, and two Priests who Play By Their Own Rules, try and get her exorcised.

That all sounds fine. Not interesting, but fine. There are some things that need to be addressed, though. In the ward where Maria Rossi is kept, the doctor says she reacts erratically to any exposure to religion. Then a couple of scenes later, he happily lets Butch Catholicy and the Exorcist Kid wander in to her room AND THEN LEAVE THEM. A long time after erraticies begin, said doctor begins banging on the door, seemingly unable to get in, but as soon as things die down, he CASUALLY ENTERS LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED. Even worse than that, there's a 5 scene where British Mumbly priest wants to take his findings to the press, and Dara O'Briain priest doesn't want to. Nobody can find out about this, he cries.

......This is a found footage film. It's supposed to be a documentary. I can't.

The performances are dreadful all around. Most of the dialogue is improved, but it seems nobody involved with this film has had a single improv lesson in their lives. Lines are repeated, there's an unreal amount of stuttering, and at times you can seriously see them making things up as they go along. British Mumble priest in particular, who's actual name is Ben Rawlings, has these acting follies up the wazoo. There are full scenes where he is completely incomprehensible, and it's still more enjoyable than the melodramatic run-on sentences that apparantly take priority over plot and character development.

Oh, and everyone in Italy speaks perfect English. Everyone.

I don't need to mention the ending, do I? That horse was beaten to death long ago. What I will say though, is that the last 15 minutes are by far the most interesting, it cuts off way too abruptly, even for a found footage film, and at only 80 minutes, there's time for a whole other act. I guess that sums up The Devil Inside pretty nicely. Two thirds of a passable film.