Gig Review: Ginger Wildheart & Friends. Norwich Waterfront, 12/12/11

Norwich can be a strange place for gigs. More specifically, the crowds at the gigs. It's seemingly all or nothing with them. I've been to gigs where the crowd have been on fire, absolutely going ballistic. But, there have been times where the majority of the crowd seem to have been disturbed from an hours long slumber, and...just...stand...there.

The times I've seen Ginger (or The Wildhearts) in Norwich, it's seemingly the latter. The people at the front jumping around and having a great time, everyone else stood there. Fair enough, I guess, you pay your hard earned money, you can react how you like to the performance (or not, more on that later), but you do have to clap and cheer if you like what you see.

This time round, Norwich was thankfully a little more engaged. Whilst a lot of people at the back were doing their best tree impressions, loads of people were having great fun, and everyone witnessed a truly insane gig, one of the oddest I've seen, but also one of the best.

Things were off to a great start with the first support act, Exit_International, hailing from Wales. Their mix of huge old riffs (a common theme for the entire evening) and screaming, mental vocals are not my usual cup of tea, but I thoroughly enjoyed their set, and was disappointed when it came to an end. I shall be picking up their new album, 'Black Junk', as soon as possible.

The same can be said for Hawk Eye's (Formerly Chickenhawk), not usually my bag. Whilst I enjoyed the previous band ever-so-slightly more, I really dug Hawk Eye's and they provided some memorable songs and memorable moments, namely a quick Phil Collins 'Easy Lover' sing-a-long, and a fantastic instance where singer/guitarist Paul hopped the barrier, mic stand and guitar in tow and performed an entire song in the crowd. Not seen that before!

After that, it was time for Ginger & Friends, and while I'm not going to reveal what he played until after the tour has concluded (check back here after Sunday, or if you are reading this at a later date, just scroll down) there is plenty to say.

In my opinion, Ginger has assembled the best lineup I've seen him with (and that includes the stonking 2009 Wildhearts lineup.) Denzil, Rich Jones, Chris Catalyst, Victoria Liedtke and the simply brilliant 'Random' Jon Poole made up the cast and they performed a fantastic set of Wildhearts hits and rarities (think I'm OK saying that.)

As usual though, some of the best moments came in between the songs. Anyone who has seen Ginger live knows what an amusing guy he is, and surrounded by his mates in the band, he was on fine form. A bizarre song from the mind of Jon Poole was given an airing. It's hard to write about here, but just YouTube 'The Leafy Hand', and you may get a bit closer to getting it. A heartfelt rendition of 'When A Child Is Born' by Johnny Mathis was also hilarious, except all the words were changed to 'Massive Cock and Balls'. You had to be there.

Also par for the course for a Ginger gig is song requests that will never happen. I honestly believe some people think that a band comes out on stage with no clue whatsoever as to what they are going to play. This is not the case. Anyone who follows Ginger on Twitter or Formspring knows that the songs are rehearsed in advance, as some are quite hard to play, then whittled down to make the best set possible.

So, the couple of people constantly screeching for 'Miles Away Girl' were going to leave disappointed. Even if it was for the lady in questions 3 year old daughter ("I don't care if it's for your Grandmother whose in a coma, I'm not fucking playing it!", was the classic response from Ginger.)

This all led to a hilarious situation at the encore, when Ginger refused to play anything people shouted out. Even the person who shouted out the next song on the set list, that was abandoned for just some general pissing about. This may all sound rubbish to some people, a band not playing as many songs in an encore, but you just need to understand, Ginger gigs are not like regular gigs, they're better!

This didn't please some on Facebook, moaning about not getting the last couple of songs, due to the rather loud couple of audience members, but what they don't understand is what we are seeing, the band having a laugh instead, messing around with other songs, is all spontaneous and won't be repeated! And it's great fun!

Nothing at Norwich, of course, was like the following night in Bristol. I won't open that can of worms again, but it seemed to get very chaotic at the end, and a lot of people in the crowd seemed to come off very badly, whether it be on the night or the next day on the internet.

Incidents like that, and minor little quibbles like Norwich, I can see why Ginger is taking a break from touring after these dates. To be honest, I've seen him 3 times this year in one form or another, without having to leave Norwich, and each time has been wildly entertaining. And this most recent gig ranks up there with one of the best I've been to, certainly the best in Norwich, and I've seen a lot here. A fine way to end the gigging year, and indeed, Ginger's touring run for the foreseeable future.

American Psycho Remake

As some of you may have heard, American Psycho is going to be remade. Yes, the window for remakes is closing ever faster, but this is one I'd actually like to see.

I liked the original film, and Christian Bale was so good as Patrick Bateman I can't envisage anyone else playing him. But it wasn't the book, and I would really like to see someone take a swing and making something closer to that.

But, no. This remake appears to be set after the events of the book, dealing with how Bateman survives in the modern day world. Vaguely interesting, sure, but it's not exactly a remake. But I'd rather see Bret Easton Ellis write the thing first, rather than someone try an original story.

I read someone on Tumblr say that the books of Bret Easton Ellis are unfilmable. It's been the case so far, no argument there. I mean the closest adaptation to the source material was The Rules Of Attraction.

Not even Easton Ellis himself could nail it, look at the disastrous version of The Informants that was released. At one point co-written by Easton Ellis, then mauled into a dull slog of a film, which left one of the main threads of the book out! It was probably one of the easier of his books to adapt, albeit totally pointless as the book was just a random collection of short stories.

I think if the right director came along, there could be great adaptations of his work. Look at Less Than Zero. Good film, but so far removed from the book it may as well have been called something else. I'd like to see a redo of that, also. Properly done.

Lunar Park is a book I'd love to see adapted, but while there are plenty of capable directors, I don't think any movie studio would bother with something so adventurous.

And as for Glamorama? Well that one is definitely unfilmable. Anyone would make a spectacular hash of that, and I'm glad no-one has tried.

At the end of the day, all we are going to be stuck with is another shoddy American Psycho spin-off, and all we can do is hope it's better than American Psycho 2: All American Girl...

Kevin Smith: From Genius to Crybaby

Time was, I had a lot of respect for Kevin Smith. In fact, he was probably one of my favourite directors out there. He had a run of films that most directors would kill for, which ran for almost a decade.

His first film, Clerks, speaks for itself. Shot in black and white, on zero budget, the vulgar look at convenience store life was unlike anything that came before it. Next was Mallrats, an attempt to replicate the style of Clerks, but with a studio budget, which didn't get the same critical reception, but I found it to be a tremendously enjoyable comedy.

Next up was my personal favourite, Chasing Amy, followed by the controversial (but brilliant) Dogma. Then he gave his Jay & Silent Bob characters their own film, '...Strike Back', which was also great fun.

After that, Smith left the 'View Askewniverse' behind and made Jersey Girl, which got promptly ripped to pieces. Personally, I didn't mind it, in a disposable, watch once kinda way. With that, Smith returned and made another great Clerks film, and things looked like things were back the way they were.

I guess the beginning of the end was when he made Cop Out. Essentially, Smith wanted to outlaw critics reviewing the film after it started to receive an absolute pasting from them. The argument was "why do critics get to see my film for free, and slate it, when the public has to pay?"

The answer, of course, is because if the critics like the film, they'll give it a good write up etc. which may encourage some people to go see it, who wouldn't have before. But this wasn't good enough, I guess. In Mark Kermode's new book, he actually tells the story of electing to pay to see it at the cinema, hating it, THEN blasting it.

Of course, critics weren't the only people who hated Cop Out. The vast proportion of people who went to see it did also. I didn't catch it until it came out on Blu-Ray, and rented it from LoveFilm, with a completely open mind. It was Kevin Smith after all, he deserved the chance, even if I found the whole critic rant thing a bit odd.

I thought Cop Out was fucking diabolical (see the review here) but, it was not as if I had written the guy off as a director (although I was a bit worried about his next film), I'm sure next time he would be back to his best. And he was. Red State (click here) was fantastic, really exceeded expectations.

But what finally did it for me was a by-product of Red State (and nothing to do with the rant against the airlines he had for them kicking him off the flight due to his weight. That rant was deserved, but he did milk it a LOT), and it was the nominations for the Independent Spirit Awards.

This years nominations include Drive. Now that's all I should say, really. Drive is probably the best film I have seen this year, and there has been a lot of good stuff out this year. Other films nominated include Take Shelter, The Artist, and The Descendents. Previous winners include Platoon, Pulp Fiction, Leaving Las Vegas, Fargo, Memento, The Wrestler and Black Swan.

As much as I enjoyed Red State, it's not close to any of those films. And even though it's not really, it's still viewed as a horror, a genre which rarely gets any award credit. But regardless of that, it's a great film, with great performances, but it's not award worthy, it's just not.

So Kevin Smith tweeted the following...

"How the fuck did the @SpiritAwards not nominate Michael Parks? Nor John Goodman? Nor Melissa Leo? Fuck your idiotic organization. #FakeIndie"

Crash! Bang! Smash! The sound of toys landing after being hurled from Kevin Smith's pram. Is this guy actually serious? Even if his film contained performances not seen since the glory days of De Niro, you don't post a petulant, whining tweet about how "fake" the awards are. Is it because Smith chose to distribute the film himself, touring it nationwide, he felt that automatically should include him in any 'Independent' awards?

Emilio Estevez toured his film 'The Way' (a film that was better, in my mind, than Red State) across America, and it was never released by a huge studio, making that quite the independent project, but have you heard him pitch a fit because he didn't get any award nods? Nope. Because that's not what grown up professionals do. The accolades of the viewing audience should suffice, and any awards it garners are just a nice bonus.

To end, consider this final fact. Even though Smith had boycotted critics after the theatrical failure of Cop Out,  the UK distribution company for Red State still contacted Mark Kermode asking if they could use a quote from his positive review for the movie's poster. Considering Smith's hands on approach to the distribution of this film, he must have known that people were contacting critics for permission to use positive quotes right? The same critics he didn't need a couple of years back?

Apparently, Smith's next film (or films, if it ends up being a two parter) is his long awaited (for him) hockey film Hit Somebody, then it's onto just concentrating on his podcast network (and I'm sure he'll do well at it, he is still a funny guy when he's not repeating the same old stories), but after his behaviour and the total loss of respect I have for the man, this is one former fan that won't be watching. And that's a real shame. At least I have his back catalogue to keep me entertained.

Film Review: The Guard

All the reviews I read of The Guard when it was released earlier in the year compared to another film starring Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges, a film I still haven't seen, even though the world and it's uncle have been singing it's praises since it came out. I've been meaning to, honestly, but just never got round to it.

From what I know about In Bruges though, is that it appears that the only similarity between that and The Guard is the copious amounts of fruity language used. Other than that, they seem totally different apart from Gleeson.

In The Guard, Gleeson plays an Irish police sergeant, Gerry Boyle, who has a somewhat out there persona. He's quite the in your face guy, and he does things his way. Now that may bring to mind a big action movie cop like a John McLane, but when I say he does things his way, I mean has his days off when he's supposed to have them, even with a huge murder investigation open, as he's seeing some escorts in a hotel room!

After a seemingly occult killing in his Irish quiet town, Boyle attends a briefing by FBI agent Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle), where the truth about the killing begins to present itself. Blackmailing, killings and corrupt cops are all involved in the ensuing mess that Boyle and Everett have to get to the bottom of.

The Guard is easily one of the funniest films of the year. The writing from director John Michael McDonagh is brilliant, and nary a scene passes without some hysterical dialogue. Much of the laughter comes from the comparisons to the buddy cop scenario, Doyle's refusal to look at Everett's baby photos is a particular highlight ("The only time a baby doesn't look like every other baby is when it's a really fucking ugly baby, so unless you're about to show me a picture of a really fucking ugly baby, I don't want to see it")

Also having an absolute ball this is the ubiquitous Mark Strong as one of the drug smugglers, Clive Cornell. Strong also gets some killer dialogue even in the bad guy role ("When I applied for this job of international drug smuggler, it didn't say anything about heavy lifting").

But as well as all the laughs, The Guard has real heart as well. The scenes between Boyle and his Mother (Fionnula Flanagan) are as touching as anything you're likely to see this year, and the films final scenes are equally powerful. It's a rare thing for a film to be so achingly funny and so heartfelt at the same time, but The Guard pulls it off effortlessly.

The more I write in this review, the more I realize I really don't have anything negative to say about it. Great direction, great acting, great performances from everyone and it doesn't outstay it's welcome for a second. I think I may have to dish out for the full score for this one. See it as soon as humanly possible!

*****
One of the best films of 2011. Funny, touching and just brilliant all around! The highest of recommendations!

Film Review: Moneyball

To be brutally honest, if there were a film about a hardcore group of people who liked to sit and watch paint dry whilst discussing the diameters of their fridge freezer written by Aaron Sorkin, I would be the first in line to see it.

Sorkin is, in my opinion, the greatest writer we have in the medium of TV and cinema. Everyone should know at least one of his TV shows - Sports Night, The West Wing, and the short-lived Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip (incidentally, he returns to TV with a still unnamed show on HBO next year), and his film scripts speak for themselves - A Few Good Men (which was based on a play he wrote), The American President (which was almost a dry run for The West Wing) and the one that won him an Oscar, The Social Network.

So next up is Moneyball, a true story about a baseball General Manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) who along with newly hired assistant GM, economics expert Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) formulate a method using statistics and computer analysis to form a winning team.

This meets with a lot of opposition along the way of course, the Oakland A's (the team in question, I should add at this point) scouts want to stick to the tried and tested methods, and the teams manager Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) also tries to stand in the way of the new way of doing things.

Moneyball is a fascinating watch, and is only made better with the fantastic script. Co-written with Steven Zaillian (no slouch himself, he wrote Schindler's List, Gangs Of New York and American Gangster), it does seem more like a Zaillian script with a sprinkling of Sorkin, so if you were expecting a scintillating Sorkin script in the vein of The West Wing, or The Social Network, Moneyball isn't quite there.

Which isn't to knock the script, because it is fantastic, and as I write this has already won an award from the New York Critics Circle, which bodes well for Oscar season. Also fantastic is the performance from Brad Pitt, who along with The Tree Of Life (review coming soon), has had a hell of a year. Pitt really gets inside the character, and after 2 hours you really get where Beane was coming from (or not, more on that in a bit.)

Also worthy of mention is Jonah Hill, who I had never actually seen in a straight role. He probably had the most of the comedy moments in the film (this is a script co-written by Aaron Sorkin, there's always going to be brilliantly amusing moments), but he really impressed me. Hopefully he won't be typecast in comedy roles in the future.

I was hoping for a bit more Phillip Seymour Hoffman though, considering how good he was in the last Sorkin-scripted film I saw with him in, Charlie Wilson's War. He didn't really have much to do in the film, but it was an important character so you could see the need for it.

All this talk of the writing shouldn't take anything away from the direction, it's just I'm a Sorkin nut. There is some great direction from Bennett Miller, especially considering this is only his second feature film (Capote, with Seymour Hoffman was his first.)

Of course, the great writing and direction doesn't always work on people. The screening I saw Moneyball in wasn't very busy, but there was still room for a complete idiot. At the end of the film we are left with Beane agonizing over a decision he has to make, and in the pre-credits coda, we find out what that decision was.

Now, we have spent over 2 hours with the character, and thanks to Pitt's superb performance, we know what makes Beane tick, and how he operates, making the decision he has to make quite easy, and obvious. We should all know what he's going to do, and indeed he does.

That didn't sink in for one member of the audience, who after discovering what the choice was, bellowed out "What a dickhead!" Good to see he was able to follow the events of the film. But I know you are all a discerning bunch, just one look at what blog you are reading should prove that!

****
Even if you have no interest or knowledge of baseball, there's still a lot to get out of Moneyball. A fascinating true story, great acting and a brilliant script. Highly recommended.

Film Review: The Thing (2011)

Being a massive fan of John Carpenter's 1982 classic, I was unsure that I really wanted to sit and watch a prequel that fills in the gaps of what exactly happened in the Norwegian camp running up to the start of that film, but nonetheless, I gave it a go. And while it wasn't as terrible as I thought it was going to be, the whole thing was a waste of time, pretty much.

Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by a team of Norwegian scientists, who have discovered an alien spaceship under the ice in Antarctica. Unearthing the body of one of the aliens, the team set about discovering what it is, until they find out it's still alive, can kill, and replicate human and animal form.

So far, so 1982 right? And that's the way it stays really. Pretty much the same stuff happens to them, that happened to Kurt Russell and company almost 30 years ago. There's some nice nods to the Carpenter film (which was a remake, of course) but that and the samey plot all tended to remind me of the superior movie.

Then, of course, there's the CGI. It's pretty bad. When a film released in 1982 can still top the special effects than one released in 2011, you know it's going to be bad. Some of it is horrendous, and really blunts some moments that had the potential to be quite good. Some models are used, and even they are worse!

A lot of time has been taken to recreate everything from the scene in Carpenter's film where the Norwegian camp is explored, that much is certain, and the film makers themselves refused to remake the 1982 version, likening it to "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa", so I guess it all comes down to whether you want to know what happened beforehand, or would you rather just let your imagination do the work for you. I know I'd rather have left it all open, and I don't think there were any online petitions asking for these 'secrets' to be revealed somehow.

The very end of the film is very good though, and does segue perfectly into Carpenter's, even the iconic theme by Ennio Morricone plays, which is a very nice touch and is probably the best moment in the entire film because it works perfectly. You could easily put the 'original' on immediately after. If you had gotten anything else from the new movie, that is.

The performances are solid throughout, Winstead is fine, and Joel Edgerton is perfectly watchable as the helicopter pilot (American, obviously), but when it came to the Norwegian crew, they are all blatantly 'Thing fodder', except, of course, for the one who can't speak English. We all should know what happens to him.

In the end, The Thing is another in a long line of reboots or prequels or remakes no one asked for, and will soon be forgotten. And it didn't exactly do the business at the U.S. box office, which is just as well, because I can just imagine some bonehead cinema goer asking for a sequel.

**
Not the absolute disaster I was expecting, and with a very good ending, post credits. Other than that, you may as well put the 1982 classic on, and not worry about what happened at the Norwegian camp, we've all managed not knowing for 29 years!

Meeting Mark Kermode

As any reader of Thom's House Of Words will know, I love films. But not even my love of film can match that of Mark Kermode. Best known for being the BBC's premiere film critic (apologies to whoever is hosting Film 2011 these days, but it's a fact), Kermode has recently brought out his second book 'The Good, The Bad, And The Multiplex: What's Wrong With Modern Movies?', and came to Cinema City in Norwich last night to promote with a talk/Q&A/book signing.

The evening started with the talk, where the good doctor covered a variety of subjects in his usual entertaining and amusing style, but not before he said a few words about the great Ken Russell, a friend of his, who sadly passed away earlier in the day.

After that Kermode delivered a great talk about what was wrong with cinema today, from the films like Transformers 3 and Sex And The City 2 (the latter of which he really went to town on), to the modern day multiplex, where the film itself is no longer as important as the sweet counter at the front of the house, and projectionists, once a revered and skilled role, are now deemed pointless, and laid off left, right and center.

It's all true of course, as some of you may know, my Summer at the cinema this year was nigh on depressing. The 'blockbusters' were mostly terrible, and it did start to get me down a bit. These films get made, and people go to see them, and a lot of people hate them, but they still went to see them. Another great point Kermode made was that we get sequels that no-one really wanted!

And of course, there was also time to slate Danny Dyer a bit. Which should be par for the course really.

After the talk, the floor was opened up for questions, and apart from one very confusing one about films that mirror the country's current economic and governmental position, there were some real good ones. Independent cinemas, what makes a multiplex a multiplex, Pixar, horror movies and opinions on the outpouring of quality television shows (mostly American) provided some really interesting answers.

It was the Pixar question that led to a short debate on what was the best trilogy. Mark suggested that it had to be Toy Story, and the room did struggle to come up with anything that could top that. Suggestions such as The Godfather (doesn't anyone remember III?), Back To The Future and the first three Alien films (which almost ostracized my friend, and the entire row we were sat in!) were all shot down in his inimitable style. And the guy has a great point, I can't think of another trilogy of films that good!

Also mentioned in the Q&A was the role of internet bloggers, which is a subject that interested me, of course. Mark had a lot to say about them, and I like to think I'm staying on the right side of the line about what makes a good critic. Would be nice to have an editor though, I have to concur there.

After that was the book signing, and unlike so many other signings I've attended, it was a chance to have a nice chat with the man himself. A friend Michael, who along with his other half Mel we met up with after the talk, argued the merits of 2001 over Silent Running, a debate he was always going to lose, but it did end up with an amusing photo being taken. And sorry Michael, Silent Running is better!

When I met him, I asked something that just popped into my head. I'd heard many a time that Kermode's favourite movie, of course, was The Exorcist, and his least favourite was The Exorcist II, but I had never heard what he thought of the third film, which I think has a great film in there, but with a heap of crap dumped on top of it.

To my surprise, Mark agreed and said that he was convinced that the studio was sitting on enough footage to release a proper version of Legion, and one day he and William Peter Blatty would be able to get to it (I sincerely hope so!), but in the meantime he recommended a book that contained the the screenplay for the original Exorcist, and the original screenplay for Legion, so as soon as I got home I found and ordered that!

It was just a great night, and it was just so good to be able to listen to him talk about films, then be able to have a conversation with him about them. A thoroughly engaging speaker, and if the new book is half as good as the evening was, I'll be in for a treat.

The Good, The Bad, And The Multiplex by Mark Kermode is out now in paperback, from all good bookstores. 

Gig Review: Pure Reason Revolution. Norwich Arts Centre. 26/11/11

It's hard to believe it's been almost 5 years since I've seen Pure Reason Revolution live. The first (and only) time was back in February 2007, where they supported Blackfield at the Astoria 2 in London. Since then, they've released another couple of albums, but sadly are calling it a day and embarking on one final tour around the country, including a stop at the Norwich Arts Centre.

I actually had a ticket to see them at the Arts Centre when they last played in Norwich, but due to double booking on a friends birthday, I was unable to attend. So when they announced a date on the farewell tour at the same venue, I jumped at the chance.

I'd never been to a gig at the Arts Centre before, and it's quite a cool little venue. I was shocked about how close to the stage you could get, though. No barriers at all, it felt like I was almost on the stage. It made for a nice intimate gig, you could even hear the tapping of the effects pedals between songs! The place was about three quarters full on the night, I'd say. Hard to gauge when I'd never been in there before, though.

The set from PRR would be split into two parts, with no support acts. The first part would be debut LP 'The Dark Third' played in it's entirety for the first and last time, then the second part would be material from their other two albums 'Amor Vincit Omnia' and 'Hammer And Anvil'.

The first album was a very progressive album indeed (in the more classic sense), and that was reflected in the playing, with pretty much no breaks (except for an amusing mess up during 'Bullitts Dominae' that caused the song to be restarted from the top) throughout the hour long performance. They're aren't the chattiest band I've seen live, but they did all seem to loosen up as the gig progressed.

It was good to hear the album played out in full, though, even if I had heard quite a bit of it live before back in 2007. But it was the second act I was more interested in...

The second two albums (and obviously, the second part of the show) moved to a more industrial, electronic sound, and got heavier, but still retained the harmonic vocals from bassist Chloe Alper and guitarist/keyboard player Jon Courtney. 

While good on record, the live presentation of such songs as 'Les Malheurs' and 'Deus Ex Machina' were absolutely thumping live. Big industrial beats, bigger guitar riffs, it was a joy to witness live at last, and it's a massive shame that this will be the last time I'll be able to do so.

Pure Reason Revolution were a fantastic band, with such a diverse back catalogue, especially considering they only released 3 albums and a couple of EP's. I always remember the first time I heard 'Fight Fire' from the 'Hammer And Anvil' album, and I was convinced I had put the wrong album on! But at least we have the music to look back on, if not the fantastic live performances like this one.

****

At this point, I'd normally recommend you go see a band live, but unless you are reading this in the 3 days that remain that they are still playing together, that probably won't happen. But, it was a great performance from a great band, who will be missed. If you haven't heard their albums before, go find them.

Film Review: Hall Pass

Of all the people that piqued my interest in seeing Hall Pass, it was legendary author Bret Easton Ellis. Proclaiming it the funniest movie of the year on his Twitter account was probably an exaggeration, and while it comes over like a Hangover wannabe, it does walk all over the sequel to that film.

Fed up by their husbands increasingly erratic and sex obsessed behaviour, Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate) decide to give Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) a 'Hall Pass', which is essentially a week off from marriage so they can get everything out of their systems, with zero guilt. The wives leave to see relatives, and while they start to have a blast, the guys are struggling to recapture their youth...

Directed by The Farrelly Brothers, known for hits like Dumb And Dumber and There's Something About Mary, you can expect some gross out moments and some heart, which is what Hall Pass delivers, even though it's nowhere near as good.

The cast are all likable enough, and there are some good (albeit unlikely) appearances from Richard Jenkins as a hardened partying god, and Stephen Merchant as one of Rick and Fred's buddies. Merchant also gets one of the more amusing moments in the film, during a bizarre post credits sequence, which is almost at odds with the rest of the movie!

The film does start to drag unfortunately, as it drifts past the 90 minute mark, it does struggle to hold the interest, and even for a Farrelly Brothers film, it does get, well...dumb and dumber. And not in a good way, just in a really silly way, which didn't really do it for me. It seemed to be trying to hard to be out there and wacky.

Overall though, Hall Pass is a decent enough watch, and while it doesn't reach the heights of...well anything the cast and film makers have done before, it's all watchable enough and has just enough laughs to get you through the films slightly bloated running time.

***
A mildly amusing comedy, with some heart too. But it's nothing amazing, and it's a bit too long. Worth a rental, perhaps.

Film Review: God Bless Ozzy Osbourne

Even the casual passer-by will know a lot about Ozzy Osbourne these days. The early years with Black Sabbath, the riotous 80's with it's dove/bad biting and Alamo pissing, the latter day mess that was MTV's The Osbourne's...so does everyone really need a 90 minute documentary looking at his life?

The answer, predictably, is not really. God Bless Ozzy Osbourne just retreads the same old ground we all know about. Don't get me wrong, it's an entertaining enough watch, and there are some different talking heads for once, people we haven't normally seen talk about Ozzy.

His kids from his first marriage have a bit of pop about what a bad father he was during the Sabbath heyday, his brother has a few childhood tales, and even his daughter Aimee (who wanted no part of the Osbourne's TV show) adds some input.

The film is co-produced by his son Jack, so that's probably the reason we get to see some different people, but it's just the same old stories. In fact, if you've seen the Don't Blame Me documentary from 1992, there really isn't much new here, other than the reality TV show.

Of course, The Osbournes is how a lot of people first heard of Ozzy and his family, but what they didn't know is that pretty much everyone was off their faces on alcohol and drugs at the time, so MTV's 'wacky' fly on the wall documentary was more a disturbing look at how alcoholism tears a family apart, but made for idiots to laugh at. In fact, one of the few revelations in the documentary tells of how Ozzy's drinking and drug intake was at an all time high during the course of the show, even topping the chaos of the 80's.

The 80's stories are always morbidly fascinating to me, particularly the tour with Motley Crue. Tommy Lee is on hand to retail the piss licking and ant hill snorting, but does add a story I hadn't heard before (or can't remember hearing, at least) involving a 'messy' encounter in a hotel room, not one for the queasy.

And for the fans, it's a bit worse. Hardly any of the music is touched upon. While there's some time devoted to the tragic loss of Randy Rhoads, we don't really here anyone talk about any particular songs, or albums. Not even the old story of how quickly 'Paranoid' was written is brought up. And on a similar note, the documentary footage of Ozzy on the road must be pushing 2 years old already, as it still shows Zakk Wylde in the band, and he left/was replaced by Gus G well over 18 months ago.

While it gives us nothing new, God Bless Ozzy Osbourne at least shows the world that the stumbling drunk seen on The Osbournes was exactly that. How many people thought that was how he was all the time? This new documentary shows the real man, articulate, amusing and an artistic side as well. And it's about time the world saw that.

***
While it does show everyone what Ozzy is like now he's clean and sober, and talks to some new people, it really is the same thing rehashed. If you've seen Don't Blame Me, or read any books by the family, there's not going to be much here for you. A entertaining if disposable watch.

Film Review: The Ides Of March

The Ides Of March is one of those films where it's hard to level any real criticism at. But at the same time, it's annoying, because it's also one of those films where a huge amount is given away in the trailer. You know when you're watching something, and you know 'something' will happen because you saw it in the ad? That knowing blighted my viewing, but fortunately the road getting to what was spoiled was very unpredictable.

It's also the best film George Clooney has directed to date (including the fantastic Good Night, and Good Luck), and further eradicates his status as 'the handsome doctor in E.R.' (swooning women's words, not mine) or even worse, of course, 'the shit Batman'.

The fact The Ides Of March is about American politics also furthered my enjoyment. After repeated viewings of all seven seasons of The West Wing, I know more about the Government of the USA than I do my own country, so when the script threw all the political jargon out there I was well on board.

Clooney also co-stars in the film (and co-writes it for good measure) as Mike Morris, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and prospective Democratic candidate for the President Of The United States, along with man of the moment Ryan Gosling, who plays Morris' Junior campaign manager Stephen Meyers.

After Meyers takes a phone call from the Democratic oppositions campaign manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), things get serious, and nasty and sets in motion a turbulent chain of events involving Morris, Duffy, Meyers, his boss Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), an intern (Evan Rachel Wood), a newspaper writer (Marisa Tomei) and a Senator (Jeffrey Wright.)

It's all a story of how far one person is willing to go to win, essentially. And even with the spoiler-tastic trailer looming, it's a gripping one. Just one look at the talent involved indicates this was never going to be a bad film.

Indeed, it's hard to fault any of the performances, but as good as everyone is, there's never a standout. I can't see any acting nominations being dished out come Oscar season.

But that, and the aforementioned trailer, are the only bad things I can say about The Ides Of March. Great acting, a great story, great direction. And if you're into your American politics, you'll love it. If not, it's very accessible and just a real pleasure to watch.

****
A fantastic political thriller, with great (but not showstopping) performances all round. Notch up another great role for Ryan Gosling, and another great film directed by George Clooney. Just avoid the trailer if you can!

Film Review: Larry Crowne

First off, I feel like I should offer some form of explanation as to why I actually watched Larry Crowne. You don't even need to know me that well to know that I'm not exactly drawn to films with tag lines on the front of the case like 'Find Life and Love', which is the case of this. I'm not one for inspirational messages on my DVD case, thanks.

The reason I wanted to watch it was the fact that Bryan Cranston was in it. After the one-two punch of the sensational Breaking Bad (which may end up being one of the greatest TV shows of all time) and his supporting turn in potential film of the year, Drive. To put it mildly, I wanted more Cranston, in any way, shape or form.

But Cranston aside, I found a film I was mildly surprised by, and found quite enjoyable, and if it wasn't for a few problems, I'd highly recommend it.

Larry Crowne is all about Tom Hanks (a man everyone loves, and if you don't, you have no soul), he stars, directs and co-writes (along with Nia Vardalos, best known for My Big Fat Greek Wedding) and his likability carries the film nicely.

Hanks plays the titular Larry Crowne, a middle aged divorcee who has just lost his job as a team leader at a big superstore, and decides to go back to college, where he falls in with an unlikely gang of students, mostly scooter fans. He also starts to fall in love with on his tutors, the miserable, and very married Mercedes Tainot (Juila Roberts.)

The supporting players almost seem like stunt casting. Dale Dye has a small role as one of the superstore executives letting Larry go, George Takei plays another tutor at the college, Cedric The Entertainer plays Larry's next door neighbour who is a permanent state of yard sale. It's a motley bunch, but they all are quite likable.

The aforementioned Cranston has about 4 scenes, after all that, but has a great role as Mercedes' husband, Dean - a college professor turned internet blogger. Which means he just sits online looking at porn. He's an unbelievable dickhead, and Cranston is brilliant in the role. It's a shame he wasn't in it more.

The comedy is really silly, but I warmed to it for some reason. Some subplots involve George Takei's tutor being annoyed Larry keeps using a phone in class, and the running joke of one of his college buddies being annoyed at the attention his girlfriend shows Larry. It sounds rubbish, but I actually quite enjoyed it.

For all its charm, the side is seriously let down when it gets to character development, though. Mercedes' character jumps from the unhappy wife, bringing her misery to work to all sunshine and rainbows so quickly, you barely have time to blink. And even if that wasn't the case, I just couldn't buy into the romantic side of the plot at all.

I just couldn't see what would attract Larry to Mercedes, all she does was come off as quite unpleasant for the longest while, and a lot of the time, he doesn't even seem to be that interested in her. It's almost as if it was decided that the film better have Hanks and Roberts kissing a bit, seeing that they're in it.

If watching the film, I do advise that it goes off the very moment the credits start rolling, as it involves a horrifically embarrassing sequence, set to green screen. To make a comparison, it reminded me of the music video to David Hasselhoff's version of 'Hooked On A Feeling'. Yeah, that bad.

It's all a game of two halves though. It's undemanding, sweet and mildly amusing where it needs to be, but there's no way you'll buy into the love story aspect.

**1/2
An OK film let down by a lazy romantic subplot, and possibly the worst post credits sequence I have ever seen. Try renting it.

Film Review: The Hangover Part Two

Whilst I didn't mind the original Hangover movie, I didn't think it was as funny as everyone else seemed to at the time. I actually saw a review crowning it the "funniest movie of all time". That reviewer obviously hadn't seen Airplane. Or insert one of the thousands of other funnier films here.

But The Hangover was amusing, and original. Neither can be said for the sequel, which has to be one of the more shameless money making exercises of recent times.

Two years after the eventful bachelor party in Vegas, things have settled down for the 'Wolf Pack'. Stu (Ed Helms) is about to get married now, and is going to have the ceremony in Thailand. After a lot of convincing from Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu is persuaded to allow Alan (Zach Galifianakis) to come along, but once they hit Thailand they have another big night, resulting in another hangover and no memory of the night before.

Told you it was the same damn thing again? What was original about the first movie is obviously long gone, and just none of the humour worked for me. I could see where it was trying to be offensive (monkey smoking, full frontal shot of a ladyboy) but it all just seemed utterly puerile. And this is coming from someone who can dig offensive or immature stuff. But only if it's done correctly.

And the main plot isn't the only thing recycled. The deeply annoying Chow returns (played by the equally annoying Ken Jeong) for no real reason, other than to bring back someone recognizable from the first one to pacify the idiot public.

As the film nears it's end it goes into repetitive overdrive. Remember when Stu had his character building rant at his fiance in the first film? Same thing happens, but this time with his soon to be father-in-law. Remember when Mike Tyson showed up in the first one for no real reason? Guess who's back? For even less of a reason. And the "oh look here are some photos from the night" sequence to end the film? Oh hi, welcome back.

I can only assume that the filmmakers thought that a lot of the people who enjoyed the first film so much were absolute bone headed morons, because that's exactly who this sequel is aimed at. Just shovel the exact same film at the public, and watch them eat it up. And they did! I really do worry about the sort of person who enjoyed the sequel. I honestly think you could have put the first film on again and it would have prompted zero arguments.

I realise that there has to be some kind of similarity with the original, it has to involve some form of 'hangover', but there are plenty of ways they could have taken it, rather than just rehash the first film, but just in another country. It's such laziness, and insulting laziness at that.

Not even an appearance from Paul Giamatti can make things interesting, quite how he got involved in this is beyond me, but he does feature in the only scene that got a chuckle out of me though (the line "K as in knight", if anyone was wondering.)

I'm sure a third film in the series will be churned out in due course, but I can only hope that something different is attempted. Underneath all the failed jokes and performances (and that includes Galifianakis as the bumbling man-child Alan, even he wasn't that amusing) the talent is there. But it would take a hell of a lot to get me to watch it.

*
A dreadful humour desert. Trying to be offensive and just coming back like a 9 year old kid finding out about nob jokes, but on the big screen. A massive waste of time and talent, and almost the exact same film as the original. 

Film Review: The Killer Elite (2011)

It's funny how a trailer can make a film look like something completely different to what it is. The trailer for The Killer Elite portrayed a wham-bam Hollywood blockbuster, with it's quick editing and thumping 'Rock You Like A Hurricane' soundtrack, but in reality it's an early 1980's England set (mostly) action film based on a true story and while there's nothing wrong with that at all, after the exciting trailer, I was left slightly let down.

Jason Statham plays Danny, a former SAS agent whose mentor Hunter (Robert De Niro) has been taken captive. To secure Hunters freedom, Danny has to kill another 3 former SAS agents. As this is happening, an elite group of former SAS operatives is alerted, and dispatches their head enforcer, Spike (Clive Owen) to find out what's been going on, leading the inevitable face-off with Danny.

And what a face-off, just over 40 minutes into the film we are treated to a dream match of action stars, as Statham has a bruising battle with Owen, one of the many high octane moments in the film. Problem is, weighing in at nearly two hours long, the film does tend to drag in places.

But that isn't to say there's nothing to keep the viewer occupied. Statham, Owen and De Niro are all good in their roles, it's especially satisfying to see De Niro kick some ass throughout for some reason. Also entertaining was Dominic Purcell (from Prison Break) as one of Danny's colleagues, Davies. I had absolutely no idea Purcell was English, having only seen him in Prison Break, and he sports some heroic facial hair, even beating Owen's challenging mustache.

One cast member I was let down by was Danny's love interest Anne Frazier (Yvonne Strahovski), the character was so bland an non-dimensional, that anyone could have played it, which is quite the waste of a talented actress like Strahovski.

For Statham, it seems like another step up, working with the likes of De Niro (although I imagine some people regard it as a step down for De Niro...), but it's another solid Statham film, but like other period pieces he does like the Italian Job, he just seems frozen in time. Whether it's the 60's or the 80's he always looks Statham!

The Killer Elite (no relation to the 1975 film, by the way) is a solid enough slab of action entertainment, but it's slightly dingier and slowly paced than the epic trailer promised. Worth a watch for fans of the cast.

***
A slight let down, and about twenty minutes too long, but other than that, The Killer Elite is sufficient action film entertainment for anyone, and highlighted by a fantastic fight between the two hardnuts.

Film Review: 30 Minutes Or Less

After the success of director Ruben Fleischer's Zombieland, I was quite looking forward to his follow up, 30 Minutes Or Less, especially as it reunited him with Zombieland star Jesse Eisenberg, and also featured the brilliant Danny McBride. Sadly, I was disappointed.

Eisenberg plays Nick, a pizza delivery guy, who is kidnapped by two idiotic criminals, Dwayne and Travis (McBride and Nick Swardson) who attach a bomb to his chest, and order him to rob a bank for him, so they can pay for a hit on Dwayne's Father (Fred Ward.) Nick ropes in his best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) to help him make the big score at the bank.

The main problem with 30 Minutes Or Less is that it's not half as funny as it thinks it is. The amount of times I've seen the whole 'potty mouthed caper' in films now is ridiculous. I don't know if it's me getting old, but swearing every other word is only done by kids who have just discovered how to.

That's not to say the film doesn't have it's amusing moments. McBride, although he is playing the exact same character he ALWAYS plays, is good value at times, and Ansari has a few good comedy moments too. And there's a great car chase sequence set to the classic song 'The Heat Is On'. But other than that, not much hit the target for me.

Luckily, at least, the film is just over 80 minutes long so never really outstays its welcome, and because of that fact it's rarely dull, but it is just a immature throwaway jaunt.

Oddly, Fleischer's next movie is huge sounding period drama Gangster Squad, starring such serious names as Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Nick Nolte and Robert Patrick. Here's hoping he has better material to work with than he did here.

**
Occasionally amusing and exciting, but it's written like a bunch of kids found out how to swear at times, and it's nothing particularly original. Least it's nice and short though.

Film Review: 11-11-11

Seeing as yesterday was the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the eleventh year, I thought it only right that I watch the film of the same name, 11-11-11, the new film from Darren Lynn Bousman (Saw's 2-4, Repo! The Genetic Opera.) It's synopsis of bizarre events occurring on dates and times with the number 11 in sounded appealing, but in the end I was left rather bored by the film.

Joseph Crone (Timothy Gibbs) is an author struggling to come to terms with the death of his wife and child, when he is told that his dying Father doesn't have much time left, so he travels to Barcelona to visit him and his estranged brother Samuel (Michael Landes.)

Once there, Joseph discovers more and more evidence to support a mounting theory that recent events are all occurring at dates and times containing the number 11, all leading up to the upcoming 11th November 2011...

Usually this is the kind of thing that really interests me, as the film started discussing demonology and the number 11 in history and things like that, but I just failed to click with any of it, and found the whole thing a rather tedious chore, if I'm brutally honest.

That's not to say the film doesn't have it's moments. There's plenty of jump moments, and unsettling moments with demon faces lurking in the background, but the whole thing is for nothing as when the demons actual show up in full form at the end, it just looks like GWAR showed up for a gig. It just gets sillier and sillier after that.

There's nothing wrong with the acting of direction, and you may get more out of it than this reviewer did, but I found the whole thing to be quite uninspired.

*1/2
A harsher score than I first thought, but I really didn't get on with this. There's the odd unsettling moment, but things are quite dull, until the silly ending rears it's ugly head. The whole thing seems like a missed opportunity that for obvious reasons, won't get a do-over

Film Review: Trespass

Most filmmakers have peaks and troughs throughout their work, and no better example of this would be Joel Schumacer. The guy has directed some brilliant films like St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys, Flatliners and Falling Down. But on the flip side, he has also helmed Bad Company, The Number 23 and most horrifically of all, Batman and Robin.

His latest film, Trespass, starring Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman is sadly a film that definitely falls into the trough category. And not only is it a woeful film, it was a disaster of the most epic proportions. Costing $35,000,000 to make, it raked in a dire $24,094 in its first ten days in cinemas in the States, where it was then pulled out, only to surface on DVD a mere 8 days later (making it the quickest cinema to DVD wait ever.) It is an astounding example of a flop.

And the trouble didn't even start there. Cage decided he wanted to change roles near the start of the shoot, from the husband to a kidnapper, and filmmakers even went so far as to contact Liev Schreiber to take on the role, until Cage returned the next day...playing the husband again.

The husband Cage plays is Kyle Miller, whose business is diamonds. He's married to Sarah (Kidman) and they have a rebellious teenage daughter (Liana Liberato.) One evening, they become a victim of a home invasion, but as the evening goes on, secrets are revealed and their situation gets worse and worse.

The immediate problem is that I could under no circumstances buy Cage (who is looking very paunchy in the film) and Kidman as man and wife. I just couldn't make that stretch. And matters are made worse as ridiculous plot twist follows ridiculous plot twist. It resembles a particularly bad soap opera most of the time.

The performances are diabolical across the board, also. Cage you can expect, his recent output has been increasingly bizarre, but he just phones it in, there's not even a lot there to mock after a while, and I like mocking his inferior films.

Kidman just shrieks and screams her way through the film, and the kidnappers are all pretty terrible, with a' special' note for Jordano Spiro, who was embarrassingly bad as the deranged stripper female intruder Petal (Yeah, really.) It's truly a face palm performance there. The others? Well, I have to make the soap opera comparison again as that's the level of acting we are dealing with here.

Trespass seemed liked the longest 2 hours of my life, till I finally saw it was over and had only run 85 minutes. The whole thing is an amateurish, poorly acted, boring mess. Let's just hope Joel Schumacer gets another peak soon. And as for Cage? The films so bad, he refuses to watch the finished product. Let that be the warning to heed.

*
One of the worst films of the year. There's nothing worth recommending here. Even fans of mocking Nicolas Cage's OTT style and crazy wigs will get bored after the first half hour. Absolute dreck.

Death Of The Dead?

Out of all the different types of Horror movie that there are, zombie films have always been my favourite. Films like the groundbreaking '...of the Dead' films by George A. Romero showed that it didn't have to be all flesh munching carnage, a political or social commentary could be covered too, without compromising any zombie action.

And we all could have a laugh too, thanks to films like Return Of The Living Dead, and later films like Shaun Of The Dead and Zombieland (although I do contest that these aren't strictly zombie films, more comedies - and very good comedies at that - that happen to have zombies in them.)

But recently, nothing has inspired me. Romero's most recent picture, Survival Of The Dead was decidedly average to put it mildly, and before that Diary Of The Dead took several viewings for me to enjoy. And if the master of the sub-genre can't get it right, shouldn't everyone else take a step back?

The main reason I'm writing this piece is because of The Walking Dead. The first season started well enough, a solid story and some great zombie carnage, but things started to crumble near the end. But this second season for me has been so melodramatic and slow, I'm one episode away from throwing in the towel. It's akin to an episode of Eastenders, but with the undead showing up to eat some faces off now and again.

I'd waited so long for a zombie TV show to appear. And when it did, all it gave us was a cast that got more unlikable by the episode (I honestly didn't mind them at first, but now I can barely even stand to look at them) and storylines like "Where did the little girl vanish to?" and "Oh no this little kid got shot". Now, I can barely tolerate the main cast, but the kids who barely got any dialogue? And it's been dragged out for 3 episodes at the start of the season? Argh! And I'm not even mentioning the fact they don't even call them zombies!

But it's stuff like that, and the fact that no really good zombie film has come along recently (with the possible exception of French film La Horde, which was fun but totally unoriginal) that makes me wonder whether people should just take a very un-zombie like breath and...well, just not make any zombie films for a while?

This will never happen, of course. Not now. Zombies are up there with Justin Bieber and whoever is popular on X Factor this year in the cultural coolness stakes. Zombies are "in". Any scumbag lad can roll into his favourite club in fancy dress as a zombie, regardless of the fact that they have passed their creative high point.

Just one look on Google images for 'zombie', shows bunches of utter morons doing zombie flashmobs (possibly the worst thing to happen to civilization since World War II), artwork of people being zombies, or stills from 'ironic' zombie films and not a sign of any of the undead from Romero's films (nor anyone elses for that matter.)

And The Walking Dead, for all it's soap opera moments, and occasional zombies, is currently insanely popular, with a third season awarded, and other TV networks scrambling for ideas (such as a mooted Zombieland TV show at Fox, which will be shitcanned when the fad has passed) to jump on the bandwagon.

All we can do is just cling onto the fact that audiences are fickle. Today it's zombies, tomorrow it will be a different creature feature altogether. Maybe vampires!

No wait, the Twilight books have already ruined them, never mind.

Film Review: Tactical Force

Is it just me or is Steve Austin turning into THE action star of this generation? Whilst not exactly setting the world on fire at the cinemas (with The exception of stuff like The Expendables and The Longest Yard), he has been making consistently good action films ever since he stopped wrestling. And for some reason, and it was never intentional, I own all of them (yet to watch The Stranger, Damage or Knockout yet though.)

Yeah, not everyone may like stuff like The Condemned and Hunt To Kill, but I found them both to be fantastic little action films and great vehicles for the artist formerly known as 'Stone Cold'. Hell, he's even done a 'training a kid to fight' film in Knockout (or Born To Fight as it's known over here, review soon), but he's never stepped foot into Disney films, shoddy comedies or Uwe Boll films (Dwayne Johnson, Vin Diesel and Jason Statham I'm looking at you all respectively here.)

While the names above look and act the 'action hero' part most of the time (although I don't rate Diesel much), they have compromised their position with the sort of thing I mention above. Didn't work for Arnie, Sly, Bruce or Chuck, branching out, and the story remains the same still.

Tactical Force is the latest in quality (albeit low budget) action films that Austin is getting a real name for. He plays Tate, the captain of a SWAT team who are ordered to go on a training mission in a disused hangar after a brutal grocery store takedown. Unknown to the team, though, two rival gangs are having a large disagreement in the same hangar. Armed with nothing but blanks, and with no back-up, the team must battle their way out.

It's not the most original storyline, but I was hooked from the moment it started. Helpful, that was well as Austin the rest of his team contain familiar faces in Michael Jai White as Hunt, and Lexa Doig (Stargate) as Jannard. The team are immediately likable, and all the cheesy banter between them is totally plausible.

The film does feel like a Stargate reunion (not a fan personally), with Michael Shanks playing lead villain Demetrius, as well as cast members Steve Bacic and Adrian Holmes having also appeared in the show. UFC fighter Keith Jardine also features, and has quite the bruising brawl with Austin near the films end.

A problem I did have with the film, however, was the editing. Continual 'side swipes' with added sound effects were used throughout to change scene, and they did get quite annoying after a while. I guess I should be glad the films editors didn't find the 'star wipe' button.

Tactical Force, overall though, is a violent, fun blast which harkens back to the OTT days of 80s action movies, albeit on a much smaller budget. And as long as Steve Austin keeps making films like this - and his next two projects feature Danny Trejo and Dolph Lundgren - I'll be watching them.

***
While it never re-invents the wheel, Tactical Force is a high octane blast filled to the brim with cheesy one liners and some great action. Check it out.

Film Review: The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)

After the release of the first Human Centipede film (reviewed here), I was quite looking forward to the sequel. But the more I started to hear about it (sandpaper masturbation, a barbed wire rape scene - which thankfully never made it in) the more I started to think it was just going to be shocking for shocking's sake. And, for the most part I was right.

The plot at least was quite original though. Martin (Laurence R. Harvey, in his film debut) is a disturbed loner who works in a parking garage in London. Inspired (and also aroused) by the events of the original Human Centipede film, he decides to start abducting people to take the centipede to the next level: 12 people.

At the same time, he's having problems with his Mother (Vivien Bridson), who blames Martin for his fathers incarceration and is having him see a doctor (Bill Hutchens) for his obvious mental problems. This part of the plot is pretty disposable though, other than to shoehorn in a couple of terribly cliched characters.

With the exception of the lead, the cast are utterly dreadful. Harvey is spectacularly creepy, however as the short, fat, bug-eyed loner. It's his performance alone that at times lends credibility to the film, but the ridiculous plot writer/director Tom Six has devised this time overshadows that before long.

Things just get dumber and dumber as the film progresses. The original had a lot of dark humour, but it kept itself "medically accurate" at least, lending a bit of realism to the affair. But 'Full Sequence', just gets more and more OTT as time goes on, especially when it comes to making the centipede itself.

And it most definitely is shocking for shocking's sake. The inclusion of a pregnant woman as one of Martin's centipede is totally unnecessary and just results in an absolutely disgusting and equally pointless scene near the end.

A saving grace for the film is that it was shot in black and white, which helps with the more gruesome scenes. Still not entirely sure why it was shot this way, but it must have been something to do with getting the film passed in different countries, regardless of what Tom Six may say. But when it came to the scene involving laxatives (told you it was stupid), I was grateful for the lack of colour.

As we all know, the film was banned in the U.K. until it was passed with over 3 minutes worth of cuts to it. Regular readers of this blog will know my opinions on censorship all too well (short version: ban a film, or release it uncut, there should be no middle ground) but the big question is - did the Human Centipede II deserve to be banned?

And I would have to answer in the negative. It's just too stupid and over the top to be taken seriously, even with the outrageous shocking moments. A film like Martyrs can shock and make you think (and that film was released uncut in this country), but the Human Centipede II really has nothing to say other than "Eww look at THIS!".

Tom Six already has the third and final film lined up (Final Sequence, to be filmed in America), and already promises to make this look like a Disney film. I can only assume there will be no attempt at a plot at all.

**
Incredibly creepy lead actor and the odd legitimately disgusting moment aside, this is a rather puerile attempt to outdo the original film. Needlessly offensive in places, but most of all, so damn stupid you can't take it seriously.

Gig Review: SOiL & Puddle Of Mudd. Norwich Waterfront, 27/10/11

Back in the good old days of the venues club nights, before it started aspiring to be a facsimile of every other club in Norwich (albeit a much dingier one), The Waterfront used to play 'Halo' by SOiL every week in it's main room. It was (and still is) one of those songs everyone went nuts for.

So when it was announced that SOiL were going to be playing the Waterfront, and bringing back original vocalist Ryan McCombs (who is currently the vocalist in Drowning Pool) to celebrate the tenth anniversary of 'Scars', the album 'Halo' comes from (an album that was a huge hit, even though it was released on September 11th, 2001), it was only natural to buy a ticket.

Joining them in a revolving headliner double bill were post grunge survivors Puddle Of Mudd. It had been so long since I had heard any of their music I had actually forgotten that I'd listened to their breakthrough album 'Come Clean' a lot, back in the day. So when I spun it again, I instantly remembered some of their great material.

Up first on the headliner bill were SOiL, and even if they were inebriated (and they really, really were) they put on a great performance. The band seemed to have a great connection with each other, and were having a right laugh performing together again, by the looks of it.

The highlight though, had to be 'Halo'. A drum solo started the song up, and McCombs left the stage, only to re-emerge in the crowd, battling to the front row, where he sang the song perched on the guardrail, then proceeded to light up, all with the security guards looking very nervous indeed.

SOiL played...

1. Breaking Me Down
2. Need To Feel
3. My Own
4. Redefine
5. Cross My Heart
6. Inside
7. The One
8. Wide Open
9. Black 7
10. Unreal
11. Halo

Trying to top that then, were Puddle Of Mudd. And I really had no clue how popular they still were! The sold out crowd were pretty heaving during SOiL, but, if anything, it became even more crowded for POM's set. Mostly a female audience showed up all of a sudden (cue the usual attempts to get to the front, as if they have some right to. Here's a hint: get to the venue early and you can), as the band launched into 'Out Of My Head'. 

The some reason, frontman Wes Scantlin (looking like a cross between Kurt Cobain and WWE wrestler Edge) had a serious problem with a former member of his management team. The sound was a bit muddy at the front, so couldn't make a lot of it out, but it sounds like the band was slated badly by this guy, and Scantlin was taking exception. No idea when this all happened, but the way Scantlin was going on about it, it was recently!

Other than that he interacted well with the crowd, but didn't seem to talk all that much other than that, as the band raced through the hits (could not find an accurate setlist at this time): 'Control', 'Drift And Die', 'Famous', 'Psycho'...before attempting an ill-advised cover of AC/DC's 'T.N.T'. I usually avoid covers albums like the plague and this was proof why. But all was redeemed with a glorious double header to finish the show with 'Blurry' and 'She Hates Me'.

Here's a compilation video a friend compiled of POM's set, check it out (and his other videos too!)

SOiL: ****
Puddle Of Mudd: ***1/2


SOiL just take away the evening for me, with a far more energetic set than Puddle Of Mudd. Not knocking them though, but it was a rather fast run through, with a bit of a dodgy cover involved too

Film Review: Paranormal Activity 3

Last year, when I reviewed Paranormal Activity 2 (see here for that), I deemed the sequel 'unnecessary' but did concede that the effective jumps from the original were still there, but maybe not in as high a volume.

The same can be said for the installment in the series, but while the jumps and tension are still there, the film starts to drift further and further away from the original. Which is a shame considering how well the first two gelled together.

The film starts in 2005 with camcorder footage of Kristi (the sister from the second film, again played by Sprague Grayden), still pregnant and decorating the room for the forthcoming baby. Her sister Katie (Katie Fetherstone) shows up, asking if she can use some basement space for some boxes, one of which contains some home movies from when they were kids. Soon after this, Kristi's place is 'robbed' and the box of tapes has gone missing. Cue the video...

A very pristine looking picture on the video too, considering it's supposed to be from a camcorder circa 1988, but never mind. The video is being shot by Dennis (Christopher Nicolas Smith) who is dating the sisters mum Julie (Lauren Bittner.)

Not long after Kristi (played as a child by Jessica Tyler Brown) starts talking about her 'invisible friend' Toby, and all sorts of strange occurrences start happening.

As with the first two films, most of the films tension comes from the nighttime footage (even though the video tapes have to be changed every six hours, but they still manage to capture everything, very convenient), with cameras in the master bedroom, the sisters room and one that is mounted on a fan (which seems to me like the kind of thing Sam Raimi used to do!), so a full view of the kitchen can be achieved.

It's actually the fan-cam that gets the most tension of the film, as it slowly (painfully so at times) pans from left to right and back again. In fact one moment with the camera and probably the oldest 'ghost trick' in the book gets one of the biggest jumps of the film, even though you see it coming a mile off.

As I said, there is plenty of jumps and tension, but what about the plot? That's where the side is let down unfortunately. To give the filmmakers credit (and we will get to them shortly) an attempt is made to explain why a demon is terrorizing the sisters in the first place, but that reason is pretty weak, and I've seen it before. Very recently, too.

But the whole film just seems like an excuse to do it all again, and it does mostly work, but at the end of the day it is just a money making sequel. And money it has made, much like the business PA2 did last year, the third chapter opened in America at $54 million in the first weekend, making it the largest opening weekend for a horror movie. Ever.

So, as with last year, a sequel is inevitable. The fact that the film cost $5 million to make, and has made back over ten times that in the U.S. alone pretty much secures that fact. It's a huge money maker, and I can't see them stopping making them until they stop generating cash. But the more they make, the further away from the original they will become. I can even see the films focusing on different characters and plots altogether in the future, and why not? It works, and it may not be the worst idea in the world to move away from the current characters.

A quick word about the choice of directors must also be mentioned before I get to the all important rating. You may remember back in May I reviewed a film called Catfish (see that here to jog your memory), which was a documentary about Facebook purporting to be real, but there was a lot of debate whether it was real or not.

The directors of that film, Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman directed this newest installment of Paranormal Activity, and it really begs the question about Catfish all over again. It seems quite suspicious that they are now making a fictional movie based on 'found footage', after making a 'documentary' that many thought was staged . At the time I thought Catfish was crazy enough to be true, but I'm having second thoughts about that now...

***
More of the same, with great tension and plenty of the jumps everyone expects. But the plot is wearing thin, and the explanation for the demon was weak to put it mildly. Things need a change up to keep the franchise rolling.

Film Review: Foo Fighters: Back And Forth

Released recently, along with their latest (and best of their career, in my opinion) album 'Wasting Light' comes 'Back And Forth', a look back at the 16 year history of Foo Fighters, from the early days when Dave Grohl was in Nirvana, up till present day. And while it's an at times fascinating look at the band, things really do tail off towards the end.

I've always liked the Foo's, but never exactly been an expert on them. Obviously, I knew Dave Grohl was originally a drummer, and was in Nirvana, and I knew there had been a lineup change or two over the years, but the things I didn't know totally outweighed what I did.

The film starts talking about Grohl's time in Nirvana, briefly touching on Kurt Cobain's struggle with celebrity that led to a drug overdose and his eventual suicide in May 1994. After this it took some time for Grohl to want to play music again, and he didn't want to play drums, so he recorded some song under the name Foo Fighters and enlisted Nate Mendel and William Goldsmith from Sunny Day Real Estate and Pat Smear to play as a band.

The rest is history, and now everyone knows who the Foo Fighters are, one of, if not THE, biggest rock band in the world. But what I didn't know what was the tension and the drama that went on behind the scenes. At one point, the band almost seemed to have a revolving door of members, and the reasons some of them left (or were asked to leave) were quite dodgy.

Another thing that was mentioned I didn't know about was Taylor Hawkin's heroin overdose, really took me by surprise as he always seems like a mellow, laid back guy. But, it wasn't all miserable revelations - the one that really got me was how close Grohl was to becoming the drummer in Tom Petty's band after Cobain died!

But for all the interesting revelations and honest manner in which it was approached, the longer the film went on, the more seemed to be skimmed over. The last two albums before 'Wasting Light' were mentioned briefly, and I was hoping for a look at some of the bands side projects to be looked at (e.g. Grohl's involvement with Queens Of The Stone Age, Probot, etc. or Hawkin's Coattail Riders) but only a brief mention of Queens was given.

I liked how they gave a bit of time to how monumental their gigs at Wembley Stadium were, but the guest appearances from John Paul Jones (which could have led nicely into a bit about Them Crooked Vultures) and Jimmy Page weren't even mentioned, even though they must have been a career highlight.

After that the film just turns into a making of piece about 'Wasting Light' really, about how the songs were made, who guested, etc. Not to say that wasn't watchable, but there was so much more the film could have said, but I guess in the end it was just made to promote the album, hence the name 'Back And Forth', which is the name of one of the songs from said album.

If you're a big fan of the band, you'll probably love it, but I was just left disappointed that a story as interesting as this ended up as a promotional piece.

***
Starts with some fascinating revelations, but ends up as a glorified 'making of' the latest album. A shame.

Gig Review: Bowling For Soup. UEA Norwich. 17/10/11

Of all the times I've seen Bowling For Soup play live, I've never seen them do a headline show. I have seen them at festivals, and even saw (and met!) the guys at an acoustic set/CD signing in London several years ago, but every time they come around to play a entire set, I have always managed to miss it. Until now that is...

Touring the U.K. in support of their new album 'Fishin' For Woo's', BFS touched down again at the UEA (they seem to like Norwich, it always seems to have a tour date here when they are touring the country) and brought fellow punk popper's Orange and Suburban Legends.

I'm going to be brutally honest about the support, I wasn't there to see them and I used that time to talk to some people I hadn't seen in a while, so can't fairly review them, but I do have a few notes about both that it would be remiss not to share.

I am still convinced I've seen Orange before, and I did kind of recognize them, but nothing they did drew me out of the conversations I was having. My brother probably put it best when he said they "looked as generic as they sounded".

Suburban Legends did catch a bit of my attention by the end of their set. The use of trumpet and trombone made for some pretty catchy songs, and the cover of 'I Just Can't Wait To Be King' from The Lion King raised some smiles.

We were more than ready for Bowling For Soup, though. Moving from near the bar to a better spot on the 'dancefloor' (regular UEA patrons will know what I mean by that), we didn't have to wait long till the band emerged, kicking off with 'I'm Gay' from the 'Great Burrito Extortion Case' album, followed by 'High School Never Ends' from the same album.

The crowd were wildly enthusiastic at this point, but that did die down a bit as the set went on. Not at the front, that totally maintained, but from where I was standing, I saw a lot of folded arms and not much excitement being shown.

The band were on fine form, from both a music and comedy standpoint. Anyone who knows of the band must know they are funny guys, and those who don't just need to check out one of their videos. And they were as hilarious as ever at the UEA.

That being said though, I did find the band stopping for a drink (at the bar they had on stage, no less) during 'Punk Rock 101', while the strains of AC/DC's 'Have A Drink On Me' were being piped in over the PA, a bit much to be honest.

That was made up for with a different song introduction at the end, when 'Girl All The Bad Guys Want' was halted for a completely improvised song called 'Do You Want To Suck On My Balls, Gary?'. You can check that out in the last blog I posted, as I was happening to be filming at the time!

It was also worth noting that the band seemed to play (with the exceptions of one or two early ones), every single they have ever released! They also surprised the crowd with covers of 'Stacy's Mom' by Fountains Of Wayne (they covered that song, apparently because a lot of people seem to think it's one of their own songs!), and 'Summer Of '69' by Bryan Adams, which was amazing!

Whilst writing this review I found out that BFS' song '1985' was a cover version too, first recorded by a band called SR-71, and used with their blessing. I guess you learn something new everyday! Or two things, as I had no idea the band do the theme tune to 'Phineas And Ferb' till they played it!

Bowling For Soup played...

1. I'm Gay
2. High School Never Ends
3. S-S-Saturday
4. Ohio (Come Back To Texas)
5. When We Die
6. Emily
7. The Bitch Song
8. Stacy's Mom
9. Today Is Gonna Be A Great Day (Phineas And Ferb Theme)
10. Almost
11. My Wena
12. The Last Rock Show
13. Punk Rock 101
14. No Hablo Ingles
15. Turbulence
16. Friends O' Mine
17. Summer Of 69'
18. 1985
19. Belgium
20. Girl All The Bad Guys Want/Do You Want To Suck On My Balls, Gary?

****

Aside from getting a bit too wacky with the onstage bar, Bowling For Soup put on a fantastic show. Catch them on tour when they are in your town!

Bowling For Soup - Do You Want To Suck On My Balls, Gary? - UEA 17-10-11 - YouTube

Saw Bowling For Soup at the UEA last night, full review to follow, but had to share this. The first airing of 'Do You Want To Suck On My Balls, Gary?'

Great night!

Bowling For Soup - Do You Want To Suck On My Balls, Gary? - UEA 17-10-11 - YouTube:

'via Blog this'

Film Review: Assassination Games

Being such an ardent Jean-Claude Van Damme fan, it's hard to believe I've only reviewed a handful of his films on this blog (No Retreat, No Surrender, Double Impact, Street Fighter, and erm...Breakin'.) Even harder to believe was that I almost missed the release of 'Assassination Games' entirely! I knew it had been made, but not until a few days prior to to it's release did I know it was coming out. A situation quickly rectified!

Van Damme plays Vincent Brazil (the latest in a long line of fantastic character names), an emotionless assassin who takes a job to take out a drug dealer, Polo Yakur (Ivan Kaye.) But another assassin (Scott Adkins) wants a piece of Yakur, as revenge for when he and his men raped and beat his wife (played by Van Damme's daughter, Bianca Van Varenburg), putting her in a comatose state that she has yet to emerge from.

After an initial confrontation, the two assassins decide to team up to take out Yakur, and the corrupt Interpol agents (one of which is played by Van Damme's son Kristopher Van Varenburg - it's a family affair this one) that are backing him. Meanwhile, Vincent helps out the prostitute living next door, starting an awkward relationship between the two, him being so cold and isolated and all.

Like most Van Damme films these days, there's nothing wholly original about the plot, and there's the usual budget cutting setting of Eastern Europe, but like most of his films, I found 'Assassination Games' to be quite entertaining. Van Damme still cuts an imposing figure, while Adkins seems quite the promising hard-man (especially considering his previous resume of stuff like Hollyoaks and Holby City.)

Of course, the bad guys are the total opposite, completely unmemorable, and utterly forgettable, only existing for the inevitable moment when the two leads take them out. I can't really complain about that though, you can't go into these films expecting much strong characterization for anyone save Van Damme and Adkins.

At one point, 'Assassination Games' was due to be a vehicle for Van Damme and Steven Seagal (which would have been amazing), Seagal dropped out and Vinnie Jones was put in the frame (which would have been dreadful), but Scott Adkins was finally cast alongside the 'Muscles From Brussels'. Adkins, of course, is joining Van Damme in the highly anticipated Expendables sequel, as well as the next installment of the Universal Soldier franchise.

'Assassination Games', though was shot very similarly to the (really quite decent) 'Universal Soldier: Regeneration', and looks really good throughout. A true mark on how well it was shot can be seen if you watch recent ITV4 documentary 'Jean-Claude Van Damme: Behind Closed Doors' which featured some behind the scenes footage from the film, and it looked really cheap and nasty, to be honest.

'Assassination Games' will do nothing to change anyone's opinions of Van Damme and his films, but fans should enjoy the kind of solid straight to video actioner he's been doing for the last few years. Next up, will be his big screen return (not counting Kung Fu Panda 2), in Expendables 2, and he really deserves the return to the big time.

***
Nothing original, but some decent Van Dammage. Sure, his recent films may be shot on a budget, but they are full of what his fans want. Can't see the problem with that at all.

Film Review: Pearl Jam Twenty

Looking back on Cameron Crowe's movies, you stumble upon the shocking realization that he has only directed 6 non-documentary motion pictures (Say Anything, Singles, Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, Vanilla Sky and Elizabethtown.) It was his his second film 'Singles' that introduced a lot of people to Pearl Jam (and many other fantastic bands on the soundtrack.)

But the story of Crowe's latest documentary starts with his own arrival in Seattle in 1989, as the alternative rock scene was in full swing. Over the rest of the United States bands like Bon Jovi, Motley Crue and Poison were hugely successful, but the seeds were being sewn in Seattle with bands like Mudhoney, Soundgarden and Green River and would lead to hugely popular bands like Alice In Chains, Nirvana and the subject of this film: Pearl Jam.

Green River would become Mother Love Bone, fronted by the incredibly talented Andy Wood, and that is where the films story begins. Tragedy would strike Mother Love Bone in March of 1990 when Wood died of a heroin overdose.

From the ashes of Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam were formed. New frontman Eddie Vedder was brought in and things just exploded in terms of popularity, and the rest is history.

'Pearl Jam Twenty' is a great documentary for fans of the band, mixing archive footage with new interviews with all the members, as well as some collaborators such as Chris Cornell. The band are very honest, and the documentary deals with all the downs as well as the ups.

Vedder's struggle with the initial fame, the battle over ticket prices with Ticketmaster and the George W. Bush face mask incident are all dealt with very candidly, and the in the case of the latter two instances, with not much regret.

Also dealt with very candidly, and emotionally was the Roskilde tragedy. At the 2000 Roskilde Festival during Pearl Jam's set, the crowd surged forward, leaving 9 people dead. The entire incident left the band at a real crossroads, so much so that they refer to their career in terms of "pre-Roskilde" and "after".

There's also some good time given over about halfway through to look at the bands relationship with each other, and their rather Spinal Tap turnover when it comes to drummers. It's a great look into these relationships, though. The core of the band has remained solid since they released their first album back in 1991, and not many bands can say that.

Whilst Pearl Jam emerged in the midst of the grunge scene, it's hard to really pigeonhole them with that tag. They are very much influenced by classic rock acts from the 70s like The Who and Neil Young (both featured in 'Twenty') as well as some punkier influences. There's an archive interview with a quite bitter Kurt Cobain, when referring to PJ.

There was no doubting how many doors Cobain and Nirvana opened for bands like Pearl Jam, and while I like some of their music, I always liked Pearl Jam more (and bands like the aforementioned Alice In Chains and Soundgarden.)

It's hard to say whether non-fans will enjoy this, coming from someone who really likes the band. But from a documentary point of view, it's very well put together and it's just a fascinating story about how some guys went from playing tiny shows in bars to becoming the biggest band in America.

*****
I guess if you're not a fan of the band, you could knock a star from this. But I am, so it remains. A fascinating insight into the band, and the people in it. A fantastic and emotional snapshot of the last 20 years.

Thom's House Of Words on Social Networking!

You can now follow Thom's House Of Words on Twitter! Just follow @thomshousewords (I couldn't get the 'of' in there, it would have been too long.)

And find Thom's House Of Words on Facebook! Just search for it, it's in the pages category, and don't forget to like it!

And you can follow the blog itself by clicking on the link on the right of the page, I assume you would be updated of all new posts as soon as they are posted!

Hope to see people on the various places soon!

Film Review: Slaughter High

Released in 1986, 'Slaughter High' was originally going to be called 'April Fools Day'. Unfortunately, the filmmakers were just beaten to the punch by the other 'April Fools Day' (reviewed here) so it was renamed 'Slaughter High'. Not the most subtle of titles, I grant you, but 'Slaughter High' is the far superior April Fools Day set film.

It's not original, and things go a bit awry at the end where as many twists as possible are chucked in the melting pot, but it doesn't try to be different and fail like 'April Fools Day'. It's the lack of originality that gives it a real 1980's goofy charm.

Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) is a high school nerd, being constantly bullied by his classmates. One April Fools Day, a prank on Marty goes horribly wrong, ending in an explosion in a science lab, leaving Marty deranged and scarred for life.

Ten years later (and still in the 80's somehow), the bullies are invited back to the now-abandoned school (which seems to be located in the middle of nowhere, a strange place for a high school) for a class reunion. It's not long till they realize something is up (actually it does take quite a while, a hilarious beer poisoning finally tips them off) and they find the jester mask wearing Marty is picking them off one by one.

Of course, we've seen this type of film before. But there's something about 'Slaughter High' that makes it hugely enjoyable. Maybe it's because it's so carefree about itself. For example, one of the students is played by Caroline Munro, who was 36 at the time of filming! And while she doesn't look her age, she does look considerably older than the rest of the cast. But it doesn't seem to matter, it's all a part of the aforementioned goofiness of the film.

The deaths are nice and gruesome for those who find that kind of thing important. The beer spiking one is a particular highlight, although you do get some rather bland kills as well.

As I mentioned earlier, the ending gets a bit messy and over populated with twists, but overall 'Slaughter High' is a must see for slasher fans who don't mind a film that doesn't take itself too seriously.

***
Stupid, OTT and corny, 'Slaughter High' has a kooky charm about it that many slashers shot in the 80's wish they had. The ending may ruin the fun slightly, but overall it's a right laugh.