Dude, Where's My Car?

I didn't realise before I sat down to watch Dude, Where's My Car? all of the similarities I would be able to draw between it and old 90s movies such as Bill and Ted and Wayne's World.

Part of me can't believe how long it's taken for me to see this movie. It's one of those where you've probably heard all of the major quotes from it if you've never seen it before. The fact that it's got "dude" in the title sort of gives away the theme - so if you sit down to watch the movie and complain afterwards that you had no idea that it was going to be an hour and a half of pointless jokes about blow jobs and weed - then you really can't say you didn't have fair warning.

Featuring Ashton Kutcher (That 70s Show, The Butterfly Effect) as Jesse and Sean William Scott (American Pie, Role Models) as Chester, Dude tells an extremely bizarre tale of two stoners trying to remember what they did the night before. There are parallels, plot wise, between this film and the more recent The Hangover - though the latter of these was better written and executed. Then again, Dude doesn't try very hard - most of the gags are very simple, their targeted audience is predominantly males twixt the ages of 12 and 25 - and it doesn't try too hard to be clever. Problem is, this means that unlike The Hangover, which could appeal to a much wider audience, Dude only works on one level - and unlike Waynes World and Bill and Ted, doesn't win any prizes for originality or glean any bonuses for nostalgia.

In essence, the plot circles around two young men, unsurprisingly, looking for a lost car with no memory of how they lost it in the first place. After run ins with some surprising characters and the plot taking a seemingly pointless turn into light science fiction - you get to the end of the movie really wondering what on earth the point was. There are only a couple of really good quotables - and though Scott and Kutcher do a valiant job in maintaining the good natured idiocy that Keanu Reeves and Mike Myers brought to their similar characters, these good points are not enough to make up for the weaknesses in the script and the fact that the movie doesn't quite work as either a sci fi comedy like Bill & Ted, or as a gross out comedy such as American Pie.

A fairly poor 2 stars out of 5, I'm afraid.
Bogus.
**

Film Frolics

I've seen a lot of films lately. Here are some of the highlights and lowlights.

1) Fantastic Mr. Fox

Let's start at the top. I wasn't quite sure what to expect from a movie based around one of Roald Dahl's books. Nothing I've seen to date can compare remotely with the humour and rather dark overtones of Dahl's books. There was always something of the fairytale in them - and when I say fairytale I mean those of the Grimm variety where the baddies got their comeuppance in the end and no ending involved a Disney cliche where the characters solved their differences and the evil witch lived out the rest of her days as a fluffy bunny rabbit.

Let's review; George's Marvellous Medicine? Evil granny gets so small that she disappears. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The other children end up stretched and distorted out of proportion for their bad behaviour. The BFG? The giants are thrown into a pit and forced to eat the most disgusting vegetable imaginable for the rest of their lives. Quite a few of Dahl's villains met grizzly ends, and while he wrote the books for children, quite a few of them, such as Matilda and James and the Giant Peach, actually had some quite mature ideas in them that only an adult could understand. The man was, let's be fair to him, quite the literary genius in some areas.

Therefore when I realised that Fantastic Mr Fox wasn't simply going to be a rehash of the plot told by puppets, I as really pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is excellent and flows incredibly naturally. The characters are strangely realistic, despite the fact that you're constantly aware that the animation isn't by any means smooth. George Clooney and Meryl Streep do themselves credit with their renditions, breathing life into the puppets and making them strangely believable to the point that some moments in the movie are peculiarly moving. Fantastic Mr Fox doesn't, perhaps, capture the kind of darkness that Dahl sewed into his work, but is instead mature in an entirely different but no less appealing way. The supporting cast are very good, and the way that the puppets move is endearing, made even more so by the jangly banjo music that makes up most of the soundtrack.

I will say that the plot does err on the side of Hollywood once it runs out of story from Dahl's book. It was, after all, not a long novel, and doesn't an especially climactic ending. Any negativity I might have felt towards moving away from the original story was utterly eclipsed by the remarkable realness of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Fox, brought to life through their respective voice actors and a clearly competent writer. It's quite remarkable the depth of the relationship created between these two little puppets in just a few short scenes.

Go. Go go go.

2) Up

I first heard about this film when Gareth reported to me that he would "never get back" the two hours he spent watching it. Having heard better reviews from other friends, I saw it last weekend, and can appreciate a little of the sentiment from both sides.

The introduction to this movie is both surprising and moving. I won't spoil it, but I will say it was my personal highlight from the movie, despite the fact that it did make me smudge my eye make up a little bit. This movie is underpinned by a sad event that never really allows you to forget it. Which I think is actually the point, which is why it's so clever. The lead character - a bitter and woe begotten senior called Carl - carries his sorrows around with him, both physically and mentally. The symbolism here is apparent from the word go - you'll see what I mean if you see the film. Everything else that goes on - and I do mean everything - seems utterly superlative in comparison to the level of sympathy that you feel towards this otherwise fairly unlikeable character.

As with all Disney films, the thing is rife with moral philosophy and it's impossible to avoid. Other than this though, what frustrated me most was the real lack of thought given to the film's other characters. With the exception of Russel - who is largely there to, in his youthful naivity, teach the most important lesson of all - the bad guy and his rag tag "henchmen" who are supposed to act as the comedy relief (though I was by no means relieved) were not thought out thoroughly and therefore not truly realised. This is sad because over the years Disney has produced some amazing villains - Scar, Jafar, Ursula to name some of my personal favourites - and this is far below their usual standard.

It's a shame because if these side elements had been better it would have created a far more rounded experience, instead of the film having highs and lows. Profoundly moving in places, but feels somehow unfinished, like something that should have been a short, but was filled in with fluff to make it last 1 and a half hours.

3) Changeling

This one I watched on Sky Movies on my XBox - I've seen quite a few movies of late this way - it's marvellous.

This is heavy material. I already knew the twist to this movie before I started watching it, and it surprised me how long it was. Angelina gives a strong performance - in fact - the whole cast was not found wanting - the plot was believable in an occasionally surreal way, but the storyline was so harrowing in places as to almost make it difficult to watch.

It's interesting that I'm having trouble writing this review. I don't know whether that's because the movie left a bad taste in my mouth, or because I didn't relate to the characters. The whole thing was good - it was well made, it was well put together, but somehow everything was a little over the top. The number of disturbing events that occur in this movie are high - things have this way of going from bad to worse and there never seems to be a moment in the film when somebody isn't crying or shouting at someone else.

It was like being on an evening out with a couple you've known for a long time who are coming to the natural end of their relationship but don't really know it yet.

There's all this arguing; crossed words and asides where they subtly undermine each other, then they argue, then one of them walks off and has to calm down, then they spend the rest of the evening not talking to each other... I've taken this image far too far, but the point I'm trying to make is that it is that level of discomfort I felt sitting through this movie. It gave you a thorough sense of hopelessness that never really abated until the end credits finally rolled.

4) The Duchess

A good though not excellent bodice-ripper. I've wanted to see this movie for ages, as I like Keira Knightley as an actress, even if there is a small part of me that wants to pin her down and forcefeed her McDonalds cheeseburgers. Keira somehow always gives a bit more believability to characters in formal attire as she's remarkably natural even if the dialogue is wooden.

Ralph Fiennes plays an excellent bastard in this movie, and the fact that it ends without you thinking he's still an enormous tool is credit to an already highly decorated actor. The costumes and general feel of the movie are well put-together - indeed - even when a film is let down by it's dialogue or poor chemistry, the costumes are usually well put together, as though the designers have more passion for the period than the director does for his own movie.

What it lacked, however, was believability. It's interesting that I bring that word up both in this review and the one for Changeling as both of these movies are based around real events, but for some reason that doesn't make them more real. The people in it don't feel as human as they should, they feel too assembled, painted pulled and plucked. Maybe these directors have simply tried to squeeze too much drama into these movies. In one sense the plot was excellent - the ball was constantly rolling, events were consistently moving, the scenes were interesting and diverse, and yet I found something wanting because for all of this, the events felt too much like a creative writing piece written for GCSE english. Too much action, too much drama, too many tears and too much screaming. Are they really trying to tell us that every meaningful female protagonist in history dealt with her problems by stomping her foot, shouting and slamming her bedroom door?

Too much melodrama, not enough reality. I enjoyed it for it's over the top dramatic side, but I didn't find it believable. I just wanted to see some real people.

Maybe, baby

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5201695/First-TV-commercial-for-morning-after-pill-will-increase-teenage-promiscuity.html

Assuming that statistics aren't the enormous lie that most people perpetrate them to be, we have to summise that underage pregnancy in the UK is a big problem. You've heard the most of my views before regarding this; but summed up, I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion based on abortion statistics that too many women are using them as a form of contraception. People become careless, they forget their pill, they neglect to use a condom, but instead of worrying about the consequences, they say; "Nevermind".

It therefore surprises me to some extent that Ann Widdecombe is taking such issue with these advertisements for the morning after pill. We have to take it as read that drunken mishaps and carelessness will unfortunately occur from time to time, and it is much wiser to have a safety net that can be applied the following day, before any serious damage has been done. What I think the problem with Widdecombe's argument is, is that she is confusing the issue of lowering teenage pregnancy with lowering the number indulging in underage sex.

"Overage sex" as I suppose it might be called, or more specifically, "sexual intercourse over and above and age of consent" is not illegal, and it's not something Widdecombe has the right to badger young people about. According to UK law, once we are 16 and above it is the individual's choice whether they engage in sex. Widdecombe's chief objection appears to be that young people will see the advertisements, and conclude that it is now ok for them to have sex. This seems an illogical standpoint - after all, we advertise condoms after the watershed - does that encourage underage sex? Furthermore, there are multiple "ads" regarding the danger of STIs, which surely affect the more sensible of us. The advert for the morning after pill is not suggesting that individuals shouldn't use a condom, but is informing them that they can buy the pill over the counter and save themselves a lot of grief and embarrassment. If people are still determined to have unprotected sex despite the numerous warnings of STIs, then I think it will be difficult to find another way to get through to them, and at least this way we can stop people who are evidently too irresponsible to protect themselves from bringing another life into the world that they are ill-prepared to care for.

J
xx

I whine, You whine, Everybody whines

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/30/beauty-pageant-women

First, read this link.

When I originally read the title, I felt elated; finally someone who agreed with me that mysogyny is still rife in almost all forms of media, finally a discussion where someone else complains that they're tired of hearing gag after gag insulting women on baseless stereotypes for cheap laughs.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed when I found out Ms Gold was actually referring to Beauty Pageants. I wasn't even aware that these are ironic, to be honest. Not only that I was under the impression that they are voluntary and not actually that widely publicised. In fact, I can't seem to recall ever in living memory knowing when the Miss Great Britain competition was held.

I can't help but wonder why Tanya gives a damn why a collection of beanpole girls want to strut up and down a stage in front of an ugly and insulting man. No one's asking her to take her clothes off (thank God) and while I'm sure her answers to the pageant questions would ultimately be more inciteful and grammatically correct, her being not-terribly-attractive and weighing twice as much as the other contestants might rather stand in the way of her prevailing in a beauty pageant.

Maybe this all sounds a little cruel but I just don't really understand what part it is about this antiquated ritual that bothers her enough to write a column about it. It's tabloid fluff, like Big Brother, like Posh and Becks, like celebrity pregnancies. The only people who care about who wins are the women as stupid as those competing. Let's be honest, if these girls are having a hard time speaking their "brians" and they're happy miserably counting calories and starving themselves then I figure a beauty pageant is the best place for them.

Firstly; it gives our footballers someone to invite to the FIFA Christmas party.
Secondly; we know where they all are so we can avoid their retarded antics.
Thirdly; if we ever get sick of the whole affair we know when and where to drop the napalm.

I hate to say it, but I think this article is just proof again that women's worst enemies are themselves. It's not okay according to Tanya Gold to be just judged for your beauty, even if it's the only thing you've got going for you, no, you have to be judged on your intellect instead because that's an altogether fairer system. It's easy to see why Tanya would prefer the smarts test over the looks test, though currently I'd say her chances aren't looking good in either category.

Technology techschmology

I really like the idea of self-service checkouts. Not for huge loads of groceries perhaps, but for small baskets and getting lunch and so on I think they’re a really good idea. When they’re not such a good idea is when, for whatever reason, they don’t work properly.

I was in M&S today. I picked up about half a dozen items; drink, sandwich, crisps, a paper, and then headed for the checkout. Seeing there was a queue and wanting to break the mould that English people are for some reason attracted to standing in lines, I veered away to the empty self-service checkout.

Firstly, I was accosted by the M&S employee handling the machines. “This is stupid” I thought, “it’s ‘self-service’ – what is the point if I have to have a conversation with an employee anyway? Aren’t these machines supposed to save time?” I’d been starving hungry for the previous half an hour (evidently Crunchy Nut Cornflakes do NOT keep hunger locked up til lunch) and my temper was short. I was curt with her and having explained in clipped syllables that I understood that I had to pay by card rather than cash, she buggered off and left me to my business. I blipped through my sandwich and so forth. Unfortunately when it got to my copy of The Guardian it asked me to enter the cost, and then informed me to wait for assistance.

How complicated can it possibly be to type in the cost of a paper when the cost is written on said paper? Obviously, I had to be confirmed by the employee to make sure I wasn’t trying to buy it for 10p (which, in retrospect, was a lot more than it was worth), and this meant that the woman I had already been rude to had to come back over and help, and as a result talked to me as though I was mentally challenged. I probably deserved it for being so surly, for strutting in there with my “I can work this simple piece of technology” attitude and then being foiled by a system that doesn’t even know how much it’s newspapers are worth.

Anyway, I’m not doing that again. I could do without short, ugly old women getting one up on me, particularly when my blood-sugar level has sunk into the red. Still considering the fact that I paid nearly £3 for a sandwich, you’d have thought that Marks could meet expectations by creating a self-checkout that actually saves time, rather than wasting it. Another time, in another shop with an equally useless, I recall the machine informing me there was an "unexpected item in bagging area". How unexpected could an item in the bagging area possibly be? It's not like someone had just whipped their cock out.

Just another example of how simplifying the system has overcomplicated it yet again. I despair.

Seeing is Believing

Standing on the station platform this morning, along with myself and a rag-tag collection of tired misfits, was a soldier. I cannot be more specific than this, other than to say that he appeared to be in some kind of TA uniform. He was young though. Maybe a trainee. With the number of airfields and bases dotted about the county, seeing someone in uniform isn’t that much of a surprise.

There’s something about men in uniform, isn’t there? Not that I wanted to be whisked away in some mighty army machine, but there’s something kind of impressive about any person who’s willing to risk their own life and safety in the pursuit of the protection of others. Unknown others in fact – doctors, politicians, criminals, bank clerks – everyone. To protect everyone without prejudice seems like a pretty noble goal. Firemen, policemen, even doctors all command this same kind of respect the moment they don their uniform, whether it be a white coat and stethoscope, or army fatigues. It got me thinking about how important appearance is; how particular colours and garments cause us to react in different ways. For example, men in lab coats always make me feel a little nervous. Doctors wear them as they pour over charts, tutting over what could be wrong with you. Scientists wear them as they concoct dangerous chemical mixes. Men in police uniform seem to silently demand that you move out of their way and let them through. Whether it’s the people or the uniform I’m not sure, but there’s something surly about their demeanour that somehow always draws out of me a mild feeling of resentment. “Somebody” I think “has given these people too much authority.”

Even a suit can command respect. My father wore a suit to work every day for years, and to me he was an assertive and powerful man. I’ve always thought men look better in a suit and tie, though whether that’s some kind of weird Freudian thing, I don’t know. It’s important to never underestimate the importance of appearance. In fact if anything I probably worry about it too much. I don’t sit around and agonise about what skirt to wear for hours, but I do go into shops, look at clothes and think “What would people think of me if I wore this?” I see giant logos like “Bench” written on stuff. I’ve got no objection to a clothing line with that name, but is it the kind of thing I want printed on my backside the way they like to make their jogging pants? Furthermore, if I started wearing jogging pants, wouldn’t I look a bit on the chavvie side? Am I comfortable with that; is that an image I’d want to uphold?

Buying clothes has become, it would seem, an increasingly difficult activity. I like clothes with little or no logo, bold, cold colours, and other than that… what? Do I even have a “look”? I don’t think I do. I’m not a thesp, not a goth, not a chav, a gamer, a rocker, or a preppie looking idiot, I’m just… non-descript, which I’m not convinced is any better. We dress ourselves in a certain way because we like to feel that it expresses our character, but how much of an individual can any of us be when we’re all shopping in the same places, reading the same magazines and choosing one of a pre-determined set of looks created by someone else over the last 100 years or more?

I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking you.

Jury’s still out.

Massacre

It's been a weekend of new things. Here are my thoughts.

1) Left 4 Dead

New computer game of the survival horror variety, only for once the developers have really given some thought to the cooperative element of the game. Essentially, Louis, Francis, Bill and Zoey have to shoot their way through 4 campaigns of zombie murderage in order to achieve their final objective, which is always to answer a radio and finally get rescued by whoever is in the local area who hasn't been infected by the zombie... ness.

I admit I feel a mite disappointed by the lack of backstory. There's been a zombie apocalypse, but other than that we have no details whatsoever. I rather liked the development of plots such as Resident Evil where you spent the whole thing wandering around getting eaten alive by giant everything. I liked the fact that there was actually some reason why it was all happening. The zombies are called "the infected" which implies some kind of bio experiment gone wrong, but other than that Valve give their players no idea of what's gone wrong. Having a plot discovery element might have given them a bit more character development. It's a bit sad, because in the commentary they talk a lot about the development of the 4 central characters, and therefore it seems sad that by the end you know so very little about them aside from the half a paragraph they are awarded in the gaming manual. Valve apparently worked hard to make them likeable and believable. Hardly seems much point when they are all capable of exactly the same skills, same weapons capabilities, so they're all essentially the same person.

Gameplay-wise, it's a strong game. The zombies are well drawn, and it's always fun to see that if you shoot them in the arm, then the arm itself frequently gets blown off and flies across the floor. The range of special zombies keeps the game interesting, because being attacked constantly by the horde would get a bit samey and easy otherwise. Having said that, we are only playing on normal difficulty setting right now, and I still frequently get incapacitated. The music is good, lighting good, sounds good - everything you'd expect from a Valve game. I'm satisfied, pleased even, but it would have been nice to be overwhelmed or impressed to boot.

2) Mass Effect

I played through this over the last week and a half and finally finished it as the ultimate Paragon - ie, extremely good and well-behaved. It's definitely the easiest way to play. If you play as a Renegade, it seems hard to get the right options in conversations to allow you to intimidate people. If you're rude to them all the time, or knock them out, or insult their mums, you'll often be ignored or rebutted, which is a pain in the ass. Much easier to be lovely about everything and just charm the pants off everyone.

Though I really enjoyed the plot of Mass Effect and was initially very happy with the game, over an extended period of time, I found it repetitive and too easy. I appreciate that playing it on more difficult modes might have been sensible, fair play, but I do wonder what the real value in having Easy, Normal, Hardcore, Insane etc. What's wrong with having Easy, Normal and Hard? If I remember rightly, DMC even had one after that - Dante Must Die mode or something. Maybe Easy mode should just be made harder? In any case, if this weren't a big enough objection, you do spend an inordinate amount of time roaming around on alien worlds that all look very much the same. Rocky, usually windy, and usually red, brown or icy in colour. They didn't give enough thought to each planet, and hence exploring them is even more tedious than watching soap opera omnibuses. Omnibi. Whatever.

If you ignore the side quests entirely, not only do you miss out on a shedload of weapons and money, but the game is massively shorter in length. There are only 5 or 6 main missions, and none are very long, particularly on your second playthrough, which you will have to endure if you want most of the game's achievements. I had originally planned to play through as a full Renegade, but am thinking the better of it. Games really need to get more inventive with their achievements, rather than just having a bunch of completion bonuses. Yawn.

3) Gears of War 2

Haven't played this, but witnessed it at RK's house. Impression was that it's very much more of the same, so if you liked GoW1, you'll enjoy this offering. What it doesn't do is offer MORE, which is sad.

4) Goldfinger

It was inevitable that sooner or later I would have to confess my ignorance when it comes to Bond films. I admit both to loathing them as well as to only have seen about 2 and a half of the wretched things, and I tend to forget which. Goldeneye, Die Another Day and Casino Royale have all definitely been viewed, and the occasional scene from others. The whole thing just never appealed to me on any level. Pierce Brosnan was a smug and irritating Bond, I was never convinced that 007 as a character was a convincing spy, in fact I still believe that if such a person were to truly exist, he'd probably be dead within a month just for being a pretentious prat, who no doubt get shot by someone, be it his own side or someone else's. His mysogyny didn't help matters in my eyes, and while the gadgets and explosions were fun, I suppose, they appealed only to a very basic action movie appreciation that has always been more deeply fulfilled by proper gritty action as seen in Bruce Willis movies like Die Hard.

I found I quite liked Goldfinger, which I suppose isn't saying much. 60s Bond, as opposed to being cheesy was that enjoyable kind of old, where we accept that the effects aren't as good because it was made years ago. Bond is acceptably pervy because men were allowed to be in those days and nobody so much as batted an eyelid. Maybe my biggest problem with Bond is that he just never changes. Though his sad chauvanistic behaviour was acceptable when Connery donned the suit all those years ago, it just doesn't fit or add up in noughties Britain. If anyone actually behaved that way the majority of girls would reject his smug, slimy attitude. After all, we have better things to do these days than make an arrogant turd in a sharp suit feel even more self-satisfied.

Anyway, that aside, the villain Goldfinger was unconvincing, and bits of the plot were too contrived, such as having one gangster cubed in a car crusher for no good reason other than to have a bit of excitment as Bond tried to get his message out. The random slaughter of a group of gangsters after Goldfinger had just spent 15 minutes of the plot explaining his cunning plan to them seemed a waste of time. Still, as said, it was fun to watch in an old, cheesy movie kind of way. Like it's fun to watch an episode of The Avengers simply because the plot lines were always so utterly absurd.

5) Mallrats

Oh dear. I really wonder sometimes whether I should go on watching Kevin Smith movies as so many of them are entirely awful. The acting in this one - albeit an early one - was flaky at best, with memorable performances from Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith himself only. Unsurprisingly someone dropped in a 90210 joke because Shannen Doherty is in it, and generally most of the plot was just pointless filler with gags that generally flopped.

6) Zach and Miri Make A Porno

Thought I'd mention this alongside as it's another Kevin Smith. I saw it for my birthday, and generally I laughed quite a lot, though again the plot only hung together well enough in order to be predictable. What saved it was a genuinely likeable cast, Zack who was also famously in Knocked Up was good, though the part seemed too similar to ones he's played in the past. Jason Mewes again was a pleasure to watch, and it was nice to see he could be someone else on film than Jay. It was fun, but not really a patch on Dogma, my personal Kevin Smith favourite.

7) Bowling for Columbine

I had a feeliing that this one would be an extended documentary where Michael Moore tore apart the US people and government, and lo and behold it was. What was most frustrating about this tedious piece of television is that Moore doesn't actually answer his own question, despite the hours of research that must have gone into making it. Essentially he's just another critic who points out the flaws in everything without saying how to fix it, making him just as bad and ignorant as everyone else. Admittedly Charlton Heston needs a kick in the privates for being a insensitive jack-ass, but tragically I don't think he's going to change his way because a chubby geezer with a picture of a little girl turns up on his doorstep. Also, heston is not singularly responsible for gun crime, and I imagine commits extremely little of it.

My better half and I sat down to watch this after a conversation we had in the pub where I argued that guns were a menace and I'd like to un-invent them. We discussed that without guns surely there'd be swords and other weapons, but still think that having studied the WW1, machine guns and automatic weapons played an enormous role in the massacre of soldier's lives. It's never been so easy to take a life as it is in modern day America.