Father's Day

To me Father's day is more of an inconvenience than a day in which to celebrate the love I have for my Dad. It was his birthday only a few weeks ago and Gary is a very difficult man to buy things for. Mainly because he buys anything he wants for himself.


But also he doesn't really have any interests. All he ever does is watch his sky plus and take far too long typing web adresses in his google search bar on his macbook air. He likes football but thinks people who wear football shirts are 'nobheads.' (actual quote) He has things he likes but they verge more on obsessions than actual interests. The average lifespan of a Gary Gillett obsession is about 4 to 6 weeks.


Currently he's into tea, but rather than trying a new type of Twinnings every week, he bought himself a lifetime supply of loose tea leaves and a tea infuser. No point buying more tea leaves. He won't get round to using them.  No point getting a tea pot. He doesn't really like making other people cups of tea.


Saturday afternoon, I had a wander around John Lewis. I Had a quick look at the recommended Father's day gifts. There were things like chocolate lollies with 'Dad' written on them, Homer Simpson socks and various items, such as money boxes and notebooks, with union flags printed on the front of them. I doubt that anyone actually buys recommended father's day gifts. If they do, then they shouldn't. There's about as much love involved in giving a recommended father's day present as there is in writing the script for a Halifax advert. 


I know that whatever I give him, he'll pause his sky plus to open it, say thanks, with a little less conviction than the year before and then go straight back to his episode of Dexter,that he will have recorded over a  year ago but will have only now gotten around to watching it. And that will have been father's day.


Unless I bought him one of those recommended presents. In that case he'd just look at me for a couple of seconds, he'd be thinking... 'why did he even bother?' i'd be thinking... 'should have bought him some new tea leaves.'  He'd miss out the thank you and return to his sky plus without saying a word. I'd go upstairs to my room... and write a blog about it. Probably.

The AGA Saga

As soon as you've actively decided that an AGA is better than a conventional oven then you have successfully made the leap into the upper middle class.


'They're actually more energy efficient than conventional ovens.'  I can see why you may think that a device which, contains 3 ovens and 2 hot plates that are always turned on, is energy efficient. Laws of physics and that may disagree with you though. But hey, them Scientists used to think the world was flat, so there is every likelihood that they're wrong about AGAs.


'But Jack, they heat up the entire house!'  If that's true then great! There is nothing I need more than for my home heating to be unregulated so that my house ends up hotter in summer than it is in winter. But it's not true. Still, who doesn't love an unbearably hot kitchen eh?


'There's an oven which keeps plates warm.' Yeah. There's an expression about straws and clutching which may be apt here but to be fair everyone knows the cornerstone of a memorable dinner party is the warmed plates that the outside caterers serve their food on.


'Oh Fuck off! We pay the damn bills don't we!! Why should it matter if we spend a little more money on gas than the rest of the country?!'


Because you're not using just a little more gas but a lot more gas and you are deluded to suggest that you are a better person for doing so. You're ignorant to your own decadence, I don't care how decadent you are I just want you to accept and acknowledge the fact that you are better off than many others and accept that you are decadent. That aside, you haven't eaten a pain au chocolat until its been heated in an AGA. Quite simply sublime.


Insecurity-ridden usage of sarcasm to one side for a moment, I have no qualms with the upper middle class. If upper middle class was a race, I wouldn't be racist. Some of my closest friends are upper middle class.  They can't help that they've been born into AGA using families. I'll eat their moroccan Humus, lightly seasoned kettle chips and sun dried tomatoes in sicilian olive oil, I'll even laugh at their jokes about the Labour government. But ask me to switch to a bloody AGA!? I'll stick to my Sainsbury's taste the difference range of microwaved meals thank-you very much. Nothing tastes more different than an over microwaved lasagne stuffed full of good old middle-class preservatives.

Profile of a Social Networker

As a lot of our social interactions take place online nowadays, I think it's fair to say our Facebook profile is our avatar in that world. This identity, like any avatar is a creation, it's not real. As much as we'd like to convince ourselves that what we put on our profile is who we really are, the truth is it's not. How can it be a natural reflection of ourselves when we've had time to critically consider everything that we put down?


There is a social agenda behind the majority of things we write on Facebook. Anything you write can be viewed by everyone in your social network, so why wouldn't you consider your audiences thoughts before writing something. In fact you'd have to be an idiot not to. You cognitively filter out all the things you don't think are appropriate for your social network to see, so what's left is what you want them to see, or don't mind them seeing at least. 


So when asking a friend if they are going out to a club tonight over Facebook, its not just out of curiosity or for logistical reasons it's telling everyone that you have an active social life. When writing that your favourite author is Tolstoy you're not just filling in personal information you're telling everyone you are an intellectual. When your status relates to how drunk you were last night and how drunk you still feel this morning, its not a helpful update of where you are in life its a reminder to everyone that you're a boring douche.


In the real world when someone asks you what your favourite film is, you're put on the spot, your answer will generally be a fairly natural one. On Facebook you are given as much time as you want. You can say whatever you like, that you love David Lynch films, that you feel as if David Lynch was put on this earth to make films solely for you. And you probably wouldn't be held accountable for your choice. You might refuse to watch anything but Michael Bay films, but who's to know?


There is a downside to this world where you can be who you want to be. Like with any discourse what you write is open to interpretation. Writing that you like N-Sync as one of your favourite bands may be seen by you to give of a laid-back doesn't take themselves too seriously easy-going sort of impression, but to David Dub-step you're the definition of a generic crowd following zombie retard. They wouldn't wipe the shit off their shoes with you. What if you put your favourite band as Sally's Heroes, that band that you can't believe no one else has heard of, they've had like 174 views on myspace. To your perceptions you are a cool, ahead of the music game indie music guru but to Terry Top40 you're a pretentious fuck. In the real world you say you like N sync or Sally's heroes, people forget fairly quickly and their overall impression of you tends to be made up of the many other aspects of your personality.


On FB people can over interpret your small selection of 'about me' paragraphs. You may have only put your favourite quote as that one from Forrest Gump because its the only quote you can remember. Doesn't matter. I'll read that and think 'ABSOLUTE TOOL.' In capitol letters and everything.


Is there anything appropriate for Facebook? The thing is with a big enough audience you're bound to have a few fans. So write what you like. I probably won't like it though.

The Sound of My Own Voice

The lack of blog entries recently has been due to the revision period i'm currently going through. It's not that i spend all my time working I just find it hard to justify spending an hour or so writing a blog when i could be writing down notes on speech development in infants, or something equally as interesting

I'll quickly talk about the things I have seen though, I saw Thor and i enjoyed it. I saw The green Hornet, and I didn't enjoy it. I think Seth Rogen is just a bit shit.

I'm always trying to make revision more interesting, this week I've started to record myself presenting the lectures. What i've learnt is firstly, i'm not much of an auditory learner, but secondly that i really enjoy listening to myself speak. That may seem narcissistic, i'll admit there definitely is an element of that but I think mainly it's down to curiosity. I'm listening to a sound that comes from me, a voice that everyone around me hears and associates with me everyday. It's so familiar but at the same time, completely alien.

I know it's me but it feels like listening to someone else and I imagine that the feelings that my voice invoke in me are the same feelings that are invoked in others when they hear me speak. And that a fairly eye-opening, or ear-opening concept. 

I have a soft, thoughtful voice, slightly raspy with a tendency to smack my lips whenever I try and annunciate. My 'ermm's' are more like 'ohhhm's' and I can tell when I'm smiling because the gaps between my words become longer. I'm well spoken, a nod to my secondary education, with a faint hint of Mancunian, a relic from my primary education and the fact that i'm from Manchester I suppose. 

Now that I've finally found my voice, back to the library where I'm encouraged not to use it. Revision awaits.

Back 2 School

I went back to secondary school this week, not my old school, not as a student either but as a lab technician/ teaching assistant. The 6.30 am starts were horrific, sleep became the thing I most looked forward to every day. I'd get into school at 8 am and most of my day was filled with the strangely satisfying tasks of setting up experiments and cleaning test tubes. Every so often I'd help out in the classroom.


One of the first problems that I faced in the classroom was what I should let the kids call me. Mr Gillett? Sir? A girl asked me this on my first day and I replied with 'call me Jack, that's fine.' She did and was immediately cautioned by the teacher. 'Don't be so rude! You will call him sir! That's one less vivo point for you!" (Vivo points being the reward system used within the school). 


She looked over at me for support and I was torn between sticking up for her but undermining the teacher's authority and saying nothing but losing the kid's respect in the process. I turned from her gaze and said nothing. I realise that it's not important for your students to think you're cool, their adoration is good for the old ego but it isn't a prerequisite for being a good teacher. I however, am not a teacher, so I gave her an unprecedented 3 vivo points for drawing a picture. We immediately became best friends again, kids are fickle like that. It was a shit picture.


As this is a very new school, the only pupils were year sevens. They're not the most threatening bunch but they were constantly chatting and asking questions. My mum is the deputy head teacher, this means I would get asked at least twenty times a day, 'is your mum Ms Richford?' to which I would always reply, with a slightly embarrassed smile, 'yes.'


Some would say, 'you look just like her' others would say 'you two are nothing alike.' One Design and Technology class thought I looked more like one of their classmates, an awkward looking kid with curly hair. It actually stimulated a little class debate on whether I looked more like him or he looked more like me, I obviously argued the latter and at the time their seemed something quite profound and philosophical about the whole discussion. On later reflection it was probably just the class attempting to waste some time, kids love wasting time. If that was their plan then it proved successful, by the end of the lesson none of the kids had come close to finishing their plywood wind chimes. I would probably try and waste some time too if I had two hours a week dedicated to making a wind chime out of cheap wood.


Being a teaching assistant I don't have any teaching qualifications or training so I was never really sure about how much authority I had. A kid came up to me during a science class shouting 'Sir! Sir! Kade threw a pencil at me!' She had the actual pencil clutched in her hand. My first thought was 'who is Kade?' Not knowing the names of any of the kids in the class my first hurdle was deciding where to aim my discipline. Secondly, I wondered if it was even right to tell someone off based on the word of a kid I'd just met. She did have the offending pencil in her hand but anyone can pick up a pencil and wave it in my face, not just someone who had it thrown at them. Finally I questioned whether I was even allowed to dish out discipline and, if I was, was it appropriate to dish it out onto someone for throwing a pencil, not exactly the worst thing someone can do.


In the end I responded with 'oh...ok.' The kid, looking fairly despondent, walked away. Most likely in awe of my alternative teaching style. I later started to think of the possible consequences of what had happened, how kade would probably grow up to be a criminal because of my inaction. Pencil throwing, I imagine, is a gateway crime, often leading to more serious offences such as armed robbery and GBH.


Ironically, spending time working in a school hasn't taught me very much. I already knew that teachers work incredibly hard and I already knew working with kids can be very rewarding. As a living creature I already knew I had a massive appreciation for sleep and as a human being I already knew I had a bit of an ego. It seems, like the students, I spent most of the week wasting time. I suppose, I learnt that I'm still more of a student than I am a teacher. Then again, I think I already knew that.

Source Code

Sergeant Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train, he doesn't know where he is, how he got there or why he is there. The pretty girl sitting opposite him starts talking to him but she's calling him a different name. He takes a walk around the train to get his bearings. 8 minutes later the train explodes and Stevens wakes up in a strange pod. He is then briefed about how he must relive the same 8 minutes over and over again, until he can determine who blew up the train, in order to prevent a future disaster. What would you do if you knew you only had a few minutes to live?

This is Source Code, a film which at its most simple is a whodunnit story, at its most complex is a thoughtful and well written sci fi adventure. You may think that watching the same 8 minutes over again becomes tedious but director Duncan Jones (director of Moon) finds a way to make each trip into the past both increasingly intriguing and eventful. Jake Gyllenhaall stars and is wonderful, we enter the film knowing only what he knows, we learn as he learns and we care about him. Its a thoughtful and sensitive performance and is one of the main reasons the film works so well.

Its nice to watch a science fiction film which focuses on ideas rather than special effects. In essence, that's what good sci fi does. It's not about the visuals or the computer generated imagery, its about the concepts. Lazy film makers forget that and try to please the viewer by overloading them with huge visual effects and explosions, leaving less time for a well thought out plot. These films look nice but I often lose interest, I don't feel any sense of jeopardy or tension as I know it's all shot in front of a green screen. Films work well when we suspend our disbelief, in the case of films like Avatar, I can't help but imagine the scenery, the na'vi and the spaceships all being created on a computer and therefore I feel less involved in the film. I get the same feeling watching a thousand na'vi get slaughtered in Avatar as I do deleting a word document on my computer, if anything those word documents probably mean more to me.

On the other hand, the special effects in good SF films like Source Code, Moon and Inception are incidental, they compliment the story rather than distract from it, leaving only the story, the acting and the concepts to hook our attention. 

Back to Source Code, I can't praise it enough. Its smart, thoughtful and pays a lot of attention to detail. My attention is on the story and it rouses genuine feelings of emotion. What would you do if you only had a few minutes to live? Probably spend the first couple of minutes thinking of something cool to answer with before breaking down and crying at how I wasted my last few minutes trying to be cool.

Suckerpunch

The director of '300' and 'watchmen' has created another highly stylised film. This film, unlike his previous two, doesn't use a graphic novel as its source material but rather what would appear to be a fantasy he had during that new-hair-in strange-places phase of his life.


It follows the very sexy 'baby doll' as she is admitted into an insane asylum. Once in there she creates a fantasy where she is no longer trapped in an insane asylum but trapped in a brothel. She then hatches a plan to escape with a group of equally sexy girls with equally odd names by dancing in front of various  clients to distract them in order to steal certain items which will allow them to escape.


Each dance is represented by a battle sequence in a different fantasy. These fantasies include; a Japanese samurai battle, a steampunk world war two zombie battle, a lord of the rings-esque Vietnam battle and a sci fi robot battle. It's as if Snyder is trying to show off his range as a director by squeezing in every single genre he could possibly imagine.


Known for his love for the slo mo effect, zack makes no exception here. So much so that watching it in fast forward probably wouldn't hinder the plot. Like a hipster writing a novel in a little known café chain, the style is there but the substance is not. The girls are sexy but none of their characters seem to go futher than this and although they have all been mentally and physically abused they are still presented as overly sexualised objects for the audience to enjoy. Also, because much of the action occurs in these fantasy realities, there is no real feeling of danger or peril.


Released on April 1st you could be forgiven for thinking this may have been an April fool's joke. So where's the (sucker) punch line? There isn't one. Therefore, if you're in the mood for a film that contains sexy girls, guns, short skirts, mental illness, short skirts, violence towards women and short skirts then this is something you'd probably enjoy. If on the other hand you want a more sensitive approach to the subject matter of abused women you'd probably be better chatting with a serial rapist.

Battle: Los Angeles

Generally when a film has a colon in the title I jump to the conclusion that its not very good. I don't think titles are long enough to warrant using punctuation. That aside, the battle in the title is actually part of a worldwide alien invasion, set in LA. I don't really know the significance of LA in the title, there isn't really any reference to it in the film. It could have been set anywhere.


Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz, a man carrying his past on his shoulders, who at the start of film decides to leave the marines. But then the Aliens invade and he's pushed back into the firefight and has to lead a troop of soldiers to secure a police station in santa monica. It looks as if Aaron Eckhart has been taking voice coaching lessons from Christian Bale on the set of The Dark Knight. There's enough gravel in his voice to fill an entire street of middle class driveways.

There are a lot of characters, i'd probably say there were too many and i don't believe any of them are marines. They look like a group of models from a magazine promoting militarty diversity, there is literally one guy from every ethnic background you could possible imagine. For the first half of the film whenever someone died I wasn't too bothered as I hadn't been able to get emotionally involved in any of them. Incidentally, you can always tells when someone is going to die because you only ever die in this film just after you've saved someone's life. Its something to do with dying honourably I suppose, loses its effect after the 4th or 5th time though.


Michelle Rodriguez turns up about 20 minutes in and really stretches herself in playing tough-girl Tech Sergeant Elanor Santos. She's one of the few characters who sticks out though, to her credit. 


The thing is, I really enjoyed this film. I sat through all the stupidity and the montery jack all american cheese and the silly lines. I was even fine when a civillian thought that she was best qualified to autopsy an alien to find its weakness because she was a vet! A vet! I've never heard someone say that they were a veterinarian with such confidence and authority. Brilliant!


It's exciting all the way through, sort of like Independence Day in the style of Black Hawk Down. There wasn't a moment where I was bored and Ne-Yo is in it. So yeah, the moral of the story: maybe colons aren't too bad. Not really a moral is it. Probably not even the correct use of a colon.

The Adjustment Bureau

Based on a short story by the acclaimed science fiction Author, Phillip K. Dick. The adjustment Bureau follows young politician, David Norris (Matt Damon) as he meets and falls in love with dancer, Elise (Emily Blunt). Things go strange when a mysterious group of hat adorning men with other worldly abilities step in to 'adjust' the couple's futures according to a master plan.


The film has been advertised as 'Bourne meets Inception,' which is accurate if the Bourne it references is Jason Bourne's quieter younger brother who has a keen interest in politics and if Inception was a film written by Danielle Steel. The film isn't as much an action film but more of a love story, which is fine, just not what I expected.

I always enjoy watching Matt Damon and this film is no inception... sorry I mean exception, the relationship between him and Blunt is lovely, it genuinely made me feel fairly warm inside which isn't really something I feel that often. When there is an action scene, which is a very rare occurrence, it is exciting and is shot very well and does actually have echoes of Bourne.


 I also like The Adjusters, they all have a fairly distinct personality and aren't faceless corporate goons. The hats are a nice touch and I think the idea that they run things behind a curtain that no one else knows about is intriguing. The references to a Chairman at the head of the bureau isn't a particularly subtle analogy to religion but it still works for me.


The film relies on the concept that there is a group of individuals who possess powers to ensure the human race sticks to a plan. Some films may get trapped by their concept and become concept driven. This film, however doesn't let the concept weigh it down. Yes there is the odd conversation about free will and obviously there is going to be some analogies to religion, but these are short and sweet. The concept remains in the background with the story of the two lovers firmly in the foreground which is what I think makes this film as watchable as it is. Its not perfect but it is good.

Paul

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have got themselves quite a large following after the success of 'Hot Fuzz,' 'Shaun of the Dead,' and the TV series 'Spaced.' Now they are in part sci-fi, rom-com, bromance 'Paul' which centres around the ultra geeks Graeme and Clive, played by Pegg and Frost, as they meet and subsequently help an Alien, voiced by Seth Rogen, called Paul.


Sounds great. Pegg, Frost, Rogen, Sci-fi. Comedy. It should be great but I can only go as far as saying it's fine. Firstly I believe that Frost and Pegg are at their best when playing to a nieche audience and this film is definately not nieche, with fart jokes and random swearing all over the place it's the broad demographic fan's wet dream. Yes it has plenty of obscure sci fi references to keep the fan boys happy but this doesn't work as well when they are sandwiched between Kristen Wiig vomiting out expletives.


Secondly, as far as main characters go, Graeme and Clive are pretty wet. I understand that they're nerds, a group not known for their strong and confident personalities, but do they both need to be so soft? Look at the range of geek personalities in 'The Big Bang Theory' for example. Fortunately the character of Paul balances this out with his dry sense of humour and quick wit. I didn't expect to like Paul as I find Seth Rogen's voice and general sense of humour a bit grating but i was surprised, but happily so, by his more laid back and toned down portrayal and I would go as far as saying he is the best thing about the film.


Thirdly and my final negative about the film. I didn't like the jokes aimed at Creationism. I am not a Creationist or have any strong religious beliefs but these jokes are easy jokes to make, I could see that they wanted to be insightful and subtle but they'don't come across that way. They hit you like a sledgehammer and aren't particularly original. Also, there aren't that many people who believe in Creationism so essentially these jokes are poking fun at a minority, which isn't really that fair. It all feels a bit smug and I don't feel it's an issue that needs a lot of attention.


There are positives, don't worry. There are some very funny parts and a great supporting cast with appearances from Jason Bateman, Jane Lynch, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Hader and the guy with the squeeky voice from 'I Love you COMMA Man.' The script is also very sharp and in a lot of places is very smartley written by Pegg and Frost and like I said before Seth Rogen does a great job.


To conclude, this was a hollywood backed film. Whereas in the past Frost and Pegg had more indepencdance this time they had to make comprimises in order to increase its appeal at the box office. This is where the film falls down for me. Maybe slightly selfish but i want a Frost/Pegg film to be made with me in mind. I dont want Mr. B. Demographic stealing laughs that should have been aimed at me. Good but not great, probably not as broad as I have made it out to be but too broad for a Frost/Pegg.

Justin Bieber: Never Say Never 3D

A different film to what I would normally see, Justin Bieber: Never Say Never 3D is an interesting one. It  follows Bieber during the 10 days before he plays a sell out show at Maddison Square Gardens. Along the way we see him perform with a host of special guests as well as clips of baby Bieber and interviews with the people around him.


I knew he was big but this film is an indication of how big he is, future civilizations could looks back at Bieber and mistake him for a messiah. He has a loyal group of disciples, known as his entourage, that go everywhere with him, people flock in their thousands just to catch a glimpse of him, he performs all in white and says a prayer before each gig and each meal.

I don't think the 3D was necessary, and don't worry I won't make the joke about how difficult it must have been turning footage of a one dimensional popstar into a three dimensional film because that would be unfair. This film however is very one dimensional, we only see the aspects of Bieber's behaviour which make him seem like a happy and friendly kid. This takes the film out of the documentary genre and turns it into a piece of popoganda aimed at turning non-Beliebers into... well, Beliebers. It constantly juxtaposes scenes of the boy chatting with big names and performing in front of hundreds of thousands of fans with scenes of Bieber hanging with his mates in Canada to show how NORMAL AND DOWN TO EARTH THIS GUY IS. All i wanted to see was a bit of Bieber spouting out ridiculous demands on his entourage and maybe throw the odd packet of skittles at his voice coach.


Its also sickly sweet, Bieber is continully doing cute things like flicking his hair and smiling and if I have to watch another sweet fan say something sweet about sweet Justin Bieber i will probably develop type 2 diabetes. Saying that, there are some genuinely nice moments where fans are given free tickets to the show which would soften the most hardened of hearts.


The oddest moments for me in the film were the short clips of topless Bieber. Everytime this happened there would be a sharp intake of breath from all the females in the audience. Yes the sexualising of a 16 year old is fairly odd, but bieber's body is not too far removed from the torso of E.T. If you are a pale, scrawny, guy with no muscle definition then Justin Bieber is probably the best thing that has ever happened to you, he has made your body attractive. That's how powerful this guy is. I genuinely belieb that he could bring out his own brand of Swastika and it would outsell electricity.


I'd like to say now that I do quite like Justin Bieber. It seems however that when it comes to this pop phenomenon, people would either saw off a limb for him or throw a grenade at him. This unwarranted animosity tends to stem from the belief that he doesn't deserve his fame. This film attempts to change that view, by showing Bieber at his best and to be fair he is extremely talented.  He can play an assortment of musical instruments, is a wonderful dancer, has a great stage presence, can write songs and can actually sing very well.


So yeah, i did enjoy this film. There's not much to it but i'd be lying if i told you I wasn't smiling most of the way through it.

True Grit

Whenever the Coen brothers bring out a new film, expectations tend to be high and with a critically acclaimed back catalogue it's easy to see why. People tend to bow down to the Coens and praise emphatically everything that they do as if they are film deities. However as much as I want to be part of this religion, more often than not I find myself just liking what they produce in a 'meh' sort of way. 'True Grit' is no exception.


The film follows the journey of 14 year old Mattie Ross, played by the 13 year old Hailee Steinfeld, as she seeks vengeance for the murder of her father. She searches for someone with 'true grit' in order to help her on her mission and hires US Marshall, Rooster Cogburn played by Jeff Bridges. And Mr. LeBeouf (Matt Damon) comes along too.


'True Grit' is an old American expression and having 'true grit' by modern standards is synonymous to having 'balls.' At first Mattie thinks Jeff bridges has 'balls' but then she thinks Matt Damon has 'balls'. She then realises she has had 'balls' all along and in the end as an audience member we see that they all have 'balls'. And that is the plot.


To be fair, the Coen brother's films generally don't focus on plot as much as they focus on character or on themes. A few lengthy scenes of dialogue add depth and flesh out characters quite early on in the film, but i find this fairly tedious and i want these scenes to wrap up quickly. After this character set up the characters proceed to stay the same throughout the film, their is no existence of character arcs anywhere. The acting however is great. I can't fault it. Steinfeld is brilliant, Bridges is fantastic and Damon is amazing. The acting for me is not the problem.


There were certain moments when people laughed. For example, when a plan didn't work and Bridges says 'well that didn't go to plan,' and then when they wait for Mr. LeBoeuf for ages and a different guy turns up and Bridges says 'Well that's not LeBoeuf .' The audience loved it! But why? I get it but its not hilarious. At one point Bridges says the word 'Nincompoop' which had the crowd rolling in the aisles. As far as i'm concerned that's just a silly word and i get the feeling that if these 'jokes' had popped up in a different film with a different director they'd be classed as broad demographic gags. I think this point about the humour is a bit of an insight into the type of people who enjoy Coen brother films a lot.


I did enjoy this film, it looked great and the acting was superb. I just didn't enjoy it as much as I think I'm supposed to enjoy it. Perhaps I just don't have the facilities to appreciate the Coen brothers and that I'm not fully aware of the subtleties contained in their films. I also think their is a measure of charlatanry amongst people who say their favourite films are Coen brother films as it's an easy way of getting cultural status and kudos from a group. Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

A film adapted from an obscure graphic novel is nothing new, nor is Edgar Wright making a film crammed full of pop culture references and neither is Michael Cera playing a whiny, lovelorn, indie boy. But the novel translates well on screen, Wright's references are brilliant and Cera (because of all the practice) plays the part of whiny, lovelorn, indie boy very well.

Cera Plays Scott Pilgrim, the bassist of a band, who in order to be with his new girlfriend has to defeat her seven evil ex partners. Each of these battles is a lot of fun and comes straight from the world of video games. Cera who isn't known for his physical attributes puts on a great show and his slightly feminine pear shaped body adds to the film's humour.  Yes the battles are over the top, but this isn't a film you watch for the method acting.

Perhaps it is trying too hard to be quirky and unique and niche and retro and everything else but it is very funny, hilarious in fact. A lot of this is down to the supporting cast, in particular Kieran Culkin as Scott's gay roomate and Chris Evans as part skater part actor and part wanker evil ex number 2. 

This film isn't likely to be for everyone, something that was made obvious by its relatively poor box office performance. However it is a well put together film and its also clear that a lot of heart and thought has gone into it. Not only do i see it as a refreshing venture into the world of comic book movies, which are often very generic and unoriginal, but also as a refreshing venture into the comedy genre, which seems to be suffering the same problem. 

The Fighter

With a lot of award nominations, 'The Fighter' has received a lot of hype. The few criticisms that i've heard tend to be directed at how predictable the story is, this tends to be the case when a film is based on a true story so don't expect twists and turns along the way. That said, the measure of a good film for me is if it is rewatchable and if you only enjoy a film because of its twists and turns the likelihood is that you won't enjoy it anywhere near as much the second time round. I would watch this film again.


For a film about boxing the first half has a noticeable lack of ringside action, most of the fighting takes place between Micky, played by Mark Whalberg, his family and his friends. His family are all insane but wonderfully engaging and  I feel as if I could listen to them talk and argue all day.The acting and particularly the accents are brilliant, all the actors nail that wonderful north eastern American accent and by the end of the film I find myself dropping my R's and elongating my A's. 

Christian Bale is unrecognisably thin but his performance as Dicky, a crack addict brother and ex boxer, is massive and when he's on screen he steals the show. Once his younger brother Micky's hero he is now dragging Micky down with him whilst repeatedly and pathetically reliving his one great fight from the past.


Mark Whalberg, who gives a much more understated performance really shows his vulnerability and sensitivity. He is physically huge and looks like a boxer. Amy Adams also gives a fantastic performance as Charlene, Micky's girlfriend who is smart mouthed and particularly enjoyable to watch when interacting with Micky's family.


The fight scenes are intense, they mix sky sports like camera footage with cinematic shots leading to a thrilling experience. The penultimate fight left me grinning ear to ear and wanting a replay, but its the final fight which grips you the most, you know the ending but you still end up doubting that you know it.

As soon as a film about boxing comes out it instantly gets compared to Rocky. This film does share certain elements with the Rocky franchise but its so much more. You can actually see Micky improving after each fight and there is a clear lack of typical cheesy American sport film 'you can do it!' kind of speeches. It was produced by Darren Aronofsky, who was originally going to direct and it is obvious that The Wrestler has had an impact on this film both cinematically and conceptually. I actually prefer this film to both 'The Wrestler' and 'Rocky,' it essentially takes my favourite aspects of both films and turns them into a film which is both well made and exciting.