A Serbian Film Review

There has been quite a bit of controversy over Srdjan Spasojevic's debut movie, Srpski Film (a.k.a "A Serbian Film"), with people lining up on either side of that age-old wall: One side say it's sick and should be banned, whilst the other side say it's art, and has value, or at least that the creators should be free to show their vision to the world without being censored by governments.

I suppose both sides have a point, really - I remember hearing about Antichrist soon after watching Ted Bundy's final interview and thinking "wow, this is exactly the sort of film Bundy was talking about when describing what turned him into a serial killer - maybe it should be banned". But, at the same time, I only got the see the uncut version of "The Matrix" for the very first time a couple of weeks ago, because despite the fact I watched it on video when it first came out, and then on DVD after everyone upgraded, the uncut version has never been released in the UK on any format - all because it includes a few extra headbutts, which the Government don't want people seeing, for fear they'll decide it is a perfectly acceptable fighting technique (I notice Fellowship of the Ring still got a 'PG' rating despite containing a headbutt, though...).

So, both sides have a point. In the case of A Serbian Film, the pro-censorship lobby are screaming about how depraved and twisted the film is, and ranting about how it should be banned for the good of the world, and how the sickos who watch it should all be imprisoned; whilt the anti-censorship lobby are shouting about how great works of art should not be stifled, and that we don't need a nanny state to protect us, because only we ourselves know what affects us and what doesn't. However, in the course of this heated debate, with both sides attempting to shout the other down, and prove their moral superiority, both sides seem to have missed the real issue here...


The Film really isn't all that good.


Now, I'm sure you might say that I'm the one missing the point, because the argument about censorship shouldn't be restricted to only "good" films, and should cover even the lowest of the low - but seriously, I felt like I was watching a different film to the one everyone has been talking about. Admittedly I did watch the BBFC 18 release of the film, and not the uncut version, but having been online and looked up exactly what was cut out of the runtime, I feel I can safely say that I know enough to make an informed opinion on this movie, and it is neither art that should not be censored by the fascists in Government, but nor is it a sick and repulsive gore-fest that will cause people to become serial killers. It is nothing more than your standard post-saw shock horror, with a bunch of cocks thrown in to piss off conservatives.


Now, I'm not going to sit here and say the film didn't have any redeeming features, but nor am I going to play up its supposed message to make it into something it isn't. This movie isn't a masterpiece exploring what it's really like for Serbians, growing up in a country with no real identity, no real sense of individuality, and being oppressed by those higher-up every day of your lives. Nor is it a critique of Serbia's Government censorship of years passed, a Government which censored even the tamest of vampire stories for fear of what it would do to the public consciousness, yet happily broadcast the heads of its own populace being placed on spikes by Mudjehadeen soldiers fighting in the Yugoslav conflict of the 90s, in order to stir up public anger and hate of Muslims. This film reflects none of these things. How can I be so sure that I didn't just miss the point of the entire story? Because this movie plays exactly the fucking same way as a SAW movie, that's why.

Think I'm kidding? Not only does the film have layers of time confusion, skipping ahead of events, then coming back to scenes of gore when the aftermath is stumbled upon later (as with every SAW film), but it also has the same basic plotline as SAWs 3, 4 & 6, with an individual being forced to harm others against his will, just in the hopes he can survive, and it all finally culminates in a big twist reveal.

Now, I know what you're thinking - you're thinking I just twisted events in my head and over-simplified things to make it just seem like "SAW 4 - BUT WITH PORN", but the truth is the connection between this film and SAW is just as strong as that shared by 'Avatar' and 'Pochohontas' (or 'The Last Samurai', or 'Dances with Wolves', or any one of a thousand other stories...) - it's not definitely based on the other movie, but God is it reminiscent of it.

Hell, even the way the violent scenes are shot is strangely reminiscent of the SAW films, cutting between images on monitors, and jumping into the events, then coming back out again. There aren't the same jump cuts employed by the producers of SAW, but if there were I would swear I had simply accidentally bought a Serbian version of SAW 7 (but with more cocks).

The level of violence, too, is almost exactly on a par with the SAW films - in fact, most of it is even less graphic, despite what pro-censorship fanatics are screaming in the papers and on internet message boards. The fact is, aside from the sex, things are fairly tame by most modern horror standards, and the only real concern is that mixing sex and gore makes a different, more dangerous beast entirely. There are maybe 3 murders throughout the course of the whole film which involve anything sexual - every other killing could appear just as easily in the next Bourne film and no-one would bat an eye (except they might be wondering why Bourne was naked whilst shooting the enemy's henchmen). And of those sexual killings, one was almost entirely cut by the BBFC, so does not have any impact on the viewer whatsoever (that would be the killing I mentioned in my discussion on 'The King's Speech'), and one is so comedic I actually have to go into it in more detail in the next paragraph, so just bear with me. In fact, the only real brutal sexual killing which occurs is in a scene where, doped up to the eyeballs on speed, viagra and bull testosterone, our protagonist Milos rapes a woman who is chained to a bed, before hacking off her head with a machete which is handed to him by one of the snuff film's camera men. Violent? Yes - and yet, were you to show him rape her, then decapitate her in a seperate scene, there wouldn't be so much outrage, so why is there so much anger when the two are put together? Not only this, but the story has already start to become so unbelievable at this point that it just washes over you, and you feel no horror at all. In fact, the only moment which really made me wince was when we saw a quick flash in Milos's memory when it appears he cut across his penis with a knife, and we then see him piss blood into the toilet bowl - but it is later revealed that this did not actually happen, and he merely held the knife to his penis, threatening the director he would cut it off if they did not shut the movie down. Even the notorious "Baby rape scene", whilst a horrifically disgusting concept which creates some revolting images in one's mind upon even hearing the suggestion, is poorly shot, with effects so poor you find yourself thinking "shit, they should have got the guy from The Thing in to do this shit (though, that's hardly an insult. If you said "man, they should have gotten the guy who did the CGI on Two Face in The Dark Knight to come and do this" then it would be truly insulting, but you get my drift, right?) - yes, it's a horrible thing to put in a movie, but it's so poorly done your only real reaction is "why put this in the film at all?"

In fact, there were two seperate points in the film where I actually laughed at the absurdity of events, because although the movie claims to be a dark and painful look at what it feels like to have all power taken away from you, it is pretty dumb in some places. The first of these is when Milos is watching the camera footage back, and sees one of the guards rape him whilst he was unconscious. Whilst this scene is supposed to show Milos's complete loss of power, and humiliation, it is just plain funny, because Srdjan Todorovic does not appear to react at all to the footage, which means the tone of the scene has to be inferred from the tone of the video itself, which is shot in a highly comedic manner. In fact, Todorovic is so wooden throughout most of this performance, I'm certain they simply threw a chair in the room in a couple of scenes. No, I kid, but seriously, I'm about 99% certain he was only hired for the film because he has an enormous penis, since they make such a point of showing it off every 5 seconds.

That's another interesting thing about this film. A lot of the porn films designed for Broadcast or regular store release don't show erect penises, and you generally have to move into the murky recesses of the internet to find anything involving boners and cumshots, and yet somehow a film passing itself off as a serious movie which is in no way supposed to be a porno shows the main character's erect penis almost constantly. Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't get any sexual enjoyment out of watching this whatsoever, so from that perspective, one can argue it is not designed to be porn. However, I would argue that it's just because I'm not a sick fuck (despite what certain articles on this Blog may indicate), and that for some people this film probably is sexually arousing, and the gratuitous boner shots help reassure them that it's ok to jerk off to it (because jerking of to Gore without porn would just be weird, right?). If it does indeed turn out that Mr Nice was only rated 18 because we see David Thewlis's limp dong in it, then this film should by all rights be incinerated, because it certainly goes beyond the call of duty on the penis front - hell, I think Peter North would be proud of this film. Ok, enough dongs now, this is starting to sound weird, like I've got some kind of dong fetish and just can't get them off my mind, so I'll just mention one more thing about cocks, and then we're through. Done. Finished. Finito. Massive Dong. Fuck.


Anyway, the second scene that really made me laugh at the absurdity of it all was the scene near the end where Milos straight-up murders a dude by shoving his dong in the guy's eye-socket. Yeah, this is clearly high-class art with an important message behind it...



Now, I'm not saying that the movie was all bad - the direction seems fairly competent throughout, and the early scenes of the film, coupled with the anticipation of what you know will happen makes the beginning genuinely heart-wrenching. It's just too bad they couldn't keep the pace up throughout the film.

You'll notice I said "what you know will happen" - I don't mean that as in "because you've read all about it online already", I mean it as in "because it's so fucking predictable". There's supposed to be this big reveal at the end where Milo finds out what the movie's all about, and finds out who the masked man that killed his friend is - and it's so predictable I swear it could have been the ending to an episode of Lie to Me. But with more dongs. Shit.


I once said about the SAW films that the reason they were watchable was not the gore, which only a few freaks really watch them for, but for the evolution of the story, and the anticipation of what the twist at the end which ties everything together will be. Hell, you could say the same thing about Nolan's films (if you're functionally retarded, which since you're taking advice on movies from me, I suspect you probably are) - but this was just sooooo predictable that you didn't even have to think about it for a second. And it's not that all my years of watching Inspector Morse and Lewis have made me into a 1337 Television Detective who can work out any ending from minimal clues - it is just plain boring and predictable.


The very, very end twist, too, I found annoying - not because it was predictable, but because it didn't make any sense. It seems to imply that the whole thing was a set-up, and that Milos was destined, from the beginning, to (SPOILER) kill the director then murder his own family and kill himself to escape the horror. To which I have to respond "so... the bad guy was taking masterplanning instructions from the Joker, was he?" - what a retarded plan that would have been if it really was all meant to have been set up. I just can't even go into the levels of stupidity, I'm sorry. I'm too tired to even explain how that was worse than the endings of Memento and The Prestige combined (a lot of Nolan hate tonight for some reason, and I don't really know why, he hasn't done anything to upset me lately, he's just good for making comparisons...)


Hell, I would say the only truly redeeming feature this movie has is the incredible score, which is unbelievably fitting throughout the film, and really helps to raise the tension and horror. The direction is fine, the cinematography is great, and the acting is fairly reasonable for the most part - however, a poor script, which seems almost entirely based around a "need to shock", and a very poor ending means this film is disappointing. It's probably worth a watch, just to make up your own mind on all the fuss, and it's not truly attrocious - I don't feel like I wasted hours of my life on it, or even that I wasted the £5.99 I spent on it, but I do feel that it really fails to live up to all the hype surrounding it, and figure you'd probably have a better night if you just watched SAW instead.



Rating



**


2 Stars




Not awful, but nothing special. Don't believe the hype, as the N.W.A would say (or was that the DOC?). To be honest, I wish I could give this film a great review, seing as it features quotes from websites on the DVD box to try and sell itself, but to be honest, I just can't. Tune in later, and hopefully I'll find some films I can give the dreaded 1 star rating soon!




Voice




Just as a side-note, whoever did the translations on this film was fucking atrocious - like the bit where Vukmir's talking about Milos locking some woman in an oven and making her blow him, or something? Was that something which was meant to have happened, which is why Vukmir was so interested in Milos, or was it some kind of metaphor or parable or some shit, or what? I have no idea - and a couple of times the subtitles were confusing as hell, appearing at the wrong points in conversations, etc.

Deckard is Not a Replicant. Deal With It.

Yesterday, a friend and I were seeing if we could name actors who have never died in a movie, and when he suggested Harrison Ford, I was stumped. I couldn't think of a movie Harrison Ford had died in, but was sure he must have. So, we took to the internet, and discovered a thread discussing the exact same thing. Naturally, one of the first posts on there said "Yes, he died in What Lies Beneath" (duh), but this wasn't what caught my eye. Instead, what caught my interest was a later post, stating "He was technically never alive in Blade Runner", obviously referring to the suggestion that Deckard was a replicant.

I've heard this suggestion on multiple occasions, and whilst it makes sense that there is a certain degree of ambiguity about Deckard's nature (the film was based on a Philip K. Dick novel, after all), it seems that many people take the idea that Deckard is a replicant as being an absolute truth, as though there is no question about it. And I don't see how they could have come to this conclusion, because looking at the facts:

Deckard starts the film apparently retired. He is roped in by the police to hunt down the four escaped replicants who have come to Earth. There is clearly a suggestion that Deckard has been a Blade Runner for quite some time, and has since been in retirement for quite a while as well. Now, the obvious point to make here is that, if Deckard had a limited lifespan, as most replicants do, then he would not have been able to have been working for long enough to become the best, and then go into retirement for a significantly long period for it to be a shock when they bring him back in. But, I know what your response to that will be "Deckard has had false memories implanted, making him believe he was a Blade Runner before, when in fact he only comes into existence around the point where the movie starts, as a specifically designed Blade Runner replicant". Whilst this argument does make sense; after all, we know Rachael had false memories implanted to make her believe she was human, this still ignores the obvious.

Firstly, the cops all act as though they know Deckard, and speak to him as though they are old friends, and yet, if he was a replicant, they wouldn't have known him. Not only this, but when they discuss his past, they would have to be familiar with the backstory that had been given to the replicant Deckard in order to make their statements fit in with what Deckard remembered. This means that either the cops would have had to have been told Deckard was a replicant, and told the exact details of the false memories he was given, and told to act as though they knew him, and everything in the memories had really happened to him as well, which is a long shot, or; Deckard is a replicant based on a real Blade Runner named Deckard, whose memories were implanted into the replicant version of him, whose colleagues are unable to distinguish from the original. Now, this argument does make sense, but not in the context of the rest of the film. And here's why:

If Deckard's memories of being a Blade Runner prior to the start of the film are fake, that means they were deliberately implanted in his memory. The reason for this is simple: Deckard was designed to hunt other replicants; that is his only purpose. But then, why is he so weak when compared to the other replicants? Think about it; Deckard only kills one of the four escaped replicants without a ridiculous stroke of luck:

Leon - had the drop on Deckard, and would have killed him if Rachael hadn't turned up at that exact second.

Pris - Could easily have broken Deckard's neck, but chose to release him and taunt him rather than just kill him. Not only this, but Deckart only managed to kill her because he got to his gun - he would have stood no chance hand-to-hand, nor if she had really wanted him dead.

Roy - Deckard never killed him. In fact, he had Deckard in a position where he could have killed him with ease, but saved his life instead, before succumbing to the built-in defect designed to keep replicants in check.


In fact, the only replicant that Decker manages to kill by himself without them allowing him to do so is the stripper who he shoots as she tries to evade capture. And even she manages to knock him flying, and get quite a way; and she isn't even designed as a combat replicant - she was designed as an advanced sex toy for off-world soldiers.


So, if Deckard is the most advanced replicant in the world, and was made specifically for the purpose of hunting down and retiring other replicants - why the hell wouldn't he be as strong as even the weakest of the replicants he is hunting? Sure, they wanted to make him appear as human as possible, so that even he would think he was human - but why make him so much weaker than those he is hunting? If Deckard is a replicant, he has to have been designed to be a Bladerunner; there's no other explaination for his memories (without him being human). So why the hell isn't he strong enough to take on the replicants he is hunting? As I said, every one of the replicants in the film is more powerful than him, and he only seems to beat them by chance, so if he is supposed to be a replicant, that is some awful scripting. Besides, what evidence is there that he even is a replicant?

There is the theory that Rutger Hauer saves Deckard at the end because he is a replicant, but this is utter crap. As evidenced by Hauer's last statements before death. Roy Batty tells Deckard of all the wonderful things he has seen, which will die with him when he goes. There are only two reasons for this. Either:

(1) he saves Deckard simply because he wants to be remembered; he can't believe that when he dies, all the incredible things he has witnessed will die with him, and no-one else will understand the things he saw. But by saving Deckard, he saves his own existence in Deckard's memory, and therefore his experiences live on that little bit longer.


(2) he wants to teach Deckard the value of his own long lifespan. Deckard is a tormented Alcoholic with nothing to live for, and yet when it comes to his final moments, hanging from the edge of a building, he still wants to live. When Roy tells him of all the beauty he has seen in his short life span, he is showing Deckard what he can do with his far longer, human, lifespan, and is trying to teach him to value that which he takes for granted, but which Roy would kill for.


And Guess what? Both these theories kind of revolve around Deckard NOT being a replicant.




I know both these theories are strongly contended, but it really is that simple, guys. Deckard isn't a replicant, Batty doesn't save him because he is a replicant - he's just a regular guy, saved by a replicant who doesn't want to leave this Earth without at least leaving some impact upon it.


Now, of course, I haven't seen the original version of the film; I've only seen the Director's Cut, and the "Final Cut" of the film. Yet, I think the evidence shows that Deckard has to be human. Yes, there is supposed to be a small element of ambiguity, but on the balance of probabilities, Deckard has to be human; either that or the writer was too dumb to notice the massive plotholes he had created and the film is actually nowhere near as good as I give it credit for being. Either way, as far as I'm concerned, the suggestion that "Harrison Ford wasn't technically alive in Blade Runner", is utter Bullshit.




Voice

The Superior Wiki is Dead. Long Live the Superior Wiki!

Hmmm... A bit rich coming from "Motifake", don't you think???



Last week, millions of internet users mourned the passing of possibly the greatest site of our time, Encyclopedia Dramatica. Whilst Oldfags fill /b/ with stories of how ED never existed, and was simply a prank played on Newfags to make them believe that every significant story and meme to come out of 4Chan and other such sites could be found in one place, those of us who were familiar with the site found ourselves being linked to their new page, "Oh, Internet", and said but one thing:


How will you ever find out about the origins of this meme without ED?!?!



As a Blogger who frequently lets his Docx slip, posts photos of himself online, has an opinion on everything, and can't handle even the slightest of criticism, you would think that I would be terrified of ED, and the mountains of trolls who visited the site and were more than willing to ruin the lives of countless Bloggers and LiveJournal users simply for teh lulz of it. But whilst I admit that there was a scary side to the underworld of the internet, I still fear that the loss of Encyclopedia Dramatica may be the biggest loss the internet has, or ever will face. And here's why:

Encyclopedia Dramatica was the archive. It took everything great which ever happened on /b/, or the other boards no-one ever visits, and documented it in Wiki form. Whilst I could technically be called an Oldfag to the 4Chan boards, having known of their existence before most of its current users had grown out of dressing as Spiderman on Weekends, I still suffer from the insane problem that I am not a lurker. I drop in on the board on occasion to see what's going on, and to catch up on lulz, but that's it. And so, I have missed almost every historic event to occur on the boards, simply because I spend so little time on there. Jessi Slaughter? Missed it. Tara Gilesbie? Missed it. Chris Chan? Missed it on /b/, caught some of the lulz on *shudder* YouTube. And so on, way back to the beginning - I never caught a significant event on /b/. We'll see what happens with this Qu'ran burning thing from last night, but since the moron actually burnt a copy of "Approaching the Qu'ran", as opposed to the Qu'ran itself, I highly doubt we'll ever hear about it again, unless people are still laughing at how dumb the guy is...



"That Book is Evil, and the work of Satan!" - oh, who am I kidding? It would sound just as dumb putting that caption on a picture of the actual Qu'ran...


And that's what was so great about ED - it captured all of these moments, and stored them in lulzy fashion, so we could cherish them forever, even those that we missed because we were too busy actually doing things with our lives. Why Lurk Moar when you can simply hit up a wiki that tells you everything you need to know about what you've missed between odd sessions on /b/?



[image file: Chicks_with_Dicks_Pictures_From_/b/ has been removed due to a terms of service violation - Blogger.com Staff]



Another great thing about ED was the brutal honesty contained within. The site was run on a shock-for-shock's-sake basis, and tried to put in as many offensive comments as possible. And yet, when you looked at any serious discussion they had on there, the offensive views were always well balanced. For example, whilst many people would have found the articles on Cho Seung offensive, owing to their marvelling at his achieving a high-score, and a 32-1 KDT ratio (fucking camper), it does highlight the point of an underlying encouragement of violence in our society, in much the same way as Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers did with its potrayal of the evils of the media. Under the lulz, there were serious points being made. The same thing happened with the article on "The Jews did 9/11" - they took a ridiculous theory purported by a number of conspiracy nuts, and simply ran it as being the truth, including crude photoshops of a Rabbi using his Laser-eyes to blow up the World Trade Centre. Sure, the article was written in a ridiculously anti-semitic manner, but it was satirising the way that some redneck Americans genuinely do blame the Jews for the Twin Towers attack, and by taking it to such an extreme, showed the ridiculousness of the idea.



Although, now that I see the photographic evidence...



Not only this, but if you looked at even basic articles, such as discussions on certain websites, you could always rely on the views being fair and balanced. For example, the site praised The Spoony Experiment as having once been a good website, but bedgrudged his fan-films made with the team from That Guy With the Glasses, and his constant over-use of Doctor Insano, a character funny the first time, but massively over used. It also dissed him for being too happy with the banhammer. All of this was true, and it painted a really accurate representation of the site; which whilst insulting, still acknowledged what was good about it, and constructively criticised the problems within it. Of course, it was filled with comments on how fat Spoony's girlfriend is, and how his family was responsible for 9/11 (being Jews), but it was actually a very fair review at heart, simply dressed up to seem more offensive than it really was.


Ok, maybe they didn't dress up Everything...


As an instructional website, too, Encyclopedia Dramatica flourished. It had excellent guides on how to deal with conditions such as "Unwarranted Self-Importance", "I have Aspergers Syndrome", "I Have a 140 IQ" and "Girl on the Internet Syndrome"...



A typical GOTIS sufferer...



On top of this, it also contained guides on what to say to people posting pathetic status's on Facebook in order to get the most lulzy responses, and even had an article on the most hilarious ways to commit suicide, in case you wished to become an hero, rather than just a regular, boring suicide. These guides were all consistently hilarious, and it's sad to think that we may never see them again.



Though, I won't miss the spoilers, that's for sure... oops...


Encyclopedia Dramatica also stood for Truth, and Justice. It was the webiste the internet deserved. It just apparently isn't the website the internet needs right now. No matter how many lawlsuits they were threatened with, the leadership of ED stood firm, refusing to give in in all but the most exceptional of cases. They may have folded to Madeleine McCann's parents' lawyer when it came to their article on how Madeleine was clearly murdered by her mother, but they stood tall against many, many other individuals intent on killing the lulz, and for that, I salute them. Not only this, but even when the website's Overlord, Girlvinyl, was threatened by a group of trolls for posting a rather unpleasant article on how they all lived in their mothers' basements and fapped to Chris Hansen, she still refused to removed the page, despite having her docx leaked, and receiving multiple phonecalls from people saying they were coming to rape her. Now that's some vaguely-heroic shit. Shame, then, that she threw it all away to move to a site so tame as "Oh Internet" - which is basically "Know your Meme" mk. II.

The way they tackled real-world news as well as internet trends also made Encyclopedia Dramatica a valuable resource for tracking down information. For example, there was a lot of talk on this kid "Casey Heynes" last month, but his video was blocked on YouTube to anyone who wasn't logged in (and, as I have explained before, I'm not able to log in to my YouTube any more). But who needs YouTube when a source as comprehensive as Encyclopedia Dramatica was available? Encyclopedia Dramatica frequently contained more details on events than Wikipedia, even if half of them were simply made up. They were so comprehensive that they managed to shame Wikipedia staff into updating their Pokemon pages to include a section on "I Herd U Liek Mudkipz", among other things, and I learnt a lot more about the Japanese Tsunami from ED than I did from Rupert Murdoch (even if half of it was Fallout 3 jokes...)






Possibly the thing I will miss most about Encyclopedia Dramatica, though, is the hilarity of the site. I would frequently read Cracked as my lunchtime comedy, then switch over to ED for my late night lulz. You could go on just about any article, and there would be plenty of laughs to be had. It may well have all been user-submitted material, and therefore patchy and inconsistent, but the editors sure as hell did a good job keeping it as funny as they possibly could. I look at this site "Oh Internet", the toned-down replacement for ED, and can't help but feel they're selling out to try and appeal to a wider audience. After all that shit they gave to sites like Memebase and Know Your Meme, you would like to have thought Encyclopedia Dramatica would stick to its principles, and remain one of the most dark, shocking sites on the internet. Instead, it has just become another place where all the kids who think dressing up as "Rage Face Guy" and "Forever Alone" and taking pictures of yourself in class is cool will hang out, and will eventually die a slow and un-lulzy, as it fades into the unfunny background of mainstream memes. I tried to parody this attitude last year with my articles on "going viral", and "creating a meme" - the idea of trying to force something to be popular, and therefore making it incredibly pathetic, and I can't help but feel the creators of "Oh Internet", henceforth know as "The Murderers of Encyclopedia Dramatica", have betrayed their own values. And for that, I feel genuinely disappointed. In fact, the only good thing I can see coming out of this situation is that the title for "Most Offensive Webiste on Earth" is now up for grabs, and assuming actual Nazis and Hatemongers don't qualify for the title, I may have a fairly good shot at it.



Is there an award for Blog containing the lamest puns?



I can't help but feel that the day ED died may well have been the day the lulz died, and whilst it may increase traffic for the Cheezburger Network, or Unencyclopedia, it is a sad day for the rest of mankind. Now cracks a noble heart. Goodnight, sweet Wiki.
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...



YEEEEEEAAAAH!!!!


Get it? No? Fair enough, I didn't think anyone familiar with Shakespeare would watch CSI, or vice-versa...





Voice



There's apparently a BBC guy on /b/ right now trying to put together info for a news section to be broadcast on Saturday 23rd at 11.30 - I would call him a troll, but the guy's a Namefag. Shit creeps me out...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the Next Schindler's List

Before I get into anything too serious, I just want to ask one question: Why are people so upset about the scene in this movie where Dobby the House Elf dies? If you ask me, that’s like getting sad if Jar Jar had died in The Phantom Menace...




Fuck this guy.



I watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One on Monday, and have only one major concern – well, 2 if you count the fact that I’m a 22 year-old who not only still watches kids’ films, but then brags about doing so online – were all those references to Nazi Germany and Religion in the book? It’s been years since I read it (I read the book the day it was released, but haven’t looked at it since), but I honestly don’t remember any analogies for Nazi Germany appearing in it. Yet when I watched the film, literally everything was to do with Nazis or Jews. SERIOUSLY.



...Or should I say… Siriusly?




Firstly, we have the whole round-table discussion at the start, where the death eaters all meet to discuss the problem with muggle-born wizards, and how muggles are an inferior race to wizards, which is strangely reminiscent of the Wannsee Conference (Which, incidentally, had a film (‘Conspiracy’) based on it starring Kenneth Branagh, who played Gildroy Lockhart in ‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’, as a Nazi). But this is just the beginning of the comparisons. When Harry, Ron and Hermione sneak into the Ministry of Magic later in the film, we see all the muggle-borns being rounded up, and reviewed, and put on trial on various trumped up charges. Everything about this scene was clearly written as a thinly veiled analogy for the Holocaust, from Umbridge accusing a Muggle-Born Witch of stealing her wand from a pure-blood, to Harry’s extraordinarily Gestapo-looking leather Jacket. I’m also certain we at some point see a shot of a Muggle-Born witch or wizard with the word “Mudblood” carved into their left forearm. Hmm… a mark on the left forearm? That’s not overly obvious…




Hell, even the scenes set in the woods in the snow when Harry and Hermione are jumping around from place to place and hiding out reminded me of the movie “Defiance” (with none other than the Tank himself, Liev Schreiber), and I couldn’t help but feel that this was also intentional, if not to parallel that movie directly then at least to correspond to images from the War of Jews hiding in woods on the Eastern Front to avoid being sent to the Concentration Camps.



In Soviet Russia, Horcrux Destroys YOU!


In fact, I would say it’s just about impossible to watch this movie without making comparisons with the Holocaust. Hell, Lord Voldemort was the SS Officer in charge of the Concentration Camp in Schindler’s List, for fuck’s sake. But my question is – why?



Oh, you thought I was kidding?


I mean, I get that it’s often a good idea to make your movie actually mean something, to stand for something – the comparisons made with the Nazis and the Communists in Starship Troopers made that film far more awesome. But why make comparisons with the Holocaust in a children’s film? I mean, it’s not the sort of thing you would really want kids to know about (unless you’re of the opinion that they’re gonna learn about this stuff at some point, so fuck it), and it’s a very dark subject area. Plus, you know, setting it in the wizarding world tames it all down, so it’s not as if the film is making a point about how terrible and diabolical the events were, and nor is it trying to show what can become of humans when driven by hate, or mislead by those in power. It is simply a side-plot, as though someone said “Hey, let’s put in references to the Holocaust – wouldn’t that be cool?” and the rest of the writers agreed with them.



Typical Writers' room session - in their defence, it is less than a week til 4/20.



But even if we ignore the whole Holocaust thing, what’s with Harry and Hermione deciding to go to his Birth Place on Christmas Eve? Harry’s Birthplace. On Christmas Eve. Are you following me? Then Ron finds them, by following a bright light, which guides him back to them. Hermione is a Muggle-Born, and Harry’s mother was as well. If we look back at the Holocaust comparison, it is clear that the muggle-borns are Jews. Two Jews travelling to the male’s birthplace at Christmas, and a man who travels from a far-away place to find them, guided by a bright light, whilst the evil ruler of the land sends his forces (his snake) to try and find and kill “the chosen one”. That’s right - It’s the motherfucking Bible.




Was this shit present in all the books, or even the other films, and I just never noticed it until now? Almost certainly. Yet still I find myself wondering: why?



Tell me Why...



Anyway, that’s all I really wanted to say – the movie is about as good as you’d expect, and well, there’s not all that much I can really say about it. The scene at the end where Voldemort opens Dumbledoor’s tomb could have been done differently, because as it was when the lid began to slide back I half-expected to see Thunderbird One come soaring out, but other than that I have no real complaints. The scene where Harry first leaves the house and tries to get to the Weasley’s is bitchin’, and looks as though it was from a proper action film, rather than just a wizards story aimed primarily at children, and although it did drag in places, I quite like the darker, slower tone of this film. It was cool seeing Rhys Ifans again, though I’m glad he and David Thewlis didn’t have a scene together – I wouldn’t want to see Professor Lupin whip his cock out and draw a face on it for Xenophilius and Luna, that would just have been beyond creepy…



and let's not even think about Lupin kneecapping Xenophilius...





Voice

Up In The Air - Review

As some of you may recall, I had a bit of a disagreement with Jason Reitman a while back, when he suggested that having yellow walls in your bedroom was "girly", and I suggested that having a broken nose was fair punishment. Nevertheless, I decided to put that incident, and the restraining order, behind me, and watch Reitman's newest film: "Up in the Air", starring the future Sam Fisher.



I wish... (However, there is hope)


The plot is relatively simple - But to be honest, if you want to hear about that, you can just go and look it up on IMDB. Right now, I just want to tell you what impressed me about this film:

Even though it is ridiculously predictable in many, many ways - it still somehow goes differently to what you were expecting. Now, I know this sounds weird, but bear with me for a second (oh, and massive spoilers ahead, in case you literally haven't read any of my blog posts yet and aren't aware that when I "review" a movie, I basically just mean I give away the end of the film...)

Think about Se7en. Now, we all knew Kevin Spacey was going to die at the end of Se7en - there was just no other way to end it. Hell, I figured it out straight away, when I first heard the killings were based on the Seven Deadly sins. But, assuming you, like me, hadn't heard anything else about the film, you probably didn't expect it to end quite as it did. So, here's what I thought was going to happen:

I assumed that Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman would be tracking the killer, and getting ever closer to him as he murdered his way through the sins; Greed, Gluttony, Pride, Envy, Lust and Sloth. Then, when there was only one person left to kill, the two detectives would finally capture him at his home, and it would look like they had won. He would then smile, and reveal the painfully obvious truth; that by killing all these sinners, he himself had sinned, as he had become wrath. He would put the gun to his head, and Brad Pitt would run forward to try and stop him, but *BANG* he would blow his brains all over the wall, taking the life of the 7th and final victim. End Scene.

Now, I was correct in thinking that the killer would be one of the sinners, and that he would die, but what actually happens in the film is, as you undoubtedly already know, very different to what I described above.



It's actually fairly similar to this...




And the same is true for "Up in the Air".


Clooney's character meets a girl early on who he becomes steadily more and more interested in as the film progresses. When it reaches time for him to give his big speech in Vegas on how being single and not having relationships tie you down and get in the way, I thought I knew exactly what would happen. After all, I had already seen this movie:



I'm having a very Coen-Brothers-y day today...


He gets partway into his speech, realises he no longer believes what he's saying, and completely changes what he was going to say - we are met with a stunned silence from the crowd, who can't believe their ears, then they all start applauding, and he goes off to be with the woman he loves, before finding out a terrible secret about her.

Well, Up in the Air did unfold in a very similar manner to this, but with a key difference. Whilst the bit about the woman he loves having a terrible secret was still there (it could hardly be considered a spoiler to tell you *shock* she has a husband and a family!), and the speech scene started out exactly the same, the way it unfolded really surprised me. Rather than change his mind and express his new found beliefs, changing his ways and still winning the support of the people who once loved his uncaring, greedy attitude, he just walked off the stage. That was it. When he stopped speaking, I was certain things would unfold in exactly the same way they did in Intolerable Cruelty (though, without the wacky humour, Up in the Air is a tad more subtle), but instead he just paused, with the same look on his face as he had in Intolerable Cruelty at the exact same point in the film, but then he just turned, and walked off. End of scene. And I was impressed.




I mean, everything worked out exactly the same, but just to show how that character didn't need to convince everyone his change in direction was the right thing to do, how he didn't feel the need to spread his message, and how he didn't even care what people would think of him if he left the stage, was awesome, and really fit in with what had happened prior to that scene. Not only that, but it makes the character, and by extension the film, seem so much more believable than if he had given an impassioned speech and won over the crowd. Of course, I loved what the Coen Brothers did in Intolerable Cruelty, playing the speech out for laughs, but I'm glad they didn't try and have George do a serious speech in his change of direction in this film, because I love that scene just as it is.


The other thing I was impressed with was how he didn't get with the other girl the movie focuses on (Anna Kendrick) at the end, as I expect to happen once he found out that Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio's shared girlfriend already had a family. Instead, she flies away to live in San Fransisco, and he simply writes her a reference for a new job - it was so different, and yet was a great way to break the crappy romantic movie cliche of the guy falling in love with the girl he's been spending time with and not thought about in that way before. It is, simply, genius. The very end scene, too, is incredible, because we realize that, after all that has happened to him, and how different Bingham (Clooney) is for his experiences, nothing has really changed. He understands more about family, and attachment, than he ever did before, and he realizes that he can't live as he is forever, but in the end, he's still the same guy, living the same way, perhaps just a bit more depressed than he was at the start. At the end, does he just get on the first flight and go anywhere, as Kendrick suggested he should earlier in the film, or does he go straight back to work? The point is that we don't know, but as with the ending of Inception, the real point is that it doesn't matter, because either way Bingham has had to put the idea of family behind him, and is back to his lone-wolf travelling ways. And, of course, this was also a surprise, as it had been hinted at right from the start that Clooney would lose his job to the new system invented by Kendrick's character. So, whilst I thought the film would end with the man who fires people for a living being fired himself, and getting together with the woman responsible for him losing his job, Reitman played it cool, and threw us one hell of a curb-ball.


The real achievement in this film, however, is not how great it is to see cliches smashed, but more how incredibly cool Reitman was able to make a guy whose entire life revolves around racking up air miles. Every man on Earth wishes he was George Clooney, that's a given, but to make us all wish we were a man who does nothing with his life but catch planes, and stay in hotels, trying to reach the grand total of 10 million air miles? Well, that's some impressive writing. And you know what? I genuinely did want to be just like this man when I saw the film. Even the idea of going after something so pointless as 10 million air miles just to say you'd done it seemed cool after watching this. I mean, how is it not? 10 million air miles? Jesus, that's as impressive reaching your 100th Blog post. Speaking of which...





100 POSTS PEOPLE!!!!! WE DID IT!!!!






But seriously, the character is instantly likeable, and yet at the same time, we are all very aware of his hollow existence. And that fact that I haven't wanted to be another character this badly since Richard B. Riddick is testament to just how well written this script is... Riddick's a badass.



Pvt. Caparzo, on the other hand...



There were a couple of odd things I noticed, however, which I thought I would mention...


For starters, how is it that Vera Farmiga had no boobs at all in the Departed, but apparently has huge ones in Up in the Air?






I swear, she must have a double who looks identical to her, but with much bigger boobs. Kind of like Zooey Deschanel does...



Seriously, which one is this? The boobs are literally the only way to tell. Well, that and the presence of Russell Brand, I suppose...


The other thing which I thought was odd was that I learned the people who are having a go at Clooney for firing them are mostly people who had actually just lost their jobs recently, and thought they were appearing in a documentary about the recession. That seems a bit twisted, don't you think? "Oh yeah, it's for a serious documentary to help raise awareness of the struggles faces by the lower classes. lol jk, it's a Clooney film."


Still, I was thoroughly impressed by this film, and highly recommend you watch it, even if it is by the same guy who thinks yellow is too girly a colour for a man's bedroom, and who made one of the actors from the Trailer Park Boys have sex with Michael Cera, an offence which should rightly be punishable by death...



He has a certain Naïve charm; but no MUSCLE!




Rating:


***

3 Stars




Unfortunately, recently, I'm only reviewing films I like, so I'm not ranting anywhere near as much as I used to... Still, this film was really well done, and certainly worth a watch. It's not laugh-out-loud funny, and most of the humour is very subtle, but it is still a brilliant comedy, which tackles movie cliches in a cool, stylistic manner. Plus, there are some pretty damn good actors making cameos throughout the film, including none other than Sam Elliott:



Sorry, I just had to put another one in...



I highly recommend you check it out. Even if it isn't as good as some other movies I've seen recently, it's a hell of an enjoyable 105 minutes. Plus, George Clooney - NEED I SAY MORE?




Voice

"The Thing" Review

How is it possible that this film did not win the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects? I have seldom, if ever, seen effects quite as realistic, as horrifying, as were present in “The Thing”, and to think that the majority of these were created by a 22 year old, working on a movie with an overall budget of $15 million, is simply mind-blowing.



Like you didn't know it was coming...


Reviews from the time of the film’s release seem to suggest that they may have even been too good; they are described as being grotesque, and gratuitous, and a number of reviewers seem to feel that the focus on gore detracts from the movie as a whole, killing the suspense. I, however, respectfully disagree.






The Thing is a movie about Isolation and Paranoia – about not knowing who you can trust, but being stuck in the company of those who may kill you at any second, because you have no way of escaping. It is possibly the most intense psychological horror movie to grace our screens since Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining (although, since that movie was only released 2 years prior to “The Thing”, this may not sound like such an impressive achievement as it actually is). Few horror movies, if any, can even be mentioned in the same sentence as The Shining without paling in comparison, and yet somehow this movie, made on an even lower budget than Kubrick’s famously small $22 million for The Shining, seems to me at least to hold up under the same levels of scrutiny. It is, quite simply, one of the best horror movies I have ever seen.



Yep, even better than this...


However, it is common knowledge that “The Shining” was also critically panned upon its initial release, with Stephen King practically disowning it, and the movie finding itself nominated for Golden Raspberry (Razzie) awards not only for Worst Actress for Shelley Duvall, but (unbelievably) Worst Director for Kubrick as well. Indeed, it seem the early 80s were a bizarre time to be a film maker, with both The Shining and Blade Runner, two movies now regarded as being among the greatest ever made, being universally panned, and even Rocky IV finding itself nominated for 9 Razzie awards, despite being 90% pure awesome, and only 10% shitty robot/little kid scenes (I think this, in and of itself, proves that John J.B. Wilson needs to hurry up and fucking die already so we can all be rid of his worthless opinions on movies (INB4 “look who’s talking”)). So, I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised that The Thing was nominated for a Razzie Award as well – but for the score? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me!


I'm running out of these...


Ennio Morricone has proved himself time and again, from the original spaghetti western trilogy (on the subject of which – how are there people who think that “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” is set after “A Fistful of Dollars”? It is clearly a prequel, and, assuming you don’t count “The Godfather, Part II” due to it’s only being part-prequel, part-sequel; is the greatest prequel ever made), onto “Once Upon a Time in the West”, right through to “The Untouchables” and “Bugsy”, and “The Thing” is no exception to his consistently high standards.



What is this? Lame Pun Day?


In fact, the score is extremely reminiscent of that of “Escape from New York”, John Carpenter and Kurt Russell’s previous outing, which Carpenter scored himself. The score is made up of very low beats, mostly bass notes, set at a relatively slow tempo, which really enhances the sense of foreboding at the start of the film, and provides a subtle, yet dramatic soundtrack to the film. Much like in “Escape from New York”, the score seems specifically designed to raise the tension in the suspense-ridden plot of the film, whilst also maintaining excitement. It is one of those rare scores which would hardly be noticeable if it didn’t almost fit in too well; and in fact only drew my attention because it was so reminiscent of Escape from New York.


Remember this one?


Looking back at the effects as well, they are so incredibly well done that it almost seems to bring you out of the movie, as you stop and say “wow, that looks incredible!” – and this is perhaps why many of the critics from the time of the film’s release didn’t see the same brilliance in it that I do. I’m watching this movie from an age where CGI and visual effects are everywhere – so imagine seeing effects that blow my mind today, way back in 1982. You would actually be consciously bringing yourself out of the movie, forcing yourself to think “It’s only a movie, it’s only a movie”. And there, my friends, lies the sheer brilliance in The Thing. Even if you can’t suspend your disbelief long enough to just sit back and enjoy it, it has real artistic value.



Depending on how loose your definition of "Art" is, I guess...



At the opening of the film, I was worried we were going to see the aliens crash land, and then the team would dig them up in an “Alien vs. Predator” manner. Hell, the opening shot of the film is identical to the opening of Predator (made 4 years laters), so it was a really present surprise when the film opened apparently halfway through the attack of the Aliens, as the team of Norwegian scientists who thawed it out are mostly lying dead, and the American Scientists who the rest of the movie focuses on are still unaware of what horrors await them. This decision to introduce us to the story part way along is inspired, because not only does it help you identify far more with the characters if we are all thrown into this mess partway through, but it also means we avoid the need for various tedious explanations. Upon seeing the charred remains of one of the Aliens at the Norwegian camp, Kurt Russell’s character MacReady instantly realizes that the only way to kill the creatures is with fire, and orders them to be burnt from the beginning. This allows the story to progress rapidly without the tedium of having to show the characters discovering that fire works against the “things”.


Till Lindemann agrees that fire works against pretty well everything...


MacReady himself is one excellently written character, and Kurt Russell portrays him superbly. Starting off as merely a bored everyman, MacReady quickly progresses into badass action hero, then apparently regresses back into a paranoid, nervous wreck, before finally taking control of the situation again. The character is multi-dimensional, which is nice to see, and somehow combines the cool of Snake Plissken with an everyman feel which makes him easy to identify with, yet still see as a badass. They just don’t make them like that anymore…


This is actually a picture of Patrick Swayze. Sorry to Mindfuck you...


The rest of the characters, too, are a lot better written than those in most contemporary horror movies. In the same manner in which Predator created a team of Commandos who were all memorable in their own ways, some more so than others, but all with real personalities, “The Thing” manages to do the same thing 4 years earlier with its Antarctic research crew. Of course some of the characters are not explored too thoroughly, and not every last one of them is given a detailed personality or background, but given the pace of the film, it is hard to imagine any way that this could be reasonably achieved without affecting how the plot unravels.


The sets are incredible, with the cuts between location shoots in British Columbia in the winter, and studio scenes in the Californian Summer being unnoticeable, thanks to clever camerawork and direction, and the brilliant idea to supercool the sound stages to a mere 40F so the actors would appear just as cold in the interior scenes as they did outdoors. John Carpenter once again outdoes himself bringing his movie to life with the smallest of details, much in the same way as he and his set designers transformed just a couple of blocks of East St. Louis into the apparent sprawling Urban environment of a dystopian Manhattan in Escape From New York (shot on an incredible $6 million, incidentally). It is impossible to fault the sets or locations in this movie, and that is one of the advantages of setting a film in such a small, confined area. Even though 95% of the movie takes place within a single compound, the overall feel of the film is grander than many which take place across entire cities.


In the end, it is hard to fault this film. It is very disappointing that it didn’t win the Oscar for Best Visual Effects; E.T. won in 1982, with Blade Runner and Poltergeist being the other 2 nominees, whilst Return of the Jedi won in ’83 – with no competition whatsoever. Of these films, only Blade Runner really seems to deserve the award over The Thing, and even then, only because it created such a grand scale futuristic metropolis (Incidentally, I have only seen the Director’s Cut, which I hear is far superior to the original version – hence the critical panning and missing out on the Oscar?) – The Thing still has the more realistic, and ultimately more impressive, visuals. The only reassurance that I take from the effects side of filming is that Rob Bottin, the incredible designer of many of the alien creatures, went on to work on such great films as Se7en and Fight Club, so it seems his talents weren’t entirely wasted after this.






My only real concern now is the rumours of either a remake, or a prequel to, The Thing being made later this year. I hated the idea of an Escape from New York remake when I first heard about it, and I hate the idea of The Thing being remade, even with John Carpenter at the helm. There’s an old saying which goes “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – and with an average rating of 8.2 on IMDB, landing it in rank 177 on their Top 250 list, it doesn’t look like there’s too much wrong with The Thing in anyone else’s eyes, either.



You know, except for the obvious...





RATING:


*****


5/5 STARS




Probably the best horror movie I have ever seen, and certainly the best Alien movie (that's right, even better than Aliens! *GASP!*) - If you haven't already seen this, place it right under Full Metal Jacket in your stack of films to fucking watch! Peace Out!




Voice

Thanks for the Support, Everyone!

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for all the Pageviews this month. I wasn't sure if anyone was actually going to visit this site when I first started writing for it, so it's really nice to see that some people are actually checking my stuff out. Just to show you how much things have taken off in this last month, here's a quick shot of my Stats Overview for the past few months:




That's all down to YOU, people!



Yep, we've finally done it. My page views are finally OVER 9000!






Really appreciate the support, everyone! Hope you continue to enjoy the site - More posts coming soon!





Voice




Tp;dr

(Too Pathetic; Didn't Read)

So, I wrote an article about hating pathetic Facebook memes, and now I'm copying one? Hypocrite!

I’ve had a couple of requests from people to post my responses to ‘the 30 day song challenge’. As I’m not the kind of guy to dedicate an entire month of my life to anything whatsoever, I decided to change this to ‘the 30 songs challenge’. Same rules, shorter time period. As I’m sure you all remember, this Blog was originally set up as a Music-reviewing Blog, until I suddenly realized “Holy Shit, I know fuck all about music” and switched to reviewing movies and writing insane ramblings on a variety of subjects no-one cares about instead. So here’s me coming back to form, in a sense, giving you my responses to ‘The 30 Songs Challenge’. You may like what you see; you may lose all respect for me. But either way, at least I’m not posting some of the more pathetic Facebook crazes on here seriously. Like, oh, I don’t know...







SONG ONE – YOUR FAVOURITE SONG


This is a tough one, because my favourite song changes pretty well on a daily basis. For a while last week, it was the song “Now You’re a Man” by Trey Parker, taken from the movie “Orgasmo”. That is, until I was linked to the site ‘thewillpower.org’...

Some people will just say, ‘just think of your favourite song by your favourite band’, on the assumption that if they’re your favourite band, their best song should also be your favourite song. However, this is somewhat akin to saying “Your favourite actor is Christian Bale, and his best film was ‘American Psycho’, so therefore American Psycho must be your favourite film” – it just doesn’t work like that. And what about hits by bands who have done fuck all great songs, but had that one hit wonder that you absolutely fucking love? So in all, this is one hell of a difficult question to answer.

I guess, in the end, I just have to go with ‘which song have I really been enjoying more than any other lately?’ – and in response to this, I guess I would have to go for the one I spontaneously started singing last night, and got a group of people to join in with, and start air-banding the whole thing. And that song is: ‘I Need to Know’ by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.







SONG TWO – YOUR LEAST FAVOURITE SONG


Did you know Microsoft Word is trying to correct that to “You’re Least Favourite Song”? No wonder so many people on the internet have a fucking atrocious grasp of when to use “Your” or “You’re”, or “There”, “their” and “they’re” – their fucking computers tell them they’re wrong when they get it right!

But back to the task at hand – I’m certain I’ll be the only person on Earth not typing “Friday by Rebecca Black” right here, but the fact is, this kind of internet hate comes and goes. Hatred of mainstream media, however, is forever. Now, whilst I’m sure they were offering good odds on my saying “Number 1” by Tinchy Strider and N-DUBZ, I’m not going to because even though the artists are cunts, and the video is terrible, the song is far from the worst I have ever heard. Also, there are all manner of worthless jingles in my memory, but can they all be counted as “songs”? The Crazy Frog was massively popular amongst retards and cunts when I was about 11 or 12 (ish?), but no matter how much I despise that, I wouldn’t even give it the priviledge of honouring it with the title “a song”. So I guess that restricts things further...
I suppose I would have to go with “That Fast Food Song”, because basically it’s an advert for the Capitalist system, and is also as annoying as 10 Justin Biebers (or 8 Rebecca Blacks, or 5 Goatses, or 2 Nick Cleggs).








SONG THREE – A SONG THAT MAKES YOU HAPPY


This one’s a little easier, because it’s any song that makes you happy, not the song that makes you happiest, so I can pick absolutely any song. So I suppose I’ll pick the song that had me shouting “FUCK YEAH!!!!” when it started playing on Radio 2 the other night – Thin Lizzy with “Dancing in the Moonlight”.







SONG FOUR – A SONG THAT MAKES YOU SAD


This exact question ruined my day when MSN asked it 3 years ago, because one of the published answers was “Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd, because it’s the song playing just before Chris Moltisanti dies in The Sopranos”. I’m fine with publishing that now, because to be honest, if you haven’t watched The Sopranos yet, you’ve probably heard far worse spoilers than that already. But to publish that before the final 9 Episodes were even released on DVD (I bought the set the day it came out, so I’m certain of this) is a bit fucking much.

So, what song should I pick? There are loads of Depressing-sounding songs, to choose from, even if, like me, you really aren’t a big fan of the whole whiney-emo scene. I’ll admit, there are some very good, depressing songs told from a first person perspective; “Waiting for the Miracle” by Leonard Cohen, Half of Nirvana’s Discography, and both “Hurt” and “Give My Love to Rose” by Johnny Cash (I’m well aware “Hurt” was a cover, yes...). All amazing songs. But I think in the end, I have to give it to Rammstein’s ‘Ohne Dich’.




Is the song really about a Heroin addict? It makes sense, given the line “Mit dir bin ich auch Aleine”. But the rest of the song sounds so much like it’s about a lost love that it’s hard to believe it’s not about a girl. And that’s what makes this song amazing – it could be a fantastic song about someone who has lost the love of their life, but when you consider that love may be heroin (makes sense when you consider they already wrote a song about a heroin addict dying all alone with “Adios”), it just gives it an even deeper meaning – the song could go both ways. Much like Till in “Zwitter”. WHOOOOAAA!!!!!




SONG FIVE – A SONG THAT REMINDS YOU OF SOMEONE


When I was 18, I started seeing one of my mate’s girlfriend’s friends, and we all hung out one night. At about midnight, we decided to sneak into the place where this girl worked, basically just to raid the freezer. She was a waitress in a farm restaurant way out in the countryside, with no buildings or towns for miles around. Whilst the girls were grabbing Ice Cream, my friend and I came up with the ingenious plan of scaring the shit out of them, knowing full well that it is a proven scientific fact that girls are more likely to sleep with you if you terrify them first (I am not making this up). So, when we left the building, we both acted like we were hearing noises in the fields nearby (it was a farm, after all), and started to act really freaked out ourselves. This succeeded in freaking the girls out, who just wanted to get back to the car. As luck would have it, there were a number of scarecrows on the way to the car park, as we had to take a narrow path across a field, and we were saying things like “I’m sure that scarecrow wasn’t there before” or “just imagine, if you wanted to murder someone here, you could easily just stand by the path in ragged clothes, and they would walk right up to you thinking you were a scarecrow”. A couple of stones thrown out into the field to make noise later, and the girls were sufficiently freaked. We raced back into the car, and I turned on the ignition, at which point the song “Psycho Killer” by the Talking Heads started blaring through the radio, as if it knew just what to play in that instance. So, I’ll have to dedicate this entry to the girl I successfully freaked out in those fields all those years ago, and name the song “Psycho Killer”.








DAY SIX – A SONG THAT REMINDS YOU OF SOMEWHERE


Driving through the French Alps between Tignes and Val d’Isere a couple of years ago, I was chilling and listening to music, looking out over the fantastic landscape, lit by the brightest sunshine I think I have ever seen. The “Deal With It” Picture of me in a Hawaiian Shirt up in the mountains was taken there, and it has to be one of the most beautiful landscapes I have ever witnessed. The song I was listening to whilst driving? Only the song “Strutter” by Kiss, a song I had previously only associated with driving across the deserts of San Andreas, but will now forever be in my head as the song that I had on in the French Alps. Love it.








SONG SEVEN – A SONG THAT REMINDS YOU OF A CERTAIN EVENT


Walking along the streets of Portsmouth at 5 in the morning in winter is depressing as fuck. Especially in fog. Everything is grey and horrible, and you wonder why you even bother. So when “It’s the End of the World as we Know it” by R.E.M started to play on my MP3 player, it had the bizarre effect of actually making me enjoy my surroundings, whilst contemplating what the end of the world really would look like for me from here. So, the song that reminds me of walking through a run-down city in the early hours of the morning when nobody else was around?








SONG EIGHT – A SONG THAT YOU KNOW ALL THE WORDS TO


This could, of course, cover hundreds of different songs. I’ve never been too good at remembering people, or places, but numbers and lyrics I find easy as fuck. So I guess, given I have literally hundreds of songs to choose from, I should pick the one I personally feel is the most impressive, and given its 11 minute run-time, I guess there are few songs more impressive to know all the words to than Bob Dylan’s “Desolation Row”.



Buuuut... YouTube doesn't seem to have the song. Though, to be honest, if you don't own either Highway 61 Revisited or Bob Dylan's 3 Disc Music Collection, you need to go and die in a hole right now.

Anyway, here's some random guy doing a cover:






SONG NINE – A SONG THAT YOU CAN DANCE TO


Again, you can pretty well dance to absolutely any song out there, so this seems like a bit of an odd question. So, I suppose it’s going to have to be Pharaoh Monch’s “Simon Says”; the rhymes are whack, but the beat is Gang$ta (to paraphrase a number of individuals from YouTube). Plus, Sam Rockwell looked like a Boss dancing to it.








SONG TEN – A SONG THAT MAKES YOU FALL ASLEEP


I am not like so many of my generation, spending literally their entire waking lives with an earphone shoved in one ear, listening to music constantly. Not only this, but I never put music on when I go to sleep – I have music on to enjoy it, not because it’s just something that should be on in the background. Not only this, but I don’t find music makes me sleepy, so this question is pretty difficult for me to answer. However, if I want a cool, relaxing song that I can just chill out to, and that I might have on before I went to bed, then I suppose you could do a lot worse than Leonard Cohen’s “Anthem”.








SONG ELEVEN – A SONG FROM YOUR FAVOURITE BAND


Really? Oops, I’ve already done one of these. Still, the rules don’t say anything about using multiple songs from the same band, so why worry?

There are loads of great Rammstein songs out there, and it’s so hard to choose one for this entry. Where do you even start? So, I guess I’ll have to start at the logical place; the beginning. No, not “Wollt Ihr Das Bett in Flammen Sehen”, although that would make sense also; but with the first Rammstein song I ever heard, way back in 2001: Sonne.






SONG TWELVE – A SONG FROM A BAND YOU HATE

The Gallagher Brothers are cunts. No discussion. I hate everything from their smug faces down to their shitty retro trainers, and would like nothing better than to smash their fucking Hipster glasses into their ridiculously over-inflated heads. That said, Oasis have made some pretty decent songs. The best probably being “Don’t Look Back in Anger”. So well played, you cunts, you made my list. Enjoy.






SONG THIRTEEN – A SONG THAT IS A GUILTY PLEASURE


Oh God, I hardly dare admit this for fear of what it will do to my reputation. But I fucking love “The Flood” by Take That.





You’re probably expecting me to post “Ha, April Fool!” right about now, but no – I’m being completely and utterly serious here. I think it is an amazing song.




SONG FOURTEEN – A SONG THAT NO-ONE WOULD EXPECT YOU TO LOVE

Given the amount of hate I throw at N-DUBZ, it’s obvious that I don’t love their songs, and no-one expects me to. Oh wait, sorry, you mean a song that no-one expects me to love but that I DO love? Well, that’s a bit more awkward now, isn’t it? The problem is, most of the stuff I love that is utter shit people expect me to love anyway. People expect me to love “Don’t you want me Baby” because it’s 80s cheese, just like people know I love films like “Triple X” and “Exit Wounds”, because I enjoy utter shit. Even things like “Be my Baby” by the Ronettes, people expect me to like, because obviously I’ve seen Mean Streets. Hell, after my “Get Rich or Die Tryin’” review, people won’t even be surprised to learn I like a couple of 50 Cent songs. So what do I love, that no-one would expect me to? I guess my answer to this will have to be Green Day, because even I’m surprised that I would like Green Day. And whilst people might explain away my love of “American Idiot” as being a form of punk-nostalgia, that still doesn’t explain why the fuck I love “Boulevard of Broken Dreams”. So, a song that no-one would expect me to love? I guess a song that even I’m surprised I love should do the trick.







SONG FIFTEEN – A SONG THAT DESCRIBES YOU

As much as I want to put “I’m too Sexy” by Right Said Fred here, I shall refrain. Though, to be honest, it’s hard to think of a song that describes me better. I suppose it’s got to be U2’s “Stuck in a Moment”, for those occasions where I really do lose it and get fixated on things that don’t really matter...







SONG SIXTEEN – A SONG THAT YOU USED TO LOVE BUT NOW HATE

I don’t think there are any songs that I used to love, but now hate. I may dislike some songs I used to enjoy, simply because I’ve heard them too much; but to actively go from love to hate? I don’t see that happening. Shit, I would probably still crack a smile if you put on the old “Mr Blobby” single I used to have on tape when I was a kid – I literally cannot think of a single song I once loved, then grew to hate. There are a few, such as “Tribute” and “Business Time”, which I enjoyed when I first heard them, but then became really mainstream (I’m a closet Hipster) and quoted by absolutely fucking everyone soon after, meaning they lost their appeal. But still, I don’t actively hate those songs. In the end, I guess, I’ll have to choose one like this, which I enjoyed upon first hearing it, but now get annoyed by because morons continue to spam it everywhere. So, congratulations, for the second time in the past week or so, I’m posting “Surfin’ Bird” on this Blog. Fuck you, Family Guy fans, you ruined this song, and by extension “Full Metal Jacket”, even worse than watching John C. McGinley in Scrubs ruined my view of “Platoon”. This one’s for you:






SONG SEVENTEEN – A SONG YOU HEAR OFTEN ON THE RADIO

I wouldn’t know about “often”, because I don’t listen to the radio all that much. I also don’t want to post some shit here, which is what I tend to hear on the radio if I’m in the gym or somewhere. So, what gets played often on the radio when I’m listening? Well, they play “Take That” a fair amount, which I’ve already posted, and Lady Gaga’s quite popular. But I’m going to choose a song I haven’t heard on the radio “often”, but which I did hear twice in 2 days; it’s “Across 110th Street” by Bobby Womack.








SONG EIGHTEEN – A SONG THAT YOU WISH YOU HEARD ON THE RADIO

Simply for the lulz value, it’s got to be “Shut Your Fucking Face Uncle Fucker” by Trey Parker and Co. I can imagine the shit storm that would create if played uncensored on national radio – AAAWWWW YEEEAAAH!!!!!







DAY NINETEEN – A SONG FROM YOUR FAVOURITE ALBUM

Naturally, we’re not counting hits albums here, which is a bit of a shame, otherwise I’d post “Emerald” by Thin Lizzy, who have the greatest “Greatest Hits” album ever (closely followed by David Bowie). And, of course, we won’t be able to include soundtracks, either – otherwise the Pulp Fiction soundtrack would probably take the top spot. So, it comes down to actual studio albums released by bands, which may be tricky...

The problem with this question is that it falls prey to the same difficulties we had with the “Favourite song” question – it really depends on mood. A number of Bob Dylan’s albums are fantastic – especially “Blood on the Tracks”, “Highway 61 Revisited” and “Bringing it all back Home”. But would I call them my favourite albums? Likewise, Rammstein have had 4 absolutely incredible albums in “Herzeleid”, “Sehnsucht”, “Mutter” and “Reise, Reise”, and there are plenty of other bands I can think of who have released a tremendous album at some point. I suppose in the end, though, it really makes sense to go with one of the two albums featured on the tape that never left the cassette player in my car for a full year when I was 17/18. And although both albums are incredible, I’m going to pick the one I always used to prefer back when I was a long haired 18 year old kid who loved nothing more than driving in the sunshine and quoting The Big Lebowski. So, for the second time in this Blog post, I give you a song from Bob Dylan’s Highway 61 Revisited. This time, I’m going to go not for my favourite song on the album, but the most famous, and most significant. I give you: “Like a Rolling Stone”.







SONG TWENTY – A SONG THAT YOU LISTEN TO WHEN YOU’RE ANGRY

Back in the day when I was your typically angry teenager (long before I discovered Bob Dylan and just plain Chilling the fuck out), my favourite song to listen to when angry was “Just Don’t Give a Fuck” by Eminem. And while my music tastes may have changed a bit since then, I no longer have the need to calm myself with blaring music when I’m angry (I just let it burn out / smash the shit out of everything and everything in sight these days. A much more mature way of dealing with things...), so I suppose it’s only appropriate to post the song I used to calm myself down to back in the day, even though I haven’t listened to it in God knows how long, simply as a tribute to those days when it did help me out of some pretty dark places.








SONG TWENTY ONE – A SONG THAT YOU LISTEN TO WHEN YOU’RE HAPPY

Not a song that makes you happy (we already had that), but a song you listen to whilst happy? Hmmm... this could be just about any song, to be honest. I doubt there’s anyone on the planet who says “Ooh, I’m happy! I’ll listen to my happy song!” – that’s just plain weird. But, I suppose I have to pick one, so I’ll go for a song that deserves to be mentioned somewhere on this list, but probably wouldn’t get a look in if I didn’t post it here: It’s the full-length version of David Bowie’s “Heroes”.






SONG TWENTY TWO – A SONG THAT YOU LISTEN TO WHEN YOU’RE SAD

Well, this is a tough one. I’d like to put either “I’m Going to Cut Myself (I Mean it this Time)” by Death Car for Jimmy, or “I’ve Got Hurt Feelings” by Flight of the Conchords. However, this seems like a little bit of a cop-out, so I guess I’ll have to think seriously about songs I listen to when I’m sad. I can’t really put “Ohne Dich” again, so I guess I’ll just have to choose another. Still, no-one says a song you listen to whilst sad has to be a sad song, and whilst I would put “More than a Feeling” by Boston here, I got so pissed off by its constant over-use in adverts that I’m no longer quite the diehard fan of it I once was. However, that doesn’t stop me from picking another song I already used on my “10 Best Wake-up Songs” list, so rather than #1, I’m gonna pick the song I nominated as the 2nd best wake-up song to be the song to listen to when sad; it’s Tom Petty (for the second time) with “Free Falling”.






SONG TWENTY THREE – A SONG YOU WANT TO PLAY AT YOUR WEDDING

That I want to play myself, or that I want to be played? It doesn’t matter; it’s the same fucking answer either way: DU HAST by Rammstein. Unsure of why I picked it? Here’s the English version, just so you get an idea of what the lyrics are about:







SONG TWENTY FOUR – A SONG THAT YOU WANT TO PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL

Well, I highly doubt I’ll be in any position to play a song at my own funeral, but I digress. I suspect “Another one bites the dust” is quite a popular choice, simply because it’s “Ironic”, same with “Highway to Hell”. But it’s not for me. “Never Gonna Give You Up” by Rick Astley is also presumably quite popular, because the idea of Rick Rolling a funeral is really one of the founding principles of the internet. But again, that’s not really my scene. I might also be appropriate, I suppose, for them to play “My Way” by Sid Vicious at my funeral – because what better way to be remembered than by the words of a man completely different to yourself in every way, save the fact that you can both play the bass poorly, and were both played by Gary Oldman in the movie adaptations of your life? But, in the end, I suppose I should choose something at least vaguely sensible, so I’m going for “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees. Kidding. No, I’m actually going to pick “Free Bird” by Lynard Skynard, because “Swamp Music” would have been totally inappropriate...







SONG TWENTY FIVE – A SONG THAT MAKES YOU LAUGH

Chacarron by El Mudo – I literally laughed for about 10 minutes the first time I watched “Batman on Drugs”. So now you know how poor my sense of humour is, feel free to never come on this Blog again...







SONG TWENTY SIX – A SONG THAT YOU CAN PLAY ON AN INSTRUMENT

I can play a hell of a lot of songs on Keyboard, and can play the Cowbell Solo in Blue Oyster Cult’s “Don’t Fear the Reaper” flawlessly. But really, I’m going to have to pick the first song I learnt to play on Bass Guitar, mainly because it gives me an excuse to post a badass montage video. It’s Robert Tepper’s “There’s No Easy Way Out”.







SONG TWENTY SEVEN – A SONG THAT YOU WISH YOU COULD PLAY


Portrait of Tracy by Jaco Pastorius, definitely.









SONG TWENTY EIGHT – A SONG THAT MAKES YOU FEEL GUILTY

I honestly can’t think of why anyone would feel guilty whilst listening to a song; unless you stole the record from somebody, perhaps? So fuck it, here’s some Pink Floyd:







SONG TWENTY NINE – A SONG FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD

It had to be:








SONG THIRTY – YOUR FAVOURITE SONG THIS TIME LAST YEAR

My favourite song this time last year? Fucked if I know. I don’t even remember my favourite song last month. The fact that the only music posts I put up in April last year were on N-DUBZ and the Insane Clown Posse doesn’t really help, either. I guess I’m going to have to go with Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love”, simply because I remember listening to that on my way to Cambridge at Easter last year – but to be honest, it could have been just about anything...






You know, other than The Insane Clown Posse or N-DUBZ.






VOICE