Author: Mosh

Robin Hood – no Bryan Adams in sight

Robin Hood 2010 poster
Robin Hood (2010)

Well, I had a pretty awful day but I’m glad to say that I passed at least a little of it with some escapism in the form of Ridley Scott‘s Robin Hood – a film better than the trailer would have had me believe.

Robin Hood

“Rise, and rise again. Until lambs become lions.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Random longbowman becomes knight, then outlaw. All in a measly 2 hours and 10 minutes.

The first thing I really liked about this film was the fact that it was hugely different from any Robin Hood film I’ve seen in the past. The main reason is that Robin isn’t an outlaw in it until the very end. This is the story of how Robin Longstride becomes Robin of the Hood. And a very interesting tale it is, too.

If you’re expecting an update of Kevin Costner‘s Prince of Thieves then you’ll be disappointed. However, if you found that to be a Hollywood-ised mess full of historical inaccuracies and geographical nonsense then you may well prefer Scott’s vision.

There’s no way a truly historic tale could be woven, simply as there’s not even any proof that the man existed. Even if he did, the stories about him vary so hugely that we don’t even know if he was a commoner or aristocrat, or if his name was indeed Robin. Perhaps that came about because he wore red. Or was it Lincoln green? The stories can’t even agree on the colour of his clothes!

Historically, and based on the facts we do know of this period, the version here is definitely far more accurate than Costner’s. Certainly, it’s got one simple fact right – that Richard the Lionheart died in France so his appearance at the end of a film (portrayed by a Scot…) to make everything right again is hardly going to happen. Hell, Scott’s even managed to factor in the fact that the person who killed him was (possibly) a cook. And that he was shot by an arrow in the left side of his neck. In one five minute segment, Scott (and scriptwiter Brian Helgeland) have more historical accuracy than Costner managed in his entire movie.

In the interests of balance, it must be said that this version isn’t as “entertaining” at Prince of Thieves. After all, it hasn’t got Alan Rickman in it. However, it is a very different type of film. Both have their merits – the older one is more fun, frankly, whereas this has a much superior story.

Russell Crowe isn’t bad as Robin. At least he tries at an English accent. Which one, however, is anyone’s guess. One moment he’s Yorkshire, then more Scouse. At times he even drifts as far as having an Irish twang. To give the guy some credit, though. He’s a Kiwi who’s been putting on an American accent for years.

The film certainly doesn’t have the scale of the pair’s earlier Gladiator, but there’s no taking away from the impressive sets and scenery. I’m sure historians would happily point out a thousand discrepancies, but it looks alright to me.

I genuinely had no hope for this film based on the trailer. However, the film advertised certainly isn’t the one I saw. It’s far better written and more interesting than the action-fest I was ready to tolerate.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Prince of Persia

Prince of Persia poster
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Escaping from a hot day, I managed to catch my first film for a week. Another in a string of computer game adaptations: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

“You can’t have an ostrich race… when you only have one ostrich!”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: orphan boy is rescued by king and goes on to (go on, you knew it) save the world. Using sand.

Computer game adaptations have had a hard time of it in Hollywood. Mario Bros wasn’t that bad. But around the same time you had Street Fighter which was crap (well, it had Van Damme and Kylie Minogue – it never stood a chance). The more recent Doom adaptation pretty much sucked, too. I am happy to say that PoP:tSoT bucks the trend slightly.

First of all, it has an actual story. I have no idea how closely this relates to that of the game on which it’s based, but it’s a good one. A nice plot with layers, twists and believable characters. OK, it’s silly as well. Come on, it’s a fantasy film.

Next up, it has a good cast. And, more importantly than just shoving actors in for the sake of it like the aforementioned failures, PoP makes full use of them. Ben Kingsley is slightly typecast as the hard-nosed brother to the king, but as ever puts in a wonderful performance. Jake Gyllenhaal hams it up as the lead, Dastan. And the gorgeous Gemma Arterton alternately makes you drool and want to slap her as befits her spoilt high priestess character.

Visually, it’s a complete treat. The skips between built sets and CGI are flawless which makes it seem enormous in scale. There’s a good use of quick camera pans and twists to enhance the action without leaving you wondering what direction you’re looking in (future James Bond directors, take note). One part in particular I liked was the Hassansin’s lair – very much like a Persian version of Q’s lab from the Bond flicks.

The stuntwork in particular should be enjoyed. The fight scenes and the like hark back to the original game and it’s motion-captured lead sprite. If free-running was a sport in ancient times, Dastan would have been a gold medallist.

If there’s a downside, it’s that the film drags a bit. Although there’s no real fluff or waste in the storyline, it’s just a little too long especially when it’s being targeted partly at kids who don’t often have the attention span to eat a whole ice cream before it falls to the floor.

Otherwise, it’s a cracking little action film.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

NHS and communication don’t go together

NHS Scotland
Staffed by angels, managed by idiots

Been a while since I had a real whinge on here about anything. So here we go. Today’s target is the NHS. Not the lovely people who work the front line – the nurses, doctors, pharmacists, receptionists and so on. You’re lovely.

But the muppet who put the system in place for shifting your medical records from one place to another when you register at a new surgery? They need a kick in the nethers. A hard one.

Two weeks ago I registered at a surgery near my aunt’s where I’ve been living for some time. A few forms to fill in and no worries. The doctor saw me right away and all was well with the world.

Today I popped back in to see about getting boosters and inoculations for my upcoming trip back to Vietnam. Again, I was welcomed in my lovely staff… who found that they didn’t have any details on my record as yet. Little things like what injections I got in 2001 and 2006.

No problem. I called my old doctor’s surgery in Bradford who looked me up… and told me that my file was “in transit” to the new place. According to the nurse who jabbed a needle in my arm, this could take a couple of weeks. A month, maybe. Perhaps 6 weeks. During which time nobody has access to my medical history.

Apparently the file goes from the old surgery to the NHS central office down south. They then send it to NHS Scotland in Glasgow who finally farm it out to the surgery I’ve just joined. All by post or something. Maybe marching goblin. Or cycling arachnids. Either way, a month to move a file from one place to another seems absolutely absurd.

Given the fact that the records are held electronically, it amazes me that they couldn’t be transferred instantaneously from old doctor to new.

I’m fortunate in that I don’t have any dodgy medical past or important medications that need to be kept track of. I can only imaging the inconvenience for some poor sod who’s got a prescription that needs renewed and who didn’t bother making a note of the medication. Instead of a simple repeat prescription, you’re back to a new diagnosis, doctor’s time being wasted and so forth.

And all because electronic files are transferred by road, rail or a leprechaun on a pogo-stick.

Seriously. Who the hell thinks this is remotely acceptable in this day and age?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Twitter is NOT free on Three

Image representing Ping.fm as depicted in Crun...
Don't use Three - use Ping.fm!

Don’t believe the hype. After their trial back in February, Three are now offering “free” Twitter if you’re a customer. The only thing is, it’s not flipping free!

Once you register you can set it so you receive texts when certain people you follow post a tweet. This is free. However, you tweet by sending texts to a shortform number (86xxx – something like that) which costs 10p a pop. These texts can’t be part of your contract bundle so you will face this charge even if you have unlimited texts per month.

How they can advertise this as being “free” is beyond me.

If you have an unlimited texts plan, then I still recommend ping.fm – it is free. Sign up, tell it your mobile number and when you text them they forward your posts to Twitter. Or facebook. Or anywhere else they support. The phone number is a genuine UK mobile and I’ve been using them for months so I can promise you they’re included as part of a UK texts package (unlike the actual Twitter number, which is based in the Isle of Man so doesn’t count, resulting in surprise charges on your bill).

They’ll also forward photos you send on to Flickr or facebook, though I prefer to do that via email.

Either way, just make sure you always read small print on things like this. And then wonder how something that costs money can be advertised as being free. Advertising Standards Authority anyone? Mind you, they’re the muppets that let broadband companies advertise “unlimited” capped broadband.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A tale of two comedies

You wouldn’t think two films in the same genre could be so different. Such was the case with Four Lions and Hot Tub Time Machine. The only things they have in common – both are comedies and both are great entertainment.

Four Lions

“We have a Wookie down”

Plot-in-a-nutshell – A gang of incredibly inept extreme Muslim fundamentalists attempt to organise a suicide bombing. With hilarious results. No, really.

A lot of people in the UK with know the name Chris Morris from the infamous Brass Eye TV show. It really trod the edge of decency and as a result managed to hit a vein of humour that a lot of shows otherwise wouldn’t dare mine. Four Lions taps this same vein.

I don’t know many writers who could get away with making so much fun of an entire religion, especially one which tends to get a little irate in return as Islam. Morris does it extremely well, I think partly by showing two sides of the Muslim fence – but neither in a good light. There are even some good, dramatic clashes between the two.

What’s most important, though, is the humour. Lashings of it. So many quotes you won’t know where to begin if you’re a person who makes posters for student’s bedrooms. I have not heard a cinema laugh in unison for a long time. I also haven’t heard a person shouting out in the cinema for ages, but that was just one prick and he was given a tongue-lashing by several people. Tosser.

The cast are excellent, the acting superb and the direction spot on. Unlike some of Morris’s earlier work, it never quite hits being over the top. Silly, yes. Straining credibility, possibly. But never quite pushing it to the point where it becomes utterly impossible to believe.

If you are a person who can take sensitive subjects like religion with a pinch of salt and/or a dose of humour then you simply can’t afford to miss this excellent piece of film.

Hot Tub Time Machine

“Do I really gotta be the asshole who says we got in this thing and went back in time?”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Four guys hop in a hot tub, break the controls and go back to the 1980s. With hilarious consequences. No, really.

OK, it has a really awful title. It also has a pretty poor premise, but at least it doesn’t take this seriously. As the guys realise how goofy the whole idea of a time-travelling hot tub is there is a notable aside to the camera that basically says “look, we know, ok?”

I’d briefly describe this film as Back To The Future (time travel, possibility of wiping out a cast member and Crispin Glover) meets Road Trip (lewd humour and tons of swearing) with a side of Road Hogs (four guys bonding) and perhaps the slightest dash of Groundhog Day (romantic interlude).

Given the low-brow nature of the film, it’s incredibly well scripted and acted. There’s just the right amount of character development to allow a plot without it overshadowing the gutter humour. Hot Tub is fully aware of how silly it is, but like its characters finding themselves in an 80s they recall fondly, it simply doesn’t care.

One of the things I’m most grateful for is the fact that the trailer didn’t give away the best jokes. That was my one failing with the otherwise excellent (and similar, I suppose) The Hangover. This film has so many great belly laughs, that a trailer simply couldn’t contain them all anyway. Like Four Lions above, the audience were lapping it up.

If you’re offended by profanity and sexually-related humour, your best avoiding this. Likewise if fluorescent legwarmers really make you cringe. Otherwise, this should be very high on your “to see” list.

Oh, and the soundtrack is kick-ass.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]