Author: Mosh

Bounties, Dragons and Shanks

Maintaining my mayorhood of the local CineWorld (courtesy of FourSquare), I squeezed in three films before rush hour yesterday: Perrier’s Bounty, How To Train Your Dragon and Shank.

Perrier’s Bounty

“Dorty. Like a bag of carrots”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Young man owes money to dangerous Irish gangland boss. Of course things go from bad to worse…

This film is a prime example of why low-budget, independent cinema should be supported and celebrated.

Michael McCrea (Cillian Murphy) is a young gambler who owes Perrier (Brendan Gleeson) a grand. He has till 10pm to pay up otherwise he’ll have two bones broken. His choice. And digits don’t count. A pair of rather scary gangland types are out to make sure he doesn’t have other ideas.

Of course, this being a mild Lock, Stock… clone things don’t go quite as planned. Violence definitely ensues, paths cross, a dying father (Jim Broadbent) makes an appearance and a woman gets involved (a rather hot one in the guise of Natalie Britton). And it’s funny.

There’s a mild bit of narration which is definitely worth paying attention to. It plays a part in a twist which takes place with the very last line of dialogue. This tiny attention to detail sums up the movie. It’s careful, well-paced, funny, clever and hugely entertaining.

It isn’t the best film ever, but it’s definitely a “must see”.

How To Train Your Dragon (3D)

“Trolls exist. They steal your socks. But only the left ones. What’s with that?”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: A young Viking discovers there there are things about the dragons his village has been fighting that nobody else knows…

Straight to the point with this one before I go any further: DO NOT MISS THIS FILM. It is simply superb. Clever, funny, well-animated, beautifully-presented and with very good use of 3D. Yes, it’s actually worth spending the extra to see the film with daft glasses on.

The opening sequence is a great introduction to the scenario and the characters – and the delightfully stupid-looking sheep. If I have one quibble it’s that I didn’t realise Vikings had faux-Scottish accent, but I’ll forgive the film-makers on the basis that otherwise this is one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time.

This quality beginning is maintained for the entire running length of the film. There isn’t a low point in the entire movie. It’s perfect scene after perfect scene. The pacing is spot on, the heart-warning parts aren’t mawkish and the action is fast-paced and exciting.

I could throw hyperbole at you for another four paragraphs or just make it easy – GO SEE IT.

Yeah. That was better.

Shank

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Street urchin’s brother is killed so he goes out to get revenge on the lad who did it.

Starting off well, Shank goes into a quick decline with indecipherable dialogue, a linear script and annoying cut-scenes. Set in London (2015), where the economy has collapsed, crime run rife and gangs rule the streets we’re introduced to Junior (Kedar Williams-Stirling) and his band of homies who earn a crust by stealing “munchies” (food) and sell it on to a dealer.

It took me a good 10-15 minutes to get my head around the verbals, with the “yo, me homies, blud” dialogue being rather hard to decipher. Oh, except for Craze (Michael Socha) who’s from the north so just spends his time asking people to fight him. Of course.

The plot, what there is, is incredibly linear. More so than some of the RPGs I’ve played on handhelds. Meet one person, do something, get info, go see next person, do something, get info… Aptly, a few of the cut scenes are done in the form of computer games – some better than others.

Shank tries, but really not hard enough. It gets significantly worse when the gang of girls join in towards the end, sounding like a coked-up bunch of Grange Hill rejects, screaming at each other and ending every sentence with “yeah”. It’s like watching a bunch of chavs fighting only without the entertainment value of some of them hopefully being killed.

After the previous two films I saw today, this was a hell of a let-down. While Perrier’s Bounty is a prime reason to support independent films, Shank undermines this. A valiant attempt, I suppose, but it falls very far short of quality.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

AVI Chunk Viewer – how to remove it

I’ve had this annoying popup for ages. When you highlight an AVI file and hold SHIFT it often appears. This is most annoying when you want to move files (SHIFT+mouse) or force-delete (SHIFT-DEL).

I did some digging online and the best solutions I got were pointing me to a settings or configuration program within some XVid codec installs. Thing is, I don’t have those particular codecs so that didn’t help.

A bit of a dig later, courtesy of Process Explorer (formerly by sysinternals, now Microsoft) and I found that the program being used was one avisplitter.ax which can be found in C:/Windows/System32. I renames this (popped a “.bak” on the end)… and problem solved.

As far as I can tell, this has had no other effects on the system. Everything else seems to be working fine. However, I’ll leave the file in place rather than delete it just in case.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Shutter Island

Shutter Island (film)
Shutter Island

I wasn’t planning on seeing Shutter Island as the handful of people I know who did catch it had complained it was too long. But my dad liked it, so I gave it a shot on Sunday afternoon.

Shutter Island

“You’ll never leave this island.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Two federal marshals investigate an escaped patient on a secure island facility… or do they?

I’ll try to keep spoiler-related commentary till the end, as there is a twist in this tale. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a Fed with a rather stressed-out past. He and his partner are sent to Shutter Island, a secure facility for the criminally insane set on a rock in the middle of the ocean.

The facility is run by the slightly scary Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) who can’t explain how one of their inmates escaped from a locked cell. Very mysterious.

As the story progresses, the film gets more jumpy. Not as in “scary” – it skips about from topic to topic. Flashbacks start to appear in dream-like sequences as Daniels starts to dream and become ever more paranoid about the actions of the Doctor, the other island staff and the patients. Questions are unanswered or avoided, the patients seem to be acting in collusion with the staff - or scared of them.

There are some lovely sequences, in particular the dream where Daniels holds his dying wife as she turns to ash and blows away. Very well done and the special effects lend it a wonderful dream-like quality.

The acting performances are superb across the board. Being a Martin Scorsese film it’s not surprising that it’s beautifully presented as well. However, I do have some issues that I’ll go over at the end as they could relate to spoilers. I did find that it ran on too long, though. I guessed the “twist” very early on – about 10-15 minutes in, which is a shame. However, at the point where the pieces really do start to drop, the film should be on it’s final run-in. And it’s not. From this point, there’s maybe 45 minutes to an hour to go which is too long.

I’d be interested in reading the source novel to see how it’s paced, but the film is just a little too slow. A shorter running length would have had more impact, I feel. Still, a very good story and a superb cast.

HERE BE SPOILERS!!!!!!

You have been warned.

Alright. At the end of the film you find out that Daniel is actually mad. However, I guessed this very early on. How? Well, I’m not sure if this was deliberate on Scorsese’s part or not, but the editing throughout the film is very disjointed. Someone holds a cup, the view changes and they’ve already put it down. Someone lights a cigarette with one hand, the camera changes angle and they’ve moved it from their face to their side.

Now, this happens in films. Usually you spot this once every few minutes. But in Shutter Island, especially near the beginning, I was finding discrepancies almost every time the camera view changed in a scene. As I said, this could be poor editing. Or it could be the director hinting that things aren’t as they seem. Deliberately disjointed if you like. Which does make a lot of sense later on when we realise that what’s “happening” is predominantly in the mind of the main character.

What does anyone else think? Am I being overly analytical? Was the editor just smoking crack the week he did the work on this film? Or was Scorsese being really clever?

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Kick-Ass

Kick-Ass Poster
Kick-Ass

I managed to catch one of the “preview” screenings of Kick-Ass this evening. Surprisingly, the cinema wasn’t packed despite the huge hype and positive reviews. After watching, I think it got the audience it deserved…

Kick-Ass

“Okay you c**ts… lets see what you can do now!”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: geeky teenager becomes non-super-powered superhero Kick-Ass… and lands himself in a world of trouble as a result.

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a nerd. A geek. A comic book dweeb. Who one day wonders why nobody has ever tried to be a super hero. Not that they should, just with all the source material out there why hasn’t someone actually patched together some lycra and gone out crime-fighting?

So he does.

And he’s monumentally crap at it. Which, in honesty, is far more entertaining than someone actually being good at kicking criminal backside. It certainly leads to some very brutal slapstick.

On the other side of the coin are Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and his daughter Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz). Both highly skilled and dripping in cash, they’re more Batman and Robin-esque. Only somewhat happier to eviscerate the opposition than Bruce Wayne ever was. Or crush them. Or blow them up.

Kick-Ass has its moments, and a ton of references (some subtle, some not so) to past films, TV series and comics. The action sequences are frenetic and bloody, the jokes sometimes humorous but a lot of it is down to shock value (like a small child using the “C” word). So if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll not laugh as hard. Nor will it really stand up to repeat viewing.

It’s fun. It’s just not as fun as I was expecting or hoping for. Still, it’s a good adaptation of the original comics, even though it’s slightly less violent (seriously). Don’t expect a masterpiece and you won’t be disappointed. And it’s good to see Cage in a superhero film that’s not crap. Not to name any Ghost Riders or anything.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Over 25? Student? You can still get a railcard!

Young Persons Railcard
Not just for young persons

Can’t believe I only just found this out – after booking some rail tickets. Although they may be canned with the upcoming strikes. CHecking for rail passes in England gives the option of 16-25, Family & Friends, Senior, Disabled and Network (SE/London). Checking in Scotland gave me the same options with Network replaced with Highland.

No obvious option for the mature student, which I thought a little unfair. After all, a 23 year old could be a graduate on £40k. I’m 36 and on £4k, all of which I have to pay back.

But, lo! Dig into the “Are you eligible?” section at the 16-25 Railcard web page and it includes mature students! As long as you’re attending 15+ hours a week for 20+ weeks per year, you qualify for the card. You require an ISIC (international student ID) card or a signature/stamp from the college and one passport-style photo. The pass can then be obtained from any manned railway station. You cannot apply online if you’re a mature student.

As it happens, this would only have saved me a smidgen over £6 on my London trip which doesn’t offset the £26 fee a great deal but these things mount up quickly over a year. It would definitely encourage me to use the train more.

Another point to note is that if you get the card on the last day of uni, it is still valid for the following 12 months – the same as if you get one on the day before you turn 26. So if you get a card partway through your final year and get your £26-worth, then just fork out for another one the day you leave!

So, bad advertising? Or a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that some people could be saving money? Either way, spread the word!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]