This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Only caught the last part of this on BBC Four last night, but it was bloody interesting. It's a documentary all about the MPAA in the US who give films their ratings. One man makes a film about the MPAA rating system and tries to get it a rating. I don't doubt that like most docs, it's been edited to show the viewpoint the presenter wants to get across, but even with this pinch of salt, this was scathing. He gets an NC-17 rating, and tries to find out why and how he can lower it to an R. MPAA Guy: "You can't compare scenes in your film with similar scenes in other films." Doc guy: "What can I compare them with?" MPAA Guy: "If you compare scenes in your film with another film, I will cut you off." Doc Guy: "You'll cut me off if I compare scenes in my film with scenes in another film?" MPAA Guy: "I will cut you off." Doc Guy: "Can you tell me what scenes I should cut or edit to get the film an R rating?" MPAA Lady: "We don't do that." Doc Guy: "Can you tell me which types of sexual activity in my film caused you to give the film the NC-17 rating?" MPAA Lady: "We don't do that." If you're wondering, this is THE film that got the MPAA into trouble, as they (allegedly, says my lawyer) copied the film without permission and distributed it (again, allegedly) to the MPAA employees who featured in it. From Wikipedia: The MPAA admitted to making copies of the film contrary to Dick's [the documentarian] wishes although they contend that doing so did not constitute copyright infringement or a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They say that the privacy of the raters themselves might have been violated by Dick. Since no complaint has been filed against Dick and since the DMCA addresses the act of subverting access control and not copying, it is unclear whether the MPAA's justification is sound. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_film_is_not_yet_rated Score: B It's very entertaining and a real treat for anyone who loves films and has ever wondered how the rating system works. I'm actually beginning to like not having Sky One. How weird is that? But without it, I'm surfing a lot more between the channels and I'm finding all sorts of hidden gems, like this and the sadly finished-for-the-season Charlie Broker's Screenwipe. Haven't laughed that hard in years.

Star Trek: Insurrection

I feel like Popeye. I've taken all I can stand, and I can't stands no more!

Why does this film get the slagging off it's been given? Well, I'm going to come out and say it.

I sodding loved it!

What's not to like? Ever bad review I've read about this is patchy and skips over why the reviewer didn't like it. This is rather like a kid turning in his maths book with all the answers, but none of the working out. The phrase "just like a really long episode" is used a lot. To which my response has always been two-fold:

1. What did you expect, it's a movie based on a TV show!
2. Even if that's true, what's wrong with that? There have been some bloody outstanding Trek episodes that would looks great on the big screen (What You Leave Behind, the last two Deep Space Nine episodes jump to mind immediately).

Here's the problem: Insurrection followed the hugely successful First Contact. That's all that's wrong with it. People who say it's just another "radiation of the week story, like the TV show" have severely missed the point. I'll get to that in a minute. But first: the odd numbered theory.

Everyone knows this one: Odd numbered Trek films tend to be crap.

Balderdash! The perceived problem comes about from the fact that the even numbered films are intended for mass market, and the odd numbered ones are for the fans.

1. Star Trek: The Motion Picture The first one, V'Ger (huge cloud entity), Voyager 6, lots of shots ofthe Enterprise, Spock in a sulk, everyone wears grey pyjamas.
2. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan Khan! The Genesis device, Reliant exploding, Carol Marcus, Kirk's son David, Spock dies.
3. Star Trek: The Search for Spock Kirk steals the Enterprise, Klingons, Genesis planet, David dies, Enterprise blows up, Kirk kicks Klingons ass, Spock's alive!
4. Star Trek: The Voyage Home Alien probe, worldwide power failure, huge storms, time travel, humpback whales, more time travel, Spocks swears a lot.
5. Star Trek: The Final Frontier Vulcan with a sense of humour, kidnapping, Kirk, Spock and McCoy camping, Enterprise hijacked, God, Row row row your boat.
6. Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country BANG! Klingons want peace, Kirk not happy, Chancellor assassinated, Kirk blamed, escape, shooty shooty, saves the day.
7. Star Trek: Generations Kirk dies! Star collapses, ultimate weapon, Nexus maguffin, Kirk's alive again, oops now he's dead, Enterprise crashes, Data swears
8. Star Trek: First Contact Those pesky Borg! Big fight, we win! Bugger, what's that? Time travel. Zephram Cochrane, warp flight, Vulcans, Borg queen dies
9. Star Trek: Insurrection Data goes berserk, Picard smells a rat, conspiracy! Radiation, holo ship, resistance, more fighting, the Riker manoeuvrer
10. Star Trek: Nemesis Romulans want peace, Data's other brother, Picard clone, ultimate weapon, bloody big ship, big fight, Data's dead (or is he?)

The Wrath of Khan was hugely successful. It drew in people who weren't Trek fans and hadn't seen the first movie or the TV show. Search for Spock is a great film about sacrifice, friendship, duty and honour. It's only problem was it followed Wrath of Khan, so people expected more of the same. Voyage Home was a comedy, and a bloody good one too. Because it was set in contemporary San Francisco, everyone could relate to it (it's still the most popular and highest grossing Trek film ever). Final Frontier was about family and the path not taken and was (in parts, not the whole thing) rather excellent. It gave whole new insight into the characters. It's also a beautifully shot film. Undiscovered Country was a political thriller, with space battles thrown in to boot, plus a great send off for the cast. Generations has no right to exist and is the only film that breaks my theory. I'd have liked this film a whole lot more if they'd just not cheaped out and re-used the bird of prey explosion from the previous film. First Contact was a horror/haunted house film, and was very successful. Insurrection followed this and was a more thinking type of film about the core of the Federation being ideologically attacked. Nemesis was back to big ships, big baddies and big fights.

Kevin's Odd Numbered Trek Film Theory: You see, Trek fans are very benevolent people. They want the rest of the world to appreciate the message in Star Trek, so every even numbered film is a film for everyone, mass entertainment if you will. And every odd numbered film is one just for the fans, revealing some insight into the characters or showing them in a new light. For Insurrection to work, you need to really understand the Federation, the non-interference policy and first contact procedure. Sure, they could have explained that in more depth in the film, but that would have been pandering to the audience. The whole story behind Insurrection is that the Federation is willing to abandon it's highest principle, non-interference of a society, just this once in order to get hold of something that will make all medicine obsolete. It's an extension of the old morality question: If you could kill one person to cure cancer, would you do it? What if it was 10 people? 100? 1000?

Picard fights them, because he knows it's wrong and that it is the start of a slippery slope. There's a similar story in Deep Space Nine, where Captain Sisko, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, has to kill a Romulan official and frame the Dominion in order to get the Romulans to join the war. He knows that he can't win the war without their help, and he knows they're not going to join the fight until it's too late. The episode is great, as he's dictating his captain's log about the events, and at the end after he's poured his heart out about the betrayal of his most treasured principles, he orders the computer to erase the entire log entry.

Insurrection is about the principles you believe in and how far you'd go to defend them. And in this day and age, this film has more to say than ever.

So in short, as a general guide: If you're a huge raving Trekkie like me, then most of the films can be watched and enjoyed at some level. If you're not a huge raving Trekkie, I'd suggest sticking to the even numbered films. You'll enjoy them a whole lot more.

As a final note, this film has some of the best comedy one liners in any Trek film. They don't feel forced or out of place.

Score: B -

OQ:
Either:

Worf: Definitely feeling aggressive tendencies, sir!

or

Data: And have you noticed how your boobs have started to firm up? Not that we care about that in this.....

Trivia: And how's this for reality foreshadowing? The manual control column that Riker uses to steer the Enterprise is a modified Gravis Thunderbird PC joystick.

Hot Fuzz

Short Fun Review

Wow! Shabang! Kablooey!

Not actual quotes from the film, but they should have been.

Exactly like Shaun of the Dead, but better! And even that's underselling it. I haven't laughed that hard since I first saw The 40 Year Old Virgin.

Score: A+
This includes a small bonus score for seeing the Ghost Rider trailer, and a massive bonus for the last 20 minutes of the film.

OQ: Bring the noise! (Oh, and no clips in the trailer were missing from the film, which was nice).

Long Boring Review

Can a film parody a genre while imitating it at the same time? Hot Fuzz certainly seems to think so. It takes all the elements of a cop/buddy movie, and twists them. Some are played straight, others are played just for laughs and the best part is, it works! It really really works!

The cast reads like a who's who of British comedy, yet there's no annoying stereotyping, everyone is playing against your expectations, which worked brilliantly. There's also no annoyingly cute celebrity cameos, thank god! (unlike the upcoming Carmen Electra film I Want Candy. I was shuddering at that trailer. Plus I don't think I'll be able to eat pears for a while...)

The only way to describe this film is: it's exactly like a roller-coaster (or possibly a streetcar in San Francisco with no brakes). It starts slow (like all Simon Pegg movies), then it gets fast and takes a sharp turn, then it gets faster and turns upside down, and gets faster and faster right up to the end. Totally engrossing and fun.

If you liked Shaun of the Dead, you'll like this. If (like me) you thought some of the jokes in Shaun of the Dead just missed the mark, then you'll love this. If you ever wanted to see what Bad Boys 2 would look like if it was set in England (the buddy part of it), you'll get more than a giggle out of this.

Do not, do no, do NOT read any spoiler reviews before going to see this, as it will spoil your enjoyment of the film. Most of them give you just about enough plot to guess the ending, and you don't want to guess the ending.

Score: A+ This includes a small bonus score for seeing the Ghost Rider trailer, and a massive bonus for the last 20 minutes of the film.

OQ: You've got a moustache...
(Oh, and no clips in the trailer were missing from the film, which was nice).

Trivia: As usual, some sad b*****d has noticed something no-one else spotted or cared about, namely the fruit machine appearing in the village pub is the same fruit machine that appeared in The Winchester in Shaun of the Dead.

Shaun of the Dead DVD appears in this film, with the title changed to Zombie Party.

Sandford, the "fictional" setting for the film, is the name of the town used as the setting for all Police training role plays.

Music and Lyrics

I was going to start this review with the words "Worse singing voice stand in since Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady ", except I stayed to the end to watch the over credits scenes and saw that it is in fact Hugh Grant doing the singing, which just goes to show you can perform miracles with a sound studio these days.

Hugh Grant's latest rom com, with the emphasis definitely on the rom this time. That isn't to say that the film isn't funny, it has some genuinely hilarious moments, but many of the scenes are just played straight. I actually found this very enjoyable.

This isn't exactly a chick flick, but it's close and since my last incarnation was female, that part of me enjoyed it. But what about the part of you that's all man?, I heard you ask. Well it's got Drew Barrymore doing that thing with her face I like, plus Haley Bennett as Cora Corman, who looks like a result of adding Britney and Christina but subtracting the clothing.

However, yet again there's a scene in the trailer that doesn't appear in the film. I've been told by a few people that this is perfectly acceptable in today's world, since the trailers are often made before the final cut of the film has been produced. Tosh! If you bought sultana bran and discovered that it contained no sultanas whatsoever, you'd complain.

Overall: a perfect Valentine's day movie. Just remember to tell her she looks sexier than Cora. And do not in any circumstances say "You'd look good in that outfit."

Score: B - (Purely because Hugh Grant singing doesn't sound like Hugh Grant)

OQ: I wasn't going to stay with you, but then POP goes my heart!

Three films that get on my chebs

Warning: The post contains a minor rant (it is intended to be a critical review but wanders a little). I've written it partly because I have the time, but mostly because I really really hate these movies. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Pish. I cannot claim to be the brightest projector bulb in the pack when it comes to spotting continuity errors, plot holes or general mistakes about mirror images in films. My friend Mark on the other hand....also cannot claim this. But his wife Leigh-Ann.... Well, let's put it this way: she didn't need to buy the issue of Empire with the Star Wars booklet that detailed all the errors. In fact, she could probably quit her job and become a continuity checker for a film studio with little effort. Probably comes from her being in the insurance business and needing to spot inconsistencies in people's claims. That's just the background to explain that when even I can spot (on first viewing) dozens of errors in this film, without even trying; it's saying something about the film, and what it's saying is not good. Dorian may be invulnerable to damage, but why are his clothes? Bullet holes heal in the cotton instantly. Strings pulling furniture aside on the Nautilus are quite obvious. Wooden chairs on the Nautilus deck vanish before it submerges. The damn thing changes scale three times in the film! And while the spelling of Quatermain is changed in the source material a bit, changing it repeatedly in a film, while being poignant for fans, just looks sloppy to everyone else. Hairstyles changing between shots! OK, one of them's a vampire and maybe that's a cool power they have. But since you never see this power manifest itself on screen, I'm calling it an error. Dozens of temporal continuity errors. And shot after shot after shot reversed (mirrored)! I'm not saying that other films haven't made bigger errors. It's just that this film took great pains to place clues and hidden gems and references in plain sight. For it then to make this many continuity/visible film equipment errors is just unforgivable. And although I know the film is set in an alternate universe, where technology is more advanced in 1899, I find it hard to understand why the laws of physics are so radically different. Quatermain jumping from a car doing 60mph, only to land square on his feet without even a small stumble forward. Steel vests that stop bullets are apparently susceptible to rhino horn 1. And there's wormholes! Honest to god, wormholes. How do I know? Well there's this suitcase that jumps from M's left hand to right hand to left hand without appearing to pass through the space in between. The director, Stephen Norrington (the man who brought us the brilliant Blade) vowed never to direct another film after the reception this film received. Good! (and to date he hasn't) Catwoman scale: 8/10 How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days The less said about this film, the better. However that sentence won't really cut it in a critical review, so here goes. Political Correctness Gone Mad! Is a phrase that the Daily Mail often uses. It can also be used to describe this film. I often play a game after watching a movie. I think back on the film and see how I could make it better. After seeing V for Vendetta, I couldn't think of anything. After seeing Hitch, I'd have changed a couple of scenes with some editing work to change their mood. I couldn't play that game with this film without re-writing the whole damned thing. The two lead characters are both equally unlikeable, so it's impossible to side or emote with either of them. The plot is so wafer thin to start with, I'm guessing it was hastily scribbled on a napkin so that the author could show copyright. But it's the political correctness that leaches out of this like the fat from a fish supper that really irkes me. The idea that Kate Hudson is trying to win and then lose a guy in 10 days is wrong. That's the only word. It's wrong on so many levels. It's wrong as a way to break up with a guy, wrong as a plot device and wrong as a credible way to gain acceptance as a writer. The idea that Matthew McConaughey needs to get a girl to fall for him as a bet seems to exist solely because: there's no other reason he's stick around Kate Hudson so long while she's being so repellant otherwise. It's this whole balancing act that goes on in the plot. Each character has to be seen to be in the relationship for alterior motives. Now, OK other romantic comedies have done similar stories, Down With Love springs to mind. But that film doesn't get my scathing for two reasons. One, it's ending is brilliant and two it's actually funny. It does however also have the obligatory happy ending. Why? Why is Hollywood so afraid of making films with sad endings?!? I love films with sad endings, if for no other reason: we don't see them a lot 2. Have they no memory of their own history? Casablanca, possibly one of the best films ever made, certainly one of the most famous. Someone remind me; happy ending or sad ending? The tagline for this movie was: One of them is lying. So is the other. I'd replace the word "lying" with "hideously unpleasant and unlikeable" Catwoman scale: 4/10 Donnie Darko I must have been the last person on the planet to watch this. Everyone kept going on about how stylised it was, how much of a change from the usual hum-drum Hollywood movies, how inspired it was. My spidey-sense was tingling and I should have listened to it. But no, I watched it. I sensed a disturbance in the force, the likes of which I'd not felt since watching The Core against the advice of a good friend. Again, like a fool, I ignored it. This film is the textbook definition of style over substance. Yes, it looks amazing. Yes, there's some fantastic direction and acting in there. No, there's no apparent plot. The film ends pretty much as it began and the whole purpose of the characters' journeys are rendered obsolete, unless you subscribe to the multiple universe theory, which would be a fine except for (a) there's no mention of that in the film, (b) we'd already seen that in Sliding Doors and (c) Sliding Doors made sense. Literally, after I watched the film I asked myself out loud "What was the point of that?" All that seemed to happen was that bloody big bunny jerked Donnie's chain for about for 90 minutes. Honestly, I've watched films of a genre Jackie (and probably the company) won't let me review here that are in a foreign language, dialogue and plot heavy with no subtitles that have made more sense than this. After a good bellyache to a friend, he suggested I watch it again as it made more sense on repeat viewings. I gave him A Look 3. Catwoman scale: 6/10 1 In roleplay games, we call this an armour weakness but it's usually specific, like vulnerable to acid. 2 Incidentally Just Friends original ending was a sad ending, but it was changed. See the DVD extras, it's fab! 3 You know the one chaps. It's the one you get after spending all day up a ladder fixing the roof tiles while your wife holds the base still and freezes in the January wind, then you step on her fingers coming down, burn the meal you made to say sorry for said crushed digits, watch an extra long, into overtime football match, then realised you've fudged recording Desperate Housewives for her on the other channel, while simultaneously recording over last week's episode which she has yet to see with some biography of David Beckham, and then, at the end of the day, when you're both in bed and you're stroking her arm in that way you do, ask her "So hon, how about it?" That look.

The Pursuit of Happyness

No, I haven't misspelt the title. It's a plot point. Not a key plot point, I should point out, but a plot point none the less.

One of my friends mentioned he liked this because the decent into poverty is subtle. There's no one big mistake, but a series of errors, mistakes and lapses of judgement. It was nice to see a subtle film. Too many lately have tried to force feed the background story into me, with all the subtlety of a crowbar in a china shop, which normally results in the audience drowning in saccharine at the finale of the film, when everything's OK again. This always reminds me of the end of each episode of the original Battlestar Galactica, when the camera would freeze frame at the characters enjoying a joke. I always felt like saying 'May I remind you 14 billion people are dead?' It's why I like the new one so much.

So, what's the film about? Well, it's about one man's decent into his own personal hell. No, not really. I've just always wanted to say that in a review. Although, the statement does have some merit. Will Smith is reported as giving the performance of his career in the film. I'm not so sure, personally I liked him better in Wild Wild West. Still, he manages to convey a real sense of desperation and angst. It was easy to see how he'd just made one bad choice after another, and this left him in a difficult situation with no easy way out.

Still, I have to make this point clear: This is not a feel good movie. It's a movie about real life.

One thing I can guarantee: When you leave the cinema, you'll never complain about your job. Well, at least not for a couple of days. Those of you with significant others (a group I've been excluded from for far too long) will also probably want to go home and give them a great big hug.

Score: A-

OQ: 'It's, um, an adult word used to express anger and, uh, other things. But it's an adult word. It's spelled right, but don't use it.' Oh, and I saw the new Spiderman 3 trailer while I was there. Woooooo..........I've got goosebumps! Oh, and another trailer for Blood and Chocolate. Actually it might have been the same one again. Does every audience who sees this trailer laugh when the title is revealed at the end? What a terrible title! I can think of three better one's off the top of my head: Wolfbane. Lovelives of the Wolfmen. Blood and Kibbles. There, three seconds that took.

The Thing

Oh boy, do I love this film. Saw it again last night on ITV4 or something. Sadly, it appeared to be the original cut, not the director's cut.

If I were a lazy man, I'd simply say this is a remake of the 1951 classic "The Thing From Another World". But that doesn't even begin to do this film the justice it deserves.

Very few remakes manage to be any better than the original. Most are consigned to obscurity, with questions raised about why they bothered remaking it. Quite a few are bloody awful. Very very few manage to surpass the original. This film is one of them. In fact, it's basically a "How To" film on remaking a classic of science fiction.

There are plenty of homages to the original. The film of the Norwegian's showing the shape of flying saucer echoes the spine tingling moment in the original film, where the team space themselves out on the edge of the buried object, only to discover it's perfectly circular.

When I first saw this, I thought that the big reveal about the alien happened too soon. However, later I realised that John Carpenter had to get it out of the way early on, so that the suspense and paranoia could take over and drive the rest of the film. The characters' degeneration from sociable through suspicious, hostile and into paranoid is done so well. The base provides much of the mood, the snowstorm making it feel claustrophobic and threatening. They are, after all, trapped in a small arctic base, with nowhere to go, no help to call on and limited resources, fighting a creature that can look and act exactly like them. This theme of being trapped and beyond rescue is used often in sci-fi and horror. Look at the Alien quadrilogy, Predator, The Abyss, 2001.

Also, and although you notice it without noticing, this film has no female cast members.

The final scene, is spectacular.

There's a very good computer game of this movie, using a "social engine", the other characters react to your behaviour. The script is fluid, so people get duplicated at different event triggers and in a different order, dependant on what you do.

Score: A (Although it has yet to find its way into my DVD collection)

OQ: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS ****ING COUCH!

Fav bit of trivia: In August 2003 a couple of hard-core fans, Todd Cameron and Steve Crawford, ventured to the remote filming location in Stewart, British Columbia and, after 21 years in the snow, found the remains of Outpost #31 and the Norwegian helicopter. The rotor blade from the chopper now belongs to Todd and rests in his collection of memorabilia from the film.

At the beginning of the film the Norwegian with the rifle is the second unit director and associate producer as well as Kurt Russell's (then) brother-in-law, Larry Franco. According to John Carpenter, on the commentary track, Franco is not speaking Norwegian but making up the dialog. "Schmergsdorf" as Carpenter puts it. The subtitles, however, give the impression he is speaking Norwegian. The words spoken are actually understandable for Norwegians. Albeit broken Norwegian, the line goes: "Se til helvete og kom dere vekk. Det er ikke en bikkje, det er en slags ting! Det imiterer en bikkje, det er ikke virkelig! KOM DERE VEKK IDIOTER!!" This translates to: "Get the hell outta there. That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY YOU IDIOTS!!"

The Norwegian dog in the film was named Jed. He was a half wolf/half husky breed. Jed was an excellent animal actor, never looking at the camera, the dolly or the crew members. Jed, however, is NOT the dog seen in the beginning chase scene, where the Norwegian istrying shoot him. Per Carpenter's commentary, this was another dog painted to look like Jed.

The Norwegian camp scenes were actually the charred remains of the American site from the end of the film. Rather than go to the expense of building and burning down another camp, Carpenter re-used the destroyed American camp.

This film is considered a benchmark in the field of special makeup effects. These effects were created by Rob Bottin, who was only 22 when he started the project.

The flesh-flower that attacks Childs is actually an incredibly detailed effect. Its petals are 12 dog tongues complete with rows of canine teeth. Effects designer Rob Bottin dubbed it the "pissed-off cabbage".

In the scene where Norris' (Charles Hallahan) head separates from his body, special-FX designer Rob Bottin used highly flammable materials for the construction of interior of the head and neck models. During the shoot John Carpenter decided that, for continuity reasons, they needed some flames around the scene. Without thinking they lit a fire bar and the whole room, which by now was filled with flammable gases, caught fire. Nobody got hurt, but the entire special effects model, on which Bottin had worked several months, was destroyed.

John Carpenter and Kurt Russell both admit that after all of these years they still do not know who has been replaced by the creature and when.

Kurt Russell was almost injured in the scene where he blows up the alien Palmer with a stick of dynamite. Apparently, he had no idea exactly how big of an explosion it would produce, and the reaction that he has in the movie is genuine.

An alternative ending was originally shot showing MacReady rescued and a blood test proving he was human but it was done as a precaution and never used even for test screening and not part of John Carpenter's original vision for the film.