Monday, 25 July 2016

I just want to hide and come out when the bad dream is over.

Less than two years since the last time and I've done it again - taken a heavy fall on the pavement outside - though this time much more spectacularly with results that will be longer-lasting and with consequent greater costs to rectify the facial damage, mainly teeth.

Going out this morning around 7 o'clock (four hours ago) for a morning jog along seafront, just before I got to starting point, I don't know what it was that made me tumble, but I bit the concrete with a violence. Bleeding heavily from somewhere I wasn't sure, hurried back home to find that it was both chin (under the beard) and that I'd split the bottom lip. But most conspicuously, I've 're-arranged' my front teeth, the four most prominent ones. One of the incisors has been pushed right up into the gum looking as though the bottom half has snapped off, though I can still see it. The adjacent front tooth has been skewed into a diagonal position, and a third is protruding forward. In addition, there's a large bruise to the side of my right eye, now turning purple. It is not a pretty sight. Oh Lordy! My face looks pummelled as if I'd just been in a pub brawl.

Rang the doctors even though it's hard to speak (my whole face looking like that of someone who's just had a stroke down one side) and explained what had happened and whether I should report for a tetanus injection. Surprised to be told by receptionist, who rang me back after consulting nurse, that it wouldn't be necessary, even though my last such injection was 30 years ago.
Anyway, I'll let that simmer while I think about making an appointment to discuss options for dental repair works, which is no way going to be cheap.

Still shaken by it all. My need is to go to bed and have a couple of hours blissful sleep in a world where this never happened. But I can't yet - Noodles is hungry and he's letting me know it!

Thursday, 14 July 2016

Film: 'Ghostbusters'.

I so did not want to expend money and time on seeing this - but, hey, when duty calls........! Also, with screens filling up showing kiddies' films before most schools have even broken up for the Summer hols, my increasingly infrequent visits of late was starting to engender withdrawal symptoms in me. However, this film has had poor, even some stinking reviews (current IMDb average rating is 4/10) - and to add to all that, there's been talk of boycotts of the film for a perceived anti-male prejudice, as well as some (even many!) being let down by the titular gang of four being all-female whereas, of course, in the 1984 original film they were men.
I haven't seen that original one again, and its sequel of five years later, since they were first released half my lifetime in the past, and didn't find them particularly entertaining - just plain daft! (The sequel was just totally forgettable). So, all in all, this one had better be good! And, you know what? Against all the odds, I quite liked it.

The background story of how and why the quartet of fighters got together is not especially relevant. (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon - the last being the only irritating one with her wisecracking, know-it-all attitude). 
The story itself is flimsy and little more than an excuse for employing spectacular special effects,  particularly in the extended final confrontation which takes up about a third of the film. Though yet....and yet....director Paul Feig (also the co-writer) does manage to hold it together with some flair, helped enormously by some sassy lines in a superior script. If there were any demeaning, anti-male barbs I missed them. The film held my attention right through without evincing a single yawn.
In addition to welcome cast member Charles Dance, there are a couple of brief cameo appearances from Bill Murray, one of the original 'gang'. (Another of that number, Dan Aykroyd, is the film's executive producer). Then, during the final credits, interspersed with several short, wind-it-up scenes, is a fleeting appearance from another of the original's cast, Sigourney Weaver.

So this is the second film in a row where my low expectations were confounded. I don't doubt that going in with that attitude helped me to enjoy the films more. And experiencing enjoyment is what it's all about.........6.


Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Film: 'Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie'

I think I've seen every one of the TV episodes but can't claim to be one of the show's very many big-time, die-hard fans. I watched them because they were so compelling, though have to admit that although they usually brought up a fair number of smiles I never found them as hilarious as some did - and, indeed, still do. Trouble was, clever lines were coming so thick and fast that I couldn't keep up with them, so reckoned that I was just too slow-brained to properly appreciate.
Then when I saw some very indifferent reviews of this film, not one of which was especially enthusiastic, I was pretty sure that I was unlikely to feel favourably towards it. In the event, enjoyment was considerably more than I'd expected. 

Much of the film's criticism seems to stem from the material being too thin to sustain a full-length feature, though it's still just 90 minutes long. (One of the attractions of the TV shows was their densely-packed concision). However, I did think that it held interest pretty well.

The story is, basically, that Edina (Jennifer Saunders, also the film's writer) and Patsy (Joanna Lumley, particularly good as ever - complete with her trademark snarly put-downs), living the high-life on a continuous binge with no regard as to from where the money comes, go to a bling-bling fashion do on the banks of the Thames where, among many of the guests doing cameos is model Kate Moss chatting while perched on a wall, when Edina, anxious for her presence to be known, accidentally pushes her off and into the river, where it's assumed she's drowned.  This is the pretext for the pair of them to, first lie low, and then to flee the country, ending up on the French Riviera, their 'natural' comfort zone, mixing with the super-affluent, who may, with a bit of cunning, be able to assist them in sustaining their prodigious lifestyle.

There have also been complaints from reviewers about the inflated number of cameos, and there certainly are a lot of them - some delivering unfunny one-liners, some outstaying their welcome. But it didn't distract me as much as it might do for others. (The list of names contains almost a who's-who of gay men on current British television.) I recognised most but, sitting through the long end credits, there were quite a number of whom I'd not been aware when they were on-screen - such as, which one was Perez Hilton?

All the regulars from the TV show are here - including, of course, Julia Sawalha as E's sensible, level-headed daughter - and June Whitfield, as Edina's mother, now looking very frail, which is hardly a wonder some twenty-plus years on. Jane Horrocks is again 'Bubbles', the ditzy character still as silly and unfunny as she was on TV. 

Director Mandie Fletcher, who's done a great deal of TV work, also directed three of the original AbFab shows.

Some of the audience I was with thought the whole thing was riotously funny. I was far removed from that opinion yet was pleasantly surprised at how much pleasure I did, in fact, get out of it. A large part of it must be because I came to it with low expectations. So maybe if you're a fan of the originals you ought to try keeping a lid on your hopes, then perhaps you too will come out of the cinema feeling that you've had an enjoyable time....................7.

Thursday, 30 June 2016

Film: 'Tale of Tales'

An odd film with curious structure, yet enjoyable to some extent.
This joint Italian/French/British production (in English) is based on three of the fairy/folklore tales of a Giamballista Basile of whom I, (like you?), had never heard.
Based in a medieval, mythical country of castles, royalty and peasant folk, monsters and sudden transformations, the three strands, essentially independent of one another, are told simultaneously, with frequent flitting between them without any warning or notice. Connections between them, if any, are very tenuous. As in children's fairy tales, there are regular moments of violence and gore, though their depiction is generally not without a certain restraint. But unlike, say, the Brothers Grimm's tales, which tend to be shortish and to the point, these three stories are considerably extended fables which, at the end of two hours plus, just stop in mid-air. If you're expecting happy-ever-after endings this film doesn't provide them.
You might find, as I did in two of them, faint echoes of 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'The Prince and the Pauper', though I wouldn't care to stress it.
Another story concerns a king who, by chance, hears a sweet voice singing and is enraptured by it, assuming it to be the song of a comely young maiden, though in fact it's from one of two old and wizened sisters. He is determined to meet with this 'delightful' creature, whom he eventually persuades, unseen, to be entertained in his bed, though she'll only agree if it's in total darkness. (That's a 'taster' for you!)

A competent cast includes Salma Hayak, Vincent Cassell and Toby Jones - and John C.Reilly also makes a brief appearance.

Photography is impressive and as sumptuous as one would expect for a fantasy setting. 
Director Matteo Garrone manages to hold our attention largely because, at least in my case, I was continually wondering what was happening in the two stories other to the one that was being played at any given moment. I never once yawned and only looked at my watch once or twice.

A film off the beaten track, then - and a film with some merit even if it hadn't been so unusual...............6.5.

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Film: 'Elvis and Nixon'

You need to forget that Michael Shannon and Kevin Spacey look nothing like the original figures they are portraying. What Spacey lacks in the actual President's physical stature he makes up in his voice and mannerisms, whereas I found Shannon's Presley voice more lightweight than I'd have expected though, it must be said, there is very little of the King's everyday speaking voice recorded for posterity, apart from that in his film acting roles. 
Having got over these hurdles, I found this a reasonably entertaining film, improving as it went along.

It centres on Elvis' wish to meet with the President in 1970 in order to offer his 'services' as an undercover agent(!) to assist with the fight against drugs which he sees as part of an endemic wholesale corruption of the young. When Nixon first hears of the attempt to meet him he laughs it off, showing no interest at all, but then it's put to him that it could be played to political advantage. So Presley's persistence eventually pays off with a reluctant President allowing him an audience of five minutes max. 
One of the things we surmise about the meeting (no records were kept) was that it lasted significantly longer. The absence of any record of the conversation between the two men allows the film's storytellers to create a scenario in which the singer wins the politician over, and achieves - though there's considerable doubt about it - most of his desire. This is a fiction rather than an attempt at historical accuracy, and we can go along with that. 
We see little of Nixon in the film's first half - he features in a brief opening scene. The remainder of this under-90 minute film is all about the meeting, the humour arising from Elvis' ignoring or forgetting to observe the instructions of dos-and-don'ts on acceptable behaviour given to him before being ushered into the Oval Office, and then Nixon being confused and put out by his guest's bold conduct, together with his own gaucheness regarding social etiquette in a situation outside his experience.

Both stars do well with the material they are given, which is quite strong. It's a pleasant little diversion, hardly earth-shattering, but director Liza Johnson hadn't intended that it should be.
A fair recommendation........................6.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

European Union - Bye, bye! (while holding back tears).

Still heavy-hearted after yesterday's result, but I'm trying to put a brave face on it and move on. I'll almost certainly not be around long enough to see the U.K. re-apply to join (if we'd even be accepted back) after realising what a ghastly error it's just made. But, hey, let's hope I'm wrong about it being a 'mistake'.

It wasn't long after the official campaign officially began a few weeks ago that I began to feel uneasy that it was all going to turn on immigration - and so it was to be, despite best efforts on both sides to talk about the economy, a subject which, to our cost, goes over the heads of too many people. It's the simpler things like foreigners - 'us' and 'them' - that people seem to want to talk about, but carefully couched in terms not that far removed from "Some of my best friends are black but........."  Some were disconcertingly frank - "Our British culture is disappearing!", "We're getting taken over!" "We can't recognise our town any more!" And for one of the 'Leave' posters to display a seemingly endless queue of Syrian migrants fleeing for their lives, crossing the border from Turkey as though they were all hell-bent on coming over to Great Britain, that really was the pits! I felt just sick to my stomach. The tragedy now is that such tactics seem to have worked.

Of course I can't deny that some on the 'Leave' side were every bit as sincere as those in the 'Remain' camp though, very strangely, I did find that when it came to their nailing colours to their mast, there wasn't a single one politician of the former group whom I admired or even liked. (There were plenty on the 'Remain' side whom I disliked as well, but they were a much more balanced, motley collection.)

I feel particularly aggrieved for the younger generations, many of whom didn't even have the right to vote, whose future has now been determined largely by a section of the electorate (i.e. my generation and older) who won't even be alive to see the effect they've made on those surviving after them. If those presently younger ones wanted to remove themselves from the European Union at a later date then that would be up to them, and good luck with that!

Anyway, can't do anything about it now. A result is exactly that and we have got to live with it for better or worse. However, one Mr D. Trump hails it as a 'great' decision - so that's all right then! May the gods help us!


Wednesday, 22 June 2016

Film: 'Chicken'

With no exaggeration, this is probably the most most unpleasant and gruelling film I've seen in years, and only wish that I hadn't put myself through it.
I was attracted by the high IMDb rating (currently 7.8) as well as very positive reviews, including a rapturous endorsement from Sir Ian McKellan, no less.
It's relentlessly bleak, a story from which all moments of levity have been vanquished. I just can't imagine anyone coming out after a viewing and feeling well-satisfied that they've just had an 'enjoyable' experience.

As for the story itself, a British film set in southern East Anglia, it centres on two brothers living in a dilapidated caravan in an open field - the younger one, fifteen years old (Scott Chambers), is what in my day used to be referred to as being "a bit simple". He has a pet hen which he dotes on and talks to, either in its ramshackle 'coup', or carrying it about under his arm.  He alternately worships and fears his domineering and irascible brother of twice his age (Morgan Watkins), who drifts from job to job, picking up any work he can in order to keep them both surviving, though it's clear that the elder is tired of having the burden of the other, and always puts himself first. There are heated exchanges between them, culminating in an horrific assault on the younger - one of several points in the film where I just had to look away.
Meantime (and I did find this questioned the plausibility of the story) there's a chance encounter between the younger man and a well-to-do young lady of twenty-one (Yasmin Paige) who lives nearby with her mother, and she befriends him.
There is a slight condescension in her attitude but it's not without sympathy to both his plight and his 'condition'. They start seeing each other occasionally, his behaviour trying her to the limits.

Something I haven't mentioned yet which, as many will know, is a big thing with me though less so with most others. (I don't think that this aspect - animals - has affected my final verdict on the film).
Within the first few minutes we see a slaughtered pig close-up, hung up by its hind legs. Then immediately after that we see a run-over rabbit which the younger man picks up and takes back where he has a small shed of such recovered animal corpses which he places in various poses and makes clothes for them. (I shan't say what happens to the hen.)
It took some mental effort but I do think I managed to put all that aside and concentrate on the story of the two men and the young woman.

One major criticism I have of Joe Stephenson's debut feature film (he's also done a bit for TV) is that there's far too much mood-setting background music - and what I objected to particularly is that on a number of times when the younger brother is seen, we have underlining pizzicato strings as if to emphasise the character's playfully child-like quality. Totally unnecessary, I felt. Why not just let the person and the situation speak for themselves?

One good thing going for it is that it's under 90 minutes in length, even though it felt longer.

If the film hadn't ended on just a glimmer of hope, albeit fragile and just passing, I would have found the entire venture so depressingly downbeat that I'd have needed a stiff drink immediately on my return an hour ago - which is actually quite a good idea right now, anyway.

Most will call this a 'powerful' film, and there's no doubt that it does pack quite a punch (oops, sorry!). All the acting is top drawer stuff - and I'm sure the director is pleased with achieving what he aimed for. As for 'entertainment', in my books I'd call it as being one for the die-hard masochists. Now, where's that whisky? - Neat!....................3.