Game Over, Man! Game Over!

6. Saw

2008-10-27T05:30:00.000-07:00

Deservedly so, I think, most American horror franchises are given a mercilessly (I nearly wrote 'unmercifully' - that diesn't even sound like a proper word, but apparently it is?!) hard time by all and sundry.

I think when you see what the A Nightmare On Elm Street series did to the reputation of its stunning original then I think there is some justification there. After all, the original is wonderful but if you're unfortunate enough to have seen one or more of the sequels before you see the original, then it just doesn't work. And that's a travesty.

Obviously, when you're dealing with, say, Maniac Cop or Friday The 13th, all the entries in the series are crap (except Part VIII in the case of the latter, obviously) so there's not much reason to get upset about them anyway. But it could just be the case that the Saw series might actually reinvent the horror franchise as something respectable.

It helps in the case of this series that so many involved with the original are still working on the series now as they apparently beaver away on a sixth installment of people being dismembered, disembowelled, and other ultra-violent acts beginning with 'dis-'. It hasn't been farmed out to some cacky-fingered halfwit who couldn't direct traffic in his mum's driveway for a quick buck.

After all, this is a franchise that is quite unique in that it appears that the people involved actually care about, y'know, a plot. And a storyline. And on creating films that reward repeated viewing. Blimey. I can perfectly understand why people would hate the Saw series on a number of levels, but it is admirable that all involved are keen to avoid the usual horror sequel cliches.

If this had been A Nightmare On Elm Street or Friday The 13th then Jigsaw would have been killed in the first one, resurrected by a lightning bolt for the start of the second, killed again, resurrected by someone practicing withcraft in the third, killed again....and so on. But no, as they've gone along they've brought in characters to a more prominent position in the plot-line, filled in gaps from previous films, and opened up possibilities for the future films.

Of course, by Saw IV, which we watched last night, it's all getting somewhat complicated and they're also starting to run out of inventive set-pieces (the ones with the hair and the arrows were crap, but the ice block one was splendid!) to a certain extent. They might want to just move away from the set-pieces a little bit for the next film, at least to give themselves more time to think up some good ones.

And I have to say that Tobin Bell is fantastic in his role. One of the most understated villains in the history of the genre, in my opinion, he actually acts rather than showboats and steers entirely away from the pantomime villainy that even the likes of Anthony Hopkins have lapsed into when they've reprised a horror role.

It might not be Kieslowski or Bunuel, but it's alright for an hour-and-a-half every year, I think.

5. Ritchie vs. Kay

2008-10-20T12:42:00.000-07:00

Guy Ritchie does get an incredibly hard time from the media, doesn't he? This is a man, after all, who's made two rather good films and two rather crap films (from what I've seen, I haven't seen the most recent one although the title irritates me for some reason) and got married to Madonna, and might be a Mockney. But he hasn't really done a lot more than that wrong, in fairness, yet he gets more gip from the media than he actually deserves.

So I had a poke around to see what else he might have done to piss people off so much and I couldn't really. I'm a bit stumped, really. Maybe I missed something. Nonetheless, he's getting it in the neck once again now that he's split from Madonna. Does Swept Away really deserve all of this?

But Peter Kay doesn't get a hard time from the media, does he? Why would that be then? Here's a guy who has crassly pissed away the exceptional start his career was given via his participation in The Services, That Peter Kay Thing and Phoenix Nights by alienating the people who helped create those fantastic television programmes by demanding having his name plastered all over them. Upon reflection, Max & Paddy really wasn't at all good, was it? A couple of unbelievably irritating charity singles later and the repeating of the most unfunny parts of his initial decent stand-up show ad infinitum stacked upon this ridiculous single he's released have meant that you'd have thought he'd have recieved some semblance of backlash.

That's not the case though, for some reason. And he does deserve a backlash because although his behind-the-camera contributions to his best work may actually have been very little, he was superb in them. He's obviously a gifted comedy actor who unfortunately has got ideas WAY above his station far too early in his career and clearly got it into his head that he's some kind of national treasure already.

The irritation with Kay for me in particular is the fact that he did have such a great start to his TV career, but that's what it should have been - a start. As great as Phoenix Nights in particular was, it had a limited room for manoeuvre (I think it's best there never was a third series) and wasn't going to last long. Max & Paddy actually could have been great had it also had the same writing talent behind it but that didn't happen.

I know who I personally believes more criticism.

4. Booing

2008-10-13T09:56:00.001-07:00

All kinds of debates are raging about whether England fans were right or wrong to boo Ashley Cole after he handed Kazakhstan a goal during Saturday's match. On a personal and wholly hateful level, I regard him as an odious little troll who deserves as much booing as a human's lungs can muster without imploding. But on a slightly more balanced level, it's a slightly greyer area for me.

I've never been quite sure about this whole lark of fans booing their own players or staff. I've changed my mind about it a number of times over the years. Referring back to Saturday night, if we're going to start going down the route of booing a player for a single mistake, then that's probably not a great development, as far as I can see. However, I do rather think that there were a selection of fans, probably Arsenal ones, who were looking for any excuse to boo him.

Like I say though, I'm not really sure where I stand on this. If we're booing a team's player for a misplaced pass, no matter how hilariously misjudged, that's not working for me. However, if we're booing a player for being a contract rebel who will stop at nothing to gain himself the move he wants with absolutely no regard whatsoever for the fans that supported, nay idolised, him then that probably earns a lot of deserved booing.

Bugger, I've forgotten whether I'm talking about Ashley Cole or Cristiano Ronaldo now. Oh, wait, United fans cheered Ronaldo to the rafters. We're still on Cole then.

The thing is, even if the underlying issue with Saturday's booing was some Arsenal fans using it as excuse to boo Cole, should an international match be the place to play this out? The source of many Manchester United fans' resentment at the England national team is, after all, born out of England fans booing the likes of Gary Neville and Paul Scholes back in the late nineties and early part of this decade because, well, they played for United. I'm sure if I didn't support United I'd regard that as good a reason as any to boo them, mind you. Oh, and there was the small matter as well of the ridiculous nationwide vilification of David Beckham after THAT sending off.

What I'm asking is are a load of Chelsea fans now going to become rabidly anti-England as a result of Saturday night's incident? Probably not. But it could happen if this occurred again.

Ahh yes, Ronaldo. What a dilemma that is - one for another post, I think. Going back to Cole though, interesting to hear the variety of arguments about that one. People arguing that they paid good money to watch the match and should be able to express their opinions within reason if they so wish. Fair enough, and whatever your opinions about the 'knee-jerkiness' of it, they certainly have that unarguable right.

Then you have Rio Ferdinand, who I must say has shaken off the general demeanour of being a bit of a dithering prat quite admirably in recent months with some good interviews, understandably defending his team-mate although being slightly melodramatic in saying that said supporters should be ashamed of themselves. I can understand the argument too in that it doesn't really help Cole or the team to hear the crowd booing.

Then again, this is Ashley Cole. I'm quite sure he's heard worse, MUCH worse, than a few boos for a bad pass in his time. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the depth of some of THAT is absolutely not on.

He's still a nob though, innit?

3. BBC Three

2008-10-12T09:03:00.000-07:00

There are many that are of the school of thought that television isn't as good as it used to be. Thinking about it in more depth, I'm not sure I necessarily agree. Although much of my televisual viewing tends to be of repeats, I rather think that the issue has been clouded somewhat by the fact that there are so many stations now, through one platform or another, that good programmes tend to just get spread out a bit more. If you dig around, you can find quality.

But for those that insist that today's television can't touch that of yesteryear, I don't think they need any more proof to back up their views than citing the fact that BBC Three is, apparently, 'Channel Of The Year'.

It's slightly misleading when they yell this at you in-between their programming. I'm led to believe that the full award is 'Brodcast Magazine's Digital Channel Of The Year', which does dilute things a little. Nevertheless, it is worrying isn't it? A channel that shows 18 episodes of Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps per day doesn't really deserve to win anything other than an award for showing the most episodes of Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps in a day.

What I don't understand about the constant repetition of this show is that they seem blissfully unaware of what a running joke it is with so many people. They continue to repeat it with absolutely no self-awareness at all. And what's more, it's a TERRIBLE show. It's just not funny on any level at all, and yet it's about to get its eighth series! I mean, they just have to keep making Peep Show because I'm not sure I can live in a world where Peep Show is commissioned for less series than fucking Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps.

So you can imagine our terror when we heard that there was new sitcom on its way from 'the makers of Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps'. There was a glimmer of hope in that it wasn't written by the same people, so we had a go at watching Coming Of Age. Well, I mean, it was bollocks, wasn't it?

Apparently we're meant not to be too hard on it because it was written by a 19 year old just starting out in comedy writing. I'm not going to do that though because it's just such plain utter shite that I actually can't believe that it was ever commissioned. I can't actually recall seeing a sitcom that seemed to think it could derive laughs from signposting such painfully obvious gags and double entendres, and just outright unnecessarily direct smut.

I like a bit of smut, me. Obviously. But I do like there to be some semblance of subtlety behind it for it to be funny. Constantly bludgeoning people with it doesn't work. Coming Of Age doesn't possess one ounce of subtlety in its body. It's the Kevin Davies of sitcoms. It bludgeons its way through target after target, apparently unafraid of looking sluggish and crap, hoping that if it piles enough efforts in the general direction of its target that it will eventually make one count.

It's a testament to how dashed gorgeous its two female leads, played by Hannah Job and Anabel Barnston, are that they almost make it watchable. They're miracle workers. And they do seem like good actresses actually. But there's nothing they can do with material like this. Hopefully somebody will reward their efforts slumming it in this cack with a decent script sometime soon.

I don't care if he's 19. Tim Dawson - you're shit.

In fairness, BBC Three does get it right sometimes, but it really is a case of something will stick eventually. Massive, for instance, has proved to be a completely unexpected gem. It's mainly driven by the performances of Beverly Rudd and Faye McKeever who are both hilarious as the rotund members of HearKittyKitty, but aside from an obviously quality turn from Johnny Vegas, who really could have done this role in his sleep, Joel Fry's Swing is absolute gold. There's already spin-off potential with him.

In general though, it's a dreadful channel and no amount of Jessica Jane Clement on The Real Hustle (whose con tricks are sub David Mamet's House Of Games by quite some distance anyway) and Freaky Eaters, where the victims are never actually singularly addicted to the food they're supposed to be utterly dependent on in the first place, thus rendering the programme 90% pointless, can save it. If you're going to have a programme about a woman addicted to fried chicken by rights she should be eating fried chicken all the time. Not Super Noodles and chips sometimes. That's not freaky eating, is it? That's just unhealthy eating, you cocks.

BBC Four though is a different matter altogether.....

2. Recession

2008-10-11T06:39:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that the world is very keen to deny that it's in a recession. It's one of the most bizarre bouts of denial that I've ever seen.

I mean, banks are collapsing left, right and centre. The world's financial markets are falling to pieces. Governments are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to protect themselves. Yet whenever you watch or hear news reports, it seems as though everyone is desperately clinging to some forlorn hope that if we admit this is a recession then everyone's fucked.

It's alright for us to say it's a massive economic crisis. But we absolutely must not admit that it's a recession, okay? Sssh. Nonetheless, I'd love to know what criteria the various news organisations of the world need to occur for us to cross the threshold into recession, and in just how much shit everyone has to be in for it to be a recession.

Personally, I don't care. There's nothing I can do about it so I'm not going to sit here worrying about it. But if this reces....shit, no, it's not a recession, is it? Bugger. If this massive economic crisis is the reason why the price of 1kg packets of dried pasta seems to have jumped by about 70p in the last couple of months, then I do care. Why has that happened? Is flour and water now a rare and expensive commodity or something all of a sudden?

Having said that, all this couldn't really have happened at a worse time for us. We can't use our Sky+ box at the moment, and haven't been able to for a good couple of weeks now for a number of reasons too boring to go into here. So we're stuck with Freeview. And before some git comes along and tells me that we only used to have four or five channels, so count yourself lucky that you have that, you can swivel right off, you twat.

As a result, because there's never anything to watch, we just usually end up sticking on BBC News 24 because that is literally the only thing we can think of to watch. But all you get is 'enormous bank bailout plan' this and 'considerable drop on the FTSE exchange' that. I've had enough. Somebody had better fix all this shit and quick.

The Sky+, that is.

1. Deja vu

2008-10-06T05:40:00.000-07:00

More comebacks than Lazarus, me.

The amount of times I've stopped, started, stopped again, tried to restart, failed, created something else, got bored, started again, stopped, rinse, repeat on diaries, blogs, journals and other such online writing vestibules is obscene. Anyone would think I have attention deficit disorder, but I really haven't. I once sat through the whole of Once Upon A Time In America, and I didn't even really like it that much either.

So I'm not making any promises that I'll even be able to extend this, for me, phenomenal run of entry, because I've done that before and not followed through with it. But my heart's in the right place, honest.

Anyway, what now? Well, all that's to do with the porn and that kind of thing will normally go in our site blog. Ha, I've now got to try and populate two blogs when I can barely cope with one. This should be good. This one will be all about stuff that's mostly not to do with porn, but that might not always be the case.

Let's give it another go. My heart's in the right place - honest!