My co-viewee was put off after finding out that the English title for this is ‘Joy Ride’.
Much less scary, she scoffed.
I’d have to saw that personally I can let this tragedy of a name lie.
If there’s any ‘book’ that you can read by its cover, then it’s a horror... movie. There are basically three types: good, good-bad, and bad. Sometimes, something that looks bad turns out to be good-bad; sometimes it’s the other way round. This, essentially, is the algebra of horror. And this, essentially, was rubbish. Not rubbish in a hilariously-bad-SFX-and-ironical-script’ kind of way, but terrible as in; ‘what-was-the-actual-point’.
To be honest, when I came to write this review I searched google for others, expecting my own words to have been put in a far more eloquently hilarious way than I could have put them. I was wrong. Somewhere between watching Roadkill, and writing about it, most of the reviewers thrown up my search appeared to have forgotten how truly terrible the film was. The most accurately ennui-ic reviews I read are Amazon’s ‘this film is all right (sic)’ and ‘Steve Zahn is a good and sometimes funny actor’.
There are many ways of supporting the argument that this film was, in fact, entirely pointless. For a start, the film is set up as if a potential love story. College guy talks to semi-nude college girl on the phone, college guy is aroused by his by proxy-proximity to her clunge, road trip is arranged. Cheesy-horror love-fest is established and the ending of the movie is already evident – all will die, couple will live, some how this will make up for death of everyone else. That’s not what’s going to happen? Right, so this is going to be a mould-breaking thriller of a movie? No, it’s still crap, they just couldn’t quite manage to pursue the whole love interest storyline. UH reet.
Furthering us towards the point-of-lessness is the female characters in the first place – the male characters are crap, yes. The female characters are something else. The female lead, Vanda, is she of the ‘will they… no… no they wont’ storyline, who vaguely goes missing towards the end of the film. Even less point-fueled is her friend and future room mate Charlotte, who drops in a one liner (along the lines of “aren’t you a big boy. Chortles”, leaves film, we find out later she has been kidnapped, then she arrives at the end of the film -get this- alive. Yes, alive. What is the point of the gratuitous dead girl, if we do not see her being kidnapped, and then she turns out to be alive.
Apparently the original edit of the film had romantic scenes between Vanda and each of the brothers. This might have made the film seem slightly less pointless, but then again thank God we weren’t subjected to any longer looking gratuitously at the cold, dead eyes of LeeLee Sobowski. She's about as plausible as a sex pot as a muller pot with tits.
I’d guess that the people who made this film were relying on it having enough success to warrant a sequel. One of those proper sequels with the same characters and a cinema release. Instead the straight-to-DVD next part came along 8 years later, and with Steve Zahn already having moved on to playing past it white policemen (see: national security) the bells had toled on the chances of him and Walker reprising their college boy and rebel brother roles.
Friday 27 November 2009
Thursday 22 October 2009
A recipe for success
I've been deep in investigation over what makes a blog successful. Mine is obviously at one end of the scale - ie noone knows about it. So from here anything so much as a blog being linked to from another is an indicator of a success. There are some really good ideas and general interest blogs out there.
There is also some total shite. So there are blogs out there who are well liked because they are really good (such as Scaryduck) or because the writer is involved with a well loved project (also Scaryduck with b3ta).
But some of it is contrived or just boring bullshit. Some blogs I'll read and then cringe as if I'd written them myself. So at the moment I'd guess:
total time blog has been running + networking + frequency of posting = POPULARITY.
There is also some total shite. So there are blogs out there who are well liked because they are really good (such as Scaryduck) or because the writer is involved with a well loved project (also Scaryduck with b3ta).
But some of it is contrived or just boring bullshit. Some blogs I'll read and then cringe as if I'd written them myself. So at the moment I'd guess:
total time blog has been running + networking + frequency of posting = POPULARITY.
Monday 12 October 2009
I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.
There are a few things that facebook world can do that the real world cannot.
Whilst having a 'discussion' 'with' a Cambridge lecturer about how dangerous the word 'autonomy' may or may not be when repeated 3 times I was made aware of this little foreign - legal gem.
Under the Sharia law which is upheld in Saudi Arabia a man can divorce his wife by saying the phrase 'I divorce you!' three times.
Thus meaning that in April of this year Saudia Arabias first text only divorce was finalised.
http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idAFTRE5383SG20090409
Whilst having a 'discussion' 'with' a Cambridge lecturer about how dangerous the word 'autonomy' may or may not be when repeated 3 times I was made aware of this little foreign - legal gem.
Under the Sharia law which is upheld in Saudi Arabia a man can divorce his wife by saying the phrase 'I divorce you!' three times.
Thus meaning that in April of this year Saudia Arabias first text only divorce was finalised.
http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idAFTRE5383SG20090409
Monday 7 September 2009
This summer went by way to fast...
I've been writing for a local magazine, hence why I haven't been writing on here. Why give it out for free when I could be er, giving it out for free in print.
I've been to a few festivals which I may write about, this is however seeming to turn into Livejournal so I'll leave it out for a bit.
I started writing a response to a blog from DJ - I haven no idea what happened to that.
Was there a point? No.
Twitter it.
I've been to a few festivals which I may write about, this is however seeming to turn into Livejournal so I'll leave it out for a bit.
I started writing a response to a blog from DJ - I haven no idea what happened to that.
Was there a point? No.
Twitter it.
Monday 18 May 2009
Friday 6 March 2009
Scarlett Johanssons body
I am fascinated that people seem to envision Scarlett Johansson as a role model for the 'normal' woman, and proof that men prefer a larger lady. SJ is probably around a UK 6 - 8. So all it really proves when men say that they prefer her over the average skinny Hollywood starlet is that they'd prefer a skinny girl with boobs and a waist than an overworked-and-malnurished-teenage-boy-at-the-gym look.
If anything she is doing the normal woman a disservice by epitomising an unattainable-for-most perfect figure.
The only way for someone without lucky-bitch genes to attain such a slender but curvy figure would be through surgery.
That is assuming the failure of wrapping your waist in cling film and sweating it out for a few days whilst doing 'I must, I must, I must increase my bust' exercises. I'll let you know.
Yet people are almost constantly harping on to gossip magazines about how she presents a healthy image of the natural woman to young girls and is proof that men aren't quite as shallow as we first thought.
I've spent some time trying to think of the male equivilent and decided that her counterpart may be someone around the Brad Pitt mark. So the equivilent would be saying that Brad Pitt is proof that girls don't go for attractive men. Because Brad Pitt is also quite a talented actor.
If anything she is doing the normal woman a disservice by epitomising an unattainable-for-most perfect figure.
The only way for someone without lucky-bitch genes to attain such a slender but curvy figure would be through surgery.
That is assuming the failure of wrapping your waist in cling film and sweating it out for a few days whilst doing 'I must, I must, I must increase my bust' exercises. I'll let you know.
Yet people are almost constantly harping on to gossip magazines about how she presents a healthy image of the natural woman to young girls and is proof that men aren't quite as shallow as we first thought.
I've spent some time trying to think of the male equivilent and decided that her counterpart may be someone around the Brad Pitt mark. So the equivilent would be saying that Brad Pitt is proof that girls don't go for attractive men. Because Brad Pitt is also quite a talented actor.
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Jeremy Kyle vs. Matthew Wright
Before leaving for work I'll ussually flick back and forwards between Matthew Wright (The Wright Stuff, 9am, weekdays) and Jeremy Kyleface (about the same time, ITV) .
Matthew Wright despises Kyle. Jeremy doesn't really have the same kind of opportunity to bring up any dislike for Matthew Wright. Talking about Matthew Wright doesn't really fit with Jeremy's favourite subjects: Jeremy Kyle and bad fathers.
If you didn't know them as well as I do (ha: student) you'd be forgiven for thinking they were the same guy. They're both run of the mill watery looking dark haired midlife crisises in suits who look like an everyman but you can only actually liken to each other.
Jeremy Kyle likes to be disagreeing yet agreeing with everybody at the same time. By the time he's got to the end of any given sentence he'll ussually have argued for and against the same point.
Example:
The Pratts are a couple who have four children, of whom the paternity of 3 is under question (the other being the product of a known affair)
Kyle "Mr Pratt you are a bad father you don't even pay child support and you represent everything I hate about people, I really like you, I hope you come back on the show"
"Mrs Pratt how can you expect Mr Pratt here to believe you when you've told him there are 4 potential fathers? He knows those kids are his and if he doesn't make an effort then walk away"
"Stay together for the kids but NEVER see each other again"
On the other hand Matthew Wright will argue about anything and never budge in his opinion. Never more so than in his dislike of Jeremy Kyle, posh people and the unemployed. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to target the majority of your audience in your dislike (the unemployed and ladies who lunch) but he gets by.
His format is slightly more sophisticated than Kyles 'give a couple of dole-ites £30 worth of alcohol and see what happens'.
Matthew Wright's format consisting of "public debate" through phone calls to a tired looking blond who makes her living from answering a phone whilst sitting inside a small cube for an hour a day, 15 minutes spent reading the front cover of The Daily Mail and a couple of extreme and opposing views.
Matthew Wright despises Kyle. Jeremy doesn't really have the same kind of opportunity to bring up any dislike for Matthew Wright. Talking about Matthew Wright doesn't really fit with Jeremy's favourite subjects: Jeremy Kyle and bad fathers.
If you didn't know them as well as I do (ha: student) you'd be forgiven for thinking they were the same guy. They're both run of the mill watery looking dark haired midlife crisises in suits who look like an everyman but you can only actually liken to each other.
Jeremy Kyle likes to be disagreeing yet agreeing with everybody at the same time. By the time he's got to the end of any given sentence he'll ussually have argued for and against the same point.
Example:
The Pratts are a couple who have four children, of whom the paternity of 3 is under question (the other being the product of a known affair)
Kyle "Mr Pratt you are a bad father you don't even pay child support and you represent everything I hate about people, I really like you, I hope you come back on the show"
"Mrs Pratt how can you expect Mr Pratt here to believe you when you've told him there are 4 potential fathers? He knows those kids are his and if he doesn't make an effort then walk away"
"Stay together for the kids but NEVER see each other again"
On the other hand Matthew Wright will argue about anything and never budge in his opinion. Never more so than in his dislike of Jeremy Kyle, posh people and the unemployed. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to target the majority of your audience in your dislike (the unemployed and ladies who lunch) but he gets by.
His format is slightly more sophisticated than Kyles 'give a couple of dole-ites £30 worth of alcohol and see what happens'.
Matthew Wright's format consisting of "public debate" through phone calls to a tired looking blond who makes her living from answering a phone whilst sitting inside a small cube for an hour a day, 15 minutes spent reading the front cover of The Daily Mail and a couple of extreme and opposing views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)