http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:57:09 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/12/115709.php ClaireI love movie trailers. There's something about that daft booming voice, the over excited music, and the spoiling of the funniest lines in the film.Recently, however, I have noticed a new and annoying trend. It started with trailers simply saying at the end "Coming Soon". This is annoying. Soon? When is soon? Next week? Next month? Next year? 2006? Soon is a term which needs defining - tell me when soon is.I had just about managed to let this go. I had grown resigned to it. Even TV has started using the same technique now. As ever, I fell back on Google, doing a quick search any time I encountered a "Coming Soon" situation.However, a visit to the cinema yesterday helped me notice a trend that is more annoying still. As I sat and waited for the main feature, I saw trailers for two films I'm keen to see - Supersize Me and The Terminal.I was attentive. I was interested. I was even prepared for the crushing disappointment that is "Coming Soon". But no. Once these trailers reached their conclusion, and a quick list of credits had been shown, there was... nothing. No date. No season, even (Summer 2004 is a vague statement, but at least it's some kind of time indication.) No "Coming Soon". There was literally no time indication.Now, I admit that I don't work in movie promotion. Perhaps the belief is that not telling us when the film comes out will increase our anticipation, make us seek out any information on the movie in the press, make us remember the release date when it's eventually announced.Maybe it does do all those things. Know what it also does, though? It annoys us.Tell us the date, for crying out loud. Or, if you don't have a specific release date, put a month. Put anything. But don't think that having a trailer for a coming attraction and then not telling us when that attraction is coming is anything less than immensely frustrating. And it surely must be a violation of some sort of trade descriptions act.Maybe I should complain to someone. Expect my letter, you film promotion people.When? I'm not sure exactly. It'll be coming soon. Culture17348@blogcritics.org Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:57:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/05/20/121012.php ClaireI've been fascinated by, obsessed with, and in awe of the United States of America for as long as I can remember.It started when I was a kid, I guess. I loved Peanuts, Beverly Cleary's Ramona books and - after the reading the back of a cereal box - American football.It continued as I grew older. I watched American TV, learned about American culture and, at school, began to learn about American history and politics.Here's the thing, though: I have to admit there was always a little bit of envy involved. America just seemed cooler. Hipper. Had better music, TV, and film. There was the whole "Cool Britania" phase but, let's face it, The Spice Girls don't constitute coolness.I bring all this up because, today, Napster's new legal service launched in the UK. Several months after it launched in the States. I greeted this with great excitement - the legal download services we have over here are, frankly, poor, and I thought that the entrance of the big boys would at last mean I could easily populate my iPod with tracks.Until, of course, I discovered that Napster isn't compatible with iPod. I have experienced many similar disappointments when checking out European download services. And frankly, I'm tired of it.Now, there is clearly a point to make here about Apple's decision over file formats, and making sure that the only thing the iPod is compatible with is Apple's own iTunes store.I could make this point.On this occasion, however, I choose not to.The point I choose to make instead is that once, just once, I'd like Europe to get something first. A film, maybe. Or a TV show. Or, dammit, a legal download service.And I don't care that we had Pop Idol or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? first. I want a music service.Hurry up, Apple. Else you might just lose the support of us European Poddies. Culture15826@blogcritics.org Thu, 20 May 2004 12:10:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/28/074757.php ClaireFor a long time, I remained resistant to the charms of the ABC spy series Alias. I watched from afar as it won Golden Globes, gained vast amounts of critical acclaim, and created column inches in any self-respecting entertainment publication. I must admit, I wondered how I'd missed the boat. I am nothing short of a complete TV Geek, and to be so far out of the loop caused me - I'll be honest - not inconsiderable amounts of shame.I did try. But some daft scheduling by the channel that picked the show up here in the UK, coupled with my annoying need to understand absolutely everything that's going on in a show meant that after the first few episodes, I dropped out. I felt bad about it, but what can you do? Not being male, the many scenes featuring Jennifer Garner running in skimpy outfits weren't reason enough to stick with it.As the series went into its second and then third seasons, and as it gained more acclaim, and more attention, I decided I had to give it another try. And DVD might just be the medium to help me. Unfortunately, Alias is one of those series which isn't a cheap investment on DVD. Like Star Trek and Buffy, it seems to trade on its cult status - and the knowledge that there are certain die hard fans who will pay almost any price to see the show. Being cheap, I decided I couldn't pay the price.Until, that is, HMV decided to put it on special offer.Left with no further excuses, I made the purchase.I watched the first few episodes - the ones that had made me drop out first off. I was still confused. Who are SD-6? Why are they part of the enemy? And how can Jennifer Garner run so quickly in high heels and ludicrous costumes?This time, though, I was determined not to drop out (mainly because of the money I'd paid for the series.) So I stuck with it. And, slowly, something very strange happened: I became utterly hooked. I watched five episodes in a row. I was utterly impressed by the acting skills (and looks) of Garner and Michael Vartan. I became fascinated by the performance of Victor Garber, deciding that Jack Bristow was possibly my favourite character. I still didn't understand why SD-6, K-Alliance and the CIA wanted Rambaldi's clock designs but - and this was the major breakthrough - I didn't really care any more. I realised that there was a whole other series hiding behind the missions - a story about friends and family, a story about being a student and juggling a job, a murder mystery story. I marvelled at the way everything intertwined and found myself gasping at each turn of every story.As I understand it, though, the stories have become somewhat less complex with time in an attempt to boost viewing figures. The great shame is that I am one of the guilty parties - my early dismissal of the show was precisely because of the reason I now have such great respect for it. Its sheer complexity.Many of us get angry at what we perceive as TV's attempt to patronise us, and resent the symplification of storylines. The sad truth is, though, that often it is our actions that justify these moves on the part of broadcasters. They are, after all, out to make money - and why invest money in a complex drama with minimal viewing figures when you can make a cheap reality show that people can dip in and out of without any problems?It's also true, though, that it's somewhat of a chicken and egg situation: if we're fed TV junk food, then it's going to be much more difficult to get us to eat our vegetables when they are given airtime.The solution is difficult to find but I know one thing for sure: next time there's a series which gains critical acclaim, but which I find a bit confusing at first, I'm gonna stick with it. Video15171@blogcritics.org Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:47:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/27/084244.php ClaireSadly, I have a job. I say sadly because it's a dull job. Of course, it's better than no job. But all things considered, I would rather still get the money and sit at home all day.My job involves producing guides to healthcare. Often, we have to find case studies for our guides. One afternoon, we were looking for a case study of someone with mental health problems.My colleague, cheerily, volunteered. "I have mental health problems!" she exclaimed. "Really," I said, sceptically. "What problem do you have?" "COD," she replied. "Hmmm... yes," I said, "I think you mean OCD - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Do you also have dyslexia?"The ironic thing is that, unbeknown to my colleagues, I actually do have OCD. And anxiety. And panic attacks. In fact, I have pretty much any anxiety problem going. Oh, wait, with the exception of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But I think, with a little work, I could develop that - not least since my psychiatrist reminded me I had once been in a building that collapsed.Be clear: anxiety is a very annoying thing to have. So's OCD. It means that lots of simple things become a big deal. And although, deep down, you know that you're being stupid, it's difficult to laugh at the situation.Thank God, then, for What About Bob? and Monk.I first saw What About Bob? ten years ago. In a nifty piece of scheduling that no TV network here in the UK has managed to repeat since, the film was on when I was very nervous - the night before I received some important exam results.The film tells the story of Bob Wiley - played by Bill Murray, here in his goofy comic persona rather than the more serious persona seen in Groundhog Day and Lost in Translation) - a multi-phobic, OCDish, anxious kind of a guy. Coping with day-to-day life is proving virtually impossible, and previous psychiatrists - and his wife - have deserted him.He gets referred to Dr Leo Marvin (played by Richard Dreyfuss in one of the 50% of his roles in which he manages not to annoy me), a man more tied up with his new book than with helping patients. He's also a man about to go on holiday - an idea unthinkable to our buddy Bob, who needs constant support to avoid the mental health minefields that confront him at every turn.So Bob tracks down the good doctor and his family. And while Bob might not be able to touch objects, he can touch people, and soon becomes a part of the family. He touches us too, and we sympathise - and laugh - with him, not at him.The film also offers amusement from more subtle sources - namely, the satire of the psychiatric "industry." Dr Marvin, frankly, has misplaced priorities. His preliminary interview with Bob is acutely accurate - complete with the silences in which you're never quite sure if you're meant to be speaking. He fails to understand how much hope Bob has placed in him and his treatment.A more recent take on the OCD-sufferer-as-central character theme is the inspired USA Network series Monk. The small cable show has grown in stature and popularity - thanks in part to ABC's shrewd decision to replay it to a wider audience, and to several well-deserved awards for its star.Tony Shaloub plays Adrian Monk. Adrian was a detective, but was forced to leave the force after his wife was murdered, and he developed acute anxiety. He now acts as a consultant, providing insight into cases that simply cannot be provided by anyone else. Unlike Bob, Monk is forced to function, and to function in situations which are often acutely uncomfortable for him - crime scenes.He is aided by his nurse Sharona (Bitty Schram, in a role for which she should get much more credit) who's always there to hand over the anti-bacterial handwipes. The relationship between the two is central to the appeal of the series. In fact, we watch more for that, and to see how Monk is doing, than we do for the rather obvious crimes.Shaloub spoke with many clinical psychologists prior to undertaking the role, but I suspect that the writers did too - or have personal experience of OCD. The lines and situations are so realistic as to be nothing short of hilarious - especially to a sufferer.Monk: He's in Zurich, isn't he? At the Breinhoff Clinic? Monica: How did you know that? Monk: It's the best hospital in the world for psychological disorders. I'd be there myself. . . but I don't fly.If laughter is the best medicine, then Bob Wiley and Adrian Monk might just cure me. If only I could focus on the story instead of where I put my antibacterial hand gel... Video13196@blogcritics.org Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:42:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/23/113923.php Claire"Claire," my housemate said, turning to me to impart a truth which was clearly as self-evident to her as all men are created equal had been to the Founding Fathers, "you are a contradiction."It's true. I am. Cynical yet sentimental. Totally lacking a sense of balance, yet a keen cyclist. Able to tell you in some detail about Earl Warren's time as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, yet unable to adjust the height of an office chair without causing serious personal injury.My housemate was never more right than when it comes to my tastes in pop culture. Make no mistake - amongst my favourites, I do have many which are widely regarded as worthy. Pop culture is, indeed, the only field in which I consider myself to be In The Know. I can talk for some time about TV, film, and music, and not look like a complete idiot. For me, that's somewhat of a novelty.Unfortunately, for every yin, there is a yang. And so it is that there is a dark pop culture side to me. It's what I call the Should Know Better side.The Should Know Better side has dire consequences when it comes to listing what I enjoy. The Should Know Better side means that for every Larry David, there is a Dawson's Creek. For every Memento, there is a Mighty Ducks and a Mr Holland's Opus. For every Teitur, there is a weird enjoyment of Britney Spears' Toxic. I know that, in each instance, the latter is the vastly inferior example of the genre. But - God help me - deep down inside of me, there's something which means I just can't help but sort of enjoy them.It's a strange phenomenon, I know - I blame a childhood school holiday diet of made for TV real-life movies, and Saved By The Bell reruns. Also, my mother liked Dallas. Maybe there's some nature aspect to this condition, as well as a nurture aspect.Knowing this about me, it should come as no surprise to hear that, on preview weekend, I found myself at the cinema to watch the Steve Martin/Bonnie Hunt vehicle Cheaper by the Dozen. It should also come as no surprise to hear that my previous visit to the cinema had been to watch the critically lauded Lost in Translation. Sofia Coppola's mighty movie had satisfied my respectable side and I loved every minute of it. But the Should Know Better side needed nourishment too, and in Cheaper by the Dozen, it was going to enjoy a twelve course feast.As I plonked myself down in my seat with my popcorn and my candy floss, cursing the child next to me who had managed to tread (heavily) on my ingrown toenail and was now causing a ruckus, I knew exactly what to expect. This was going to be a Film-Making-By-Numbers family comedy, and I was prepared to tick each box. I wasn't disappointed.The film opens with a voiceover from the vastly underrated Bonnie Hunt, setting the scene on this crazy family. Within the first few minutes of the film, therefore, it had satisfied an important criterion for a family comedy. Sentimental scene-setting voiceover - check.As we got introduced to the family, more boxes could be checked. Steve Martin as an eccentric yet lovable father. Bonnie Hunt as the sensible but fun mother. Tom Welling (TV's Smallville) and Hilary Duff (Lizzie McGuire) as two of the kids in a cunning casting move designed to appeal to appeal to the tweenager crowd. Amongst the other siblings, there was a heavy child, a shy child, a studious child. Check, check, check. Cute four year old twins with lisps. That was the Jonathan Lipnicki requirement covered. Dad is a football coach - lovely, that sets up a nice conflict between his dedication to his team on the field, and his team at home. Mom is an author - wonderful, that will set up a conflict between her burgeoning career and her family needs. Within the first ten minutes, I could see that this film was right on track.The family, of course, has a lovely, huge house with lots of nooks and crannies - so much the better for eavesdropping on Mom and Dad's conversations, and for slapstick high jinks (which predictably ensued quickly and frequently.)The plot is well hidden amongst the food fights and falling overs, but there is one. Dad is offered a new job as a football coach at his old college - his dream job, in fact - and so the family uproots to a new home. The kids are far from happy about the move, and things become more difficult when Mom goes off on a national booktour - leaving Steve Martin's overwhelmed father to cope, for the first time, alone. Predictably, he doesn't manage it and, predictably, both parents realise in the end that the most important thing to them is not their careers, but their family. It's a resonant enough message in an age of parents trying to juggle family/work commitments, even if they seem to be able to afford a very nice house and have no financial problems despite their massive brood.The major sub-plot revolves around the shy child. Nicknamed Fed-Ex by his siblings because they believe he was delivered one night and isn't part of the family, it's obvious from the outset that, at some point, he is going to run away. You can tell because he wears glasses, feels closer to his pet frog than to his family and because - for some reason never adequately explained - Steve Martin finds it impossible to remember his name. I found this rather strange but, I realise now, I have no idea what the kid's name is either, so maybe I was being a little harsh.As the child picks the room at the top of the new house, hidden away from the rest and as each time Bonnie Hunt gets distracted just when she's giving him some much needed attention, you can see that Mark (ah - I believe that was his name) will be the one to show the bickering brood how much they love one another.So it is.Mark runs off, Steve Martin remembers a picture the child had drawn of his favourite place (see, Dad does care after all) and off the family go to reclaim the missing child. And that includes the oldest daughter who had tried to break away - with a boyfriend, played by Ashton Kutcher in an amusing cameo which for a split second made me not hate him - but who of course had realised how important her family was to her.They of course find the child, explain how much they love him, and soon enough Steve Martin is quitting his job and finding another one so they can move back home and be one big happy family all over again.Yes, Cheaper by the Dozen certainly manages to check all the right boxes. It's utterly predictable, and instantly forgettable (it's no coincidence that I have mentioned no character names - I can't remember them.)But, for the two hours or so I was sitting in that cinema, wondering if I should tread on the kid's foot so she'd know how it felt, I was enjoying myself. The film was forgettable. I have no real desire to every watch it again. It offered no real insight into the human psyche.But, for a couple of hours, it transported me into an easier world where everything was cheery, where I knew what was going to happen, and where there was always going to be a happy ending. And that has to count for something.Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to order my copy of Lost in Translation on DVD, and to watch my copy of Hoosiers. What can I tell you? I'm a contradiction. Video13052@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:39:23 EST