tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79911435574189116732024-03-05T13:15:49.916+00:00Random Rants, Reflections and ReviewsTonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.comBlogger376125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-46656117841049478072014-09-15T20:59:00.001+00:002014-09-15T20:59:54.124+00:00The Referendum - some thoughts and why I'm voting NoI've not really had a chance to write much on this blog for almost two years now, but there's a major referendum coming up this week and I thought it was time to share my views. Make of them what you will, this is not an effort to change anybody's mind and I make no particular claims for a coherent viewpoint. As of yet, I've yet to commit much to writing about my own personal views of the referendum. This may be in part because I've yet to see much in either campaign that I would want to associate myself with. As far as things written by other people go, I would share a lot of common ground with the views of Carol Craig expressed <a href="http://www.scottishreview.net/CarolCraig172.shtml">here</a>. In my own rantings here I'll probably avoid going into too much details about things she has already said better than I can, but will merely add my own take on things.<br />
<br />
Ideologically, I would claim to be neither particularly Unionist nor Nationalist. Whilst in general terms I would say I support devolution of powers closer to the people, the right to self-determination and so forth, in practice maybe I'm discovering that there are limits to that, or maybe I'm just not buying that that is really what's on offer here. I guess my approach to the independence question has been a more pragmatic one - do I think that an Independent Scotland is more or less likely to be the kind of Scotland I would like to see? The answer to that at the moment is maybe at some point in the future, but at the moment I feel it would be heading in the opposite direction (but more of that later).<br />
<br />
In the interests of full disclosure, I will be quite clear that I do not consider myself to be a Scot, neither do I consider myself to be English (Welsh, maybe sometimes) but in general I see myself as British. This will inevitably colour my outlook, although may not be a deciding factor. I'm also writing as a precariously employed public sector employee and I've got to say that from my perspective, my chances of still having a job in two years look rather less in an independent Scotland. However, that particular change in my circumstances has not affected how I have viewed this issue.<br />
<br />
To start on a positive note, there are two undoubtedly great things that have come out of this campaign. One is the granting of votes to 16 & 17 year olds, who from what I have seen both personally and in the media, have responded with due thought and sense of responsibility on the whole. Whatever the outcome on Thursday, I hope that this provides evidence for lowering the voting age to 16 more generally. The other is the widespread engagement with the issues by people as a whole. I don't think I can remember a time when political issues have been so widely and so variedly discussed and debated. An expected turnout of over 80% would be absolutely brilliant. The challenge is how we can then keep that level of engagement in Scottish politics moving forward, whatever the outcome.<br />
<br />
That said, that level of engagement has largely come despite rather than because of the formal campaigns, which have been an absolute disgrace, marked by lies, misinformation, exaggerations, bullying and intimidation tactics on both sides, by a blind optimism and astounding naivety on the one side and astounding complacency and patronising superiority on the other. Scotland has deserved better. If I was to place my vote solely on the merits of the campaigns, I would be spoiling my ballot for the first time ever. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that if the likes of Murdoch, Trump, Soutar and McColl are lining up on your side, not only are you on the wrong side, you're asking the wrong question. But then the combined ranks of banks and supermarkets lining up on the other side scarcely present a more appealling choice of allies. Better Together would have more accurately called themselves "Ye Cannae Do That!" and Yes Scotland have bordered on the emotionally manipulative right from the justly derided talking foetus advert whilst simultaneously seeming to promise that both everything and nothing will change, but the Team Scotland idea that Salmond came out with last week has a very nasty undercurrent. For me, there is a serious point here in terms of trust - that these are the people (on both sides) who will become responsible for forging an independant Scotland if the vote is Yes. I look around and wonder how many real potential nation builders there are and regrettably the answer is precious few.<br />
<br />
Well, that's the first rant over with. Now I'm going to shed a few thoughts on some of the issues that have been talked about during the campaign:<br />
<br />
<i>Shop Prices</i> - apparently our weekly shopping is about to change price if we vote Yes. Actually this shouldn't really come as any surprise - large companies price differently for different markets. If Scotland becomes a separate market then the pricing will reflect this. It doesn't mean that everything's going to go up. Local scottish products should actually be cheaper in Scottish supermarkets as Scottish customers stop subsidising the price of transporting to England. Unfortunately the reverse is true for produce from England and Wales. Overall I would have thought that a weekly shop will probably work out more expensive, but maybe not by that much. Is this really a deciding issue. I suspect not. If anything, it might act as incentive for people to both get away from the supermarket and buy local which would be no bad thing in my eyes.<br />
<br />
<i>The Currency - </i>the topic that No went on about until they alienated all and sundry. That said, it was a great weakness for Salmond and the idea of having the pound without a formal currency union (which by the way is what Ireland did in the 20s and it took them a long time to recover, although admittedly Ireland in the 20s probably had less economic strengths than Scotland today) is just folly and will cost us. It gives Scotland a lack of control in its economy and creates pressures that will need to be responded to in other ways. I do have a lot of sympathy for the view that this debate should be about democracy and not the economy, but if we get things like this wrong it places severe limits on what we can do democratically speaking, which is why I firmly believe that if Scotland does go independent it desperately needs its own currency.<br />
<br />
<i>Oil Revenues - </i>Yes have one set of figures, No have others. Both have their experts who say that their side is right. Independent experts offer even more different figures. What is most depressing for me in the whole thing is that nobody at all seems to be questioning whether exploiting every last pound's worth of North Sea Oil is actually desirable any more. And this is where I start to have major problems with independence at this time - I can't see how an independent Scotland breaks its dependence on oil (especially given there are likely to be so many other pressures on the economy). Limited though it is, I see greater potential for a devolved rather than independant Scottish government to develop its energy policies in other ways.<br />
<br />
<i>The Scandinavian Model</i> - this is, of course, something that has been held up as the ideal route for an independent Scotland to follow - the Scandinavian Social Democratic model, this would apparrently fit well with Scotland which is apparrently far more "progressive" than the rest of the UK (I'll come back to that later). I mean we don't really have UKIP up here, for example. I don't really want to get into this here, but just to pass a few tangential comments for thought - the Scandinavian countries themselves have been steadily moving away from this model for the past 10-15 years. Sweden had a general election at the weekend where the UKIP-like Swedish Democrats did very well indeed. Oh, and when Norway had a referendum for independence they got 99.95% in favour and just 184 votes against.<br />
<br />
There were of course many other issues, but I think that's enough for now. Now we're moving on to the big issues.<br />
<br />
<b><i>A Question of Democracy</i></b><br />
By far and away the strongest argument for independence is that of the democratic deficit. That Scotland is poorly represented by Westminster, that it is more democratic to have government closer to the people, which is superficially an argument that I'm very attracted to. I start to get a bit uncomfortable when people start talking about Scotland being unable to influence the outcome of general elections or always being outvoted by England or Scotland not getting the governments they voted for. For a start, neither Scotland nor England are that homogenous in their opinions (it's a long time, if ever, since Scotland gave majority support to one party, so to that extent Scotland has never voted for the government it got, but then neither has England) and many English regions could make the same argument about being able to influence outcomes by themselves. Neither can the Scots be seen as an oppressed minority. If anything, Scotland is still over-represented in the union - having more MPs than its population would merit on a strict allocation in addition to a devolved parliament. So if anything Scotland has more chance to influence the outcome of a General Election than a similar sized (in terms of population) region of England. On top of that, we have a devolved parliament. Ah, but Scotland has a stronger identity than regions of England. True, but we are dealing with a spectrum there and should a stronger identity entitle individuals or groups to a greater say in government?<br />
<br />
Then we must question whether a Scottish government would be that much more representative an independent Scottish government would be. The executives and governments at Holyrood have still received the votes of less than half of those who voted. In real terms Edinburgh is a very long way from parts of Scotland and the difference with Westminster is not all that telling. As an individual is the chance of influencing policy as one of three million voters meaningfully different to the chance as one of thirty million. I would suggest not. All of which is actually not all that relevant. It's arguing for the sake of arguing. A more significant question for me is where the devolution of powers stops. For me, trying to make up for a democratic deficit is trying to get decision making as close to the people as possible, but Holyrood, especially recently, has actually been a centralising force within Scotland taking powers like the ability to change council tax levels away from local government, creating a central police force for the whole of Scotland, etc... Is there any reason to believe that an independent Scotland would be any better, especially given that it will largely be the same personalities involved. And if we are not changing things for the better, then why bother?<br />
<br />
Underlying some of the talk of a lack of Scottish influence at Westminster is the myth of progressive Scotland. That Scotland is somehow more left wing than the rest of the UK and that Scotland needs to be independent in order to move in the progressive direction it wants. On one level, this can seem convincing - the Conservative vote in Scotland seems to be largely in terminal decline. UKIP struggle to gain much traction here (although they did get an MEP). However, if you dig a bit deeper into attitudes, the percentage of Scots who would support benefit cuts or limiting immigration is not significantly different to the rest of the UK. It's just that those people don't vote Conservative (because the brand is still toxic) or UKIP (because we already have a populist, anti-big 3 Westminster parties party who are heavily entrenched). All of which is a bit of a digression (athough it will link a bit to a point coming up), but a point worth making.<br />
<br />
From a democratic point of view, however, I do have some concerns about the process we are in:<br />
<i>The Timing</i>: Why are we having a referendum now? It wasn't due to any significant increase in support for independence before the referendum was called. Support for independence had remained roughly around 33% ever since polling on the issue started. It was at that level before the 2011 Scottish Elections and it was at that level after them. What happened in 2011 is that the SNP fluked an overall majority, taking advantage of the LDs taking of the electoral cyanide (from a Scottish perspective) of coalition and the most self-destructive Labour campaign since Michael Foot's in 1983. Labour lazily assumed that the Liberal Democrat voters would come to them whilst making their flagship policy (mandatory prison sentences for carrying a knife) one that would repel anybody with liberal instincts. And thus we ended up with a referendum.<br />
<br />
<i>The Growth in Support for Yes: </i>And as the campaign has gone on, the support for independence has grown. The work of the No campaign in facilitating this shouldn't be underestimated - nobody likes to be patronised and told what they can't do. Many people have genuine reasons for switching to Yes around issues of democracy. Some buy the vision of the white paper. But some are atttracted by the anti-Tory/anti-coalition rhetoric. Every leaflet I've had from Yes mentions in one form or another keeping the Tories out as a reason to vote Yes. Several Yes supporters I know have used this as the main argument why I should vote Yes. And it's a terrible reason for voting Yes - making a permanent change as a reaction against a temporary situation. It may not be the deciding factor in many people's votes, but for some it definitely will be and if the result is as close as the polls suggest, those people may make the difference. Fundamentally, I believe this is based on a lie - see my thoughts on the myth of progressive Scotland above. The thought that the anti-Tory argument may be enough to win it for Yes, is enough to make me vote No.<br />
(Actually I think an independent Scotland would move pretty quickly to the right economically for some of the reasons outlined in Carol Craig's article and also for all the things the current Scottish Government have put off doing because there's a referendum coming. I'd also take a bet that within 20-25 years Scotland would have had at least one overtly right wing government. That government may not be led by a party called Conservative and some of its members may currently be in the SNP government, but it would happen. (I should add, that although this wouldn't be my choice, that's democracy and I hold no truck with messing around with systems to try and keep one strain of opinion out). The possible/likely shift rightwards raises another question for me in terms of democracy, because this is the complete opposite of the story that we are being promised, so we could well start off by undermining the faith of people in the new institutions right from the off and creating nothing but a mini-version of Westminster with another disillusioned electorate. That is not the solution to an democratic deficit.)<br />
<br />
<i>The Level of Support. </i>Support for Yes has grown, but even the most optimistic polls for them have put it at just over 50% (54% is the highest). Even given an 85% plus turnout, that would still be under half the electorate actually voting Yes. Democratically speaking, is that really enough of a mandate for independence. Remember that figure I gave for Norway, Southern Sudan had a similar figure, Slovenia over 80%, Latvia well into the 70s. I can't think of a single successful example where there was not a clear and overwhelming majority in favour. I hope No wins for a variety of reasons, but if it is YEs then I hope the polls are well out and its Yes by over 60%. 50.1% to Yes is just a mess that is going to take one heck of a lot of work to sort out.<br />
<br />
I started on a positive note - I'd like to finish on one. I do think devolution has been a success for Scotland, but I also think there are strengths in Britain and we are stronger and safer together. I think Britain has produced some successes that we need to hang on to, like the NHS, but that they are stronger for being shared across our nations and I hope we will stay together and fight to make both Scotland and Britain the countries that they would wish them to be.<br />
<br />
I've tried to pack a lot in here and I'm aware I've not done most of my thoughts the justice they deserve in my head, but I hope you find them interesting.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-71513534051468866502013-01-10T17:33:00.000+00:002013-01-10T17:33:09.579+00:00Pitch Perfect<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQAqKJONkYD0Sicq5SqbJKgixfOQvVzGX3I3o0zsOBsqlaApiAPREyozVEbrs2O2OaxRxosUUqO2jA1nZwp8S9twA6J4ifNmc2gaZKlxFAV46CJEHeN09L-2vF3S8o8b8vqLZDU0ZcnY/s1600/pp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQAqKJONkYD0Sicq5SqbJKgixfOQvVzGX3I3o0zsOBsqlaApiAPREyozVEbrs2O2OaxRxosUUqO2jA1nZwp8S9twA6J4ifNmc2gaZKlxFAV46CJEHeN09L-2vF3S8o8b8vqLZDU0ZcnY/s1600/pp.jpg" /></a></div>
Anna Kendrick has won much acclaim (including an Oscar nomination) for supporting roles in very good films such as <i>Up in the Air, 50/50</i> and <i>End of Watch</i>. <i>Pitch Perfect</i> is the first time that she's really had to carry a film from the lead.<br />
<br />
The film is set in the world of competitive college acapella singing groups and is directed by a man whose previous experience has been in TV shows such as <i>Dawson's Creek</i> and <i>One Tree Hill</i>. So far, so unpromising. Furthermore, it can't really decide whether it wants to take the singing relatively serious or to be a <i>Best in Show</i> style pastiche of an unusual occupation, so we get relatively straightly done musical segments (aside from the odd outbreak of projectile vomiting) but with very tongue-in-cheek commentary provided by John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks. Elsewhere, there is an attempt to mix the usual romantic subplot, parental separation issues with touches of broader, even at times gross-out humour.<br />
<br />
Out of all of this, the biggest surprise is that they've managed to produce a very likeable and above all funny film. Kendrick makes for an engaging leading lady, the musical sequences are very well handled (especially the riff-off about halfway through) and the gags keep coming. The humour is hit and miss, but there are far more hits than misses and probably something for everybody tastes. The established actors Higgins and Banks are poorest served by a script that leaves them little but weak innuendos until the finale, but a final killer out down by Banks almost makes up for that.<br />
<br />
Not that the film is perfect - there are probably too many character arcs and subplots that just aren't given enough room - from the almost silent girl coming out of her shell, Kendrick's daddy issues and career aspirations as a music producer to the amateur magician and the Korean room-mate. Things have a tendancy of just happening without the audience seeing the intervening struggles.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Overall - 7/10</i> Tries to cram a lot in and be a lot of different things, but is done with enough energy, fun and humour to work more than it doesn't.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-74263637242334743642013-01-05T14:33:00.001+00:002013-01-05T14:34:58.330+00:00The Impossible<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyWVaeknjnE8EfR4UQmghn2-prw9QoJs9UPZ5msnx4aDZHC3_w1Ry3r93SpuhIKil7xPrZPw4NsinaduyMHuQAt-uunAji9vwk0o9FTmdwwyudLob-aYlWHn-971kyWVBuVynfTHy57ws/s1600/The-Impossible-6666.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyWVaeknjnE8EfR4UQmghn2-prw9QoJs9UPZ5msnx4aDZHC3_w1Ry3r93SpuhIKil7xPrZPw4NsinaduyMHuQAt-uunAji9vwk0o9FTmdwwyudLob-aYlWHn-971kyWVBuVynfTHy57ws/s320/The-Impossible-6666.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>The Impossible</i> represents the first real attempt to deal with 2004's Boxing Day tsunami in film. Despite being a Spanish production, it follows a Hollywood pattern of being very anglo-centric - the focus is squarely on western holiday-makers caught up in the tragedy rather than the locals having their countryside devastated and the Spanish family whose true story this is based upon have been morphed into a very English one.<br />
<br />
Those gripes aside, the film is actually very successful. Director Juan Antonio Bayona (whose last film was Spanish horror <i>The Orphanage</i>) and his screenwriters grasp that the best way to convey something of the scale of the disaster is actually focus small, to view everything through the eyes of the one family separated by the waves and unsure if each other are alive or dead, and the emotions they go through and the sometimes questionable choices they make. Which is not to say that this is a small film - the moment when the tsunami hits and the immediate aftermath as Naomi Watts' mother and her eldest son are swept miles inland is one of the most powerful and bravura pieces of film-making you're likely to see this year.<br />
<br />
In fact Bayona handles both the small emotional scenes and the big action ones with consumate skill, from the opening use of noise over a blank screen to create an atmosphere of apprehension. However, there is one emotional blow when mother and son have reached that hospital that I'm unsure of - I don't know if it was something that really happened to the Spanish family, but if invented by the film-makers feels like an emotional twist/manipulation for dramatic effect that the film doesn't really need.<br />
<br />
The cast are also superb - Ewan McGregor more sympathetic and less irritating than he's been for a while and Watts is superb, but the real star is 16 year old Tom Holland who shoulders much of the emotional weight of the film in very convincing fashion. A great future awaits him if he continues like this.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Overall - 8/10</i> A very powerful, well acted and well put together film with an early contender for one of the sequences of the year.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-48966777949912336272013-01-03T12:56:00.000+00:002013-01-03T12:56:13.551+00:00Quartet<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAcu2IWofVW0apwM8rZTb3zlxyCcPVUXla-y2Zsxgjp9kvfWsQYqY8qqMvSLmwyxMfeD0W49avjknnA8HI8fIRHDpHmSVu5j-9g2ZALXJApBi-HdYheeNMGzzlEyZUIRO8ShbAkJz-hk8/s1600/Quartet_movie_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAcu2IWofVW0apwM8rZTb3zlxyCcPVUXla-y2Zsxgjp9kvfWsQYqY8qqMvSLmwyxMfeD0W49avjknnA8HI8fIRHDpHmSVu5j-9g2ZALXJApBi-HdYheeNMGzzlEyZUIRO8ShbAkJz-hk8/s320/Quartet_movie_poster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<i>Quartet</i> is a slightly odd choice for Dustin Hoffman's solo debut in the director's chair, being as it is such a very English movie. Aiming squarely for the same audience as last year's <i>Best Exotic Marigold Hotel</i>, the film is set in a retirement home for retired musicians and centres around 4 retired opera singers, two of whom used to be married before it ended disastrously. Together they must perform the quartet from Rigoletto in order to raise the money to keep the home open.<br />
<br />
As a director, Hoffman is a steady hand and makes good use of his stately setting, displaying a good eye for framing a shot. He also, unsurprisingly, pulls some good performances from his cast. Maggie Smith is essentially playing the same part as in <i>Marigold</i> down to the same accent and same need for a hip replacement, but is as watchable and moving as ever, but the real class here is added by a brilliant turn from Tom Courtenay as her ex-husband. It is there relationship that provides the film with its heart.<br />
<br />
The Quartet is rounded off by the more comic notes of a flirtatious Billy Connolly, who has moments but becomes a bit wearisome, and Pauline Collins, whose character comes to close to taking cheap laughs from the onset of dementia for my tastes. Hoffman wisely decides against actually having his stars sing, but fills out the rest of the cast with real musicians and singers and Michael Gambon is on good form as the irascible producer in charge of matters.<br />
<br />
Rather like its ageing stars, the film is pleasant company, but somewhat slow and lacking drama. It fails to reach either the laughs or the emotion of the <i>Marigold Hotel</i>.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Overall - 6/10</i> More a gently pleasant chorus than a stirring aria. Likeable and entertaining, but somewhat lacking in other areas.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-84802396442219644772013-01-01T20:16:00.001+00:002013-01-01T20:16:44.614+00:00Tony's Favourite Films of 2012So, this might turn out to be a rather short-lived resurrection of my blog, but whilst I have a few moments I thought I'd do my customary round-up of the films I enjoyed the most in 2012. Life events elsewhere meant that the volume of my film watching decreased somewhat (and 2013 will probably see a much sharper fall ;-) ) and there were certainly some films that I wanted to see and didn't manage to catch.<br />
<br />
Before moving on to the best, I will cast a cursory glance at the worst films that I had the misfortune to see at the cinema this year - in contention for Turkey of the year were the 3D re-release of <i>The Phantom Menace, Taken 2, The Cold Light of Day </i>and <i>Ghost Rider 2, </i>but the undisputed Turkey of the year was George Lucas' <b style="font-style: italic;">Red Tails.</b> There is undoubtedly a good film to make in the real story of the Tuskagee airmen. <i>Red Tails</i> is not that story - the dialogue is abysmally poor and the action beyond credulity.<br />
<br />
Moving on, those films that narrowly missed out on a place in my personal top 20 would include IRA thriller <i>Shadow Dancer; The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Moonrise Kingdom </i> and <i>The Hobbit </i>(which was an excess 30 minutes and an unnecessary hedgehog away from being a very good film).<br />
<br />
<b>The Top 20:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<i style="font-weight: bold;">20. Looper</i> - Rian Johnson's time-travel tale might not have totally sorted all the paradoxes, but was still a thoroughly entertaining sci-fi.<br />
<br />
<b style="font-style: italic;">19. Jack Reacher </b> - A late arrival, but a very well done film that succeeds despite the controversy of Cruise's casting as the hero (who in the books is 6'4" and blond).<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">18. Jeff Who Lives at Home</i> - More indy minded, but a playful exploration of fate and inter-connectivity that manages to get away with a rather contrived ending.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">17. Avengers Assemble</i> - Marvel's super-team up worked box office magic and was largely successful through the interplay between the characters despite the big finale falling a bit flat.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">16. Martha Marcy May Marlene</i> - Elizabeth Olsen is superb in this portrayal of a young woman recently escaped from a cult.<br />
<br />
<b><i>15. Silver Linings Playbook</i> - </b>Romance, dancing, gambling and mental illness - an unlikely winning combination and De Niro better than he's been in ages.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">14. Ruby Sparks</i> - Quirky rom com about an author who invents his perfect woman, charming and amusing throughout.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">13. End of Watch</i> Gritty LA cop story that routes its episodic plot in some very real characters and relationships.<br />
<br />
<b><i>12. Carnage</i> - </b>Polanski's satire of manners makes the most of its top notch cast to unpick middle class foibles.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">11. The Muppets</i> return to the big screen with a surprisingly heartfelt and funny film.<br />
<br />
<b><i>10. Argo</i> </b>Ben Affleck continues his winning streak as director managing a lighter tone in this incredible true story of the rescue of Americans from revolutionary Iran using a fake film crew.<br />
<br />
<b style="font-style: italic;">9. Seven Psychopaths </b>a somewhat messy, but incredibly entertaining story of a struggling screenwriter, dog-napping and other odd occurrences.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">8. Skyfall</i> - Daniel Craig's Bond is back on track after the somewhat disappointing last effort and worthy final one in the series for Judi Dench. Ben Wishaw and Ralph Fiennes will make good additions.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">7. The Hunger Games</i> One of the best teen-lit adaptations created a convincing and compelling dystopian future.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">6. Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists. </i> Ardman return to claymation in winning style - it's a very silly, but the gag rate never fails.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">5. The Life of Pi</i> - Ang Lee's adaptation of the "unfilmable" book is visually stunning and thought-provoking in equal measure.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">4. The Descendants</i> Clooney downplays but hits the right notes in this somewhat melancholy-comedic drama.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">3. Beasts of the Southern Wild</i> a beautiful lyrical film which gains heart by not trying to explain too much.<br />
<br />
<b style="font-style: italic;">2. The Dark Knight Rises - </b> a worthy finish to Nolan's batman trilogy. Heath Ledger was never going to be an easy act to follow, but Tom Hardy does a god job in villain role.<br />
<br />
<i style="font-weight: bold;">1. The Artist</i> Witty, inventive, very funny and almost wordless - a very worthy and original Oscar winnerTonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-38393590553960993802012-06-03T14:19:00.000+00:002012-06-03T14:19:02.587+00:00Men In Black III<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggmgwjsH8msPH9DQuVj2e7i27IFx3VG1fJc_niFmfdSN2R52GHgDVnitjAlkf9t8UbvccBp8Lp6-9DC2gBcmORhkz5fWDdcbUm8hm_YIlczPauOmx72siqYRQswqfkOJj3L_3d5KnOjog/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggmgwjsH8msPH9DQuVj2e7i27IFx3VG1fJc_niFmfdSN2R52GHgDVnitjAlkf9t8UbvccBp8Lp6-9DC2gBcmORhkz5fWDdcbUm8hm_YIlczPauOmx72siqYRQswqfkOJj3L_3d5KnOjog/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></div>
This is a rather belated threequel, coming a full decade after the crushingly disappointing part 2. The question is can it recapture the fun and the chemistry of the highly entertaining original. The answer is only partially - the film is nowhere as good as you might hope but it is at least better than you feared it might have been following part 2.<br />
<br />
The film starts promisingly enough, introducing the villain, Boris the Animal (<i>Flight of the Conchords'</i> Jermaine Clement) in an escape from a lunar prison. At first glance Boris seems an appropriate villain who offers both weirdness and a sense of menace, but after the initial set-up Boris seems to fizzle out as a character apart from one or two moments (including an argument with himself) a by the finale totally fails to live up to his billing as a major threat.<br />
<br />
Then there is the plot - which features Will Smith's J heading back in time to stop Boris killing off his partner, Tommy Lee Jones's K before they even met. The film keeps promising answers to questions such as why K is so grumpy and why only J can remember him in the present, without ever delivering satisfactory answers. Then the film commits the epic fail when it comes to time travel movies and finishes as a complete paradox loop whereby the ending totally negates the beginning which in turn negates everything else in the film including the ending, so none of it really works. That is bad plotting.<br />
<br />
The other weakness of the film is Tommy Lee Jones, who seems far too old for this shit and clearly can't be bothered and even Smith seems tired and jaded in his company. This actually makes the films' biggest gamble of ditching Jones for most of its running time it's biggest success, as Josh Brolin playing the younger K gives a pitch perfect Tommy Lee Jones and is actually here far superior to the original. Smith appears to perk up when playing off him.<br />
<br />
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson shows her comic skills as Agent O and Michael Stuhlbarg is good value as an alien who simultaneous sees many possible universes and timelines. There are also some good moments, such as Smith's speech after being pulled over by the police in the 60s. However, most doesn't hold up to too close an inspection.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 6/10</b></i><b> Entertaining in parts, but patchily so.</b><br />
<br />
<br />Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-17404791081699525612012-05-25T20:19:00.000+00:002012-05-25T20:20:22.318+00:00Movie Catch-up<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXA8bTAfsYfv6JLFEF5hS-AjbTd068jMt6V8DRMdKzbmN7vmd2ZZsWmzdAvKND2Gxo17oEpmjHBVMOPGy3erWz5_tfnUSy933PxiZvLbVZruSRAmixd7SuoP9_xVNZq64_QJGKauLdsno/s1600/Movies-film.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXA8bTAfsYfv6JLFEF5hS-AjbTd068jMt6V8DRMdKzbmN7vmd2ZZsWmzdAvKND2Gxo17oEpmjHBVMOPGy3erWz5_tfnUSy933PxiZvLbVZruSRAmixd7SuoP9_xVNZq64_QJGKauLdsno/s200/Movies-film.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
OK, I've been neglecting the blog for a little time whilst I've been caught up with other things, so here's a brief catch up on what I've seen in the past few weeks:<br />
<br />
<i><b>Safe. </b></i>Jason Statham is probably the closest thing to a genuine action star that there is at the moment, but he has made some truly dreadful films. <i>Safe</i> is one of his better films, with halfway decent material to go with the action. The Stath tries to redeem himself by trying to save a girl-genius caught up with competing Chinese and Russian mobs and dirty cops. The body count is ridiculously high, but there are some good sequences and nice twists along the way. <i><b>Overall: 6.5/10</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Dark Shadows </b></i>is the big screen adaptation of a cult (read pretty dreadful) TV supernatural soap<i><b> </b></i>opera from the 60s which is really not known over here. Tim Burton's at the helm and Johnny Depp (of course) stars as the vampire dug up after 200 years to find his family's fortunes in decline and the witch who cursed him (Eva Green). It is imbued with Burton's rich visual style and a very dry dark humour. Depp fits in perfectly and Green vamps it up to great effect. As is not uncommon with TV adaptations, there's not really enough space in the film for all the characters to really shine through despite the strong cast and Tommy Lee Miller's playboy and Chloe Moretz' teen with issues probably suffer most from a lack of space, but overall this is an entertaining watch. <i><b>Overall 7/10</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>The Dictator</b></i> Sacha Baron Cohen is now too well known to get away with the <i>Borat </i>trick on real people, so moves into the fully scripted area with <i>The Dictator</i>. Cohen is a bright fellow and there are moments in the film when it really shows - the final speech to the UN drips with layers of irony and the way he talks himself out of being tortured is one of the comic highlights. Too often though he still goes for the cheap laugh and the supposed shock. A mixed bag of a film. <i><b>Overall 6/10</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>The Raid</b> </i>the much hyped Indonesian action film with the Welsh director follows a rookie cop on the titular raid on a high rise apartment building controlled by the local drug lord, and that's it in terms of plot. What it is very raw and vibrant and inventive in its almost non-stop action and fight sequences. As the lead, Iko Uwais has the makings of a new martial arts action star, but the non-stop action could actually fo with a few lighter or slower moments to give the audience a breather and make it feel less like it's you having your head pounded repeatedly against the floor. It's certainly something different though. <i><b>Overall 7/10</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Jeff Who Lives at Home</b></i>. It's quite refreshing to see Jason Segal trying something a little bit more different and less obviously commercial. He plays the eponymous Jeff, a thirty something who still lives in his mum's basement and is convinced that everything is connected (the film opens with a knowing monologue on <i>Signs</i>) and after receiving a wrong number phone call, ends up pursuing various Kevins round the city on a journey that will also take in his brother's (Ed Helms) marital problems and his mum's (Susan Sarandon) secret admirer, all the while leaving you guessing as to if there is some greater purpose or if it is all just coincidence until the ending which will either delight or annoy. <i><b>Overall - 8/10</b></i>.<br />
<br />Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-30889169242783456742012-05-12T14:58:00.003+00:002012-05-12T14:58:57.900+00:00A Lesson in how not to do Expectation ManagementSo, over a week on from the local elections and what are to make of that. The dominant narrative in Scotland seems to be that it was a disappointing night for the SNP. Maybe that's not so surprising -I mean 2007 was a breakthrough year for them when they first overtook Labour at Holyrood and broke through in many new areas, using the new voting system to gain a presence on all councils bar Orkney and Shetland. Perhaps it's only natural that after 6 years in government they will have fallen back since then.<br />
<br />
Except they haven't of course. The SNP vote share is up almost everywhere in Scotland compared to 2007 and the gained around 60 extra councillors. But two things have happened since then - firstly the stunning (and I suspect unrepeatable) result last May raised expectations that the Nats would sweep everything this May. And secondly, the SNP spin machine seemed to get carried away with their own success and started to talk up their chances - they were going to become the largest party in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow - they might even claim a majority in the latter.<br />
<br />
Of course, they did none of this. Hence they had a disappointing day. In fact, they only gained a majority in Dundee and the SNP stronghold of Angus. Except -- look at the facts, they increased their vote and gained seats in Edinburgh. In Aberdeen they actually won the popular vote with Labour only gaining more seats by virtue of better vote balancing and a bit of luck. In Glasgow itself, the SNP vote was up by 8% across the city, a 2.5% swing from Labour and they gained 5 seats relative to 2007. By most standards, a pretty good result and if they hadn't talked up their chances so much (and in doing so probably galvanised the Labour vote as well) the narrative might be different - of steady SNP progress in the Labour heartlands.<br />
<br />
By contrast, Labour were at a low point in 2007 - unpopular in government at both Westminster and Holyrood, yet they kept majority control in Glasgow. In 2012, in opposition everywhere losing control of Glasgow should never have been in question (even given their own internal difficulties). But the SNP have enabled them to put keeping control across as a great success.<br />
<br />
For the other parties, the Conservatives lost seats, perhaps a few more than expected. For the LDs it was grim, but maybe not quite as grim as it could have been (at least outside Edinburgh) and the Greens made slow but steady progress, doubling their seats in Edinburgh and gaining their first seats in Striling, Midlothian and Aberdeenshire.<br />
<br />
The results have seen a number of unlikely Labour-Conservative coalitions form across Scotland. This was considered in Edinburgh too, but here Labour leader Andrew Burns was wise enough to realise the voters might not like it too much unless the Greens were involved, as well. However, the Greens were wisely unwilling to be involved in a coalition where their votes were not necessary (ie they had no real power) and so Labour went with the SNP as coalition partners. It's perhaps not the worst result for Edinburgh, but alot will depend on how adept Burns is at managing Cardownie. Time will tell.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-39660763974276913672012-05-11T10:56:00.000+00:002012-05-11T10:56:38.916+00:00The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPSlKBFWtGLqIB4m4o5150CnuiQhQTNsqHyhM14ASXQfMYZQI-FnZli1QrdxaNhwUglkQMqbbjrV63ctfIoNrt0XRHJ0EGvgt8-zc9WUh_WLrQwfT6esuTcbnzC9MQRo68CQG0kx17reM/s1600/the-best-exotic-marigold-hotel-839319869.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPSlKBFWtGLqIB4m4o5150CnuiQhQTNsqHyhM14ASXQfMYZQI-FnZli1QrdxaNhwUglkQMqbbjrV63ctfIoNrt0XRHJ0EGvgt8-zc9WUh_WLrQwfT6esuTcbnzC9MQRo68CQG0kx17reM/s320/the-best-exotic-marigold-hotel-839319869.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
In some ways this film is the spiritual successor to <i>Calendar Girls</i> - an ensemble piece for a Who's Who of British Acting talent of a certain age. Indeed, here you could argue that only Helen Mirren and Julie Walters are missing for the complete set. Like <i>Calendar Girls</i> it's also a pleasing but slightly uneven affair.<br />
<br />
The set-up is that a collection of elderly British people move to a retirement hotel in India run rather haphazardly by <i>Slumdog Millionaire's </i>Dev Patel. There is probably a certain amount of cliche about the way that India is presented - temples and cricket in the streets, etc... and this certainly lacks some of <i>Slumdog's</i> bite, but director John Madden (<i>Shakespeare in Love, The Debt</i>) does succeed in capturing something of a vivid atmosphere of colours and busy-ness all around.<br />
<br />
At its best, the film is both moving and inspiring. The most sensitively handled threads revolve around Tom Wilkinson's retired judge and his personal quest from his youth and Judi Dench's widow who has been left bankrupt by her husband, but is determined not to to let that hold her back. And both actors excel in their respective roles. Elsewhere, Celia Imrie and Ronald Pickup are both used pretty much as the comic relief in their respective searches to find a late romance. The younger romance between Patel and Tena Desae also struggles from a lack of room to breathe and a lack of depth compared to some of the more mature story-lines.<br />
<br />
Maggie Smith gives a brave performance as a racist former housekeepeer only there for a hip replacement, but her story-line is the one that most needed more space in order to make her change of heart more credible. Elsewhere, Penelope Wilton is the poorest served of the cast as the nagging wife who simply can't cope with India and apparrently lacks a single redeeming feature. Bill Nighy does his unassertive Bill Nighy thing as her hen-pecked husband and their relationship even includes a final act race to the airport (although with rather unusual outcomes).<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 7/10</b></i><b> At its best this movie is beautifully shot, funny, moving and inspiring, but its held back by a little uneveness and not enough room for all the story-lines.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-32487942586900317722012-05-08T14:42:00.003+00:002012-05-08T14:42:40.729+00:00Avengers Assemble<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijoXfRdx4e6pckIjZsOO5CQxm_efAjkZKzOpLws6l9ZUI96gQ_Q8lM1sp-W_PmGosw-IwPHHOw3XK-eGSPtFteIWPWW2ao7T1wePYzcSQB-0wGgkIIlQGEf6OnbNZ6amg8ZW7ucYYNlKY/s1600/avengers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijoXfRdx4e6pckIjZsOO5CQxm_efAjkZKzOpLws6l9ZUI96gQ_Q8lM1sp-W_PmGosw-IwPHHOw3XK-eGSPtFteIWPWW2ao7T1wePYzcSQB-0wGgkIIlQGEf6OnbNZ6amg8ZW7ucYYNlKY/s320/avengers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
After years of build up through several movies, Marvel's <i>Avengers</i> movie (now called <i>Avengers Assemble</i> which is almost inviting the sequel in the title) is finally here. It arrives carrying a weight of expectation that few films could live up to.<br />
<br />
Marvel have made a few smart choices in their recruiting for this film. Firstly, in Joss Whedon they have a director and screenwriter who is used to managing large ensemble casts (<i>Buffy/Angel </i>and <i>Serenity/Firefly</i>) and giving each character their own arcs and moments to shine. He manages all the characters who've capably led their own films well as well as incorporating the newer characters (Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye and Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow). So Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man is allowed to steal all the limelight (or even all the best lines) and this feels like a true ensemble piece - even Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury and Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson are given their share.<br />
<br />
The socond success is Mark Ruffalo as the third recent big screen attempt at the Hulk. Following Eric Bana's interesting attempt and Edward Norton's largely unsuccessful, Ruffalo is a great fit for Bruce Banner and finally makes the big green monster work for the big screen (plus he gets one of the best lines in the film).<br />
<br />
The villain also works well with Tom Hiddleston's Loki returning from <i>Thor</i> to provide menace combined with wit and intelligence. If there's a disappointment it's that his much vaunted army of aliens are rather unimpressive - some of the visuals are good, but overall they're a bit characterless and end up as rather anonymous cannon fodder. The other main weakness is that there's maybe just a wee bit too much of the ego-clashing and fighting each other from the good guys before they actually gel - maybe one or two punch-ups too many. It does however produce a beautiful pay off in the closing battle with one particular Thor-Hulk moment.<br />
<br />
Otherwise watch for some entertaining action, witty dialogue, a strong ensemble cast, some interesting interrrogation techniques by Black Widow and surprise early exit for one of more minor, but loved, characters. <br />
<br />
The Avengers has been an interesting cinematic experiment - building up over several years with different characters in separate films. The build-up has been mixed, ranging from the surprisingly impressive (<i>Iron Man</i>) to the disappointingly messy (<i>The Incredible Hulk</i>). The payoff is well worth it though- a thoroughly entertaining spectacle that comes very close to meeting expectations.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Overall - 8/10</i> With new offerings on the horizon from the big three superheroes (Superman, Batman, Spiderman), Marvel's team effort has set the bar quite high.</b><br />
<br />Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-8658946952743101292012-05-02T18:09:00.000+00:002012-05-02T18:09:05.941+00:00Resist Vote ManagementTomorrow Scotland goes to the polls to elect new local councils. For local elections up here we now have the more proportional Single Transferable Vote system with larger wards electing 3 or 4 councillors and voters being asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.<br />
<br />
This has led some parties in wards where they have more than one candidate issuing voters with vote management instructions or suggestions in their leaflets, so half the ward will be asked to rank candidate A 1st and candidate B 2nd and the other half the other way round. If you live in such a ward and have received such instructions then I'd invite you to stop and think before following them. Who does it really help? Sure, it helps the party to balance their vote and increase their likelihood of getting two (or more) councillors elected, but it's rather insulting to your intelligence. They're telling you that's there nothing to choose between the candidates, but make your own mind up - one might be a really strong candidate and the other a complete numpty (and there are far too many numpties on councils already). Decide for yourself.<br />
<br />
The other line that some parties are taking, which I really cannot understand, is in some areas they are suggesting that voters just rank their candidates and then stop. For example, John Mason MSP (SNP) published his completed ballot paper on Facebook showing 1st and 2nd preferences for the SNP candidates and no other preferences. Does he really not care if the other 2 seats in his ward are filled by LDs, Labour, Conservative, Green or somebody else? It's nonsensical, when you are electing 4 councillors not to express at least that many preferences unless there are people that you really could not vote for.<br />
<br />
So make your own minds up, most importantly use your vote, but use it how you see fit with as many preferences as you wish to add.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-13843454854332261962012-04-27T17:22:00.000+00:002012-04-27T17:22:14.379+00:00Lockout<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGdKzYENscmG9cjO1D9l7ZVL2VVfXbaOveh_1OSJ6_LnyUM0zXG7OBGm9JnFNcaja_tBOeFDBFcNHaCs5Eq2Px5_canvqYM4Y_ui0YB9FaBn_P6RIzVAaA8M1zFJZLwsqvOiwKf6NiBy4/s1600/Guy-Pearce-and-Maggie-Grace-in-Lockout-2012-Movie-Image-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGdKzYENscmG9cjO1D9l7ZVL2VVfXbaOveh_1OSJ6_LnyUM0zXG7OBGm9JnFNcaja_tBOeFDBFcNHaCs5Eq2Px5_canvqYM4Y_ui0YB9FaBn_P6RIzVAaA8M1zFJZLwsqvOiwKf6NiBy4/s320/Guy-Pearce-and-Maggie-Grace-in-Lockout-2012-Movie-Image-2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>Lockout</i> is the latest Luc Besson production (based on his own "original" idea) and he's got tired of having Liam Neeson beat people up and has returned to the world of sci-fi. He leaves the direction to relative newcomers Stephen St Leger and James Mather.<br />
<br />
I say "original" because there is actually little original in the whole set up. The central premise - a rogue agent (Guy Pearce) is sent on a mission to a space prison in full revolt in order to rescue the president's daughter (Maggie Grace) - is basically <i>Escape From New York</i> in space. Once actually in the prison, the action becomes <i>Die Hard</i> in space with all the politcal conspiracy subplots of <i>24 </i>in space, before a finale which just gives up and decides to be <i>Star Wars</i> and the attack on the Death Star.<br />
<br />
<i>Lockout</i> is not a good film. It's stuffed full of cliches, far too many sub-plots for its own good and none of the action actually makes all that much sense - bits of dialogue seem inserted to make sense of what is about to happen, rather than relating to what has just happened which is what is ostensibly being discussed. And could somebody please explain to me why when people jump from a space station in space they fall? And why they don't burn up when they re-enter the atmosphere?<br />
<br />
No, <i>Lockout</i> is not a good film, but it really quite enjoyable. (In other words it's a typical Luc Besson film). This is helped in no small part by a fantastically dry and sardonic turn by Guy Pearce who hogs most of the best lines, but also enjoys some good banter with a surprisingly unirritating Maggie Grace. Vincent Regan and Joseph Gilgun also add good value as the Scottish (of course) psychopaths who take over the prison.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 6.5/10</b></i><b> A true guilty pleasure - there's a lot wrong with this film, but it's still very enjoyable.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-87649348543027299522012-04-25T21:44:00.000+00:002012-04-25T21:44:15.683+00:00Salmond, the millionaires and the historian.I was going to do a rant about Trump, but the guy kind of satirises himself with the likes of "I am the evidence" and so self-evidently deluded, what's the point of saying any more.<br />
<br />
Instead I'm going to offer a few thoughts on the current woes of Alex Salmond. Usually the SNP spin machine is quite literally second to none in Scotland in terms of controlling and manipulating the stories. However, things haven't been running all their way in the last few weeks.<br />
<br />
<i><b>The Millionaires</b></i><b> </b><br />
<br />
First there were the headlines about millionaire SNP donor Brian Soutar having bought Big Eck's recommendation for an honour with his donation. (Although a more interesting question, given the policy u-turn on bus regulation shortly after the donation, was whether he also bought their transport policy).<br />
<b> </b><br />
Then this week we have the twin barrels of Mr Murdoch and Mr Trump. Murdoch's advisor tells the Levenson enquiry into phone-hacking that basically Salmond offered to speak to Jeremy Hunt (who has his own heap of woes to deal with) whenever they (news international) needed him to. Then in wades Mr Trump with his claims of assurances offered to him that no wind farm would be built...<br />
<br />
Now here's the thing, I don't trust Salmond, I certainly don't trust Murdoch and I my opinions of Trump are probably best not put in print, but his attempts to effectively blackmail a democratic institution are not welcome here! I'm also not altogether convinced I care who is the wrong or right here, it's a bit sordid whichever way you look at it. The things is that Salmond has gone out of his way to court support (financial or otherwise) from these millionaires and to play in the big boy's game. Maybe now he's realising the true cost of that.<br />
<br />
<i><b>The Historian</b></i><br />
<br />
The other story that caught my attention was the "historian" David Starkey making comments comparing Salmond to Hitler. Now that's not really what I want to get into - comparisons to Hitler are always crass and hardly ever justified (certainly not in this case), but let's face it Starkey has never been shy about stirring up controversy for the purposes of promoting his own ego.<br />
<i><b> </b></i><br />
What interested me was the response from Salmond's office, which included the phrase that this was"an insult to Scotland and the people of Scotland". Er, no it wasn't! It was an insult (and a nasty one) to Salmond individually but not to Scots in general. This isn't the first time I've noticed Salmond and the SNP using this kind of rhetoric - and it's dangerous. A criticism or questioning of the SNP is not a criticism or questioning of Scotland, but too often they make it out to be. It's a habit that they need to break before the real independance debate begins otherwise any real debate on the merits or otherwise will be impossible if the response to any query is an accusation of anti-scottishness. All that will serve to do is enflame English-Scottish tensions and stifle real debate and that is a dangerous game to play!Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-19013247368156092912012-04-21T18:10:00.001+00:002012-04-21T18:11:34.243+00:00The Cold Light of Day<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiePpP3usIOIS0z5BuyhUhUQ0zk4oN3Os4Vc7g11OOk0iQGPAq07ENcoC2KMPymDKuUEaxAxvkJ_IdFfT6Jd7OEPnFQYgm9TCSq5aJS8H2UW3PJzbZlE73zxv9AfydoOck1fOiAc7h7u8U/s1600/pdc_thecoldlightofday1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiePpP3usIOIS0z5BuyhUhUQ0zk4oN3Os4Vc7g11OOk0iQGPAq07ENcoC2KMPymDKuUEaxAxvkJ_IdFfT6Jd7OEPnFQYgm9TCSq5aJS8H2UW3PJzbZlE73zxv9AfydoOck1fOiAc7h7u8U/s320/pdc_thecoldlightofday1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
There are some action films where you leave feeling that it would have been a decent film if only somebody had shot the cameraman early on in proceedings, or at least given him some tranquilisers. <i>The Cold Light of Day</i> is not one of those films for two reasons - (1) I doubt you'll get more than thirty minutes in without wishing something nasty before whoever is responsile for the unbearably shaky visuals on the screen and (2) even without the migraine-inducing camerawork this would still be a bad film.<br />
<br />
Will (Henry Cavill) is on holiday with his family in Spain when he returns to their boat to find them missing. Going to the police seems to land him in more trouble, until his dad (Bruce Willis) turns up to sort things out, tell his son he's really a CIA agent and then promptly get shot, leaving Will to try and put all the pieces together, aided by some Spanish girl he picks up along the way who turns out not to be the romantic interest (thankfully, given one of the plot twists) and by this point I'd given up caring enough to bother with much more of a plot summary.<br />
<br />
On the positive side - Henry Cavill shows some potential as at least watchable in the leading role, let's just hope Superman gives him more decent material to work with. And Sigourney Weaver makes for a badass villain at times. And that's about it. Bruce Willis looks like he can't really be bothered. There are so many continuity errors and nonsensical plot twists that you'll be continually scratching your head and going 'If they really are that, then <i>why </i>are they doing that? And more importantly, why should I care?'<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 4.5/10</b></i><b> A good case study in how not to make a thriller, the most entertaining aspect of watching this film is spotting all the things wrong with it.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-72697627641800543532012-04-21T17:45:00.001+00:002012-04-21T17:45:04.023+00:00Mirror Mirror<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkGU_Nq0RD10y9xiKXskgwSBMbgrtCkcsFFHFUxgcKqWgQxsml0aVcLUFlyOD4DjdcUCMYP4XDdHon4RfYR1cvLnjjUpt9UTMRefSBGBKd81fPFHQSFajzwSoLwUU-EPbyEKfeb_hzTQg/s1600/mirror-mirror-lily-collins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkGU_Nq0RD10y9xiKXskgwSBMbgrtCkcsFFHFUxgcKqWgQxsml0aVcLUFlyOD4DjdcUCMYP4XDdHon4RfYR1cvLnjjUpt9UTMRefSBGBKd81fPFHQSFajzwSoLwUU-EPbyEKfeb_hzTQg/s320/mirror-mirror-lily-collins.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>Mirror Mirror </i>is the first of this year's two Snow White films to be released and is probably the most familiar looking for those harking back to the classic Disney version. The colours are vivid and visuals stunning.<br />
<br />
All the familiar elements are there, although given a decidedly 21st century twist - so the seven dwarves are social outcasts turned bandits, it is Snow White who rescues the Prince from an enchantment with true love's kiss and so on. In fact this Snow is far more of an action heroine than the traditional Disney princess (although probably less so than Kristen Stewart's warrior maiden to be seen later this year in <i>Snow White and the Huntsmen</i>). That said, the "message" of Snow White discovering her true self/believing in herself feels very Disney.<br />
<br />
And if all of that seems a bit too worthy, fear not. Director Tarsem has a track record of films that are very inventive, with lots of ideas and energy, but also a bit messy (see <i>The Fall</i>). Here he also throws into the mix bits that feel like they come from other legends, like the mysterious beast in the forest and an interesting interpretation of the mirror, but on this occasion it really works for him and the film is a lot of fun to watch.<br />
<br />
The dwarves, both individually and as a group, are great value and wonderful to watch. Lily "daughter of Phil" Collins does a decent job in the lead and Julia Roberts clearly enjoys getting to play the bad guy and does so with relish. However, the real revelation here is <i>The Social Network's </i>Armie Hammer who brings the physique of the romantic lead with the comic timing to make himself a bit ridiculous when required.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 7/10</b></i><b> A suitably modern twist which is genuinely fun and inventive.</b><br />
<b> </b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-69186600468609713652012-04-18T21:13:00.000+00:002012-04-18T21:13:04.083+00:00The Hunger Games<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidooXaGSIbKHuW4mlsmOr7WtGhu7EZMee4g0f29xFo9swPahouKbLeEt4SXDwPbaXeY_7RC54dKargQE-jjke2KOm-WBKg5l58m1VJhOH_5kkK_tlwWKAUEHPAQT6xqVTz_iNrJQE5VyY/s1600/The-Hunger-Games-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidooXaGSIbKHuW4mlsmOr7WtGhu7EZMee4g0f29xFo9swPahouKbLeEt4SXDwPbaXeY_7RC54dKargQE-jjke2KOm-WBKg5l58m1VJhOH_5kkK_tlwWKAUEHPAQT6xqVTz_iNrJQE5VyY/s320/The-Hunger-Games-007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><i>The Hunger Games</i> is the latest big screen adaptation from a successful series of teen-lit, but don't let that put you off. Unlike many, it's actually both an entertaining film and a genuinely cinematic one.<br />
<br />
Whilst the plot has a definite debt to the likes of <i>Battle Royale</i> (outlying districts are each required to provide two youngsters each year to compete in a contest to the death for the entertainment of the rich capital) the setting also owes something to <i>Metropolis</i> in its distinction between rich and poor.<br />
<br />
Our hero is Katniss (the excellent Jennifer Lawrence combining her steeliness from <i>Winter's Bone</i> with the action elements of some of her other roles) who volunteers in order to save her little sister. She's joined from her district by Josh Hutcherson (not bad but the weakest link in the film), who is secretly in love with her, whilst she has her own fellow back in the district. These emotional sub-plots remain just that - they add depth to the action, but unlike certain other teen franchises don't swamp it.<br />
<br />
The action within the games remains firmly 12A certificate so as not to alienate the target audience as Katniss fights for survival against the specially trained volunteers from the richer districts. Meanwhile, outside the arena, we are shown the manouevring and conspiring to provide a spectacle whilst remaining in control. The adult cast is very strong with particularly good turns from Woody Harrelson as the drunken mentor to Lawrence and Hutchison and from Donald Sutherland as the cynically manipulative president.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day the satiric points about violence as entertainment and the use of the media to enable to control, etc... are not very subtle, but crucially the story and the film are entertaining and thrilling enough to bear the load.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 8/10</b></i><b> What it may lack in originality it makes up for in being so well done throughout that it still feels fresh. A genuinely good film.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-61645998103449386572012-04-18T19:49:00.000+00:002012-04-18T19:49:02.138+00:00Delicacy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyvcZj8cx9W8V_bSysCkMyv2gk-lrKgUn3v6N3STazjae0uihIPomByeBqiVMK5O_qli0qBVmwaNmi_e4k-uLIrD4AA7a3af52r4-_vX3C-dJBO1gnpiRumnWruhod69HKyJZ7HmC9eI8/s1600/delicacy-review_320.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyvcZj8cx9W8V_bSysCkMyv2gk-lrKgUn3v6N3STazjae0uihIPomByeBqiVMK5O_qli0qBVmwaNmi_e4k-uLIrD4AA7a3af52r4-_vX3C-dJBO1gnpiRumnWruhod69HKyJZ7HmC9eI8/s320/delicacy-review_320.jpg" width="270" /></a></div><i>Delicacy</i> is the latest "quirky" French film starring Audrey Tautou. She plays Nathalie, who we see in the opening 10 minutes meet, fall in love with and marry the love of her life, Francois. Then he's killed in a road accident whilst out jogging and Nathalie starts to lose her way. Unfortnately so does the film.<br />
<br />
It starts with the heavy-handed voice-over at the funeral - "what if I freeze this moment and wall myself up in my grief". We're about to be shown her doing this for the next half an hour, we don't need her spelling it out for us. Then the film can't really decide what it wants to be. It's been marketed as a sort of rom-com and it has elements of that as Nathalie years later rediscovers love through the affections of the unlikely Marcus (Francois Damiens). And the film has moments of humour and moments where it tries to touch on the deep emotions involved both for Nathalie overcoming her grief and for Marcus overcoming his shy clumsiness. However, the moments when it successfully manages to merge these into a coherent film are few and far between.<br />
<br />
The main problem seems to be with Damiens' character and how the film treats him. Damiens was the comic-relief sidekick to Romain Duris in <i>Heartbreaker</i> and was great at it. The problem is that the directors here seem to want him now to be both comic relief and romantic lead, which is a very difficult balance to find and they miss it by quite a margin by going for a humour that is too broad and makes Marcus look too ridiculous for them to then be able to find pathos in the character when it is required. Part of the point of the film seems to be an encouragement to look deeper than the surface awkwardness and lack of looks, but that is kind of undermined when we are also asked to laugh repeatedly at just that awkwardness.<br />
<br />
Still, the film has some good moments and Tautou is as watchable as ever, although we've seen her do this role many times before.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 5.5/10 </b></i><b>It has some funny moments and some moments of feeling, but all too few moments when they combine successfully.</b><br />
<b> </b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-60773051480615423352012-04-15T18:27:00.003+00:002012-04-18T16:24:53.923+00:00Edinburgh Council Elections HustingsPurely for information purposes, these are the hustings that I'm aware of for the City Council elections over the coming weeks:<br />
<br />
<b>19th April 19.00 - 21.30</b> Spurtle, <i>St mary's church, Bellevue Crescent</i>, Leith Walk Ward.<br />
<br />
<b>19th April 19.00 - 21.00</b> Edinburgh City RC Justice and Peace Group, <i><span class="visible">St Mary's Metropolit<wbr></wbr>an Cathedral Hall, </span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="visible"><b>19th April 19.00 - 21.00</b> Active Citizenship, <i>City Chambers</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="visible"><b>19th April 19.00 - 21.30 </b>Craigmillar Question Time, <i>Hays Business Centre</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="visible"><b>19th April 19.00 - 21.30 </b>Muirhouse, </span><i><span class="visible">Muirhouse Millennium<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break"></span> Centre, Muirhouse Medway</span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="visible"><b>19th April 19.30 - 21.30 </b>Craigleith/Blackhall CC, </span><i><span class="visible">Large Hall, Blackhall St Columba's Church</span></i><i><span class="visible"> </span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="visible"><b>19th April 19.30 - 21.30 </b>Almond, </span><i><span class="visible">Cramond Kirk Millennium<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break"></span> Hall</span></i><i><span class="visible"> </span></i><br />
<i><span class="visible"></span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="visible"><b>23rd April 19.30-21.30</b> </span>Murrayfield Community Council and Murrayfield Parish Church, <i>Murrayfield Parish Church.</i><br />
<i> </i><b> </b><br />
<b>24th April </b><b>19.30-22.00</b> Drylaw & Telford Community Council, <i>Drylaw Neighbourhood Centre</i><br />
<br />
<b>25th April </b><b>19.00-21.30</b> Broughton Spurtle City Centre Hustings, <i>St Mary’s Parish Church, Bellvue Crescent</i><br />
<br />
<b>25th April 19.00 - 21.30 </b>Portobello Hustings, <i>Portobello Town Hall</i><br />
<br />
<i> </i><b>26th April </b><b>18.00-20.00</b> Unison Hustings, <i>Augustine Church, George IV Bridge</i><br />
<br />
<b>26th April 18.00-20.30</b> Forth Hustings,<i> Royston Wardieburn Community Centre</i><br />
<br />
<b>27th April 17.30pm </b>EUSA (Edinburgh Uni Students), <i>Teviot Study, Bristo Square </i><br />
<br />
If anyone knows of any others please let me know and I'll add them.<i> </i><br />
<span class="visible"> </span>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-49139424780583722242012-04-14T18:18:00.000+00:002012-04-14T18:18:45.160+00:0021 Jump Street<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBy4P3cCLXtSqg3gpVMEXqMcI-WP4BSZgapzgSggcByKLsVJSnuafBx4nbQO3mktQCEtyEilZ700sCB3W9GqI3ceiy6aCwm1QE9UZEkXXuq26pAOj2QC6N4jDiVrzH5OiuXBNbqeN4eFU/s1600/21-jump-street-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBy4P3cCLXtSqg3gpVMEXqMcI-WP4BSZgapzgSggcByKLsVJSnuafBx4nbQO3mktQCEtyEilZ700sCB3W9GqI3ceiy6aCwm1QE9UZEkXXuq26pAOj2QC6N4jDiVrzH5OiuXBNbqeN4eFU/s320/21-jump-street-007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Have a few film reviews to catch up with here. So, starting with <i>21 Jump Street, </i>the latest in the conveyor-belt of big-screen adaptations from long past TV series. To be honest, I don't remember the series being that much of a thing in the UK, but it did lauch the career of a certain Johnny Depp.<br />
<br />
As is tranditional in these adaptations, it features the obligatory cameo by the star of the TV series - although in this case it is one of the highlights of the film and wins extra marks for having Depp on the screen for some time before you realise it's actually him.<br />
<br />
The film as a whole keeps the central idea of cops going undercover in High School and then just tries to have a laugh with it. The humour varies hugely from some quite witty and "meta" cleverness about reviving old programmes from the 80s and passing them off as new to appear clever. Most of it however is very broad humour (at times going way too far), however it is done with such an endless enthusiasm and energy that it will probably get you laughing for at least some of the running time. It's just that afterwards you might feel a bit embarasssed about laughing at it.<br />
<br />
Channing Tatum proves a surprisingly reliable comic hand as one of the cops, whilst Jonah Hill is on less irritating than usual form as his partner. However, it's Ice Cube as the angry black lieutenant ("embrace your stereotypes") who comes close to stealing the whole film.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 6/10 </b></i><b>Done with lots of energy and enthusiasm and the odd moment of inspiration. It's a bit hit and miss, but could be worse.</b><br />
<b> </b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-89010320142932738752012-04-13T17:29:00.001+00:002012-04-15T20:15:19.296+00:00Some thoughts on the upcoming elections for Edinburgh City Council<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGbTHKtDRCQ0Wlefg0ui7c9Hgk1trYtz_P59dWHiKAbXjyT-JSTcINbC9Zv2Kd-7cYLlFtTVAdumK_iMONlpzAwY_LsJqYlWRsToGTZKpJbHBw9BWvoRJ1OLV6yVFdL4FGp1DinP32su4/s1600/Skyline-Edinburgh-Scotlan-006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGbTHKtDRCQ0Wlefg0ui7c9Hgk1trYtz_P59dWHiKAbXjyT-JSTcINbC9Zv2Kd-7cYLlFtTVAdumK_iMONlpzAwY_LsJqYlWRsToGTZKpJbHBw9BWvoRJ1OLV6yVFdL4FGp1DinP32su4/s320/Skyline-Edinburgh-Scotlan-006.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>It's nearly the start of May, which means it getting close to election time!<br />
<br />
In Edinburgh this year, this means we get to vote for the wonderful city council. Now many people might feel that after the debacle over the trams last year, when it took the intervention of Holyrood to stop the muppets coming up with the most crazy solutions possible to a calamity largely of their own making, that none of them deserve to get back in and I would have some sympathy with that view.<br />
<br />
Actually there are some decent councillors in all parties. Unfortunately there are also some complete numpties and in party politics, unlike in a bottle of milk, the cream doesn't always rise to the top.<br />
<br />
<i><b>What are they standing for?</b></i><br />
<br />
This is a completely biased and firmly tongue in cheek view of what the various parties will do if elected, gathered from the various bits of paper they have so far put through my letter box (and the ones that I have put through other people's on behalf of the Greens).<br />
<i><b> </b></i><br />
<i><b>SNP - </b></i>are very proud of their council tax freeze and reducing council spending (<i>that's what's known as cuts when the evil coalition do it at a national level</i>). They're also very proud of taking absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for anything unpopular or cack-handed that the current (LD-<i><b>SNP)</b></i> administration has done - and there sure are a lot of them.<br />
<i><b>Conservatives </b></i>- seem to be very unhappy and very concerned about any number of different things. (<i>Well, let's face it, as Tories in Scotland they have a lot to be unhappy and concerned about</i>).<br />
<i><b>The Lib-Dems</b></i> - seem to be very proud of lots of roadworks and holes in the ground and buiding sites- their leaflet featured at least 4 photos of such. Given the current state of Edinburgh this seems like a curious electoral strategy, but maybe they can see the writing on the wall and it's all just an elaborate electoral suicide note.<br />
<i><b>Labour - </b></i>have yet to give me a leaflet - odd as they actually do have a councillor for this ward. But I do know that they, in contrast to the LDs, are promising no more holes in the ground, ever, even if they're desperately needed. Oh, and they're hoping that you will have forgotten that they were in power up until 2007 and helped to contribute to the mess that the current lot have made such a mess of sorting out.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>And nobody, but nobody is mentioning the Trams.</b></i><br />
<br />
Being equally biased, but less tongue in cheek, the <i><b>Greens</b></i> are standing for promoting renewables and energy efficiency on a community level, safer cycle routes, protecting local businesses, giving local communities more say over how money is spent in their areas through initiatives such as £eith Decides and protecting the city's green spaces, amongst other things. I could go on, but you can read more <a href="http://www.edinburghgreens.org.uk/site/news/manifesto-2012/">here</a> if you're interested.<br />
<br />
<i><b>So what's likely to happen?</b></i><br />
<br />
One thing we can say for sure is that no party will have outright control of the council for the simple reason that no party is fielding enough candidates to take outright control.<br />
The LD vote is likely to crash as it did last may and in the City Cenre by-election in August (when they lost almost two-thirds of their vote share). They recognise this - only fielding 1 candidate per ward and effectively giving up two seats before a vote has been cast. Many of the sitting councillors are not re-standing.<br />
The SNP will probably gain seats, but maybe not do as spectacularly well as last May.<br />
Labour should also be looking to pick up seats - 2007 was not a good year for them. But they should have been looking to make gains last year as well and look how that worked out for them.<br />
Having looked into it, I'd hazard a guess that the post-election council chamber may look something like this:<br />
SNP 19 (+7)<br />
Lab 18 (+3)<br />
Con 11 (no change)<br />
LD 6 (-11)<br />
Grn 4 (+1)<br />
Although I'm hopeful and cautiously optimistic that there may be a few more Greens than that.<br />
<br />
Now, according to the unwritten rules of Scottish politics, nobody wants to work with the Tories. The SNP group leader, the delightful Steve Cardownie, seems to be doing his best to alienate all possible coalition partners and even if an agreement could be reached for a traffic light coalition (red-orange-green) they may not have the seats for a majority.<br />
<br />
Now, a minority administration might not be a bad thing, it could force a lot of issue-by-issue negotiation which could bring creative solutions to Edinburgh's many problems. It would require skill and delicacy in handling though, neither of which are qualities the various party leaders in Edinburgh seem to possess in much abundance. Which leads me to:<i><b> </b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>An passionate plea to voters in Forth ward:</b></i><br />
If you are thinking of voting SNP, give the guy who's not Cardownie your 1st preference and then put your ballot in the box without a 2nd thought. Edinburgh will be always in your debt.<br />
<i><b> </b></i><br />
<b><i>Meadows/Morningside - a 2nd preference dilemma</i></b>.<br />
<br />
We all know who's going to get my first preference and I'm fairly confident that the Green candidate here, Melanie Main, will get in and do a great job as councillor. However, I'm not sure how to then express my other preferences. I have a choice of 6 other candidates: Conservative, Lib-Dem, UKIP, SNP, Labour and Pirate. It may all well be academic as Melanie may not be elected until the 3rd or 4th councillor for the ward, in which case the vote transfers will matter little, but just in case...<br />
<br />
Normally my second choice would be <i><b>Lib-Dem</b></i>, but their candidate is now council leader Jenny Dawe, moving here from her previous ward as she was going to be outperformed there by her party colleague and lose her seat. I just cannot bring myself to express any preference for her at all. Similarly, I could never express any preference for <i><b>UKIP</b></i> except in a straight choice between them and the far right.<br />
<br />
The <i><b>conservative</b></i> councillor actually seems to have done a decent job, but is probably the most likely to be elected first without the need for transfers. Besides which, I don't like what the party stands for and I'm proud of my record of never having voted for them (even a second preference). The same record applies to <i><b>Labour</b></i> and their councillor seems to have been rather anonymous in this part of the ward from what I've seen apart from failing to get elected as an MSP last year.<br />
<br />
The <i><b>SNP </b></i>are not a party I'm overly fond of at the moment either and they've certainly contributed to the mess of the current council, but their candidate quite impressed me when he stood for Westminster in 2010.<br />
<br />
So, I'm thinking:<br />
1. Green (of course)<br />
2. Pirate (as I may never have another chance to vote for a Pirate)<br />
3. SNP (on the off-chance the final seat will come down to either them or the LDs).<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE </b>- I've now had a leaflet from Labour and am none the wiser what they're standing for.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-44477805642446808962012-04-01T20:09:00.000+00:002012-04-01T20:09:53.534+00:00The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEv2ZfQxA00P2MlsR6pdghLmnSbFEu95ajsJkkTJ_8cjjiOUWZU57IsSu1RrP_wQNdL5E5GHXTB-U9pamLFl2UsfgKuu2uVcFopjjviHQKGfw6Y_ffXOnX6cGPL-KR-qavgYq7BUUuAZ0/s1600/the-pirates-in-an-adventure-with-scientists-i-L-QMCWLj.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEv2ZfQxA00P2MlsR6pdghLmnSbFEu95ajsJkkTJ_8cjjiOUWZU57IsSu1RrP_wQNdL5E5GHXTB-U9pamLFl2UsfgKuu2uVcFopjjviHQKGfw6Y_ffXOnX6cGPL-KR-qavgYq7BUUuAZ0/s320/the-pirates-in-an-adventure-with-scientists-i-L-QMCWLj.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><i>Pirates!</i> marks Aardman's first claymation film since 2005's <i>Wallace and Gromit</i> outing, following the luke-warm success of their digital animation efforts (<i>Flushed Away</i> and <i>Arthur Christmas</i>, both of which were rather enjoyable and underrated IMHO). But this is Aardman back on their own territory and back on great form.<br />
<br />
There is something very British about the whole effort - from small visual gags including a Blue Peter badge to the overall silly and anarchic sense of humour that owes at least some of its comic DNA to the likes of Monty Python (the illustrated map journeys are at least somewhat reminiscent of Terry Gilliam's illustrated interludes).<br />
<br />
There's also much here to love - from the character names that part inspired, part lazy (Pirate Captain, Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate, Pirate with Gout) to the visuals that feels both homemade and impressive at the same time to the more clever and subtle gags about Darwin's theory of evolution. There are moments of genius in the mix - like the monkey who speaks through the medium of speech cards.<br />
<br />
The voice cast is strong (Brendan Gleeson, Martin Freeman, Imelda Staunton, David Tennant) but special praise should go to an almost unrecognisable Hugh Grant who brings something special to the Pirate Captain.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 8.5/10</b></i><b> The whole film is filled with such an inventive and exuberant sense of fun that it will keep you laughing right through the closing credits.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-67635647622775231092012-03-30T10:58:00.000+00:002012-03-30T10:58:41.562+00:00Bradford West - what a shocker!Yesterday's Bradford West by-election was supposed to be a straightforward hold for Labour. They had held the seat comfortably for a long time and with their nearet rivals suffering a post-budget, alleged fuel crisis slump in the polls, surely nothing could go wrong.<br />
<br />
It was also meant to be a last hurrah for Respect/the George Galloway vanity project. They had been suffering a decline in the polls almost as bad as the BNP's and were facing being wiped off Birmingham city council this May and reduced to a couple of councillors in Tower Hamlets (where local politics is decidedly "odd").<br />
<br />
The voters of Bradford didn't read the script however and Galloway took the seat with a massive 10,000 vote majority and a 36.6% swing since the General election (the second largest post-war swing, topped only by Simon Hughes win in Bermondsey). It's also the first time in over a decade that the main opposition party have lost a seat in a by-election.<br />
<br />
Normally, I quite enjoy seeing the big parties come a cropper and seeing safe seats fall. Normally it restores my faith in democracy, but I find it difficult to see this as a good thing. Here are my reasons:<br />
<br />
- George Galloway is an egotistical demagogue who spent most of his last stint as an MP shamelessly promoting George Galloway away from the Commons rather than doing his job in it. (I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone of his <i>Big Brother</i> antics.<br />
<br />
- I understand that he spent most of his victory speech last night, as he did in 2005, shamelessly attacking all and sundry and implying some sort of conspiracy to stop him getting elected. (In truth, if there had been anything dodgy about this election I rather suspect it would have worked in his favour rather than against him).<br />
<br />
- Respect are not some cuddly anti-war party. They play on the worst kind of sectional interests and stir things up in order to get votes and power in the muslim community. In some ways, they stoke the same fires as the BNP. (I also wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of backlash boost for the far-right in response to this result). This is not a result which aids a harmonious Britain for either muslim or non-muslim.<br />
<br />
That said, although it's a disastrous result for Labour and scarcely better for anyone else it is a one-off and its wider political implications can be easily over-stated. And hopefully the voters of Bradford will take the opportunity to kick George out again at the earliest opportunity.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-53099557071686612842012-03-29T20:58:00.000+00:002012-03-29T20:58:11.310+00:00Contraband<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCbD9T3WEEoACPXXPpZY62hgfcTKd6qCaVPcUu24SIJHa71_GfF7xvvziFeMsaE44cHo8w8TmmVbD75lLWz8YH7TNbZMftL-4AaTLR00chk2Ix_ysQbSambdXoj53NpuGb9kqCXPRjo64/s1600/contraband_featured.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCbD9T3WEEoACPXXPpZY62hgfcTKd6qCaVPcUu24SIJHa71_GfF7xvvziFeMsaE44cHo8w8TmmVbD75lLWz8YH7TNbZMftL-4AaTLR00chk2Ix_ysQbSambdXoj53NpuGb9kqCXPRjo64/s320/contraband_featured.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><i>Contraband</i> is just about as predictable as you might expect from the trailer, but is also surprisingly more enjoyable than expected. It also confirms the recent dearth of Hollywood creativity in genres they once ruled, as this film which feels so American is actually a remake of Icelandic thriller <i>Reykjavik Rotterdam</i>.<br />
<br />
Mark Wahlberg plays Chris Farraday an ex- master smuggler who is forced into the ever familiar one last job in order to extricate his brother-in-law (Caleb Landry-Jones) from a debt to drug dealers (Giovanni Ribisi) he was smuggling. From there on the twists and turns are fairly predictable as three smuggled cargos end up being juggled through a sea of mishaps and betrayals. The film can't really decide what it wants to be - at times there is a real menace to it (especially when Ribisi is threatening Kate Beckinsale (Farraday's wife) in the film's nastiest moments). At other times it goes for a twisty kind of playfulness and at others still for out and out action.<br />
<br />
There is a strong cast - but none of them are really stretching themselves - we've seen Wahlberg's blue-collar criminal hero, Ribisi's redneck psycho and Ben Foster's redneck with issues all before. Beckinsale is underused, as is Diego Luna, whilst JK Simmons comes close to stealing the movie as the freighter captain on whose boat the smuggling takes place.<br />
<br />
Somehow, though, it all kind of works and director Baltasar Kormakur (who was also producer on the original) keeps things moving quickly enough that you don't have time to think about why nobody notices huge bundles of forged dollars floating in the middle of a major waterway.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 6.5/10 </b></i><b>Solid but predictable genre piece that is surprisingly enjoyable.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-67477001468600458652012-03-18T20:33:00.000+00:002012-03-18T20:33:04.167+00:00John Carter<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwFnRo0rX08PofyyGk8I1XBTq_jwnyiTIhDs4GxFlqX-3vd-2L7DhdX4MJrY7iQk9vqTirbopBxrjMMjYEFOuAYfHR7hyphenhyphenow4_U5Lt6YP2x-jcpslMlodtUL5fLMI-booN2A4OnUKQjORg/s1600/Earthbound---John-Carter--007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwFnRo0rX08PofyyGk8I1XBTq_jwnyiTIhDs4GxFlqX-3vd-2L7DhdX4MJrY7iQk9vqTirbopBxrjMMjYEFOuAYfHR7hyphenhyphenow4_U5Lt6YP2x-jcpslMlodtUL5fLMI-booN2A4OnUKQjORg/s320/Earthbound---John-Carter--007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><i>John Carter</i> marked quite a gamble financially speaking - a $300 million film based on books from the start of the last century, with a lead best (un)known for an underwatched TV series (<i>Friday Night Lights)</i> and a director making his debut in live action films (albeit with a strong track record in Pixar animations with <i>WALL-E </i>and<i> Finding Nemo</i>).<br />
<br />
The initial box office returns from the States show that this gamble may not have been entirely successful financially. And that's actually rather a shame, because, despite being heavily dependant on modern special effects, John Carter is actually a rather entertaining movie in a slightly old-fashioned blockbuster kind of way. This shares more cinematic genes with the original <i>Star Wars </i>films than the more modern prequels and is all the better for it.<br />
<br />
The story (once you get past the double framing device which only really pays dividends at the end) follows the titular hero as he is accidentally transported to Mars where the much lighter gravity gives him almost super-powers and he gets involved in the ongoing conflict between warring tribes. It's hardly ground-breaking stuff, but director Andrew Stanton brings at least some of the visual flair from his Pixar works and creates an exciting vision of life on Mars, but also some of the humour, making this a fun watch. Taylor Kitsch shows that he has potential as a leading man, even if he's not quite the finished article yet. Elsewhere Mark Strong does another pleasing bad-guy, Dominic West is still playing McNulty and James Purefoy is clearly enjoying himself too much, but the end result is a really rather enjoyable film.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Overall - 7/10</b></i><b> State of the art, but rather old-fashioned in feel makes for an entertaining watch.</b>Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7991143557418911673.post-64562592204729231482012-03-09T14:58:00.000+00:002012-03-09T14:58:11.345+00:00How many supermarkets do we need?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3BKzi-CEvIiWG4AIzKFXQE0ZwswIK6tvpnEcFBdQoAwA_k8z5nOBBNqYpm83J81MZrxqe58YTHSxovAg3RWoNVnPZz5LG4l56fmngmVRAc_RVfApF174tAhoN8xqM3r-QVcj1qFvmGmc/s1600/sainsburys_1618734c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3BKzi-CEvIiWG4AIzKFXQE0ZwswIK6tvpnEcFBdQoAwA_k8z5nOBBNqYpm83J81MZrxqe58YTHSxovAg3RWoNVnPZz5LG4l56fmngmVRAc_RVfApF174tAhoN8xqM3r-QVcj1qFvmGmc/s320/sainsburys_1618734c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>It was with dismay this week that I saw that Peckham's in Bruntsfield is to become yet another Sainsbury's local, although there was a small glimmer of hope when it became apparent that they had rather jumped the gun with their coming soon posters as permission has yet to be formally granted. (Unfortunately, I missed the deadline to register objections with the council).<br />
<br />
Bruntsfield Place and Morningside Road are one of the few parts of the city that retain a distinct character, with different and unique local shops. Sainsburys will add nothing practically that isn't already available close by, whilst their standard isue store frontage will be completely out of place with the aesthetics of the street which retains a great deal of character.<br />
<br />
There is also the question of how many supermarkets we really need in this city. My half an hour walk home from Princes St would now take me past or very close to 2 Tesco and 2 Sainsbury in a very small geographically area at Tollcross, plus a Scotmid, then the planned Sainsburys in Bruntsfield, another Tesco at Holy Corner, Waitrose on Morningside Rd, Marks and Spencers Food and then another planned Sainsburys at the bottom of Morningside Rd.<br />
<br />
Of course, most of these shops are relatively small, so the overkill in this area pales into insignificance compared to the sheer lunacy of the council's planning decisions in nearby Gorgie, where (against the advice of officials) planning permission has been given for a large Morrison's at Hutchison Road and a large Sainsbury's on the old B+Q site at Longstone. Taking into account the already existing massive Asda at Chesser and the new Sainsburys at Gorgie that makes 4 large supermarkets in a chain with each one separated from the next by no more than a few hundred metres. Bearing that in mind, treat any claims that this LD-SNP administration is supporting local business with a big pinch of salt come voting time in May.<br />
<br />
Personally, I'm setting myself a target not to shop in either new Sainsburys when they open and try to make as much use as possible of the excellent local shops already in the area. Resist.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04802907313835087913noreply@blogger.com0