Noise to Signal

Login disabled.


Feel free to suggest a superior title for this newly semi-regular film column of mine, which is at present supposed to be a pun of Cinerama, although evidently not one so good as to not require me explaining it. This time, Cineblahblah sprays it's critical fluid up inside droll satire Thank You For Smoking, popular epic Return Of The King - Extended Edition, pene-drama Shortbus, and the Oscar-nominated drama Venus.


Venus is a little like Lost In Translation, if it were set in London, and featured a sexually-fixated geriatric making friends with an abrasive "chav". In an award-encrusted role, Peter O'Toole plays Maurice, a once-great actor reduced to occasional bit-parts as corpses, who takes a shine to Jessie, the gobby great-neice of his bumbling, grumpy friend Ian (Leslie Phillips). Where Ian is averse to her inability to cook hallibut, Maurice forms an unlikely, passive-aggressive friendship with her in an attempt to educate her in the finer things in life, though Maurices genuine affections are coupled with some creepy lechery.

It's directed by Roger "Notting Hill" Michell, and written by Hanif "The Most Over-rated Author Literally Of All Time" Kureishi, so one might be forgiven for not expecting subtlety to be the order of the day. Michell's previous attempt at adapting a novel by a boring WH-Smith-Book-Of-The-Month tit was Enduring Love from the novel by Ian McEwan, the most ponderously tedious and wanky boring film ever made, ever by anyone. Similarly, for those not familiar with Kureishi's drunk-train-driver approach to social politics of the 1980s, here's an extract from his first novel, The Buddha Of Suburbia.

"Charlie Sexy-but-somehow-dangerous was lying on his leopardskin chaise longue, tightening the silver crocodile-skin belt around his forearm and shooting up on heroins. He always did this before a gig with his punk rock group, because he was an anarchist. He didn't really care about rules, or little bits of paper with pictures of stupid things on them. He thought all that stuff was bollocks. When he sang about it, and the footlights glinted off the safety pins in his eyelids, it was like the sound of all the black, white, chinese and asian kids in the world fucking eachother and burning effigies of Thatcher. Charlie had a big cock, and sometimes I wanked him off even though I was asian and he was white and we were both boys. Once, I'd nearly bummed him, but we fell down the stairs and I knocked myself out on a copy of 'Zen & The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance'. Can you imagine? I thought about my Uncle Ramadan Singh, probably still sitting in his corner shop eating poppadoms and samosas that he kept in his turban. What a square. It all seemed so far away now."

He also wrote and directed My Beautiful Laundrette, in which a neo-nazi falls in love with an asian and they're BOTH BOYS! It's *rubbish*. Still, I wanted to see what trouble the ever-wonderful Peter O'Toole went to in order to lose out on a Best Actor Oscar for the record 8th time. And to my surprise, Venus turned out to be a perfectly delightful film. Kureishi's fucking lefty patronising social bollocks is still evident in the clumsy, patronising depiction of VER STOOPID WORKIN' CLASSIZ WIV THEIR BASEBALL CAPZ AND VER BAD DICTION and it plays things a little bit safe but by virtue of a perfect cast and traditional, stylish direction it achieves moments of rare poignancy.

Key to it's charms is the depth with which it imbues the elder characters in the script - Jessie is the only speaking character not old enough for a free bus pass. It's rare to see in modern cinema, and to once again witness Peter O'Toole getting his teeth into such a rich part is wonderful. His touching friendship with Phillips and their ruminations on life, dwindling fame, ailing health and suchlike couldn't sound truer. Arguably, these roles require little of the actors other than being themselves - but they possess the charisma, charm, grace, wit and respect that the parts require. A scene where they arse about ballroom dancing in a church is really desperately touching.

O'Toole in particular needs the faded glamour of his big, blue eyes and the hangdog resignation that fuel his magnetic charm to get away with some of the more pervy antics he gets up to in his prickly friendship with Jessie, whose cultural education includes allowing him occasional access to the extremities of her body with his wandering, crinkly hands, usually as long as he buys her something nice. Peter O'Toole could basically be beating a bag of labrador puppies with a crowbar and I'd still find it endearing. I'd watch a film of him taking a nap.

It'd get more than 3/5 if it didn't have BLOODY POP SONGS on it, but I'm very strict about that sort of thing.


Why did nobody tell me about this? I went to see the first Lord Of The Rings film, despite having read the first book and been too overwhelmed by it's crapness to carry on. I thought that perhaps there was just something about the style that didn't appeal to me, so gave the film the best possible chance to impress me. I liked the film-makers, they appeared to have written out that fucking stupid character at the start in yellow wellingtons who runs around the forest singing fucking stupid songs, what could go wrong? What went wrong was that it was also shit - just a bunch of boring things happening one after the other until a boring ending where nothing happens apart from Enya comes on the Hobbits look like they're going to kiss eachother for the fifteenth time. Just get on with it, you miniature queer bastards.

But RETURN OF THE KING is somewhere approaching the BEST FILM EVER. I even watched the four hour version, and I've got the attention span of a goldfish. Already, while I've been writing this review, I've followed a butterfly out of the room, read two magazines, eaten a sandwich and washed my hair. The reason Return Of The King is so good is mostly because there isn't a lot of plot. I think they got all that out of the way in the previous film, which was probably boring like the first one. In this one, things are pretty simple. There's the good guys, who you can recognise because they're people. Then there's the bad guys, who you can by and large recognise because they're grotesque, horrible, inhuman ogre creatures with green faces and claws and they're complete bastards and hard as nails. And everyone has a great big fight. It's just a war movie! Except it's like one of those old fashioned war movies, without any of this new fangled sympathy for the enemy, war-crime guilt, harrowing experience shit. It's just a bunch of awesome warriors beating the shit out of a bunch of total bastards. Only it's even better than THAT, because it's not even real, so if things start to get a bit stale, the enemy attack with a giant fucking steel wolf that breathes fire, followed by a parade of massive warrior elephants, which Orlando Bloom uses his extreme-surfer skills to clamber up and fire arrows into its brain. Stuff like that. Giant eagles fighting dragons and then an army of thousands and thousands of glowing green ghostly skeleton soldiers ride across a canyon and beat the shit out of everyone. And there's loads of bits where people fall off really high buildings and the camera goes "WHEEEEEE" down with them as they bounce off stuff and even Ian McKellen goes shitbag crazy in battle and starts cutting people open and battering them with his staff left right and centre. Even the queer hobbit off Lost gets to cut people up. Sorry, not people, AWESOME FANTASY MONSTERS. This film almost made me want to go to Games Workshop. The entirely CG gollum already looks a bit old hat in the wake of Davy Jones in Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 (and soon, 3) but the strength of Andy Serkis' performance beneath the pixels (the character was motion captured from his performance on-set) sells it. Five out of five!


This is quite a peculiar film. It's essentially hardcore pornography for a large part, but also quite spiritually uplifting. Which is a combination I imagine won't work for a lot of people, but allow me to try and convince you. The ensemble pene-drama (a term I have just coined for any drama with scenes of graphic penetration) follows a troubled homosexual couple as they open up to threesomes, a female sex therapist who has never had an orgasm and her needy husband, a pervy neighbour and a cornucopia of oddballs orbiting the Shortbus, a not very hush-hush sex and burlesque club in New York. Weird, beautiful CG interludes shoot around a kind of three dimensional oil painting of the city, adding to the weird and wonderful feeling that free, open sex and unashamed orgasming are beautiful, unifying, universal, therapeutic experiences. Shortbus wastes no time in diving headfirst into the kind of genuine, unsimulated sex that fills it - at first it's shocking, obviously, to be watching a man ejaculate into his own mouth. But the closeness that we feel with these characters, having seen them at their most honest and vulnerable, is impossibly compelling. So the climactic orgy, when they've all freed themselves of their hangups and worries, and a great big fucking marching band comes and joins in, is impossibly uplifting. Also, it's got a bit where someone sings the national anthem into someone elses arse. 4/5.


Where did Aaron Eckhart come from? He looks like Viggo Mortensen in the back of a spoon and I hadn't heard of him last week, but now he's going to play Harvey Dent in the sequel to Batman Begins, he was excellent in Brian DePalmas The Black Dahlia, and he takes the lead role in this fantastic verbose comedy of spin, outshining an already stellar cast which includes William H Macy, Maria Bello, Robert Duvall, Katy Holmes, Adam Brody, Rob Lowe, Sam Elliot, David Koechner, JK Simmons, and loads more "oh, it's THEM! What were THEY in?" sort of people.

While it's been nice to laugh out loud a lot at the cinema lately, it's high time that a comedy did so in a slightly more intelligent way. I mean, I like Nick Frost, and I like Will Ferrell, but to be laughing at a clever, satirical script instead of someone arsing around and shouting and getting their head stuck in things was a refreshing experience. The script is tight, unpredictable and witty, and also surprisingly moralistic for a story that centres on a pro-smoking lobbyist. It's more about the nature of spin than the product being spun, but also takes the time to investigate the kind of person who would not only do such a job, but do it so well. His journey of moral redemption tempers the satire a little, but not so much as to really irk. Like most of it's characters the film is slick, efficient and clever, and worth a smouldering 4/5.

About this entry


I don't agree with you about Lord of the Rings. Fellowship of the Ring is the best of the three IMO. By the time of Return of the King it had become too big for Peter Jackson to contain and so he didn't, he allowed it to get too bloated and overblown. YES, there's a huge battle in it, and that's great, really amazing scenes, but the potential wasn't fulfilled with the story. The Two Towers was better. And if you rip the books off then that's your preregotave but you're fucken wrong.

By performingmonkey
March 15, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

reply / #

I'm afraid I have to agree with performingmonkey. (!) Fellowship is clearly the best of the three. Return of the King is probably second, but could have been better if it weren't for that twenty-minute slow-motion ending.

And the books are far, far better than you give them credit for. As a matter of fact, they're great. (I'd have to agree about Tom Bombadil, though. I hated that sequence in the book.)

By Austin Ross
March 15, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

reply / #

Oh yes, I don't dispute that the trilogy is a towering achievement in literature and all that. I found it unreadable, but that's my loss - I was just mouthing off.

I really felt like the Fellowship was a dreadful film, though. There's plenty for people who aren't into the books in Return Of The King, but unless you're really invested in the story from the get-go (as fans of the books probz are) the first film is slow to get going, and once it does, doesn't really go anywhere, in a really annoying walking scene/face a baddy/walking scene/face a baddy way. It's like a bloody computer game (complete with a promising cut-scene at the start, that the rest of it isn't as good as). I genuinely have never given less of a shit about any group of characters. And loads of the special effects bits are so dark you can't make out what the fuck's going on. They;re fighting a computer generated massive potato in a dungeon? And there's loads of completely rubbish, stupid dialogue like when Frodo goes "maybe it's some kind of code!" and they figure out how to get into that door next to the rubbish octopus monster (it's a while since I've seen it, sorry I can't be more specific, but I remember Gandalf is sitting on a rock stumped by this door because he hasn't realised it might be a fucking CODE, for fucks fucking fucking bloody fucking sake). I mean, it's clearly a lavish and faithful adaptation, but unless you give a shit about that, it's just a big load of boring farting about. Whereas Return Of The King is just a shitload of brilliant, dramatic, exciting things happening one happening the other, which is great even if you haven't got a bloody clue what's going on. I didn't even mind the lengthy ending - I actually was surprised to see THE END come up on the screen when it did. I thought Frodo leaving deserved a bit of space to breathe, dramatically. If I've understood the plot correctly, I'm pretty sure it didn't need TWO films to set it up. I reckon I could have edited about two hours out of FOTR and it had little or no impact on the overall plot.

But I mean, in a way, there's not much point debating LOTR with me - I've got a completely irrational aversion to every aspect of it I've been exposed to, apart from ROTK.

By Michael Lacey
March 15, 2007 @ 7:03 pm

reply / #

Your ROTK review had me laughing to tears. Friends & I watched
the trilogy as a marathon starting in the evening;
by the time we saw ROTK we were howling and
cackling drunkenly (without alcohol even). This writeup
was pretty much how I remember it. :)

By AnnabelS
March 16, 2007 @ 3:06 pm

reply / #

Bloody hell, I love the films but I'd NEVER suggest that anyone watch all three together, you're talking nine hours and that's not even the extended versions. Peter Jackson made sure each one had a different tone. My mate wanted us to do a Star Wars saga marathon (i.e. Episodes I-VI) but when I kindly reminded him that it was going to be nearly thirteen hours straight he soon forgot it.

I dare someone (that's right, DARE) to watch all eight series' of Dwarf including each series doco (you'll have to wait for the Re: bastard set to come out first though as you need the series 1 & 2 docos too), plus IDW and BS in one weekend sitting. Make sure there are no sharp objects around or you may end up stabbing someone by the time Ouroboros comes on, and hide the matches as you WILL burn your house down with you inside by the time of Pete part 2 just to end it all.

By performingmonkey
March 17, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

reply / #

I once watched all the Indiana Jones movies and all the Back To The Future films without getting out of bed. It was fucking great

By Michael Lacey
March 18, 2007 @ 3:28 am

reply / #

I actually did this with a group for Babylon 5 seasons 1-3, right before 4 came out. Took 3+ days. Re-entering reality after that felt very weird for a few hours.

By AnnabelS
March 18, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

reply / #