Is there such a thing as objective beauty? An infuriating poser from my University days as a wide-eyed philosophy student, and one of which I was reminded, in a tangential sort of way on watching The Hangover. Is there such a thing as objectively funny comedy?
The Hangover came well recommended, and after my own absolutely mental all-action weekend away for a friend's stag-do in Benidorm, I was well set for an hour and a half of comedy gold. Perhaps it is precisely because of such a build-up that the film fell a little flat. Funny undoubtedly, but not laugh-til-you-cry funny. Ironically enough, after getting home I switched on the telly-box and ended up laughing until my stomach hurt, at The Inbetweeners on Channel 4. "Stomach-achingly funny" was definitely not a label I could honestly plaster across The Hangover.
It worked well enough, but most of the gags just seemed a little telegraphed. Again, perhaps because I'd seen the trailers a few times, I felt like I knew what was coming (SPOILER ALERT!!! AVERT YOUR EYES HERE) with the baby, the tiger and Mike Tyson. All funny in principle, but as much because of the surprise value.
There were undoubtedly some very funny moments, primarily the more spontaneous, non-situational ones (which it would therefore be rather pointless to list here). The leads were likeable, and displayed some impeccable comic timing at times, and the baby, though under-used in my opinion, made me laugh every time he was on screen. I was also rather pleased to see a gross-out style comedy with precious few gross moments, although that probably has more to do with my puritanical disdain for vulgarity as a form of humour. The Hangover was not so much gross-out as unashamedly boyish, a lads' weekend in cinematic form, and with the memory loss, unexplained injuries and mattress ending up on a roof it certainly did evoke memories of the Benidorm stag-weekend.
So, it was entertaining enough, but if you've seen the trailer the punch-lines rather lose their punch. And yet, friends of mine, and various others with me in the cinema, were killing themselves with laughter. Which does lead me to wonder – is it just my sense of humour? Was it really a better film than I'm crediting it? Is there such a thing as objectively funny comedy?
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Ashes Day One - The Excitement of Moving Five-Day Chess
Was trying to explain the appeal of cricket to some good-naturedly enthusiastic lady-friends yesterday. I now admit, in hindsight, that my pitch of "five-day moving chess" probably was not the most advisable tag-line to use in trying to sell the game. My point, however, was that the ostensibly slow nature of the game is amply compensated for by the constant scope it provides for examining the current situation, and speculating as to how it might change in the blink of an eye.
At face-value, 336 for 7 is pretty even. BUT… that first hour of day two could be crucial. If the Aussies rattle through the last three wickets, in under half an hour and for 15 or so runs, they gain the upper hand. Alternatively, if we hang around for another hour and a half, and nudge over 400, we can liberally dish out back-pats, safe in the knowledge that we ought really to have removed an Australian victory from the equation.
You see? It's the examination of the situation, and what might happen that's exciting! (At this point, presumably, various non-cricket enthusiasts give up and check facebook.)
Now admittedly the first hour may fall in between these two extremes, and meander gently for an hour, with England reaching around 380 all out in thoroughly unspectacular fashion. Should that be the case, however, then the following hour will become all important, for a handful of early Australian wickets would really give England the advantage… I jest ye not, I can barely contain my excitement.
The KP Debate Continues
As mentioned, at face-value it's even, but given that England won the toss, 336 -7 is mildly disappointing. It was a placid wicket, and the Australian attack does not instil the same fear of a fairly recent yesteryear. Bopara, Strauss and Prior were dismissed by decent deliveries, but with so many batsmen having made good starts, the lack of a big hundred was disappointing, and may well cost us victory.
Having opted to bat, we should have looked for at least 450. KP's dismissal was a rather exaggerated example of how our batsmen were too charitable in giving away their wickets. Geoff Boycott described his offending shot – an attempt to sweep a ball a foot and a half outside off-stump – as "stupid".
Boycott is always outspoken, and to be honest he rather irritates me, but I think he is spot-on here. If KP were still in this morning he'd have 100 by now and we'd be cruising towards 400+.
However, in KP's defence, that is the nature of the beast. If he did not attempt those unnecessary attacking – and downright daft - shots he would neither play half the excellent-but-unorthodox shots that make him our best batsman. For every infuriating and narcissistic dismal he also hits a breath-taking bravado 50. It is a debate that will be had many a time and oft, but the All-Action opinion is that it is a trade-off worth making.
Looking forward to a crucial first hour….
At face-value, 336 for 7 is pretty even. BUT… that first hour of day two could be crucial. If the Aussies rattle through the last three wickets, in under half an hour and for 15 or so runs, they gain the upper hand. Alternatively, if we hang around for another hour and a half, and nudge over 400, we can liberally dish out back-pats, safe in the knowledge that we ought really to have removed an Australian victory from the equation.
You see? It's the examination of the situation, and what might happen that's exciting! (At this point, presumably, various non-cricket enthusiasts give up and check facebook.)
Now admittedly the first hour may fall in between these two extremes, and meander gently for an hour, with England reaching around 380 all out in thoroughly unspectacular fashion. Should that be the case, however, then the following hour will become all important, for a handful of early Australian wickets would really give England the advantage… I jest ye not, I can barely contain my excitement.
The KP Debate Continues
As mentioned, at face-value it's even, but given that England won the toss, 336 -7 is mildly disappointing. It was a placid wicket, and the Australian attack does not instil the same fear of a fairly recent yesteryear. Bopara, Strauss and Prior were dismissed by decent deliveries, but with so many batsmen having made good starts, the lack of a big hundred was disappointing, and may well cost us victory.
Having opted to bat, we should have looked for at least 450. KP's dismissal was a rather exaggerated example of how our batsmen were too charitable in giving away their wickets. Geoff Boycott described his offending shot – an attempt to sweep a ball a foot and a half outside off-stump – as "stupid".
Boycott is always outspoken, and to be honest he rather irritates me, but I think he is spot-on here. If KP were still in this morning he'd have 100 by now and we'd be cruising towards 400+.
However, in KP's defence, that is the nature of the beast. If he did not attempt those unnecessary attacking – and downright daft - shots he would neither play half the excellent-but-unorthodox shots that make him our best batsman. For every infuriating and narcissistic dismal he also hits a breath-taking bravado 50. It is a debate that will be had many a time and oft, but the All-Action opinion is that it is a trade-off worth making.
Looking forward to a crucial first hour….
Monday, 6 July 2009
Transformers 2 - How Good Would This Be If It Were An 18...?
First things first - any film in which giant robots relentlessly beat each other up while just about everything explodes in the background can't possibly be bad.
However, no film – no film – should ever leave any self-respecting All Action No Plotter musing halfway through that it's gone on rather a long time. And this, regrettably, is why Transformers 2 will never be granted access into the pantheon of all-time All-Action-No-Plot celluloid greats.
Transformers 2 is an entertaining action film, no mistake. As mentioned, giant robot fights; lots of crash, bang and walloping, some inspired comedy moments and eye-candy a-plenty. The film begins with the likeable, if bafflingly-named, Shia LeBoeuf heading off to college to lead a normal life. This plan lasts about 30 seconds, before a robot war spanning numerous millennia and across several planets kicks off.
Thus, before you know it, LeBoeuf is being chased through forests, buildings and ancient Egyptian ruins, by humongous robots, who would be the ultimate killing machines were it not for the fact that their aim and ruthlessness mysteriously desert them whenever their target is within touching distance.
(Actually, that's a lie – they do occasionally pop a good-guy, but this is no impediment to the film's producers, who merrily resurrect them with minimal explanation whenever the plot needs them back.)
The action sequences are undeniably enjoyable, old-school carnage presented so well you rather forget that it's all CGI. The men are macho and heroic; the women suitably drop-dead gorgeous and gratuitously filmed, with Megan Fox joined by delectable blonde Isabel Lucas. Romance is kept to a level most men should be able to follow and stomach, and the plot is not particularly relevant - some gubbins about destroying the sun.
Mildlly irritating then, that for a film with such minimal plot there was so much meandering midway through. The heroes went on the run from the police, then broke into a museum, then were magically whisked away (I kid ye not) to Egypt, then traipsed through a desert and into some old building and back out into the desert and through more ruins... None of which was really necessary, and all of which contributed to that rarest of beasts, a film well over two hours in length.
Would it have been a better film had it been given a higher rating than 12A? By jiminy it would have (but then, what wouldn't?). As with the original, the attempts to make the film child-friendly rather detracted from the spectacle, and left me wanting to make small children cry. Someone somewhere ought to be sacked for the introduction of two excruciatingly annoying slapstick autobots, in the Jar-Jar Binks mould.
More bloody deaths, and general sex, drugs and rock'n'roll would have benefited Transformers 2 enormously – but I'm possibly digressing at this point into the mystical, celestial world of The Best All Action No Plot Films Ever.
It's not a must-see, and the novelty of the original is understandably lacking, but for mindless big-screen action Transformers 2 does tick that all-important box labelled All Action No Plot.
However, no film – no film – should ever leave any self-respecting All Action No Plotter musing halfway through that it's gone on rather a long time. And this, regrettably, is why Transformers 2 will never be granted access into the pantheon of all-time All-Action-No-Plot celluloid greats.
Transformers 2 is an entertaining action film, no mistake. As mentioned, giant robot fights; lots of crash, bang and walloping, some inspired comedy moments and eye-candy a-plenty. The film begins with the likeable, if bafflingly-named, Shia LeBoeuf heading off to college to lead a normal life. This plan lasts about 30 seconds, before a robot war spanning numerous millennia and across several planets kicks off.
Thus, before you know it, LeBoeuf is being chased through forests, buildings and ancient Egyptian ruins, by humongous robots, who would be the ultimate killing machines were it not for the fact that their aim and ruthlessness mysteriously desert them whenever their target is within touching distance.
(Actually, that's a lie – they do occasionally pop a good-guy, but this is no impediment to the film's producers, who merrily resurrect them with minimal explanation whenever the plot needs them back.)
The action sequences are undeniably enjoyable, old-school carnage presented so well you rather forget that it's all CGI. The men are macho and heroic; the women suitably drop-dead gorgeous and gratuitously filmed, with Megan Fox joined by delectable blonde Isabel Lucas. Romance is kept to a level most men should be able to follow and stomach, and the plot is not particularly relevant - some gubbins about destroying the sun.
Mildlly irritating then, that for a film with such minimal plot there was so much meandering midway through. The heroes went on the run from the police, then broke into a museum, then were magically whisked away (I kid ye not) to Egypt, then traipsed through a desert and into some old building and back out into the desert and through more ruins... None of which was really necessary, and all of which contributed to that rarest of beasts, a film well over two hours in length.
Would it have been a better film had it been given a higher rating than 12A? By jiminy it would have (but then, what wouldn't?). As with the original, the attempts to make the film child-friendly rather detracted from the spectacle, and left me wanting to make small children cry. Someone somewhere ought to be sacked for the introduction of two excruciatingly annoying slapstick autobots, in the Jar-Jar Binks mould.
More bloody deaths, and general sex, drugs and rock'n'roll would have benefited Transformers 2 enormously – but I'm possibly digressing at this point into the mystical, celestial world of The Best All Action No Plot Films Ever.
It's not a must-see, and the novelty of the original is understandably lacking, but for mindless big-screen action Transformers 2 does tick that all-important box labelled All Action No Plot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)