NovemBEARD

So it turns out that my last post was actually my one year anniversary of blogging on this particular sight and YAY, look at all the prestige and power that it has brought me. I'm still a screenwriting student, I still live in Southampton, I'm still profoundly single and I still spend most of my nights tapping away at manuscripts that'll never see the light of day.

Anyway, this is the month of November, also know as NovemBEARD, in which men, manly men that is, grow excessive amounts of facial hair and strut it proudly in a vague relation to supporting testicular cancer research. Or breast cancer research. One of them. I've never been much of a beard man. The one time I did actually grow one was when I first moved to Solent and managed to forget my razor, which my parents brought down to me seven weeks later (no point in buying a new one, I thought). It wasn't a particularly impressive beard, more of a fuzzy chin-strap really.

Why I'm actually partaking of NovemBEARD I'm not quite sure, since the quite bright ginger of my facial hair will severely clash with my dark brown hair, so I'll probably have to shave my head in order to keep the beard, but that'll probably be around the end of November, in which case I'll be stuck like that for a while. Ah well, what's the worst that can happen, I'll look like a thug again? Maybe the next time I intervene in a pair of chavs starting on people in a bus stop (must tell that story some time), they'll be scared off by my bizarre appearence.

So. Essay. (Told you I'd complain about it, didn't I)

"To exist, the body requires language." - Discuss.

I hate this essay that we've got at the moment. We've had our fair share of them over this course and normally they're a bit irritating but fine to get to grips with. Even the dreaded Ian McKay's 2nd Year legendary essay title:

"In the Secular Age, there is an increasing pressure being placed on the media industries to offer a clear view of the role of the citizen in the 21st Century." - Discuss this statement in relation to the term 'Social Capital'...

... didn't garner as much discontent from the class. (I'm writing this section on the 14th, since I kinda left it for a few days again. By this time I've actually finished the essay and handed it in, expecting my failing grade any day now).

The problem with "To exist, the body requires language" is that we then have to reference one of only five movies to discuss in relation too, then have to draw sources from critical theory. Now, critical theory is a MASSIVE waste of time at the best of times, but in support of this subject, with such a limited basis of movies to choose from, makes this task both dull and constrictive. Those movies, in case you were interested:

- 120 Days of Sodom (don't look it up)
- The Night Porter (intensly boring)
- The Servant (almost as bad again)
- Hedwig and the Angry Inch
- Bent (interesting concept, didn't see it)

The only reason I didn't add any parantheticals for Hedwig was because it was the film I chose to reference. Each movie was supposed to talk about a high concept (The Servant was about class struggle, Bent was about oppression of homosexuality and so on), but the major problem with all these films is that they were sodding BORING. This is not a good thing.

Now, call me a philistine, but if I've got to sit and listen to someone's opinion on yadda yadda subject 9 I don't normally care about, at least make the film FUN to start off with? That way, people actually pay attention. Look at District 9 for feck's sake! So yes, Hedwig was the only film present that was actually entertaining to watch in the first place.

So. Did my essay. It's full of sarcasm.

Wow, this turned into a very long post.

R etired
E xtremely
D angerous

Now we've been looking forwards to this one for a while, haven't we? There's been a slew of team-based action movies this year, what with the Losers, the A-Team, the Expendables and Predators and RED is now up there with that lot in terms of content, but a lot higher than some in terms of quality (you know who you are).

So a retired CIA hatchetman is targeted by a bunch of Agency Killers in an inside job headed by Karl Urban and they quickly find that they've bitten off far more than they can chew. Hilarity and action ensue as their primary target, Willis, bands together his old cronies in order to take down the conspiricy against them.

Well, what can I say, really? You've got a film with Bruce Willis, John Malkovitch, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren and Brian sodding Cox taking on people a good forty years their juniour and kicking their collective backsides in well-paced, well-thought out action. The youngest good guy contributer is Mary-Louise Parker as a possibly out of place love interest, but she makes up for it by being plain sultry. Why producers must always shovel in a love interest, even when there isn't any need for one, I have no idea, but hey ho, let's get on with it.

The film is perfectly good, the action is very satisfying, the plot is just the right amount of backseat to the aforementioned action and the acting is... well, how do you think it is with those names at the top of the list? My only real problem with the plot of the movie is the 'double death' of one of the characters, since we kind of expected him to come back the second time as well, it wasn't quite serious enough second time around. After that, this is a perfectly functional movie with plenty of entertainment to be had within it.

I doubt this is going to be one of those action films that can stick it out in the long run, however, like Shoot 'em Up or Crank, which is a shame considering the cast list. It's probably one of those that'll fade in our memories after a little while, but I can live with that. It was great while it lasted.

Helen Mirren? She STILL got it.

Next up: The damned Owl movie.