a large part of the reason for the gap being so long is, well, that lull I talked about. Was originally planning on doing one around February time, but *seriously*. (Prob also worth pointing out that Place Beyond The Pines was embargoed, which delayed it a bit further.)
Definitely worth seeing both films, though. Think Stoker might have already disappeared outside of London (although it might be on Curzon On Demand?), but worth seeing on a big screen if you can - even given all the mayhem, it looks beautiful.
have mention of The Shining without linking to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os6raCCmAFk
More seriously, if you're in the mood, it's back in cinemas - original extended version, previewing tomorrow, released properly on Friday...
I just felt CH was lacking that critical viewpoint and focus that would have made it a must-see. I'm not especially fussed about the Stones either way (yes, I know...), but from that pov I didn't feel like I learned anything especially earth-shattering, and it didn't feel like mega fans would take anything new from it. Which is pretty much the litmus test of any documentary, no? So, yeah, pretty disappointed.
Understand what you mean about After Lucía though. I had a minor existential about the ending, and it still bugs me, but I can see how it would be viewed as (blackly!) comic. Definitely an exercise in endurance, though...
Which I missed because clashes thwarted me :( Gutted. Hoping to see it soon though. Were you actually at that screening?!
as I mentioned, that's really the central conceit of the film - 'can he really say goodbye to it all?' I know what I think, but we have the benefit of a year's worth of post-hoc interviews, so...
Just to clarify, I adhere to the John Earls approach - I've never given anything 10/10 before (even my favourite albums/films ever have flaws), and I'm with Sean in that it's very difficult to imagine it being topped, but we have to allow for the possibility! ;) I will say I think it's as close as possible to being perfect, though. As if that's not obvious.
that's something I struggled with a bit, and it probably comes across. Because yes, The Shins have always struck me as being Mercer + band too. But at the same time Sandoval and Crandall were founding members, and everything I've read about that time - notably Mercer's clear reluctance to call it a 'sacking', for whatever reason - would suggest an impact beyond that which 'Mercer + band' would imply.
But again, whether the personnel changes were ultimately the cause of the musical changes or the result of them, I think is up for debate. I don't have the answer to that one.
except your ten-year-old niece. Don't take your ten-year-old niece. But actually, yeah - what often gets missed in the hype is that the plot is really secondary to in-depth character studies - of Salander, of Blomkvist, of the Vangers - and much more in thrall to a lot of 1970s' New Hollywood in that sense (eg. The Conversation, and what was that Apocalypse Now one? ;)) That is, of course, what makes it a brilliant story.
Think it's also important to point out that the 'original' Swedish movies were, in fact, made for TV as a mini-series and so a bit softer (and cut-down). So this is the first 'true' film adaptation, I suppose.
but don't feel it flows as an album, hence the low mark. It's possible for individual songs to be good, even a lot of them. But honestly, the feeling I got while listening to it was that they couldn't decide if they wanted to make an album of great singles or a great 'proper' album. The result was that I felt it was neither, really.
For me it's very much like Keane's Perfect Symmetry, an album that sits in similar territory (particularly bombastic cheese!) but also completely falls apart in the second half. And I think there's a *lot* of great songs on that record, but that still doesn't mean it works as a complete album. Mostly because of one seriously ill-advised and badly placed song, actually - which just goes to show...
on the one hand 'A Rush Of Blood To The Head' is one of *those* albums for me, and so obviously I really like it. Yet in the context of this album, I struggled with the songs that are more like that album. But then again that was a decade ago, and both they and I have changed considerably since then. So, yeah...
I spotted it after I sent it and it was too late to fix. String me up for the grammar police ;)
basically saying 'Consistency is a bitch sometimes'. It's something I struggle with - on the one hand you don't want an album with three good songs and a load of filler shit, on the other hand sometimes those three good songs can be absolutely fucking amazing and worth the album price alone.
In the end I gave it the mark I did because it's consistently better than a lot of 'its contemporaries'. If Patrick Wolf can even have contemporaries that is.
that I totally disagree with this...!
What's interesting is that it's dividing people into those who love it and those who, well, don't. Everything you've said you don't like about it, I absolutely love; I certainly don't think it's an easy album though, it took me a good few listens. I do wonder if it's going to end up becoming one of those albums that people argue over - which, to be honest, I'd take over a thousand 'universally acclaimed' ones any day.
Good review though - wrong, but good! ;)
but then I don't think that's the point. It's very good at what it sets out to do, though.
As for 'fittie McVittie' - he seems a tad too seriousface for my personal tastes (despite all the above), but I can see that the teenage girls are going to like him for that reason. Speaking as a girl who was once a teenager, obvs.
all 'it's offensive to me as a wibbly girl-type' in the same way I was about Maguire (whose team made a similar screw-up with her)?
Because it is. Unbelievably offensive. The claptrap coming out at the moment (Adele sort-of excepted) might as well be fundamentalist propaganda, because it's certainly not feminism. It's not actually anything other than a bunch of lazy A&R men trotting out relatively fit girls for the lads.
*attempts to avoid burning bra*
but I never said anything about Adele... ;) Just to clarify, I don't have anything against any genre, sub-genre or tiny particle of a fraction of a genre, and certainly not on grounds of 'credibility' - that would be a battle I'd lose. Quickly.
I was out with a good friend of mine last week, and he said something very sensible: that any artist's success, ultimately, comes down to the stars aligning. Those stars being the artist, producer, management and label. There's clearly a reason why Adele's currently number 1 in the States, while Maguire's taking a kicking from all sides, Jessie J is already experiencing The Darker Side Of Fame re: her sexuality and Ellie Goulding's biggest success to date has been a cover of Elton John's most famous song. Ultimately I don't think it's 100% blind sheep buying what they're told - I think even the Tesco market is too hardwired against unjustified hype nowadays - and I think it does somewhat come down to 'the stars aligning'. I should say that I think this happens with MANY artists - it's just that we have a disproportionate amount of high-profile female solo artists with this problem at the moment.
Adele's got it figured out - somehow - and people are clearly connecting with it. But for someone like Maguire to claim that sounding like the puppet of old white men - on an album she supposedly had an extensive hand in writing - is 'female empowerment': well, that's just offensive to what feminism actually is, and absolutely deserves the kicking it's getting across many quarters. Many from fellow female writers, I've noticed - make of that what you will.