I pledge allegiance.



I pledge allegiance.



To the Blog.



To the Blog.



Of Samuel Oliver.



Of Samuel Oliver.



And will update it regularly and use it more than naff all and make it not one of those graveyards of the interweb.



And wil duidgahbdhgs gsjshd shsjs fdhs soooos shshs si sjus h cheese.



That or delete this one and start a new one.

resolutions.

. stop complaining.
. never leave a book mid-chapter.
. be honest with people.
. use sarcasm sparingly.
. do the reading.
. eat better.
. do unto others...
. create.
. spoon more.
. stop lying.
. no more sympathy seeking.
. keep a log of things learnt.
. ask or you'll never get/know.

My...

procrastination has hit a new, highly terrifying new level of laziness. today i bought 6 blank cds and a sharpie marker, and penned that down as a successful day. i watched three documentaries (that i thoroughly enjoyed) and counted that as research, again time well spent, neglecting and overlooking the salient fact that 9/11, crazy friends of the bears and british home front propoganda have no bearing on my immediate future. i've given up bread in an attempt to lose this weight, and today i created the breadless sandwich (a remarkably simple invention) again i chalkled this up to both productivity and progress, which a big hunk of meat should simply not be called. i walked a dog and spoke seth afrikane to it and credited that as rehearsal. i sent an email to a friend advising her on music she should enjoy, again i called that doing valuable exercise. and in about 20 minutes i'll go and watch the simpsons and call that "needed relaxation".

i have things i need to do. very important things. gadzooks.

One of the Nicest Things I've Ever Seen.

it happened a while ago and has taken me a while to put this down anywhere. the nicest thing i have ever seen occured at the London Film & Comic Con in London this July. i was wandering around some of the many illustrious and splendiferous stands they had, offering a great and grand selection of geek merchandise and collectibles. i was already in pretty high spirits as i had purchased a Lost Swan Station slice of memorabilia. but then something lovely happened.

a couple wandered past. a splendid geek couple. the kind you don't see enough of nowadays. that already was wonderful. geek girl was looking at this really cool signed tom savini dawn of the dead photo book, she was chatting to the vendor about how much she liked dawn and so forth. she enquired as to it's price, the vendor reluctantly informed her it was £30, steep but probably fairly valued. dejectadely she put it down with an apologetic shrug and moved on to peruse things more attune to her price range. while she was looking at some trading cards, her boyfriend, who had been overhearing the dawn conversation, subtly approached the vendor and purcahsed the dawn photo book. he set aside the £30 and was awarded a paper bag in which to contain his prize. (the last one the vendor knew of in existence!) he tapped his geek girl on the shoulder and she turned around, he presented her with the spoils of his effort. she looked so pleased, like a little kid at christmas pleased, it was wonderful. they hugged, kissed and many well deserved thanks were exchanged. (and more thanks later, i hope. wink wink) it was one of the nicest things i've ever seen. and shortly after that i met a storm trooper, r2d2 and a dharma worker. it was magical. just magical.

Cinematic (on) YouTube Oddities

one aim in my life is to watch all 1001 movies you must see before you die that i have listed in the "1001 movies you must see before you die" book i got one christmas. what with me being a film geek and all that.
however, a lot of the films in't, especially ones made pre 1950's are hard to find, when you do see them on dvd, my god, the prices are quite literally extorniate and when you see a rare gem in a charity shop it is a million to one chance diamond in the rough. which is annoying. so i was tabbing off the films that were widely available/popular, or the ones that were expensive but that i knew were worth the investment. occassionaly scoping out an utter classic for a fraction of the price (2 Disc Metropolis for £12, yes please!) and watching splendiferous films at mere peanuts and with a smashing mid-80's feel (say anything and breakfast club) whilst all the time tabbing off more and more films as i went along. PROGRESS. it was about at this point that i realised that the library at University had a DVD section. a section for films, which i could borrow for free. this was good news. most good news. most good news indeed. so as a result i found more and more classic films, oldies, goldies, newbies, rubies. the whole she-bang. i was tabbing off more and more films. (i am still unsure of how many of the great 1001 i have tabbed off, buuutttt....)

however, when at home, the library in Harrogate, a: charges. and b. isn't as expansive DVD wise. i hit a wall, having to plum solely for films that i found cheap in HMV and various charity shops. but then, in a similar vein to the library discovery, i found out that the answer was at my fingertips the whole time - YouTube.


tada!

i would never have guessed, that the engine i used solely for music videos, funny clips of cats and meme spectacularities, would help me in my 1001 film choosing choosage. but it did. YouTube has some utterly splendid users who load up films, entire films, especially older ones, because the copyright is all but non existent, entire films from the 20's, 30's and onwards can be found there. i began immediately watching le voyage dans la lune, korkarlen, stachka, greed, the unkwnown, un chien andalou, dracula, freaks, a night at the opera and i walked with a zombie to name but a few.

i was pleased.

these films appear in sections, part one, part two and so on. and having observed so many of these old cinematic marvels on new viewing technology i began to notice something slightly peculiar - the view counter. you'd assume that if someone was watching a film the view counter on every single part of the film would be the same. it only seems to make sense that any sane movie viewer would watch part one and then part two and then part three and then part four and so on and so on. but it seems this is not the case.

this:



is 'Stachka' Part 3 of 9.it has been viewed 694 times (all numerical quantities correct at time of printing) however the parts that book end it, 2 and 4, have been viewed 895 and 927 times respectivally. is it just me that is confused by this. who out there is going around picking and choosing what parts of a film they watch. and what are the basis' for not choosing to watch a certain part? why is part 3 so offensive to a person, why has part three been ignored by nearlly 200 odd people (presumably) who watched 2 and 4. obviously i'm jumping to conclusions here, perhaps the best way to get the sense of a film is to only watch the odd numbered parts of it. maybe i am the only one who sits down and watches a film chronologically.

the lowest number of views of this particular film is part 8, with 677 views. so that means that (i hope it means that...) 677 YouTube users have seen Stachka. whereas a further god knows how many have decided to pick and choose between what sections of this Sergei M. classic they saw.

please, i implore you, watch classic films, educate yourself in the ways of how good cinema used to be, the passion, the intensity and the (sometimes unintentional) political implications of silent movies and classic films. but watch the whole thing.

Disappointed by [ Rec]

Recently for reasons unbeknownst to myself i had an urge to watch a really scary horror film. deciding to spread forth my wings from my own collection of frightners i decided to buy a horror film. in HMV my eyes set upon '[Rec]' a film i had heard good things of and read good reviews and the case itself promised delights unknown to quench my aforementioned desire. "A Short, Swift Terrifying Ride." empire. "The Scariest Film Ever." Billy Chainsaw, Bizarre. Two Five Star Ratings and Four Four Stars. encouraging, no? so i forked over the relevant money and went on my merry way.

this fair evening after watching 'say anything' decided that it was a suitable time to bust out the swift terrifying ride. i was incredibly ready to be scared shitless. but after 75 minutes (approx) i was left dissatisfied. and i can't for the life of me work out why, i wanted to like it, i was fully preapred to sleep with the lights on and mentally adjusting myself to the fact that i'd be having some creepy dreams. now where did it go wrong?

the menu for a start was full of spoilers for the shocks that were about to unfold. the spooky zombie like creatures were on full display in the menus and when you selected 'play movie' it flashed up a segment of the film that later on ruined what could've potentially been a quite frightening moment. but because of the spoiler i saw it coming. (but when in horror films the lights go out and someone explores a space unaware of what is inside, it is an ineviatablity that something will pop out) Now this Ghoul thing brings me on nicely to another point. the ghouls weren't scary, they were a bizarre amalgamation of all things popular in 20th century horror. some wizened J-Horror influence, guttural growling and bloodthirsty scampering of modern day, poorly reenvisioned zombies. so when there were shocking moments of ghoul revealing i was left let down. not scared.

also as the blair witch project taught me, hand held horror is rarely scary. (hand held sci-fi (cloverfield) c'est bon) it's irksome. the sheer idea that it is set up in such a way causes you to pre empt the scary moments, the audience are continually and hurridely molly coddled along from staged 'real-life' shock to staged 'real-life' shock. the moments that had frightening potential were either shaky or altogether glossed over. now i don't want gratuitous gorno splatter and i, more than most, am a massive fan of understated suspensful 'less is more' olden days horror but i found myself unscared by the antics on screen, purley because they were set up in a way that made me forsee the shocking conclusions. perhaps this is more of a reflection of how i view horror films and on that note i must point out that [Rec] is a very well crafted film, playing to it's strengths and with an excellent use of sound distortion and lighting.

as for the covers claim that i'd 'Experience Fear' i did not. it's a hard film to give a rating to however, because if it was simply a case of 'was i scared?' it'd score poorly, on the other hand if it was a case of 'was it a well put together film and yadda yadda indie award winning words blether?' who knows? i may re-watch it at a later date when i'm not expecting horror, maybe i'll pretend i'm going watch camberwick green and slip in [Rec] instead.



not best pleased. continuing the trend of 'ticked off kids' in horror.

these people are stopping me doing what i think is right for me.

i say 'stoppin' what i mean is 'i'm using as an excuse.
















Tomika: They'll laugh at me.
Dewey Finn: What? Why would they laugh at you?
Tomika: I dunno... because I'm fat.
Dewey Finn: Tomika... Ok, you've heard of Aretha Franklin right? She's a big lady. But when she sings, she blows people's minds! Everyone wants to party with Aretha! And, you know who else has a weight problem?
Tomika: Who?
Dewey Finn: Me. But when I get up there and start doing my thing, people worship me! Because I'm sexy, and chubby, man.
Tomika: Why don't you go on a diet?
Dewey Finn: Because I like to eat! Is that such a crime?