Quantity and quality are both overrated

A New Podcast Emerges

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:51:23 GMT

It's by me and Duncan. You can listen to us talk about games and films for abut 45 minutes. And a bit of music in there too. By us.

http://donCASTers.jhenge.com

Is the link should you want it.

Action Force The Move (2009) (That's GI Joe you idiot! - Ed)

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:40:42 GMT

I've got about 20 minutes to try and review this before meeting up with people here in Bath. So here goes.

It's an action film. There's not a great deal of plot. There doesn't need to be. It's based on stuff inspired by an action figure range. As I'm sure you know. It's about Sienna Miller looking quite nice as the Baroness, even if her outfit sometimes looks like it's a little bit big for her. It's about action scenes, shooting, stunts and explosions. That's all you need to know. Oh apart from there being a goody rival to the Baroness called Scarlett. She's supposed to be something of a super brain but she just looks vacant most of the time. She's kind of pretty though I suppose.

Anyway does the film fulfill its objectives in a way that Transformers 2 doesn't? I think so. It concentrates entirely on the good guys fighting the bad guys and not relatives of the good guys getting stoned, dogs humping them or robots urinating oil. Or megan fox bending over whilst not wearing much. Some of the action though is entirely CGI and looks terrible. Just a symptom of the modern era I guess. There certainly is quite a lot of action. Which there should be. At least you can always tell who is who.

It is quite laughably bad at times (most of them actually) but it doesn't seem to really matter. It's just okay and doesn't set out to be as horrible as it possibly can or overstay its welcome.

It's overblown in the extreme and quite pointless and daft. Didn't stop me quite enjoying it though.

But should you go to see it? Probably not to be honest. Unless you have a high tolerance of CGI infested silly action films. Which I have. It seems. I think there is a new standard for bad films which is Transformers 2. It's difficult for anything to be quite as bad as that hateful abomination. Or at least so I'm told. I haven't seen it because it sounded so bad.

On tuesday Duncan and I made some sounds that we recorded

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:09 GMT

You can hear them via the following links:

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] 2009.mp3>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

You can hear them via the following links:

<a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Echidna 2009.mp3>Echidna 2009</a>
<a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Feral Nihilist 2009.mp3>Feral Nihilist 2009</a>
<a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/She's Fantastic 2009.mp3>She's Fantastic 2009</a>
<a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Stillborn Ghost 2009.mp3>The Stillborn Ghost 2009</a>
<a href=http://jhenge.com/music/jdb/Imperceptable Smiles 2009.mp3>Imperceptable Smiles 2009</a>

I'm sure you'll all agree that the last four are an exciting new direction for the band, showcasing all the skill we've learnt over the last 14 years of being a band.

Terminator Salvation

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:03:16 GMT

Illogical. Implausible. Irritating. Injoyable (You're fired - Ed).

I had been lead to believe Christian Bale was really annoying in this. He is a bit but not that much. Worst is the cute mute child that saves the day. Hnnng. If you're prepared to ignore the decidedly silly and illogical plot and can gain satisfaction from some people fighting with robots and stuff then you can probably find a decent amount to enjoy in this. It doesn't last too long and packs that time with a good balance of action and downtime. It requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. You're probably best off pretending it doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the Terminator series of films though.

Drag Me To Hell (a review of the film of that name. not an instruction)

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:57:59 GMT

Sam Raimi is back! Doing horror! Again! Etc. Evil Dead 2 is a masterpiece but I'm not entirely sure much else by Mr Raimi is. He's been fairly consistently entertaining I suppose if not mindblowing. Evil Dead 2 is about the closest to that. It's been a while since I've watched it so maybe a rewatch is in order to decide if it's mindblowing.

Anyway about this film. The trailer looked awful. It looked like such a boring standard horror film. That at least isn't true. It's definitely not a bog standard horror film. I didn't know at the time of seeing the trailer that it was directed by Sam Raimi. Discovering that is the only thing that made me go and see it. Well that and everyone raving about it.

Enough! What's it like? Well as you might know, it has a certain comedy element. If you know Evil Dead 2 you'll probably have some idea what that means. However this isn't like that, it is actually quite plentiful in its traditional horror moments, separate from the comedy-horror moments. That's where I found a slight problem with the film. One minute it's astonishingly terrifying and then the next it's really quite slapstick Evil Dead 2 like.

All of the scares are achieved from 'jump scares' rather than the creeping horror of The Grudge or The Ring. Interestingly though all the scares are genuinely scares, there's no cat jumping through the window or boyfriend creeping into the house. If it's building up suspense, it's going to throw something scary at you. Which is done brilliantly. I'm not one who scares at these sort of things easily but I was definitely feeling fear of another shock.

But then we'll have silly scenes like a talking goat or gross out slapstick involving a corpse drooling all over the heroine. Or some eye popping out scene. Which is often rather effectively funny but makes the whole film that bit inconsistent in tone leaving you feeling a little confused. I think really it should have concentrated on being the dark incredibly scary film it could have been instead of mixing it with the comedy moments. That could have made it the most utterly terrifying horror movie of all time. It's pretty close to being that anyway but it in a strange kind of way.

Coraline (3D)

Fri, 15 May 2009 21:02:13 GMT

I've been saving this until last this evening for a grand finale. It's only now I realise that I have now made it, in effect, first. On your friends list this is going to show first. So in a way it's probably best as I'm probably a bit tuckered out after about 2 hours of solid reviewing. So this is likely to be an even more substandard review than (sub)standard.

A Neil Gaiman story brought to life by the director of Nightmare Before Christmas. That's why it basically looks the same. You probably knew that already though didn't you? Okay then, let's try something else. I thought the trailer was a little uncertain on whether it was a dark fantasy tale or just a kids story. I was in two minds as to whether to go see it. Ultimately I thought maybe the 3D thing would be interesting so that swung it. It at least looked better than Monsters Vs Aliens which was my other 3D option. As I haven't seen MVA, I can't say if it is but I do know that this was extremely good.

GOOD THINGS

Voice acting. Particularly in the lead role. Dakota Fanning puts in an incredibly convincing performance breathing an astonishing amount of life to the animation. Coraline feels completely real.

The animation. Hurrah! It's all real stop motion and no CG! (Though it may be slightly computer aided, I don't know). It's gorgeously created as well. Stop motion is one of the greatest things ever and it's exploited here to maximum effect.

The sets. Astonishing vision, craftsmanship and creativity. Beauty in almost every scene. I'm struggling for what to say here as little I say can do justice to how great it looked.

The music. Without doubt one of the best soundtracks I have EVER heard. I've listened my download of the soundtrack through twice. I think that's saying something. The last one I went this crazy for was also to a Gaiman film. Interesting.

The whole combination of it all. Creating such a delightful atmosphere of mystery, adventure, peril and the slightly disturbing.

BAD THINGS

It is just slightly too long. It's 100 minutes long and probably should have been about 80. It's not too severe but I did find numb bumb syndrome really kicking in toward the end.

That's it though.

THE INDIFFERENT

The 3D. It added nothing and wasn't really noticeable in many scenes. One of the most significant bits was just a scene of Coraline looking through a window. It had real depth and added a certain beauty to the scene. 3D can work to amazing effect though as intros showed before the main feature. It could just have been that the film was so engaging I forgot it was in 3D.

I don't like summing up paragraphs but I'll add one here. MISS THIS AT YOUR PERIL. It is a pure delight and one of the best films I've seen at the cinema pretty much ever. Certainly ahead of the crowd by a mile in its given genre. This is worthy of being a top 100 film.

Harry Potter And The Pensioner of Kazakhstan (Subs please check) (No.3) HD-DVD review

Fri, 15 May 2009 20:30:21 GMT

I've always thought it was the best book of the series and also it's where the film series changes to being really good. I'd had the HD-DVD hanging around since before christmas but finally found just over two hours spare one night to watch it. It was well worth it as well.

The film is well directed, keeping your interest held throughout. The actors finally give some good performances and lose most of their irritation factor. The Ron actor is the least improved to my mind though, despite what a lot of people have said. He still does just a bit too much gurning. Hermione is vastly improved and becomes a thoroughly likeable character. Harry too is much more sympathetic than the previous films. You can actually find yourself truly feeling for him for a change.

The visual side of things is superb. The dementors look terrifying and hogwarts looks spellbinding (That wasn't intentional you know). There is considerable detail in pretty much every scene. It's all CG of course but it shows it can be effective when appropriate care is taken.

The darker tone of the film adds drama but without being too much for family view Also, it manages to have a finale without Harry Potter himself being in any kind of significant danger. There is no big showdown with a big evil villain or monster. I think that's probably quite an achievement, having a spectacular exciting end without peril for the main character.

As for the DVD itself, the quality was excellent. The HD really works in the his instance. It brings out the glorious detail in every scene. It breathes extra life into the film and the effect is really quite stunning. Even on 'just' a 32" screen. I dare say the transfer is the same on the Blu Ray so I'm sure the same applies. It's a worthy upgrade from DVD. Ideally you'll have a PC with Blu Ray/HD DVD combi drive and you'll be able to get the much cheaper HD DVD rather than Blu Ray.

Mad Max 2: Road Warrior (or is it Road Warrior: Mad Max 2?)

Fri, 15 May 2009 19:48:53 GMT

I wonder. Is there any point in this? I'm sure you all know Mad Max 2 perfectly well by now. It's been around long enough. I watched my HD DVD of it the other night. So this review will cover how the film holds up these days and the quality of this release. Gosh don't I sound serious there?

The FILM (Gosh a heading!)

I was struck by how realistic people seem to act, despite the film being a slightly ridiculous post apocalyptic setting. It feels very much like the scripting was very well thought out with appropriate thought put into motivations. The lead character is delightfully self serving for the most part. He's not a good guy but he's not a bad guy, he does things which will benefit other people but only because he will profit out of in some way. Of course he sees something of a change in character toward the end but is that more motivated out of revenge than helping others? The action is all really well put together and manages to be exciting without being dizzying. It allows appropriate time for things to happen and frames them very well. It's just a great solidly made film and remains memorable because of that.

The HD-DVD

While it was untoubtedly sharper it made little difference. I noticed some of the rocks were looking clearly and better defined and some of the road textures seem more obviously detailed. It didn't make any real difference though. Mad Max 2 isn't really a very pretty film. It's pretty sparse so there isn't much benefit in the higher definition. Unless you like looking at very detailed roads and rocks. The night scenes looked really grainy though which is probably a fault with the original film but shouldn't HD remastering remove such things? Or is it impossible to get rid of such a severe grain? Of course I haven't compared to my DVD so that may make me notice more difference but I don't think so. If you've got an absotively huge screen it's probably going to show a more significant difference.

Wolverine

Fri, 15 May 2009 19:27:39 GMT

I believe that Ebert bloke said that there was little point in having a hero who is indestructable. Well clearly he's wrong as Wolverine is ridiculously popular in the comics and films and cartoons etc. Surely the point is that it would be totally cool to be like Wolverine so we watch/read to imagine ourselves in his position. However, don't you just hate it when American films and TV shows introduce a cliched British rock star (always with a bad london accent). Wolverine doesn't do that (unlike Chuck) but it does something almost as bad. It doesn't make full use of the source material. Actually I'm not sure that's quite so bad. Anyway.

It was interesting seeing the origins of the character. Never realised he was supposed to be that old. I haven't read the comics you see. Even though practically every Marvel comic features Wolverine or Spiderman or both. But the whole story just lacked something and the film was slightly poor in execution with many of the sfx looking rather shoddy.

The end.

I was almost tempted to leave it there but you know me, why stop at 500 words if you can do 5000? Not that I've necessarily done 500 already but still you get the idea. I thi(GET ON WITH IT!! - Everyone)

Gambit should have had more of an accent, cyclops seemed thrown in there for no good reason and the script was utterly lifeless. When it wasn't jumping from horribly cliched dialogue (including a customary NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! scene) it was being just plain function. There was just no flair to it. Still I supposed you could describe it as 'comic book like'. Perhaps a 1950s comic or something. But modern ones (particularly X-men) need you to have some kind of degree in order for you to follow them. So it's not like modern comics.

But it didn't really matter. It was still quite a lot of fun and there were plenty of cool scenes of Wolverine having a good old scrap. The final fight (Copyright Capcom) was jolly good and thoroughly spectaclear (sic). So that made up for things just a enough to make it entertaining.

Film Review - Star Trek 2009

Fri, 15 May 2009 19:13:42 GMT

Okay let's give out a review spoiler in the opening paragraph; why is everyone so easily caught up in the hysteria and hype that can surround a film release? Star Trek has shot into the top 100 on imdb. Sigh. It's really not that good, even though it was quite fun. So let's get on with things shall we?

As you'll all know this is a reboot of the franchise so everything's a bit different. Kirk is someone who's had a sex change, Spock has an unfortunate heroin addiction and Uhura is a prostitue (Cut that out now! - Ed). Well maybe things aren't quite that different but just slightly different enough. I don't think you really need anymore info. You can find that elsewhere. Now I've wasted your time with yet another pointless paragraph I'll continue.

Problems. That's what this bit's going to be about. Modern film-making. That's the main problem. I don't like the way it's put together. Rapid editing, excessive full screen face close ups, a camera that is never still (if it isn't whooshing round following people walking it's jittering unnecessarily), too many close shots of things passing the camera, not allowing time for certain scenes to sink in (we see a lovely shot of the space station which McCoy points out but it barely lasts a second). It's all pacey stuff to attract your attention but for me it just detracts from my ability to pay attention. If I'm feeling sick and dizzy and confused, I'm not enjoying myself. Other problems I'd say were certain actors trying desperately to copy the style of the old series. Karl Urban desperately trying to be Deforest Kelly (McCoy in case you don't know) and Simon Pegg doing an impression of Scotty (and having a stupid comedy sidekick who, while not irritating, is unfunny and as I say, pointless. Though I dare say it wouldn't use such excessive punctuation). Also, I'm about the only person to say this but I never really found myself liking the new Kirk.

So with all that out of the way, can I tell you of some good points. It is actually rather good fun. The story's not bad if rather an excuse for a reboot of the series. Syler (I've told you before, that's NOT the actor's name) is good as Spock. The new Uhura is strangely strong on screen. I've not been able to quite put my finger on it as to why but she really makes a good impression. Um that's about it. Actually Sulu was quite good too. Checkov was different but had no particular character so I can't really comment.

So yeah, it was fine. It's enjoyable sci fi action fun with a few silly cliches and some awkwardness. Go see it and you'll probably enjoy it. It's just not something that's really worthy of being in the top 100. But then I'm probably wrong about that, everyone tells me I'm wrong about films all the time SO WHY BOTHER READING THIS? EH? WHY NOT JUST GO AND READ SISKEL AND EBERT OR SOMETHING WHO TOTALLY MISS THE POINT OF WOLVERINE AND PROBABLY LOTS OF OTHER THINGS. GO ON I DON'T CARE. I HATE YOU ALL ANYWAY.

But you know, I KNOW the emporer's naked.

Crank 2 - A review

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:00:25 GMT

First there was Crank. Now there is another one. Of it.

Basically it's pretty much everything the first one was only more of everything really. So that means more violence, more silly bits, more nudity and more sexual content. If you think you can take that you'll have an incredibly good time if you go to see it.

Best moment of the film was the answer phone gag though.

Personally I thought it was utter genius. I could have done without quite so much nudity though really.

Fast and Furious (2009)

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:09:50 GMT

Vin Diesel is back in the Fast and Furious films! Hurrah, right? Well I do think he's certainly got something for action films but I never really liked The Fast and The Furious. This looked to be pretty much a retread of the first film, judging by the trailer. It was as well.

Story? Vin Diesel comes back to investigate who killed his friend. It just so happens that cop friend bloke who let him get away in the first film is also on the trail of said killer. Though he's also after the whole organisation the killer works for. And that's really where the problem is in the film. Too much story really. I liked the second and third films more than the first because the car porn factor was higher. There was far too much investigation and drama in both this and the first film, whne really they should concentrate on pretty cars racing around really fast. Sure there's plenty of cars racing around really fast but not enough of the pretty ones. Yes I really am that shallow. It's also that the bits which didn't feature cars were a bit boring. They were often quite long as well. It's just one of those films with about three or four peaks of action and far too much down time.

So really, if you've seen the first film you've seen this one. If you liked that more than the sequels then you'll be happy with this and vice versa. Or something.

Dragonball Evolution - a Review-a-me-ha

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:03:10 GMT

This film is rated pretty low on imdb. The trailer looked terrible. I doubt you'll find a favourable review from any film critic. I couldn't resist.

It was obvious from the start it wouldn't have much to do with the terrible (but strangely popular) Dragonball Z series. Well it is meant to be pre-DBZ to be fair. However it didn't really look like it would have an awful lot to do with that either. Obviously being as I'm not a fan of the series, this is no problem for me. It did still look pretty terrible in its own right though. In a fun kind of way. So why is it that I actually seemed to rather enjoy it?

If you're a DB/DBZ/DBGT fan you'll probably want to know what they've changed. The answer is pretty much everything. Goku appears to be much older in this than in the original Dragonball and he doesn't have a tail. Bulma doesn't have funny coloured hair. Well apart from a streak of colour. Also it starts out as American high school bully vs nerd situation. Where Goku is the nerd, except he's been told by his grandfather not to fight even though he could flatten them. Which is a bit different to the average nerd thing but quite a lot like the spiderman style of things. They've greatly condensed the story as well. It's only 84 minutes long when the book series went on forever (or seemed to). So they have to quickly find all the Dragonballs, have a big battle and save the day all in about an hour. Which doesn't take a lot of doing.

A lot of the acting is quite poor, especially from the actress playing Bulma but yet strangely I seemed to quite like the guy playing Goku. The legend that is Chow Yun Fat plays master Roshi in a quite zany wacky style which would probably work in Hong Kong but doesn't seem to quite work here. You can't help but like Chow Yun Fat, regardless. He really should go back to Hong Kong, take John Woo with him and make a good movie again though. James Marsters plays Picolo in quite sinister fashion but barely gets any screen time to develop himself as a decent bad guy. Park Joon plays Yamcha. He plays the part in quite terrible fashion. But then he's Korean acting in American so he can be forgiven.

So yeah, having pointed out that the cast are all terrible and the film is a mess, what did I actually like about it? Well despite it being obviously a cynical hollywood cash in, it was still quite fun. It had a great sense of adventure and would be thoroughly good watch as a fun film in its own right, if you're after a harmless teen adventure flick. The action is exciting and reasonably convincing (for what it is). It looks pretty nice too. It's paced well enough to avoid being boring whilst giving you time to settle in to the story. It's just a throwaway bit of fun. Anyone complaining it's not true to source should go away and er do something else. Probably. The source material was a bit rubbish as well. Well DBZ is.

Gosh this review of a slightly poor film is quite long. Just be glad the word count isn't
OVER 9000!!!!!

Race to Witch Mountain

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:04:14 GMT

I can't remember much about the Witch Mountain films of the past but they have somehow stuck with me. I think it's just something to do with a flying saucer that sticks in my mind. Here's a funny thing though, I could have sworn Robert Vaughan was in the originals but apparently not. He IS in the 90s remake which I wouldn't have seen, though. Which is totally spooky. Actually looking at clips on youtube there doesn't seem to be much I recognise in the originals. Hmmm.. Return is looking more familiar. It must be that I saw back in the days when Angie's videos still existed in the town centre. They had a tabletop space invaders type game there and I use to rent a Technocops cartoon from them a lot. There's a Tae Kwon Do place there now. I seem to recall there was an underground video rental shop as well. Can't remember that one. Den's video or something. Ahh them were t' days.

Sorry what? Oh yes. What about this new film then? Well quite contrary to the fuzzy warm friendly atmosphere of the old films this one is a high octane action fest. Starring The Rock as an ex con taxi driver. There's lots of car chases, fights, explosions, flying saucers and mean looking government agents. You see this time it's all about government paranoia about aliens. They want to discect the lovely innocent little alien children. Probably use their technology against trrsts or something. It barely lets up for a moment. Which may be what makes it feel so disconnected.

I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first as to why I didn't seem to be drawn in by the film. It took until at least half way through for me to really start caring even slightly what was going on. Maybe it was just because I had other things on my mind, I don't know. But there really didn't seem much to latch onto. The Rock's character had no real defining traits. He seemed quite ordinary. Well as ordinary as a super muscular guy well over 6 feet ever gets. We certainly never got a chance to properly know him but then there wasn't much to know. We just cut to a scene of him bouncing about in his taxi every now and then between the stunts.

The thing is, it seems to do everything its doing with decent professionalism. It all looks right and all that but just isn't exciting. I think it was just too fast paced. Which is something I don't complain about usually. I don't think they really used The Rock as well as they should have. He can be a super charming guy with loads of charisma but he had nothing to work with here. You only have to watch Walking Tall or Welcome to the Jungle (or the Rundown if you prefer) to see how great a lead actor he makes. Maybe even look at how he was the super face in wrestling. Sorry I shouldn't use wrestling nerd terms. Face means a popular 'good guy' wrestler. The Rock was one of the biggest of all time I reckon.

There's also involvement with a scientist woman who is trying to prove UFOs are real. She's played by the woman who played the original Silk Spectre in Watchmen. Maybe it's seeing her old in that which confused my mind, as obviously she's a lot younger here. But still kind of old looking. She seemed somewhat neurotic in this for some reason. Certainly very scatty anyway. Which was really a bit unsettling for the audience.

For children who might fantasise about being in a flying saucer (such as myself) there's some great flying saucer flying scenes near the end. Obviously they couldn't do a huge amount of it as that wasn't the point of the film but what they did was very good.

Oh I haven't mentioned the children. The girl was very good indeed, very likeable. The boy overplayed the stern robotic nature.

And this review doesn't have a summing up bit leaving you feeling as strangely unresolved as the film did to me.

Maid to Order (1987)

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:35:34 GMT

It's basically a bit of cinderella in reverse. Riches to rags. With a bit of riches again at the end. Spoilt rich girl keeps getting into trouble and her father gets sick of it. He wishes he didn't have a daughter and the wish gets granted. Rich girl gets a job as a maid and learns to be nice and humble. Then she gets her life back.

It's all pretty predictable stuff and as you might gather from the wish being granted thing, it's quite fanciful. It features regular appearances from the girl's up to date fairy godmother (played effectively by Beverley D'Angelo), is all up to date and clever and all that. Oh and quite quirky too. Which is quite typical of this sort of thing. The lead role is played by Ally Sheedy who looks strangely older than she is whilst looking quite young and old and stuff all at the same time. Or something. She plays the sweet girl far better than the spoilt girl and does become jolly cute and charming when she does act nice. The supporting cast is also generally very good, playing really quite ludicrous over the top roles without going ridiculous.

It's a simple cute feel good movie which doesn't last too long, is quite 80s and does a good job of entertaining.

SO WHY DIDN'T I JUST SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Here have another cover image:

Inspired by the books Chibi J has been reading

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:04:28 GMT

I decided it might be a good idea to write a thing about cats that is similar. Now this isn't a review of someone else's book or anything, it's just a little thing to help you get on with your cat better. Here we go then.

The Cat Obeyer by Derek Williams

The first and only rule of living with cats is:

Do as you're told.

Just accept your life of servitude and get on with it.

The END.

There. I'm sure that will help everyone out there understand their cat a little bit better now.

The Damned United

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:14:37 GMT

I don't take much interest in football. I'd like to say I don't take any interest in football but that's not strictly true. I do occasionally find interest in the performance of Doncaster Rovers, mainly in how they've gone from nothing to quite good. Not that they are doing all that well at the minute. I think. Like I say, I don't care that much. I couldn't tell you what any of the scores were this season. But I did listen to Arsenal Vs Doncaster a few years ago. Where Doncaster nearly beat Arsenal (lost on penalty shootout after extra time). That's not really got anything to do with why I went to see this film. The film just looked good and interesting. It kind of was as well.

In case you don't know, it's the story of Brian Clough's rise to fame and his 44 day run as manager of Leeds United. And his bitter rivalry with the Leeds manager Don Revie. That's it.

It is supposedly a fiction based on fact. And that's something that annoys me about docu-drama films. Knowing how much you're supposed to take as fact and what is just silly made up nonsense. Thankfully some parts of the film are based on events that have actual tv footage, such as the Clough/Revie interview (Warning: this links to ITV). Looking at that after the film makes me question why Martin Sheen plays Brian Clough in such a manic way. Clough in the film seems completely scatty and crazy but in clips (often recreated in the film) he's much more calm and relaxed. Sure he does make a few funny faces and such in the clips but not to the extent Martin Sheen does. It's clear that he's desperately trying to recreate Brian Clough but ultimately he appears to be more of a manic version of his David Frost interpretation. His accent sounds all wrong to me. But anyway regardless of that, he does a fairly good job of getting the idea of the man over, I guess. The flashy, arrogant, rash but ultimately good hearted guy who really cares about what he does.

The film is obviously very much on Clough's side and does portray him as something of a hero, despite all his shortcomings. It raises the question of whether the things he did wrong were brought about by a misinterpretation of events due to an inflated ego or not. Such as the rivalry with Don Revie. Did Revie really blank him on purpose when their teams first met or was it just that he didn't notice him? In the film, it's said that it was this event that really made everything happen. Clough became obsessed with beating Don Revie.

Regardless of whether or not you're interested in football you should really find a gripping drama about obsession and determination here. It's entertaining and pretty well put together. All the supporting cast does a great job, particularly the excellent Timothy Spall (though Jim Broadbent just feels like Zidler from Moulin Rouge, due to being the chairman of Derby). If only Martin Sheen hadn't tried quite so hard.

The Hard Way (The Only Way) AKA The Colombian Connection (1989)

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:43:51 GMT

I do so much love that cover. Pure Fromage.

When the director of this film shouted 'ACTION' I don't know if people knew exactly how much he meant just that. He clearly understands that you don't need those boring things you sometimes get in movies like characters or plot. You just need action. Forget love scenese or any kind of emotion. Just blow stuff up. And shoot lots. It's much like the whole missing reel gag in Planet Terror (which has way too much plot compared to this). However, I suppose it would help if the actors are at least vaguely capable of making it believable.

This is the plot according to the blurb:

"Protected by his band of mercenaries, Pinheiro, Bolivia's toughest drug dealer, rules the 'golden triangle' between Brazil and Columbia by terror and torture. Fear of the deadly consequences make his extradition to the U.S. impossible. But the Washington Narcotics Bureau is determined to make him pay for his crimes. Kidnap is the only answer. And Washington's Colonel Bacall knows there are only three men alive with the courage to tackle such a dangerous mission! Bull, a special agent with the Narcotics Bureau, Karl and Pablo set out for the Amazon jungle with a plan to lure the wolf from his lair. But betrayal by one of their own number turns a kidnapping plot into a bitter and bloody battle for survival! Trapped in the steaming rainforest - governed only by the law of the jungle. Hunted on the ground by ruthless mercenaries and killer dogs. And from the air by Pinheiro's henchman, Wesson. The only way out is the hard way! Will the three government men outwit their pursuers and reach the 'Mission de la Serra'? To take Pinheiro captive and unmask the traitors. Follow the trail of death and destruction in a world where only the strong survive!"

Which is remarkably more involved than I could gather from watching the film. From what I could gather from watching it, three near invincible commando guys were trying to get a helicopter from a bad guy's base. Probably.

All three lead actors are quite terrible. Their use of guns laughable at best. Holding them at arms length and waving them about like a toddler might with a toy. However it seems to work pretty well for them as that usually results in around 30 kills. Sometimes the bad guys continue to fall over even though the firing has stopped. I presume that's because our heroes are so awesome that they planned some clever ricochets from trees in the distance. Probably. Still the bad guys pose minimal threat along the way. Even when the heroes are out in the open not one of the 30-50 adversaries can get a good shot on them.

Miles O'Keeffe leads the trio and manages to look quite handsome, adopting some cool action hero poses on occasion. The others do little of interest. The black guy (who dies first) gets a leg gnawed off by pirahnas and the fat olderbloke gets heroically killed in the enemy camp. Things get particularly silly in the enemy camp as we see soldiers running around in all directions. All their running about merely serves to swap positions of the soliders on each side of the camp. There's lookouts who resolutely stare in one direction and a tank and APC which continually swap places.

Oh gosh I haven't mentioned the body count yet. It's high. Very high. Very very high. It must be around the 300 mark. I'm going to try and have a quick look to see. Cripes. I've just watched 30 seconds and it's already at least 30. So many it's hard to keep track.

It can be a little bit wearing with the constant sound of gunfire for the 90(ish) minutes and the seeming invincibility of the heroes ensures there's absolutely no tension. You can tell the moments where some is definitely going to die; it's when it's dramatically appropriate to do so. But I still found it great fun. Sure it's gash and tripe, full of plot holes and ridiculous inconsistencies but it doesn't matter. It's totally silly fun, even if the film doesn't quite realise it.

Oh and much like that Mark Dacascos film DNA, there's some atrocious helicopter crashes/explosions. The most nonsensical of these can be found in this video at around the 1m mark.

D.N.A. Starring Mark Dacascos (1997)

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:31:44 GMT

Obviously if you've been following my updates you'll know I have a love of watching films that aren't very good. It isn't so much that they aren't very good that attracts me, it's the occasional good, inspiring idea that is in amongst the rubbish. Also these films generally have an atmosphere not found in the mainstream. They don't necessarily play it safe to please a wide audience. Sometimes that's something they're trying to do and failing but most of the time it's more of someone having a great idea and not really knowing how to implement it properly. The whole b-movie world is full of silly ideas that would never get shown to a major audience. Sometimes they're just enjoyable because it's funny watching a bad film. This one, according to imdb, is seemingly one of the worst I've watched in recent times. However, I disagree with its harsh 2.7/10 rating.

That isn't to say this alien/predator rip off is actually a good film, it's just not so bad as people there suggest. What's it about? Well to be honest I was rather distractedly watching it whilst messing about on the laptop and the internet, so I'm not entirely sure. It's something to do with Dr Mark Dacascos going (back?) into the jungle to track down this rare creature. That creature being the predalien of course. For science. He of course has the aid of a glamorous assistant and er some other people. Oh and there seems to be some bad guy trying to capture it for his own evil ends or something. So Dr Mark has to fight him as well as the prelien. It doesn't really matter anyway. It's nonsense. It's just an excuse for him to run around the jungle being shot at and chase by a bloke in a rubber suit.

It is done in quite a pacey way and it certainly doesn't overstay its welcome. It frequently amuses with its silly ness. Some of the special effects are so bad they're incredibly funny. I'll come back to that later. Dr Mark looks quite asleep for most of it but there's just a certain sense of fun in there. And a terrible hacking scene. Computer hacking that is. Almost as bad as one I did with marasmusine whilst in sixth form at school. I couldn't help but enjoy it despite all these faults. It was probably because of this faults actually but who cares as long as you're entertained?

So why would it have a rating of 2.7/10 when I've seen much worse? I can only assume that it's due to people's expectations. Having Mark Dacascos in it really shouldn't bump up expectations that much but even so, people might have been expecting something of passable professionalism at least. As it is, it's a bit of a silly sloppy amateurish mess so therefore they mark it much lower than if they were already expecting something made for a budget of £5. It would imply it has been seen by a more mainstream audience than usual. Any fan of low budget pap would enjoy it tremendously. Which I presume is hardly any of you that actually read this. Oh well. I had fun anyway.

Now just before I finish for today, I wish to mention those special effects. However my wish has not been granted so I'll have to leave you with a youtube video of the most spectacularly amazing helicopter crash ever. As featured in this film.

Remote Control (1987)

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:34:06 GMT

I borrow these images from Amazon quite often but they're usually ones I've uploaded. If you edit out the sl500 bit in the url you remove the white border. Good, eh?

It sounded a bit odd and strange and I kind of liked the cover so I gave it a watch. Also there was suggestion of it showing how 50s sci fi had an influence on 80s fashion. At least according to a comment on imdb. The film doesn't explicitly set out to do so but I guess you can see the link. The 80s did seem very much about future. Whereas these days it's very much about the here and now. Which is boring and rubbish. Which is a bit like this film.

Well that's a bit unfair actually. It seems the film is trying to say a couple of things but it never really gets its point past the drab direction and characterless acting. That isn't to say the acting isn't the bad style I usually encounter but just somehow lifeless. What it's about is a video of a 50s sci fi film which makes people kill other people. Some video rental store guy discovers this and sets out to try and stop it. That's it really. The film seems to have this guy and some woman who look a bit 50s but also 80s who are connected with the video butnever really makes it clear how. All we really know is the woman is quite pretty, has great hair and rental store guy fancies her. Oh and she likes an old foreign film called Stolen Kisses. The other guy is a fairly handsome chap who manages a sneer not dissimilar from Gary/Jake Busey.

The main suggestion of the film seems to be that the VCR is an entity of evil that could cause people to go and kill. Presumably inspired by the notion of video nasties. Some reviewer has written something about the way the video always changes to what's happening in the room as people watch it reflecting society's love of watching itself but I wasn't really paying enough attention or looking deep enough to spot that. Also I feel that last sentance was too long. Kind of reminds me of Ring really. Except it's more of if you watch it, rather than you dying in 7 days, it's more likely you'll kill someone within a couple of minutes. Or be killed by someone else who happens to watch it with you.

It turns out in the end that the video was created by aliens as an attempt to take over the earth. Which is really quite a silly idea. (OR IS IT? - The Disclosure Project)

With better actors involved and a better director, maybe it could have got its point over a little better but you're not going to do it by disengaging the viewer. They had their chance by having Jennifer Tilly in it but they foolishly kill her off after 10 minutes. Its point was clearly silly anyway.

Vendetta (AKA Angels Behind Bars)

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:49:57 GMT

I sold this on Amazon for £29.99

Lately I've become interested in finding out if there's anything more to the Women in Prison style of film than just basic exploitation. It seems the general aim of these films is to provide men with titilation or is it? My thorough in depth investigation into the genre will undoubtedly prove the definitive answer to the question! (Two films, how torough - Ed)

So what's the plot line of this one? Well there's this stuntwoman whose sister ends up in Jail because of killing some guy who raped her. The sister ends up in jail for manslaughter. She gets in trouble with the top dog or queen bee or whatever you want to call her and ends up dead. The authorities turn a blind eye to this. So Stuntwoman is quiet angry and deliberately gets arrested and put in jail to get revenge. She seeks to kill those responsible. And she does. Mostly on purpose too.

Typically there's much nudity. In both situations of people arriving in jail there's shower scenes with plenty of nude female bodies. There's frequent situations later in the film involving clothing ripped revealing breasts. There's plenty of scenes featuring rather a lot of cruel violence. Most of the deaths in the film are in cruel and unusual ways. Sometimes it's just cruelty and no death. In particular a girl gets her hand smashed to pieces by the top dog. Oh and there's drug taking as well. Don't forget the suggestions of lesbianism as well. Well, what do you expect? It is an exploitative genre.

So does it try to achieve anything more than just this exploitation? Well no not really. It tries to justify itself with a fairly plausible storyline and not all of the situations are unbelievable. The top dog controlling via drugs seems a likely scenario. It seems less likely they'd be able to get away with quite so much violence but who knows. Also it seems pretty much all the guards are evil and on the take. Apart from one female guard who has very pleasant hair. But even so she seems to ignore the violence within the prison. That is until the end where she kills the top dog with a shotgun and asks of the stuntwoman "Did it bring [your sister] back?". So there the film asks if the violence was justified as it to perhaps justify itself. It can in no way be interpreted as a thought provoking contemplation on the nature of revenge or brutality in womens prisons.

Yet I too can understand a certain compulsion to the genre. I don't approve of the exploitative sexual element but I think there is interest in the wranglings, however fake, inside the womens prison. It is exciting to see sneaky ways in which people are kept under control and exactly how a top dog can maintain power. Would I care at all about the same situation if it was all men? Probably not. Being attracted to women, having a bunch of attractive women on screen is er.. attractive. Not that many of them were in this. But naturally I do find women more interesting than other men. Am I of dual standards or something when I can live with the violence in the film and not the sexual element? I mean it's not like I desire violence toward women. The interest is really in the women being powerful strong people, which I dare say is one of the exploitations being aimed at. Take into account the likes of Faster Fussycat Kill Kill which features strippers being violent toward men (hmm sounds a bit like forthcoming movie Bitch Slap). But yet we have the likes of Prisoner Cell Block H from australia which is a bit like all this stuff but without the exploitation and with more soap opera nature. And gradually being more and more ridiculous. And that has a huge gay following. So I don't really understand at all.

So to sum up: where was I? I forgot the point that I was making.

Lone Runner (1986)

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:07:26 GMT

Continuing my long running obsession with 80s post apocalyptica this um. continues it. I guess.

Gosh that was an unusually short intro. You'll be wanting to know what this is about obviously. Allow me to tell you. Or don't and go clicking on a link to somewhere else.... NOW! Still with me? Okay then. Now those smelly idiots have gone I can tell you. It's about some hero bloke who rescues a princess and saves the land from an evil assassination plot by a corrupt advisort to the king. Here's more detail.. It starts with some people in a stagecoach riding through a desert. A little girl and some other people. Adam Ant mixed with Captain Jack Sparrow attacks, along with his band of slightly arab looking raiders. Their faces are hidden possibly for reasons similar to Deathstalker 2; there's not many of them so the actors are probably re-used. Garret, the Lone ~~Ranger~~ Runner saves them. Makes impression on girl. Next she's about 10 years older and gets attacked again and saved by Mr Runner. The cycle continues a few times and a plot is uncovered involving some noble guy who serves the king. He's after some secret diamonds which will give him power over the land or something. He's arranged the kidnapping of the princess and stuff you see. Strange thing is though that despite it clearly being at least 10 years later, Captain Adam Sparrow hasn't aged at all and nor has Garret. Peculiar. Anyway Garret manages to be pretty undefeatable apart from when he gets poisoned by a poison dart but even that doesn't keep him down for long. Everyone lives happily ever after.

One funny thing about it is that despite it being a 1986 production, it feels like a TV pilot from about 89/90. I think it was probably video tape recorded as it tends to have that flat look to it. It's also interesting in that it's post apocalypse and features no technology. It might as well have been set in the past. Or as a fantasy setting. It seems though it is meant to be after some unspecified apocalypse. Global warming perhaps? So everyone rides about on horses and stuff. So it's a bit like a western as well. If it wasn't for the middle eastern kind of look to things you could take it as being that.

The raiders are amusingly inept at guarding their base. Still I suppose if you're a bunch of chaotic raiders you're not necessarily going to be that well organised. Oh and I must mention there's a scene of the classic 'bash two guards' heads together: knock them unconcious'. But apart from this occasional amusement there's nothing much to this one. Not a great deal happens and there's really very little tension with the Lone Runner being almost completely invincible.

So there you go, a little bit boring with an occasional glimmer of something slightly interesting and a few things to laugh at because they're crap.

I'll leave you now with some screenshots I took of an AVI file I made for http://cinemageddon.org

Mayhem (AKA Born to Fight) 1989

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:54 GMT

this is my cover scan from the video I've got for sale on Amazon

I mainly watched this film because of how it was described over at Tough to Kill - The Euro Action Film Depot. You see I was creating the listing on Amazon and when I do that I always research the film a little. It can help me know if it's known by any alternative titles and thus if it's already on Amazon. This one was difficult to track down on imdb. The name Mayhem crops up so often and there was so little information on the box as to date. In fact on Imdb it's listed as Born to Fight I believe. Searching the name of the video and the actors lead me to the blog in question. That glowing report I've linked to made me think it would be worth a look. It was too.

I like that review so much I'm going to steal his plot outline from it "With Stavin posing as reporter Marilaine Kain for the U.S.I News channel she travels to a province on the border of Vietnam, looking to seek out jaded Vietnam War survivor and decorated hero Sam Wood, as played by Brent Huff. Her apparent brief is to offer him $50,000 for his story relating to his escape from the infamously reviled Lutam Prison. The truth lies behind her seeking out his services to aid her in rescuing her own father from the still illegally active incarceration hell camp, and the connection that links Sam to the feisty woman’s parent."

I was a little distracted whilst watching it so I didn't quite know what was going off. It didn't really matter though as it was thoroughly enjoyable all the same. It's really pretty much non stop action from start to finish. Which is something most b-movies fail to achieve. There's so many which clearly can't afford even the most basic pyrotechnics and as such try and get away with people talking. This has more explosions and people falling down dead from being gunned down by two m-16s than pretty much any film I've ever watched. The lead character is an interesting mixture of Crocodile Dundee, Indiana Jones, Rambo and Clint Eastwood. He's a bit of a wisecracker and he's a super action hero. And a man of few words. All at once. Most commonly seen with gun ammo belts wrapped around him. Much like this:

There's a delightfully over the top villain involved as well. I think he's meant to be german but I'm not sure. When the time comes for his death, he milks it like a true professional.

Best scene of the film? That'll be where the hero is in captured mode and being shot by his captors as they force him into a river, he ducks under and re-appears with about 10 grenades in his hands which get thrown at the bad guys blowing up another hundred more huts.

It's got great pace, it's utterly absurd and it's really quite enjoyable. It should, in theory, make you laugh. As it were.

Puppet Master (1990)

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:01:04 GMT

Apparently this was the first film Full Moon released

I first encountered this film way back when. It was a time of rental videos for me. Lots of rental videos. Pretty much every week it was 2 or 3 videos rented from Woodlands shop fronts. Mainly two actually as it was difficult to watch 3. It was always a difficult task choosing a video as I would be watching it with my grandparents. Not that they had any objection to sex and violence, they just didn't like 'the stupid stuff' I like. Their liking was more for your standard action thriller. Martial Arts usually went down fairly well but anything sci fi or absurd horror was a no no. But still they usually let me get away with one silly film I could watch first and then something more crowd pleasing later. It was exactly at the period this film was released that my video watching began in earnest. Which would be when I Was 14 then. 4 years too early for most 18 films but I've turned out okay right? Right? Hello?

Of course I'd been watching 18s secretly for a fair number of years. Secretly because my dad always disapproved strongly and still does of things with sex and swearing in. And horrible bloody violence. The taboo nature of it perhaps made it more appealing. I'm not sure. I just wanted to see these films regardless anyway. But shall I actually get on with this review rather than recount my history with rental videos? I shall in just a moment but I felt it was necessary to put some context in here. The trailer for this film was on practically every video we rented. I wanted to see it for years. But my Auntie Norma who lived with my grandparents, has a phobia of puppets so it was always forbidden.

How delighted I was when this came in to the stall a few days back. After a 20 year wait (near enough) I finally get to see the film. Did it live up to expectations? Well kind of but that's only taking into account what I know now. Knowing what to expect from b-movie nonsense from the likes of Full Moon pictures, I knew it wouldn't actually amount to much. Had I not had such b-movie experience I would have been expecting much more. As it is, it's just about good enough.

It's about some psychic types who are summoned to this huge abandoned hotel where some bloke died. And a friend of theirs has just died there as well. He's the reason they're going. He'd bought the place too. It was probably his wife that summoned them or something. Or their psychic visions. Or something like that. The original dead bloke had somehow managed to make puppets come to life and do things. He killed himself to stop them falling into the wrong hands. It seems though that dead friend bloke is the wrong hands as he's got them going again and they kill off a fair number of his friends.

The puppets are a pretty good gimmick and each has their own particular trait. Pinhead has a small head but a large body and huge arms and has incredible strength, Ms Leech is able to spew out deadly leeches, Tunneler has a drill on top of his head, and there's another one with knives for hands. It's a shame they don't do much until about the 50 minute mark.

Here's a nice trailer for the film just to break things up a little.

Most of it up to then are the friends experiencing things that tell of bad things going to happen. The leader of the friends seems to be Garth Marenghi but the star of them is the fortune teller white witch with something of a southern drawl. She's a strong character, has the best lines and puts up a good fight against some of the puppets. Her unfortunate death is not without putting up an incredible fight, despite being crippled early on. Pretty much everyone else is rather bland, servingly only to be meat for the puppets.

The final death scene is quite unpleasant despite us not actually seeing much. It actually manages to convey more horror by not showing everything, which shows at least a slight bit of skill in film making. The puppet animation is also pretty good and quite effective.

To enjoy this film you've really got to have a taste for low budget horror. It's nothing particularly special but has just enough good ideas to keep you entertained. As it is I found myself skipping through a lot until the puppets got active.

A review of the film known as 'Electric Dreams '

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:25:17 GMT

The cover to the VHS I had was a lot more plain but I like this a lot

Firstly I want to say that this film is extremely 1980s. I believe I said that not so long ago about a film though I can't quite remember which. But this is probably even more 80s than that. But really it's more 80s in the specific technology aspect. This story works for 1984. It works because it's 1984. Well actually it was probably 1983 when it was filmed. But this was a time when computers were something new and represented an exciting change and leap forward for society. In fact it's more than that. It's computers for the home that is the big thing. Suddenly these amazing machines that had been confined to offices previously were entering into the home environment and the future was suddenly happening. The possibilities seemed limitless, even though most of them could barely print "hello world" on screen (oh come on, video games were quite commonplace in 1983, look at the Sinclair and Commodore computers for example - A Video Game Historian). Look that was just to make a point okay? There still seemed to be an incredible future ahead because of these marvelous machines. But they were also could be just a little bit scary, especially with the ability to hook them up to other things and have them control them. This film tends to encompass both of those elements.

So what's this film actually about I hear you crying out loud as you waded through an excessively long opening paragraph. Well there's this nerdy architect guy who is forever late for meetings and stuff. A friend tells him to get a computer as that will make him more organised (yeah like he could carry one around in his pocket or something.. ). So he goes to a computer store and gets talked into buying a particular computer which I believe (I wasn't paying proper attention at this point for some reason) was some end of line product (typically) by a slightly kooky and really rather excellent shop assistant woman (WHAT?? A WOMAN SELLING A COMPUTER?? THIS FILM IS CLEARLY RIDICULOUS!!). She's remarkably charismatic for such a small role. She barely has 10 minutes in the film and is really memorable. But anyway. So he goes home and sets it up and stuff, discovers how it can control everything in the home, including his coffee maker. It talks to him and is controllable by voice command as well, also typically. He connects it to the work computer and downloads too much into it and it then becomes sentient. It falls in love with a pretty girl upstairs (Virginia Masden) after hearing her playing Cello and it plays along. It's got a pretty amazing sound chip for a PC of that age. But anyway, she thinks that it was nerdy guy who was playing the music and goes out on a date with him. He realises it was the computer but doesn't admit it to her but the date is pretty disastrous. She pretty much blows him off after that until he turns up at a concert where she's playing. She likes him again then as his personal organiser plays along with the concert, much to the disgust of the audience. Quite why she liked his bleepy accompaniment I've no idea. You'd have thought she hated it as much as the rest. Anyway we continue on with the computer and nerdy guy getting into something of a rivalry over her. He denies the computer access to her and then it starts trying to wreck his life by putting him on wanted lists and stuff. He still tries to conceal the computer is the one responsible for the music. But ultimately everything works out okay of course and she decides she likes him anyway even if he didn't make the music. And the computer downloads itself somewhere else and seemingly starts taking over the world, renaming itself skynet and starting world war 3 or something (subs please check)

The soundtrack to the film is brilliant. Mostly by synth maestro Giorgio Morodor but with the likes of Heaven 17 involved with some of their songs occasionally. The star track is of course the famous mega hit 'Together in Electric Dreams' with Phil Oakey of the Human League on vocals. I've been going on a bit so why not take time out to have a listen to that for a while.

Enjoy that? If no then go get some musical taste. Idiot. Anyway, I must mention that Virginia Masden is really very cute and pretty in this. It feels odd that she used to be quite often the attractive pretty girl in films as my first encounter with her was in the film Candyman. Not that she was ugly in that but she wasn't the pretty pretty girl she is in earlier films. She's a really sweet and charming presence in this. Nerdy guy is an average nerdy guy and does what he should. And the computer is very computery and far too advanced for the time, obviously. It is actually quite scary when it starts controlling his life in an extremely negative way. An indication of what it might be like to lose everything to hackers maybe.

I was biased toward this film from the start so it didn't have to do much to convince me it was great. If I have to say whether or not you should watch it, it's more difficult. It really isn't an essential film to watch in any way. But it's a brilliant representation of the time. It encapsulates so much of the feelings about computers from the early 80s. It is pretty cute though. So basically if you're a bit of an 80s fan it's going to brilliant but if not it might be okay as a pleasant little romantic comedy.

It's due out on DVD pretty soon, as a bare bones release. It's taken a long time due to some legal wranglings or something. Probably to do with teh soundtrack. Just rememember we'll always be together, however far it seems. Love never ends.. We'll always be together, together in a electric dreams..etc etc