HHH is one of the most controversial superstars in wrestling history. His in-ring career has been atributed with stealing the spotlight, unnecessarily squashing promising stars, only being in the position he's in because of his family ties. This is a view held by many fans, although I'd argue that he's a skilled worker who's over with the majority of fans and therefore deserves a lead spot. This year, HHH is now in the non-wrestling role of COO (can't they just say chairman?) and it's valid to ask how effective he's been in this role. So let's play the game and find out.
It all started off with The Game usurping Vince Mcmahons position after the latter made some bad decisions. He spent most of the summer acting as a moderater for the John Cena/CM Punk fued, and acting as the special referee in their Summerslam match. Some would say this detracted from the Cena/Punk fued, although the majority of promos worked to showcase Punk's grand, shoot-style mic-work, and the promotion emphasis was kept mainly on Cena/Punk. Due to another Kevin Nash injury, we saw a build to a Night Of Champions match of HHH/Punk, and the COO embroiled in the top storyline. Even though HHH proved he could still go and the match was pretty good, it felt sort of unnecessary for him to be in the main event with Punk and go over. Now we have HHH in the centre of a 'walkout' storyline, in which he's portrayed in a sympathetic face manner, not only is he the main focus of this storyline, but he's been the only face to gain from it so far.
The Hunter detracters would say that this is another case of The Game taking up the spotlight, and that few faces are getting much exposure now that HHH is COO. When 42 year old Paul Levesque is in the major angles, how can the likes of Money in the Bank winner Daniel Bryan or Zack Ryder benefit? Many are saying that this walkout angle could lead HHH wrestling a main event again, so where's Sheamus' spot? People are also saying that this is becoming a repeat of 2003, with HHH in most, if not all main events, making deserving stars job to him (I mean main event guys like Benoit, Goldberg, Booker T, mid-carders are understandable).
You could argue that some are actually benefiting from HHH. An array of heels are getting good coverage due to their involvment in his angles, the likes of Christian, Wade Barrett, Alberto Del Rio, Dolph Ziggler and Jack Swagger are showcasing their mic-skills and to an extent ring skills through them heading the walkout angle. Miz/R-Truth are 2 of the most talked about and interesting heels today due to their firing angle. Behind the scenes, HHH knows that other faces are needed and has managed to make CM Punk the hottest star in wrestling, partially due to the angle they had. It is thought that faces such as John Cena, Randy Orton, CM Punk and Sheamus are going to get a rub from the walkout angle, possibly siding with Hunter. And whether people like it or not, HHH has decent mic-skills and his overness makes him ideal to be a large part of WWE storylines.
In conclusion, yes Hunter is up to his old tricks of hogging the spotlight in WWE and making himself the centeral focus. But just as was the case from 2000-2005, his abilities and status makes him deserving, sure it's not wise to make him a huge staple In WWE, but let's see where this walkout angle goes, before we make judgements, and if I'm wrong, the smarks get to have the last laugh.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Sunday, 2 October 2011
I'm A Family Dad Guy
Since the 1990s, animated comedies have been a mainstay in pop culture, from South Park to Simpsons. One of the modern pioneers of this genre is Seth Macfarlane, a man who's now one of the highest payed people in television, and he keeps busy as his 2 biggest creations are Family Guy and American Dad (Cleveland Show isn't that great). With 2 major Macfarlane comedies usually running side by side on Fox, FX or BBC3, the question I'm asking now is, which is the overall better show? Well as you guessed, I'm gonna try and deduce it, so let's find out 'what's the deuce'.
Let's look at the comic content of the show. Since both are Macfarlane creations, they have similar writing staffs, all be minor exceptions. When it first started, Family Guy had a wry lunacy about it, the cut-away gags were fresh, yet the show also had pretty sharp one-liners. American Dad tends to avoid the cutaway jokes, as not to seem like a complete rip-off, but it still uses wry dialogue, whereas in the later seasons, Family Guy has mainly relied on shock comedy, such as vomit, peadophilia, rape, poop and racism jokes, some work well others don't. One main factor that Family Guy relies on is the grandness of it's show, American Dad is often seen as the formers little brother and there's a reason. Family Guy showcases lavish musical numbers that tend to split sides, as well as epic stories such as Stewie and Brians 'Road to...' episodes. The cut-away gags allow Family Guy to tackle a vast array of subjects and parody them unmercifully, but American Dad can combat this by using main plots to tackle large subjects such as Abortion, terrorism and homeland security. The set up of American Dad (main character being a CIA agent) allows for pretty surealy fun storylines, often involving terrorists, aliens and super gadgets. I'll cover how the humour of each show has held up over time later, but for now we can see that at their peek, both shows can be immensly enjoyable.
Any great show needs great characters as fodder for the mad situations that occur to them. Both shows have a similar character set up (due to the family situation in both), so let's compare each title member of each family. In the husband/father characters, Peter is a fat, drunk idiot, basically a more outlandish Homer Simpson, and although he can provide a laugh here and there, his character is getting a bit out-dated. Stan tends to be the more well rounded character, whilst somewhat stupid, he also has a xenophobic ignorence, along with often pathetically moral beliefs, mixed with a past teenage insecurity. Francine just tends to be a tamer version of Lois, the MILF with a sordid past who has to be responsible for her family, although Lois let's her past out frequently and provides some good humour. Whereas Chris' dull nature can be quite funny if written right, Steve's teen runt with an unfufiled libedo have a humour yet pathetic sympathy to it, making him a character some can relate to. In the daughter scene, while Hayley is often just a moral voice against Stans bigotry, Meg is the ugly, unpopular girl who everyone pics on (including her family) and her repression can be quite amusing. Both shows have the anthropomorphic character of Stewie/Brian and Roger/Klaus, Stewie and Roger are quite similar, both are antagonistic, with Stewie bordering on maniacle and Roger bordering on Bitchy, both treat most of those around them with contempt and both are often the funniest characters on the shows, due to a lack of conscience or restraints that allow them to commit questionably funny acts. Klaus is a very minimal character, nothing ever insightful comes from him and he can be at times grating to watch, whereas Brian is a multilayered character, often the most human ironically. He's an intelectual liberal who lusts after his friends wife, smokes pot, longs for love, has no writing ability despite believing otherwise and is the moral voice for many of the characters.
With Family Guy now nearing a 10th series, it's aparent that it's lost some pizaz. It's been suffering Simpsons esq stagnation, with past series being remembered as better and some jokes that often fall flat. American Dad is now nearing a 6th series, and while a few episodes have mild stagnation, it's still as sharp, if not more than it once was. When compairing the newest Family Guy and American Dad boxsets together, I often find AD volume 5 being better than FG volume 9, and AD volume 4 better than FG volume 8. However, while volume 6 of American Dad was very good, in fact better than the last, Family Guy stepped it up with volume 10 being the best in years, despite a few stragling episodes. With Family Guy now practically being an institution, it's a valid question whether it's quality can last and when it will get to the point where it'll become a husk of it's former self, just as the Simpsons. American Dad might be hitting that stagnation soon, but only time will tell whether it'll be better than Family Guy's stagnation.
In conclusion, the majority of people would favour Family Guy, due to it being the forerunner and the longer running show, but as I said earlier, new American Dad tend to be better than the new Family Guys in terms of story/laughs. But when we look at both shows in their prime, we see Family Guy trumping with moments like PTV, Surfin Bird, the Y2K episode, the Pilot and many other greats, in conclusion, Family Guy may be dwindling now, but at it's prime, it was Freaking Sweet.
Let's look at the comic content of the show. Since both are Macfarlane creations, they have similar writing staffs, all be minor exceptions. When it first started, Family Guy had a wry lunacy about it, the cut-away gags were fresh, yet the show also had pretty sharp one-liners. American Dad tends to avoid the cutaway jokes, as not to seem like a complete rip-off, but it still uses wry dialogue, whereas in the later seasons, Family Guy has mainly relied on shock comedy, such as vomit, peadophilia, rape, poop and racism jokes, some work well others don't. One main factor that Family Guy relies on is the grandness of it's show, American Dad is often seen as the formers little brother and there's a reason. Family Guy showcases lavish musical numbers that tend to split sides, as well as epic stories such as Stewie and Brians 'Road to...' episodes. The cut-away gags allow Family Guy to tackle a vast array of subjects and parody them unmercifully, but American Dad can combat this by using main plots to tackle large subjects such as Abortion, terrorism and homeland security. The set up of American Dad (main character being a CIA agent) allows for pretty surealy fun storylines, often involving terrorists, aliens and super gadgets. I'll cover how the humour of each show has held up over time later, but for now we can see that at their peek, both shows can be immensly enjoyable.
Any great show needs great characters as fodder for the mad situations that occur to them. Both shows have a similar character set up (due to the family situation in both), so let's compare each title member of each family. In the husband/father characters, Peter is a fat, drunk idiot, basically a more outlandish Homer Simpson, and although he can provide a laugh here and there, his character is getting a bit out-dated. Stan tends to be the more well rounded character, whilst somewhat stupid, he also has a xenophobic ignorence, along with often pathetically moral beliefs, mixed with a past teenage insecurity. Francine just tends to be a tamer version of Lois, the MILF with a sordid past who has to be responsible for her family, although Lois let's her past out frequently and provides some good humour. Whereas Chris' dull nature can be quite funny if written right, Steve's teen runt with an unfufiled libedo have a humour yet pathetic sympathy to it, making him a character some can relate to. In the daughter scene, while Hayley is often just a moral voice against Stans bigotry, Meg is the ugly, unpopular girl who everyone pics on (including her family) and her repression can be quite amusing. Both shows have the anthropomorphic character of Stewie/Brian and Roger/Klaus, Stewie and Roger are quite similar, both are antagonistic, with Stewie bordering on maniacle and Roger bordering on Bitchy, both treat most of those around them with contempt and both are often the funniest characters on the shows, due to a lack of conscience or restraints that allow them to commit questionably funny acts. Klaus is a very minimal character, nothing ever insightful comes from him and he can be at times grating to watch, whereas Brian is a multilayered character, often the most human ironically. He's an intelectual liberal who lusts after his friends wife, smokes pot, longs for love, has no writing ability despite believing otherwise and is the moral voice for many of the characters.
With Family Guy now nearing a 10th series, it's aparent that it's lost some pizaz. It's been suffering Simpsons esq stagnation, with past series being remembered as better and some jokes that often fall flat. American Dad is now nearing a 6th series, and while a few episodes have mild stagnation, it's still as sharp, if not more than it once was. When compairing the newest Family Guy and American Dad boxsets together, I often find AD volume 5 being better than FG volume 9, and AD volume 4 better than FG volume 8. However, while volume 6 of American Dad was very good, in fact better than the last, Family Guy stepped it up with volume 10 being the best in years, despite a few stragling episodes. With Family Guy now practically being an institution, it's a valid question whether it's quality can last and when it will get to the point where it'll become a husk of it's former self, just as the Simpsons. American Dad might be hitting that stagnation soon, but only time will tell whether it'll be better than Family Guy's stagnation.
In conclusion, the majority of people would favour Family Guy, due to it being the forerunner and the longer running show, but as I said earlier, new American Dad tend to be better than the new Family Guys in terms of story/laughs. But when we look at both shows in their prime, we see Family Guy trumping with moments like PTV, Surfin Bird, the Y2K episode, the Pilot and many other greats, in conclusion, Family Guy may be dwindling now, but at it's prime, it was Freaking Sweet.
Saturday, 24 September 2011
Hangin' 10
This week is a new top 10 list, and I'll be covering my top 10 current WWE superstars, these are the 10 superstars that out of the entire WWE roster, I like the most. This is a list of current wrestlers, not my all time top 10, although that may come one day yet. Now there are certain exceptions that have to be made to the list, I.e since HHH is only a semi-competitor, then I can't include him on the list. So here's my personal view of who's the best in WWE at the moment.
10. Cody Rhodes
Sure Cody doesn't share the same electricity as his father, but Cody has proven to be a rather skilled athlete, and someone who's broken away from his fathers shadow. He has a crisp fluidity in the ring, with moves such as the beautiful disaster or crossRhodes being executed with ease when most wrestlers would stumble. His realistic punches and kicks have been comended by the legendary Bret Hart. He first stood out in mid-2010, by portraying an over-the-top pretty boy or 'Dashing' gimmick, Cody exuded a vain, smuggness that made him a good heel. While I prefered the Dashing gimmick to what he does now, his disfigured psycho gimmick Is pretty good due to creative booking, and Cody does a good job of conveying it. Cody is a star on the rise, who's stepped out of his fathers spotlight.
9. Alberto Del Rio
Del Rio is one of the most talked about stars today. While his WWE title reign was seemingly unnoticable, there may be a reason for that, due to some mild problems I think Del Rio has. His in ring style is seemingly blad, as in he only has 2 major moves (1 finisher and 1 signiture), granted he wrestles a methodical heel style, he isn't the best technical wrestler, so that doesn't gell well. I believe that if Del Rio added more signature moves, maybe incorperates some lucha moves, he could be greater. Apart from that, his finisher/1 signiture (cross armbreaker and inziguri on top rope) that he does have are pretty good moves. Del Rio also has a smarmy charisma that is necessary for a heel. Complete with cool Mexican aristocrat gimmick, cool entrance and cool personal ring announcer (Ricardo!), Del Rio is a superstar that's always fun to watch.
8. Daniel Bryan
Although many of you will be angry at me for placing him this low, Bryan hasn't had much chance to shine recently. Maybe in autum 2010, when he was having good PPV matches, he'd have been higher on the list, but apart from Money in the Bank and Summerslam, he's had little PPV time this year, he's lost the majority of his matches and has been made to be Sin Cara's bitch. However, even his short Smackdown matches are gems, he is a wrestler who can adapt to any style and carry any opponent, he has an exciting moveset and is probably one of the best technical wrestlers in the world. All WWE need to do is put some faith in Bryan, give him more wins, maybe an IC title run and more PPV matches to showcase his ability, and Bryan can be one of the top wrestlers in the world.
7. Wade Barrett
A man who was probably the top heel of 2010, Barrett is someone who may be that again someday. He has all the qualities of a good superstar. Unique look, with a 6ft5 frame on a meaty body, his combed back hair and beaky nose add heel characteristics to him. His promos are carried out with a thick Prestonian accent that makes his monologues smooth, while he also has a sly, arrogance that's easily conveyed. His has a good moveset, and with his aformentioned frame, he can give these moves to most wrestlers (he gave his finisher to bloody Mark Henry!). Yes Barrett has all to tools to make him a major player in WWE, he's proven this during his fued with Randy Orton and John Cena, I'd like to see him as the top heel of Smackdown, I'd rather him than bloody Mark Henry.
6. Dolph Ziggler
Ziggler on many occasions has been compared to the late great Mr Perfect Curt Henning, and there's a damn good reason. Ziggler is someone who's ability sets him apart from the rest, his technical skills mixed with pure athleticism, a good moveset and entertaining selling makes him a modern great. Drifting in the mid-cards now, I believe soon enough that Dolph will make it to the main event some day, he's had many great matches with the likes of Kofi Kingston, John Morrison and Daniel Bryan, his Royal Rumble match with Edge proved that he could be something. Dolph has a great look with a chisled physique and bleech blonde heel hair, his mic skills are a bit average, but that's why he had a manager, and he is one of the best athletes in wrestling right now, if WWE are smart, they'll use Dolph to his full potential.
5. Sheamus
Sheamus is what most promotions would look for in a wrestler, this is probably why he was pushed so early, like a young Brock Lesner, he can be the next big thing. He has a unique look that immediatly gains peoples attention, with unbelievably pale skin (which I think is a great counterpart for all the orange posers) and a striking Ginger haircut mixed with a huge physique that WWE loves so much. His mic-skills are pretty decent, the smooth Irish accent (it seems most wrestlers with cool accents are good on the mic) either striking fear when a heel, or being jolly and lighthearted as a face. Sheamus has a great range of moves for a man his size, and he hits each move with perfect timeing, a move like a brouge kick is hit so well that you'd think it was fecking real. All in all, Sheamus has every quality that makes a good wrestler, look, mic-work and in ring skills, and he has the later in spades.
4. Christian
After years of being considered one of the most underated wrestlers in the world, Christian has finally made it to the big time. Christian has earned the fans respect with his crisp moves, executed so smoothly, and having an array of moves to use in his matches. His series with Randy Orton this year was great, some of the best wrestling seen in a while. But it's Christians other qualities that've come out this year as well after his heel turn. His mic-work helps convey his heel character, which is what good heel mic-work should do, his pompus, arrogant, smarmy character who thinks he's so great that he deserves title shot after title shot, no matter how many times he's lost, his heel character is one you love to hate, thus making Christian the best heel today. It's good to see that Christian is in the main event, and with great matches and an awesome heel persona, it's obvious he belongs there.
3. The Miz
you either love or hate the Miz, and I love him. While his momentum has seemed to dwindle in the past month, he's shown that he's one of the most entertaining wrestlers there is. His mai attribute is his skills on the mic, he's done many promos that have grabbed the audiences attention and captivated them, his delivery is excellent, he's already spawned 2 catchphrases, Miz has a verbiage that is delivered slowly, yet with emphasis on each word, putting over whatever angle he's in. The Miz constantly presents himself as a superstar, with flashy suits and a certain charismatic swagger to him, making him, and anything he's involved in seem special. While he's not a Ric Flair or Bret Hart when it comes to ability, he still has a decent style, and can have pretty good matches with the right opponents. All these attribute make the Miz (sigh)....AWESOME!
2. Randy Orton
At one point the top wrestler in the world, only at the age of 31, he's already a 9 time world champion, winning his first at just 24, Orton is truely something special. At this point in his career, Orton is one of the best and at the top of his game. He has a quick, intense style that perfectly matches his persona of an angry psychopath with quick bursts of anger, his move have an impact, yet also a smooth flow to each sequence, making most of his matches with anyone enjoyable. He's had some of the best matches of his career with Christian this year, excelling his legacy even further, no other wrestler could match intensity with match quality at the same time, but Orton does it well. His dangerous Viper gimmick makes him a good anti-face character, someone who's badass and malicious, yet cool and justified, making him an extemely over superstar. Orton is only young, yet he's acomplished more than most veterans do, there's a reason for that, he's a perfect mixture of ability and persona, he's Randy Orton.
1. C.M Punk
In my view he is not only the best in WWE, but the best in the world right now, he's worked hard to get where he is, he had the respect of many fans, he's the top wrestler right now, he's CM Punk. After competing in the match of the year with John Cena at Money in the Bank, Punks career has skyrocketed, he has great in ring skill, a vast array of moves mixed with good psychologhy. Punk is a jack of all trades, he's a good technical wrestler, he can be a good highflyer, he incorperates martial arts kicks, and he knows how to build a match, use the perfect spots and come out as great. His mic-skills are also great, his promos recently have been entertaining, mixing a shoot style humour with a seriousness to intensify the fued. Any time Punk is on RAW, you know it's gonna be good, whether it's a well put together match, or a memorable segment, Punk is the star of WWE, let's hope it stays this way.
10. Cody Rhodes
Sure Cody doesn't share the same electricity as his father, but Cody has proven to be a rather skilled athlete, and someone who's broken away from his fathers shadow. He has a crisp fluidity in the ring, with moves such as the beautiful disaster or crossRhodes being executed with ease when most wrestlers would stumble. His realistic punches and kicks have been comended by the legendary Bret Hart. He first stood out in mid-2010, by portraying an over-the-top pretty boy or 'Dashing' gimmick, Cody exuded a vain, smuggness that made him a good heel. While I prefered the Dashing gimmick to what he does now, his disfigured psycho gimmick Is pretty good due to creative booking, and Cody does a good job of conveying it. Cody is a star on the rise, who's stepped out of his fathers spotlight.
9. Alberto Del Rio
Del Rio is one of the most talked about stars today. While his WWE title reign was seemingly unnoticable, there may be a reason for that, due to some mild problems I think Del Rio has. His in ring style is seemingly blad, as in he only has 2 major moves (1 finisher and 1 signiture), granted he wrestles a methodical heel style, he isn't the best technical wrestler, so that doesn't gell well. I believe that if Del Rio added more signature moves, maybe incorperates some lucha moves, he could be greater. Apart from that, his finisher/1 signiture (cross armbreaker and inziguri on top rope) that he does have are pretty good moves. Del Rio also has a smarmy charisma that is necessary for a heel. Complete with cool Mexican aristocrat gimmick, cool entrance and cool personal ring announcer (Ricardo!), Del Rio is a superstar that's always fun to watch.
8. Daniel Bryan
Although many of you will be angry at me for placing him this low, Bryan hasn't had much chance to shine recently. Maybe in autum 2010, when he was having good PPV matches, he'd have been higher on the list, but apart from Money in the Bank and Summerslam, he's had little PPV time this year, he's lost the majority of his matches and has been made to be Sin Cara's bitch. However, even his short Smackdown matches are gems, he is a wrestler who can adapt to any style and carry any opponent, he has an exciting moveset and is probably one of the best technical wrestlers in the world. All WWE need to do is put some faith in Bryan, give him more wins, maybe an IC title run and more PPV matches to showcase his ability, and Bryan can be one of the top wrestlers in the world.
7. Wade Barrett
A man who was probably the top heel of 2010, Barrett is someone who may be that again someday. He has all the qualities of a good superstar. Unique look, with a 6ft5 frame on a meaty body, his combed back hair and beaky nose add heel characteristics to him. His promos are carried out with a thick Prestonian accent that makes his monologues smooth, while he also has a sly, arrogance that's easily conveyed. His has a good moveset, and with his aformentioned frame, he can give these moves to most wrestlers (he gave his finisher to bloody Mark Henry!). Yes Barrett has all to tools to make him a major player in WWE, he's proven this during his fued with Randy Orton and John Cena, I'd like to see him as the top heel of Smackdown, I'd rather him than bloody Mark Henry.
6. Dolph Ziggler
Ziggler on many occasions has been compared to the late great Mr Perfect Curt Henning, and there's a damn good reason. Ziggler is someone who's ability sets him apart from the rest, his technical skills mixed with pure athleticism, a good moveset and entertaining selling makes him a modern great. Drifting in the mid-cards now, I believe soon enough that Dolph will make it to the main event some day, he's had many great matches with the likes of Kofi Kingston, John Morrison and Daniel Bryan, his Royal Rumble match with Edge proved that he could be something. Dolph has a great look with a chisled physique and bleech blonde heel hair, his mic skills are a bit average, but that's why he had a manager, and he is one of the best athletes in wrestling right now, if WWE are smart, they'll use Dolph to his full potential.
5. Sheamus
Sheamus is what most promotions would look for in a wrestler, this is probably why he was pushed so early, like a young Brock Lesner, he can be the next big thing. He has a unique look that immediatly gains peoples attention, with unbelievably pale skin (which I think is a great counterpart for all the orange posers) and a striking Ginger haircut mixed with a huge physique that WWE loves so much. His mic-skills are pretty decent, the smooth Irish accent (it seems most wrestlers with cool accents are good on the mic) either striking fear when a heel, or being jolly and lighthearted as a face. Sheamus has a great range of moves for a man his size, and he hits each move with perfect timeing, a move like a brouge kick is hit so well that you'd think it was fecking real. All in all, Sheamus has every quality that makes a good wrestler, look, mic-work and in ring skills, and he has the later in spades.
4. Christian
After years of being considered one of the most underated wrestlers in the world, Christian has finally made it to the big time. Christian has earned the fans respect with his crisp moves, executed so smoothly, and having an array of moves to use in his matches. His series with Randy Orton this year was great, some of the best wrestling seen in a while. But it's Christians other qualities that've come out this year as well after his heel turn. His mic-work helps convey his heel character, which is what good heel mic-work should do, his pompus, arrogant, smarmy character who thinks he's so great that he deserves title shot after title shot, no matter how many times he's lost, his heel character is one you love to hate, thus making Christian the best heel today. It's good to see that Christian is in the main event, and with great matches and an awesome heel persona, it's obvious he belongs there.
3. The Miz
you either love or hate the Miz, and I love him. While his momentum has seemed to dwindle in the past month, he's shown that he's one of the most entertaining wrestlers there is. His mai attribute is his skills on the mic, he's done many promos that have grabbed the audiences attention and captivated them, his delivery is excellent, he's already spawned 2 catchphrases, Miz has a verbiage that is delivered slowly, yet with emphasis on each word, putting over whatever angle he's in. The Miz constantly presents himself as a superstar, with flashy suits and a certain charismatic swagger to him, making him, and anything he's involved in seem special. While he's not a Ric Flair or Bret Hart when it comes to ability, he still has a decent style, and can have pretty good matches with the right opponents. All these attribute make the Miz (sigh)....AWESOME!
2. Randy Orton
At one point the top wrestler in the world, only at the age of 31, he's already a 9 time world champion, winning his first at just 24, Orton is truely something special. At this point in his career, Orton is one of the best and at the top of his game. He has a quick, intense style that perfectly matches his persona of an angry psychopath with quick bursts of anger, his move have an impact, yet also a smooth flow to each sequence, making most of his matches with anyone enjoyable. He's had some of the best matches of his career with Christian this year, excelling his legacy even further, no other wrestler could match intensity with match quality at the same time, but Orton does it well. His dangerous Viper gimmick makes him a good anti-face character, someone who's badass and malicious, yet cool and justified, making him an extemely over superstar. Orton is only young, yet he's acomplished more than most veterans do, there's a reason for that, he's a perfect mixture of ability and persona, he's Randy Orton.
1. C.M Punk
In my view he is not only the best in WWE, but the best in the world right now, he's worked hard to get where he is, he had the respect of many fans, he's the top wrestler right now, he's CM Punk. After competing in the match of the year with John Cena at Money in the Bank, Punks career has skyrocketed, he has great in ring skill, a vast array of moves mixed with good psychologhy. Punk is a jack of all trades, he's a good technical wrestler, he can be a good highflyer, he incorperates martial arts kicks, and he knows how to build a match, use the perfect spots and come out as great. His mic-skills are also great, his promos recently have been entertaining, mixing a shoot style humour with a seriousness to intensify the fued. Any time Punk is on RAW, you know it's gonna be good, whether it's a well put together match, or a memorable segment, Punk is the star of WWE, let's hope it stays this way.
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Review: The Fighter
When you have a certain genre of film that's packed with cliches, it's hard for a film in that genre to truely stand out as a classic, in this case, sports films, and in this case; David O Russel's 'The Fighter', does it's best to stand out, not only as a great boxing film, but as one of the premier films of the year. With powerful drama, suspense, acting, characters and well shot sequences, The Fighter is a film worthy of the many award nominations (and deserved wins) it had. So, for the sake of cliche...(sigh) Lets get ready to Rumble!
This true story follows up and commer boxer 'Irish' Micky Ward, a fighter who has potential, but by hook or crook, is held back by his family, including shovanistic (if that's the spelling), crack addict brother Dicky and controling mother Alice. With a dynamic like this, we are far more interested by what goes on outside the ring than what goes on inside. The fact that Micky is living in his brothers spotlight (Dicky was an ex-boxer who knocked down sugar Ray Leanard), that Alice clearly favours Dicky over Micky, how even the mildest act of breaking away by Micky is met with uproar from his family, how Dicky's addiction impairs his ability to help his brother when it counts, all these elements make us invested in the story and characters. Micky is so held back and overcomes so many obstacles, that when he wins in the end, you're feeling his jubilation and you're given the feel-good ending you need after all the turbulance. This is a story that'll have you hooked and rooting for the protagonist as all films should.
Now the matter of this being 'just another boxing film'. True there are the cliches of the hero overcomming all odds to achive his dreams, just liks the Rocky films. And there is complaint that even in the modern era, it doesn't hold the sense of cynicism that the great 'Raging Bull' held. But there's something to counteract the arguements of the nay Sayers. Unlike Rocky, this is a true story, all these so called cliches actually happened, so why take them out? And this isn't just any other feel good sports film, there's a grittyness to it, as is conveyed by the stagnant environment of Lowell, Massachusetts, a bleak setting with dull colouring all around. And the character of Dicky provides plenty of darkness, with his addiction digging him into a pit of hopelessness, having to steal his brothers spotlight to feel great again. Don't think of this as just another sports movie, it's way better (excluding Raging Bull)!
Director O Russell provides good direction (redundant!). The fight scenes are well shot, building suspense, putting the viewer in the midst of the battle, experiencing every punch, knockdown...well that's it. The fight scenes were shot using the same cameras HBO used to film Wards fights, creating a stylish realism of a 1990s boxing match. Scenes such as Dicky reanacting his Knock down of Sugar Ray, in a crackhouse, is filmed perfectly, slow motion used at the right moments to capture either the majesty or the brutality of the moment. This is truely O Russells finest work.
Sure there's drama, realism and direction, but the most praised thing in this movie is the acting. I know it's the obvious but I feel it must be mentioned in a 'Fighter' review, Christian Bale gives the best performance of his career, as Dicky. With a weasely Boston Accent, complete with punch drunk twang, there's also the constant spectacle, which is what the character of dicky is, a walking spectacle, Bale unleashes a blitzkrieg of smarmyness, brovado, sorrow, self pity and final jubilation all in one film, Bale is one of the few Oscar wins that truely deserved it. Mark Wahlberg as Micky is the lead, but is often discarded in the praise, which If any thing is good, it matches his character, while Bale gives the full force performance, soaking up the attention, it's Wahlberg who's restrained, conveying a man who just can't find it in him to stand up to his family. Amy Adams as Charlene, Micky's girlfriend, gives a decent performance, you feel she wants what's best for her man and you'd believe she could anyone the courage to make it to the top. Mellisa Leo as Alice is another great performance, you sense the love she has for her children, yet also her egotism and manipulation. As far as acting goes, you can't go wrong with this film, it's probably the most right acting you'll find.
In conclusion, 'The Fighter' is probably the 2nd greatest boxing movie ever (it ain't no Raging Bull), with everything you could want from a film, story, acting, direction...in the end it's a 5 star classic worthy of any praise it gets. If you'll remember this movie for anything, it'll be Bale's awesome performance, but don't let that be your only reason for watching.
This true story follows up and commer boxer 'Irish' Micky Ward, a fighter who has potential, but by hook or crook, is held back by his family, including shovanistic (if that's the spelling), crack addict brother Dicky and controling mother Alice. With a dynamic like this, we are far more interested by what goes on outside the ring than what goes on inside. The fact that Micky is living in his brothers spotlight (Dicky was an ex-boxer who knocked down sugar Ray Leanard), that Alice clearly favours Dicky over Micky, how even the mildest act of breaking away by Micky is met with uproar from his family, how Dicky's addiction impairs his ability to help his brother when it counts, all these elements make us invested in the story and characters. Micky is so held back and overcomes so many obstacles, that when he wins in the end, you're feeling his jubilation and you're given the feel-good ending you need after all the turbulance. This is a story that'll have you hooked and rooting for the protagonist as all films should.
Now the matter of this being 'just another boxing film'. True there are the cliches of the hero overcomming all odds to achive his dreams, just liks the Rocky films. And there is complaint that even in the modern era, it doesn't hold the sense of cynicism that the great 'Raging Bull' held. But there's something to counteract the arguements of the nay Sayers. Unlike Rocky, this is a true story, all these so called cliches actually happened, so why take them out? And this isn't just any other feel good sports film, there's a grittyness to it, as is conveyed by the stagnant environment of Lowell, Massachusetts, a bleak setting with dull colouring all around. And the character of Dicky provides plenty of darkness, with his addiction digging him into a pit of hopelessness, having to steal his brothers spotlight to feel great again. Don't think of this as just another sports movie, it's way better (excluding Raging Bull)!
Director O Russell provides good direction (redundant!). The fight scenes are well shot, building suspense, putting the viewer in the midst of the battle, experiencing every punch, knockdown...well that's it. The fight scenes were shot using the same cameras HBO used to film Wards fights, creating a stylish realism of a 1990s boxing match. Scenes such as Dicky reanacting his Knock down of Sugar Ray, in a crackhouse, is filmed perfectly, slow motion used at the right moments to capture either the majesty or the brutality of the moment. This is truely O Russells finest work.
Sure there's drama, realism and direction, but the most praised thing in this movie is the acting. I know it's the obvious but I feel it must be mentioned in a 'Fighter' review, Christian Bale gives the best performance of his career, as Dicky. With a weasely Boston Accent, complete with punch drunk twang, there's also the constant spectacle, which is what the character of dicky is, a walking spectacle, Bale unleashes a blitzkrieg of smarmyness, brovado, sorrow, self pity and final jubilation all in one film, Bale is one of the few Oscar wins that truely deserved it. Mark Wahlberg as Micky is the lead, but is often discarded in the praise, which If any thing is good, it matches his character, while Bale gives the full force performance, soaking up the attention, it's Wahlberg who's restrained, conveying a man who just can't find it in him to stand up to his family. Amy Adams as Charlene, Micky's girlfriend, gives a decent performance, you feel she wants what's best for her man and you'd believe she could anyone the courage to make it to the top. Mellisa Leo as Alice is another great performance, you sense the love she has for her children, yet also her egotism and manipulation. As far as acting goes, you can't go wrong with this film, it's probably the most right acting you'll find.
In conclusion, 'The Fighter' is probably the 2nd greatest boxing movie ever (it ain't no Raging Bull), with everything you could want from a film, story, acting, direction...in the end it's a 5 star classic worthy of any praise it gets. If you'll remember this movie for anything, it'll be Bale's awesome performance, but don't let that be your only reason for watching.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
The Middle Of The Road
There's a certain protocall for certain superstars in a certain position in the WWE roster, this protocall has been consistant for the past 15 years. Superstars who have proven themselves to have a glimmer of abillity but are seen as not ready for the main event are given the role of being a mid-card champion, I.e intercontinental or united states champion. There's been a question lately on the importance of these titles, what significance they hold to the WWE roster today and what can be done to make them a bigger deal, all of which shall be explored, because I can't think of anything else to write about.
First of all let's look at what the mid-card titles mean in recent times. Back in the raging 80s, the IC title was seen as something prestigious, a title that winning on it's own was seen as a big deal. Legends such as Honkeytonk Man and Rick Rude were happy enough to be considered IC champion, that the title alone was enough to consolidate their greatness. IC title matches were often the main event of the tv shows, lasting up to 20 minutes and if neccessary, were stipulation matches such as steel cage. Fast foreward to the 21st century, the title is viewed (and often conveyed by the announcers) as a stepping stone to greater things. This depricates a mid-card titles worth and the worth of matches for the title. If Dolph Ziggler is just U.S champ to enhance his career, then why does he feel the need to defend it valliantly? He could just forfit the title then try for the WWE title. This makes the title seem second rate (it is but that shouldn't be conveyed). It's as though no superstar would be happy just being the US or IC champ.
There's a somewhat simple way to combat this and bring the titles pristege up. For starters there's the champion himself, he needs to be portrayed as a great wrestler, someone who could push the world champ to the limit, if Cody Rhodes was given the treatment of say The Miz, then the audience would view him as a great wrestler and think that you must be truely great to become IC champion, making the title important. Also, there needs to be the view that the Ic/US title is important enough for a wrestler to just have. Cody Rhodes should state in a promo, that the IC title is such a great accomplishment for him and he could retire the next day knowing his career was great enough due to the title. When Randy Savage or Mr Perfect were IC champions, they always put over how great the title was, ad though they didn't need to be in the WWF title picture. Small details such as those can make people care about the mid-card title scenarios and matches.
In conclusion, it would be important to the new HHH regime to re-establish the prestige of the IC/US championships. This will elivate not only the wrestlers involved, but also the importance of the matches, people will be excited to know the outcome of the next US title match, creating an overall greater interest in the entire product. Granted, main event angles such as Punk/HHH and Cena/Del Rio should be pushed and promoted first, but that doesn't mean the US/IC title scenes can't be given the factors I've presented in this here blog. I doubt these changes will happen any day soon, but it'd be nice if they did.
First of all let's look at what the mid-card titles mean in recent times. Back in the raging 80s, the IC title was seen as something prestigious, a title that winning on it's own was seen as a big deal. Legends such as Honkeytonk Man and Rick Rude were happy enough to be considered IC champion, that the title alone was enough to consolidate their greatness. IC title matches were often the main event of the tv shows, lasting up to 20 minutes and if neccessary, were stipulation matches such as steel cage. Fast foreward to the 21st century, the title is viewed (and often conveyed by the announcers) as a stepping stone to greater things. This depricates a mid-card titles worth and the worth of matches for the title. If Dolph Ziggler is just U.S champ to enhance his career, then why does he feel the need to defend it valliantly? He could just forfit the title then try for the WWE title. This makes the title seem second rate (it is but that shouldn't be conveyed). It's as though no superstar would be happy just being the US or IC champ.
There's a somewhat simple way to combat this and bring the titles pristege up. For starters there's the champion himself, he needs to be portrayed as a great wrestler, someone who could push the world champ to the limit, if Cody Rhodes was given the treatment of say The Miz, then the audience would view him as a great wrestler and think that you must be truely great to become IC champion, making the title important. Also, there needs to be the view that the Ic/US title is important enough for a wrestler to just have. Cody Rhodes should state in a promo, that the IC title is such a great accomplishment for him and he could retire the next day knowing his career was great enough due to the title. When Randy Savage or Mr Perfect were IC champions, they always put over how great the title was, ad though they didn't need to be in the WWF title picture. Small details such as those can make people care about the mid-card title scenarios and matches.
In conclusion, it would be important to the new HHH regime to re-establish the prestige of the IC/US championships. This will elivate not only the wrestlers involved, but also the importance of the matches, people will be excited to know the outcome of the next US title match, creating an overall greater interest in the entire product. Granted, main event angles such as Punk/HHH and Cena/Del Rio should be pushed and promoted first, but that doesn't mean the US/IC title scenes can't be given the factors I've presented in this here blog. I doubt these changes will happen any day soon, but it'd be nice if they did.
Saturday, 3 September 2011
Five Fantastic Films
In this weeks blog, I'm gonna countdown the top 5 films of the year 2010. Granted, it would've been more appropriate if I'd have written this 8 or 9 months ago, but certain aspects such as me starting this blog a few months ago, or that I didn't see these films until they were out on DVD got in the way. 2010 was a fine year for film, with these 5 titles being a must own for any cinephile. So enjoy the list I've compiled and maybe it'll inspire you to check these out for yourself.
5. Kick Ass (Dir: Mathew Vaughn)
This was probably one of the most unique films of that year, the plot alone is cause for question. A teenage boy becomes an Internet celebrity after becoming a superhero, attracting the attention of a father/daughter superhero team and the mafia. This is a clever parody of the superhero genre that mixes ultra violence, black humour and sheer madness to create one of the most entertaining films of all time. Aaron Johnson supplies a great naivity and teen meekishness to the role of Kick Ass. Nic Cage Borders on both loving and insanely creepy as Big Daddy, his second most insane role of the year (read on!). But it's then 12 year old Chloe Moretz who steals the show as Hit Girl, uttering numerous obcenities and violently killing many bad guys, she's a mixture of badass and innocently lost in her fathers shceme for revenge. The many scenes that'll blow your mind include Hit Girl offing an entire room of gangsters with an array of knives, set to upbeat indie rock music is one of the reasons why this is a must see film.
4. Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Dir: Edgar Wright)
Another film with a unique concept. This is a sureal comedy that portrays itself as a live action video game with a rom-com plot put into the fray. Slacker Scott Pilgrim has met the girl of his dreams (quite literally) but must defeat her 7 evil ex-boyfriends to be with her. The use of references to games such as Street Fighter, Tony Hawk or just about any arcade game is a delight. The fight scenes are well set up, they're portrayed with a sense of grandness that most action films are missing these days. But this is a comedy, and it's a pretty funny one at that, with great jokes, character traits and surealism to keep you laughing. But the true source of the films greatness is it's heart, you feel Scott, no matter how jerkish or lazy he is, due to the performance given by Michael Cera that adds a charm and vulnerability to the character that makes you feel the love he has for his other half. The humour appeals to the teen generation, along with the films characters and plotting, making it this generations Ferris Buller due to great jokes, likable characters that shouldn't be likable and a main character that you want to see win, no matter what a jerk he is.
3. Bad Lieutenant (Dir: Werner Herzog)
This is a completely different film from Abel Ferrera's 1992 film, and completely better. Nic Cage delivers one of his best performances as Terrence Mcdonagh, a cop in New Orleans, who after an injured back has to deal with numerous drug addictions (he takes more stuff than Amy Winehouse), a murder case with a runaway witness, gambling debts, vengeful gangsters and his alchoholic fathers dog. We see numerous problems pile up on the Lieutenant, most of which he got himself into, the audience is invested to see how he'll fix it all. Set against a decaying New Orleans backround, we see a great character in Mcdonagh, someone who's back injury has led him into drugs and the drugs leading him into other problems, a character truely trapped by his addiction, and one who'll break many rules along the way (note the scene where he searches a couple for drugs). Cage gives a performance that's a mixture of hopelessness and frantic energy. Director Herzog adds his own sense of madness to the film, with point of view shots from reptiles set to New Orleans jazz or a gun battle set to country fiddle music. In the end this Is one of the most engagingly corrupt cop movies you'll see, all down to Cage's character and performance.
2. The Social Network (Dir: David Fincher)
The true definition of modern drama, this film annalyses the rise of the worlds youngest billionare, facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. This is seemingly this generations Citizen Kane, due to it being a character study of a wealthy man, but for other reasons too. Just like Kane, Zuckerberg is portrayed as a man who as he gains more power, alienates his closest friends and at the end of the film, being truely alone. Whether this is an accurate depiction of Zuckerberg or not, it's an interesting character portrayal, the brilliant Harvard nerd who cares little about anything (reprocusions, girls, social life) but his main goal, to get his project off the ground. You'll be entertained and enthralled as Zuckerberg goes through the film and we see the process of his 2 court battles over the right to facebook, we see numerous betrayals by this character for the price of billions, it seems every double cross he does (from his ex to the twins that gave him the idea) has a purpose. For a truely great character study, watch this immediatly, you won't regret it.
1. Inception (Dir: Christopher Nolan)
Now I've covered alot about this film in a previous blog reviewing it. I'll renew some of the points I made by saying that it's the perfect mix of powerful drama, hard hitting action and a complex plot. The director/writer Nolan creates a world in which the concept of being able to go into other peoples dreams is believable and this creates the possibility of a complicated plot involving dreams within dreams, limbo and questioning your reality. It's a film that appeals to both casual action audiences and arthouse cinephiles. The performances by Decaprio and Hardy add to the film, along with incredible special effects (I.e revolving hallway fight scene). In short, it's a total package of a film that deserves to be top of the list.
5. Kick Ass (Dir: Mathew Vaughn)
This was probably one of the most unique films of that year, the plot alone is cause for question. A teenage boy becomes an Internet celebrity after becoming a superhero, attracting the attention of a father/daughter superhero team and the mafia. This is a clever parody of the superhero genre that mixes ultra violence, black humour and sheer madness to create one of the most entertaining films of all time. Aaron Johnson supplies a great naivity and teen meekishness to the role of Kick Ass. Nic Cage Borders on both loving and insanely creepy as Big Daddy, his second most insane role of the year (read on!). But it's then 12 year old Chloe Moretz who steals the show as Hit Girl, uttering numerous obcenities and violently killing many bad guys, she's a mixture of badass and innocently lost in her fathers shceme for revenge. The many scenes that'll blow your mind include Hit Girl offing an entire room of gangsters with an array of knives, set to upbeat indie rock music is one of the reasons why this is a must see film.
4. Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Dir: Edgar Wright)
Another film with a unique concept. This is a sureal comedy that portrays itself as a live action video game with a rom-com plot put into the fray. Slacker Scott Pilgrim has met the girl of his dreams (quite literally) but must defeat her 7 evil ex-boyfriends to be with her. The use of references to games such as Street Fighter, Tony Hawk or just about any arcade game is a delight. The fight scenes are well set up, they're portrayed with a sense of grandness that most action films are missing these days. But this is a comedy, and it's a pretty funny one at that, with great jokes, character traits and surealism to keep you laughing. But the true source of the films greatness is it's heart, you feel Scott, no matter how jerkish or lazy he is, due to the performance given by Michael Cera that adds a charm and vulnerability to the character that makes you feel the love he has for his other half. The humour appeals to the teen generation, along with the films characters and plotting, making it this generations Ferris Buller due to great jokes, likable characters that shouldn't be likable and a main character that you want to see win, no matter what a jerk he is.
3. Bad Lieutenant (Dir: Werner Herzog)
This is a completely different film from Abel Ferrera's 1992 film, and completely better. Nic Cage delivers one of his best performances as Terrence Mcdonagh, a cop in New Orleans, who after an injured back has to deal with numerous drug addictions (he takes more stuff than Amy Winehouse), a murder case with a runaway witness, gambling debts, vengeful gangsters and his alchoholic fathers dog. We see numerous problems pile up on the Lieutenant, most of which he got himself into, the audience is invested to see how he'll fix it all. Set against a decaying New Orleans backround, we see a great character in Mcdonagh, someone who's back injury has led him into drugs and the drugs leading him into other problems, a character truely trapped by his addiction, and one who'll break many rules along the way (note the scene where he searches a couple for drugs). Cage gives a performance that's a mixture of hopelessness and frantic energy. Director Herzog adds his own sense of madness to the film, with point of view shots from reptiles set to New Orleans jazz or a gun battle set to country fiddle music. In the end this Is one of the most engagingly corrupt cop movies you'll see, all down to Cage's character and performance.
2. The Social Network (Dir: David Fincher)
The true definition of modern drama, this film annalyses the rise of the worlds youngest billionare, facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. This is seemingly this generations Citizen Kane, due to it being a character study of a wealthy man, but for other reasons too. Just like Kane, Zuckerberg is portrayed as a man who as he gains more power, alienates his closest friends and at the end of the film, being truely alone. Whether this is an accurate depiction of Zuckerberg or not, it's an interesting character portrayal, the brilliant Harvard nerd who cares little about anything (reprocusions, girls, social life) but his main goal, to get his project off the ground. You'll be entertained and enthralled as Zuckerberg goes through the film and we see the process of his 2 court battles over the right to facebook, we see numerous betrayals by this character for the price of billions, it seems every double cross he does (from his ex to the twins that gave him the idea) has a purpose. For a truely great character study, watch this immediatly, you won't regret it.
1. Inception (Dir: Christopher Nolan)
Now I've covered alot about this film in a previous blog reviewing it. I'll renew some of the points I made by saying that it's the perfect mix of powerful drama, hard hitting action and a complex plot. The director/writer Nolan creates a world in which the concept of being able to go into other peoples dreams is believable and this creates the possibility of a complicated plot involving dreams within dreams, limbo and questioning your reality. It's a film that appeals to both casual action audiences and arthouse cinephiles. The performances by Decaprio and Hardy add to the film, along with incredible special effects (I.e revolving hallway fight scene). In short, it's a total package of a film that deserves to be top of the list.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Old Vs New: JBL vs Del Rio
Here is another instalment of Old vs New, where I compare 2 different wrestlers from the past and present and see who comes across as the overall winner based on 5 factors. Here I compare John Bradshaw Layfield and Alberto Del Rio, these are men who share the similarities of having a gimmick of being arrogant millionares who have fancy transport to the ring. So who's better?the Mexican arristocrat or the Texan/New Yorker arristocrat? Let's find out.
IN RING ABILITY:
These 2 have slightly differing styles. Bradshaw displays brute power moves and brawling, but uses technical skills from time to time. Del Rio however, uses mostly technical moves, mixing in occasional high spots. In my view, niether man has had any outstanding, 10/10 matches in their respective careers, sure Del Rio's only been with WWE a year but he's had plenty of matches with big leagers due to his super push. Bradshaw's style in his later years was seen as sluggish and slow, but Del Rio often doesn't use many moves in his matches and can be seen as repetitive. It's a close call, but I'd award it to JBL due to a larger moveset.
Winner: JBL
MIC SKILLS:
Both men are seen as pretty good on the mic, both can portray their snobbish, holier than thou attitudes perfectly, with a hint of smarmyness underneath. Despite both mens verbal qualities, I think it's obvious who's gonna win. It may seem shallow, but Del Rio's accent often clouds his mic skills, whereas Bradshaw has near flawless announciation and can be easily understood. He's given many great promos during his heel run, especially the one where he goes off on the show he was fired from, unpatriotic fans and Sean Penn.
Winner: JBL
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
For these mens gimmicks of arrisocrats, they need to look the part. For Bradshaw it's easy, he just had to show up like it's another day at Wall Street or Fox News, his large White cowboy hat atop a nice suit gives the impression of J.R from Dallas straight away (who his persona was based on). Del Rio however, seems to outdo Bradshaw in the wardrope department, his suits are more colourful, yet the lack of tie gives Del Rio a more stylish feel, as though he's a sort of playboy. His tights are gold/White, which is not only grabs fans attention, but conveys his arristocrat gimmick. In terms of physique, Bradshaw is seen as flabby, with unflattering man boobs, whereas Del Rio has a great physique and his Latino backround adds to his looks. Due to pure swagger and muscles, Del Rio steals it.
Winner: Del Rio
PERSONAS:
Yes both men have similar personas, but with slight differences. Both men have won Wrestling Observers Gimmick of the year award, but let's see who's is better. Bradshaw is the typical millionare type yes, but there are other factors that add to his persona, such as his Wall Street, yuppie elements (which is what he is in real life), which plays on peoples hatred of corporate greed and it'll get good heat during a recession. Also, Bradshaw has the right-wing, conservative element, which can be rather unpopular in certain areas, this makes a great persona that Bradshaw doesn't have to try too hard to portray and can get good heat. Now Del Rio is the the millionare type, but only has the fact that he's Latino and a belief in destiny to add to it. Granted he adds some fun quirks to the persona, such as driving a different expensive car each week and his personal ring announcer; Ricardo Rodriguez (one of the best things WWE has invented), but in the end, JBL's other traits give him the victory.
Winner: JBL
CROWD REACTION:
It's a difficult one to call, but I'll try. JBL did envoke hatred from the many crowds he performed in, but whilst watching WWE recently, I've noticed that Del Rio gets pretty good hear as well. Also, Del Rio can be seen to have a larger fan base (just ask anyone on Twitter) especially amongst Latinos. Due to the opinions of smarks and IWC braggarts (i'm sounding like Bischoff), Del Rio is the more beloved of the 2 as they don't appreciate Bradshaws style of wrestling.
Winner: Del Rio
Overall Winner by 3-2: JBL
IN RING ABILITY:
These 2 have slightly differing styles. Bradshaw displays brute power moves and brawling, but uses technical skills from time to time. Del Rio however, uses mostly technical moves, mixing in occasional high spots. In my view, niether man has had any outstanding, 10/10 matches in their respective careers, sure Del Rio's only been with WWE a year but he's had plenty of matches with big leagers due to his super push. Bradshaw's style in his later years was seen as sluggish and slow, but Del Rio often doesn't use many moves in his matches and can be seen as repetitive. It's a close call, but I'd award it to JBL due to a larger moveset.
Winner: JBL
MIC SKILLS:
Both men are seen as pretty good on the mic, both can portray their snobbish, holier than thou attitudes perfectly, with a hint of smarmyness underneath. Despite both mens verbal qualities, I think it's obvious who's gonna win. It may seem shallow, but Del Rio's accent often clouds his mic skills, whereas Bradshaw has near flawless announciation and can be easily understood. He's given many great promos during his heel run, especially the one where he goes off on the show he was fired from, unpatriotic fans and Sean Penn.
Winner: JBL
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
For these mens gimmicks of arrisocrats, they need to look the part. For Bradshaw it's easy, he just had to show up like it's another day at Wall Street or Fox News, his large White cowboy hat atop a nice suit gives the impression of J.R from Dallas straight away (who his persona was based on). Del Rio however, seems to outdo Bradshaw in the wardrope department, his suits are more colourful, yet the lack of tie gives Del Rio a more stylish feel, as though he's a sort of playboy. His tights are gold/White, which is not only grabs fans attention, but conveys his arristocrat gimmick. In terms of physique, Bradshaw is seen as flabby, with unflattering man boobs, whereas Del Rio has a great physique and his Latino backround adds to his looks. Due to pure swagger and muscles, Del Rio steals it.
Winner: Del Rio
PERSONAS:
Yes both men have similar personas, but with slight differences. Both men have won Wrestling Observers Gimmick of the year award, but let's see who's is better. Bradshaw is the typical millionare type yes, but there are other factors that add to his persona, such as his Wall Street, yuppie elements (which is what he is in real life), which plays on peoples hatred of corporate greed and it'll get good heat during a recession. Also, Bradshaw has the right-wing, conservative element, which can be rather unpopular in certain areas, this makes a great persona that Bradshaw doesn't have to try too hard to portray and can get good heat. Now Del Rio is the the millionare type, but only has the fact that he's Latino and a belief in destiny to add to it. Granted he adds some fun quirks to the persona, such as driving a different expensive car each week and his personal ring announcer; Ricardo Rodriguez (one of the best things WWE has invented), but in the end, JBL's other traits give him the victory.
Winner: JBL
CROWD REACTION:
It's a difficult one to call, but I'll try. JBL did envoke hatred from the many crowds he performed in, but whilst watching WWE recently, I've noticed that Del Rio gets pretty good hear as well. Also, Del Rio can be seen to have a larger fan base (just ask anyone on Twitter) especially amongst Latinos. Due to the opinions of smarks and IWC braggarts (i'm sounding like Bischoff), Del Rio is the more beloved of the 2 as they don't appreciate Bradshaws style of wrestling.
Winner: Del Rio
Overall Winner by 3-2: JBL
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Rising To The Occasion
To detract from usual subject matter here at the PittStop, I'm going to annalyse certain aspects of what we know so far about the new Christopher Nolan Batman film in production; 'Dark Knight Rises' and try and see what we can expect from it when it's released in 2012. With so much hype soon to be surrounding this film, let's see what we can make of it.
First of all there's probably the most important factor; Director/Writer Christopher Nolan. Due to Nolans presence, the film will be expected to have the usual high quality that follows most Nolan films. With his last 2 Batman films ('Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight') being 5 star classics, and his last film ('Inception') being the best film of 2010, it is presumed that Nolan will be able to make this great. Although, there is always some unpredictability in the world of cinema, with the roll Nolan's been on, you never know when his next adequite (spelling!) will be, all Directors lose it at some point (I.e post 'Pulp Fiction' Tarrentino). It's assured that Nolan will provide the same stunning visuals and cinematography as his other Batman films, but what about the story and plot itself?
What the public at large can tell about 'Dark Knight Rises's plot can be gathered from the ending of 'Dark Knight' and the released characters list. *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of 'Dark Knight' Batman reveals that he has to take the fall for the deceased Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in order for the citizens of Gotham to still have hope and faith (not the sitcom!), thus turning Batman into a fugitive. This provides intrigue for the film as we'll most likely see Batman trying to fight crime and evade the police, which makes for an interesting dynamic. We know that the plot in some way will revolve around battling with villain Bane. We know that Catwoman will be in the film but it is unclear whether she'll be an imediate foe or just being a tease for Batman, as is usual in the comics. It is wondered whether Nolan will follow the plotline of the famous comic where Bane injures Batman, taking him out of commission, I kinda doubt he would, but if so it'd make a great storyline (Hero comeback, Gotham without Batman, realising he's needed etc.).
The cast and characters are another aspect to be annalysed to determine the outcome of the film. Christian Bale is back as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and after an Oscar winning performance in 'The Fighter', he can be expected to give another complex performance on the struggle of the dual life. Gary Oldman's Gordon will this time be a reluctant foe of Batman, it'll interesting to see how the character handles hunting a man he knows is innocent, it's expected of Oldman to deliver another good performance as the Commissoner. The Bane character is something of question, he's supposedly a genetically engineered superhuman, it's difficult to imagine that being portrayed with realism on screen, however, Nolan has a nack for making seemingly absurd things realistic e.g A man who dresses as a bat or entering someones dreams to steal their secrets. The fact that an actor like Tom Hardy, who's given good performances in 'The Take' and 'Inception' is playing Bane, gives the impression that the character will have more depth. It'll be curious to see whether Anne Hathaway can live up to Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman, but the character always has a sense of mischief and anarchy, which suits Nolan's universe well.
In conclusion, whilst there's some doubt that 'Dark Knight Rises' will live up to 'Dark Knight', due to the factors such as the Director, the cast/characters and fixed plot points, I believe that this film has a chance of being great, but if I'm proven wrong, then there'll numurous fanboys who's expectations will be let down, and a Director who's legacy will be tarnished by ending a classic trilogy with an imperfect climax.
First of all there's probably the most important factor; Director/Writer Christopher Nolan. Due to Nolans presence, the film will be expected to have the usual high quality that follows most Nolan films. With his last 2 Batman films ('Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight') being 5 star classics, and his last film ('Inception') being the best film of 2010, it is presumed that Nolan will be able to make this great. Although, there is always some unpredictability in the world of cinema, with the roll Nolan's been on, you never know when his next adequite (spelling!) will be, all Directors lose it at some point (I.e post 'Pulp Fiction' Tarrentino). It's assured that Nolan will provide the same stunning visuals and cinematography as his other Batman films, but what about the story and plot itself?
What the public at large can tell about 'Dark Knight Rises's plot can be gathered from the ending of 'Dark Knight' and the released characters list. *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of 'Dark Knight' Batman reveals that he has to take the fall for the deceased Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in order for the citizens of Gotham to still have hope and faith (not the sitcom!), thus turning Batman into a fugitive. This provides intrigue for the film as we'll most likely see Batman trying to fight crime and evade the police, which makes for an interesting dynamic. We know that the plot in some way will revolve around battling with villain Bane. We know that Catwoman will be in the film but it is unclear whether she'll be an imediate foe or just being a tease for Batman, as is usual in the comics. It is wondered whether Nolan will follow the plotline of the famous comic where Bane injures Batman, taking him out of commission, I kinda doubt he would, but if so it'd make a great storyline (Hero comeback, Gotham without Batman, realising he's needed etc.).
The cast and characters are another aspect to be annalysed to determine the outcome of the film. Christian Bale is back as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and after an Oscar winning performance in 'The Fighter', he can be expected to give another complex performance on the struggle of the dual life. Gary Oldman's Gordon will this time be a reluctant foe of Batman, it'll interesting to see how the character handles hunting a man he knows is innocent, it's expected of Oldman to deliver another good performance as the Commissoner. The Bane character is something of question, he's supposedly a genetically engineered superhuman, it's difficult to imagine that being portrayed with realism on screen, however, Nolan has a nack for making seemingly absurd things realistic e.g A man who dresses as a bat or entering someones dreams to steal their secrets. The fact that an actor like Tom Hardy, who's given good performances in 'The Take' and 'Inception' is playing Bane, gives the impression that the character will have more depth. It'll be curious to see whether Anne Hathaway can live up to Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman, but the character always has a sense of mischief and anarchy, which suits Nolan's universe well.
In conclusion, whilst there's some doubt that 'Dark Knight Rises' will live up to 'Dark Knight', due to the factors such as the Director, the cast/characters and fixed plot points, I believe that this film has a chance of being great, but if I'm proven wrong, then there'll numurous fanboys who's expectations will be let down, and a Director who's legacy will be tarnished by ending a classic trilogy with an imperfect climax.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Summertime (Diesel) Blues
After a lengthy absence, I'm here to review last nights Summerslam 2011, to be honest I was looking foreward to this event very much, with a double main event consisting of 3 tallented wrestlers (and Cena but can turn it up as seen last month) and 2 captivating storylines. Expectations were high, did the event live up to the hype? In my book it kinda did, the event left many satisfied and asking questions due to 2 big shockers in the main event (read on!). So sit back and read about the biggest party of the summer that wasn't held by Charlie Sheen.
1. Miz/Alberto Del Rio/R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio/John Morrison/Kofi Kingston
This was a basic opener, but a decent way to kick off the show, with each man getting their stuff in and the return of Miz's Awesome foam (God I love that). Despite Del Rio getting little action (read on!) it kept me entertained and ready for the next match.
Score: 6.5/10
After this, we saw a funny backstage moment with CM Punk and Stephenie Mcmahon in which she asked for a handshake but Punk rebufed; 'I know where those hands have been'
2. Sheamus vs Mark Henry
Well it wasn't exactly a classic but it was good for a Henry match. Sheamus looked strong which shows WWE want to make him a prominant face. The slow pace got little out of the crowd until the finish, which had Henry send Sheamus back first into the ring post, them crashing through the barricade (a spot that earned this match an extra 0.5) and Henry winning by countout which prolonges their fued.
Score: 5.5/10
After this was the Cee Lo Green performance, I skipped through most of this, but saw parts in which Cee Lo looked like he was wearing a binliner, trying to get the crowd to sing along but there was silence and a few Cenation kids doing the mashed potato.
3. Kelly Kelly vs Beth Pheonix
In truth I skipped this match, but for those who havn't seen, I dare you to watch the PPV just for this match...go on...do it!
Score: N/A
4. Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett
This was a pretty good match (it's Bryan, no shit!), featuring Bryan's technical soundness and captivating manouvers. Barrett put on a good show with brutal moves such as a boot through the ropes and a Nigel McGuiness esq clothesline. This match went back and forth near the end but saw Barrett win, which although keeps his status clean, does little for Bryan's, who's supposedly gonna main event wrestlemania.
Score: 7.5/10
5. Christian vs Randy Orton
I hope this is the last match for these 2, they've had an amazing series but there's only so many times you can go to the well (I'm sounding like Booker-T!). This was a great match with many good hardcore spots that were built up to and payed off well, it would be difficult for me to type them all. Let's just say Kendo sticks, tables, chairs, trashcans, announce tables and steel steps were all used and used well. The highlight of the match though was the finish, which saw Christian go for a turning crossbody but get RKO'd on the steel steps (somewhat shades of their 1st match).
Score: 9/10
6. CM Punk vs John Cena
This didn't exactly live up to their match of the year at Money in the Bank, but this was still pretty damn good. We started off with good methodical technical wrestling, building up to spot after spot. Just like their other match, every move had an impact. Cena turned it up again, giving one of his best performances ( he gave the best dropkick he's ever given). The attmosphere was nothing like Chicago but the crowd were 50/50 and electric. HHH suprisingly didn't take up much of the spotlight apart from one spot where he stopped a possible count-out and threw both men back in the ring. Punk won again via GTS, HHH counted, not noticing that Cena had his foot on the rope, which is one of the things that leaves questions (read on!).
Score: 9/10
After the match came 2 major shockers that made the night and became trending topics on Twitter. First Kevin Nash came through the crowd and Jackknifed Punk after the match, this asks why did he do this? Will he be on RAW? Will he wrestle again? And the biggest shock of all...Alberto Del Rio cashed in Money in the Bank, winning the WWE championship. How will Punk react? How will Cena react? How will the Del Rio/Rey match on RAW go? All these questions ensure people tuning into RAW to find out.
With 2 great main events and many possible storylines created and a shocking return, Summerslam was a great PPV and worth watching.
1. Miz/Alberto Del Rio/R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio/John Morrison/Kofi Kingston
This was a basic opener, but a decent way to kick off the show, with each man getting their stuff in and the return of Miz's Awesome foam (God I love that). Despite Del Rio getting little action (read on!) it kept me entertained and ready for the next match.
Score: 6.5/10
After this, we saw a funny backstage moment with CM Punk and Stephenie Mcmahon in which she asked for a handshake but Punk rebufed; 'I know where those hands have been'
2. Sheamus vs Mark Henry
Well it wasn't exactly a classic but it was good for a Henry match. Sheamus looked strong which shows WWE want to make him a prominant face. The slow pace got little out of the crowd until the finish, which had Henry send Sheamus back first into the ring post, them crashing through the barricade (a spot that earned this match an extra 0.5) and Henry winning by countout which prolonges their fued.
Score: 5.5/10
After this was the Cee Lo Green performance, I skipped through most of this, but saw parts in which Cee Lo looked like he was wearing a binliner, trying to get the crowd to sing along but there was silence and a few Cenation kids doing the mashed potato.
3. Kelly Kelly vs Beth Pheonix
In truth I skipped this match, but for those who havn't seen, I dare you to watch the PPV just for this match...go on...do it!
Score: N/A
4. Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett
This was a pretty good match (it's Bryan, no shit!), featuring Bryan's technical soundness and captivating manouvers. Barrett put on a good show with brutal moves such as a boot through the ropes and a Nigel McGuiness esq clothesline. This match went back and forth near the end but saw Barrett win, which although keeps his status clean, does little for Bryan's, who's supposedly gonna main event wrestlemania.
Score: 7.5/10
5. Christian vs Randy Orton
I hope this is the last match for these 2, they've had an amazing series but there's only so many times you can go to the well (I'm sounding like Booker-T!). This was a great match with many good hardcore spots that were built up to and payed off well, it would be difficult for me to type them all. Let's just say Kendo sticks, tables, chairs, trashcans, announce tables and steel steps were all used and used well. The highlight of the match though was the finish, which saw Christian go for a turning crossbody but get RKO'd on the steel steps (somewhat shades of their 1st match).
Score: 9/10
6. CM Punk vs John Cena
This didn't exactly live up to their match of the year at Money in the Bank, but this was still pretty damn good. We started off with good methodical technical wrestling, building up to spot after spot. Just like their other match, every move had an impact. Cena turned it up again, giving one of his best performances ( he gave the best dropkick he's ever given). The attmosphere was nothing like Chicago but the crowd were 50/50 and electric. HHH suprisingly didn't take up much of the spotlight apart from one spot where he stopped a possible count-out and threw both men back in the ring. Punk won again via GTS, HHH counted, not noticing that Cena had his foot on the rope, which is one of the things that leaves questions (read on!).
Score: 9/10
After the match came 2 major shockers that made the night and became trending topics on Twitter. First Kevin Nash came through the crowd and Jackknifed Punk after the match, this asks why did he do this? Will he be on RAW? Will he wrestle again? And the biggest shock of all...Alberto Del Rio cashed in Money in the Bank, winning the WWE championship. How will Punk react? How will Cena react? How will the Del Rio/Rey match on RAW go? All these questions ensure people tuning into RAW to find out.
With 2 great main events and many possible storylines created and a shocking return, Summerslam was a great PPV and worth watching.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Developing The Laughter
From late 2003 to early 2006 a humble little sitcom known as Arrested Development ran on tv, the show only ran for 3 series due to lacklusture ratings ('why are we appealing to this idiot demographic'). Despite this the show gained a cult following of loyal fans, praise from numerous critics and several Emmy award wins. This was due to the unique presentation and pedantic zannyness of the show, so let me tell you the story of a wealthy family, and the one son who had to keep them all together, it's Arrested Development.
As opposed to most of my blogs, this is going to be a mixed opionated review, so I'll start with the overall positives of the show. The show follows the wealthy Bluth family, who've come into trouble due to the patriarc's imbezlment (I'm not the best speller) and treason charges. At it's core the show depicts a dysfunctional family comming together through hardships, what sets this apart from a cliche' indie film is the frank, surealist humour that is showcased frequently. The jokes are silly, yet not too broad to appeal to a large demographic, take for example Franklin the black puppet, the cavalcade of chicken dances, Henry Winkler jumping the shark and many many more. The humour of the show can also resemble a sort of social commentary, poking holes in such things as the Iraq war, the patriot act and Enron. The episodes are also intricatly structured with plot twists round the corner, if you want an idea of an average episode, think Frasier meets Scrubs. Overall the humour and structure makes almost every episode (wait til later) worthy of a half an hour (or 20 minutes if you watch it online).
Series 1-2 were great showcases of the shows brilliance, series 3 however, is what causes the mixed nature of this review. Despite a few good episodes and jokes (Tobias being an analist/therapist=analrapist) the series falls flat due to the re-use of worn out jokes, sitcom cliche's which derives from the shows originality and worst of all...the 5 part Rita saga, which sees the Main character unwittingly court a retarded British woman, this not only in bad taste but again reverts to cliche'd tricks that'd be used by the likes of Family Guy and South Park but with less wit and managable plot. By the end you're glad no new series were made if this was the direction the show was going in.
One of the great attributes this show has, along with most sitcoms, is a great cast and characters, of which there are many, all the main cast fit into their role perfectly. Jason Bateman as responsible nice guy Michael is a great straight man, being the perfect foil for his families madness while showcasing a bit of smuggness. Will Arnet's magician GOB (George Oscar Bluth II) is my personal favourite character, a selfish, arrogant, narcisistic loser, what we all love and Arnet delivers each line with great comic timing. Portia De Rossi's Lindsay is the vien, lazy, sexually frustrated princess who embodies the attitude of many spoiled heiresses. Tony Hale as Buster, the neurotic man-child is a mix of patheticness and gusto that makes whatever he does greatly amusing. David Cross is the closeted, oblivious never-nude Tobias who has some of the best lines in the series which are double entendres. Michael Cera as George Michael is the sweetest teen you could meet, full of shyness, concussion and lusty feelings for his cousin; Maybe played by Alia Shawcut who is full of mischief and rebellion towards her parents. Jessica Walter's Lucille is the ultimate snide, bitch mother, manipulating her children and fostering their dysfunctions. And Jeffrey Tambor as George sr (also doubles as his twin, pothead Oscar) has some fun moments in prison and on the lamb. When these great characters interacat in complex situations it provides comedy gold.
Despite it's short run, the show has stood the test of time due to it's mixture of silly and clever jokes (analrapist!), great actors in perfect characters, unique presentation with hand held camera shots and use of stock footage, intricate storylines (for series 1-2) and an overall heart of family unity despite the sheer madness. My advice to you would be to watch series 1-2 and revel in the genius, but avoid series 3 to stop the show being ruined for you, or as GOB would say; 'Cirsumvent it!'
As opposed to most of my blogs, this is going to be a mixed opionated review, so I'll start with the overall positives of the show. The show follows the wealthy Bluth family, who've come into trouble due to the patriarc's imbezlment (I'm not the best speller) and treason charges. At it's core the show depicts a dysfunctional family comming together through hardships, what sets this apart from a cliche' indie film is the frank, surealist humour that is showcased frequently. The jokes are silly, yet not too broad to appeal to a large demographic, take for example Franklin the black puppet, the cavalcade of chicken dances, Henry Winkler jumping the shark and many many more. The humour of the show can also resemble a sort of social commentary, poking holes in such things as the Iraq war, the patriot act and Enron. The episodes are also intricatly structured with plot twists round the corner, if you want an idea of an average episode, think Frasier meets Scrubs. Overall the humour and structure makes almost every episode (wait til later) worthy of a half an hour (or 20 minutes if you watch it online).
Series 1-2 were great showcases of the shows brilliance, series 3 however, is what causes the mixed nature of this review. Despite a few good episodes and jokes (Tobias being an analist/therapist=analrapist) the series falls flat due to the re-use of worn out jokes, sitcom cliche's which derives from the shows originality and worst of all...the 5 part Rita saga, which sees the Main character unwittingly court a retarded British woman, this not only in bad taste but again reverts to cliche'd tricks that'd be used by the likes of Family Guy and South Park but with less wit and managable plot. By the end you're glad no new series were made if this was the direction the show was going in.
One of the great attributes this show has, along with most sitcoms, is a great cast and characters, of which there are many, all the main cast fit into their role perfectly. Jason Bateman as responsible nice guy Michael is a great straight man, being the perfect foil for his families madness while showcasing a bit of smuggness. Will Arnet's magician GOB (George Oscar Bluth II) is my personal favourite character, a selfish, arrogant, narcisistic loser, what we all love and Arnet delivers each line with great comic timing. Portia De Rossi's Lindsay is the vien, lazy, sexually frustrated princess who embodies the attitude of many spoiled heiresses. Tony Hale as Buster, the neurotic man-child is a mix of patheticness and gusto that makes whatever he does greatly amusing. David Cross is the closeted, oblivious never-nude Tobias who has some of the best lines in the series which are double entendres. Michael Cera as George Michael is the sweetest teen you could meet, full of shyness, concussion and lusty feelings for his cousin; Maybe played by Alia Shawcut who is full of mischief and rebellion towards her parents. Jessica Walter's Lucille is the ultimate snide, bitch mother, manipulating her children and fostering their dysfunctions. And Jeffrey Tambor as George sr (also doubles as his twin, pothead Oscar) has some fun moments in prison and on the lamb. When these great characters interacat in complex situations it provides comedy gold.
Despite it's short run, the show has stood the test of time due to it's mixture of silly and clever jokes (analrapist!), great actors in perfect characters, unique presentation with hand held camera shots and use of stock footage, intricate storylines (for series 1-2) and an overall heart of family unity despite the sheer madness. My advice to you would be to watch series 1-2 and revel in the genius, but avoid series 3 to stop the show being ruined for you, or as GOB would say; 'Cirsumvent it!'
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Old vs New: Funks vs Hardys
This is a new segment I'm starting on this here blog, the idea of Old vs New is to compare two wrestlers (or in this case teams) from different generations to see which one is better. For this I'll be using 5 different criterias; in ring ability, mic skills, overall image/appearence, personas and finally general crowd reactions. These are the things I'll be using to compare Terry and Dory Funk jr and Jeff and Matt Hardy, two brotherly duos who have dominated the tag team and main event scenes in there time, but who's the better tandem? Let's find out.
IN RING ABILITY:
This is a difficult one to choose since both teams have differing styles, The Funks relying on solid technical wrestling mixed with hardcore brawling, while Matt often uses technical wrestling mixed with few high spots, Jeff's offence is a constant barrage of unique, high flying spots, I've rarely seen Jeff use a submission. So this is going to have to go down to overall match quality over the course of each teams careers, while the Hardys have had many great matches with the likes of Edge/Christian, the Dudlys, HHH and CM Punk, there style often shines during stipulation matches such as TLCs, even Matts technical style can seem bland. The Funks however, have had many great matches, and the majority of them have been regular matches, but they've also been able to work many good hardcore style matches, especially Terry. In this round, the Funks win.
Winner: Funks
MIC SKILLS:
To decide this I'd need to look at each individuals skills. Dory jr is decent during interviews but never truely stands out or enthrals audiences, although that may be due to the time he wrestled in, where wrestling was mostly percieved as real and wrestlers were supposed to talk like normal sports people. Terry is on a whole other level from his brother mic work wise, in my Top 10 Talkers blog from a few monthes ago I named Terry as #7, that shows how great he is in that area. Jeff Hardy is actually pretty good on the mic, a smooth North Carolina accent that draws people in, his promos get his point across while also conveying his unique (understatment) personality. Matt's promos are about average, nothing special or captivating, just getting the point across. In the end though I'd have to say The Funks win this due to Terry's phenominal ability on the mic.
Winner: Funks (mostly due to Terry)
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
This doesn't just cover physiques, but also how a wrestler looks due to attire, hair etc. Physique wise Dory jr was rather pudgy, like most wrestlers those days, Terry through the 70s and early 80s did have a similar build, although by the late 80s he seemed to aquire a pretty good physique until it deteriorated due to age. The Hardys have also had a similar problem with their physiques, although they looked somewhat decent in their early years there's problems now. Jeff's waist looks plain, you'd think he doesn't do sit ups at all and his arms aren't the biggest, but Matt in recent years has been sporting a gut that looks like something a wrestler from the 70s would sport, not someone from the days where muscle matters to make yourself believable. General image however, is where the winner is determined, as The Funks have the look of basic southern wrestlers, simple tights but with the occasional cowboy hat or poncho thrown in, and while Terry's wild hair/goatie and mad eyes convey his danger, Dory jr's balding head isn't exactly the ideal image. The Hardy's keep themselves interesting, while Matt's tights aren't the most exuberent of attires, Jeff is colourful enough to make people interested in him, especially with face paint and rainbow hair.
Winner: Hardys (mostly due to Jeff)
PERSONAS:
A persona is the character of the wrestler on-screen, the brotherly duos have similar personas to the their partners (Terry with Dory, Matt with Jeff). The Funks share the same persona of a rough-neck, Texas brawler, although Terry's can be more deranged and violent at times, which gives audiences a good impression that these guys could win any fight. The Hardys both have the personas of being generation X outsiders, who fight against the odds when things look tough. But when you put the eccentric appearence of Jeff aside, their characters seem basic faces, if it weren't for there appearences they wouldn't seem that interesting, while the tough brawlers/psycopath is intriquing enough for me.
Winner: Funks
FAN REACTION:
There's a common thing in wrestling today, you either like the Hardys or you don't, back in 2008/09 crowds would give good pops when Jeff came out and Matt was commonly seen as an underutilized talent. Now in 2011 Jeff is seen as someone who squandered his popularity for drugs and who is unprofessional (showing up at events wasted) and Matt is seen as a chubby lunatic who is full of himself for no reason. Although there are still those who defend the Hardys, the Funks are generally seen in a positive way, as legends who've had great matches and who've benefited the business well.
Winner: Funks
Overall winners by 4-1: Funks.
IN RING ABILITY:
This is a difficult one to choose since both teams have differing styles, The Funks relying on solid technical wrestling mixed with hardcore brawling, while Matt often uses technical wrestling mixed with few high spots, Jeff's offence is a constant barrage of unique, high flying spots, I've rarely seen Jeff use a submission. So this is going to have to go down to overall match quality over the course of each teams careers, while the Hardys have had many great matches with the likes of Edge/Christian, the Dudlys, HHH and CM Punk, there style often shines during stipulation matches such as TLCs, even Matts technical style can seem bland. The Funks however, have had many great matches, and the majority of them have been regular matches, but they've also been able to work many good hardcore style matches, especially Terry. In this round, the Funks win.
Winner: Funks
MIC SKILLS:
To decide this I'd need to look at each individuals skills. Dory jr is decent during interviews but never truely stands out or enthrals audiences, although that may be due to the time he wrestled in, where wrestling was mostly percieved as real and wrestlers were supposed to talk like normal sports people. Terry is on a whole other level from his brother mic work wise, in my Top 10 Talkers blog from a few monthes ago I named Terry as #7, that shows how great he is in that area. Jeff Hardy is actually pretty good on the mic, a smooth North Carolina accent that draws people in, his promos get his point across while also conveying his unique (understatment) personality. Matt's promos are about average, nothing special or captivating, just getting the point across. In the end though I'd have to say The Funks win this due to Terry's phenominal ability on the mic.
Winner: Funks (mostly due to Terry)
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
This doesn't just cover physiques, but also how a wrestler looks due to attire, hair etc. Physique wise Dory jr was rather pudgy, like most wrestlers those days, Terry through the 70s and early 80s did have a similar build, although by the late 80s he seemed to aquire a pretty good physique until it deteriorated due to age. The Hardys have also had a similar problem with their physiques, although they looked somewhat decent in their early years there's problems now. Jeff's waist looks plain, you'd think he doesn't do sit ups at all and his arms aren't the biggest, but Matt in recent years has been sporting a gut that looks like something a wrestler from the 70s would sport, not someone from the days where muscle matters to make yourself believable. General image however, is where the winner is determined, as The Funks have the look of basic southern wrestlers, simple tights but with the occasional cowboy hat or poncho thrown in, and while Terry's wild hair/goatie and mad eyes convey his danger, Dory jr's balding head isn't exactly the ideal image. The Hardy's keep themselves interesting, while Matt's tights aren't the most exuberent of attires, Jeff is colourful enough to make people interested in him, especially with face paint and rainbow hair.
Winner: Hardys (mostly due to Jeff)
PERSONAS:
A persona is the character of the wrestler on-screen, the brotherly duos have similar personas to the their partners (Terry with Dory, Matt with Jeff). The Funks share the same persona of a rough-neck, Texas brawler, although Terry's can be more deranged and violent at times, which gives audiences a good impression that these guys could win any fight. The Hardys both have the personas of being generation X outsiders, who fight against the odds when things look tough. But when you put the eccentric appearence of Jeff aside, their characters seem basic faces, if it weren't for there appearences they wouldn't seem that interesting, while the tough brawlers/psycopath is intriquing enough for me.
Winner: Funks
FAN REACTION:
There's a common thing in wrestling today, you either like the Hardys or you don't, back in 2008/09 crowds would give good pops when Jeff came out and Matt was commonly seen as an underutilized talent. Now in 2011 Jeff is seen as someone who squandered his popularity for drugs and who is unprofessional (showing up at events wasted) and Matt is seen as a chubby lunatic who is full of himself for no reason. Although there are still those who defend the Hardys, the Funks are generally seen in a positive way, as legends who've had great matches and who've benefited the business well.
Winner: Funks
Overall winners by 4-1: Funks.
Monday, 11 July 2011
Review: The Big Lebowski
The famous brotherly Direcing team; Joel and Ethan Coen have always had a flair of humour in their films, but the 1998 feature 'The Big Lebowski' is just pure comedy, in my opinion the best Coen film and the best comedy film. Now why do I think this? Well sit down on that rug, have some in and out burger and find out.
Obviously a major factor in any comedy is the quality of jokes and laugh factor. The humour in Big Lebowski stems mainly from the dialogue, as is common in Coen films, the dialogue is enriched with absurdities and cult lines that any true Lebowski fan can memorise by heart. Even basic phrases such as "Shut the fuck up Donny" or "Johnson?" can be laugh out loud moments (why will revealed in a bit). Another source of humour is the characters showcased, typical Coen films follow the theme of idiocy and madness and especially so here. Every character is portrayed with some sort of dysfunction, such as psycotic bowling/Vietnam obsessionist Walter, bowling king/peodophile Jesus (western pronounciation), tyrant/crook 'Big' Lebowski and of course stoner/layabout The Dude. The characters insanity adds to the films sense of confusion and madness, putting these characters (most likely the Dude) in hilariously profound situations. Overall the omnipresent absurdity and great array of hilarious characters create plenty a laugh in this film.
But what really puts Lebowski over for me is it's artistic level and complicity. The plot follows The Dude; a middle aged stoner in LA as he's mixed up in mistaken identity, kidnapping, crooked businesmen, euro-femminists, German Nihlistic porn stars and so many other. things that a normal man would be blown away by the perplexity. The film takes mild reference from Raymond Chandlers 'Big Sleep', addin noir elements to the comedy. The plot is so complex (as opposed to the majority of comedys) that the audience will have no idea what's going to happen next, adding to the hysteria of when a brash funny moment actually happens. In addition, the vivid fantasy sequences that take place whenever Dude's knocked out via punch or drugging are stylish with a touch of absurd (absurdity all around!), the 'Gutterballs' sequence is quite possibly the most insane yet hilarious moments in the film. In conclusion, 'Big Lebowski' sets itself apart from other comedy films by being intricate and stylish, often using this as part of the comedy factor.
The acting here is great, Jeff Bridges gives the best performance of his career, mixing relaxed, casual with frantic confusion and bitter annoyence. John Goodman as Walter is also the best role of his career, calm and colective serendipity at one moment, then loud and aggressive the next, a character where insanity is brewing just under the surface, something Goodman conveys so well. Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski is pure femminist snob, with a high brow accent, barely changing expressions and mood, tightly wound and afirmative. David Huddlston as the 'Big' Lebowski is domminering yet franticly out of control, Peter Stormare as German porn star/nihlist Karl Hungus gives a decent performance, standing out with a humorour German accent. In conclusion, Bridges and Goodman give the standout performances, and Steve Buscemi as Donny?...Shut the fuck up!
'The Big Lebowski' is a comedy that is appealing in everyway, absurdly (ok last time I use that) poigant dialogue, creativly mad, likable characters, complex plotline and supurb acting. This Is a film that has gained a cult following, including an annual Lebowski fest and even a religion known as Dudeism. Is this one of the, if not the greatest comedy films of all time? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Obviously a major factor in any comedy is the quality of jokes and laugh factor. The humour in Big Lebowski stems mainly from the dialogue, as is common in Coen films, the dialogue is enriched with absurdities and cult lines that any true Lebowski fan can memorise by heart. Even basic phrases such as "Shut the fuck up Donny" or "Johnson?" can be laugh out loud moments (why will revealed in a bit). Another source of humour is the characters showcased, typical Coen films follow the theme of idiocy and madness and especially so here. Every character is portrayed with some sort of dysfunction, such as psycotic bowling/Vietnam obsessionist Walter, bowling king/peodophile Jesus (western pronounciation), tyrant/crook 'Big' Lebowski and of course stoner/layabout The Dude. The characters insanity adds to the films sense of confusion and madness, putting these characters (most likely the Dude) in hilariously profound situations. Overall the omnipresent absurdity and great array of hilarious characters create plenty a laugh in this film.
But what really puts Lebowski over for me is it's artistic level and complicity. The plot follows The Dude; a middle aged stoner in LA as he's mixed up in mistaken identity, kidnapping, crooked businesmen, euro-femminists, German Nihlistic porn stars and so many other. things that a normal man would be blown away by the perplexity. The film takes mild reference from Raymond Chandlers 'Big Sleep', addin noir elements to the comedy. The plot is so complex (as opposed to the majority of comedys) that the audience will have no idea what's going to happen next, adding to the hysteria of when a brash funny moment actually happens. In addition, the vivid fantasy sequences that take place whenever Dude's knocked out via punch or drugging are stylish with a touch of absurd (absurdity all around!), the 'Gutterballs' sequence is quite possibly the most insane yet hilarious moments in the film. In conclusion, 'Big Lebowski' sets itself apart from other comedy films by being intricate and stylish, often using this as part of the comedy factor.
The acting here is great, Jeff Bridges gives the best performance of his career, mixing relaxed, casual with frantic confusion and bitter annoyence. John Goodman as Walter is also the best role of his career, calm and colective serendipity at one moment, then loud and aggressive the next, a character where insanity is brewing just under the surface, something Goodman conveys so well. Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski is pure femminist snob, with a high brow accent, barely changing expressions and mood, tightly wound and afirmative. David Huddlston as the 'Big' Lebowski is domminering yet franticly out of control, Peter Stormare as German porn star/nihlist Karl Hungus gives a decent performance, standing out with a humorour German accent. In conclusion, Bridges and Goodman give the standout performances, and Steve Buscemi as Donny?...Shut the fuck up!
'The Big Lebowski' is a comedy that is appealing in everyway, absurdly (ok last time I use that) poigant dialogue, creativly mad, likable characters, complex plotline and supurb acting. This Is a film that has gained a cult following, including an annual Lebowski fest and even a religion known as Dudeism. Is this one of the, if not the greatest comedy films of all time? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Friday Night Fights
After the amazing shoot promo by CM Punk on this weeks RAW, several people have been praising the episode through numerous blogs, tweets and video reviews. However, I feel like taking a look at how WWEs other show; Smackdown fares in comparison. Most days I've always thought of Smackdown as the superior show, it puts more emphisis on in ring work and I feel that Michael 'P.S' Hayes is a decent head writer. So let's take a look at how the Smack was layed down in Pheonix.
We started the show with Randy Orton vs Mark Henry. This match didn't have that great a flow to it, Orton did his best to keep this from being a usual Henry bore-fest. The finish saw both men on the outside and Big Show's music hitting, which distracted Henry and allowed Orton to hit an RKO on the floor and get a countout win. This was just about decent a match, but the segment afterwards was suprisingly better. This saw Henry destroy the technical area and man handle the guy that runs it. This is something that I don't think has been done before and was fun to watch.
Also early on we saw backstage segments with Christian and Teddy Long, Christian did well in these, portraying himself as a whiney heel, desperate for a title shot, the recent turn has benefited Christian greatly.
Next we had Daniel Bryan vs Ted Dibiase, despite me missing the first 3 minutes due to other stuff, this was a pretty good match, as is the usual with Bryan. I've thought that the move to Smackdown was a good thing for Bryan as it emphisises his wrestling aspect. The match ended with Bryan giving Dibiase a front face lock which I thought was strange, I don't mind him using a non-finisher but did it have to be something so minor? Maybe Bryan should've won with a wrist hold?
After that...things got a bit wierd, WWE style. We saw an interview with Rajin Sighn, explainig that the reason Jinder Mahal has control over the Great Khali is because Mahal is married to their sister and will divorce if Khali doesn't follow him. This is a strange, pointless storyline that seems more out of a bollywood soap, surely a better excuse could have been thought up?
Then we got back to what Smackdown does best; wrestling, with Christian vs Sin Cara. The match wasn't as good as the Cara/Bourne match from RAW, there was a bit of a clash in styles due to Christian's age but overall it was a good match. Cara did his usual insane spots and Christian played the reluctant heel well.
After that was a short 'From the vault' match with R-Truth vs Dolph Ziggler, they could've done without this match as it was too short to make an impact.
Next in the present day, we got Ezekiel Jackson vs Cody Rhodes. Jackson is bad to watch, same old moves with little flair. Rhodes kept things enjoyable with the way he sold powermoves (like flying half way across the ring after a hip toss), Rhodes winning was the best thing that could happen here, other than Cody throwing acid in Jackson's face to disfigure him, now that's something Cody should add to his gimmick!
We then had another Johnny Curtis segment, I like these, they remind me of early 90s WWF vignettes such as Mr Perfect's. I thought that this weeks metaphor promo wasn't as good or funny as the previous ones, this week had Curtis 'painting himself into a corner'.
A match between Kane and Wade Barrett took place next and even thought it was good, there's something that bugs me. The fact that this is probably the only match that even slightly built up to the Money in the Bank match, only few of the partisipants were seen tonight and they were only announced briefly via a ppv screen shot. How am I supposed to care about this match if it's barely promoted?
The final segment of the night was a contract signing between Orton and Christian, both men did the usual trash talking with Orton being the machismo badass and Christian being a great heel, saying lines such as; "you know you can't beat me" even though Orton's beaten him 3 times. But the interesting part came when Sheamus returned after a 2 week absence after Orton punted him in the head (Jericho's punted; he's been off for 10 monthes?) and beat up both Orton and Christian, then tore up the contract. I think this is great as it leaves so many questions; is the match nullified? Was that just a taunt? Will Sheamus join the match?
All in all I though that Smackdown was good but not the best that it could be, which is a shame after the cracking RAW this week, but we'll see how things transpire next week.
We started the show with Randy Orton vs Mark Henry. This match didn't have that great a flow to it, Orton did his best to keep this from being a usual Henry bore-fest. The finish saw both men on the outside and Big Show's music hitting, which distracted Henry and allowed Orton to hit an RKO on the floor and get a countout win. This was just about decent a match, but the segment afterwards was suprisingly better. This saw Henry destroy the technical area and man handle the guy that runs it. This is something that I don't think has been done before and was fun to watch.
Also early on we saw backstage segments with Christian and Teddy Long, Christian did well in these, portraying himself as a whiney heel, desperate for a title shot, the recent turn has benefited Christian greatly.
Next we had Daniel Bryan vs Ted Dibiase, despite me missing the first 3 minutes due to other stuff, this was a pretty good match, as is the usual with Bryan. I've thought that the move to Smackdown was a good thing for Bryan as it emphisises his wrestling aspect. The match ended with Bryan giving Dibiase a front face lock which I thought was strange, I don't mind him using a non-finisher but did it have to be something so minor? Maybe Bryan should've won with a wrist hold?
After that...things got a bit wierd, WWE style. We saw an interview with Rajin Sighn, explainig that the reason Jinder Mahal has control over the Great Khali is because Mahal is married to their sister and will divorce if Khali doesn't follow him. This is a strange, pointless storyline that seems more out of a bollywood soap, surely a better excuse could have been thought up?
Then we got back to what Smackdown does best; wrestling, with Christian vs Sin Cara. The match wasn't as good as the Cara/Bourne match from RAW, there was a bit of a clash in styles due to Christian's age but overall it was a good match. Cara did his usual insane spots and Christian played the reluctant heel well.
After that was a short 'From the vault' match with R-Truth vs Dolph Ziggler, they could've done without this match as it was too short to make an impact.
Next in the present day, we got Ezekiel Jackson vs Cody Rhodes. Jackson is bad to watch, same old moves with little flair. Rhodes kept things enjoyable with the way he sold powermoves (like flying half way across the ring after a hip toss), Rhodes winning was the best thing that could happen here, other than Cody throwing acid in Jackson's face to disfigure him, now that's something Cody should add to his gimmick!
We then had another Johnny Curtis segment, I like these, they remind me of early 90s WWF vignettes such as Mr Perfect's. I thought that this weeks metaphor promo wasn't as good or funny as the previous ones, this week had Curtis 'painting himself into a corner'.
A match between Kane and Wade Barrett took place next and even thought it was good, there's something that bugs me. The fact that this is probably the only match that even slightly built up to the Money in the Bank match, only few of the partisipants were seen tonight and they were only announced briefly via a ppv screen shot. How am I supposed to care about this match if it's barely promoted?
The final segment of the night was a contract signing between Orton and Christian, both men did the usual trash talking with Orton being the machismo badass and Christian being a great heel, saying lines such as; "you know you can't beat me" even though Orton's beaten him 3 times. But the interesting part came when Sheamus returned after a 2 week absence after Orton punted him in the head (Jericho's punted; he's been off for 10 monthes?) and beat up both Orton and Christian, then tore up the contract. I think this is great as it leaves so many questions; is the match nullified? Was that just a taunt? Will Sheamus join the match?
All in all I though that Smackdown was good but not the best that it could be, which is a shame after the cracking RAW this week, but we'll see how things transpire next week.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Top 10 Westerns
As you all know by now, I'm an avid movie fan, but out of all the genres which one do I prefer? Westerns! Yes, gun-slingers, sheriffs, outlaws, 'Injuns' and large tumbleweeds. Westerns involve gun battles and marvelous landscapes, but there's more to it than that, westerns can be a study of the era (post civil war-pre 1920s), a study of the people and figures who lived in the environment and a study of the west itself and how it effects the latter. In this list I'll be listing my top 10 favourite westerns (note: I did not include 'No Country For Old Men' because of the time period it's set in, not because of the quality), so saddle your horse, load your Colt and enjoy.
10. The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
Dir: Andrew Dominik
A modern masterpiece exploring the final months of the life of outlaw Jesse James, how he came to be killed and the effect this had on the killer (Robert Ford, Duh!). Although slow in pacing for some, this is a grand film which richfully explores the psyches of both James and Ford, the bleak Missouri landscape adds to the attitude of the characters and the setting (post civil war south). Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck give great performances as we explore the end of a western icon and the self destruction of an unlucky man.
9. True Grit (2010/2011, depending where you're from)
Dir: Joel and Ethan Coen
The most recent film on the list, a rare case of a remake being better than the original. The brothers Coen explore vengence and the presence of religion in the time. Jeff Bridges if close to perfect as Rooster Cogburn, a selfish drunkard who is touched by 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hallie Steinfeld who gives the best child performance I've seen in years). The film is dark and bleak with death lurking in the air (literally at one point), but also Coen-esque wry humour is mixed in the dialogue, making this a great western.
8. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
Dir: John Ford
The first of many Duke Wayne films, as he plays an honest gunman with Jimmy Stewarts rightious lawyer and Lee Marvin's pernicious outlaw. This is a typical Ford western, touching unity/comical minor characters mixed with violence and serious dilemas. This explores the effectivness of law and order over violence and the aftermath and consequences of said violence. Everything about this film leaves you with a smile and is one of the more pessimistic Ford films, yes good wins, but at what cost?
7. The Wild Bunch (1969)
Dir: Sam Peckinpah
probably one of the most violent westerns in cinematic history (even by todays standards), typical Peckinpah. With great gun battles and a great ensemble cast, an inoventive western is produced (although influence can be taken from the Leone films), the story of a gang of outlaws on the run from bounty hunters, whilst having to steal guns for a Mexican general is gripping and savage and still packs a punch.
6. Unforgiven (1992)
Dir: Clint Eastwood
Clint directs and stars in his last great western. The story of an aged outlaw, now set straight, having to hunt two criminals in order to collect a bounty to feed his family is gritty and epic. As the film goes on we see Eastwood slowly return to his wicked ways, losing his morality. With strong moral dilemas and the superb cast of Eastwood, Freeman and Hackman, 'Unforgiven' is a touchingly gritty film, worthy of the Oscar it recieved.
5. Rio Bravo (1959)
Dir: Howard Hawks
With Hawks at the helm, this is one of the most wry, exciting westerns you'll ever see. John Wayne as the tough nose sheriff, Dean Martin as a recovering alchoholic, Walter Brenan as the crazy cripple and Ricky Nelson as the kid with gun skills all come together perfectly. The creativly fun shootouts are mixed with the creativly fun dialogue and psycological tension of the heroes being 'Bottled in' by the enemies. One of the funnest films to watch involving Dean Martin being hog tied.
4. The Searchers (1956)
Dir: John Ford
The best Ford/Wayne film of all and that's saying something. The landscape of monument valley is played to great effect as the savage environment of our heroes voyage. Wayne gives his best performance as the Commanche hating, prejudice, yet brave and tough Ethan Edwards. Edwards' relentless obsession with rescuing his kidnapped niece (dead or alive) makes the film. Ford adds the touching family unity element, mixing it with murder and prejudice to make an American classic.
3. Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
Dir: Sergio Leone
The landscape is epic and grand, the characters are complex and dark, there are shootouts a plenty, yes this is a Sergio Leone film. With precise and poigant direction, even the opening scene at the train station would be great on it's own. Charles Bronson's harmonica playing outlaw going against Henry Ford's gun for hire going against Jason Robards' Gang leader, with a widowed ex-whore in the middle of it all makes for must see cinema. The great score and atmosphere define this film as a definitive spagetti western.
2. Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Dir: George Roy Hill
This film has lots of things going for it. The chemistry between Paul Newman and Robert Redford makes them a great movie double team, the philosophy of the changing of the west and the futility of middle age, the humorous dialogue, the rich cinematography, the epic gun battle at the ending, Kathrine Ross. This is a film that cannot fail and never will with repeat viewings.
1. The Good The Bad And The Ugly (1966)
Dir: Sergio Leone
As I said in a blog from a month ago, this is my favourite western of all time, I won't go into too much detail as I suggest you read my review of the film by going through my previous blogs. In short, the setting is great, the dialogue is great, the characters are great, the gun battles are great... This is just a great film.
10. The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
Dir: Andrew Dominik
A modern masterpiece exploring the final months of the life of outlaw Jesse James, how he came to be killed and the effect this had on the killer (Robert Ford, Duh!). Although slow in pacing for some, this is a grand film which richfully explores the psyches of both James and Ford, the bleak Missouri landscape adds to the attitude of the characters and the setting (post civil war south). Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck give great performances as we explore the end of a western icon and the self destruction of an unlucky man.
9. True Grit (2010/2011, depending where you're from)
Dir: Joel and Ethan Coen
The most recent film on the list, a rare case of a remake being better than the original. The brothers Coen explore vengence and the presence of religion in the time. Jeff Bridges if close to perfect as Rooster Cogburn, a selfish drunkard who is touched by 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hallie Steinfeld who gives the best child performance I've seen in years). The film is dark and bleak with death lurking in the air (literally at one point), but also Coen-esque wry humour is mixed in the dialogue, making this a great western.
8. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)
Dir: John Ford
The first of many Duke Wayne films, as he plays an honest gunman with Jimmy Stewarts rightious lawyer and Lee Marvin's pernicious outlaw. This is a typical Ford western, touching unity/comical minor characters mixed with violence and serious dilemas. This explores the effectivness of law and order over violence and the aftermath and consequences of said violence. Everything about this film leaves you with a smile and is one of the more pessimistic Ford films, yes good wins, but at what cost?
7. The Wild Bunch (1969)
Dir: Sam Peckinpah
probably one of the most violent westerns in cinematic history (even by todays standards), typical Peckinpah. With great gun battles and a great ensemble cast, an inoventive western is produced (although influence can be taken from the Leone films), the story of a gang of outlaws on the run from bounty hunters, whilst having to steal guns for a Mexican general is gripping and savage and still packs a punch.
6. Unforgiven (1992)
Dir: Clint Eastwood
Clint directs and stars in his last great western. The story of an aged outlaw, now set straight, having to hunt two criminals in order to collect a bounty to feed his family is gritty and epic. As the film goes on we see Eastwood slowly return to his wicked ways, losing his morality. With strong moral dilemas and the superb cast of Eastwood, Freeman and Hackman, 'Unforgiven' is a touchingly gritty film, worthy of the Oscar it recieved.
5. Rio Bravo (1959)
Dir: Howard Hawks
With Hawks at the helm, this is one of the most wry, exciting westerns you'll ever see. John Wayne as the tough nose sheriff, Dean Martin as a recovering alchoholic, Walter Brenan as the crazy cripple and Ricky Nelson as the kid with gun skills all come together perfectly. The creativly fun shootouts are mixed with the creativly fun dialogue and psycological tension of the heroes being 'Bottled in' by the enemies. One of the funnest films to watch involving Dean Martin being hog tied.
4. The Searchers (1956)
Dir: John Ford
The best Ford/Wayne film of all and that's saying something. The landscape of monument valley is played to great effect as the savage environment of our heroes voyage. Wayne gives his best performance as the Commanche hating, prejudice, yet brave and tough Ethan Edwards. Edwards' relentless obsession with rescuing his kidnapped niece (dead or alive) makes the film. Ford adds the touching family unity element, mixing it with murder and prejudice to make an American classic.
3. Once Upon A Time In The West (1968)
Dir: Sergio Leone
The landscape is epic and grand, the characters are complex and dark, there are shootouts a plenty, yes this is a Sergio Leone film. With precise and poigant direction, even the opening scene at the train station would be great on it's own. Charles Bronson's harmonica playing outlaw going against Henry Ford's gun for hire going against Jason Robards' Gang leader, with a widowed ex-whore in the middle of it all makes for must see cinema. The great score and atmosphere define this film as a definitive spagetti western.
2. Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969)
Dir: George Roy Hill
This film has lots of things going for it. The chemistry between Paul Newman and Robert Redford makes them a great movie double team, the philosophy of the changing of the west and the futility of middle age, the humorous dialogue, the rich cinematography, the epic gun battle at the ending, Kathrine Ross. This is a film that cannot fail and never will with repeat viewings.
1. The Good The Bad And The Ugly (1966)
Dir: Sergio Leone
As I said in a blog from a month ago, this is my favourite western of all time, I won't go into too much detail as I suggest you read my review of the film by going through my previous blogs. In short, the setting is great, the dialogue is great, the characters are great, the gun battles are great... This is just a great film.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Man and SuperCena
For every era of wrestling there's always a top guy in WWE, for the raging 80s it was Hulk Hogan, for the New Generation era of the early to mid-90s it was Bret Hart, for the attitude era it was Steve Austin and the Rock. Now in this new era (presumably the PG era) one man stands as supreme superstar of WWE, John Felix Anthony Cena.
Cena is the definition of superstar, multiple time world champ with numerous movie and t.v appearences, being on the majority of WWE advertisments and products. He is seen as the most recognisable wrestler in WWE right now (who still competes, baring Rock and Austin), yet his reaction from actual wrestling fans is mixed, some (mostly small children and horny women) meet him with loud, adoring cheers, whilst others (mostly men over the age of 13) meet him with loud boos and abusive chants. So why is opinion on Cena so divided and what's my thoughts on him all together? In this blog I'll try to unravel the enigma that is John Felix Anthony Cena (I just like writing that).
So why does he appeal so much to young wrestling fans today? If you look at all the aformentioned top stars of WWE and the time they were top in you'll see why. Hogan was top in Reagan era America, when communism was still a threat and Americans needed an Aryan muscleman to look up to, to stand for the red, White and blue. Austin was top in the late 90s, when grunge and generation X was prominant, teens had an anti-authoritian feel and Austin obviously encapsulated that whenever he stomped a mudhole in Mr Mchmahon. Now look at this era, this is the era of Justin Beiber and RnB, Cena's catchy rap theme yet clean as a whistle attitude definatly appeals to small children. Also, any small child who still thinks wrestling is real, would think Cena is god after the amazing feats of strength and pain threshold (more on that later). In short, a mixture of modern tastes and superhuman booking makes Cena cool to the little Jimmys (thanks R-Truth).
Now, there are many reasons why Cena has gained so much hostility from the majority of adult males, one being his selling or lack there of. Sure during his beatdowns Cena will react and groan like most wrestlers, but when it comes to his big comeback, he gives off shoulder blocks like a fresh man, this takes away some of the believability of his performance, his blatantly non-connecting punches are another thing that riles up the masses. Also some of his promos come off as too childish and annoying and that he's trying too hard to be funny and comming off as flat. And let's face it, fans from the attitude era have always had a hostility for clean-cut, kid friendly wrestlers, remember Rocky Maivia? And even someone as talented and hard working as Rey Mysterio gets grief for being too kid friendly.
So, my thoughts on Cena? Whilst his in ring technique isn't exactly the sharpest, he's been able to have decent matches with JBL/Big Show to Shawn Michaels/Chris Jericho and while he's not the best, he's certainly not as bad as Hogan or Ultimate Warrior. His promos? People forget that when he was a mid-carder as the doctor of thuganomics, he got good responses from the crowd due to the very un-PG raps he did, if you're gonna blame someone, blame the writers for giving such patronising, unfunny material. In conclusion, Cena is a very hardworking wrestler who has the hardest schedual, is respected by the likes of Ric Flair and Bret Hart and doesn't abuse his position in the company (like say a kliq member would) so in my opinion...he's ok, although I'll still boo him at live events.
Cena is the definition of superstar, multiple time world champ with numerous movie and t.v appearences, being on the majority of WWE advertisments and products. He is seen as the most recognisable wrestler in WWE right now (who still competes, baring Rock and Austin), yet his reaction from actual wrestling fans is mixed, some (mostly small children and horny women) meet him with loud, adoring cheers, whilst others (mostly men over the age of 13) meet him with loud boos and abusive chants. So why is opinion on Cena so divided and what's my thoughts on him all together? In this blog I'll try to unravel the enigma that is John Felix Anthony Cena (I just like writing that).
So why does he appeal so much to young wrestling fans today? If you look at all the aformentioned top stars of WWE and the time they were top in you'll see why. Hogan was top in Reagan era America, when communism was still a threat and Americans needed an Aryan muscleman to look up to, to stand for the red, White and blue. Austin was top in the late 90s, when grunge and generation X was prominant, teens had an anti-authoritian feel and Austin obviously encapsulated that whenever he stomped a mudhole in Mr Mchmahon. Now look at this era, this is the era of Justin Beiber and RnB, Cena's catchy rap theme yet clean as a whistle attitude definatly appeals to small children. Also, any small child who still thinks wrestling is real, would think Cena is god after the amazing feats of strength and pain threshold (more on that later). In short, a mixture of modern tastes and superhuman booking makes Cena cool to the little Jimmys (thanks R-Truth).
Now, there are many reasons why Cena has gained so much hostility from the majority of adult males, one being his selling or lack there of. Sure during his beatdowns Cena will react and groan like most wrestlers, but when it comes to his big comeback, he gives off shoulder blocks like a fresh man, this takes away some of the believability of his performance, his blatantly non-connecting punches are another thing that riles up the masses. Also some of his promos come off as too childish and annoying and that he's trying too hard to be funny and comming off as flat. And let's face it, fans from the attitude era have always had a hostility for clean-cut, kid friendly wrestlers, remember Rocky Maivia? And even someone as talented and hard working as Rey Mysterio gets grief for being too kid friendly.
So, my thoughts on Cena? Whilst his in ring technique isn't exactly the sharpest, he's been able to have decent matches with JBL/Big Show to Shawn Michaels/Chris Jericho and while he's not the best, he's certainly not as bad as Hogan or Ultimate Warrior. His promos? People forget that when he was a mid-carder as the doctor of thuganomics, he got good responses from the crowd due to the very un-PG raps he did, if you're gonna blame someone, blame the writers for giving such patronising, unfunny material. In conclusion, Cena is a very hardworking wrestler who has the hardest schedual, is respected by the likes of Ric Flair and Bret Hart and doesn't abuse his position in the company (like say a kliq member would) so in my opinion...he's ok, although I'll still boo him at live events.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Standing Up On Top Of The World
This week I've decided to deter from the usual subjects such as Films and T.V, instead I'll be looking at probably the most popular comedian in Britain, a man who's tours lately, have sold more tickets than any other comedian, sold more DVDs, performed in the largest venues and has had his one-liners repeated by numerous school children and bar crawlers across the UK, Mister Lee Evans.
Now, as many people will tell you, Lee Evans is a funny, funny man, his comedic style ranges from observational satire of modern life, mixed with surealist one-liners. There are so many classic lines, that I could spend a whole day writing them, but for now I'll leave you with just one; "AA reckonended, so what? A mechanic has gone in and gone 'yeah that's all right'" Of course his joke base consists of more than just short one-liners, he can go into long monologues about relationships, holidays or car troubles, each with Evans' deprication of the absurd, thus allowing him to connect with the audience as these are absurdities we can relate to.
There is a certain crux of Evans' style that makes him distinct from other comics, his frantic energy. It stems from a visible nervousness (Evans sweats like a water hose and stains his suit every performance) that adds to his performance, making his lines stick due to the energy they're said with. But this energy only helps to eccentuate Evans' true gem, physicallity. Evans' on stage performances are energetic and vast (adding to his constant sweat), whether it's doing over the top deep vien frombosis exercises to trademark sketches he'd do at the begining of early shows, such as how to be a comic and the Lee Evans trio. Evans' physical comedy is the corner stone of his many great shows.
Evans is someone who has lead a typical comedians career, starting from small clubs in England and America, but his style and wit made him a stand out at the Edinburgh festival, winning the top award at the festival, going on to perform many live shows, gaining respect and reputation, having a rather unsuccessful acting career, then performing high rated shows with sold out crowds and being seen as Britains top comedian, needless to say, Lee Evans has made it big, and no other comedian deserves it more.
Now, as many people will tell you, Lee Evans is a funny, funny man, his comedic style ranges from observational satire of modern life, mixed with surealist one-liners. There are so many classic lines, that I could spend a whole day writing them, but for now I'll leave you with just one; "AA reckonended, so what? A mechanic has gone in and gone 'yeah that's all right'" Of course his joke base consists of more than just short one-liners, he can go into long monologues about relationships, holidays or car troubles, each with Evans' deprication of the absurd, thus allowing him to connect with the audience as these are absurdities we can relate to.
There is a certain crux of Evans' style that makes him distinct from other comics, his frantic energy. It stems from a visible nervousness (Evans sweats like a water hose and stains his suit every performance) that adds to his performance, making his lines stick due to the energy they're said with. But this energy only helps to eccentuate Evans' true gem, physicallity. Evans' on stage performances are energetic and vast (adding to his constant sweat), whether it's doing over the top deep vien frombosis exercises to trademark sketches he'd do at the begining of early shows, such as how to be a comic and the Lee Evans trio. Evans' physical comedy is the corner stone of his many great shows.
Evans is someone who has lead a typical comedians career, starting from small clubs in England and America, but his style and wit made him a stand out at the Edinburgh festival, winning the top award at the festival, going on to perform many live shows, gaining respect and reputation, having a rather unsuccessful acting career, then performing high rated shows with sold out crowds and being seen as Britains top comedian, needless to say, Lee Evans has made it big, and no other comedian deserves it more.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
10 Men Talking
There are numerous aspects that make a great wrestler, ability (try telling Hulk Hogan), gimmick, presence, image and the subject of this here blog, promo skills. A promo helps a wrestler (or superstar!) sell themselves, their fued and any upcoming matches they have. Right here I'll be listing the top 10 wrestlers who I think had the best promo skills, along with my favourite promos of theirs (disclaimer: this is just my personal opinion and not to be taken seriously), I'll also be tweeting these promos on my Twitter account @MRPITT for those who want to see them, so enjoy.
10. Dusty Rhodes
Dusty is a wrestler with a distinctive promo style that is entertaining and captivating, his southern drole mixed with rhymes made viewers listen especialy to what he had to say. Rhymes like 'Funky like a monkey' and 'I've dined with kings and queens and fed on pork and beans' added an element of fun to his monologues which is what wrestling should be, fun.
Favourite promo: A promo he took in 1986 after losing the world title to Ric Flair, this is hard to find on YouTube since it's just titled 'Dusty Rhodes promo' so it's best to view on my Twitter.
9. Chris Jericho
No matter what phase of his career he's in, whiney cruiserweight, cocky rock star or suit wearing misanthrope, his promos are always great. He's perfect at selling himself as a performer yet also conveying the heel cowardness within. Early cruiserweight promos were shrill and obnoxious with sense of self deprication, rock star promos were wild and humourous with witty pot shots taken at opponents and misanthrope promos were cold, calculated and pedantic with fancy words said, conveying a man disgusted by those around him.
Favourite promo: hard to choose with Jericho, it would either have to be his 2007 return or his promo the week after he turned on Shawn Michaels, although I've had difficulty finding the latter on YouTube.
8. Jim Cornette
probably the manager with the best promo skills in wrestling history. The perfect heel manager, shrill, whiney voice, promos spoken so fast you'd think he'd have the cardio vascular conditioning of an Olympian and the ability to put over the wrestlers he managed. During his fast paced verbiages, he'd explain how his Midnight Express were the best team in wrestling and not bad looking either (perhaps that's why he had so much heat in the south). He'd also get in a bit of a character development for himself, being conveyed as a pompous mama's boy who's as tough as a ham sandwich.
Favourite promo: when he announced the new version of the Midnight express, both selling his men and putting in some development for himself.
7. Terry Funk
Preferable here are his heel promos and for good reason. He'd convey himself as a dispicable psycopath who enjoyed giving out pain, but the coup-de-grace was the way he insulted his opponents (and sometimes audience), using hateful phrases that conveyed his perniciousness and how much he hated his opponents. Anyone who uses phrases such as 'yellow dog' or 'jackass' to describe their opponent must be one evil mother!
Favourite promo: describing to Jim Ross his 'Beautiful dream' an example of Funk's disrespect to opponents beyond comprehension.
6. Roddy Piper
A mixture of high energy (not Owen Hart and Koko B Ware) and smarmyness made Roddy Piper a force to be reckoned with in the 1980s. And what do you do with someone who's a great talker but can't wrestle? (due to injury) give them a talk show. Yes, on Pipers pit he'd use his skills to insult his mostly face guests and put himself over as a heel. His promos were insulting, smarmy, cocky and made audiences want to see him hurt, what a great heel promo should be.
Favourite promo: Strangely enough, I didn't choose a Pipers pit promo or a heel promo, for me my favourite Roddy Piper promo is the one he did in Alcatraz leading up to his WCW fued with Hollywood Hogan, such passion, intensity and anger in showcased making this promo great, shame the same can't be said for the match they had.
5. Jake Roberts
Roberts had a particular promo style, with his smooth southern voice, he'd speak in a cool, calm way but talk about hurting other men and being methodical about it, making his promos chilling and dark. His promo style made people listen close and conveyed his cold, snake like character, the subject of his promos would be captivating, be it DDT standing for the end, or making Ted Dibiase beg for his money and his safety, Roberts made you take interest in his fued and his character.
Favourite promo: His post match interview at Tuesday in Texas after slapping Miss Elizabeth, probably the most disturbing promo ever.
4. Mick Foley
In the league of Terry Funk and Jake Roberts, someone who conveyed the nature of their character in their promos, in this case being a deranged lunatic who'll put their body on the line to win a match and gladly dish out suffering. My preference however is to his ECW anti-hardcore promos, in which he'd talk about how harcore wrestling has ruined his life and how it means nothing, being both a heel against what the ECW fans stand for and also putting across some valid points that I'm sure Jim Cornette would agree with.
Favourite promo: No promo that I've seen has had more emotion or phinece than the 'Cane Dewey' promo, probably the bestcof that era.
3. Randy Savage
With a deep, booming voice and eccentric personality, Macho Man Randy Savage was someone who could instantly grab your interest. His wildman character gave his promos an edge, whether it was quoting Sonny and Cher or talking about the bubbling and boiling of the couldren of madness. He'd also talk about how great he was compared to those fueding with him, selling himself, his opponents and the fued, exactly what a promo should be. With an eccentricity that exceeded others and some imaginative verbiages, Randy Savage was one of the great promo men of the 80s.
Favourite promo: 'Talkin about history' promo, classic Macho Man.
2. The Rock
'The most electrifying man in sports entertainment' and that's no joke, with promos that mixed humour with badassness with purpose, The Rock proved to be the best promo man of the 21st century. His showman way of speaking and memorable catchphrases made audiences involved and excited whenever he entered an arena, with the funniest one-liners since Lee Evans, you knew you were going to enjoy his promos and he could be entertaining, no matter the bad storyline or boring performer, truely the sign of a great wrestler.
Favourite promo: You might disagree with me, but I think that his response to John Cena's rap, via satellite was his best, no Rock promo has had more passion, memorable lines or electricity than that one.
1. Ric Flair
Yes, my favourite all time wrestler is also my favourite all time promo man, and for good reason. I've covered a bit of Flair's promo skills in a previous blog so excuse me if I repeat myself. This was a man who exuded brovado and confidence, a heel who was so cocky but could back it up, who lorded it over the audience how he was the best in the world and the way he said it made us believe it. The subject of his promos was another case putting himself and opponents over, but also putting the world championship, the promotion and wrestling as a whole over, something that's important in these times. The energy an confidence Flair conveyed excited the WTBS studio audiences into a frenzy, this was a man who had the crowd in the palm of his hand, this was Ric Flair.
Favourite promo: 'You're looking at the man' pure arogence, pure showmanship, pure Flair.
10. Dusty Rhodes
Dusty is a wrestler with a distinctive promo style that is entertaining and captivating, his southern drole mixed with rhymes made viewers listen especialy to what he had to say. Rhymes like 'Funky like a monkey' and 'I've dined with kings and queens and fed on pork and beans' added an element of fun to his monologues which is what wrestling should be, fun.
Favourite promo: A promo he took in 1986 after losing the world title to Ric Flair, this is hard to find on YouTube since it's just titled 'Dusty Rhodes promo' so it's best to view on my Twitter.
9. Chris Jericho
No matter what phase of his career he's in, whiney cruiserweight, cocky rock star or suit wearing misanthrope, his promos are always great. He's perfect at selling himself as a performer yet also conveying the heel cowardness within. Early cruiserweight promos were shrill and obnoxious with sense of self deprication, rock star promos were wild and humourous with witty pot shots taken at opponents and misanthrope promos were cold, calculated and pedantic with fancy words said, conveying a man disgusted by those around him.
Favourite promo: hard to choose with Jericho, it would either have to be his 2007 return or his promo the week after he turned on Shawn Michaels, although I've had difficulty finding the latter on YouTube.
8. Jim Cornette
probably the manager with the best promo skills in wrestling history. The perfect heel manager, shrill, whiney voice, promos spoken so fast you'd think he'd have the cardio vascular conditioning of an Olympian and the ability to put over the wrestlers he managed. During his fast paced verbiages, he'd explain how his Midnight Express were the best team in wrestling and not bad looking either (perhaps that's why he had so much heat in the south). He'd also get in a bit of a character development for himself, being conveyed as a pompous mama's boy who's as tough as a ham sandwich.
Favourite promo: when he announced the new version of the Midnight express, both selling his men and putting in some development for himself.
7. Terry Funk
Preferable here are his heel promos and for good reason. He'd convey himself as a dispicable psycopath who enjoyed giving out pain, but the coup-de-grace was the way he insulted his opponents (and sometimes audience), using hateful phrases that conveyed his perniciousness and how much he hated his opponents. Anyone who uses phrases such as 'yellow dog' or 'jackass' to describe their opponent must be one evil mother!
Favourite promo: describing to Jim Ross his 'Beautiful dream' an example of Funk's disrespect to opponents beyond comprehension.
6. Roddy Piper
A mixture of high energy (not Owen Hart and Koko B Ware) and smarmyness made Roddy Piper a force to be reckoned with in the 1980s. And what do you do with someone who's a great talker but can't wrestle? (due to injury) give them a talk show. Yes, on Pipers pit he'd use his skills to insult his mostly face guests and put himself over as a heel. His promos were insulting, smarmy, cocky and made audiences want to see him hurt, what a great heel promo should be.
Favourite promo: Strangely enough, I didn't choose a Pipers pit promo or a heel promo, for me my favourite Roddy Piper promo is the one he did in Alcatraz leading up to his WCW fued with Hollywood Hogan, such passion, intensity and anger in showcased making this promo great, shame the same can't be said for the match they had.
5. Jake Roberts
Roberts had a particular promo style, with his smooth southern voice, he'd speak in a cool, calm way but talk about hurting other men and being methodical about it, making his promos chilling and dark. His promo style made people listen close and conveyed his cold, snake like character, the subject of his promos would be captivating, be it DDT standing for the end, or making Ted Dibiase beg for his money and his safety, Roberts made you take interest in his fued and his character.
Favourite promo: His post match interview at Tuesday in Texas after slapping Miss Elizabeth, probably the most disturbing promo ever.
4. Mick Foley
In the league of Terry Funk and Jake Roberts, someone who conveyed the nature of their character in their promos, in this case being a deranged lunatic who'll put their body on the line to win a match and gladly dish out suffering. My preference however is to his ECW anti-hardcore promos, in which he'd talk about how harcore wrestling has ruined his life and how it means nothing, being both a heel against what the ECW fans stand for and also putting across some valid points that I'm sure Jim Cornette would agree with.
Favourite promo: No promo that I've seen has had more emotion or phinece than the 'Cane Dewey' promo, probably the bestcof that era.
3. Randy Savage
With a deep, booming voice and eccentric personality, Macho Man Randy Savage was someone who could instantly grab your interest. His wildman character gave his promos an edge, whether it was quoting Sonny and Cher or talking about the bubbling and boiling of the couldren of madness. He'd also talk about how great he was compared to those fueding with him, selling himself, his opponents and the fued, exactly what a promo should be. With an eccentricity that exceeded others and some imaginative verbiages, Randy Savage was one of the great promo men of the 80s.
Favourite promo: 'Talkin about history' promo, classic Macho Man.
2. The Rock
'The most electrifying man in sports entertainment' and that's no joke, with promos that mixed humour with badassness with purpose, The Rock proved to be the best promo man of the 21st century. His showman way of speaking and memorable catchphrases made audiences involved and excited whenever he entered an arena, with the funniest one-liners since Lee Evans, you knew you were going to enjoy his promos and he could be entertaining, no matter the bad storyline or boring performer, truely the sign of a great wrestler.
Favourite promo: You might disagree with me, but I think that his response to John Cena's rap, via satellite was his best, no Rock promo has had more passion, memorable lines or electricity than that one.
1. Ric Flair
Yes, my favourite all time wrestler is also my favourite all time promo man, and for good reason. I've covered a bit of Flair's promo skills in a previous blog so excuse me if I repeat myself. This was a man who exuded brovado and confidence, a heel who was so cocky but could back it up, who lorded it over the audience how he was the best in the world and the way he said it made us believe it. The subject of his promos was another case putting himself and opponents over, but also putting the world championship, the promotion and wrestling as a whole over, something that's important in these times. The energy an confidence Flair conveyed excited the WTBS studio audiences into a frenzy, this was a man who had the crowd in the palm of his hand, this was Ric Flair.
Favourite promo: 'You're looking at the man' pure arogence, pure showmanship, pure Flair.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Review: Inception
There are few films that can appeal to a wide range of film audiences, both the casual blockbuster kids and the hoity toity cinephiles, but Christopher Nolan's 'Inception' has done just that. This 2010 follow up to 'The Dark Knight' is something of a modern masterpiece and a cultural phenomenon.
The film is set in a world where it is possible to enter peoples dreams and steal their ideas, in the hands of another director, this plot wouldn't be taken as seriously (in the hands of Uwe Boll it would've been horrendous), but Nolan creates a serious realistic world, the only over the top action sequences occur in the dream world. The plot itself is something complex, which is what appeals to the arthouse audiences, the idea being that there're several layers of dreams and inception (implanting an idea in someone) can only occur in the lowest level, therefore the dreamer believes that the idea is deeply his. The plot follows Dom Cobb and his team of experts trying to carry out inception, the dream world and limbo (a world if uncontrolled dream space) carry certain conotations of a religious afterlife, again appealing to the arthouse audience. This proves Inception to be an intelligent story arc, along with a roaring action film.
Because there are dream worlds, this permits the characters to engage in gun battles, car chases and to blow shit up (from a hotel to a mountain army base). The action sequences are well built up and don't take up too much of the film as to not deter from the plot, the scale of the sequences are mind-blowing and are a way of cementing Nolan as the best action director (move over Cameron). To counteract the action we have a nice mixture of wry dialogue (an example being the verbal barrages of Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon Levitt) and heart wrenching drama as Cobb is portrayed as a man still hurt by the loss of his wife as it manifests into his criminal career. Both the action and drama are well set with Hans Zimmer's amazing score which captivates the audience into the action.
The performances are pleasing, Leonardo Dicaprio as Cobb is possibly one of his best performances, mere facial expressions and tones of voice convey grief, sadness, anger and purpose, something is not easy for any actor. Other performances are simply standard as Levitt and Ellen Page give decent enough goes, although are outshined by Leo, the only other noticable performance is Tom Hardy as the smart mouthed Evees, who always has something depricating to say, making him memorable.
With a complex plotline and powerful drama mixed with edge of your seat action, Inception is a film that appeals to all mediums of audiences, something directors can only dream of (not trying to be funny), this is a film that will leave puzzled, thrilled and exhilerated, I know the decade just about began, but no one would blame me if I named this film of the decade.
The film is set in a world where it is possible to enter peoples dreams and steal their ideas, in the hands of another director, this plot wouldn't be taken as seriously (in the hands of Uwe Boll it would've been horrendous), but Nolan creates a serious realistic world, the only over the top action sequences occur in the dream world. The plot itself is something complex, which is what appeals to the arthouse audiences, the idea being that there're several layers of dreams and inception (implanting an idea in someone) can only occur in the lowest level, therefore the dreamer believes that the idea is deeply his. The plot follows Dom Cobb and his team of experts trying to carry out inception, the dream world and limbo (a world if uncontrolled dream space) carry certain conotations of a religious afterlife, again appealing to the arthouse audience. This proves Inception to be an intelligent story arc, along with a roaring action film.
Because there are dream worlds, this permits the characters to engage in gun battles, car chases and to blow shit up (from a hotel to a mountain army base). The action sequences are well built up and don't take up too much of the film as to not deter from the plot, the scale of the sequences are mind-blowing and are a way of cementing Nolan as the best action director (move over Cameron). To counteract the action we have a nice mixture of wry dialogue (an example being the verbal barrages of Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon Levitt) and heart wrenching drama as Cobb is portrayed as a man still hurt by the loss of his wife as it manifests into his criminal career. Both the action and drama are well set with Hans Zimmer's amazing score which captivates the audience into the action.
The performances are pleasing, Leonardo Dicaprio as Cobb is possibly one of his best performances, mere facial expressions and tones of voice convey grief, sadness, anger and purpose, something is not easy for any actor. Other performances are simply standard as Levitt and Ellen Page give decent enough goes, although are outshined by Leo, the only other noticable performance is Tom Hardy as the smart mouthed Evees, who always has something depricating to say, making him memorable.
With a complex plotline and powerful drama mixed with edge of your seat action, Inception is a film that appeals to all mediums of audiences, something directors can only dream of (not trying to be funny), this is a film that will leave puzzled, thrilled and exhilerated, I know the decade just about began, but no one would blame me if I named this film of the decade.
Monday, 23 May 2011
Push it to the Limit!
There are moments in time when wrestling events make you remember what it's like to be a fan, to make you remember why you fell in love with the genre, although the first half of WWEs Over the Limit couldn't make me give 5 fucks about wrestling, the final 3 matches made the ppv worth watching and had me on the edge of my seat, I will spend this review critiquing all the matches on the card and giving them a score out of 10. The only words I can say for now is that if I were you, I'd skip to the last 3 matches.
1. R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio
personally I think R-Truth is wrong for his current role, his mic work makes me cringe everytime I hear it and I feel like turning off everytime he's on, the character he's been given is fine, it's just the wrong man for the role.
Anyway, this was good match to start things off, nothing special but it kept my interest, Rey can carry a good match, which is why it was a shame Truth won, that means we'll be seeing more of him...SHHHIIIIIIT!
Score: 7/10
2. Wade Barrett vs Ezikiel Jackson
I honestly didn't expect much of this match, although Jackson held up his part as the powerhouse, whilst Barrett caried the match and kept it decent with a suprising pump-handle drop, the classic mid-rope elbow and some spots with the ring post. I'm glad Barrett got disqualified, it had him keep his belt which he's only had for 2 months now and it kept Jackson as a credible threat and kept the fued going.
Score: 6/10
3. Sin Cara vs Chavo Geurrero
This was a pretty fun match, it showcased Sin Cara as a human highlight reel (you'll be hearing from Jericho's lawyers) and showed how underated Chavo is. Sin Cara had the majority of the offence which is understandable considering that Chavo's been on the lower end for so long. We saw all sorts of awesome moves from Sin Cara, making him look strong and making the match strong, however, a few botched moves, including a messed up finish dampened the match.
Score: 7/10
4. Kane/Big Show vs CM Punk/Mason Ryan
This could've been a t.v match, there were few highlights as Punk was made to look weak and Ryan is still slightly green. Other than a cheeky Macho man tribute by punk, this was standard.
(earlier however, there was a segment where Otunga and Mcguilicutty were found beaten up, apparently by Show and Kane, while Ryan showed compasion towards his fallen team mates, Punk just told them to 'Walk it off', this was great heeling by Punk but made Show/Kane questionable as faces.
Score: 6/10
5. Brie Bella vs Kelly Kelly
To be honest, I spent most of this match reading Empire magazine. All that happened was a stinkface, talking about Kelly being in FHM, 'twin majic' and an X-factor, Nothing to see here folks!
Score: 4.5/10
6. Randy Orton vs Christian
This was as phenominal as AJ Styles, these 2 put on a clinic. So many counters, Christians rope punch countered with DDT counstered with rope punch, corner kick countered with DDT etc. So many reversals and near falls had me jumping out of my chair, thinking to myself 'I love wrestling!' This may well could be a match of the year candidate and I hope this leads to more matches.
Score: 9.5/10
7. Jerry Lawler vs Michael Cole
I actually liked the Wrestlemania match these 2 had, not from a wrestling point of view, but from a comedy point of view. This match provided Jim Cornette style comedy and the perfect climax to this fued. It all started with Cole trying to get out of the match with a doctors note, but the ref started the match. Things didn't start promising with Lawler landing non-conecting punches, but it got better when Cole slipped outside, sending Lawler into the steps and unvielimg the worst athletes foot I've ever seen. But my sides split when Cole went crashing into the Colemine, after a fist drop that was it. The after match segment was the icing on the cake as appearences from Eve giving Cole a moonsault, JR squirting Cole with BBQ sauace and most awesomly, Bret Hart hitting Cole with a sharpshooter made my day and bought tears to my eyes.
Score: wrestling: 3/10 entertainment/joy: 9/10
8. John Cena vs The Miz
This match told a great story, with Miz revealing that since it's no dq the A-Ry could participate. This lead to most of the match being Miz and A-Ry beating the holy crap out of Cena, with fun spots with belts, Kendo sticks, stairs and a young Cenation member at ringside.
Most of you will probably wonder how the hell Cena managed to win after a 20 minute beatdown but I suppose that if you gave your opponent 90% of the offence then you deserved to go over. Fun for the Cenation as they saw their hero win after insumountable odds and fun for the Cena haters as they got to see Cena get beaten like a government mule for 20 minutes.
Score: 8/10
1. R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio
personally I think R-Truth is wrong for his current role, his mic work makes me cringe everytime I hear it and I feel like turning off everytime he's on, the character he's been given is fine, it's just the wrong man for the role.
Anyway, this was good match to start things off, nothing special but it kept my interest, Rey can carry a good match, which is why it was a shame Truth won, that means we'll be seeing more of him...SHHHIIIIIIT!
Score: 7/10
2. Wade Barrett vs Ezikiel Jackson
I honestly didn't expect much of this match, although Jackson held up his part as the powerhouse, whilst Barrett caried the match and kept it decent with a suprising pump-handle drop, the classic mid-rope elbow and some spots with the ring post. I'm glad Barrett got disqualified, it had him keep his belt which he's only had for 2 months now and it kept Jackson as a credible threat and kept the fued going.
Score: 6/10
3. Sin Cara vs Chavo Geurrero
This was a pretty fun match, it showcased Sin Cara as a human highlight reel (you'll be hearing from Jericho's lawyers) and showed how underated Chavo is. Sin Cara had the majority of the offence which is understandable considering that Chavo's been on the lower end for so long. We saw all sorts of awesome moves from Sin Cara, making him look strong and making the match strong, however, a few botched moves, including a messed up finish dampened the match.
Score: 7/10
4. Kane/Big Show vs CM Punk/Mason Ryan
This could've been a t.v match, there were few highlights as Punk was made to look weak and Ryan is still slightly green. Other than a cheeky Macho man tribute by punk, this was standard.
(earlier however, there was a segment where Otunga and Mcguilicutty were found beaten up, apparently by Show and Kane, while Ryan showed compasion towards his fallen team mates, Punk just told them to 'Walk it off', this was great heeling by Punk but made Show/Kane questionable as faces.
Score: 6/10
5. Brie Bella vs Kelly Kelly
To be honest, I spent most of this match reading Empire magazine. All that happened was a stinkface, talking about Kelly being in FHM, 'twin majic' and an X-factor, Nothing to see here folks!
Score: 4.5/10
6. Randy Orton vs Christian
This was as phenominal as AJ Styles, these 2 put on a clinic. So many counters, Christians rope punch countered with DDT counstered with rope punch, corner kick countered with DDT etc. So many reversals and near falls had me jumping out of my chair, thinking to myself 'I love wrestling!' This may well could be a match of the year candidate and I hope this leads to more matches.
Score: 9.5/10
7. Jerry Lawler vs Michael Cole
I actually liked the Wrestlemania match these 2 had, not from a wrestling point of view, but from a comedy point of view. This match provided Jim Cornette style comedy and the perfect climax to this fued. It all started with Cole trying to get out of the match with a doctors note, but the ref started the match. Things didn't start promising with Lawler landing non-conecting punches, but it got better when Cole slipped outside, sending Lawler into the steps and unvielimg the worst athletes foot I've ever seen. But my sides split when Cole went crashing into the Colemine, after a fist drop that was it. The after match segment was the icing on the cake as appearences from Eve giving Cole a moonsault, JR squirting Cole with BBQ sauace and most awesomly, Bret Hart hitting Cole with a sharpshooter made my day and bought tears to my eyes.
Score: wrestling: 3/10 entertainment/joy: 9/10
8. John Cena vs The Miz
This match told a great story, with Miz revealing that since it's no dq the A-Ry could participate. This lead to most of the match being Miz and A-Ry beating the holy crap out of Cena, with fun spots with belts, Kendo sticks, stairs and a young Cenation member at ringside.
Most of you will probably wonder how the hell Cena managed to win after a 20 minute beatdown but I suppose that if you gave your opponent 90% of the offence then you deserved to go over. Fun for the Cenation as they saw their hero win after insumountable odds and fun for the Cena haters as they got to see Cena get beaten like a government mule for 20 minutes.
Score: 8/10
Saturday, 14 May 2011
Full House
It is often in the world of television when just one character makes the show essential viewing. As is the case with the show 'House' and it's misanthropic main character Gregory House, but is this also a detriment to the show? In this review I'll discuss this and other points, on how the show functions.
The show follows a seemingly regular pattern when it comes to episode plots. Before the credits we see some random person have some sort of grotesque physical breakdown, this results in doctor House, the head of the diagnostics department and his interchangable team spending most of the episode trying to figure out the problem, mis-diagnosing more times than is believable, with numerous sub-plots involved, either the comical hijinks of the team or a study of Houses character. This premis causes the show to fall into a trap, as audiences expect the same thing every week and to lose interest, as what happened with the A-Team. The show combats this through numerous means, such as every so often changing the perspective of the show to that of one of the minor characters, or basing the episode around something else, e.g the 2 parter where House was detoxing in a mental hospital. But the reason why the repetitive premise works is because of the connotations the situations and cases have on certain characters and the consequences made from them. Take for example the episode where the team had to treat an African war lord, this resulted in Chase, a member of the team, euthanising him in order to prevent bloodshed, this turmoils Chase's conscience and results in his wife leaving him. Things like that peaks viewers curiosities on how this case will affect those solving it.
Many will agree that the main attraction of the show is the main character, played perfectly by Hugh Laurie. He is probably one of the best characters on t.v, a miserable person, who cares little about his patients well being (for the most part) and more about finding out what's wrong with them. He's abusive and snarky towards his patients but is the best doctor in the hospital, this raises the question of whether a nicer or efficient doctor is prefered. He is a man tortured by a leg injury, drug addiction and heartbreak (at different points), this makes him a complex character to study, but is also fun to watch as he enjoys pushing his team to the limit with abuse and mental tests to analize their worth and character.
In short House is a great character, but what about the supporting characters? The Character of Wilson is one of the few who can be as interesting as House, he is House's best and only friend, his modus operendi is completely the opposite of House's, as he is someone who cares about peoples feelings and is generally a nice guy. Both question eachothers motives but stay together because no one else will befriend them. The Dean of medicine and House's on again of again flame is well played yet unremarkable, often just there to be either verbal fodder or emotional support for House. That leaves us to the team, those who work for the most difficult boss in the world, throughout the 7 series so far, you'll notice that members leave and comeback more times than you can count, this makes future departures and returns things difficult to care about if they've been done so many times before. Apart from a few minor storylines, the team have no major impact on the series, that appear to be just there for Houses amusement and to analize him, this makes the audience not care about their dilemas if they only contribute a few witty lines.
Overall House is a very entertaining show, it showcases drama, comedy and mystery all in one, it provides one of the most interesting characters on t.v and despite a few flaws, makes you want to tune in the next week.
The show follows a seemingly regular pattern when it comes to episode plots. Before the credits we see some random person have some sort of grotesque physical breakdown, this results in doctor House, the head of the diagnostics department and his interchangable team spending most of the episode trying to figure out the problem, mis-diagnosing more times than is believable, with numerous sub-plots involved, either the comical hijinks of the team or a study of Houses character. This premis causes the show to fall into a trap, as audiences expect the same thing every week and to lose interest, as what happened with the A-Team. The show combats this through numerous means, such as every so often changing the perspective of the show to that of one of the minor characters, or basing the episode around something else, e.g the 2 parter where House was detoxing in a mental hospital. But the reason why the repetitive premise works is because of the connotations the situations and cases have on certain characters and the consequences made from them. Take for example the episode where the team had to treat an African war lord, this resulted in Chase, a member of the team, euthanising him in order to prevent bloodshed, this turmoils Chase's conscience and results in his wife leaving him. Things like that peaks viewers curiosities on how this case will affect those solving it.
Many will agree that the main attraction of the show is the main character, played perfectly by Hugh Laurie. He is probably one of the best characters on t.v, a miserable person, who cares little about his patients well being (for the most part) and more about finding out what's wrong with them. He's abusive and snarky towards his patients but is the best doctor in the hospital, this raises the question of whether a nicer or efficient doctor is prefered. He is a man tortured by a leg injury, drug addiction and heartbreak (at different points), this makes him a complex character to study, but is also fun to watch as he enjoys pushing his team to the limit with abuse and mental tests to analize their worth and character.
In short House is a great character, but what about the supporting characters? The Character of Wilson is one of the few who can be as interesting as House, he is House's best and only friend, his modus operendi is completely the opposite of House's, as he is someone who cares about peoples feelings and is generally a nice guy. Both question eachothers motives but stay together because no one else will befriend them. The Dean of medicine and House's on again of again flame is well played yet unremarkable, often just there to be either verbal fodder or emotional support for House. That leaves us to the team, those who work for the most difficult boss in the world, throughout the 7 series so far, you'll notice that members leave and comeback more times than you can count, this makes future departures and returns things difficult to care about if they've been done so many times before. Apart from a few minor storylines, the team have no major impact on the series, that appear to be just there for Houses amusement and to analize him, this makes the audience not care about their dilemas if they only contribute a few witty lines.
Overall House is a very entertaining show, it showcases drama, comedy and mystery all in one, it provides one of the most interesting characters on t.v and despite a few flaws, makes you want to tune in the next week.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Profile: Ric Flair
What is there that can be said about 'Nature boy' Ric Flair? Some would say he's a jealous, insucure bragot who's full of him self, others would say he's an old has-been who doesn't know when to walk away, me? I, and many others would say that Flair was one of, if not the, greatest wrestler (and entertainer!) in history, with a career spanning decades and the record for most world title wins (16, although it's disputed the actual amount), he has the respect of numerous pundits and wrestlers (I'll use that word until I die), so why is this?
Although only old timers and hardcore fans could see Flair in his rookie years of the 70s, it's gonna be dificult for me to profile his whole career, so I'm gonna study Flair in his prime, that being the early 80s to mid-90s. Some people say that wrestling isn't just about wrestling (oxymoron), that a true star needs charisma, great verbiage and presence, Flair had all those in spades. Whether it was during an interview, with his 'custom made suits' or during an entrance, with the sequin robes, he looked like a star, someone who was top of the world and looked like a champion. His large blonde hair was a look that got peoples attention, something that superstars need up their sleeves to become huge. His mic work was truely out of this world, personally I see Flair as the greatest talker of all time and it's hard to argue, everything he said, he said with poigancy and exuberence, his monologues had the audience in the WTBS studios screaming, on their feet and in the palm of his hand. His mic work was something that needs to be studied, someone who puts himself over, but with a degree of arogence to remain heel, who puts the company and the profession over, who makes the championship seem as valuable as it can be and makes his opponents look good, but good enough for the arogent heel.
Now to the crux of the matter, his in ring work, in 1975 Flair was in a plane crash that caused severe damage to his back, this would deterierate most wrestlers ring work, but all Flair did was do a more slow, methodical offence and be careful where he lands on his back. Flairs ring work has been in question for quite some time, some would argue that he was repetitive in his offence and selling, maybe, but was that all bad? Every wrestler has a set of signature moves they use every match, Flairs spits were always entertaining and good to watch (Flair flop divides some people) and this repeticism was more of an advantage than a flaw. When working with all sorts, from the Stings and Ricky Steamboats to the Lex Lugers and Hulk Hogans, the spots could work with any wrestler, Flair didn't use alot of power moves due to his back, so a match against a 300 pounder would have similer flow to that against a 250 pounder, this style was impregnable that he could have good matches against guys green as grass and stellar matches against those in his league, thus making him a good candidate for greatest wrestler ever. Classic matches against Dusty Rhodes, Harley Race, Barry Windham, Sting, Lex Luger (see!) and Ricky Steamboat, made him probably the best wrestler of that decade and gaining numerous wrestler of the year awards.
But then the future came, age caught up with the nature boy, but again, the methodical style made his matches a decent effort, and with the right opponents (e.g Shawn Michaels) he could has pretty good matches for a man in his 50s, although he's faffing about in TNA (soon to be Impact) this doesn't negate what Flair was in his prime, and even now he could have a better match than those in their mid 20s. Flair has said that he would probably die in a wrestling ring, which would be the sign of the ultimate wrestler.
From a young, rich delinquent to a catty old man, somewhere inbetween he achieved creatness and set a standard that only the great could come close to, a man whose matches and promos I could watch all day, in the words of Flair himself "To be the man, you gotta beat the man" and if anyone could beat Flair in ring work, mic skills, presence and charisma, then they'd be the man in my book, I don't mean to be cliche but WOOOOOOO!
Although only old timers and hardcore fans could see Flair in his rookie years of the 70s, it's gonna be dificult for me to profile his whole career, so I'm gonna study Flair in his prime, that being the early 80s to mid-90s. Some people say that wrestling isn't just about wrestling (oxymoron), that a true star needs charisma, great verbiage and presence, Flair had all those in spades. Whether it was during an interview, with his 'custom made suits' or during an entrance, with the sequin robes, he looked like a star, someone who was top of the world and looked like a champion. His large blonde hair was a look that got peoples attention, something that superstars need up their sleeves to become huge. His mic work was truely out of this world, personally I see Flair as the greatest talker of all time and it's hard to argue, everything he said, he said with poigancy and exuberence, his monologues had the audience in the WTBS studios screaming, on their feet and in the palm of his hand. His mic work was something that needs to be studied, someone who puts himself over, but with a degree of arogence to remain heel, who puts the company and the profession over, who makes the championship seem as valuable as it can be and makes his opponents look good, but good enough for the arogent heel.
Now to the crux of the matter, his in ring work, in 1975 Flair was in a plane crash that caused severe damage to his back, this would deterierate most wrestlers ring work, but all Flair did was do a more slow, methodical offence and be careful where he lands on his back. Flairs ring work has been in question for quite some time, some would argue that he was repetitive in his offence and selling, maybe, but was that all bad? Every wrestler has a set of signature moves they use every match, Flairs spits were always entertaining and good to watch (Flair flop divides some people) and this repeticism was more of an advantage than a flaw. When working with all sorts, from the Stings and Ricky Steamboats to the Lex Lugers and Hulk Hogans, the spots could work with any wrestler, Flair didn't use alot of power moves due to his back, so a match against a 300 pounder would have similer flow to that against a 250 pounder, this style was impregnable that he could have good matches against guys green as grass and stellar matches against those in his league, thus making him a good candidate for greatest wrestler ever. Classic matches against Dusty Rhodes, Harley Race, Barry Windham, Sting, Lex Luger (see!) and Ricky Steamboat, made him probably the best wrestler of that decade and gaining numerous wrestler of the year awards.
But then the future came, age caught up with the nature boy, but again, the methodical style made his matches a decent effort, and with the right opponents (e.g Shawn Michaels) he could has pretty good matches for a man in his 50s, although he's faffing about in TNA (soon to be Impact) this doesn't negate what Flair was in his prime, and even now he could have a better match than those in their mid 20s. Flair has said that he would probably die in a wrestling ring, which would be the sign of the ultimate wrestler.
From a young, rich delinquent to a catty old man, somewhere inbetween he achieved creatness and set a standard that only the great could come close to, a man whose matches and promos I could watch all day, in the words of Flair himself "To be the man, you gotta beat the man" and if anyone could beat Flair in ring work, mic skills, presence and charisma, then they'd be the man in my book, I don't mean to be cliche but WOOOOOOO!
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Review: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
For those of you who don't know, I'm an avid cinephile, I've watched thousends of films in my short lifetime, studying their merits and flaws. For those of you who havn't been following me on twitter (@MRPITT) for long, my #2 favourite film of all time is non other than Sergio Leone's western masterpiece 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly'. So why does this tale of greed, violence and cigars hold such a high place in my estimation? Let me explain.
Filmed in the Italian countryside, the locations and set pieces really portray the west as a savage, unmercyful land of terain (especially the desert sequence) that only the tough and vicious can survive. The story itself seems simple enough, three outlaws go in search of confederate gold buried in a graveyard, 1 knows the name on the grave whilst the other 2 know the name of the cemetery, but throughout, numerous obsticals are placed in thier way, civil war warzones and POW camps, all conveying an anti-war sentiment as our trio (mostly duo) come across corpse after corpse.
The essence of the storyline makes this 171 minute film just fly by, with the audience not straining or tiring (this is a trademark in Leone films, the epic 220 minutes of 'Once upon a time in America' seems to feel like half an hour). Yes the cavalcade of shootouts contribute but there's much more, in my opinion Leone is the true master of suspense, with build up to the gun battles being grand, this is especialy poigant in the final Mexican stand off scene in the grave yard. The wry dialogue along with great uses of repitition (look out for the noose) make the non-action scenes a thing of beauty.
Aside from a drunkard, pessimistic colonel, only the 3 main characters are truely captivating and scene stealing and given the best introductions any characters can be given (no spoilers). The man of the hour is Clint Eastwoods 'Man with no name' (despite being refered to as blondie throughout), this is a man who surely we shouldn't like, someone who murders on a whim and double crosses his partners, we'd hate him if the other characters wern't no better than he is. Blondie exerts a confidence and a slyness that has us in the palm of his hand, this is a man who seems 1 step ahead, always calculating his next move. This is another reason for the films greatness, Leone introduces the U.S to the western anti-hero, something mostly ever seen in japaneese samarai movies. Lee Van Cleef's 'Angel eyes' is the dubious 'Bad' as a gun for hire who will kill anyone who gets between him and his payday, whilst being so calm about it. The true scene stealer however is Eli Wallach's ' Tuco, a money grubbing vagrant who throws aside all morals and alliances just to get his way, this brilliantly shown when just after torturing Blondie half to death, he nurses him back to health upon learning that he knows what grave the gold is buried in. When you put these 3 character together, it accounts for must see cinema.
Leone's direction is something to be admired as the camera moves effortlessly throughout, every angle has purpose and effect, don't believe me? This is the film that inspired Quentin Tarrentino to become a film maker. The musical score is possibly one of the greatest in cinematic history, everyone knows Ennio Morricone's classic theme to the movie, as aformentioned, Leone is great at suspense, but the music helps create the suspense, slowly building it.
Despite a few problems with dubbing (most of the extras were Italian), this Is one of the best films made, with great writing, cast, direction, characters and score, this is something that deserves repeated viewings, they don't make 'em like this anymore.
Filmed in the Italian countryside, the locations and set pieces really portray the west as a savage, unmercyful land of terain (especially the desert sequence) that only the tough and vicious can survive. The story itself seems simple enough, three outlaws go in search of confederate gold buried in a graveyard, 1 knows the name on the grave whilst the other 2 know the name of the cemetery, but throughout, numerous obsticals are placed in thier way, civil war warzones and POW camps, all conveying an anti-war sentiment as our trio (mostly duo) come across corpse after corpse.
The essence of the storyline makes this 171 minute film just fly by, with the audience not straining or tiring (this is a trademark in Leone films, the epic 220 minutes of 'Once upon a time in America' seems to feel like half an hour). Yes the cavalcade of shootouts contribute but there's much more, in my opinion Leone is the true master of suspense, with build up to the gun battles being grand, this is especialy poigant in the final Mexican stand off scene in the grave yard. The wry dialogue along with great uses of repitition (look out for the noose) make the non-action scenes a thing of beauty.
Aside from a drunkard, pessimistic colonel, only the 3 main characters are truely captivating and scene stealing and given the best introductions any characters can be given (no spoilers). The man of the hour is Clint Eastwoods 'Man with no name' (despite being refered to as blondie throughout), this is a man who surely we shouldn't like, someone who murders on a whim and double crosses his partners, we'd hate him if the other characters wern't no better than he is. Blondie exerts a confidence and a slyness that has us in the palm of his hand, this is a man who seems 1 step ahead, always calculating his next move. This is another reason for the films greatness, Leone introduces the U.S to the western anti-hero, something mostly ever seen in japaneese samarai movies. Lee Van Cleef's 'Angel eyes' is the dubious 'Bad' as a gun for hire who will kill anyone who gets between him and his payday, whilst being so calm about it. The true scene stealer however is Eli Wallach's ' Tuco, a money grubbing vagrant who throws aside all morals and alliances just to get his way, this brilliantly shown when just after torturing Blondie half to death, he nurses him back to health upon learning that he knows what grave the gold is buried in. When you put these 3 character together, it accounts for must see cinema.
Leone's direction is something to be admired as the camera moves effortlessly throughout, every angle has purpose and effect, don't believe me? This is the film that inspired Quentin Tarrentino to become a film maker. The musical score is possibly one of the greatest in cinematic history, everyone knows Ennio Morricone's classic theme to the movie, as aformentioned, Leone is great at suspense, but the music helps create the suspense, slowly building it.
Despite a few problems with dubbing (most of the extras were Italian), this Is one of the best films made, with great writing, cast, direction, characters and score, this is something that deserves repeated viewings, they don't make 'em like this anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)