Crown Jewels

Returning to an earlier theme of crazed book titles, it's amazing what you can find when you google a couple of random words... like...er... penis.

It got me thinking though, who are the people who write these books?  They are so niche, so specific and with a comedy title like this it's almost as if someone did it for a bet.  I have an image of some guy, on the piss with his mates - he starts riffing on the subject of his cock - he's just come back from the loo, he was contemplating giving it a good tug but realised that was a bit rude and besides his pint would get warm - so he starts off on a linguistic journey, his mates getting into it until one of them goes "that'd be a great title for a book".  We've all done it - you're taking the mick but soon enough you're discussing chapters and content, pictures, practical applications.  At this point most of us go home, eat leftover pizza, fall asleep on the sofa, wake up with a hangover and the desperate need for some painkillers and a tongue like the back end of a cow. 

But some people, they don't do this - they remember, they write it down and spend months researching until they come up with a book - in this case, a book with a rather large picture of a dick poking through a rather suitably placed 'O'.  At least, that's the only explanation I can find for a book like this.  And despite all this, is it wrong that I find myself slightly aroused?  It probably is...

Either way: here's the gen on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Its-Own-Cultural-History/dp/0709089333/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
Looking at the reviews, it actually looks really interesting!  I  now kind of want it... and not just for the throbbing member on the front cover.

Note: see also 'How to live with a Huge Penis' - on the 'Customers who also bought'. 

Coincidence? I think not....

Anyone noticed that you never see these two in a room together?  Is that just a coincidence?  I doubt it.  Or is it that the BBC is cloning Alan Davies and creating an army of subhuman minions, ready to do their evil deeds?  I always suspected good old Auntie was actually a fascist regime in waiting.

This kid is supposed to be just any old kid - a very funny one, admittedly, in Outnumbered.  But if he is not a clone, is he possibly Alan Davies' love child?  It seems the most likely suggestion out of all of them - cloning minions aside.

I'm Going Straight to Hell

It's true - I can't avoid the fact.  Especially when I post links like this...

http://www.jesusdressup.com/starwars


(So, so SO bad - I'd say 3 Hail Marys and 2 Our Fathers but I'm not Catholic)

... Because your parents didn't love you.

"Why Was I Adopted?"
Carole Livingston book 1978 HC Books for children and young adults. http://tinyurl.com/ybz9ryz

.. and because although all the right consitutent parts were there, somehow you came out looking like a pug.  That's why!

I wish I were Hulk Hogan

I do.  I really really do.  For one - look at that tache.  That's a man with a purpose.  That's a man who knows who he is.  He's worked damned hard to get where he is and he takes no prisoners.  It's no accident is it? That's hours and hours of grooming, combing and, no doubt, the application of some very heavy duty mustache products. 

I want to be him.  I want his manliness, his presence, the very power and majesty of the man.  If I were Hulk Hogan I would look in the mirror every day, through the hood of my beautiful, slightly squinted, eyelids; I'd remove my sleep-bandana, wipe the night-cream from my face and revel in the image before me, thanking and praising the heavens above for the wonder of magical things. 

If you're wondering where the magic is - I'll tell you: I bring it.  Every day. Every minute. Every moment.  Because I'm the Hulk.  I am Hulk Hogan and you will bend before me.

Review: The Box

"Here's the Key to your new formica kitchen dream"

There's something going on about faces in this film - we have one particular man with a face that is missing large chunks, the special fx dude obviously enjoying playing with the image of teeth grinding together through the fibrous gap in his cheek.  There's lots of big dark eyes, staring into the distance or spookily making direct contact with whichever character is being terrorized at that moment, maniacal grins and unexplained nose-bleeds, people talking in mystic rhymes that seem to have little reason, with actors who have obviously been chosen for their 'character' faces: either ugly, weird or very obviously belonging to the mid 70s, with sideburns and suits to fit. 

Now all of that I quite liked - I like being given the chance to work out what I think might happen and I cottoned on pretty early in the film what would happen - the exact machinations of it were a mystery however and I enjoyed following the ride till we got to the point I was expecting, all of it within visually arresting and nostalgic sets.  But returning to the 'face' issue, it was Cameron Diaz's that fascinated me - she's playing a 35 year old which is just a dash younger than the age she really is and although she still seems fairly young there is an edge to her acting that suggests there is something harder and older about her, despite her years.  She doesn't rely purely on her spark, her perkiness and her wide smile as she has done in some of her previous films, such as the Charlie's Angel franchise, she instead has developed some truthful, real emotional honesty and whatever has got her to that point seems to be shown in every line and wide-eyed pained expression.  Yes, there are other actors in it but the film is essentially about Diaz and her character's experience.  It is this that holds ours and the camera's attention with plenty of close-in, full face shots, perfect for the cheek trembling and watery eyes that are required at the high points in the narrative.

There is a lot going on and although this seems to be a character movie, the stylistic twists and visual quirks do detract from their personal perspectives which may be a problem - it is about moral, individual choices but how they impact on the whole in a much larger way - greater than the sum of their parts.  Yet, at the same time, it is shown through the prism of a small family's experience and the choices they make and so at times the larger perspectives feel a little lost, kind of like putting a puzzle together without knowing what the picture you're aiming for is.  I suspect that is really what was aimed for and to get us to just follow along, in the dark, pulling fragments together until we get what the point of it all is.  The storyline of the box and the consequences of the choices made - to push the button or not - becomes basically a premise to hang a zealot's mysticism on to, meaning the family we are following are really bit players in a larger theme.

So the ultimate test: did I enjoy it?  Yes, I did. I can analyse its construction and what was meant by each twist but at the end of it, although I felt a little unsatisfied and wanted more of a resolution, I think it got to the point it was aiming for and I happily followed it through, without my attention wandering.  It felt like an older kind of thriller - sparser, the jumpy moments coming from characters and their expressions or shots that take you by surprise, reminding me a little of The Shining in that way - with drama that relies heavily on setting and the construction of the shots.  I understand my companion's perspective of it being a story that could have been told in just 20 minutes - there were sections that I felt had been drawn out unnecessarily but on the whole I came to the end of it feeling buoyed that we have film makers still making and successfully releasing this kind of work.  Whether you buy into the concept or not, or just enjoy this kind of story, it's a film that shows a high level of personal creativity, artistic vision and direction without obvious interference from budget clutching producers.  And that gives me hope for the future of film making.

Beardy Weirdy

I now realise that my dad's beard is perfectly normal and I can never call him a weirdo-with-a-beardo ever again.  Ever. 

http://www.worldbeardchampionships.com/ 

Check out this dude here: apparantly he is a winner in the 'partial beard freestyle category' and has won them all, except for 2003 when he was on "injured reserve following an unfortunate encounter with a power drill. "  Injured?  Injured how?  Was he injured in the beard?  Or does that explain why he carries a cane?  And here I was just thinking that it was all part of the Dandy Fop Look - A look I intend to copyright soon.

And all of this is because I've been inspired by the snowy moustache sported by Ryan Gigg's mate at the Sports Personality of the Year ceremony.  I watched this in between slices of the X Factor.  My descent into cultural oblivion has started.

Weirdo weirdo

I love the concept of this - the idea that people have sat down, spent years in research, writing, honing and working on not just a work of fiction, but a niche subject so specialist that it might appeal to just one person, perhaps two, or maybe even three at a stretch.

Check out this link, it's classic.  I think my personal favourite has to be 'Jewish Chessplayers on Stamps'.  Or is it 'The Big Book of Lesbian Horse Stories'.  How to choose?  Brilliant.

Clearly some are taking the mick, like the 'History of Shit', but still, the amount of work....

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/books/weird/index.shtml

Review: The Twilight Saga, New Moon

Pull a Moonie

Ok, it's a bit of a poor pun but after the film I felt I needed a little bit of gratuitous punning, if only to defuse the intense emotion of the film.  It's a shame really, I loved the books - I was desperately waiting for Edward to turn up admittedly once he disappears after the first 20 minutes - but when he does in the film he's just sort of ... wooden.  Many of the actors are - Ashley Greene as Alice is especially so but she's on the screen for a much larger chunk than Robert Pattinson so perhaps it's just more evident.

Whatever the intent it just seems as if Bella and Edward spend such little time on screen together that their truly emotional scenes are a bit rushed and awkward - something of the depth and warmth of the first has been lost and replaced with a chilly steeliness.  Their romance doesn't seem as plausible as it did in the first so her trauma over losing him and his leaving in the first place doesn't quite ring true. 

My companion pointed out to me that really without Edward and the Cullens in the mid-section it's really just a teen-drama a-la Dawson's Creek.  Now,  I am usually entirely susceptible to that kind of heart-and-hand-wringing drama but I found myself to be a bit bored as the young actors don't seem quite as capable of pulling off those deeply wrought emotions but regardless, the sections of the film where there are adults and/or more experienced actors are where the story is more interesting.  I loved Michael Sheen's slightly camp and quietly evil Aro - that's a guy you wouldn't want to meet on a dark night.   Dakota Fanning's Jane, although only on screen briefly, is chilling - the potential for the Volturi storyline is large and looks like it could be excellent.  And as in the first film Billy Burke as Charlie, Bella's dad, carries most of the comic moments - projecting warmth and concern in all the right places.  Compare that to the teen actors and most of their scenes seem to consist of wrinkled brows and pensive posturing - there's also a lack of tone to their voices so aurally it literally doesn't come through, hampered as they are by some overwrought dialogue that requires more than just a speed-read through.

So, to sum up: see it, just because well, you loved Twilight and you have to get the rounded set before we work our way through to Eclipse and Breaking Dawn - but don't be surprised if you're a bit disappointed.  Some of the subtlety of Catherine Hardwicke's direction and visual flair has been lost under Chris Weitz's heavier hand but if the following films are as true to the books as the past two, then there should be plenty of meaty action to distract from the teen-angst.