trouble is my blog.

In response to:Killer in the Blog.

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:32:33 +0200

let go gambling

rough find more

games online casinos

safe online casinos

bestonline casinos

online casinos

red online casinos story

green online casinos

online casinos

online casinos

give me online casinos route

texas

online casinos

Utah

In response to:"Towards a "Cinema of Safety" or 'Mission Implausible'? : Moviegoing Today.

Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:52:52 +0200

Borders is passable. I have had plently worse jobs. It still all feels a bit sterile, mind, with absolutely no opportunity to deviate from the strictest protocol. Which is, y'know, a result of global capitalism, I guess.

Plus, Borders OWNS Books, Etc.... so, I own you. Watch your step, mister.... full-time jobs going if you want to swap the south bank for N1. North London does, after all, rule.

In response to:"Towards a "Cinema of Safety" or 'Mission Implausible'? : Moviegoing Today.

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:25:46 +0200

Ah, look at you two go. it really is a joy to read two rather intelligent men flex their academic muscles. Keep up the good work Morgan. Although I agree with Mike that you may have set yourself an impossibly high standard to then better. More please...

In response to:"Towards a "Cinema of Safety" or 'Mission Implausible'? : Moviegoing Today.

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:04:27 +0200

As you might expect, reading your repost has brought me as much enjoyment as the construction of it may indeed have brought you. In reference to your critical reading of both my contribution and LAH, as you lovingly abbreviate it, I find your points to be both salient and well argued, and, although i feel no compulsion to defend my position here, it is well within the spirit of the piece to at least string myself up a little further..

As you might have noticed, not all of the film choices accurately restate the broad argument I have presented, which itself is best considered as a broad satire of some "clever/dumb" dichotomy within cinema that may or may not, as with the names, places and events described, exist. For the purposes of hyperbole, LAH was chosen for two reasons: firstly, as someone whose fondness for language has undermined many an argument, it's selection was based upon the facile similarities between the two titles of the films I was artificially posing against one another. Secondly, whilst the educated 'we' recognise the pall-bearers of postmodernism trudging our way (unrelentingly, it would seem) LAH still stands as a clear example of action folly, a 'cleverer' folly perhaps, but folly non-the-less (you obviously retain an affection for the film, my intention is not to rile you here).

Of course, my negligence in this matter extends also to the choice of 'Falling Down', which was chosen for its humorous convenience above anything else. I find, for example, the sexual and racial politics of the picture far too interesting to seriously dismiss it as nonsense, as my writing does readily.

On a wider birth, your reduction (abv.) of may argument as "clever/dumb" perhaps reflects an inablilty on my part to succeed with the spoof. Rather than reinforce this "thesis", as you put it, my intention was to satirise this very division of "clever/dumb" or as i prefer, the more received "high/low", by reducing the matter to the most ridiculous details possible; as is presented here, the frequency and severity of accidents in theaters. The idea to write the piece stemmed itself from my own two weekends ago of spilling coffee all over myself at a screening of "three times", and thus you might also read it as an expression of self-counselling on my part. The ridiculous nature of the dichotomy itself is further illustrated by my ability to drop water all over myself at superman returns 3d the previous week, showing that I am just as clumsy irrespective of film, setting, or intertextual irritations.

also, i find it hard enough to type, italics are a mystery here also.

best,...

In response to:"Towards a "Cinema of Safety" or 'Mission Implausible'? : Moviegoing Today.

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:51:31 +0200

Very good, although you may have set your own bar too high.

However, if I may open a dialogue with the author, I have one minor quibble.

Last Action Hero (LAH) appears to have been errantly tarred by the same eloquent brush as Cheaper By The Dozen 2. In fact, LAH clearly stands alone as a deconstruction of both Arnold Schwarzenegger's star persona at the height of his prowess, and furthermore of the action genre itself. It has been criminally underrated over the last 13 years when in fact - along with Craven's New Nightmare - it introduced all this mainstream postmodern genre deconstruction/intertextuality bally-hoo several years before Scream made it super-cool. And who is partially responsible for this clever-clever dissection? None other than Shane Black, whose recent uber-smug directorial debut Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang was lauded in many of the ways LAH was unjustly not.

In addition, LAH is surprisingly pertinent to your discussion and even contradicts your well-argued "clever = accident/dumb = safe" thesis. The entire diegesis of LAH highlights - and indeed hinges on - the danger inherent in going to the cinema for the patron. Young Danny Madigan (Austin O'Brien in career-best form) goes to his local (independent) cinema to see his favourite action star in a sequel - I believe the film is Jack Slater IV - and is promptly sucked in via a magical ticket stub; ergo, mainstream sequelitis (a word I despise) is implicitly indicted in the endangering of Joe Public.

I've another quibble too, although this is out of your hands: why can't I use italics when I make a comment? Pisses me right off.

In response to:"The Whosis Blog"

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:23:01 +0200

I don't know, I think it's quite a good entry. Kind of amusing in a way that causes the corners of my mouth to turn upward into what might be called a smirk, to others I'm sure it's a grimace. Anyway, I like the bugs, big ones, mean ones, little cute ones.. I would like to offer my support for the continued use of graphic bugs. They remind me of the drone like beetles that repeatedly flew into my head in France while I was attempting to turn my pallid skin brown. Very distracting, but most impressive. Anyway, keep up the good work, or keep showcasing how good you are at writing. Either way, you know far more words than me.. and that's attractive.

In response to:"They Can Only Blog You Once"

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:44:46 +0200

For a man without a job, to read an entire entry about a pay-cheque was surprisingly painful.

I just realised that, without thinking about it, I referred to myself as a man in that last sentence with neither inverted commas nor sarcastic parenthetical aside. Not a guy, not a bloke, not a dude. A man. I guess I am finally an adult. And it happened here.

Yeah, something other than work would go down a treat. Keep the adjectives though.

In response to:Killer in the Blog.

Mon, 29 May 2006 22:57:15 +0200

meringues? hmm, they are tricky, my mum makes killer meringues. Literally killer, the sugar is so powdery, I breathed it in on one occasion and nearly choked to death (ok maybe not actual death, but there was a lot of coughing). That would have been a pitiful way to go, if only someone had fed Bush Jill Sawyers Meringues as opposed to a pretzel.

In response to:Blackmailers Don't Blog.

Tue, 23 May 2006 01:50:57 +0200

Nice descriptive stuff, paints a picture of the people who frequent the book shop, but not much about you (the narrator) so far! I await further instalments.