Why I'm just not done with PS3 yet.

Going a little off the usual topic here, I'm going to talk a little about computer games instead of films...well it's kind of related in that I'm soon going to be upgrading my Blu-ray player - i.e. ditching my PS3 in favour of a PS4. While I'm looking forward to its release, part of me is a little sad. Here's why.

Since I was about 15, I've had the same group of best mates - Gareth, Owen and Jon. A few others have joined the gang over years and drifted off but essentially it's been the four of us becoming best buddy pal chums over our mutual love of one thing - Sony's little beauty, the PlayStation. At the age of 13, I moved to the area of Bridgend where Gareth lived. The guy's endless quoting of CVG magazine and bombarding me with the latest stuff to hit Sony's grey powerhouse meant that it wasn't long before I got hold of one. 

It probably all started when Gareth and I became good mates while in Canada on a school trip. While I truly sucked at skiing, I was a dab hand at one game in the arcade - Tekken 2. Using Nina and her leggy kicks, I literally took on anyone that wanted a scrap. After dispatching all of my schoolmates and even a local kid who got the snot kicked out of him after trying his luck against me (it was my money in the machine by the way, the little git), Gareth spotted an opportunity to talk somebody's ear off about gaming. Seeing my ridiculous love of all things Mortal Kombat, he swiftly started pushing the console in a greater way than a Sony marketer could ever dream of - primarily by yakking about MK Trilogy. Naturally then, it wasn't long before Santa got me the console and from there our friendship developed from mere school classmates to being round each others' houses all the time to play the 'Station. In the process I became spiffing chums with Gareth's like-minded mates Owen and Jon and before long the four of us would spend evening and weekends nerdily cooped up at Owen's playing games while wondering why no girls would give us sad bastards the time of day.

Before long, the announcement came along that PlayStation 2 was on its way. Not only was this the next-gen console, it boasted a DVD player and, would you believe it, you could even stand that motherfucker up vertically to play stuff. Naturally, we all plundered our piggy banks and dropped off the hefty deposits and before long, the cycle began afresh as we all plummed for the latest console and spent our sixth-form years glued to screens. It was ace. 

Of course, the years went by and we finished our A-Levels and went our separate ways, with our PS2s in tow. I went to Aberystwyth for five years, Gareth popped down the road to Cardiff, Owen went to Swansea for a year before heading back to Northern Ireland and Jon stayed put for a year before heading to Swansea himself. Despite the distance and having taken the new steps in our lives, we stayed in touch as great mates do. It wasn't necessarily because of the PlayStation love but if you ask any one of us to put a finger on the factors that cement us as friends, the PlayStation is undoubtedly towards the top of the list. While we've all moved on from our childhoods and grown up, our adoration of Sony's consoles has remained - bolstered by each other's enthusiasm. If one of us appears not to feel the PS adoration, then you can be damn sure that the others snap them out of it.

It's a self renewing friendship really. Our other interests and our friendship in general are strong enough to ensure we pay attention to PlayStation related stuff so that we remain part of our little group while the PlayStation gives us all a focal point to go back to no matter how far apart or disparate we become as people. In essence, it reminds us of the root of our collective friendship. Soppy as that undoubtedly is, it's also kinda nice. As trivial as it seems to attribute one of the longest standing group relationships in my/our life/lives to a games console, to underplay it would be to not give the PlayStation the justice it deserves. Those three guys are like brothers to me. While I'm not what you'd consider to be a gaming geek (anymore at least), I love PlayStation because it nostalgically and subconsciously reminds me of the three people that were such a major part of my childhood and adolescence - people who've shaped me as a person. For that I have PlayStation to thank, not exclusively but it was almost certainly a factor.

Anyway, so when I finished in university, PS3 had come out and this time we didn't all go for it as soon as we could. Other priorities such as finding jobs, mortgages, girlfriends, relocation and whatnot all meant that the launch of Sony's behemoth arrived to the group with a whimper rather than a bang. Still, we all knew that we would in due course put our hand in our collective pocket and stump up - particularly in my case as I wanted a Blu-ray player. 

So I got hold of one that Christmas and got a couple of games. However, by now my passion for gaming had dwindled considerably. No longer was I a student with tons of free time and I felt I may have overloaded myself with gaming options throughout my tenure at Aberystwyth - too much of a good thing and all that. I can't remember what order it all went in but at one point I had a PS3, a Wii, a Game Boy Advance SP, a Nintendo DS Lite and a PSP. It was ridiculous and for whatever reason (oversaturation, growing up and getting bored of games or simply not having as much free time) my PS3, along with the rest of my consoles went the way of Woody and Buzz - once a huge part of my free time, reduced to appreciated but seemingly unloved toys that littered my lounge...in terms of gaming at least. 

By this point I'd moved down to Exeter to start my job as a film critic. As such, my PS3 became far less of a games console and just a Blu-ray player and TV tuner - essentially using it for purposes other than its primary directive. Thus the years went by and I continued to keep my ear to the ground about major releases. Gareth and Owen frothing at the gills about certain games meant that I would opt to get them and subsequently join the guys online for CoD sessions (or as it should be called, 'Jon's massacre hour') - effectively bringing our former lifestyle kicking and screaming into the teenies or whatever you call this decade. 

Still if it wasn't for the other guys' love of the games, I probably wouldn't have bought them and would have almost certainly missed out on some awesome games. Still, my love of games didn't dissipate entirely. I still picked up major titles and kept them intending to play them all at some point. But I'm not a teenager anymore and instead of getting around to it, I have a shelf of great games that haven't been played properly. With PS4 around the corner and boasting sod all in the way of backwards compatibility, I'm now in the difficult situation of having to hammer through a colossal bunch of epic games before my PS3's younger, fitter sister comes along, offering to do the stuff that the PS3 can't or won't. 

So for the past couple of weeks, I've been getting stuck into games again and it's been great. Really great. I'd almost forgotten just how much I love playing them. But I can't help feeling that I'm not absorbing them like I once did. Maybe that's because I'm a little older, a little wiser than I was, maybe it's because I'm not giving myself the time to digest them. Whatever the reason, it kinda sucks a little. 

The other thing that I've noticed, and I felt the same when PS3 was released, is that the current console just doesn't feel like it needs an update yet. It still feels fresh and full of life, like a sports car that hasn't been taken over 60mph, it just feels capable of more. With that in mind, I'm not quite as excited about the release of PS4 as I maybe should be. Instead I'm looking more forward to hanging with my old mates again as they trek down to Exeter to play the thing on launch day. I'm sure that my opinion will change once once I've seen the plethora of features that the thing can laud over its predecessor, but for now I'm kind of in pre-mourning for the PS3 and feel I've neglected her gaming capabilities somewhat. She's been a fundamental part of my lounge but only as a BD player. I feel a little like the owner of a parrot - I love the thing and all, but I feel a bit guilty it's been cooped up in my place and not been allowed to really stretch out and fly as its nature intended.

It's all very well hanging onto an old console but with PS4 soon to be kicking ass, it's not going to see much action after the next four weeks. At least that would be the case were it not for the fact that I'm giving it to my girlfriend to have at her place - again though, mainly for the Blu-ray watching capabilities. Hopefully this attempted lease of life for it will mean that I'll give it a bit of attention whenever I'm down there and she can use it when I'm not.

While I'm excited about PS4, I remain sad that I'm saying goodbye to a machine that was neglected of its true purpose (my fault) and not given the chance to operate at full capacity (which is kinda Sony's fault, but you can't blame them for staying ahead of the game) and regularly not given the chance to show me what it was capable of in terms of the games that are out there currently. I mean, bloody hell, I haven't even bought GTAV. Still, it's pretty much too late to do much about that now as PS4 will dominate my lounge in a few weeks. I'll just have to give the PS3 some TLC whenever I'm around my girlfriend's place. 

Still, onwards and upwards, the PS4 is sure to stomp ass. While I probably wouldn't buy it straight away were it not for those guys' collective enthusiasm, virtually hanging out with that bunch is more than enough reason to warrant a £400 price tag. In the meantime, I tip my cap to the best console ever to grace the market. Long live PS3.

Superman and Batman - Just what's going on with that casting?

So back at Comic Con this year, Warner dropped the bombshell that the follow up to Man of Steel would feature the Dark Knight himself as a lead in to the inevitable Justice League movie. The internet went nuts at the idea of the two most iconic superheroes finally sharing the same screen and then a few weeks ago, things erupted again when it was announced that Batman would be played by none other than Ben Affleck.

Despite him bagging an Oscar for the awesome Argo and having done a bang up job or reinventing himself over the past few years, it seems that everyone bar Affleck himself thinks it's the casting equivalent of pissing on an OAP that's fallen over and broken their hip.

First of all, I'm going to defend Affleck. Yes, Daredevil was a bit naff but that wasn't down to the casting of Ben Affleck - it was due to the studio hacking away at the more human element of the storyline. Watch the Director's Cut and you'll see just what I mean. Ole Ben has done a bang up job over the years (Good Will Hunting, Chasing Amy and, as Jason Mewes puts it, "Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo") and there are acting chops to be found underneath that shitkicker grin of his. Just take a breather, resist the urge the slap that smile off his face and there's a pretty decent actor there whether people like to admit it or not. Casting him as Bruce Wayne isn't the end of the world - after all people balked at the idea of Heath Ledger playing The Joker and that secured him a posthumous gong. While I'm at it, I was never really bowled over by Christian Bale playing Bats anyway. It was the incredible craftsmanship behind Nolan's films that made them real masterpieces, not Bale's brooding.

Still, I can defend Affleck until the cows come and it won't matter for a number of reasons - firstly, it won't make a blind bit of difference until the film comes out - after which, people will forgo the humble pie and state that they always knew he had the ability. My opinion on the subject right now means fuck all to anybody else but me.

However, the real reason that I don't think it'll matter is that I think it's a load of bollocks. I smell a rat and here's why.

Marketing and the Man of Steel's aesthetic
Man of Steel threw the existing Superman movie template in the bin and reinvented the character in Nolan's Batman Begins mould. The whole thing just felt like the latest entry in the Dark Knight series - ensemble cast, dark, realistic tone, iconic score pulsing away in the background. Hell, look at the poster design - even the same fonts are used. Even the title itself is from the same rulebook - opting for the character's nickname rather than his actual alter ego. Basically, they could not have made Man of Steel any closer to the universe of The Dark Knight if they'd tried.

The Dark Knight Rises' ending
Spoiler alert - the ending to The Dark Knight Rises spurred debate among film goers as to whether or not there would be a new Batman film with Robin under the cowl. Nolan said "no" and that seems to be gospel for a lot of fans. However, let's be honest, his Batman trilogy has been marketed in pretty cool ways from the get go. Just because he said that he wants the Superman/Justice League series to be separate from that of The Dark Knight Trilogy, doesn't mean it's not some big ruse - he already said he'd never feature Robin and that was a load of bullshit. I think there's more to come from Nolan's Batman and I think this is exactly that.
Yes, to introduce the concept of aliens into that very realistic tonal series would be odd but then they did it with Iron Man and Avengers.

The bankability of The Dark Knight franchise 
The Batman films have been hugely popular. They already did a successful reinvention to the point that they used the same rules on Superman. As such, why would they brush it under the carpet when all the fans clearly want is Christian Bale or Joseph Gordon-Levitt teaming up with Henry Cavill? It doesn't make sense to ignore the thematic and stylistic blueprint for no good reason. We don't need Batman reintroduced, we've got one and it's too soon to have those films superseded.

The speed of the casting and the casting itself.
It was bloody quick for them to announce the sequel to Man of Steel, let alone the casting of Batman himself. I mean for crying out loud, it's not even out on DVD and Blu-ray yet - as such, I remain skeptical. As for casting Ben Affleck - the guy vehemently slammed for cocking up Daredevil (even though it wasn't his fault) - it just seems too bold a move to cast such a risky player. With Affleck having taken his lumps over the years and his golden chum helping to bolster his ego, I really cannot think of a better decoy than him to whip the fans into a frenzy.

I could be wrong and maybe I'm just being hopelessly optimistic, but for these reasons, I think Warner and DC have a trick up their sleeve. I'm waiting for the trailer to be unveiled and having Bale or JGL pop up and then everybody's getting a big fat 'I-told-you-so'. Here's hoping that I'm right.

RIP HMV: Where did high street entertainment stores go wrong?

On Monday, HMV went into administration. While many may shake this off with a flippant "Oh well", I'm distraught by the news to say the least. HMV has been getting worse and worse of an experience to shop in for the past few years. As a kid, I'd race into the Cardiff branch and spend hours going through the videos looking for that rarity, eagerly checking the sales for bargains and subsequently spending any and all money I was kindly given for birthdays or Christmas therein. To be perfectly honest, it's highly unlikely I'd have become a film journo were it not for Nipper and his gramophone.

Virgin Megastores, Woolworths, Our Price and MVC also saw me handing over my hard forraged cash as a tyke but their respective disappearances from the high street have had less of an impact on me than this news regarding HMV. Sure, it saddened me that I couldn't get their exclusive bargains anymore but it was HMV that was always the steadfast favourite for me - mainly because of Cardiff's characteristic (to me at least) oddly narrow branch. Conversely, Virgin was a massive two-floor behemoth that I enjoyed shopping in too, but it never seemed to have the selection of HMV (nor its character). MVC was good but they also lacked in selection but were good for indie stuff or really rare titles. HMV though was pretty much my high street home.

As video became DVD became Blu-ray though, HMV changed. No longer did it have a wide variety of rare titles and a vast range in its sale - it had the same old DVDs that everyone else did, at exactly the same price too. They also started selling more books, games, t-shirts and technology. While some may have felt this was no bad thing, I always felt that it only diluted the focus on music and movies for which I cherished the shop.

One day, I was walking through Queen Street in Cardiff with my (now ex) girlfriend and was making a beeline for the store. I'd been away in University for months and was therefore, pretty bloody excited to get to MY shop. Imagine my surprise when, in its place, stood a women's clothes shop. HMV had moved to a new premises a few doors down. This new branch was effing huge. Three massive floors of books, DVDs, Blu-rays and music, I felt like I died a little inside. A giant corporate husk, HMV Cardiff was more in the same vein as Virgin Megastore. Gone was the character of the store, replaced by gleaming white floors and minimalist advertising. Gone were my chances of ever leaving the store as excited as I was as a kid as their facade now complimented their stock variety. They were a corporate giant that were simply accommodating the masses - offering little to those that wanted a little more from HMV like they did in the good old days.

Still, HMV was still HMV and, as fewer and fewer places were available to buy DVDs and Blu-rays, I'd still spend ages in their stores among the throngs of customers also wearily suffering the abusively crap music blasting out of the speakers. I still liked to browse because now and again a gem would pop up in the racks. But it looks like those days are pretty much numbered as the last bastion in high street hardcopy media is circling the drain - and that truly saddens me.

Still, HMV has pissed me off over the years for the reason I mentioned as well as its pricing. Clerks and Chasing Amy were both on Blu-ray at the Exeter branch for £30 a pop. Of course they go into a sale and the price plummets to £8 each or 5 for £30. Who the fuck was ever going to buy a single film for £30? Sure they're great movies but, come on! Naturally, at the time they were £30, I did what anyone with half a brain in their nut would do - go online and buy it from Amazon (for around a tenner each).

So between their uncompetitive prices and sterile ambiance, HMV has been going downhill for years. Where I used to be able to go into the Cardiff store and find all DVDs in one place, now they're spread among two floors and peppered with speakers, tshirts, gadgets and other junk that that I'd buy from many other stores before even considering HMV. It just seems like the store had a personalitectomy. The same happened to the Exeter branch. It used to be a little two floor job that had a great selection. Then when Virgin-cum-Zavvi went down the pan, they snapped up their goliathic premises and moved from their nice little shop, filling the new acres of space with Angry Birds speakers and Lady Gaga posters in the process. It's a load of bollocks.

As for the old shop, it was taken over by (the HMV owned) Fopp. Again, in its day, Fopp was a neat retailer that sold only music, film and books - and pretty niche stuff at that. Following the takeover though, it quickly went to way of HMV as hundreds of the same title littered the shop along with technology and clothing. Still, it was the nicer shopping experience between that and the now massive HMV. Still, the inevitable happened and that branch suffered the same fate as Zavvi and disappeared - remaining vacant for the best part of a year before the premises was taken over by its current owner - purveyors of stocking filler shite - Menkind.

So to say I'm a bit upset about the news of HMV's imminent demise is something of an understatement. I can attribute many happy memories to browsing through shelves of videos, DVDs, CDs and Blu-rays. Those stores were always, always busy. Last year, 22% of CD and DVD sales were generated from HMV. How the hell can a business not be made of that? Blame online retailers, downloads and the like until you're blue in the face, but the truth is HMV just hasn't been operating right since the 90s. I hope someone now buys it up and reverts it back to its former, more intimate glory. I remain pessimistic though.

Since starting this post, news of Blockbuster going into administration has also struck. Hardly a surprise really but again, hiring a video for £4 a night when they can buy it for £8 is insanely optimistic business. Regardless, it was always going to suffer as streaming and online rental got more popular. Still, dropping their prices would have helped substatially. Now we're facing a potential future where you can't buy a film or CD on the high street. Woolworths, Virgin, Zavvi, Our Price and now HMV and Blockbuster. This shit rarely happens to clothes shops. Oh well, here's to the last of the entertainment retailers.

FOMC: The Hitchcock Collection - The unappreciated art of the trailer.

While I've always been a massive movie buff, while I was in university I noticed a gaping hole in my film smarts - until I was around 21, I'd only watched about three films from suspense-maestro Sir Alfred Hitchcock.

About 18 months to two years ago, I decided to remedy that when I saw a 14-film Hitchcock collection in my local Fopp. Priced at a measly £20, I snapped up that bad boy, rushed home and stuck it on my shelf for ages, only watching The Birds, Rear Window, Rope and Vertigo in the intervening months. Still, it was there ready to watch at some point when I decided to expand my Hitch knowledge. When I decided to watch all of my unwatched films, I set about the potentially daunting task of trawling through ten old films when I realised why I'd taken so long - I thought it'd be a slog.

There are so many classics out there that are easy to appreciate but can be so friggin' tedious that to watch them is to develop hemorrhoids due to restless shifting in your seat. Despite Psycho, Vertigo and the rest of the films I'd already seen being incredible, I figured that the lesser acclaimed films would range from 'pretty good' to 'mind-numbingly dull'.

Two weeks after tackling the main boxset, I've since watched Psycho (which I'd already seen), Torn Curtain, The Trouble with Harry, Frenzy, Topaz, Family Plot, Saboteur, Marnie, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Shadow of a Doubt. Pleasantly surprisingly, every one of them has been great fun. Sure, some are weaker than others but they're generally all fantastic pieces of filmmaking. Try to find another 14-film boxset that's that consistent and you'll probably have more trouble than the gang did trying to decide what to do with Harry.

Anyway, with 14 films to get through, the extras didn't really get much of a look-in until I got to Marnie and, for some reason, popped the trailer on. Before I knew it, Hitch was on screen waxing lyrical about his latest opus and the trouble he has trying to pidgeonhole it into a genre. Yakking over the top of clips, I was pretty amused by the portly lenser's anecdotes before a shot came up of Sean Connery and Tippi Hedren locking lips only for Sir Alfred to exclaim something like, "Oh dear! They're at it again. I assure you, it's not all sex, you know." Needless to say, I nearly pissed myself laughing. I ended up thinking that as good as Marnie was, this trailer was the best thing about the box set I'd seen. Naturally, I watched the remainder of the collection's trailers as well (Frenzy's being a highlight with Hitch floating in the Thames, Topaz's being a bit more crap). It got me thinking about how trailers just don't get enough recognition.

Back when I wrote for DVD Monthly, we had an annual feature called "The Mock Oscars" where we'd dish out awards for the more unappreciated aspects of cinema such as Best Soundtrack, Best Death Scene, Best Title, Best Trailer and few sillier ones too. It was always good fun to write (and to read, I hope), but trailers could do with an awards all of their own. How many trailers have been better than the film they're touting? Loads.

When George Lucas first announced Episode I and Star Wars fanboys started spunking in their dungarees over it, tons of reports cropped up of people going to cinemas, buying tickets, watching the trailer for The Phantom Menace and fucking off afterwards without watching the actual film. I should add that doing such a thing is remarkably stupid - even if at the time the internet wasn't teeming with previews - because you're blowing your money as you're not watching the flick you bought a ticket for and you'll feel a right dick if the film turns out to be shite...which it did. Still, it just goes to show that with some fast editing, a few lightsabre swipes and that classic score, you've got a trailer that whipped the fans into a pant-wetting frenzy. The film was naff, but the trailer was very, very good indeed.

Rocky Balboa also had an awesome trailer. While the film wasn't at all bad, the trailer was incredible. Sixteen years after Rocky V appeared to end the series on a bloody awful low, Rocky's back for one more round. Adrian's nowhere to be seen, the dude from Heroes is in it and it looks like a grittier, more sombre affair a la the first film. As Rocky starts training to take on the current world champ, we get a faint sound of the opening to Survivor's 'Eye of the Tiger' as the champ fires at Rocky:

Mason 'The Line' Dixon: It's already over.
Rocky Balboa: There aint nothin' over till it's over.
Mason 'The Line' Dixon: Where's that from, the 80's?
Rocky Balboa: That's probably the 70's. 

Before it cuts to visuals of Rocky wailing on Dixon, with blows cut in synch to the opening chords to the song. The result saw me in the cinema on the opening night.

There are tons more that I could mention but there's no point as it'd take ages. My point remains though that trailers are an art form in their own right. They're fast paced little doses of adrenaline/humour/drama/whatever that really warrant some sort of kudos. Watch the old Universal Monster films and you'll find the trailers on their respective DVDs - all cheesy but all brilliant.Monsters groan, people scream, white text flashes across the screen saying stuff like, "The most terrifying experience ever to appear on film!"...despite the rating being PG. It's truly fantastic stuff.


Trailers have evolved over the years, but their purpose hasn't - get people excited about what they're seeing. Seeing Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, I noticed that one of the reasons the films are so adrenaline-fuelled is that they each play out like a long trailer. The score ticks away in the background for most of the movie, the editing is quick and it feels like the entire film is a trailer for the finale. It's something I wish more directors would do to be honest.

I'd love to see an awards show for the year's best trailers. As it stands, they do their purpose and then they vanish into the ether. Thankfully, they often appear on DVDs and Blu-rays (unless it's a Sony disc in which case they don't feel the need to include it - grrrr) so they're rarely ever truly gone. I just think they deserve a little more appreciation during the months that they're doing their job.
Here's to the trailers.

FOMC: Mallrats - Where the hell are my extras?

Throughout my first year at university, my mates and I watched no film more frequently that Kevin Smith's 90s classic, Mallrats. Now I could wax lyrical about this film until the cows come home but something else struck me about the recent Blu-ray release than the content of the disc itself - the extras...or lack thereof.

I've been a fan of the big man's films for ages and have always opted for the best releases of each film as the extras tend to be top notch and there's always a shitload of them due to the boner Smith has for his fans. That's why, on DVD, I have two copies of Mallrats - both region one. One features the standard set of extras while the other disc is a ten year anniversary edition that boasts a load of new loot. Quite simply, I know for a fact that there's a ton of stuff that should be on...nay...belongs on the disc for fear of fans not getting the title they deserve.

People buy Blu-ray because they want the very best quality of a film. That should stretch right through to the extras as well. As such, I now have a vanilla copy of Mallrats on Blu-ray which looks nice. However, I can't bring myself to chuck out the two DVDs on account of them having all the extras that I crave. I'll be honest, I'm not usually one for extras. When DVD first came out, I used to watch the discs in their entirety, but after a while I knocked that on the head though. So ordinarily, I wouldn't give a shit about a lack of bonus booty. However when it's as good as the stuff that the Mallrats DVD(s) has, then it's a problem as I'm not getting a definitive version of the film.

Things like this used to happen with DVD going from the US to the UK - and it was fucking annoying then. Sticking with Mallrats, the reason I have region 1 DVDs is because the region 2 disc was so crap. I don't know why it happens exactly. Sometimes it's rights issues, other times it's something else. I simply cannot comprehend why sometimes we get gipped on the extras but it makes my blood boil.

I recently watched Mission: Impossible 2 on Blu-ray and headed for the features menu afterwards, looking for one feature that I loved on DVD. Trawling through the massive amount of extras on the disc, I noticed that one was missing - the very one is was looking for! The extra was called Mission: Improbable and featured Ben Stiller playing Tom Crooze - stuntman to his sort of namesake. It was an MTV parody done for the film and it was gold, In fact it was so good that it was the only thing I wanted to watch on the menu. Other MTV content is present and accounted for so there are no rights issues at stake that I know of. Quite simply, it's omission makes zero sense and it's infuriating. If you'd like to check it out without slumming it and buying the DVD, then I've included it here as I'm a lot nicer than the Paramount bods that author the Blu-ray disc.


While I'm having a rant, the other thing that pisses me off is when they decide not to include the trailers for the film you're watching. This also happened with M:I-2 - which had an AWESOME trailer thanks to the Limp Bizkit track running throughout. As you can guess, that's absent too (although it was also missing from the DVD to be fair). Sony are the worst for doing this with their BDs though as they always have a "Trailers" or "Previews" section on the disc that features other titles! I know we don't need the trailers, but some of us are at least a little bit interested in the marketing for the film - especially as trailers can frequently leave people's spines tingling.

If by some slim chance anyone from a DVD/Blu-ray authoring company is reading this, then I have just one thing to say - If I buy a film that should have a load of features, then please include EVERYTHING. It's a pain in the arse when you don't and it means I fill my shelves up with multiple copies of the same movie.

FOMC: Born on the Fourth of July - Brilliant film or patriotism forcing critics' hands?

The latest unwatched film in my collection is Oliver Stone's 1989 quasi-classic Born on the Fourth of July. Now I'd not watched this film at all - let alone seen it on a home medium. I knew little about the film beforehand and popped the disc into my HD DVD player and settled in for around 2.5 hours of viewing.

Not to spoil anything for anyone that's not watched it but the flick is based on the autobiography of Ron Kovic - a bright eyed kid who opts to join the Marines as soon as possible due to his unwavering love of his country. While serving in Vietnam however, a bullet rips his heel to shreds. As he buckles in pain, another round slams through his torso, macheteing through his spinal chord and handing him a one way ticket to the USA bound in a wheelchair. While he remains optimistic about his forthcoming civilian life, he returns to a nation where many of the population criticise him for fighting in the first place leaving him to wonder what exactly he sacrificed the use of his legs for.

As you can imagine, Born on the Fourth of July is far from a riot. I was expecting something serious but I didn't expect to feel quite that deflated afterwards. The credits rolled and I felt a little bit glad that I didn't have to endure listening to Kovac's story any more. Now I don't mean that to sound cold or heartless, I'm simply saying that it's a bit of a depressing slog - even if it is powerful stuff. Now I know that the film was supposed to make the audience feel like a bit bad as we're meant to empathise with Kovac's plight, but I thought it was maybe a little bit too much at points and that Stone could have gotten his point over without stripping the film of any entertaining scenes. Sure, it's based on truth but that doesn't mean he couldn't just spice up the dialogue a little.

Anyway, I decided to check to see what other critics thought of it and discovered that the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. It's hardly surprising though due to the subject matter but I can't help feeling that most of those kudos are due to an overriding sense of American patriotism rather than an out and out love of the film.

I may be wrong. Maybe this is a film that just didn't tick the boxes for me as it did for everyone else. If I'm right though then maybe, just maybe sometimes more reviewers should have the balls to say the film isn't quite the masterpiece that others might have you believe it is.

The same goes for films like Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sure, they're both very good but they're nowhere near as good as their reputation suggests. A bold statement I know but both were painfully slow for the most part and the endings didn't justify the means properly. They all fall into a category of films that I'm glad I've watched but won't be in a huge hurry to watch them again any time soon. It's why I'm dragging my heels when it comes to watching Citizen Kane.

FOMC: Pocahontas - The basis for Avatar?

Ever since I was a kid, I've been a fan of Disney stuff (just like every other person in the world then). However, last September, I went to Paris with one of my mates and, being as immature as we are, spent a day in that most magical of places - Disneyland Paris.

After running around Space Mountain and Rock&Rollercoaster and whatnot, we were left wanting to give all of our hard earned to Uncle Walt in a bid to build up a collection again.

Over the past year, I've kept an eye out for Disney stuff - just so long as it's not extortionate. In CeX, I managed to find a blu-raycopy of Pocahontas for around a tenner and so bought it with some vouchers I'd acquired for offloading a load of discs on the shop previously.

While most of the Disney stuff I bought was stuff I'd seen as a kid, enjoyed and subsequently bought/been given on video, I'd never seen Pocahontas. However, I'd heard good things and, being from the Disney Renaissance era, I knew that £10 was a pretty safe bet.

So last night I watched the film...and it was good. Very good, actually. In fact it was so good that James Cameron swiped the entire plot for his "masterpiece", Avatar. Now I know I'm not the first person to note the similarities, but the parallels are so blatant that I'm 100% certain that I'd have spotted them regardless. It's nuts. I saw the following pic (by some genius called Matt Bateman) on Facebook a while back and, until now, had forgotten about it (having not seen Pocahontas, why would I take much note?). I could write for the next hour about the similarities but I think this sums up the liberties being taken in a better fashion than my feeble text ever could. 

So there you have it! Did Cameron nick Avatar from Disney? you be the judge of that. For me the most important thing is that Pocahontas, despite being a cartoon, has an absolutely rocking body. Nothing weird about that is there? Nope? Good.