Film/moving picture show you most recently watched

[khay 10]

England beat Scotland AGAIN!

 

[Gemmill 44880]

The chick from Eastbound & Down is superb.

 

excellent show, btw.

Canny pair when she eventually gets them out.

[ewerk 30610]

So it's funny and has tits in it? What's not to like?

[khay 10]

i don't think anyone has a dislike so far.

[David Kelly 1245]

Shrek 4. The 3d was a wate of time and the film was comfortably the worst in an increasingly poor series.

[Park Life 71]

The Visitor

 

A bored widower finds a muslim couple squatting in his New York apartment, becomes friendly with them and starts enjoying life a bit more. From the writer/director of The Station Agent (the bloke who played the scumbag reporter in the last season of The Wire) it has lots of similarities to that film where lonely outsiders find comfort in unlikely friendships. It goes on to cover the terrible situation whereby in America guilt is assumed (almost exclusively and apparently entirely) among terrorist suspects irrespective of evidence with little or no outrage at how much that betrays the constitution.

 

Canny.

 

Excellent watched it last night.

 

7.1/10

[sandman02uk 0]

Edge of Darkness - Mel Gibson - shite

Shrek 3d - shite

 

I've included them both as i watched them both this weekand and they where both shite

[Acid 0]

L.A Confidential - 10/10

 

You don't need a rewiew.

[Andrew 4748]

Greenzone 8/10

 

loved the bourne series so Im not sure why I never went to see it in the cinema, liked it though the end was a bit disappointing, good action sequences but thats not a surprise really

[Happy Face 29]

Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

 

The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.

 

But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:

 

Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.

 

Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.

 

Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.

 

Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.

 

There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.

 

No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unshitten.

 

It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.

 

Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The pussy.

 

Twilight? Pisslight, more like.

 

-Charlie Brooker

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nscary-monsters

 

[Park Life 71]

Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

 

The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.

 

But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:

 

Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.

 

Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.

 

Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.

 

Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.

 

There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.

 

No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unshitten.

 

It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.

 

Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The pussy.

 

Twilight? Pisslight, more like.

 

-Charlie Brooker

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nscary-monsters

 

 

These are Mrs P's fav current films.

[Ayatollah Hermione 13867]

Watched The Usual Suspects last night when having a bout of insomnia. I'm not sure why I'm picking tightly scripted thrillers and action movies (watched Die Hard the other night) to watch while trying to sleep but I'm enjoying them nonetheless.

[luckyluke 2]

Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

 

The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.

 

But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:

 

Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.

 

Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.

 

Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.

 

Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.

 

There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.

 

No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unshitten.

 

It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.

 

Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The pussy.

 

Twilight? Pisslight, more like.

 

-Charlie Brooker

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nscary-monsters

 

 

These are Mrs P's fav current films.

 

Are you married to a 12 year old girl? paedo.

[Park Life 71]

Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

 

The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.

 

But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:

 

Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.

 

Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.

 

Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.

 

Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.

 

There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.

 

No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unshitten.

 

It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.

 

Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The pussy.

 

Twilight? Pisslight, more like.

 

-Charlie Brooker

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nscary-monsters

 

 

These are Mrs P's fav current films.

 

Are you married to a 12 year old girl? paedo.

 

She needs her escapism apparently.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

 

The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.

 

But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:

 

Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.

 

Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.

 

Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.

 

Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.

 

There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.

 

No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unshitten.

 

It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.

 

Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The pussy.

 

Twilight? Pisslight, more like.

 

-Charlie Brooker

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nscary-monsters

 

 

These are Mrs P's fav current films.

 

I know your pain.

 

I nearly fucking flipped when she changed her phone background from a rather sexy looking picture of me to that wet cockless vampire.

[luckyluke 2]

I have two teenage girl cousins and even they think Twilight is fucking stupid.

[Park Life 71]

Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.

 

The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.

 

But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:

 

Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.

 

Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.

 

Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.

 

Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.

 

There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.

 

No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unshitten.

 

It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.

 

Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The pussy.

 

Twilight? Pisslight, more like.

 

-Charlie Brooker

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...nscary-monsters

 

 

These are Mrs P's fav current films.

 

I know your pain.

 

I nearly fucking flipped when she changed her phone background from a rather sexy looking picture of me to that wet cockless vampire.

 

I know mate, the arguments and niggling we've had about it border on the existensial. It's at the point where I have to pretend to like it to keep the peace.

[NJS 4385]

I haven't seen any of the Twilight films as I knew they were teen lass fodder but I think he's wrong that the only good vampire is a cold killer. I think there's room for re-interpretation and different contexts like True Blood and Buffy/Angel.

[Ayatollah Hermione 13867]

If wor lass made me watch Twilight, I'd make her watch Commando with me every night until she'd forgotten all about those pussies in Twilight.

[Geordieracer 0]

Edge of Darkness - Mel Gibson - shite

Shrek 3d - shite

 

I've included them both as i watched them both this weekand and they where both shite

 

Got Edge of Darkness through Lovefilm over the weekend - utter tripe. One Mel Gibson film that is underated however is Payback - basic but entertaining.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Shrek 4

 

Not as good as the first but better than 2 and 3. Donkey steals the show as ever and the storyline is Shrek meets its a wonderful life.

 

7/10

[kockhead 0]

Roadhouse

 

I thought you'll be bigger

 

10/10 very funny film

[Dr Gloom 21923]

Brick.

 

Style over substance imo.

 

nice visuals. interesting take on film noir in a modern high school setting but it didn't quite work for me. the visuals were nice - beautiful cinematography but the hard boiled dialogue felt out of context. at the end of the day, the characters are school kids, not private eyes and gangsters from the 40s.

 

for me, it felt exactly like a film made by a film student straight out of film school rather than an experienced film maker, which it was.

 

5/10.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Dr Gloom

[Holden McGroin 6585]

Im off to watch Predators and Inception this week.

 

Predator and Alien/Aliens have to be up there in my all time fav movies so im rather wet about Predators.

 

Chris Nolan hasnt made a bad movie yet either so Inception is looking good.

[David Kelly 1245]

Im off to watch Predators and Inception this week.

 

Predator and Alien/Aliens have to be up there in my all time fav movies so im rather wet about Predators.

 

Chris Nolan hasnt made a bad movie yet either so Inception is looking good.

Saw Predators the other night and quite enjoyed it. It has a feel of the first one with the Jungle setting and enough new ideas to keep you entertained.

That said it is very predictable (you could virtually pick the sequence in which each person would die and which would be left at the end) and not in the same league as the original (although I suppose if you saw this one first you might disagree).

 

Million miles better then the fucking shambles that was the AVP films though.