DECADE'S END

Okay, so every magazine, newspaper and website out there is doing a round up of the noughties and as a blogger it would be rather remiss not to round up my favourite things of the last, and my first real decade*. I shall list my ten favourite albums and films of the last ten years, the omission of books is because my knowledge is too limited as I only really read older books.



Albums

Is This It? - The Strokes (2001)

Up the Bracket - The Libertines (2002)


A Rush of Blood to the Head - Coldplay (2002)


A Grand Don't Come for Free - The Streets (2004)

The Libertines - The Libertines (2004)

Sam's Town - The Killers (2006)

Empire - Kasabian (2006)


Because of the Times - Kings of Leon (2007)


Neon Bible - Arcade Fire (2007)


Oracular Spectacular - MGMT (2007)




Films


The Dark Knight



The Royal Tenenbaums



I'm Not There


Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang


The Departed


The Lord of the Rings Trilogy


Brick


No Country for Old Men


Old Boy


Little Miss Sunshine





* As in I don't remember 1990 but I definitely do remember 2000

THE INFORMANT!

Soderbergh's latest sees Matt Damon play a real-life FBI informant who claims his employer, ADM (a lycine-developing company) participates in a world-wide price-fixing scandal. The film never attempts to make the agricultural business glamorous or exciting, in fact the opposite as we hear the thoughts of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) who early in the film never stops talking about the business, which instead of making us interested in his interests makes us interested in him. Matt Damon is made up to look like an average guy, he has a flimsy 'tache, a paunch and an awful haircut. This image, alongside his self-important observations and frequently bizarre behaviour are what make the film.

As a documentation of a true story the film would be a massive fail. We only see the perspective of Whitacre and that is interrupted by his many asides and meanderings on other subjects. What the film succeeds in doing is creating a character that is wholly unsympathetic and yet you sympathise with him anyway. He's a lot like Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo. A pathetic selfish man whose initial scheme completely unravels and ends up ruining them more than they could possibly have perceived. That tragic streak is perhaps what makes the character sympathetic. But Soderbergh plays Whitacre as comic over tragic and with Matt Damon's performance that is achieved. The film does have other characters but Damon's performance is the only performance of the movie.

I found the film entertaining. It fits into that category of comedy that The Office, Extras and Curb Your Enthusiasm share, comedy that makes you cringe as the character fucks up again. Damon is brilliant and should put in more comedic roles in the future as it is clear from his interviews that he is a funny guy. Empire in their review criticise the film as unsubstantial and I guess I agree. That would be my sole complaint in a film where Damon's excellent performance, the direction and score are all hard to criticise. I enjoyed it, I laughed, but it didn't really require me to think and it certainly hasn't made much of an impact on my thoughts since I saw the film. Erm, okay, pithy last line...pithy last line..."Fun but a little flimsy"

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

I'd like to start this post by first saying that I am a fan of Spielberg (the director), I think his best films are close to being my favourites for their respective genres especially E.T, Schindler's List, Jaws, Jurassic Park and both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade. However, I don't like Spielberg (the person). I find in most the interviews with him, even ones that are clearly in love with the guy he comes off as arrogant and seems to believe all the genius hype. This becomes even more clear when an interviewer has the balls to make a criticism over one of his films. I watched a programme where he was interviewed by the majorly opinionated Mark Kermode who suggested that Munich was flawed due to its over-the-top dedication to seeming even-handed. Spielberg completely changed and became guarded and clearly became colder towards Kermode after that. In a separate incident there was a pullout in an issue of Empire Magazine dedicated to Spielberg with lots of saccharine praise from friends and co-workers and so on. I think it was George Lucas though, who revealed a well-known actor auditioning for a role in Raiders commented that he loved the director's movies but hadn't enjoyed 1941. Apparently Spielberg had him immediately removed.



Anyway I realise this is a massively long introduction that doesn't seem to have that much to do with the title but I watched Temple of Doom the other day and I liked it more than I remembered. It is still by some distance the worst film of the trilogy but it is watchable fare. The action scenes, particularly the mine cart chase and the mid-flight dinghy escape, are exciting and well directed if a little on the ludicrous side. Indiana Jones is still a likable hero.

So what is wrong with the film?

Well, I'm going to leave aside the racism that seems more in keeping with the film's period than the period the film was made. Spielberg has confessed the film is weaker, (Spielberg the humble!) but blamed that on George Lucas's insistence that the film be darker. Now, George Lucas is an idiot who I don't believe has done anything right since 1980 but I'm going to stick up for him. Lucas is the father of the 'darker' sequel. He is the reason why every awful Spiderman sequel gets billed as being "darker" (read -emoed/ emo'd/ whatever). He made Empire Strikes Back. He had the balls to make it darker and it really worked. It was only natural that he suggest, in the second big trilogy he was involved in, to make the film "darker".

The problem is Spielberg doesn't seem to have the guts to go full out. Do you know how when skidding you should turn into the skid rather than away. And do you know that sporting phrase if you don't go in hard then you get hurt. Well I think that's what happened, the film was hurt not by the fact it was darker, but the lack of commitment to that tonal change. Spielberg tried to turn against the skid and that is where the film (replacing a car in this lame analogy) crashes. It's the parts of the film that are clearly supposed to lighten the tone and keep the kids happy amidst all the heart-stealing-voodooish-stuff and blank-eyed chanting. Willie (played by Spielberg's wife Kate Capshaw - *ahem*) is easily in my list of the most annoying fictional characters ever created. After Karen Allen as a likable rogue tomboy who manages to be both tough and sexy in Raiders we get a shrieking, idiotic, sexist charicature of a woman. Do I become a hypocrite of complaining about her sexist representation by then adding she's not nearly hot enough to forgive her prima-donna bullshit? Yes? Then taking looks clearly out of the picture she is a horrendous character. Added to that is Short Round and his opposite number the Sultan kid, it's late and I can't be bothered to look up his name. Both are annoying and ridiculous in equal degrees. First, Short Round, a poor kid from China who is so au fait with American culture he sports a Yankees cap and talks about fortune cookies - an American invention. His cutesy copying of Jones gets more and more grating as the film goes on. The Sultan kid, who Spielberg portrays negatively thoughout is redeemed at the end after a ridiculous pantomime villain perfomance stabbing a voodoo doll merely because he is a child. There seems to be no reason for him being a child except so that he can fight Short Round.

Okay so my point is, the film isn't thaaaaat bad but its flaws aren't, as Spielberg believes, down to flabby George Lucas, but because of the cutesy, kiddie-appealing bits that have been ruining Lucas and Spielberg films for the last few decades. (See Ewoks, Jar-Jar Binks, Gophers, Greedo shoots first, removing cops guns etc etc)

MEXICAN RESTAURANTS

The latest restaurant to take residence in the doomed building that has housed the failing Outback and Square is Mexican franchise Chiquitos. Before I went there I felt no real sense of excitement as Mexican food has become kind of a standard meal at home. Fajitas, Tacos, Nachos, Burritos are all so easily made at home now and, with the Discovery brand, actually taste good. I went to the restaurant and had both the burrito and fajitas, neither was as good as the ones I can make with a cheap box from the supermarket.

Only five years ago there was a real gap for Mexican restaurants. You couldn't get good mexican food at supermarkets, and in Stevenage there were no restaurants doing the food. When in London you could get it and it tasted good but I'm pretty sure a large part of that was the novelty of it. You weren't thinking I could go home and cook better than this for 2 or 3 quid. I don't think Chiquito's will last that long here, it seems with the restaurants that are staying open people either want fast food, takeaway, or a more upmarket restaurant like Prezzo or Ask. These themed, average priced restaurants that serve up average food just dressed up as if its from its country of origin look a bit flimsy in times where people are looking at value more than ever.