You see, it's a metaphor for, like, life

I watched The Wrestler last night for the first time. Or for the first time last night. Whichever sounds better to you. Probably the latter.

An excellent and sad movie.

Some of it was very cliched - the aging stripper romance, the estranged daughter - and some of it very much reminded me of the opening of Commando in terms of giving us a checklist of reasons to care for the character. Remember the opening of Commando? He's feeding a deer - that shows he's close to nature. Oh, look, he's teaching his daughter how to fish. That shows they are resourceful. And so on.

I got that same feeling from bits in The Wrestler. Like when he comes out of his van and messes with the kids. Ah, he has a heart of gold.

But Mickey Rourke's performance really elevated the film far beyond what I think was written there. At times, it could have been entirely real. It was nice to see Aronofsky make, you know, an actual movie. A very good movie at that.

And, of course, the appeal is obvious.

A man, beaten down by life, fights to the end. Even in the crappiest of jobs and, actually, even if we're not doing too badly at all but we feel we could be doing better, most of us feel that way through large portions of our life. Stripper - object of desire just out of reach. Who doesn't have that? Estranged daughter - we all have damaged relationships somewhere in the past that still affect who we are now. We want Randy the Ram to do better. Because we want to do better.

Pretty bloody obvious really. But far easier said than done to capture that in a movie. And they did it.

The one thing that separates Randy the Ram from most people is that he's always got fight left in him.

Whereas most of us, society as a whole, seems to have lost that fight. There's shit going on all around us and we take it. We don't punch a meat slicer and quit. We stay at the deli counter and tell ourselves we're doing a good job because we've got bills to pay.

I want to punch a meat slicer.

More does not equal better

I think it was Ken Levine, over at his blog, who said - if a film is over three hours long, it should not be eligible for 'best editing' in the Oscars.

I would agree.

Long films are often a chore. Not always. But often.

For example, I was bought those extended editions of the Lord Of The Rings films each Christmas three years running.

I still haven't watched them. It's not that I don't think I'll enjoy them. It's just that amount of time is a serious commitment and I can always think of several other shorter things I'd rather do. And I have to wonder, will they really be better movies than those already long movies I saw in the cinema? If anything, that Ent sequence needed to be a lot shorter.

More often than not, I find that cut scenes are cut with good reason. For example, the extended cut of Aliens added some good scenes on their own, but broke the flow of the movie in several places. Most importantly, they took the movie from being Ripley's story to something far less coherent. The DVD of Donnie Darko had the deleted scenes with commentary from the director in which he explained very well why those scenes didn't belong in his movie. The "Director's Cut" recut those scenes into the movie and, as it happens, it turns out he was right the first time.

I enjoyed Watchmen earlier this year.

And I'm looking forward to it on Blu-Ray. But it seems the Blu-Ray version is 3 hours and 10 minute. Now, at the theatrical two and a half hours, that film was on the edge. It kept me interested but was definitely on the edge. And, as a fan of the source material, there isn't one thing cut from the graphic novel that I missed in the movie. Do I need another half hour or forty minutes added to it?

No. I do not.

More does not equal better.

Indiana Jones and the Tin Foil Filled Skull

So I got to see the new Indy film last night. It's okay. Entertaining in parts but it doesn't really have much of a story. I mean, they didn't seem to have any concrete goals most of the time so spent half the movie wandering around getting captured by cartoon Russians.

But it was definitely entertaining in parts, had some good sequences, a few great lines. I found myself wishing Marion hadn't made it into the movie, a complete turnaround from what I thought I'd think. And, in another turnaround, not only did I not mind LaBeouf, I thought he was pretty much essential. He brought life to a film that wouldn't have had any otherwise.

And, man, that bit where Shortround turned up... woah. WHO DA BITCH NOW?!!! EH, DR.JONES?!!! BAM! Fantastic.

The real video nasties

Films that should be banned: Chick Flicks.

Seriously.

Not because they are bad movies. Okay, they aren't my thing but some of them are very well made. No, chick flicks should be banned because they are really, really bad for people. Especially women. They are damaging to women everywhere.

Most, if not all, chick flicks send the message that women need a man. More than that, a needy woman will take any man that shows the slightest bit of interest. The only two requirements a woman needs to fall for a man according to these movies - a) they're needy, b) the man shows some interest.

That's it.

Bridget Jones's Diary: Colin Firth's character is an asshole. All the way through the movie. He's a complete dick. But Bridget Jones feels she's getting old and is needy as she's cheated on by that guy who got a blowjob in a car and Firth then shows a bit of interest and that's all she needs. They live happily ever after. The end.

High Fidelity: Yeah it focuses on the guy but it's totally a chick flick. Girlfriend dumps that 80s guy for being a complete dick (see a pattern?). He doesn't change. What does change is that her father dies. She needs someone and comes back to him. They live happily ever after. The end.

Sliding Doors: Something bad happens to Paltrow (I can't quite remember but wasn't she being cheated on?). Meets an annoying Scottish dick (always a dick). She's needy. They probably live happily ever after, I don't really know as I couldn't stomach that Scottish gobshite.

You've Got Mail: This one's a doozy. She's needy because the guy is putting her out of business. He shows some interest. They live happily ever after. Man, that guy has it worked out. He has learned from chick flicks and actually creates that need himself.

I could go on. They're all the same. Girl is needy. Guy is a dick but shows a bit of interest. They live happily ever after. Is that the lesson we want women to learn? Show some self-respect, girls. Seriously, come on. Most of you are better than that. You shouldn't be watching this crap. They are bad for you. You can do so much better than the stupid-ass girls in these movies. It's not romantic, it's emotional extortion. Or something.

The other effect of these movies is that they show two people who are clearly incompatible getting together and then the movie ends before they show the rows and the inevitible break-up. So it gives totally unrealistic expectations of how relationships work. Women are looking for this movie magic and think something is wrong when they don't get that. Nothing is wrong. That's just life. Life is not those movies.

Chick flicks should be banned. That was the general gist of all this.

Why we need film censors

Censorship can be quite ridiculous. The recent Ren & Stimpy DVDs were cut over here even though they were now being pitched to adults. What was worse, they weren't even offered an adult certificate. The assumption was animation = children. Okay so R&S was on shakey ground as it was initially aimed at children. Still, censorship of it now seems odd.

There was also the video nasty scare of the 80s in the UK. Anyone old enough to remember that? A friend and I were in a video shop for about an hour and forty minutes trying to get the courage up to try to rent a video called 'House of Whipcord' even though we were too young. We chickened out. Just a couple of weeks later we saw it among a bunch of video nasties being pulled.

Man, we wished we had tried to rent it. I must try to track it down now to see if it was any good.

More recently, video games seem to be the new video nasties. But, so far, I haven't seen much that warrants attention. But all through these changes and scares, I see films that should be censored or banned that remain untouched.

Home Alone is one of those films.

Cartoon violence is usually quite funny. Cartoon characters can drop anvils on each other and there's no damage - they're cartoons. They are beings that do not exist in real life. They do not obey real world physics. They do not have the same pain neuron thingies we do and their families won't mourn if they get shot in the face.

But Home Alone did this with real people (okay maybe not shooting them in the face). Bowling balls on the head. You could kill someone doing that. If they survive, they would likely have permanent brain damage. If they're really lucky, they might just have to spend several years learning to walk or speak again while their partners feed them, wipe their asses and so on. Is that funny? Is that something you want in a kid's movie? It's rather hideous.

Films need to show consequences. Especially for children.

Something like Rambo would be better for kids because at least it shows that, if you commit an act of violence, the victim will die in a bloody hell. It's a lesson. Home Alone just revelled in lying to children about the effects their future violence would have. Home Alone is far more dangerous than any horror film, is horribly misleading and should have been banned. That I just don't like the movie is entirely coincidental, honest.

But there is a whole genre of movie that I think should be censored and I'll go into that another time.