avclub-c862b02975932127779faae44decffb4--disqus
Mr Bleaney
avclub-c862b02975932127779faae44decffb4--disqus

Maybe you should change your name from 'quark', which is very very small and not at all noticeable, to something bigger, say 'planetoid'.

How about 'A Modest Proposal' meets 'The Biggest Loser' where luckless familys of misaportion'd girth are given instruction on the cooking and eating of their offspring with the intention of providing adequate sustenance and a reducement of their waistlines withal. Five Guineas to the winner.

The Mentalist
Anybody else find it fucking hilarious that they've named a show 'The Mentalist'?

It wasn't always thus: Harry's Game, Tinker Tailor, Edge of Darkness, Chancer, House of Cards, Cracker, Prime Suspect.

LOM
At the risk of receiving a metaphorical (obviously) pounding by the nerd/geek/hipster triumvirate, I will say that Life on Mars wasn't great. Another case of a great idea bollocksed up in the execution (another example; Jekyll). What annoyed me about it, and very definitely spoiled my enjoyment was the absence of

shot of man gently sobbing by bedside, tears coursing down his face.

@SCHOOLBOOK…whatever

Steve….you there?
Steve. Out of interest, are you reading any of this?

Growing up, I went to many different schools, and all the drama teachers had beards.

I've been to some pretty funny fucking funerals, so await this with something akin to anticipation.

More
Seemed like a short interview. I was hoping to hear more, not about any particular subject, just more.

And I'd like to point out there are no 'fun facts'. There is fun, and there are facts, and never the twain shall meet.

Sopranos
There was a lovely, unexpected piece of Shakespeare in The Sopranos. Anybody remember it? Johnny Sack (I'm not googling it) to Tony Soprano on the the subject of his (Johnny's) perceived lifetime as second-in-command "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Creeps on this petty pace". And there is the power and

Ridley Scott
Tony Scott

Oi! I'm trying to expound a socio-dependent genre theory 'ere! Fucking cheek!

It's got everything to do with nationality. Only Americans can really do action movies because they invented the genre and invested it with their own sense of self. They co-exist with their movies like no other nation. Any event (war, natural disaster) is inevitably referenced back to film; "it was just like a movie".

It's not the action sequences per se. I know there are a lot of very talented British directors, second unit or otherwise. What I am saying is a great action sequence has to stem from an irresistible internal logic; they have to make sense in the context of the movie. They need to carry the audience along on sheer

Would have worked better than the nonsensical, smirking tripe that makes up most Bond films. The gadgets have more personality than the actors. But as my point was the British can't do action sequences, I'll have to concede your point and say that some of the sequences in some Bond films do work. But I stick to my

Time to face facts
The British cannot do action films. I don't know what it is; the complete inability to set up a plausible action sequence that doesn't continually trip over it's own plot holes; the desperation to appear cool, yet never even coming close; the stiltedness of trying to shout catchphrase fodder in

That's ok then. Should have known really, don't think I've ever seen any comedy albums listed on this. Perhaps fuel for another feature, if not already done.