In a style similar to beloved character Jesse from the Fast Show, this week I have mainly been watching the Chronicles of Narnia. The "original" BBC version from 1989/1990. Its ropey, the costumes were clearly made on a charity shop budget, the monsters are clearly men in suits. The animation is clearly just drawn on in the editing process.

And yet, its absolutely fantastic. Not just because of a sense of fuzzy nostalgia, but because it more closely follows the feel of the books, that sense of polite English civility being plunged into an epic battle between good and evil. Something that the producers of the more recent Hollywood films would have done well to pick up on.

Likewise the Nicholas Cage remake of the Wicker Man is largely regarded as one of the WORST FILMS EVER MADE™. The clunky screenplay and failure to pick up on the original's sense of paranoid ennui made for desperately dull viewing. And that is perhaps why it bombed so significantly. But is it? The new versions of the Chronicles of Narnia have after all made hundreds of millions in box office and DVD sales. And they likewise missed out on something that the original had. Not to say that they are bad movies, they just miss something that the BBC versions did.

So, the real question behind all this is: what's the point? If a film has been made before why try to better it just because you have more mastery over CGI?

And yet I find myself in a pickle of paradox of a conundrum of a state. I actually really enjoy the "re-imaginings" of pre-existing stories and films. And I don't know why.

For example: The Italian Job. Re-imagined as a completely different heist movie with slightly newer minis and Mark Wahlberg. At the time of its release, a large number of people in unison seemed to cry "what's the point?" Of course missing the point that it was a completely different film, just with the same name (for no apparent reason). And Edward Norton, Charlize Theron and Mos Def were superb in it. Similarly with Tim Burton's versions of Planet of the Apes and Alice in Wonderland. Both heavily based upon pre-existing works, re-jigged with Burton's own creative edge. Again, not held in the same amount of critical esteem as I hold them. Why? Because they dared to be different. Had they just remade the stories I argue the critics would have despised them even more.

And yet I love them. They exist in pre-conceived worlds, telling different stories around the characters, bringing out their different aspects. But they are by no means the same film. In the "new" Alice, the Mad Hatter seems to be genuinely MAD for the first time on screen. And consequently a little bit scary because of that. The cards are sinister in their expressionless following of orders. Helena Bonham-Carter's Red Queen is the tyrant that the Disney version or either of the TV versions has done justice to. She is, in essence, the Kim Jong Il of Wonderland.

What does all of this rambling eulogy mean? Nothing really. Suffice to say I like re-imaginings but genuine remakes just seem a bit pointless.

Any thoughts from the Massive?

Dear Fraser...

Would there be a way of allowing each member to see how many "ups" they've accumulated per month or something. Just as a random note of interest? And more precisely, would the Massive be interested to know if Sheev has an average of 28 or David Hepworth 462 per month? Or would it just be more time strain that would be wasted on fruitless ears?

I'd be interested certainly.

Anyone else?

Yesterday morning, on a day just like any other (to no doubt quote a film trailer somewhere), breakfast was unaffectedly joyous. Nothing special happened, mainly because nothing happened at all. The morning brought one of life's simple pleasures - a relaxing breakfast. Nothing more. The menu choices; a chocolate spread sandwich, a pint of tea, a copy of the Word and Neil Young's "Harvest" on the stereo. Again, not much in the way of a special occasion, but it worked.

I suppose this unadorned mixture, combined with the wearing of my "Sigur Ros" jumper (knitted by my mother in a traditional Icelandic style) genuinely brought a smile to my face. For a short time, in humble aberration, life wasn't the dire mess we've come to expect of late. There was no profiteering financial chaos (or an approximation thereof), no socially inept politicians trying to weasle their way out of theft allegations, murder, assisted suicide and the mind-numbing endless droning of Friends repeats. For one brief moment, when the harmonies of "Old Man" shone through, all of the mundanities of modern living fell away, allowing me to just be content in my own existence. To put it another way, what was an unremarkable grey morning like any other allowed me to experience joy at just being allowed to be. And you can't say fairer than that.

So, on that note, what modes of relaxation do the Massive employ to enjoy the days where they don't have meetings until 11 (like me) or have the strange rarity, the fabled day off?

This is a serious fail by anyone's standards.

Banker caught out @ Yahoo! Video

Only 40 secs long...

Today's rant: What is it with the "awkward" American films that fascinates people so much?

We are of course talking about the films of such luminaries as Gus Van Sant (Last Days, Elephant), and Jim Jarmusch (Dead Man, Coffee & Cigarettes) and even Francis Ford Coppola (Rumble Fish) as well as others whose names escape me at present.

A film such as "There Will Be Blood" released a couple of years ago is a great example of what I would describe as awkward cinema. The reason for this is because you come out of the cinema (or to the end of the DVD if you're that masochistic) and feel a little bit nauseous. Not because of any grotesque gore fests or anything obvious, but because by and large, awkward cinema takes a bunch of characters you can't settle with, a story that could be told in a sentence, and then stretches it out to an almost infinite length. Aside from Jonny Greenwood's soundtrack (which did add to the sense of unease throughout the film) I could find no redeeming features.

Likewise with the other examples I mentioned. Today I watched Dead Man for the first time. I bought it for three reasons. It was £2, Johnny Depp's in it, and it has a soundtrack by Neil Young. How could it possibly fail, right? Except that it consisted of a 2 hour shambles of a film, with a bunch of disinterested (and uninteresting) characters who amble along with no sense of plot. And then it ends. Suffice to say I was not best pleased.

It does seem that there is an increasing trend towards this sort of movie, perhaps realising its hideous zenith with the world's most awkward film, Gus Van Sant's Last Days. Supposedly a film based on the last days of Kurt Cobain, in actuality it consisted of a man shuffling around mumbling for an hour and a half before a gunshot and the credits roll. Is this the height of art or a joke on us the consumer by sarky movie executives?

So my question today is this. Is it just me missing the "point" of these films, are they true art, or are they in fact bloated monstrosities of cinema, stretching bad characters and boring plots out to great lengths without any sense of quality control?

Over to you, the Massive.

For your delectation. I don't know if anyone's seen this trailer before. But I watched it this morning and was so excited I nearly did a wee. Nearly!

Tim Burton's film is a re-imagining of the book, and as such is a lot darker, the characters all affected by age and cynicism. And because its Burton, the new story line appears to work superbly in tandem with Lewis Carroll's masterwork, rather than against it. (Although it is only a trailer)

All the hallmarks of a Burton film are present - grotesque character proportion, Depp / Bonham Carter, grey sky, massive gothic buildings - and yet this is wonderland. Where everything should be brightly coloured and surreal? Well, no. Not by watching this.

Thought I'd share it, because it does look like it'll be one of the films of the year. Plus it's featured in the new issue. Beautifully smooth tie-in to relevance with the magazine there.

Check it out>

Yesterday I had a bit of free time, so I thought I'd catch up with some viewing on the iPlayer (and its Channels 4 and 5 counterparts).

Television appeared to have gone weird. And not in a bad way per se. Just a bit more interesting and alternative than what we've come to expect of late.

This was helped by music choices. For example, Top Gear now seems to use clips of Arcade Fire, Arctic Monkeys and "modern rock" quite regularly. I didn't expect to hear Bjork's seminal "Bachelorette" blasting out as Clarkson rounded another bend. That was unusual. The backing music during bits of Neighbours was verging on Trip Hop.

The other weird thing that struck me was the sort of weird post-modern approach that they took reviewing a new Lexus on Top Gear. Richard Hammond, plus art rock, plus a car, plus black, white and red semi-futuristic Japanese animation involving flying saucers. Seriously, what the hell? This further added to my confusion.

And then to Celebrity Big Brother. Supposed hole and barrel scrapings of human underachievement further adding to their vanity for more money than most of us earn in 5 years. Right, turn off... EXCEPT that its gone weird. Like completely triangular curveball shaving a squirrel's eyebrows before punching the Honey Monster bathed in melted marshmallow weird. The theme is "Hell Is In Others" - ok, we get it, housemates turn on each other. Fine. Except consequently it looks like the inside of the penthouse in The Devil's Advocate film just before the end of the film when humanity has been destroyed and apocalypse. That kind of scenery. The housemates are more interesting than they should be. Sisqo? A fragile human being? Yes, it appears he is. Lady Sovereign? Chav rapper having a 24 year old mid-life crisis? Heidi Fleiss - a one woman advert for NOT doing drugs. Basshunter? Swedish pop techno type actually has a weird sense of humour. But most surreal? Stephanie Beacham from smegging Dynasty reading excepts from the Bible about Gideon and bits from the book of Genesis. And then a page 3 girl discusses creationism versus evolution?

In an age of text speak, all that sums up my current thinking is WTF?

Any other examples people have seen recently of the Box morphing into a new Dali-esque scene of oddity? Or is it just me?

Just thought I'd post this because I think it is very, very good, and I believe that YOU, the Massive, would enjoy it.

Well, it's only 4 mins long (though the album version is a more robust 9 mins).

No response needed. But it really is too good to miss.

I don't know if anyone's highlighted this programme before, but the "True Stories" series seems to be great television that is absolutely fascinating in the way that Channel 5's "Extraordinary People" was. Except that unlike that program, "True Stories" is more a compendium of the work of different documentary makers from around the world. For example, Werner Herzog's "Encounters at the End of the World" is the next to be shown on More 4, next Tuesday.

Yes, the program focusses on who or what we would describe as freakish or different, and therein I believe lies its appeal. In the same way that a high brow documentary such as the BBC's "Panarama" does, it looks into topics and shows you what they are. No cover ups. Just brutal honesty, and absolutely gripping television.

As you may have guessed, I am a fan of documentaries. But let that not put you off at least watching the most recent "episode" (?), Richard Butchin's "The Last American Freak Show", which is truly like a Waitsian nightmare come to life. Or a real life version of any one of the Tiger Lillies' lyrical atrocities. People with physical deformities are paraded around, though unlike the Victorian freak shows of old, at least they have the choice to come and go as they please. (The "Lobster Boy" has to head off to work in a normal job every so often) But what I find the most poignant, so to speak, about the film, is that by the end of the film, it is clear that the physically able people who are "organising" the tour are the real freaks; detestable in a way that the disabled, genuine people (such as Jackie the Half Woman) are not.

It kept me fascinated for an hour and a half, anyway.

Worth a look in, you can view it on 4oD if you're interested.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-last-american-freak-show

I believe it will restore your faith in television. Well, if you've watched the X Factor or I'm A Celebrity... this can be your perfect antidote.

The "True Stories" series can be found here for anyone wanting more.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/themes/true-stories

For those of us who enjoy the giddy rush of an exciting guitar pop band, let me give you a brief introduction to Race Horses. I would liken them to the New Pornographers / Apples in Stereo / Elf Power school of upbeat power pop with harmonies, silly lyrics and random musical interludes.

The band rose from the ashes of the Welsh language band Radio Luxembourg, who were tipped for great things but sort of gave up when the drummer left to become a carpenter (I should know, his dad was my vicar).

Now I know that bigging-up bands you know is usually frowned upon around these parts, but now that Ben's left, I don't technically know anyone in the band, and secondly, they seem to be the type of band that the Massive would take to heart.

So have a cup of tea, relax, and enjoy this sunshine pop dream of a song (with slightly unnerving video to boot).

Merry Tuesday to you all!

9 (Film)
9 (short film)
9 (game)
9 (a different short film)
9 (aka Dokuz - Turkish film)
9 Songs (film)
9 Souls (film)
9 Mornings (film)
Nine (film)
Nine (Tv program)
Nine (documentary)
Nine (short film - three of them!)
Nine 1/2 Weeks (film)
Nine 1/2 Minutes (short film with David Tennant)
Nine Months (film)
Nine to Five (film)
Nine Lives (film)
The Nine (Tv series)
Nine Lives (a different film)
Nine Men (film)
Nine Girls (film)
District 9 (film)

Plus 200 other entries on imdb.

No, not the lyrics of the Beatles' portentous "Revolution 9". A list of films and TV that all have nine in the title. Given Lennon's fascination and fear of the number 9, and the fact that its still (just about) 2009 and the world is supposedly to end in three years time (if a centuries extinct civilisation is to be believed...), then I thought that this may be one of the signs of the impending apocalypse.

Or a sign that movie executives really don't have imagination.

Either way.

Ok, so this film came out a couple of years ago, but I only got round to watching it today.

For anyone who's seen the traumatic "Event Horizon", this film has weird echoes (space paranoia, destruction of crew, scary skinless man, etc), although by itself, it deserves more recognition amongst the canon of its director Danny Boyle (though to be fair, that does include "Trainspotting" and "Slumdog Millionaire").

Set in a future where the sun is dying, the crew is sent to "restart" the sun, by sending in a pay-load of reactors that start a fission process. Or something. The science was a bit lost on me, but the theory sounded a bit like the Large Hadron Collider.

Then it all goes a bit tits up. But in true British fashion, they pull it around. Sort of. The payload is delivered.

Suffice to say, it isn't like "Lost In Space" or "Armageddon", there isn't a happy ending.

Added to that, the music is by the superb composer John Murphy, in collaboration at times with Underworld. And at the end was a nice surprise, as the song "Avenue of Hope" by the underrated I Am Kloot played during the credits (sadly its not on Spotify - but Youtube it, its beautiful). That made me happy.

Anyway, thought I'd share what I thought was a cracking movie in the hope that it might get a bit more of the recognition that I believe it deserves.

Here's the trailer for anyone interested:

Ok, so I know there are quite a few people that like Portishead. And I know there are quite a few people that REALLY enjoyed the BBC documentary on the birth of 80s electronic music. And I know that there are quite a few people that get excited by the phrase "krautrock groove". And I know that there are quite a few people who support the work of Amnesty International.

Why not combine the lot?

Bleak sonic creationists Portishead have just released a new track as a one off download through 7digital that has them ditching the scary new direction for an even more scary one. 80s synth electro. But we're talking more OMD / Human League than any of the poppier moments of the decade. Thankfully. Basically its vintage synths aplenty.

If you want to just watch some people weeping into analog equipment, then click thus:

And if you want to give a small donation to Amnesty and help save the planet, etc, then click thus:

http://www.7digital.com/portisheadamnesty

That's all for today.

Yesterday I listened to the exceptionally unloved "Blood On the Dancefloor" album by Michael Jackson. Whilst it sold 11 million copies, the reviews were largely scathing at the time of its release. Whilst there are some hilarious reviews on Amazon, it was viewed in the context of Jackson's "troubles" during the 90s, and so didn't achieve the same sort of cultural impact that his work had hitherto seemed to do.

It probably didn't help that instead of a normal advertising scheme, there was a half hour short promotional film in which Jackson dressed as a fat town mayor, as well as himself and a skeleton. Obviously.

There were some singles from the album, best of all being this:

I thoroughly enjoyed the album, expecting something awful. It had some really good tracks on it. Not "Revolver", or "Rain Dogs", by a long shot but actually quite a good selection of music.

Which of course begs the question. What other works have received a critical lashing, but actually, turned out to be quite good? What are the massive's views on this?

For example, "Around The Sun" by REM, whilst not as good as their own work, it is still enjoyable in its own little way.

And I'm thinking albums by major artists, rather than rattling off a number of obscure artists, or the 7" you made with your garage band in sixth form.

What are the albums that you listen to, and go "Actually, that's not half bad..."?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p4rl4/Life_Creatures_of_the_Deep...

Don't know if anyone has been watching this series from BBC1, but I've just watched this last episode and it is, as usual with BBC nature documentaries, visually astounding.

Featuring carnivorous sea stars "the size of a dustbin lid", 13ft worms, suicidal octopuses and cuttlefish porn, "Life" is a beauty for the eyes. I can't speak for the rest of the series, as I've only watched the above episode, but presumably they'll be of similar quality.

Well worth a look, and also a good idea for a christmas present for mothers and aunties.

Or is it just more of the same? You decide...