da hat wohl wer etwas falsch verstanden:
11 July, 2007
Die Freuden der telefonischen Kommunikation
ein paket, an die firma "Dangaard" geschickt...
da hat wohl wer etwas falsch verstanden:
da hat wohl wer etwas falsch verstanden:
A Blade, 6 Strings and an annoying Kid
for a quirky post-apocalypse idea, it doesnt get any better than a rockabilly, buddy holly lookalike wandering the wastelands, brandshing a katana on his way to Lost Vegas to become elvis' successor as the new king of rock'n'roll...
this is "Six-String Samurai"
as much potential as the concept has, as many flaws has its execution.
our aptly named hero, "Buddy", strolls through the barren lands of what used to be the home of the free, battling cave-men, crazed bowlers and spacesuit wearing mutants along the way.
even though the comedic mixture of rock'n'roll coolness and westernised martial arts seems to blend well at first, the simple fact that not a single drop of blood is shed in the entire movie, leaves us wanting. as overly stylised the fight scenes seem at first, as nauseatingly mtv-like they become after a few seconds (a lot of slo-mo a good scene does not make!)Buddy picks up his (and the plots) biggest burden along the way in the form of "the Kid", a seemingly retarded child that becomes enfatuated with the mysterious, sword-wielding drifter. as they walk the earth, the Kid becomes ever more annoying, 
yet the plot is written so unfortunately that we are faced with an ultimately essential character. why writers do this i will never understand, but i digress.
as the story progresses, we see the hero square off with all manner of bad guys, always being trailed by none other than Death himself, in the form of a heavy metal guitarist and his band, hell bent (so to speak) on replacing rock'n'roll as the reigning form of guitar music.
as i suspected upon reading the opening credits, this film showcases the (fairly unoriginal) rock'n'roll repertoire of "the Red Elvises". i may be biased in this, as i am far from a rock music fan, but their brand of beach boy-esque riffs just seem so
generic, its hard not to have it fall to the back of ones attention.
all in all, i was looking forward to this flick, simply because the idea of a comedic "Road Warrior" seemed appealing, but alas, poor scriptwriting and amateurish acting slits the throat of this film, much like the victims of Buddy's katana sword.
trailer:
IMDB
this is "Six-String Samurai"
as much potential as the concept has, as many flaws has its execution.
our aptly named hero, "Buddy", strolls through the barren lands of what used to be the home of the free, battling cave-men, crazed bowlers and spacesuit wearing mutants along the way.
even though the comedic mixture of rock'n'roll coolness and westernised martial arts seems to blend well at first, the simple fact that not a single drop of blood is shed in the entire movie, leaves us wanting. as overly stylised the fight scenes seem at first, as nauseatingly mtv-like they become after a few seconds (a lot of slo-mo a good scene does not make!)Buddy picks up his (and the plots) biggest burden along the way in the form of "the Kid", a seemingly retarded child that becomes enfatuated with the mysterious, sword-wielding drifter. as they walk the earth, the Kid becomes ever more annoying, yet the plot is written so unfortunately that we are faced with an ultimately essential character. why writers do this i will never understand, but i digress.as the story progresses, we see the hero square off with all manner of bad guys, always being trailed by none other than Death himself, in the form of a heavy metal guitarist and his band, hell bent (so to speak) on replacing rock'n'roll as the reigning form of guitar music.
as i suspected upon reading the opening credits, this film showcases the (fairly unoriginal) rock'n'roll repertoire of "the Red Elvises". i may be biased in this, as i am far from a rock music fan, but their brand of beach boy-esque riffs just seem so
generic, its hard not to have it fall to the back of ones attention.all in all, i was looking forward to this flick, simply because the idea of a comedic "Road Warrior" seemed appealing, but alas, poor scriptwriting and amateurish acting slits the throat of this film, much like the victims of Buddy's katana sword.
trailer:
IMDB
08 July, 2007
It's all happenin now!
ive been waiting for this for the better part of a decade, and its finally going to become a reality!
my good friend Beezwax is about to drop his first long-player on the unsuspecting (or are they? check the interviews and reviews!) uk hiphop heads.
i remember the days back in london at B's appartment where i would say things like "hey B, i love that beat man, i can see hearing that shit on the radio or yo, mtv raps!", and lo and behold, a few years later that very beat made it onto wax in the form of the superb "On Guard", being laced with the subtle lyrical talent of Taurus (look out for this emcee, his lyrics hit you a while after the first listen!).
i always knew Beezwax would make it, and after hearing Laba Sens' first finished (and sadly, unreleased) tune, there was no more room left for doubt.
so here we are... july 2007, and "The Sting Operation" is about to be let loose on the rap community.the road was long and arduous and i wish i could have been more involved than i was.
the day i heard none other than Rodney P say something to the effect of "its quite good, innit" in response to Skitz playing B's first major release "Best of British" by Arms Length, on their online radio show on BBC's 1Xtra, i couldnt help but feel somewhat jealous... i knew then and there that the ball had started to roll and not much was going to stop it.
then the videos started droppin and again i was baffled at the quality of them all...
first came "Metropolitics" featuring "Arms Length", released by Kemet Entertainment
then Beezwax put out the video to "Dead Stranger" featuring Keys (my personal favourite), making sweet love to our audio-visual pussies
he went on to found his own record label "Out in the West", immediately signing up-and-coming emcee Taurus. he proceeded to release the 12'' which included Keys' "Dead Stranger"his former "Arms Length"-partner, Darkus' What's Poppin Remix with Kyza (Terrafirma) & Triggs
and Keys & Darkus collab record "Westmen"(Buy it here).
he didnt let himself get tied down by his love for hiphop, though. reading the signs of the time, he then launched his first grime missile in the form of Sick Sens Cru's "They should Know", complete with video and all!
but that still wasnt enough. the new single by Soul Nana "My Girl" shows that Beezwax doesnt shy away from catering to the softer side of the musical spectrum.
but i feel like i need to let the music speak for itself, so here are a few tasty samples and tunes to show you what you you can expect from the "Sting Operation"...
after that, i really dont think i can say anything else, but...
buy the album dropping on July 16th!!
distributed by Genepool/Universal and Crownn Records it will be available at HMV, Virgin and all other good records shops in london and soon also worldwide.
for downloads, check iTunes.
for more info, contact, music, videos etc., visit the following pages:
Beezwax homepage
Beezwax remixes
Beezwax videos
Out in the West Grime Time
reviews & interviews:
Blues & Soul interview
Rago Magazine interview
UKHH.com review of "Black Clouds/On Guard"
Rapnews.co.uk review of "Black Clouds/On Guard"
like Roots Manuva said... Big Tings Fi Gwan!!
07 July, 2007
Why I can leave out the "I think"
When having political discussions, or in fact any discussion with diverging opinions, people always find it necessary to say "I think" or "in my view" or something of that sort, to make it clear that an opinion is being uttered. But why should this be necessary??
People are always easily offended by absolute sentences like: it is wrong to do x. Of course this tendency does not restrict itself to the ethical or political realm; people may easily be offended by absolute statements about aesthetics like: EMO is a load of shit. The reason why people are more offended when it comes to ethical or political statements is because ethics and politics are far more serious and important to our personal well-being than most other things. Ethical and political statements are almost always value judgements and most people are of the opinion that value judgements can never be absolute. They think this, because they say people are determined by their genes and by the experience they've gained, and of course these two factors can never allow for an absolutely encompassing judgement about any subject.
This brand of moral relativism hasn't been around for such a long time, but relativism/skepticism in an epistemological sense has. It dates back to the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who denied that it is possible to know the very nature of things. Pyrrhonists were very fond of making this doctrine clear by avoiding stating: "this house is red", and instead saying: "it APPEARS to me that this house is red" or "I THINK that this house is red". In this same way people nowadays avoid absolute statements by always adding "I think" before stating anything.
What I disagree with is the following: if we all think it's impossible to utter the nature of things, then why do we feel the need to make this fact obvious?? If this is the human condition, then all we can do is present our interpretation of the nature of things. Why is it then necessary to state our human condition? Isn't the human condition always the same, regardless of whether we state it or not??
It's obvious that the human condition does not change irrespective of whether it's stated or not. Therefore it is not necesary to state it. Expressing it is merely a formal or an aesthetic act and not one of subtance, meaning that it's perfectly fine to leave out the "I think" when uttering your opinion in a discussion.
The reason why people become angry if the formal "I think" is left out, is because they feel that someone is judging something about which they have no right to make an absolute judgement. However, considering the afore-mentioned, can there ever be something about which a human can make an absolute judgement? Concerning things which stand outside our realm of experience, no, a human can never make an absolute judgement (things which can be conceived independently of whether they exist, can of course be conceived). Of course in matters concerning one's own being, it is possible to make an absolute judgement, since the body, actions or thoughts compose the realm of one's experience.
Another reason why people need to say "I think" is because the idea of this brand of skepticism has only been widely accepted for around 50 years or so. Before it was still believed that it was possible to make absolute judgements. However, since we all believe in skepticism, it has become unnecessary to say"I think".
Anyone who believes in skepticism knows that if I say: you're an asshole, it's the same as saying: I think you're an asshole, or: due to my experience and my beliefs, I think you're an asshole. These sentences all mean the same thing, since there are always underlying
assumptions whenever anything is said or done. So if anyone reading this meets a person who really still believes in absolute (moral) judgements, just have an epistemological discussion with him/her and if that person should still believe in absolute judgements, you can walk away content, knowing that whatever anyone says is his/her opinion and nothing more. So there's really no need to become angry if someone doesn't say "I think".
PS: Of course I say "I think", but I shouldn't need to!!
People are always easily offended by absolute sentences like: it is wrong to do x. Of course this tendency does not restrict itself to the ethical or political realm; people may easily be offended by absolute statements about aesthetics like: EMO is a load of shit. The reason why people are more offended when it comes to ethical or political statements is because ethics and politics are far more serious and important to our personal well-being than most other things. Ethical and political statements are almost always value judgements and most people are of the opinion that value judgements can never be absolute. They think this, because they say people are determined by their genes and by the experience they've gained, and of course these two factors can never allow for an absolutely encompassing judgement about any subject.
This brand of moral relativism hasn't been around for such a long time, but relativism/skepticism in an epistemological sense has. It dates back to the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who denied that it is possible to know the very nature of things. Pyrrhonists were very fond of making this doctrine clear by avoiding stating: "this house is red", and instead saying: "it APPEARS to me that this house is red" or "I THINK that this house is red". In this same way people nowadays avoid absolute statements by always adding "I think" before stating anything.
What I disagree with is the following: if we all think it's impossible to utter the nature of things, then why do we feel the need to make this fact obvious?? If this is the human condition, then all we can do is present our interpretation of the nature of things. Why is it then necessary to state our human condition? Isn't the human condition always the same, regardless of whether we state it or not??
It's obvious that the human condition does not change irrespective of whether it's stated or not. Therefore it is not necesary to state it. Expressing it is merely a formal or an aesthetic act and not one of subtance, meaning that it's perfectly fine to leave out the "I think" when uttering your opinion in a discussion.
The reason why people become angry if the formal "I think" is left out, is because they feel that someone is judging something about which they have no right to make an absolute judgement. However, considering the afore-mentioned, can there ever be something about which a human can make an absolute judgement? Concerning things which stand outside our realm of experience, no, a human can never make an absolute judgement (things which can be conceived independently of whether they exist, can of course be conceived). Of course in matters concerning one's own being, it is possible to make an absolute judgement, since the body, actions or thoughts compose the realm of one's experience.Another reason why people need to say "I think" is because the idea of this brand of skepticism has only been widely accepted for around 50 years or so. Before it was still believed that it was possible to make absolute judgements. However, since we all believe in skepticism, it has become unnecessary to say"I think".
Anyone who believes in skepticism knows that if I say: you're an asshole, it's the same as saying: I think you're an asshole, or: due to my experience and my beliefs, I think you're an asshole. These sentences all mean the same thing, since there are always underlying
assumptions whenever anything is said or done. So if anyone reading this meets a person who really still believes in absolute (moral) judgements, just have an epistemological discussion with him/her and if that person should still believe in absolute judgements, you can walk away content, knowing that whatever anyone says is his/her opinion and nothing more. So there's really no need to become angry if someone doesn't say "I think".
PS: Of course I say "I think", but I shouldn't need to!!
Paper Cuts
you know those times when youre trying to open a frozen pizza box or youre reading some type of magazine and turn the page clumsily?
after an initial small shock you think nothing of it... then about 87 seconds later you see that tiny red line form on your finger, that for some reason begins to itch and hurt at the same time.
yes, you did it! you cut yourself on that thin sheet of bleached and compressed woodpulp.
few things are more annoying than this mosquito of bodily injuries (perhaps a stubbed toe you accidently hit on the coffee table), not because of the sensation itself, but for its lasting and almost always unfortunate placement.
in the most exquisite and consistent proofs of murphy's law, the papercut will always find itself situated at a much-used place on your hand, so that every time you wash your hands, every time you reach for a cigarette, every time you start massaging yourself to that disgustingly graphic gonzo-porn you just downloaded, you will be reminded of your recent mishap.
and thats not all... it hurts! being that the fingers are laden with nerve-endings, paper cuts are disproportionately painful, making it that much more infuriating that you didnt take your time in opening that cursed pizza box more carefully.
as enlightened men have noted, all life is suffering. im sure one of the first and most powerful experiences that led them to this conclusion, was the paper cut.
after an initial small shock you think nothing of it... then about 87 seconds later you see that tiny red line form on your finger, that for some reason begins to itch and hurt at the same time.
yes, you did it! you cut yourself on that thin sheet of bleached and compressed woodpulp.
few things are more annoying than this mosquito of bodily injuries (perhaps a stubbed toe you accidently hit on the coffee table), not because of the sensation itself, but for its lasting and almost always unfortunate placement.
in the most exquisite and consistent proofs of murphy's law, the papercut will always find itself situated at a much-used place on your hand, so that every time you wash your hands, every time you reach for a cigarette, every time you start massaging yourself to that disgustingly graphic gonzo-porn you just downloaded, you will be reminded of your recent mishap.
and thats not all... it hurts! being that the fingers are laden with nerve-endings, paper cuts are disproportionately painful, making it that much more infuriating that you didnt take your time in opening that cursed pizza box more carefully.
as enlightened men have noted, all life is suffering. im sure one of the first and most powerful experiences that led them to this conclusion, was the paper cut.
06 July, 2007
The Professionals
over the years there have been quite a few films about sympathetic assassins, some better, some worse, but no two characters stick out of the bunch like two painfully raised sore thumbs like "Léon" and "Duke Togo" aka "Golgo 13".
both are unrivalled in their field and both seem to attract enmity from the most powerful of people.
though it is not stated anywhere, i find it hard to believe that luc besson didnt take a great deal (at least visually) from "Golgo 13":
moreover, their origins are both shrouded in mystery. we know Léon is an immigrant, but thats about it. we know practically nothing about where Duke Togo is from (i havent read the manga series, so if anyone has any more details on this, do enlighten us please).
they do differ from each other in one key aspect of their personality, though.
empathy.
Léon exhibits an almost child-like sweetness about him, while Golgo 13 virtually shows no emotion whatsoever. i doubt Duke would take on a ward of any kind, no matter the circumstances. he works alone, strictly alone.
Léon shows Mathilda the basics of taking a mark out at a distance:
Duke Togo displays his awesome sniping abilities:
while Léon is the man-child, virginal type, Duke Togo is the hardened (no pun intended), stone-cold womanising type (paying for your new spoofed-up car and modified m16 by bedding the sexy girl who made them for you is straight pimp!).
i guess its up to you to decide what kind of assassin you prefer...
IMDB:
Golgo 13 (1983)
Léon (1994)
more clips (*SPOILERS*):
Duke Togo vs. The Snake
Duke Togo vs. Gold & Silver
Léon and Mathilda knock on some doors
Léon vs. NYPD
both are unrivalled in their field and both seem to attract enmity from the most powerful of people.
though it is not stated anywhere, i find it hard to believe that luc besson didnt take a great deal (at least visually) from "Golgo 13":
moreover, their origins are both shrouded in mystery. we know Léon is an immigrant, but thats about it. we know practically nothing about where Duke Togo is from (i havent read the manga series, so if anyone has any more details on this, do enlighten us please).
they do differ from each other in one key aspect of their personality, though.
empathy.
Léon exhibits an almost child-like sweetness about him, while Golgo 13 virtually shows no emotion whatsoever. i doubt Duke would take on a ward of any kind, no matter the circumstances. he works alone, strictly alone.
Léon shows Mathilda the basics of taking a mark out at a distance:
Duke Togo displays his awesome sniping abilities:
while Léon is the man-child, virginal type, Duke Togo is the hardened (no pun intended), stone-cold womanising type (paying for your new spoofed-up car and modified m16 by bedding the sexy girl who made them for you is straight pimp!).
i guess its up to you to decide what kind of assassin you prefer...
IMDB:
Golgo 13 (1983)
Léon (1994)
more clips (*SPOILERS*):
Duke Togo vs. The Snake
Duke Togo vs. Gold & Silver
Léon and Mathilda knock on some doors
Léon vs. NYPD
03 July, 2007
Top 10 Documentaries
here are the top ten "must see" documentaries i have taken out of some underground mag...
for descriptions check imdb or wikipedia!
1. Paradise Lost
2. Capturing The Friedmans
3. Hoop Dreams
4. Winter Soldier
5. Gimme Shelter
6. The Thin Blue Line
7. The Devil & Daniel Johnston
8. Dogtown & Z-Boys
9. Grizzly Man
10. Das Himmler Projekt
i have only seen grizzly man of the above mentioned and thats definitely worth checkin out...
ill post some more comments on the rest as soon as the downloads have finished! hehe!
for descriptions check imdb or wikipedia!
1. Paradise Lost
2. Capturing The Friedmans
3. Hoop Dreams
4. Winter Soldier
5. Gimme Shelter
6. The Thin Blue Line
7. The Devil & Daniel Johnston
8. Dogtown & Z-Boys
9. Grizzly Man
10. Das Himmler Projekt
i have only seen grizzly man of the above mentioned and thats definitely worth checkin out...
ill post some more comments on the rest as soon as the downloads have finished! hehe!
Top 5 Final Fights
after watching a few kung-fu flicks last night, i felt the sudden urge to post my all-time top 5 final battles.
so, without any further ado... lets get it on!
quite possibly the most intense fight ever put on celluloid. both benny urquidez and keith vitali were stunned at the fact that jackie chan and sammo hung would tell them to keep fighting (and keep the camera rolling) despite the blows actually landing!
i guess i could have picked any number of fights from this movie, its just that good, but the final sequence takes the cake. first tony jaa runs through the henchmen like theyre made of paper, then takes on a roided-up lewis phantana in what can only be described as the post-millennium bar to be equalled by martial arts fights.
again, i guess there are a lot of fight sequences i could have picked (maybe not from this particular movie, but jet li has had some shining moments over the years), however this fight is so laden with energy its hard not to choose it.
the incredibly menacing shi-kwan yen was so overwhelming in his roll as the dark monk, that it took both donny yen and rongguang yu to take him down. while on the subject, shi-kwan yen's fight scene with jet li from "once upon a time in china" (1991) would also have been worth a mention, but alas, only 5 spots to give...
what would a 'best fights' post be without bruce lee? nothing, thats what! again, some of you might have gone with his final battle in "enter the dragon" (1973) or his much-praised fight with chuck norris in "way of the dragon" (1972), but bruce displays such raw anger in this scene (given the subject matter, its that much more believable), that it stands out in bruce's career.
so there you have it. my all time top 5 final fights. feel free to comment/chastise/praise me at will...
so, without any further ado... lets get it on!
quite possibly the most intense fight ever put on celluloid. both benny urquidez and keith vitali were stunned at the fact that jackie chan and sammo hung would tell them to keep fighting (and keep the camera rolling) despite the blows actually landing!
i guess i could have picked any number of fights from this movie, its just that good, but the final sequence takes the cake. first tony jaa runs through the henchmen like theyre made of paper, then takes on a roided-up lewis phantana in what can only be described as the post-millennium bar to be equalled by martial arts fights.
again, i guess there are a lot of fight sequences i could have picked (maybe not from this particular movie, but jet li has had some shining moments over the years), however this fight is so laden with energy its hard not to choose it.
the incredibly menacing shi-kwan yen was so overwhelming in his roll as the dark monk, that it took both donny yen and rongguang yu to take him down. while on the subject, shi-kwan yen's fight scene with jet li from "once upon a time in china" (1991) would also have been worth a mention, but alas, only 5 spots to give...
what would a 'best fights' post be without bruce lee? nothing, thats what! again, some of you might have gone with his final battle in "enter the dragon" (1973) or his much-praised fight with chuck norris in "way of the dragon" (1972), but bruce displays such raw anger in this scene (given the subject matter, its that much more believable), that it stands out in bruce's career.
so there you have it. my all time top 5 final fights. feel free to comment/chastise/praise me at will...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)