Pynchon

Tedious? Yes. Sure is. Especially when it is me who causes the fight. Let me explain.

Last night I had a plan. Get home from the cinema ("30 Days Of Night", which I will go into in a minute) sometime around 5pm. Chill for half an hour. 5:30pm. Cook for 35 minutes. (10 minutes to heat the oven, 25 minutes to cook the breaded chicken and prepare the salad.) 6:05pm. Eat food. 6:20pm. Chill with Lorraine for 25 minutes. 6:45pm. Disappear upstairs to watch "The X-Factor". (Lorraine has expressed a mighty disinterest in watching it this year, so I go upstairs to watch it on the TV in the front bedroom. Sue me. I like "The X-Factor". I find it entertaining.)

Last night the plan was ruined. Why? Because Lorraine decided to strip all of the beds and wash the sheets.

I explained to Lorraine, between gritted teeth, that if I was going to be going upstairs to watch "The X-Factor", as she insists that it is a piece of shit and would rather watch that other piece of shit called "Robin Hood", I would have to make my bed before doing so, as I refuse to lie on a bed that is unmade. (Yes, I did say 'my bed'. I am still banished to the front bedroom. 11 months now and counting and, No, I didn't think it would go on so long.) I pointed out that if I had to make my bed it would probably take me some time, because I was not yet over the cold (sniffles, breathlessness and generally feeling shit), I would not be able to cook beforehand and so we would be eating later.

I could say there were words, but that would not be correct. It was actually a very quiet evening. The quiet of the post apocalyptic landscape.

I made my bed. I watched "The X-Factor". In the 45 minutes between the main show and the results show I cooked the food and ate the food. (Lorraine picked at it.) I went back upstairs and watched the results show. I went downstairs to find Lorraine watching "High School Musical" (which I have never seen, and the 10 minutes of it that I did see convinced me that I have no wish to ever see it again) despite the fact that earlier we had decided to watch something on the DVD, so I came up here, did a quick (mysterious?) post and went to bed.

I regret it. I could have followed the original plan. There was time to cook. I could have just flung a duvet over my bed and lay on that watching "The X-Factor" and made the bed later, but I didn't want to. I just wanted to argue and make a point. No wonder Lorraine is sick of me. I am pretty sick of myself. I am not a nice person.

********

"30 Days Of Night".


Barrow, Alaska. The most Northerly town in the United States. During the longest night of the year (er... that would be the '30 days of night' of the title) a group of vampires descend on the town, feeding on everyone that they can find. A group of people, led by an young sheriff, fight to survive the onslaught. Will these people make it until daybreak? Ah... Well that is the question. You will have to see the movie to find out, won't you?

Frankly, I think the above setup for a horror movie is absolutely fantastic and brilliant and original (until somebody tells me that it has been done before) and I was really looking forward to seeing it. Plenty of scope for an full blooded "Dawn Of The Dead" battle-for-survival-against-incredible-odds, kind of a movie. It is such a shame that the execution of the idea left so much to be desired.

Yes, the vampires are truly fantastic creations. Evil, gross, vicious, animal like mutations. Danny Huston, as their (Hungarian speaking?) almost philosophical leader, is great and made me shiver every time he appeared onscreen. There is wonderful cinematography, in the latter stages focusing on the white of the snow and the red of the blood, and some brilliant scene construction, showing at a distance the carnage and mayhem on the ground. But, sadly and possibly inevitably, "30 Days Of Night" commits the cardinal sin of any horror movie. When the monsters' are not onscreen, it is really boring and slow.

Maybe it is down to the cast. I don't know. I didn't find them interesting. "Hard Candy" proves that David Slade can direct a pacy, interesting film with a minimal cast, when that cast is good. (That film is practically a two hander throughout.) I must say that even as a longstanding Josh Harnett apologist (I like him, really I do), I felt that his performance this time is particularly vacant and definitely nothing to write home about.

"30 Days Of Night" is not terrible, but it is not what it could have been.

Labels: Arguments, Movies