Lt Meat's Newsplort!!!!

Musical Interlude for the giving gift of CHEESE

Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:11:02 +0000

For those of you who have always needed a reason to give, why not give the gift of cheese? Whilst you do it you can scream this song at your loved ones and no one will think it's weird. you'll become popular and never be alone again.

Over and out

Lt Meat

Musical Interlude for Failed Professional Basketball Players

Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:07:45 +0000

Hoop Dreams.mp3

Bust those moves or die trying

NEW ALBUMen

Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:33:57 +0000

Well I've had the most frustrating and boring day of my life. I haven't done anything. I tried to write some new music but I can't play my guitar anymore......................never mind I was destined for the bargain bin anyway.

So here are some names for songs off my new, never to be made, album Beer Wizardry.

Whycan'tyoubeagentleclinker
Trash Vortex
Storm Of The Daggers (feat. Beefcore)
Wheels Of Homo
Urban Death Maze ****this song has actually been made****
And That's When The Chuds Came At Me
Pork Ruined
Titty-Cash
Uncontrollable Dick Beard
Titan's Fart Pond
Senior Graffiti Dogpoo
Jazz Spasm At The Grand Chasm
Ancient Gravy (What's that smell)
Clive Granger Danger
The Cheeseman
Ruined Shirt Hurt
"Only If You Pay Me To And Then I'll Think About It"
Curtain Derail
March Over Beef Mountain
Strained Pain Stain
21 Seconds To Go

Thanks for listening I'll be seeing you.

Lt Meat

Some Serious Men

Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:47:22 +0000

Hello,

This easter weekend I have been mostly watching films. Some on TV and some not so on TV. Firstly, I must express some disappointment at the Coens newest feature A Serious Man. I think I just didn't really get it, or maybe I did, but I found it very slow and not actually funny and with an annoying non-ending. I know the Coens are clever and they can be funny without actual jokes, but the pace of this film was just so slow (with any threat of action ending in a jump cut to the beggining of the next slowly moving dialogue-heavy scene) that any real comedy or enjoyment from the irony of the protagonists worsening situation was just lost on me...............and also on my friends who were watching this film at the same time as me. An unscrupulous re-edit might get some pace into the movie and just make it more watchable.

It was so slow in fact that I had to force myself to try and analyze the themes during the film just to try and keep some interest in it. I think, and I'm not really sure that I care, that the film was quite an angry anti-religious movie. Although this analysis was confusing me at certain points where the film seems to split into two movies, one pro-Judaism and one-anti Judaism, so maybe that's the point? The conflicting/contradictory feelings of coping in a jewish family in the 1950s? I'm probably completely wrong and anyone who thinks anything else feel free to correct me. Apparently the film was based on the Coens own experiences growing up in a jewish family, which pre-movie sounded like a pretty good concept since the Coens can be greatly weird story tellers when they're in their element, which I would think real life experience should surely be.

Alas....................no. It seems the real life experiences of the Coens are better placed when guiding 'The Dude' or influencing oddly surreal stories in Fargo or The Hudsucker Proxy. A Serious Man is a serious movie, it's not a bad movie but it's not a good movie either (which is pretty much how I felt about another Coen's movie The Man Who Wasn't There which was on TV recently). I did just about sit through the film with the hope that some action may kick in at the finale to weave the various story-arcs and subplots together, but it didn't. If you're a Coens fan then you have to check it out as it's a Coen brothers film. Some other friends gave me good reviews after seeing the film, some not so good. Maybe it's a case of watching it yourself and making your mind up and if that's my conclusion then I suck and should re-edit myself and shut up!.................that's not my conclusion though, SEE BELOW.

The second film I watched this weekend is the low-budget British movie Shifty. The film follows two childhood friends as they meet up for the first time in years after a tragedy forced one of the characters (ex-dealer Chris) to bugger off leaving the other character (Shifty himself, the current neighbourhood dealer) to cope with the fall out. I don't want to say too much about the plot to avoid spoiling it, but it takes place over a day, it's tense in parts and warming in others to see these two characters trying to have some fun amidst selling crack to old ladies and dealing with mad drug dealers. It struck a chord in me which A Serious Man didn't. Perhaps because I was never jewish, but growing up in a small welsh town I did share some similar experiences to the guys in Shifty.

**(ALTHOUGH FOR LEGAL REASONS I MUST STATE THAT I HAVE NEVER SOLD CRACK TO O.A.PS) not yet anyway**

I just liked Shifty, the acting and dialogue was believable and plot suitably involved and tense. Is it a film about the dangers of drugs? Yes, in many ways it is, but it's also a film about the dangers of growing up and taking on responsibilities. None of the characters really have much to do other than sell or consume illegal substances, but they have families and friends that receive the impacts of their actions. The brief moments of friendship that begin to reappear between the two main characters are cut short by either having to drop off some cocaine to a customer or by some disgruntled junkie showing up at the wrong time.

It's well worth a watch and it's a british movie too so you can feel good about supporting the economy............errr somehow. PS, also check out London to Brighton which was darker than Shifty, but also a very good British crime movie of recent years.

So do I have a point? To be perfectly honest I think it's just that most US studio financed movies are destined to suck and small british movies have to stand out in the global film industry. The Coens do a good job generally producing some interesting and original movies, but possibly their time as the left-field mavericks is nearing an end. Maybe some other brothers can rise up and take their place?Some british brothers who'll make films about botched post office heists set in Yorkshire with the main female lead as a failed page three girl who due to a freak accident during a photo shoot is now forced to wear an eye patch and only has one real tit, the other one being filled with cocaine for some reason that never really gets explained? Hopefully not.

To Joel and Ethan I apologise for not liking your film, maybe I'll watch it again some day, but maybe not. To Shifty I say congratulations!!! You are a good film and I look forward to seeing more of you.

Cheers ears

Lt Meat

ZOMBIES

Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:38:13 +0000

Dear the World,

It's been a while since my last rant and, since I'm bored of strangling my guitar (with no decent results yet), I thought I'd review a film for y'all.

Last night Successful Local Businessman Darran Ward came over to my flat and in a successful attempt at avoiding skateboarding we sat on my sofa and watched the latest George A Romero zombie flick Survival of the Dead. I'm generally a fan of the zombie genre although certainly not a connoisseur, however this film was really weird. It was either the most thought provoking post-apocalyptic family saga I've ever seen, a pure artistic thought-punch of genius, a satirical allegory poking it's finger at the bitter irony of human decline or just a large pile of stinking shit!

The film poster is actually better than the film.

I can't quite put my finger on this film, the discussion currently undulating in my inner mind makes me question the wider content of crap discussions over the philosophical purpose of art. What is art? If art's purpose is to generate discussion, either by inciting angry or passionate responses, then this film is art. It is thought provoking, George A Romero's Survival of the Dead is a shining work of art.

It's just not good art, it's a very lazy film. Here's why in bullet point format.

The screenplay is underwritten and contains very little plot which is massively inconsistent (essentially a zombie family feud-saga or just a series of scenes where people get shot in the head and say random stuff, SWEET!!!!).
The photography is boring and uninspiring.
The CGI is annoyingly bad (CGI George A? that's not how you should roll).
The acting is bad, very bad.
The zombies have reverted back to the pre-Dawn of the Dead Remake slowshufflingbraindeadnotatallworrying type zombies that offer the, armed to the teeth, characters about as much threat as the possibility of not having any bog roll in the next john they happen across when needing a shit.
Several characters with proven quick and accurate shooting skills randomly lose their abilities at key points throughout the film, generally resulting in their demise.
One character is shown as a zombie only to appear later in full human form, whaaaaaa? Don't worry, they're twins dummy! it just wasn't mentioned for the first hour of the film, it's all cool George A has it dialled.

I kind of liked it as an appreciation of bad filmmaking, I think any film student/amateur filmaker needs to watch this film before considering making their own zombie genre movie. They need to take notes and then go and do the exact opposite of whatever old George A did on this film. BULLET POINTS!

Don't use CGI, use visual FX.
get actors with some acting skills maybe some BIG HOLLYWOOD NAMES like Woody Harrelson.
make the dialogue snappy by adding some jokes, like the fact that toilet paper in the post apocalypse is hard to come by!!!! hahaha well I guess it would be? Unless zombies can work the machinery in the toilet paper factory, which they can't, FACT!
don't include any characters that are members of any type of family (especially irish families) and certainly don't have any kind of family feud going on during a zombie infested future apocalypse.
Basically go and make ZOMBIELAND, (only you can't because it's already been made, you lazy twat! Zombieland even addresses the potential (lack of) toilet paper problem that is likely to manifest in a zombie infested future apocalypse).

Zombieland rules! This film doesn't, but it's an important film in the context of the zombie genre. George A is after all a (un)living legend, I'd like to hold his filo-fax for him one day. I bet it's full of cool stuff like drawings of zombies getting shot in the head and phone numbers for actors no-one has ever heard of. I only hope that this film gets remade (reimaginated/rebootled/rejustingulated) in the future with the faster post Dawn of the Dead zombie types and maybe Woody Harrelson as the miserable army officer and that if it is remade old George A is at the writer/director helm.

I hope this review did not help you at all with your life.

Over and out

Lt Meat.

George A Romero - The un-living legend!!!! (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm soooo clever)

PS Grim lent me a pile of Zombie movies to watch and/or review so keep your eyes peeled.

Musical Interlude for Boredom 05.

Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:51:03 +0000

Hello!

Here is more boredom for you. Somehow writing a dissertation is quite inspiring in a depressing sort of way. I have a small amount of time to bugger about with Reason in between writing Chapters for it, none of which make any sense. ;)>

Tube Station Malfunction.mp3

Enjoy.

Lt Meat

Muscial Interlude for Boredom 04.

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:19:10 +0000

Hello Team!

More boredom, I think there is some frustration in this music as well. I have too much too do, but too many distractions..............and not enough money.

Space Clone.mp3

Enjoy

Lt Meat

Musical Interlude for Boredom 03.

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:53:01 +0000

This one is not technically a new piece of music but a kind of remix/attempt to finish a really old song. Hopefully it will kill 6 minutes of your tired little lives. It did over three years of mine.

Enjoy!

Lt Meat

PizanoxChops.mp3

Star Trek? or Trek Wars? Star Trek Wars!

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:17:57 +0000

Dear viewers,

I think, as I'm supposed to be writing my masters degree dissertation as I write this, that I'm going to be adding quite a few blog entries over the next few weeks as minor distractions to my more pressing work at hand. I'm not helped by my oh so considerate neighbours, who are listening to my favourite Ministry of Sound compilation album really loudly which does help me when reading and considering academic city theories, it really does, it isn't distracting to the point of frustrated explosively rage-fueled, rolling pin equipped murderous revenge. It's fine, I wouldn't do that anyway, I'm a nice guy...................and they're bigger than me.

So, to get some form of respite and before I go completely nuts I thought I'd give it a break for now and tell you all, whoever you may be, about two films YES TWO!!!! that I sat and watched last night whilst drinking a nice 2004 Rioja.

Firstly................

That's right, the first film I watched last night was of course Star Trek. Not one of the ones with baldy Jean Luc Picard in, but the new one (Amazon have it listed as Star Trek XI but I thought it was the first of a new bunch just called Star Trek, but there you go). An enjoyable film, I won't spoil the plot here (yes I will just later on), but suffice to say they've (not really) sucessfully managed, through the plot of this film, to set up a new bunch of character 'versions' of our old Trekkie favourites each with subtle differences from their predecessors, that can no doubt be further explored in many more new Star Trek movies to come.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, American TV and now Hollywood is hopefully, finally, giving up on 'remaking' old shit but instead has got into 'reimagining' old shit TV shows and films instead. I've recently watched the 'reimagined' Battlestar Galactica series, from start to finish. It's not bad, it certainly killed a few months of my life and went a little way to filling the TV void left by the end of The Wire. However, the 'reimagined' Knightrider is utter BALLS. PLEASE DON'T TOUCH THE A-TEAM unless I come up with the concept and it includes me as Murdoc and Matthew Stemp as Face.

So how does it work? Well you don't just remake the same old crap with new people. You have to use the original as a template and think up a way to include it in your new 'reimagined' version to make it uber legit. Battlestar Galactica set itself in the future 40 years after the original series, in the pilot you get to see the old Cylons and the old Viper Star Fighters and through a plot-twist of fate only the old Vipers are left for the new characters to use in a new war against new 'reimagined' Cylons, are you starting to get it? Next, you get a bunch of relatively unknown actors and actresses, make one of them play a 'reimagined' version of an old character, as in the case of one Kara Thrace aka Starbuck. She isn't Face from the A-Team anymore she's a binge-drinking, tom-dude of a sexually frustrated Viper pilot who plays by her own rules and doesn't respect her superiors, but is deeply religious for some unknown reason. Once you've assembled your acting team you make them act! Not bad acting like in a remake but good acting, hard acting, method acting. With stories about unrequited love, drug abuse, social breakdown and general bleak views allegorically linked to today's most hotly discussed social topics such as, errr the fuel crisis and errrr wars your acting team will be pulling in the punters in no time. Much better than a shit remake of something we've already seen.

Face from the A-Team, not Matthew Stemp from London.

The sexy new Starbuck, and yes she can take a punch.

Still with me? What? No? Well lets now look at Star trek. In the very beginning of the film we see the grizzly old chops of a certain Mr Lenard Nimoy! shown as a rotating computerised head (I bet Shatner's turning in his grave over Nimoy getting a part). What's this? the audience asks perplexed. Is Nimoy playing an old Vulcan in another role? NO........? No he is Spock! we're told this by Eric Bana who himself plays a 'reimagined' pissed off Romulan, covered in tattoos and looking like he needs a heavy dose of Lynx Africa* before he goes out on the pull down old Romulus high Street (*other Lynx flavours are available). So, an old Spock is in this one? then who is Sylar from Heroes? He's Spock as well.......what the?.................I see, back in time.........then there's two of them..........from an alternative future............aaaaaaah I see.

Using time travel as a crappy plot vehicle this film is not a prequel, not a remake but a 'reimagined' Star Trek in a 'reimagined' new universe with slightly different stuff and slightly different characters. Young Spock is emotional and sexy, no doubt we'll see more of this emotional outrage in later movies, young Kirk is angry at the death of his father and sexy, Uhura is errrr sexy, the japanese guy is sexy and has a foldable samurai sword and Chekov has bizarrely curly ginger hair and is sexy? Well no he isn't really. All the other characters are there too, Scotty, Bones, Jean Luc Picard, Captain Janeway, Commander Sisco, Quark, Ben Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, Buzz Lightyear and of course the sexually frustrated, paranoid and bi-polar blue-gas being Craig Sheckelford. I shouldn't whine too much as I enjoyed the film, there's some nice in jokes too where the guy in the red suit, who no one likes, dies straight away and Kirk puts his cock in a woman with green skin, which is nice. In the case of both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek 'reimagining' works.

So what's my point? I don't know. I've spent years 'reimagining' stuff myself. Me and Dave Beer wrote Ghostbusters III (subtitled Paranormal Police) ages ago, in our minds, and it was essentially a cool 'reimagined' version of the first film with all of the original cast plus the cast of American Pie thrown in to boot! I conclude by stating that 'reimagining' old shit is good and is hopefully the way forward for more cool TV shows and movies. Providing the rules for 'reimagining' are clearly laid out, and adhered to, TV and film companies will have years worth of stuff for us to point our intrigued glassy eyes at. As long as 'they' leave the A-Team alone. I think Quantum Leap could be a good one for the 'reimagining' treatment. In fact that's my idea so fuck off!

**I am worried though, Knightrider steams a bright shade of brown on Channel 5's shitty US sub-channel FIVER. With Val Kilmer as the voice of Kit sounding strangely less human than Val Kilmer himself, who is actually a piece of cardboard covered in dog's piss. On reflection though Knightrider is a remake and not a 'reimagining' so my statement currently stands and it can remain a pile of crap.**

Oh yeah, I did say I watched two films but I'm bored now so film two will have to wait. Now fuck off my roast dinner is cooked!

Over and out.

Lt Meat

Lets 'reimagine' Shatner! Fuck yeah!

Musical Interlude for Boredom 02.

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:47:38 +0000

I really need to stop doing this, but it's nice to have a distraction from what I'm supposed to be doing. This piece is rather heavy compared to Musical Interlude 01. It's called You Can't Return Your Hepatitis (But You Can Try).

Enjoy!!!

Lt Meat

YouCantReturnYourHepatitis.mp3