Jump to content

Plissken

Supporters
  • Posts

    23,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Plissken

  1. Someone pointed out the astonishing coincidence of discovering that the PL were investigating Man City the very same week that the Government were publishing their white paper on football governance.

  2. 1 minute ago, Ork1927 said:

    I assume Juventus and Real Madrid are on the phone to Man City right now - how about Super League 2 then?

     

    The thing about the European Super League was that they would still be part of their own country's league.

     

    But even then the PL gave them a slap on the wrist.

  3. 1 minute ago, redbloodcell said:

     

    He posted this one too:

    Does anyone know if relegation release clauses are standard in footballer contracts? 

     

    They are not.

     

    And there is no chance in hell that it will happen.  Not least because the PL have ignored plenty of stuff in the past (not least Everton last season with FFP and not banning Richarlison until after the season, allowing him to score vital goals).

  4. 2 hours ago, glb said:

    This doesn’t really have a point, just always had a fascination with stadia. Grounds like Roots Hall, with what feels like its entrance through a terraced house, are near enough museum pieces, curious flashbacks to distant era.

     

    You're me, and I claim my five pounds. (I love seeing behind the scenes of stadia.)

     

    I don't have any nostalgia for those grounds though, although I don't mind watching footage and thinking about it.  Far too many of them - in hindsight - were crumbling deathtraps.  I've been in crushes at Old Trafford, Anfield, the Hawthorns and any number of lower division grounds.

     

    I do want to get to Kenilworth Road before they knock it down though.

  5. Bank of Dave (2.5/5)

     

    Well, this is a complicated one to write about.  Let's try it as a standard film.  It's based on the true story of a Burnley businessman who wants to set up a localbank to help his deprived community. He engages a firm of London lawyers, who send one of them North to basically tell him why there has been no new bank started in 150 years.  Said lawyer slowly realises the reason for this, while being charmed by the titular Dave and charming his niece, Alexandra.

     

    It's a mishmash of three standard tropes, the underdog story, the fish out of water and the opposites attract romcom.  These are pretty well-travelled paths and the film absolutely does not misstep on any of them.  You know what is going to happen, the interest is getting there.  The cast know their brief and do their jobs well.  Rory Kinnear nails Dave, understanding that beneath the outgoing bonhomie is a sharp operator.  Hugh Bonneville knows how to play an evil banker. Joel Fry and Phoebe Denyvor make a decent couple.  Cathy Tyson and Paul Kaye do the "local colour" characters and nail the accents perfectly.  (Someone earlier mentioned a patronising scene of not being able to understand the local accent... my wife has trouble with it when we go over and I've been with her for 26 years!) The story plays out, Tab A goes into Slot B.  The political commentary seems absolutely crowbarred in, but needed to be said.  The baddies are pantomime but none the worse for that. It doesn't quite stick the landing but as far as I am concerned, it is a very passable hour and forty minutes that won't exercise the brain cells but is perfect for a nice evening in.

     

    However, because I'm from the area, there is some vague thoughts that contains spoilers that I'll hide.  Mainly about the truth of the film and the story.

     

    Spoiler

    You know when you watching a film that was shot in an area you know, and you consciously or subconsciously spot the joins where they move from one location to the next?  Try an entire film of that but also regarding the plot.

     

    I know the real Dave in the same way everyone in a small town knows everyone else. Met him a couple of times, and Rory Kinnear plays him exactly like he is. The problem I have is that not that the basic story is true.  He did lend a lot of money (in small amounts, to people who needed it) and yes, it was always paid back. So he needed to put that on a proper footing and he did indeed work with lawyers Down South to set up a lending business.  I walk past the actual Burnley Savings and Loans office every two weeks on the way to Turf Moor.

     

    And that's key. From that point onwards, the film diverges massively from reality.  It's not a bank.  It's an independent lender. There is no banking licence, the actions of London bankers didn't happen.  No court case. The Concert for Dave is a massive crowd pleaser, but... no.  It's so jarring to see scenes filmed at the real Turf Moor, including the dressing room and tunnels and then flick to a CGI shot that gets it very, very wrong because the Turf simply is way too small.  In real life, that stage would be about 18 yards wide and four feet high.

     

    The "not understanding the locals" scene mentioned above? I didn't have a problem with that, because I understood him. And then I mentally followed the directions and then went, "no, they're wrong..."

     

    Despite this, I enjoyed myself.  I liked the court case scene, I thought that was nicely written.  The concert didn't work for me but ultimately, if provides the feel-good ending they wanted.  Don't have a problem with that.

     

    If I didn't know any of this, I suspect I'd have enjoyed it even more.  Just those little moments of "Hey, they're in the Royal Dyche... and now they're not..." or "yeah, heard about that... but it didn't happen that way...", were just too much and too often for me personally to actually properly relax and enjoy it.  Maybe a rewatch is required now that I know.

     

  6. 24 minutes ago, Chooch said:

    He’s a really good footballer which means someone will play him. Unfortunately.

     

    Which reminds me, I'm going to the Turf next week to watch the game against Preston and Ched Evans plays for them.

  7. On a related note, I suppose I'll put it here rather than the Championship thread, but the reason for Sheffield United being under a transfer embargo is that they have been missing payments to Liverpool for Rhian Brewster.

     

    As a Sheff Wed fan put it.

     

    Quote

    Sheffield United have been under a transfer embargo since the middle of January for not keeping up repayments to another club on a previous signing. It's emerged this morning that this relates to not paying Liverpool for Rhian Brewster. That really is the transfer that keeps on giving and must be one of the most disastrous deals of the modern era. They went outside their budget to sign him for £25m in the summer of 2020, then they didn't use him right so he didn't score a goal, United got relegated from the Premier League and Chris Wilder got the sack as a consequence. Last season he managed a whole three goals (plus another in the League Cup), got injured and didn't play after the end of January and ended the campaign getting charged with assault (which the CPS dropped before it reached court) in the mayhem at the City Ground after the play offs. This season he has managed a single goal in a game they lost anyway at Stoke and hasn't appeared since the end of October because he's injured again. Now this. Well done everybody.

     

  8. Tebas doesn't have a Barca blind-spot, in that he's been trying to get them to act sensibly for a few seasons now and they have reacted by finding loopholes.  He's also not wrong when he is having a go at the excesses of the Premier League.  (The Fernandez transfer has made the move he made from River Plate to Benfica the richest transfer in Argentinian football history and the add-ons have single handledly made River the richest club in the country.)

     

    However, he is getting way above his station and seeing himself as some kind of arbiter of FFP in football. I suspect the Bundesliga and Serie A are happy for him to fire their bullets for them, especially with Juve and Inter currently in deep trouble for accounting trickery.

     

     

  9. FA Cup fifth round draw

     

    Southampton v Luton or Grimsby
    Leicester City v Blackburn or Birmingham
    Stoke City v Brighton
    Wrexham or Sheffield United v Tottenham
    Fulham or Sunderland v Leeds United
    Bristol City v Manchester City
    Manchester United v Derby or West Ham
    Ipswich or Burnley v Sheffield Wednesday or Fleetwood
     

  10. 5 hours ago, Wiper said:

     

    Having never seen the film, and while I don't particularly want to watch a movie that is ruined by its ending, I am curious to know what the monumentally dumb thing is, if you don't mind writing it out?

     

    OK, spoiler.  (You should watch it because Woods and Dennehy are brilliant together.)

     

    Spoiler

    The plot is that Cleve (Woods) used to be the hitman for David Madlock, a crooked businessman.  He got pushed out by said businessman after doing all the dirty work.  Ex-cop Meechum (Dennehy) is a crime author with writers block.  Cleve approaches Meechum with the story of Madlock's rise that if written up will destroy Madlock and be a best seller.

     

    The finale has Madlock kidnapping Meechums daughter, Holly, and holding her in his mansion.  Meechum goes to the mansion to negotiate her release for which Madlock demands the manuscript. Cleve is also attacking the mansion knocking off Madlocks bodyguards.

     

    Cut to a standoff on a staircase.  Cleve wants to kill Madlock, Madlock wants to kill them both and has shot Meechum in the leg. Meechum wants to take Madlock in alive. Cleve and Madlock have guns pointed at each other.  Meechum is trying to persuade Cleve not to kill Madlock.  We have our triangle and wondering who will shoot first.  Cleve is at the top of the staircase, Madlock is at the bottom, Meechum is standing on the lower floor.

     

    Spoiler

    Holly appears out of the room at the top of the stairs, sees the scene, shouts "Daddy!" and then... runs straight past Cleve, down the stairs and directly into waiting arms of Madlock.  There was no need for her to do so (she was safe at the top of the stairs) and she couldn't get to her dad because there was a bloke with a gun blocking the way.  She literally ran from safety into danger and at no point in the five seconds or so of this does she think, "The only place that I can possibly head to is the arms of the man who kidnapped me and shot my dad, and I'm quite happy to run past the armed man that I just saw kill several people in cold blood rather than going back into that perfectly safe room that I've just come from".

     

    More spoilers...

     

    Spoiler

    It's a setup for the characters fates, which is that Cleve throws his gun away and is shot by Madlock, therefore getting his heroic death and Madlock done for murder, which is the ending for the book. Meechum arrests Madlock.

    There are a million other ways it could have been done.  Madlock shoots Cleve, goes to shoot Meechum and Cleve with his final breath shoots Madlock who survives but is arrested.  Inserting a minor character who does a very stupid thing was the absolute worst choice. 

     

     

     

  11. When directors put cool things into films for no other reason that it looks pretty cool and nerds loudly go on the internet and equally loudly demand the back story for said cool thing so the writers sigh and come up with something to explain the thing that only existed because it looked cool and then the nerds go back onto the internet to complain about the explanation because it's rubbish and didn't fit their imagination exactly, even though the whole point was to leave it to the viewer to have fun imagining.  So ultimately you end up with entire films of stuff for nerds to endlessly argue and nit-pick and gatekeep about.

  12. Anyway, I've mentioned it before but the end of the otherwise excellent James Woods/Brian Dennehy thriller Best Seller features a character doing something so monumentally dumb as to ruin the entire film.  Even the writer, Larry Cohen, said "we need to fix that bit", but was ignored.

     

    Quote

    Cohen says the film " didn’t do that well" financially "even though— as I keep saying— it was a good picture all the way up to the climax. I don’t want to go on about it, but they killed the movie with that conclusion and it’s amazing how you can do that. If they had made that one little cut I suggested, maybe the word of mouth would have been a little better and Best Seller could have made some money."

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.