Michael Jackson's Xscape: Album review

Michael Jackson is one of the very few Pop singers I really like, and one of the few who had genuine talent, and who was once a true innovator. I had and still to this day by and large ignore popular music culture, but I still remember watching the 'You Rock my world' video and being wowed by it. From then on I bought all of his albums and watched all of the other videos, which were a lot better. My personal favourites are Thriller and Smooth Criminal.

The first half of Michael Jackson's solo career, from around 1979-90 was when he was at his creative peak, when he was rightly the King of Pop. From this period we had Off the wall in 79, Thriller in 82, and Bad (my personal favourite) in 87. What made these albums so great other than the songs themselves was that they felt pure, the music was instrumental. Unlike most modern pop songs which just sound like a bunch of noises strung together.

But from the early 1990s Jackson's career was mixed at best, both critically and commercially. In 1991 Dangerous was released, gone was Quincy Jones as the principal producer, and in come a number of others. The Album was good with a few highlights such as 'Heal the world' and 'Black and white', but it was nothing special, his music began to get angrier from here on.

Then there was the History album (greatest hits included), most of the songs were dull and dreary, but there was a few gems, 'Stranger in Moscow' is very underrated and widely unheard of by non fans, and then there is 'Earth Song', while pretentious, it is a well written and a beautiful piece of meaningful music.
In 97 there was Blood on the Dance floor, a predominately re-mix album, but included the wonderful title song of the same name. It was arguably the last really good song by Jackson, and the last to achieve any great chart success.
And in 2001 we got Invincible, it was clear that by this stage Jackson was more focused on what was influencing music at the time rather than the other way round. Which is why like Dangerous it was produced by multiple people. It was a very average and over long album.

Xscape is the second album since the singer's death, the first Michael was very forgettable. And while the second album is an improvement it's nothing special, it's no surprise to me that none of the songs made it onto a commercially released album while he was still alive. Like many of his albums since the 1980s, the songs sound over produced and by his own previous standards, formulaic.
So here is my track by track review,

1. Love never felt so good
The first single from the album, you can tell this was originally recorded in 1983, it would have fit well on the Thriller album if it had been picked. And while the music is catchy and it will play well in a club or disco, after a few listens it really grates. 6/10

2. Chicago
Recorded during the Invincible sessions, and it shows. Over produced and repetitive, parts of the music reminded me of a possible soundtrack to a Sonic the Hedgehog level. Which might work in a video game but not a Michael Jackson album 5.5/10

3. Loving you
Recorded in 1987, the newly produced version sounds nothing like Jackson's music of that time, so it might have been interesting to see how it would have sounded if it did get onto the Bad album, although it does remind me of 'Liberian girl', a little. While Jackson's voice is good and it has a semi catchy tune, it's very forgettable 6/10

4. A place with no name
Lyrics are very similar to the song' A horse with no name'. Incredibly cheesy, but the thumping beat through the song is rather effective. Might be a hit if released 6.5/10

5. Slave to the rhythm
Boring and repetitive. A Dangerous album reject, the Justin Bieber version is even worse. 5/10

6. Do you know where your children are
A rather strange name to a song, but I really liked this song, because it was one of the few on the album that combines the vocals and the over produced music in harmony with one another. The song and lyrics stuck in my head for a very long time after listening, and there is a good guitar riff in the middle somewhere. It is also the only song on the album that has replay value. 8/10

7. Blue Gangsta
Invincible reject, another case of an over produced song, neither bad nor good. 5.5/10

8. Xscape
Should have been included on the Invincible album, because it sounds exactly the same as the first three songs on that album, which is not saying much. Like most of this album, it's rather forgettable 6/10

So there you have it, Xscape is not a bad album but it is certainly a bad Michael Jackson album, I would say that it is worse than Invincible. Which at least had a little variety to it. Xscape does not have one mellow or soft song, songs similar to 'She's out of my life', 'The girl is mine', 'I just can't stop loving you', and 'Speechless' are just not here. Because of this none of his vocals are explored and never really feel natural. Maybe it's because the album has been launched on a new Sony smartphone.

The album is just about average, I only gave it a six because it's not a bad album. It's no surprise to me that Jackson decided to leave the songs in the cutting room, and apart from a couple of them I do not think the man would have used these remastered versions in any of his albums.

If you love Michael Jackson it's worth having in your collection, there is some joy in it. For those who don't like Jackson will find nothing that will change your mind.

Verdict: 6/10

Are there too many comic book movies?

As a casual comic book fan and as someone who enjoys going to the cinema as one of my favourite past times, the yearly binge of comic book adaptations of the last six years or so has for the most part been worth it. But with the announcement of a Justice League movie in the works, I'm beginning to have very slight niggling doubts at the back of my head.

A comic book movie has a lot of advantages over other big budget film productions, before the movie is even released you already have an established fan base as well an established mythology to play around with, they also have the privilege of appealing to any audience of any age and gender. Along with bigger budgets, the more advanced technology at hand, and the box office returns, it's understandable why film studios are so eager to make as many of them as possible.

It also helps that most comic book movies of the last decade or so have been generally consistently good or at least worth the ticket price, my own personal favourites are 'Spider-man 2; and 'The Avengers Assemble', and before those there was the first and utterly superb albeit more bloodthirsty and mature 'Blade' film. And going back before that we had the old Batman films with Michael Keaton, although they've dated quite badly they are still entertaining and full of charm. But with the ever expanding Marvel universe (which is apparently going to run until 2028) and now the Justice League film on the way, they're now just becoming cash cow franchises.

A cynical example of this is with the recently released 'The Amazing Spider-man 2', although a flawed movie it was still good. But its whole existence seemed to be just a hoodwink into a sinister six film (a group of villains who come together to stop Spider-man for those who didn't know). It has already been confirmed that there will be another two in the main series as well as two spin offs (Sinister Six and a Venom movie).

It's no doubt that all of these films are capable of being great, the Justice League film as well as the Superman versus Batman film are both intriguing, and even if they get bad reviews I will most likely go see them, as will most other people. But I was actually looking forward to a standalone sequel to 'Man of Steel', after dealing with the Superman origin story I thought the sequel would lay the ground works for a real Superman film, we would finally get to know more about who Clark Kent was, but we're not really getting that now. From what the people behind the scenes have said It's now obvious that Batman appearing in a Superman movie was never planned from the start, it just kind of came about at some point in a board meeting.

Another problem, and this one is more to do with the Marvel Universe, is that with all of the films connected to one another they all have to consider what's going on elsewhere (which in this case leads to another Avengers film). There's a number of problems with this, all of the characters have to follow the same story arc, and it could just lead into repetition...running, jumping, shooting. Over and over.

Comic book movies are not the only ones saturating the market, the upcoming remakes and reboots is listless. Terminator (yawn, talk about flogging a dead horse), Beverly Hills Cop (same as Terminator), The Mummy (has potential), An American werewolf in London (don't bother), Godzilla (this actually looks amazing). These films are being made for the same reason comic book movies are being made, established audience and the technology to make them. There's nothing really wrong with any of this, I will no doubt watch many of these movies and probably enjoy the vast majority of them.

But of the top twenty grossing films of all time (adjusted to inflation) only four are from original source material (I'll give Titanic a free pass), and more than half of them are sequels, and most have come in and around the last decade or so.
The point I'm trying to make is that I would like to see more creativity in modern day blockbusters, new characters, new stories and more risks.

Because let's be honest, in another thirty or so years, when Iron Man 10 comes out, we could be in danger of seeing the continuous and unnecessary remakes of the remakes.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

An action packed comic book film adaptation, only bettered in the last five years by' The Avengers: Assemble'.

Directors: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

Certificate: 12A

Running time: Two hours and sixteen minutes

While their content can be quite limited, I generally love comic book films and 'The Avengers' was the best one I have seen since Spider Man 2, it stood for everything that going to the cinema should be. But I honestly found the first Captain America to be rather boring and timid, so I'm glad to write that the sequel is better and far more interesting.

Set two years after the events of the battle of New York in 'The Avengers', Steve Rodgers/Captain America (Chris Evans) is still working for intelligence agency S.H.I.EL.D, while at the same time he is struggling to adapt to contemporary life in Washington DC. S.H.I.E.L.D director Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson) returns along with Scarlett Johansson as the Black Widow.

The premise of the film is centred around 'Project Insight', a fleet of air carriers which use satellites and spy technology created by S.H.I.E.L.D to eliminate potential threats and targets. The situation is made worse when the agency is compromised, which means it's up to Captain America to stop its launch and those who are perpetrating it.

Even with the film's attempts at building a story about the shadowy power of intelligence agencies and the importance of civil liberties. The action scenes are what make it so good, which let's be honest, is primarily what comic books are about. Fun and enjoyable action set pieces.
And there are plenty of them in this film, and the action is far more physical which fits well with Captain America's superpowers (which is basically his super strength and the iconic shield). They are also choreographed perfectly, there are no flashy quick camera edits here which plague so many modern action films, everything you see hits home with the right impact and appears believable.

The special effects are as good as anything I have seen before, while not mind blowing, they serve their purpose perfectly when needed. Another positive is that the central villain was more than a match for the hero, the battles between Captain America and The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) are impressive and once again choreographed well without being overblown. Although he doesn't have an abundance of screen time Robert Redford is effective as the snarly S.H.I.E.L.D director Alexander Pierce. 

In a post Assange/Snowden world it's good that a comic book film is trying something more than just another good guy versus bad guy, the film (vaguely) eludes to the idea of power being given to people with the wrong intentions, and the growing fear about the uncertain world we seem to be living in, and what role the government plays in this. So credit where credit is due.

But the film does have a few weaknesses, the narrative is very contrived, certain plot devices are unimaginative and seem to be just leading the audience on with very little surprise, one particular supporting character suddenly plays a prominent role within the last third of the film without too much character development. And the film could have perhaps had fifteen or twenty minutes shaved off of its running time.      

   

But the positives far outweigh the few minor negatives, 'The Winter Soldier' is a perfect way to lead into the next Avengers film and the second phase of the Marvel Universe.

And stay around for two post credit scenes, one halfway through the credits, and the other when they are finished.

Verdict- 4/5

Zero hour contracts- the good, the bad and the ugly

It doesn't surprise me whatsoever that there are over half a million people on zero hour contracts, as research by the Office for National Statistics confirmed, and which was splashed on the front cover of The Guardian earlier this week. Since then the subject, not for the first time has been the topic of discussion on many radio shows and newspaper reviews. I have been meaning to write about this before, seeing as I have experience of being on a zero hour contract, but I was still in employment with the company. But now that is no longer the case, here is my take on zero hour contracts.

There is a general view that zero hour contracts have good and bad sides to them, I'll start off with the good. Zero hour contracts give the employee flexibility, this is great for students and the elderly who just want to earn a bit of money on the side, and it is helpful to parents who have childcare responsibilities. Within reason you can easily negotiate the days you can and can't work, if you work hard enough the hours will be offered to you, and there is a possibility of full time work after a period of time, if you want it. And if you need a shift covered it's relatively easy to do so without too much fuss.

But despite the positives that they can offer, zero hour contracts are just a more modern example of how insecure the British labour market has become and heading towards. Zero hour contracts take away any kind of social contract between the employer and the employee. Instead of being a member of the company you're just a worker, and nothing more. Your weekly hours can change from one week to the next, no matter what the trade is like, and in general the extra hours offered to me were done so at the last minute, often on the night before they wanted me to do the shift or on the day that I was already doing a shift, they would ask if I could extend it (I've been asked ten minutes before my shift was meant to end).

If this is is the case it can be hard to plan round your life, because if for examples sake I had five shifts in one week (no matter how many hours), I generally planned to do things on the days I had off,  so I would often have to reject the extra hours. Which doesn't leave a very good impression on your supervisors, and it can lead to the loss of hours.

Zero hour employees are also not entitled to pension rights, share schemes, sick pay, or even holiday pay (this one example was not true in my case, but I know of many companies who don't provide it). And their are companies who will only let employees work exclusively for them no matter how few hours they're working (this was not the case with me albeit).

All of these are just examples of where the relationship between those on zero hour contracts and their employers is non existent. It's no surprise that the vast majority of zero hour contracts come from the retail and fast food sector, where the employers are more than likely going to be large companies. I'm no Marxist and I am generalising here, but above everything else their one and only goal is to maximise their profits as much as they can, the welfare of their employees is secondary.

At the end of the day, it really is no surprise that much like payday loans, zero hour contracts have boomed since the world economic crash of 2008. I personally think they are immoral for all of the bad things I have just written about them, and I would like to see their complete abolishment, but I doubt that will happen, even with a Labour elected government. But some form of regulation needs to take place because that half a million mark will only grow if nothing is done.      

Robocop- Review

A much better than expected remake of a classic

Director- Jose Padilha
Running time- 1 hour, 52 minutes
Certificate- 12A


Decent remakes are hard to come by, 'True Grit' and 'The Fly' are exceptions, but by and large they're more often than not quite unnecessary. On face value one of these is the 1987 classic SciFi action movie 'RoboCop', it was a film so raw and violent that the technology currently at the disposal of film-makers wouldn't in anyway enhance the experience, another problem is that the film still stands the test of time. So after watching the new 'RoboCop' I was pleasantly surprised to find it enjoyable, far more than I expected but its flaws mean it's nothing more than a decent action film at best.

Like the first film, the premise is centred on a Detroit cop Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) who in this film is fatally injured by a car bomb planted by local criminal Antoine Vallon. OmniCorp, a large corporation who create robot technology for military purposes see it is an opportunity to create a man/machine crime fighting tool. Their intention is to create a hero, someone people can look up to, and to also persuade the American Congress to repeal the Dreyfus Act, which blocks the use of Robots on the streets of America.

The film succeeds in creating a conflict between man and machine, by asking whether one is compatible with the other, and what would the implications be of letting machines in some form or another become the standard bearers of justice when they have no jurisdiction or emotional response to their actions. And some of the scenes of Alex Murphy with his family after the transformation are genuinely moving but often distractive, the feeling of loss is far greater in the original because of their lack of presence. The pacing is well done, and the narrative build up from Murphy coping with the change and becoming RoboCop is by all accounts satisfactory.

The casting is perfect with Gary Oldman playing Dr Dennett Norton, who fills the companion role similar to that of officer Anne Lewis in the original, he becomes the person to whom Murphy gains back his humanity. Michael Keaton plays OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars perfectly, never too evil to be a typecast villain but still morally greedy to be considered bad. While Samuel Jackson plays Pat Novak, in various clips he appears as an exaggerated version of a news show host in a programme called The Novak Element. His role is a play on the bias in modern day 24 rolling news and how this is used to change public opinion.


But the film surprisingly fails when it comes to what the original did so well, action. The action scenes in the new RoboCop are just too short and unspectacular. One of the reasons for this is that RoboCop now functions more as a machine controlling a man than vice versa, so he now runs very fast and his special vision through his visor allows him to kill multiple enemies effortlessly, taking away any kind of tension. The 12A certificate doesn't help, the original was violent and raw without ever being gratuitous, it showed bad people get their comeuppence in a way that was hard hitting but also satisfying.

The film only vaguely shows RoboCop cleaning the streets of Detroit, and the city itself is now nothing more than a backdrop, nothing of any economic or social problems is explored, if you wasn't told it could be any American City.

Another problem is the absense of any true villain, Antonie Vallon, the person behind Murphy's injuries comes and goes without any character development or much screen time, leaving very little impression. As much as Michael Keaton is wonderful as the CEO of OmniCorp he isn't an out and out villain, although snarky he is no way threatening. This is a problem because there's no antithesis to RoboCop, there's no one on screen to really fear or dislike in any great way, which is a big problem in what is essentially an action film.

RoboCop doesn't hold a candle to the original but by itself it's a decent action film, it grips you from the get go, it's entertaining and there is a real attempt to make a film which is in spirit with the original but deviates in a different direction. But in the end it's rather forgettable albeit enjoyable.

Verdict- 3/5 

   

Kindles will never replace the magic of a physical book

Thought about buying a kindle for reading, there's no need

Going back last year when I was still a student I managed to get enough money together to buy an Amazon Kindle Fire. My intention was to actually re-buy a Nintendo 3DS, which looking back now I wish I had bought instead, anyway I wanted to get something which would keep me entertained between my travels from Middlesbrough to London, and vice versa. Instead of getting a 3DS I ended up getting a Kindle, I love reading and try to do so as much as I possibly can, and I can pretty much read anything from early 18th century literature to Dan Brown or Stephen King. I also purchased one because of the library of old literature which I could download for free on Amazon.

Well about two months ago my Kindle was stolen when the house I live in was burgled, although by that stage I had not used it in months I would still rather have liked to have kept it. But I hope they enjoy my copy of Nick Clegg's biography because I know I wasn't.

The Kindle Fire is a smart device, it's clever and it looks very sexy in your hands, and it's far more convenient way to buy and read books, as well as other multi platform media like films. And for many it provides them with an alternate opportunity to publish their work on. With that said it's is unfortunate that we are inevitably heading in the direction where eventually digital downloads will overtake the sales of physical books. But I'll give a list of reasons why I think reading a real book is far more rewarding than reading from a kindle.

1) Physical books are easier to read from
Contrary to popular belief Kindles aren't more comfortable in your hands compared with a physical book, but neither are they really less so either. However, swiping your finger to turn each page does get annoying.

2) You can't pass it on
The great thing about owning physical copies of books is that you can give them to other people once you've read them, you can hand them over to charity shops, you can sell it on to others.

3) They can be used to decorate your surroundings
Books can be used to decorate your life, they provide a personal touch in your living space, whether that's on your work desk, shelf space, or even coffee table. Having a library of books gives someone a sense of fulfilment, and to have these visibly around you provides warmth.

4) The smell of paper
There is something special about the smell of new paper, and the feel of it on the tips of your fingers as you flick through a book

5) It's more active and more rewarding to buy books
One of the joys of going out and buying a book is that it means you're actually making contact with other people, you're going out of your way to make the effort to buy something. It's also nice to make contact with people, for example about a year ago I went into Waterstones in search of buying a new book but I had no idea of what I wanted to read. So with the help of a member of staff I left with Lionel Shriver's brilliant 'We need to talk about Kevin'. I highly recommend it.

6) It's more expensive and restrictive
You can get books which are over a hundred years old for free on a Kindle because of copyright reasons, which is very good. But there is no need to when you can get these books for cheap prices on Amazon already, or even in charity shops if you dig around. Because a Kindle is a digital device you'll be paying top price for almost all contemporary books, by not buying a Kindle you will just save yourself a lot of money in the long run.

7) It's not just the words that are a work of art
You should never judge a book by its cover, but it certainly helps when the front cover is eye catching. A part of discovering new books is looking at the diversity of the artwork that covers it. Think of the iconic insignias of 'The Hunger Games' novels or even the holy cross on the Bible.   

8) You don't legitimately own what you buy
Like most digital media, even if you buy it and download it, you don't technically own it, you're really just borrowing it. Because of Digital rights management you can't hand it over to other people (unless you actually give them the kindle physically, which if it was the case, would just prove my point entirely). And like most pieces of technology a Kindle will eventually burn out, taking your library of products with it.

9) Kindles are distractive
In an age where pretty much everything is seen through a digital screen, books provide your mind and eyes with a bit of solitude away from it all. There's nothing much nicer than having a cuppa tea, sitting back and reading a book in a comfortable environment. It's a good way to break away from a screen. I've also always found that I take a lot more information in when I read something that I can physically hold, my mind is much sharper and my imagination far more focussed.

The Hobbit: the desolation of Smaug (review)

Director: Peter Jackson
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 169 minutes


A far better sequel, still hampered by its running time

The first Hobbit film 'An unexpected journey' was a good albeit very plodding and in the end a little underwhelming, especially when you consider the brilliance of the Lord of the rings trilogy. Thankfully the sequel is much more intense and its narrative runs much straighter, and in a more purposeful direction.

The film begins where the first one ended, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the company of dwarves are continuing their journey to the lonely mountain to reclaim Erebor, the old Kingdom of the Dwarves which was attacked by Smaug the Dragon. In typical Peter Jackson fashion the landscapes of Middle Earth are beautifully shot, the sets are masterfully brought to life, especially Laketown which makes its first appearance in the last third of the film. Not only does it look great but it shows the people of Middle earth in their everyday life, which is something I did like about this film, unlike in the original trilogy where outside of the main cast the people of Middle Earth were nothing but extras with little relevance.

The action scenes are a lot more exciting this time and there are more of them, one of those sees the return of Legolas (Orlando Bloom) from the original trilogy, he appears in a real roller-coaster scene in which the main characters have to escape an army of chasing Orcs while riding through a river inside barrels.
But the greatest action sequence in the entire film is the one where we finally meet the Dragon Smaug. I won't spoil it for you, but let's just say that Smaug is without doubt the greatest CGI character that I have ever seen in a film, who is wonderfully and sleekly played by Benedict Cumberbatch, each of his dialogue lines are memorable. It was worth the price of the ticket all by itself.

The visuals are exemplary as you would expect, but still I still question the Orcs being computer animated. The great thing about the original was the make up of the Orcs, which was second to none and made them genuinely menacing, with the make up gone and replaced by animation they come across as pieces of meat with little character. With that said  they still look impressive and believable on screen.

Although the film title implies that it is centred on Bilbo Baggins like the first film, he is not the most important character in the film. The focus of the film is on Dwarf Thorin Oakenshield, the rightful heir to be King of Erebor, which is noticeable throughout the film, it's only when Bilbo confronts Smaug that his relevance comes into place.

With so many positives the film does have problems though, and one of them returns from the first hobbit film, the bum numbing running time. It is still too long, let's not forget the actual book this is adapted from is a children's novel which is three hundred and ten pages long, about half an hour could have been edited out.
Which now brings me onto a love triangle involving an entirely made up character called Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), who doesn't even appear in the book. She was put in because there was a lack of female characters in the story, which is fair enough. But her involvement is for the purpose of a love triangle between herself, Legolas and Kili (one of the Dwarves). It is a completely incidental plot narrative that seems distracting and a little out of place.

I saw the film in both forty eight frames per second (3D) and in a normal screening. And I have to admit I preferred the latter, I enjoyed watching it at forty eight frames much more than I did when I saw the first hobbit film, but the level of detail can be too diverting for the eyes, it still looks like behind the scenes footage. In time forty eight frames per second might be the norm, but for the moment I still think it's going to be the exception.

Undoubtedly the positives completely outweigh the negatives, 'The Desolation of Smaug' is a spectacle of such a grandeur that it has to be seen on the big screen, and although the ending is a bit of an anti-climax it leads onto the final part of the trilogy in perfect anticipation.

Verdict-4/5