Never Taste-less Before

Before you read this blog, watch this.

If you hadn't seen it before, what did you think it was? With its pretentious plinky-plonky-piano-ey soundtrack and the slow-motion, high-definition floating tendrils? Damian Hirst's latest exhibit? Footage of an octopus ejaculating? Cthulu's hot young girlfriend?

Yes, it's an advert for chocolate giant Cadbury's Flake bar. Now I've studied adverts before in my time as a wastrel - ahem, Graphics student, and I know it's meant to be symbolic. The slow-rippling yellow-gold fabric of the woman's dress symbolises elegance and luxury and coincides with the notion of the chocolate ripples in the bar; the purple ink explosion denotes the Cadbury's logo and that exact shade of purple is a registered trademark of Cadbury blah blah blah. But take a look at this and tell me you don't think it's better:

Yes it's risque. Yes, some of the adverts got banned on the grounds of indecency (the chocolate touched the tongue of the lady in question before the lips, which looks like...hur. Well. Hur. You know.) but doesn't it signify what Flake is about: a simple oral pleasure? You don't have to like doing the act in question, because odds are if you don't, you probably do like eating chocolate. And the ads are beautifully shot - deserts, lush fields, exotic surroundings, the woman relaxing for some me-time and a bar of choccy...there's something for everyone. And those models remember the pride that came with being a 'Flake Girl'; you see them quite often on those banal "I Luv Adverts Their The Bestest Things EVAR" programmes ITV insist on broadcasting. Could you really call Octolady a 'Flake Girl'? And don't even get me started on Joss bloody Stone.

It isn't fair. Snickers got Mr T, Mars got John Barnes and now every time I eat a Flake I have to remember I'm not chowing down on chocolate calamari. And don't you dare "female empowerment" me; Aero Bubbles got the hunky man fresh from a hot shower* and he knew exactly what he was: man candy selling candy. That was the entire point of the advert! It's chocolate-covered tongue firmly in cheek, and in a world of "Skin Regenerating Hypothyrate-poly-multi-carbonitratines", it's refreshing to have adverts that throw their arms up and says "OK, you got us; but hey, our products work."

Bring back the old Flake ads. Hell, I'd happily do one in its stead - not that the nation wants to watch me scarfing down Flakes while exposing my alarming flabby whiteness.

[SOURCES: All YouTube.com: Aero Bubbles ad courtesy of KmClan80. Flake advert (1980) courtesy of ally008 and Flake advert (2010) courtesy of PercyGreen17. I do not own any of the companies or products and I am not affiliated with them in any way.]

*Yes ladies, that is Smith from Sex and the City aka. Jason Lewis. Rrowr.

Substitute for Love

DISCLAIMER: Before you read on, this article contains reference to a topic that applies only to adults. I really have tried to be discreet as possible in handling the topic, but reader discretion is advised.



I've been doing my research, and the average price of a vibrator is about £30.

Yes, I'm aware that's one hell of an opening sentence, and I apologise to those of you who are reading this while eating. But I have been doing a little thinking about substitution, and how far people will go to simulate or replace the feelings and emotions gained from a romantic relationship.

Vibrators. They're everywhere now, and with the advent of female empowerment it's no longer considered sordid and shameful to own one. Adverts for them pop up everywhere: from on the Tube to the back of girls magazines. On the High Street, Ann Summers is the closest you'll get to a brand; in some branches men are not even allowed in without the company of a woman. With the sheer pink floors, patterned walls and staff-led demonstrations, pretty much everything is aimed at the modern woman. And as for the products themselves...yes, surprise-surprise, I have been into an Ann Summers thank you very much, and I have unashamedly had a look at the vibrators. And while I was surprised on my first visit that nobody gave me a filthy look or accused me of being a 'wanton hussy', I was even more surprised at the variation.

You get ones you can use in the bath, ones filled with ball-bearings (don't ask me how or why), ones that connect to your iPod. There are ones that throb, thrust, gyrate and wiggle. Ones made of latex, glass, or that strange material that's exactly like those kids' toys that you lob at windows and they crawl down in a horrible gelatinous fashion (think I'll stay away from them, thanks.) And if for example you happen to live with other people, you can get some that don't even LOOK like vibrators. Good Lord, and I find it hard enough to choose a colour of nail polish...

Moving away from the specifics of this topic (washing our hands first) and onto others, I also found a small following dedicated to "cybering". It's another risque topic; is it real sex if you make a slimmer, pink-haired pixellated version of yourself and then frolic on a virtual sofa? Is it cheating on your partner if you do this within a relationship? Have you actually had sex on an emotional basis? If cheating is in the mind as well as physical, then more people are cheats than first thought. If 'pretending' to sleep with a physical manifestation of someone makes you feel the same as the act of physical sex would, why should it be treated any differently? I'm not going into my views this time - my thoughts on the topic of cheating are firmly set, thanks - but I guess its as stimulating (pardon the pun) as letting a battery-powered entity do all the work.

Besides vibrators or online role play, there's alcohol (for the relaxing qualities), chocolate (for the endorphines), mindless spending (for the thrill)...but then I personally have used all of these things to counteract other feelings, like a bad day at work or a bereavement. At the end of the day, you can't really hug a bottle of Jack Daniel's without looking desperate. A bar of Galaxy won't tell you when you look nice. And a bank statement won't put its arm around you. A vibrator may make your eyes roll back into your head, but there's no point asking the thing "Was it good for you?"

Sorry folks, but while there may be a substitute for sex, there's no substitute for love.

A Treat For The Eyes [REVIEW]

TRON: LEGACY

MPAA RATING: PG (Mild Language and scenes of sci-fi action violence)

ALSO IN 3D / OUT NOW

STARRING Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Bruce Boxleitner

So there I was in my local cinema, watching trailers when I came across something I had forgotten about a long time ago - written off, I thought, in the wake of other things: other films, daily pursuits, the mundane. Once the trailer rolled I practically fell headfirst into my popcorn. It was the trailer for Tron: Legacy.
 "Long time," says Sam Flynn [Garrett Hedlund] upon reconciling with his long-lost programmer father. "You have no idea," growls Kevin Flynn [Jeff Bridges, in one of two incarnations], echoing the thousands of Tron fans who have been waiting for the follow-up for eighteen years.
I went with four others and two of us were long-time Tron fans, who had both seen the film in our youth not so long ago, so we were familiar with the Tron staples: the light cycles, the Grid etc, and were just anxious to see what 3D and the 21st Century had done for them.
Not only does the film begin in 2D (in the 'real world') and turn suddenly to 3D, a la The Wizard of Oz's transformation into vivid colour from bland black-and-white, but it is also one of the two notable films in recent years to use a CG de-aging process - the first being The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008). Bridges had his face modelled and pin-pointed with CGI mapping to create each individual expression. The result is startling, although in certain scenes you do catch a glimpse that reminds you that it is essentially Bridges face upon another person's 'canvas'.
In a nutshell, young Sam Flynn has had to do most of his growing up without his entrepreneur father, who famously disappeared after discovering a new world within a computer program. The film is almost 'inside itself' - clearly visible on young Sam's wall is a poster for the actual 1982 film, as well as figurines all designed by his father based on what he saw while he was there. After hearing nothing for years, Sam is drawn back to his father's office within a shut-down arcade to discover the truth behind his vanishing act.
As you can probably tell, the father and son are reconciled eventually, but that is the least of their worries. And here is where you find yourself watching Bridges play ultimate hero and erstwhile villain.
Plot-wise, it's nothing taxing - don't expect baffling conundrums or stories that keep you guessing, rather you'll find yourself saying "Oh, yeah I knew that was coming. And I knew that was going to do that." The acting is very suitable - as odd as that sounds, but old heroes sit comfortably alongside new arrivals (Sam and Quorra [Olivia Wilde]). The 3D, as you'd expect it to be on certain levels of play such as the Grid and the famous Light Cycle arena, is a treat for the eyes and thankfully not too hard to follow, though our viewing was marred by a slight picture overlap which was annoyingly visible on a mostly bright-on-dark film. What made up for it was the dazzling score provided by French techo-maestros Daft Punk - minimal at times, echoing back to the 8-bit soundtracks of the retro arcade, swelling from synthesised sound to orchestrated grandeur. Download the soundtrack if nothing else - a lot of soundtrack I find to be filler with one or two standout themes running throughout, but the relatively short tracks are two-minute treats. (Fact fans: keep your eye out for the masked musicians making a brief cameo in the film - I squealed with delight when I saw them.)
Although made by Disney (a fact which genuinely surprised one of my fellow viewers during the credits), I would recommend you take an older child to see this film - it's a little too post-apocalyptic techno to appeal to smaller kids who may get bored with the relatively sedate pace between the short, sharp thrilling bursts of action.
Once the credits had rolled and I stepped back into 'the real world', I was left thinking "So where do we go from here?" Without spoiling it, the film leaves a curious taste in the mouth that makes you want to try a bit more - and thankfully Disney have commissioned not only a sequel but an animated mini-series due next year. Had this not been the case, would Tron: Legacy have been enough? I think probably not, given the amount of little niggling loose ends that just screamed "SEQUEL!" left untied. This may not attract the casual viewer, but I'll be darned if this doesn't strengthen the franchises already thriving cult following. Tron, I and many other fans await your return with open arms.

NEETY'S VERDICT: ****/*****
Worth the wait, but perhaps this film is a step up to grander things to come. Stunning visuals, a followable and plausible (if sometimes predictable) plot and a palette of old and new characters that endear rather than annoy. And underneath it all, a film that doesn't rely on the 3D element to distract you from a paper-thin story, for a change.

Universal Truths: Stupid Things We Say

Men get a hard rap sometimes. The male journalists whose work I follow (see Jeff Maysh, Jeremy Clarkson and Charlie Brooker) have largely pointed out that all men tend to get herded together, boxed up and shipped out to the rest of the world, advertised as a mass product. The end result is like vaguely labelling a box "SHOES" when it contains flip-flops, stilettos, snow shoes, rollerblades etc: you get no sense of the contents from the outside packaging.

I don't pretend to know men inside-out - nearly all of my best friends are male, and I'm sure I know some of them better than I know myself - but I do have a good idea of how most of them work, much like men know a lot more about the nature of woman than most girls would happily admit. So while it's easy for women to complain about men, we are not without fault: to paraphrase the Good Book, let he (or she) who is without sin post the first Blog.

I don't mean to patronise men with my posts: I am merely here to offer another viewpoint to all of my readers. A lot of it is based on common sense with a feminine insight, so I admit it may be old news to some people. I heartily encourage debate - if you've taken the time to read, please comment - even if it's to rip my argument to shreds. My advice is free to take or leave, and it is simply advice, not the definitive guidebook.

What I'm now going to do is give you chaps a break and start on us girls. For all our good points and abilities - multitasking being the main one; I've yet to see my bloke or brother juggle dinner, a phone call, washing and paperwork without breaking down; putting a joint of beef in the washing machine and slicing their mobile into a neat Julienne of iPhone (which I have come alarmingly close to doing sometimes -  there's multitasking, then there's just plain asking for it). But as I was saying, we're not perfect by any means, and quite often we say some stupid bloody things to you. Here's a countdown, a la Top Of The Pops.

"I'm fine."

Notice the emphasis on the word 'fine'. Any chap worth his salt is able to guess that no, we are in fact less than fine. I empathise with you guys on this one, because it must be so damn annoying (doesn't mean I don't do it myself, I'm no saint): why don't we just tell you? It's generally for two reasons:
a) We want you to guess why we're angry. Either because it's something you did and we think you should inherently know what it was, or because we think that if you can't tell why we're angry that you don't really care about us (it's something to do with the listening, which I'll get on to later).
b) We are angry, and we kind of want to have a good rant about it. By letting you know we're angry by barking "I'm fine" or "Nothing" at you when you ask how we are, we're giving you a get-out clause. If you want to ask us how we are, it's possible we may start up into Rant Mode. If you're happy for us to do so then feel free to ask what's up, but if you're not in the mood for it then you know not to ask. WARNING: I accept no responsibility for the consequences of your actions. If you think your girlfriend's irritation will fizzle out without your help, then go ahead.

"Are you listening?"

This is another one -  and yes, I think it counts as a stupid question, because if I have to ask a man this then I already know the answer. This question is basically the equivalent of loudly going "OY!" and clapping your hands an inch from someone's face. Have you ever had a teacher say this to you? Or a parent? Of course, this is not gender-exclusive - men and women can and doubtless have said it, but I have often heard it come from my mouth rather than my partner's. There are several 'textbook' responses to this:
- "Yes of course." If you say this, be prepared for a test. Depending on how finicky/irritable the asker is, you may have to recite all or part of the last conversation. If you have been listening and can prove it, you'll get a "warning look": pursed lips, raised brows, rolling eyes. DON'T respond to this: don't break the gaze, just let it go.
- "No. Sorry." And always say sorry, it's just polite. Even if the asker was talking about potholing and you've never been more bored in your entire life, you must have really dropped the ball because you obviously didn't look even politely interested. At worst, the person will glare at you, walk away and not talk to you for a fixed period (this could range from three minutes to never again). At best, if they're a good friend/girlfriend/in a good mood, they may get slightly peeved at you but ultimately will let you off.
- "Hmm?" This is the Death Answer. Not only were you not listening, you haven't apologised, and you probably weren't listening right up to the point where the asker said "Are you listening?" Shame on you. There's nothing you can do now but grovel.

"Does my bum look big in this?"

You may remember my previous Universal Truths column about shopping and that this conundrum (which I named Conundrum XY) is usually present while trying on clothes. Now, I am talking about this specific question, wherein you girlfriend/wife/sister/friend is trying on clothes, whether at home before a night out or out shopping.
At the risk of me repeating myself, nobody really wants a straight yes or no answer. If you spent your life forever bleating "yes" or "no" to every answer you'd gain a reputation as boring and insincere. In this situation you need to give her an honest answer. Look at the outfit. Is there something else you like about it, or something else that doesn't quite flatter her? Tell her why it does or doesn't look right - don't just say "I don't like the colour". Is it too bright for her? Too dull? Does it make her look paler, make her cheeks look flushed, make her look bigger when really she's not? I'm not asking you to be Gok Wan here, just asking you to be observant.

So now that you've had yourself some Universal Truths, why don't you let me know where you stand? I don't want to hear about "that time the missus asked me to do this fing for sum reason", just let me know if you've ever been on the receiving end of one of these Truths. Go on, go nuts.

Get Funky With the Monkey [REVIEW]

DONKEY KONG COUNTRY RETURNS

PLATFORM: Wii

PEGI RATING: 3

"Oh shit, I died again."
"Yeah, that's annoying...but look at the gorgeous scenery!"
"Oooh..."
Ever since Donkey Kong Country Returns entered our humble household, this has been the outline of most conversations during gameplay, which has now spanned a fairly impressive 9 hours - and that's only just halfway through.
For those of you who haven't yet got funky with the monkey, DKCR is the long-awaited follow up to 1994's Donkey Kong Country for the SNES. Now that's a hell of a time to wait for a follow up, unless you count 2008's offering Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which included stages which were an obvious homage to the original game right down to the signature music.
But maybe you haven't played those games. And DKCR is a game that claps you on the shoulder and says, "Hey, friend. That's OK. Just come along for the ride."
You can play the game as a one- or two-player adventure: go it alone with DK himself, team up with nephew Diddy or sling the little guy on your back and borrow his nifty jetpack boosts for those hard-to-reach areas. And when I say hard-to-reach areas you can bet your monogrammed tie that there are a lot of those. This game is a nightmare for collect-o-philes like myself: I find myself shadowing my partner, yelling "Go back! You missed a coin! GO BACK DAMN YOU!!" There are barrels to bash, plants to pop and bags to burst and levels are chock-full of collectible items - maybe a little too many, as it's quite hard to grab them all, especially within some of the fast-paced forwards scrolling levels when you are running for your life away from giant bats/spiders/militant miner moles (yes, really) to worry about shiny trinkets.
Also, should you choose to play with Diddy in either modes, you may find that your life quantity (expressed by bright red balloons) is sapped pretty quick: if you both die, you lose two lives. Even if Diddy died in battle mere seconds before you did, you still lose two lives once you die. A little unfair? Maybe, but as my paramour just said, "I'm not going to pick on an otherwise brilliant game."
And just look at the scenery. Chimps alive, it's worth buying for that merit alone, it truly is. Think of all the games that visually have made you go "Ooh, this is just a little bit special" - Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, Pikmin, Super Mario Galaxy - while DKCR may not be a 3D epic like the former, it is simply gorgeous. Notable levels include a sunset which is a canvas of blood-red, orange and black; a relentless tidal wave that you can see right from its initial form until it crashes right in your face, levels which take you from the foreground to the background and beyond. Everything looks like it took the design team forever and made them bloody proud in doing so, and they really aught to be.
For casual gamers and DK fans alike, this is a must-have, and I mean it. The controls are smooth and simple, varying from piloting the Wiimote to direct a character to your standard button-mash and the play itself is addictive, with always another puzzle or time-trial to offer. Cutscenes are short, sweet and silent - which is a welcome change for me after being used to the cinematic strato-RPGs I tend to favour, and it's nice to see this old faithful franchise newly renovated.
Climb up Donkey Kong, and take your place amongst the Champions.

NEETY'S VERDICT: *****/*****
Like a hug from Kong himself, this game and the act of reviewing it made me warm and fuzzy.Whether you buy it now or wait for the mid-year price crash, I highly recommend this charming, clever and highly addictive game.