Hoff-Man

Went back to uni today for the first "proper" time in several months (well, I've literally been on premises as recently as last week). Was good. Met up with Dennis and Simon for Media Analysis, and Nick for business stuff. Also ran into Chris between classes.

Looks like we'll be straight into some hard work in most subjects shortly, with several assignments etc. due in coming weeks.

The 40 Year-Old Virgin (Take 2)
On second viewing this film comes nowhere near fulfilling the praise I issued it first time around. I don't get why. It was great when I saw it in theatres. Now I honestly believe The Wedding Crashers to be the better movie. The 40 Year-Old Virgin relies on crude humour for it's laughs, and perhaps because they're lazy and not that clever they just aren't funny beyond their first-time "shock value". If you're a virgin to this film, I suggest you watch it. I gave it a B+ before. But if you're going back for round two, might I suggest The Wedding Crashers because even if you've seen it before it just holds up better when any "novelty" has worn off. A strong B-, or 3 out of 5, would be a weak B- or even a strong C+ but I liked it a lot before so I guess maybe a third viewing would be required for me to confidently downgrade it further. Carell is still really awesome in it.

B-

Crash (Take 2 also)
This movie suffered from the same problems as before on second viewing, most notably in that the script cheats in being way too contrivedwith regards to the meetings between characters as a means of characterisation. However, because I was expecting this, I at least wasn't as distracted as I had been watching this movie the first time when I had such thoughts constantly weighing on my mind, and as such liked it a little better this time. After some thought, it's still a B+ movie: really good drama, some well-placed humour, great music (though overused a tad in the third act), solid all-round performances, and overall just a really nicely directed picture. But for the love of God: Ryan Phillipe pulling over Terrence Howard, followed by Phillipe meeting Howard again a day later in extreme circumstances so each can better be "characterised", and then Howard stopping to throw stuff on a burning car as a way to finish his story when it had earlier been Phillipe who had lit the fire (on the same day as their second meeting) is just one story-example of the types of things that lead me to wonder how much people are really willing to let fly them by in their desperate search of something to label a masterpiece so they feel more satisfied at thinking they've seen one.

This movie doesn't leave room for the audience to think for themselves. It tells, with little or no subtlety. And it's far-fetched because, unlike a top-notch web of life drama like Magnolia (the only reason why I compare the two, they are certainly way different), it relies too heavily (read: "lazily") on characters interacting with each other - no matter how contrived their meetings are - to characterise them, as opposed to PT Anderson's success in developing his film through each character's individual stories which occasionally, and only ever on one-occasion per "meeting combination" beyond characters who regularly meet in their lives because of their relationships, intertwining (thus to a believable extent in a town that big).

I respect it on so many levels, and at the same time resent it for its dumbing down of its subject matter and of course, as described above, its subsequent handling of it. A B+ or 4 out of 5 for trying to be something great and to a large extent succeeding; but no way does it enter A-territory due to the significance of its shortcomings. And on principle I can't go higher because of those flaws.

B+

While I'm not quite as harsh as this guy, I agree to some extent. It's worth a read:
Miami Herald commentary

Capote (1st Viewing)
Running out of time to write stuff... um....

The character of Truman Capote reminded me a lot of T.E. Lawrence in Lawrence Of Arabia; not because both are rather effeminate, but because of the way in which as the inner-workings of Capote gradually unravel, becoming more and more complex until the film reaches a point where it has, thanks both to it's screenplay and (in my opinion to a lesser extent) the great performance by Hoff-Man, essentially crafted one of the deepest and most human characters perhaps ever portrayed on-screen. I didn't however feel that the rest of the movie lived up to that though and while I stress that it's definitely better than Walk The Line and was certainly impressive for me in that I didn't mind it being a bio-pic (I hate the conventional "template" way Hollywood normally does them, as observable in both Walk The Line and the structurally-identical and equally shallow Ray) I'm going to have no give it no better than an uber-strong B grade, or 3.5 out of 5.

B. In case you missed it the first time.

Actually I'm doing what Dennis does and shoving grades at the end, in case people want to skim (which is fair enough).

I haven't yet seen Good Night, And Good Luck or Brokeback Mountain, but so far I'm hoping Munich (A-) will take out the top honours at the Oscars in the Best Picture category; and there's enough hugh-profile support over in the States right now for such an upset to be on the cards...

There is a man...

I've been trying to get myself used to editing so I made a teaser trailer for my short film ahead of tackling the task of editing the film itself. As it's a teaser it is designed to intrigue and/or incite interest in the film itself as opposed to showing you what the movie is specifically about.

Download it HERE or die (right click and SAVE TARGET AS).

For those of you present at the film shoot or familiar with the story outline of my short film, this trailer will strike you as odd if it doesn't anyway due to the fact that the movie itself is a lighthearted absurd people-having-a-conversation type scenario, and this is somewhat... not reflected here. Meh. Just thought a mysterious approach to the teaser was cool, so there. Enjoy. Give me feedback. Watch Boston Legal on Tuesday. Au revoir.

So... The Film Shoot...

This Blog Has No Subtitle, Just As My Film Has No Title... Yet
Actually that kind of was a subtitle. As I mentioned, yesterday was the day I shot my first ever film. Having worked as director of photography to varying degrees of angle-collaboration on the short films created by or being created by Simon and Dennis, it was a step up as I now had not only the shots to get right but also direct the performances of the actors. All three main cast members were fantastic, so firstly a big thank you to Sonny, Rikky & Dennis for your time and your patience, and an additional thank you to Michael who took some initiative and in doing so provided fresh creative spark on-set and made the most of his cameo role.

The big challenges were getting the actors to realise what I meant when I'd written something poorly (I wrote the thing quickly last sunday afternoon based on a treatment scribbled on refill in 20 minutes during a lecture last year), as well as getting myself to concentrate on performances when I was also getting people to not walk through the shoot (note to self: organise to have specialist crew there for that purpose; note to those on set: my apologies for more than once having to ask you if the take had gone okay as a result of that distraction... :p).

For those there who want to reminisce on that glorious day upon which you shall build your acting stardom, and for those not there who want to see what you missed, here are some pictures of various goings on:












PRINCIPLE CAST & CREW AFTER THE SHOOT
(Back: Rikky Manocha ("Two"). Front from left: Sonny Lee ("Mustafa"), Dennis Liu ("One"), Steve Whitford (director, moi))












THE ACTORS
(Back: Michael Trevelyan ("Man Eating Non-Citrus Fruit"). Front from left: Sonny, Dennis, Rikky)












CAMEO: "MYSTERY-CHARACTER" EATING A PEACH
(Michael)












THE STARS AT A STAND-OFF OVER WHO GETS THE BIGGEST DRESSING ROOM...
or: Your first look at a mind-blowing special effects shot used in the film. The bushes are computer generated, and a CG-Robot is about to walk past (currently off-screen).
(Sonny, Bushes, Dennis, Rikky)

For more shit on this film shoot because I know you can't get enough, read about it on Dennis's blog if you haven't already.

Dr. One, Nose Specialist

Did You Know?
The host of the Australian version of Deal or No Deal? is quite possibly the most I-want-to-kill-you annoying person I've ever seen. The show is crap enough as it is, and it's references to the action of choosing some random cases by number as "skill" clearly define it as being aimed at the 18-49 demographic, where 18-49 represent IQs. And when the case contains 50 cents they play an animation of a monkey at the bottom of the screen. Urgh, I hate that man's "hur-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoooo" and "her-haha" laughs.

Why No Posts?
I apologise to you, the sole reader of this blog, for failing to entertain you and ultimately driving you towards a state of suicidal depression and withdrawl. I've been busy setting up the new textbook rental company I'm involved with as well as planning a short film which completed production today after being written 5 days ago (ie. quite a quick, busy period because of that alone, let alone the other stuff).

The shoot went well. I shall elaborate tomorrow should I have more time, but in a few minutes I'm going to watch the movie that started the Bond franchise, Dr No. It will be awesome by default.

Goin' Down To South Park

The "controversial" South Park catholic-episode drew 7 times as many viewers as normal last night even though the ep itself was well below par. 210,000 out of New Zealand's 4 million population tuned in, versus the 30,000 it normally gets.

Before I Forget

My Pre-Oscar Movie... Thing: Part Two
Having awarded Star Wars best achievement in visual effects in the history of everything, I now move on to a less technical category, mainly because I can't be bothered writing stuff up on the wonders of movie make-up and sound editing.

Best Original Screenplay
Unlike the visual effects category, there's no doubt in my mind that one era can be fairly compared to another when you're talking about the quality of original ideas and writing. So here, once again, are my picks.

Winner:
Ernest Lehman, North By Northwest (1959)

Nominees:
Alan Ball, American Beauty (1999)
Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction (1994)
Dan O'Bannon, Alien (1979)
David S. Ward, The Sting (1973)

Others Considered:
Charlie Kaufman, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004)
Charlie Kaufman, Adaptation (2002)
Richard Kelly, Donnie Darko (2001)
Charlie Kaufman, Being John Malkovich (1999)
Paul Thomas Anderson, Magnolia (1999)
Joel & Ethan Coen, The Big Lebowski (1998)
Vincenzo Cerami & Roberto Benigni, Life Is Beautiful (1997)
Joel & Ethan Coen, Fargo (1996)
Chrisopher McQuarrie, The Usual Suspects (1995)
Quentin Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale, Back To The Future (1985)
Lawrence Kasdan, Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)
George Lucas, Star Wars (1977)
Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones & Michael Palin, Monty Python & The Holy Grail (1975)
Robert Towne, Chinatown (1974)
Orson Welles & Herman Mankiewicz, Citizen Kane (1941)

I went with one of the few oldies in this category. Alien is the pinnacle of cinematic horror and its characters are so realistic that they're the type of people you might actually run into on the street if they hadn't been torn to pieces. American Beauty is funny, beautiful and tragic. Pulp Fiction and The Sting are brilliant slices of entertainment. But what makes North By Northwest's script so terrific is that it's so fresh and original to watch even today - 45 or so years on. It's a thrilling adventure, an intriguing mystery, comical entertainment - and features THAT crop-duster scene you may have seen a clip of or seen spoofed (as it has been thousands of times). You know, the one with the the plane shooting down at the guy running alongside the wheat fields and then swooping over him? Anyway, this is my favourite Hitchcock film and while the movie itself doesn't quite rank in my Top 10 I firmly believe nonetheless that in terms of writing there has never been an original script like it.

Knowledge Is A Bitch

I'm learning new things all the time. Just yesterday I learnt that for the entirety of last year I had a university web-mail account that I never knew about. In addition, I also confirmed my suspicions that I do indeed to need to re-apply for my student loan every year as opposed to the idea I had in my head that it probably just rolled over year after year like it did between semesters one and two. This second piece of knowledge is somewhat bad news, as my courses start in 8 days and I should theoretically apply 21 days beforehand... Why did I not know this? The mind boggles, though I dare say for those of us who don't like to read documentation it's not a very well advertisied process.

Today I sent an email to volume 1 about selling them some of my secondhand books, got my bus money sorted, updated the company accounts and am about to write a script for a film I'm shooting on Thursday. So far I have:

BLACK

The sound of footsteps.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help me much as this is movie mainly about two people, ONE and TWO, conversing, and neither has yet spoken, met the other, and or even been hinted at existing. As such, I have some work to do.

"The Wedding Crashers" Is Awesomer Second Time Around

w00t! Today all filming on Simon's short will be completed, and hopefully by Thursday all shooting on my own short that I'm yet to actually write will also be done. This is going to be a quick-fire five day process from rough treatment (written in half an hour during a lecture last year) to having wrapped up prinicipal photography. Exciting times.

Due to the busy-ness of these things I shall write nothing more for now. Except...










this.














Oh and this.

Don't Miss It

Movies You Have To See In 2006
I'm always saying that movies these days can learn a lot from films made in the 1970s. Well today I'm going one step further and saying that it applies to trailers too. Sure, most trailers from years gone by suck, but the following link will show you what is known as "trailer perfection."

SUPERMAN (1979)

It sets up the story, sells you the film by making you want to know more, and does it all without giving away anything from the central plot or spoiling its money shots (ala The Day After Tomorrow, a film which wasn't worth watching if you'd already seen the trailer that showed everything).

Anyways, in 2006 Superman is back, and with him are a whole bunch of other movies you need to see, sorted below by their US release date (which may differ from their release in New Zealand):

• INSIDE MAN (March 24th) - Spike Lee directed thriller with an awesome cast including Foster, Washing and Owen
• ICE AGE 2: THE MELTDOWN (March 31st) - Sequel to the hit animated movie that might actually be decent unlike most non-Pixar CG films
• THE SENTINEL (April 21st) - Michael Douglas plus Kiefer Sutherland plus political conspiracy film equals awesomeness
• SILENT HILL (April 21st) - Because I just read about this freaky thing called Pyramid Head in it that rips people's skin off in one go
• MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (May 5th) - If I need to explain this one, go watch the teaser and / or note the fact that it's directed by JJ "Lost & Alias" Abrams and has Hoff-Man as a villain
• POSEIDON (May 12th) - Kurt Russell & a tidal wave
• X-MEN 3 (May 26th) - Final chapter in the superhero trilogy that has so far gone from "good" to "great." Theoretically that trend should make this movie "awesome"
• SUPERMAN RETURNS (June 30th) - Bryan Singer is more than competent at handling this genre
• PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST (July 7th) - Sequel to one of most enjoyable action adventure flicks in years
• MIAMI VICE (July 28th) - Michael Mann has the midas touch, and this mega-budget action/crime-thriller looks top notch from the teaser
• SNAKES ON A PLANE (August 18th) - Because a movie with a title that bad must surely make up for it in quality. Surely?
• GRIND HOUSE (September 22nd) - Robert Rodriguez (Sin City) and Quentin Tarantino (Lots Of Awesome Shit) combine to direct two one-hour horror films
• EVAN ALMIGHTY (December 22nd) - Bruce Almighty sequel starring Steve Carell as Evan Baxter (the guy who got Jim Carrey's anchor job in part one)
• THE GOOD SHEPHERD (December 22nd) - Robert DeNiro directs this crime thriller starring himself & Matt Damon, and sees the return after 8 years off from movies of Oscar-winner Joe Pesci
• FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS (Unknown Date) - Clint Eastwood's movie about the famous raising of the flag at the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II and the surrounding events
• THE DEPARTED (Unknown Date) - Martin Scorsese remake of Hong Kong classic Internal Affairs

So yeah, October-November look pretty weak again like they were in 2005. Anyway, I recommend you see all of these movies even though I haven't seen any of them and some of them haven't even been made yet. Ciao.

Expiry, Explosions

Around 5-6 Weeks Left Of Free Movies :(
Having had access to free movies for almost a year it's gotten to the point now where, with the exception of bad-ass summer blockbusters which demand the MegaScreen treatment, the novelty of going to the cinema has seriously worn off. Since the start of this year I've maybe been to half-a-dozen films at most, and unlike when I first started out I'm hardly going to everything on offer. I haven't even checked out stuff like North Country, Zathura, Brokeback Mountain etc. that I'm interested in and could probably wait for the DVDs for some of them and not really give too much of a damn. Meh.

Not to say I don't appreciate having the card; while I remain too lazy to get a job it's nice being able to see all the big films for free when they come out, and going to the movies is about the most fun you can have after lectures within a 10minute walking radius from uni. But still, I think watching 70+ movies in theatres in 10 months has somewhat killed whatever made going to the pictures all that exciting when it comes to regular run-of-the-mill releases, and watching an Oscar-bait drama blown up tall and wide in a big room doesn't greatly improve on sitting at home with the DVD a couple of months later all that much when the novelty of it just isn't there. So when my card expires on March the 31st, I don't think I'll be too worried about it. I'll still watch the things on my must-see list just like I always have every year like MI3, Superman, Pirates 2 etc. but maybe just fill in more time watching pretentious arthouse shit in the AV library.

Most Groundbreaking Visual Effects
With the awards season in full-swing I think now would be the perfect time to look back on the achievements of films from years gone by. Today, a list of what I consider to be the films which have achieved the most in terms of visual effects, whether it be making innovative use of existing technology or pioneering new & unique ways of adding more realistic oomph to blockbusters. The category is not BEST visual effects, or else today's movies would kill all competition. This is rather "achievement in visual effects," relative to how groundbreaking a film was at it's time of release and what it has done for the movie industry. No doubt this list is weighted heavily towards more recent releases anyway, more than anything because of the number of contemporary films I've seen compared to older movies. Also, I'm not putting in that Journey To The Moon movie from 1902 that I saw at uni, however "groundbreaking" it may have been, because it just did things someone would have done eventually anyway.

Anyways, in true Oscar style here is who I'd pick as the best, and "fellow nominees" :p

Winner:
Star Wars (1977)

Nominees:
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Other Movies Considered:
King Kong (2005)
I, Robot (2004)
The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
AI: Artificial Intelligence (2001)
The Matrix (1999)
Titanic (1997)
Independence Day (1996)
Jurassic Park (1993)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
King Kong (1933)

The opening sequence in Star Wars stunned audiences back in 1979 as ILM cemented themselves literally overnight as the leading visual effects company in the world, and even now the effects used in the film are not dated to the point of coming across as unrealistic like with most movies of the era. Star Wars paved the way for so much of what has developed in terms of visual effects since, from the shooting of miniatures to methods used to apply seperately captured effects to live-action sequences involving actors, and I firmly believe that the effects team working on this film achieved more with this single project than has been achieved during the production of any other movie before or since.

The only other film even in the same echelon for this category would be Terminator 2 and the way it built upon effects established in Cameron's previous film The Abyss to truly bring CG effects to a level where they could be blended seemlessly (and impressively) into live-action cinema to take films and of course audiences to places they could never go before. Interestingly, if anything will top Star Wars for what it achieved it will likely be the new 3D effects technology being developed by the creators of Star Wars and Terminator 2, George Lucas and James Cameron.

Flawed Genius

Insanity & Brad Anderson's "Session 9"
I watched Session 9 last night, a film directed by Brad Anderson, and like his most recent film The Machinist it's a rather surreal, creepy psychological character study hidden beneath layers of mystery. This movie sees a group of workers go to an abandoned mental hospital to de-asbestos-ise it (I think) and then one of them disappears and creepy shit starts happening.

The Machinist reminded me of David Lynch and Mulholland Drive in that it was essentially an intricate psychological puzzle, albeit comparitively a rather lackluster effort in that it was by far less imaginitive and crafted with noticably less competence than Lynch's film and was far too easy to figure out what was going on - thus reducing the impact of the final revelations. Session 9 reminded me more of Stanley Kubrick and The Shining. Session 9 lacks that film's brilliant imagery but certainly holds its own in terms of creating an ominous feeling of constant tension. This film is a real mood piece.

Now, I don't mind a film that makes the audience work to get answers, but I think after seeing Mulholland Drive create such an intricate layer of complex mystery and then actually comprehensively and coherently unravel to reveal a wholly satisfying underlying truth before the film's end, that when a film like Session 9 concludes in a fragmented, murky way that requires plenty of afterthought to "get," it does seem less impressive and less... skilled, I guess, in its creation. It's one of those films in which the insanity of a lead character gives the director creative license to add in creepy shit at his will because of a what-isn't-real-doesn't-matter type of attitude, as an unfocused means to a focused end. For example the creation of a sense, upon reflection, of the crazy character's paranoia is brought about when we are lead down a path towards one possible reason for the disappearence of one of the workers when the psycho-guy imagines there is something more to David Caruso's character talking to a couple of youths than just an innocent chat that Caruso claims was a warning not to spraypaint the building (ie. maybe Caruso was involved and hired the punks to attack the missing guy because he and that guy had personal issues between them). Is that clever in hindsight, misleading the audience and characterising at the same time without the audience's knowledge? Maybe. But to me it also comes across somewhat as a means of stringing the audience along to pad the film's short running time out with "intrigue" because it's a little... gimmicky. Maybe that's harsh criticism but I can't say I was impresse by it in execution even if it sounds like a decent idea on paper.

More things I'm not happy with. We hear sessions (up to... session nine of course) of a former patient's interviews with her doctor which essentially form a parallel story to what is happening to the insane character in this movie, in terms of different personalities both guarding the weak from the truth (he doesn't realise until the end what he has done) and exploiting the weak to do what they could not on their own (an evil voice he hears is not supernatural but rather the part of him that brings him to kill). That's quite cool, and helps us understand the tragedy behind the lead character and what has happened and where he ends up. But like The Machinist the weakness here lies in simply creating a puzzle, jumbling it up and putting it together for the audience as if the putting together is somehow clever because something else links to what the final puzzle looks like. Any idiot could do that. Any idiot couldn't execute the whole film as well as Anderson, but I don't find the particular aspect of the film described above as being clever. It just makes it easier for the audience to understand what is happening or has happened to the crazy guy in a way which doesn't require anything more than what amounts to voice-over, as opposed to crafting our sense of understanding in the film itself and the character's interactions which would have made this movie a true, and I mean this, "masterpiece." By definition.

And while I liked the film's ability to end ultimately in a way which makes the audience realise that there was nothing supernatural going on afterall (which more horror movies should aim to do because it's much more impressive to have a non-cop-out actual "realistic" truth behind it all) the director exploits the supernatural angle near the end before this realisation with the power cutting out as a means of making certain scenes more creepy. Lazyyyyyy.

For all my criticism I really liked this movie. It had balls. It was original. It was cleverer than usual, just not as clever as it thought it was (like The Machinist which is, by the way, not as good). As such it gets a weak B or 3.5 out of 5. Certainly recommended, just forget everything you just read above when watching it because otherwise you'll figure out what is happening.

Easier said than done.

Anderson needs to find the Mulholland Drive balance before I'm truly impressed by his insanity-driven psychological mysteries. His two films I've seen are either too easy or too complicated to figure out at the right time in the film to be truly satisfying. Lynch made Mulholland Drive in a way that you "got it" before the absolute end - then you could enjoy the final scenes with this tremedous feeling of understanding, allowing you time before the film's conclusion to comprehend what has been happening and subsequently be affected by what happens in the end with the understanding of the tragedy of the film's characters. By doing this it enables the audience to form a connection on an emotional level; a connection which is quite a feat for a film so intellectually engaging but emotionally detached from its audience for it's first four-fifths. And it's what elevates Mulholland Drive to A territory, and through failure keeps Anderson's movies down at an inferior level of filmmaking.

"The horror...the horror..."

"If that's how Kilgore fought the war I began to wonder what they really had against Kurtz. It wasn't just insanity and murder, there was enough of that to go around for everyone."
Well, glad to see Dennis really liked the Vietnam movies even if he was a bastard and pretended he hated them for the first half of the blog :p Naturally my eyes jumped first to the grades in bold and I was subsequently fooled until I bothered reading the text and soon thought to myself: Dennis is not this stupid. Ignorant I-totally-like,-like-Legally-Blonde-2 comments such as "there were only two good characters" somewhat gave the game away.

See Spot Die
I saw Final Destination last night and it was very disappointing. This is supposed to be "good" in relation to most modern horror / thrillers but I honestly found the whole thing to be rather stupid and could only imagine nimrods who haven't yet been exposed to actual good movies liking it to any great extent. I was one such nimrod maybe five years ago, back when I'd see a movie and go "omg, best movie everrrrr" on a regular basis. Perhaps with less dumbassness in my actual wording and pronounciation. But still.

It focuses on a teen who inexplicably foresees the explosion of a plane, gets off and takes some people with him, and then it explodes. But he cheated death in doing all that, so now death has a new design to kill them all and he must figure it out. Hold on. He cheated death because.... he saw what would happen.... because.... Actually, there is no reason he cheated death and was able to foresee what would happen. He didn't figure anything out. It just happened. Right. And "death has a design" because a mysterious man at a morgue who played the killer in the Candyman films told them so. Right. Because creepy strangers always know such things. Uh-huh.

So then the main guy just happens to inexplicably figure out death's new design again based on something simple and stupid and realises what order he and the others he saved will now die in, and assumes (correctly, though it again makes no sense that he would know this and rely on it with such certainty given the life-and-death nature of what is at stake) that everytime he re-saves someone death will "skip them" and go to the next person. This sets up the platform for the film to depict a series of "gruesome" & creative deaths that are laughable more than anything. At one point death skips the lead character because of something to do with him swapping seats back on the plane which is contrary to what actually ended up happening outside of his premonition. Apparently the filmmaker's have since acknowledged that this is an error.

Once it's all over it makes no sense that it is all over - death should have just skipped whoever was last saved and doubled-back to the start of its list and continued killing according to the lead character's own line of thinking which is, of course, normally correct for no apparent reason. 6 months pass and everyone is okay until they happen to talk about the events together, which naturally leads to death striking again out of the blue for...you guessed it... no apparent reason, other than perhaps to have a "cool" ending. This movie sucks. I'll give it a D+ or 1.5 out of 5 because it had enough decent elements in it despite my criticism to make it at least watchable and I can't deny that fans of horror might get a kick out of it. It's the type of film you could watch one Friday night when you have nothing better to do and you might enjoy it enough to see it through. It's funnier than it is chilling, so don't expect to be scared by it, but it could make for good entertainment if you see it with a group of friends who like poking fun at dumb movies.
















Harvey Weinstein & His Band Of Twits Want To Know Why Haven't You Visited ilovelamp Yet
[plug] If you're reading this blog, that means you aren't reading the awesome movie-related articles over at http://ilovelamp.naturalflux7.com which you shall do right now. There's stuff on Hollywood going all gay on us, the awesome Cheadle-ness of Best Picture-nominee Crash and its and its striking resemblance to Traffic, and the giant fast-food icons that stalk New York. What's not to like? [\plug]

Monday Post

My Teeth Are Extra Shiny
I thought I'd keep the title of today's blog simple and not push my brain too hard to think of anything relevant and witty and / or random as a result of my run of immense stupidity so far this morning. The highlight of this series of moronic happenings was a process I went through consisting of waking up, having breakfast, brushing my teeth, having a shower and... brushing my teeth. And I've actually been to bed relatively early these last two nights so I can't put it down to tiredness.

"It's Gooood"
I watched Bruce Almighty on TV2 again last night, third time I've seen it. Seriously - what is up with people not liking this movie? For one thing, regardless of what I gave it before, it has made me bump Fun With Dick And Jane down to a D+ because Bruce Almighty is way better by comparison. I'd say that overall it's an above average comedy featuring a great performance by Jim Carrey and a nice solid crazy-humour-filled story that stays on task by having Bruce realise that being able to do whatever he wants in his life isn't going to solve all his problems - Bruce's powers make things worse and only by refraining from using them and facing issues without taking the easy way out, can he get anywhere in his life and realise what's important to him. Sure it's very Hollywood and is typically ideologically ignorant as with most such films that appeal to the mindless masses, but it's also very entertaining and with this kind of movie that's all that matters. I'll give it a C+ bordering on a B-, and I look forward to Steve Carell's Evan Almighty even though I generally despise pointless sequels. Come on, it's Steve Carell!

Wanganui. Whanganui.
I'm sick of people saying that something is the "correct" spelling of a word or a name in favour of an increasingly common/popular spelling and that this "correct" spelling must be used. Language is constantly evolving, and people who spend their time resisting changes in language are wasting that time.

The "correct" spelling that someone is clinging to in any given case regarding a word is undoubtedly just a form which evolved from something else before it and was probably resisted by similar nimrods itself a hundred or so years ago. The fact is, these people are overlooking the whole purpose behind language which is, correct me if I'm wrong, to enable us to easily communicate our thoughts, feelings and ideas with one another in some common way which we can understand amongst ourselves and each other. A common use of a word for a place or for any other purpose (like the commonly "misused" combinations of their/there/they're) is surely acceptable on the grounds of it being common and being perfectly understood in context by a typical person engaged in the conversation in which it is used or who is reading it or whatever the circumstances may be. Tell me you don't no what I'm talking about in this sentence just because I removed a few silent letters your so used to seeing, or because I dropped an apostrophe and an "e" from another word to implement the used of an "incorrect" homophone. I'm not saying add another meaning to "no" in the dictionary to encompass all listed under "know", I'm just making a point that it's seriously not that big a deal.

For those of you unfamilar with the "Whanganui" issue: after local iwi kept whinging on about the official spelling not having an "h" and thus being meaningless in the Maori language, a referendum was held in which over 80% polled said to keep Wanganui the way it is currently spelled. And why should they change it all? There are countless places all around the country in which the Maori spelling has evolved in common language either to a different commonly used way of spelling it or saying it (ie. there are many Maori place names in which "Wh" is commonly pronounced "w" by many people and not "ph") or else even replaced entirely by some name derived from New Zealand's British ties. The fact is, people know is as Wanganui. If they want to call it Whanganui, they are welcome too. That's the beauty of it: either way, we all know what everyone is talking about. But going out of our way to officialise a change which goes against the grain of the way in which our language in this country has developed is something which I strongly oppose. Like the Borg say in that First Contact movie I told you all to see: "Resistance Is Futile."

Poor Little Asian Guy

Did You Know?
James Blunt is a twat and his music sucks.

Factoids
Right now on TV2 is quite possibly the greatest show idea in the history of everything, New Zealand's Brainiest Kid, hosted by Bernadine Oliver-Kirby. I mean... it's obvious whoever came up with this show was quite the brainy little shit themselves growing up, and this brain has been nurtured to create something which provides us with a rare chance to laugh at kids who think knowing pointless facts matters. Thank you.

My favourite of the bunch is the smarmy "mwhahahahaha" I'm-so-confident tall geek in the back who claps himself when he gets questions right and who currently leads and uses this fact to keep the weird I-bet-you-didn't-know-that-Bernadine grin on his face. But like Whose Line Is It Anyway? the points don't really matter, at least not to anyone outside of the central group of little people. What matters is that our supposed smartest kids are really, really stupid. It's not just the fact that they would have you believe that Germany is a city, but more often the questions that they pass on, or the fact that they pass on the limitless-time final question when they lose nothing in just answering the damn thing, that lead me to forsee a grave future for this country.

w00t! Smarmy Kid just got knocked out! Unfortunately the winner was Grumpy Pig-Tail Girl, and not the only normal-seeming competitor, Little Asian Guy, who came second. Aww.

Here is a picture of a kitten I drew to make Little Asian Guy feel better:













The pink symbolises flatulence and the blue reminds me of tooth fairies.

Giant Sharks Kick Ass

If you want to see a giant shark scoot around and then attack a helicopter, watch this CG footage which may or may not be from the upcoming release Meg (unconfirmed):

http://www.flowlines.info/vfxreel.html

"From the director of "Speed" and "Twister" comes the film adaptation of Steve Alten's National Bestseller about the hunt for an eighty foot long, 100,000 pound Megalodon shark, the most deadly predator of all time."
- IMDB.com

Sounds like mindless fun.

K-19: The Widowmaker

Saw this film last night on DVD. It's a few years old (2002 I believe) and I'd heard it was good so it seemed worth checking out now that the opportunity had presented itself.

Basically, the first 45-50 minutes of this film is utter shit. Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson play Russian submarine captains during the cold war, and this section of the film basically establishes through pathetic, unimaginitive ways that the ship (eventually labelled...drumroll... "The Widowmaker") is "cursed" by cutting between Ford & Neeson scenes to some completely contrived and unintentionally funny scenes of people having absurd accidents on board. Then there's the incompetency behind the angle choices; an oddly high number of pointless dutch angles, as well as the most awkwardly-shot scene in cinematic history which disorientates the viewer by breaking the 180-degree rule when the background, regardless of what side you are shooting from, is the same. Basically, we get 2 people standing in front of the wall in the background in some shots (against wall 1) and a bare wall in others (shot against wall 2) and never feel that we're now looking at the scene from a different side if it wasn't for the magically disappearing people. The biggest sin of all is the apparent characterisation of Ford's character as an asshole by showing him making really dumb decisions all in the name of the "mother land". You could essentially summarise the first part of the movie like so:

INT. SUBMARINE / DECK - NEXT

LIAM NEESON & HARRISON FORD stand on deck, possibly thinking about how Neeson got dumped with the shit Star Wars movie while Ford's landed him with a career.

LIAM NEESON

There's a fire in deck C.

HARRISON FORD

It'll put itself out. Begin a drill where

everyone runs around like headless chickens

trying to end some emergency we are supposedly

somehow inexplicably "simulating" in some

undisclosed way in a limited time frame. Oh

look, time's up. The men have failed. Re-start

the drill!

LIAM NEESON
Did I mention the fire?

They re-start the drill. DUTCH ANGLE on NEESON, capturing his WORLD turning to MADNESS, whereas the last TWELVE DUTCH ANGLES captured BOREDOM, CONFLICT and INDIFFERENCE to VARYING DEGREES.

HARRISON FORD

Dive the ship down to 300 meters.

LIAM NEESON

But that's near crush-depth.

HARRISON FORD
I realise and demand it again stupidly.

SUBTEXT
Oooh, Ford is such an asshole.

CUT TO:

INT. LEVEL B - NEXT

A member of the CREW BURNS his FACE OFF. SOMEONE rushes to his aid and SLIPS on a BANANA PEEL. The CHEF comes in and ALMOST DROPS the FOOD he is CARRYING.

ANONYMOUS CREWMAN #1

This ship will make a widow out of my

wife.

ANONYMOUS CREWMAN #2

Truly the Widowmaker it is.

Both CREWMAN then BASH HEADS and FALL UNCONSCIOUS.

After this point in time however, 50 minutes or so, a crisis begins around which the rest of the story is based, and somehow this so-far-D-grade-movie actually becomes pretty decent. It's like they fired the writer and director and got some new guys in who actually knew what they were doing to salvage something out of it.

Overall, I'm actually going to give this movie a C as the second 60-70 minutes redeem it somewhat to the point of being on par with an average flick, taking it from a Das-Boot-did-it-better-the-first-time first half in which the director at points showed crew having fun in their spare time not because it added to the film but as if the director thought "that is what one does in these types of movies," to becoming something at times thrilling and at other times dramatic in ways which engage the audience - from the conflict between Ford and the crew (think a 1961 Battleship Potemkin scenario) to the crushing portrayal of what some of the men went through (this is a true story) to fix a radiation leak on board the vessell. In the end, Ford isn't even a total bad guy; it becomes apparent that he's not just doing what's best for the Soviet over the lives of his crew out of ambition, but to avoid the same traitorous reputation branded upon his father many years earlier. Why the fuck couldn't we have had some hint that he was more than just a two-dimensional asshole earlier in the film???

"Welcome To The Suck"

Wednesday
The day in the above subtitle is officially (once again) the best night on New Zealand network television. On 3 we have the 7:30-8:30 line-up of Everybody Hates Chris and My Name Is Earl, both of which I tape in favour of watching Two & A Half Men & it's-really-not-that-bad Joey on TV2. Then of course Lost completes the lineup of three-good-hours-in-120-minutes at 8:30. Yes! Lost is back Finally!

After Lost we now have Invasion, a new series which debuted yesterday and seemed... somewhat intriguing if completely and utterly unimaginitive. The promo said "the perfect companion to Lost" which may be true if you consider into the equation what they should have added, that "opposites atract." It's completely nothing like that-show-we-all-love when it comes to class; while Lost in a cut-above mystery/adventure/drama/whatever driven by it's character revelations as much as it's plot twists/surprises/mysteries/whatever, Invasion is a run-of-the-mill sci-fi-ish drama mystery which has, by the looks of the pilot, failed to adapt into anything beyond your "typical" kind of American TV fare. It doesn't have it's own "voice" and doesn't stand out as anything special - and it comes to me as no surprise that it's on the verge of being cancelled after just one season in the States. Still, it lasted longer than a lot of new shows in getting 22 episodes made.

Lost
Dennis was right about the start of this year's season opener being awesome - at first I thought it was maybe a Sawyer flashback or something only for the banging to start... then the mirrors and the camera rising up... and it all slowly brings about this realisation that: holy fuck, we're looking at what's inside the hatch. And... it's like, some guy working out and listening to music. I assume how he's alive, how he has electricity, and whether or not he was linked to the Island when he met Jack back in America will be revealed at some point in time, in the meantime I can only wait and ponder.

Actually that's not true, I could probably just look it up in the net and find out within half a minute.

But that would ruin it.

I think that, although the climax of the episode was designed to make you eagerly anticipate tuning-in next week, the show could have done with a two-hour return. We didn't really get too much of a dose of the usual character stuff we normally get, with the show in the process of attempting to tie-up its plot-related loose-ends from last season, so I guess we have to wait a bit for everything to die down (comparitively of course, I wouldn't want the suspense & mystery to drop off completely at this point just as a few pieces of the puzzle are starting to reveal themselves).

Movies
Today I watched Walk The Line & Jarhead, both of which have just been released in cinemas across the country. I can't tell if I spelt "across" right, both c and cc look wrong for some reason.

I think that in many ways the two films are actually quite similar, though I can't quite place my finger on why I get that feeling. Maybe it's the way they both only gradually reveal what they're really "about" (if that's the right word, and I admit I don't like using it because it simplifies a film way too much), with Walk The Line emerging not merely as a by-the-numbers "then this happened" biopic like it appears to be at the start, but rather very much "about" the love story tied into it all that helps Johnny Cash through a tough time in his life.

Jarhead on the other hand could be mistaken for being without any focus or direction for those looking for the film's "message" like all great war films are of course supposed to have as the mixed US critics reviews of Jarhead would have you believe, when the reality is that it is the story of a man and his experiences and the experiences of those around him in a war in which he and his colleagues never even fired a shot in combat. It's "about" smaller things if I had to pin-point it, not a "big picture" critique on war itself; what the men end up doing, how they change, how things are changing for them at home while they're stuck out in the desert as it all passes them by - these are what Jarhead looks at, and it does so without any real "plot" driving it all. For the last reason especially - the changes back home - it invokes elements of The Deer Hunter, for it's first-person account on the war around that person one may be reminded of Platoon, for specific things like the bootcamp drill-sargent and chants at the start to the transition from this to a warzone, there are superficial traces of Full Metal Jacket though certainly without the drive of Kubrick's clear vision of madness in Vietnam. And finally in the scene in which the men cheer watching the Flight Of The Valkyries action scene of Apocalypse Now only to be interrupted before getting deeper into the "reality" of the war and what Coppola is really saying, all later in that film, it adds to our understanding of what these men want from this war and how far removed their ideas about it are from the reality of what they're actually going to end up facing. This movie is very realistic in it's portrayal of Swofford and co.'s involvement in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and its genuinity is part of the reason it works so well. Also part of the reason is that the music rivals a Cameron Crowe soundtrack - it's always perfect at the right moments. And overall the mood especially I think carries this film, with some great shots added to the mix including one in which Gyllenhall and Saarsgard's characters travel by night on the desert's sand dunes, lit by the giant glow of the burning oil fields nearby as the wind blows the sand across the desert's surface like a golden sea.

I'll give Jarhead a B+ or 4 out of 5. It isn't a classic like those 'Nam movies I mentioned it being reminiscent of in parts, but it's certainly a fucking good movie. Jamie Foxx is impressive in his supporting role and deserved at least some attention at awards time even if he wasn't nominated. Walk The Line, meanwhile, is a film that the academy got right - they awarded it acting nominations, but no nods came when they announced the Director and Picture lists. It's a solid bio-drama, better than last year's Ray, but what makes it shine are the performances of Reese Witherspoon and Joaquin Phoenix. Walk The Line gets a strong B or 3.5 out of 5 from me.

One Down...

As of this morning I've finished writing the second draft (almost a year after the first) of one of two scripts I wanted to get done by the end of this coming weekend. It's basically about a man in a waiting room who reluctantly enters into a conversation with the only other person in the room after their constant pestering. It's a rather dry film, much of the first half takes a snappy, light-hearted approach (I would say "humourous approach" but as yet I don't know if anyone will find it funny enough to justify such a description) which then leads to a "heavier" conclusion.

Basically, the original draft had the man coming to some sort of (pretentious) "realisation" that would change his way of thinking following an inescapable bombardment of both the other person's speaking and the events in the film's conclusion. If you think Crash wasn't subtle, this first draft was like printing the film's message on-screen for 10 minutes. And worse yet I didn't really have a grasp of what that message was trying to be beyond something very basic.

Well, I've learnt a lot in this past year about filmmaking and about life in general so I had more to take to the table this time around, and added to that if there's one thing in this world where your mistakes are perhaps your biggest help in getting better it's writing. I've improved ten-fold in the past year, and often wonder looking back on some of my older scripts how I ever thought they were even remotely near passable. There are things in the folders in my computer that I considered filming less than a year ago that today I'd consider trashing if it wasn't for the fact that they remind me of how far I've come.

In fact, the first draft of this script was very much one of those things until it was thrown a lifeline by another budding filmmaker who, having remembered reading it months and months ago, saw more potential in it than I had. Now it's at a point where, while it's hardly going to be my best work given the small timeframe I've had to work with, it's actually somewhere near (I feel) where it needs to be. I haven't really changed much at all, the story still unfolds as it did before, only the ideas presented by the "other character" are not simply presented as "this is the reality of things" but rather they are expressed by a questioning mind who is unsure rather than certain, and whose ideas are challenged rather than realised by the protagonist.

Why? Other than the fact that before it was essentially preaching something, now I can see the faults in the second character's ideological way of thinking that I couldn't see before when I was unable to objectively distance myself from the script. The lead character does not suddenly change his entire way of thinking as a result of this meeting in a waiting room, instead he now offers the ideas some consideration before ultimately leaving the place very much the same person as when he came in. The change I guess is that he ends up with a slightly better grasp on his perspective on life, rather than having had that perspective drastically altered (as in the first draft). Or at least that's what I intended the script to do; whether it actually achieves this or not is another question.

By working within a restricted timeframe, I think that I've learned to be a little more disciplined in my writing than I was before. As it is, I spend way too much time thinking about ideas and far too little sitting down and fleshing them out, perhaps afraid that they won't seem as good on paper when I have to face the reality of what I really have a hold on in my head. Despite my criticism of overly-romantic idelogies as part of my personal point-of-view on life and the nature of the world in general, I admit I often finding myself dreaming of what could happen in terms of the opportunities I have as a hopeful filmmaker if some of my ideas are executed as well as I think they could be, without actually facing the reality of the situation and making an effort towards actually going ahead and executing an idea by writing a script of it and shooting said-script. It seems much safer to dream and live in hope than to go out and risk losing these dreams, even though these dreams inevitably slip by if they are not acted upon.

Anyways, I'm glad this script is being put to good use, I think it makes writing a lot easier when you have the realisation that it's actually being produced to motivate you. I should be able to send out a copy of my next script (the people-waiting-for-people one) just after this coming weekend to those who are involved, just so you know that I'm certainly pressing forward with it. Looking forward to it the production of it too, I must say.

Have a good morning, afternoon or evening depending on when you are reading this, and if you made it this far: my apologies for boring you with uninteresting rambling but I honestly feel better just for writing this and getting some stuff I've been thinking about and/or working on privately out in the open. I guess that's what a blog's for afterall.

Because I've Been Far Too Serious Lately

What I Would Have Blogged Yesterday
Desperate Housewives was rather underwhelming on Monday. Grey's Anatomy was okay.

What I Will Blog Today
Today I helped do some red-screen shooting for Simon's film. After that we went to lunch where I had nothing. I came home and ate a week-old peanut butter sandwhich and counted the rotting bodies in my basement crawlspace while cutting my palm to feel it bleed and stalking the neighbourhood after nightfall whilst laughing maniacally.

Brokeback To The Future
Best mock-trailer ever. Seriously. View it HERE.

Awesome Cat Page
Are you a fan of the absurd? If so, click HERE. If not, you suck and I shall be forced to plant a fat cat behind your shrubs, ready to imitate a stone when you least expect it.

Frasier Is A Superb Show
If you didn't used to watch it, like me (I only caught the last couple of seasons before it ended), it's screening on Prime at 6:30 weeknights. It's a rare US sitcom in that it's witty without being overly dry or absurd. Kelsey Grammer can next be seen in X-Men 3 in May, as a mutant called Beast.

Kelsey Grammer (right) as Frasier Crane:














Kelsey Grammer as Beast (wtf?!):




















Steve Carell as Brick Tamland:


















I Love Lamp
At times informative, often rude, occasionally satirical and almost always intended to offend in some way, ilovelamp is now open HERE. Essentially, as Deli creator Llama writes:

"I Love Lamp is a humour site based around the obsession with commercial success in the entertainment industry. A tounge in cheek satire from the creators of "The Deli", the column is simply a fun look at a world that is notoriously taken a little too seriously. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Friday box office numbers are so important that the world might infact implode if the next big thing bombs, and we at I Love Lamp get that this thinking is pretty sad thinking. We just want to take a step back and provide a mix of humour, perspective and stupidity."

So yeah. You get stuff from him (celebrity-mocking, vulgar & witty) and from me (sad attempts at humour sparsely found among factual reports on things which entirely miss the intended point of the site's existence) among other writers from time to time.

Dennis Haysbert Arc

Lazy Days
These last four or so days it feels like I've done nothing, and now with my summer holidays nearing the end I'm beginning to regret that I haven't done more. Maybe this is what depressed old people feel at the end of their lives, wanting to have done more with their time?

From a practical standpoint the lack-of-doing-stuff isn't all that good as I've got an article to write for a site for which I've set myself the deadline of tomorrow morning (or at this rate I'll never get anything done), I've got a script to finish for a friend's short film (aiming for tomorrow afternoon), I've got to start writing out the script for a short I'll be shooting in the next month (thanks again Dennis, Sonny & Rikky for offering to act in it) which I want done by this time next week (it's really short, so if it takes longer I need to improve my organisational skills) and during all that hopefully find plenty of time each day to enjoy the fact that I'm still in holiday. Sometimes it doesn't feel like I am.

Heat
As I mentioned, I saw Heat the other day. This movie is better than that other awesome Michael Mann film Collateral (but only just) and gets a strong A-, or 4.5/5. Pacino gives possibly his best performance, the role's perfect for him, upstaging Robert Deniro's very by-the-numbers criminal character.

One thing of note that I liked about this movie was that it very cheekily covered up a bit of lazy plotting with a quite pointless series of scenes about a character who means very little to the film.

Basically, we see a character (played by 24's Dennis Haysbert) saying to his wife how he's going to get some crap job at a diner to make a living (instead of taking the easy way out and being a crook to get by). We see him getting treated poorly at said job by the boss. Later, we see him telling his wife how he'll stick to it anyway. This is all we see of this character for the first 96 minutes of the movie, and none of it is relevant to the plot in anyway whatsoever up until this point. Wtf?

Well, I'll tell you wtf. Basically, at this point (96 mins) Deniro's character learns through a phone call that one of their guys is being watched by the cops and will have to bail out of their hiest plans. This is necessary to later events in the movie as by that guy not being with his colleagues at the pre-heist preparations he gets beaten up badly and is forced to give away the plans about the heist to a man who in turn tells the cops. But what to do in the screenplay now, Mr. Mann? They're a man down, and going back and writing in an extra character would be stupid because they didn't need an extra guy before. Oh look, says Deniro, it's Dennis Haysbert, MY OLD CRIMINAL ACQUAINTANCE WORKING IN THIS EXACT DINER WHERE WE ARE PONDERING WHAT ON EARTH TO DO ABOUT GETTING A REPLACEMENT. How convenient. The fact is, if Mann hadn't given Haysbert backstory it would have been like an act-two deus ex machina having someone be there at that exact time and location so conveniently. Mann had the balls to do that, something so sneaky yet blatant when you realise how preposterous Haysbert's coincidental presence at that place and moment is, and I applaud him for it.

Why? Because of how Haysbert's arc is finished. It becomes a sort of subtle joke that this seemingly unimportant character finally gets involved... only to be treated so unimportantly when he is killed. The next time we see him after this diner scene is when he drives the crooks' getaway car after the heist. He is shot, and the film does not dwell on this shooting like it might another character who we've seen throughout the film (ie. normally most movies would make it very clear that it happened, perhaps isolate the incident for a few seconds as it happens or after, but not just have him shot when he isn't even the main subject in the frame at the time and then never see him again). This in many ways drills in the pointlessness of his set-up-arc in the first half of the film, so at least Mann acknowledged it.

Well I Was Gonna Talk About Michael Mann's "Heat" But...

I'm not entirely sure I agree with your criticism of their 'can-do will-do' attitude towards CG. Given the advances of technology between the original trilogy and the prequels, retaining the same 'mood' would have been quite impossible without the newer films looking outdated and stuck. Whilst not being a success, I would argue that this 'can do will do' attitude is consistent in SPIRIT to the original movies, though the outcome is not.
-Simon

But building a set on a ship or in a building that you can light without giving it an unnatural feel doesn't make something dated, nor does applying a similar style in shooting to that used in the original trilogy regardless of whether or not a "cooler" shot can now be achieved using computer technology. Steven Spielberg has been quick to reassure fans that if Indiana Jones IV does in fact go ahead he will make it the same way the last three were made and avoid the use of unnecessary CG in order to obtain a more authentic feel; it's not as though audiences today can not accept this style of filmmaking just because the sets and lighting are real in a sci-fi movie or because the shots aren't in line with the modern fast-cut, close-up conventions used way too often in modern cinema in cases, like with Episodes I & II, of style over substance. Using CG to improve an aspect of something to make in more in-line with expectations of what can and should be done with modern technology (like making Yoda a CG-animated character and not a puppet) can go hand in hand with actually applying some filmmaking skills and crafting something substantial if a filmmaker like George Lucas is willing to put the effort in. Lucas once made a comment that with the original Star Wars, the limitations of the budget and technology were actually quite beneficial in that they required filmmakers in his position to be much more creative in their scripting and planning. Perhaps that could be why we've been left with unimaginitive plotlines and characters, because he thinks we'll be won over by what they're standing on or what big beast or ship is floating around outside the window in the background, or at the very least he spent too much time concentrating on these far less important elements to pay the lackluster storylines any real attention.

The original trilogy was not at all made in that spirit of doing everything that can be done, because it crafted what could be done itself. It pushed the boundaries of technology in ways that bettered the overall experience of the films because what they wanted to do often wasn't possible until they themselves at ILM figured out how to do it and as such had to seriously consider the benefits of putting the effort into achieving a certain effect or whatever the issue at hand happened to be, and as such were more selective and wiser in their choices. The new trilogy has been made in a time when essentially anything is possible using CG and with certain examples like those above, there is no doubt in my mind that George Lucas took the idea of doing something just because it *could* be done too far, and not enought thought went into most of the decisions made simply because it was all so easy and little was lost in trying things out. Lots and lots of things. The lightsabre fights in particular were made more extravagent & more dynamic. Did aspects of that work? Sure. The same could be argued throughout the new trilogy about different things, I'm not saying they shouldn't have taken advantage of the CG at their disposal to a degree (afterall, the whole reason Lucas waited so long is because he needed technology to catch up with his ideas of what he wanted to do with the prequels).

But when these lightsabre fights become battles of speed and power and not skill or cunning, or when they feature Dooku or (especially) Yoda flipping around looking stupid just because they don't need him to be rooted to the ground as a puppet any more, or when Obi Wan travels to the planet in Attack Of The Clones where the clone army is being trained with its skinny-Pixar-looking-aliens and artificial looking ocean, or when {insert scene where everything is textured with a too-perfect and clean metallic surface to feel like its actually there, ie. most scenes} it ruins the mood unnecessarily. Watch the old trilogy on DVD with Lucas's updated special effects etc. and you'll see that these films, as they are now, rarely look dated at all; the special editions generally (excluding the fat-Pixar-looking-aliens singing at Jabba's bar in Return Of The Jedi) strike a balance between using CG technology to improve establishing shots, give more detalied backgrounds or improve an effect like an explosion in space to bring the originals to a point where they stand up even today without looking dated, and maintaining the mood and tone of the films as they were originally by not interfering with the way in which scenes were crafted through traditional means.

Impossible to retain the mood of the originals? Absolutely not. Episode III actually did capture some of that mood at times, and many of the elements in that film can be seen as a move away from the style established in Menace and Clones and shift towards that of the originals (in particular The Empire Strikes Back) in terms of the way in which scenes were lit, shot (especially in opening and final acts of the film) and just generally played out storywise too while they were at it (thank God and/or Tom Stoppard).

Sixty-Second Bulletin

Little to say. Watched Return Of The Jedi. Great movie if you ignore the mediocre opening half-hour. A- or 4.5/5 (but only just).

Went to lunch with my Mum and both sisters (one had a day off work, the other started later (ie. around 4pm)). It was good.

Been busy doing writing & reading today. Soon I'll be literate.

More news at 10.

No - I am your father.

The Empire Strikes Back Is One Of The Greatest Motion Pictures Ever Created
Notice how I said the uber-snobbish "motion pictures" instead of "movies"or the slightly snobby "films." It makes my opinion sound important and makes me seem in-the-know about such motion-picture-related matters. I've been mulling over where the prequel trilogy went wrong and I've narrowed it down to EVERY SECOND OF FOOTAGE IN EPISODES I & II & MUCH OF EPISODE III. Some more specific problem points however:

• First of all, in Empire Yoda is not a cartoon action hero. He does not speak Yoda-speak on every line to the point that it sounds absurdly stupid like "Go, I will. Good relations with the Wookies, I have". Yoda should have been used sparingly in the prequels.
• The films should have began with Anakin as an older teen, not a whiny boy. Furthermore, Anaking should have been played by an actor with a much stronger screen presence than Hayden Christiansen. Same goes for Portman. Good actress in other stuff, but doesn't have the strength or add the liveliness to her performance to make her interesting. Carrie Fisher would so kick her ass in a fight. Even now.
• Lucas should have bothered rewatching the original trilogy before making the new films. He may have noticed that they were not part of an epic theatrical opera, and that the actors in those films actually acted, rather than doing what Simon accurately calls putting on an "acting voice." They sound like they're trying to do Shakespeare half the time, only with Lucas's shit lines to read (which get away with their cheesiness in the originals BECAUSE of the American-hero way they're played out). Lucas obviously thought the whole Anakin-transformation story had to be extremely serious, forgetting that Luke's story was fun yet still almost led him to being converted to the dark side (obviously he wouldn't have crossed-over so "almost" may be a tad misleading, but what I mean is that with Anakin's ambitions and what had happened in his life, the same arc for Luke plus these Anakin-specific-factors could have seen Anakin go to the dark side in an original-trilogy-esque space-adventure trilogy).
• A big problem I think is that when Lucas realised how much *could* be done with today's technology, he didn't seem to consider whether or not it *should* be used to such an over-saturating extent. The new films seem so out-of-whack with the old ones with their clustered artifical cities etc. The old movies basically stuck to simple landscapes like the swamps of Dagobah, the desert of Tattoine, the frozen plains of Hoth, and the jungle of Endor. Small gripe? No way. It changes the whole feel and mood of the film. Big problem in the middle of all that is that they applied this "can-do, will-do" attitude to the cinematography too and neglected to use angles which added to the films, but rather those that "looked cool." Empire Strikes Back (which has the greatest score of any film in history, just thought I'd say) is a perfect example of masterfully constructed mood. Only Episode III even attempts to recapture this.
• And related to that landscape thing, when they weren't at those places they were on an enemy ship on some mission, or else fighting shit in space inside the Falcon. They weren't off having little political debates and I believe that this may have been the prequel trilogy's cardinal sin; it didn't know how to do what it wanted to do. Or maybe didn't know what it wanted to do. Either way, the plots are not simple adventures which along the way develop (through efficient means) relationships between characters and advance the big-picture-plot, but rather the plots are overly-complicated by uninteresting politics, and the adventures they DO embark on are of course are too CG-overloaded (see above).
• General Grievous is another cartoon character that should have been either omitted or, if required for the plot, been some sort of human character. Like Dooku. Ie. JUST HAVE DOOKU.
• The lightsabre fights were another case of overdoing things. Gone was the grace of the slow, calculating mind-battles of the originals. Here, Yoda flips around like an epileptic garden gnome and brute force seems to bring about victory in most cases. Anakin vs Dooku in Episode III was closer to the originals though I guess the "feel" still isn't there because of the CG backgrounds which give this and every other scene an artificial feel.

And these points are on-top of the obvious things like Jar-Jar and calling Anakin "Annie."

Episode III at least was a move towards the type of film we wanted to see, but was of course stuck within the confines of the "style" of the previous two films in the prequel series. I think in hindsight there shouldn't have been 3 new movies. There should have been 1 movie discovering Anakin etc. while setting-up the rise of the Empire as a background sub-plot, and then a second concluding film having that sub-plot rise into the foreground a bit more. We didn't need to know the origins of the Queen's political struggles on Naboo and all that shit. Maybe Star Wars geeks who read the novels and fanfic background info want to see it but it's too far removed from what the trilogy was about. Keep. Things. Simple. Of course, this two-part prequel series idea runs into a problem in that re-naming the first film "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the 1979 Star Wars re-release kind of left little room for negotiation.

Some More On The Oscars
From: http://www.the-deli.org/item/239

"What the fuck is with the Best Actresses though? Judi Dench could sit on a chair and look straight out of a window and critics would call it a "Masterpiece of unspoken virtue" or "Splendidly emotive and minimalist" and say that Dench is "surely the frontrunner for this years Best Actress Oscar" Her Mrs Henderson movie is supposed to be total ass."

Hehe.

And The Nominees Are...

Homer: Starchild
Don't know if it's just my computer or what, but the second picture in my last blog entry seems to have gone walkabouts, thus rendering the last paragraph even more non-sensicle than if it had been there. Hmm. Try googling "simpsons space odyssey" under image search and it should pop up in the top left if your computer and my computer do the same thing.

Make It So
Yesterday I watched First Contact, which is the 7,834th film in the Star Trek series. I've only ever seen one Star Trek movie in my life (Generations, and that was years ago) and it wasn't all that stunning, but this one is surprisingly good and justified my decision to randomly tape it out of the blue when it was on the other day. It's basically about a group of... space ship people I guess (what do you call them?) who are after an enemy that has gone back in time and taken over Earth before Earth was able to travel into space. So they go back, destroy the "Borg" ship that was itself attempting to destroy man's first ship capable of light-speed travel (which would according to history get us noticed by an advanced race and hence establish man's... First Contact with alien life) and then go down to 21st century Earth to check if the light-speed ship (set for launch a day later) is in fact undamaged. Complications arise when they discover the Borg on the enemy ship managed to teleport onto their own ship, the Enterprise (as I've discovered from the Next Generation eps I used to watch years ago, everyone likes teleporting everywhere), and that these Borg are taking over the crew, the ship's technology, and attempting to have a second attempt at destroying the light-speed ship using the Enterprise's own weapons.

This movie is entertaining (especially watching people from 400 years apart interacting with their wildly different customs, and the treatment of a historical hero - the guy who built the ship - as a "great man" as those in the future know him from textbooks when in reality he built the ship in hope of making money and is a drunk) and exhilarating (especially the will-they-notice-our-heroes scene when Jean-Luc Picard and company attempt to sabotage the Borg's new weapon). What's more, it's interesting for a number of issues raised including an android's attempts to become more human, although a discussion he has with the Borg leader about what makes a perfect being I felt could have been developed a bit more than it was. There are a few cliches, an occasional sci-fi-geek-pleasing bad line like "assimilate this!" when the Borgs (who assimilate people into their race through technology and make them half-cyborg... I think...) have their weapon blown up, and there are more contradictions than one could be bothered listing. But for all of that it's both interesting and fun, and as I can happily suspend my disbelief for a fantasy adventure like this, this movie gets a B, or 3.5/5.

EDIT: First Contact has a score of 7.4 on IMDB, was nominated in 1996 for an Oscar and is 94% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (100% Cream Of The Crop). Guess I'm not the only one who likes it. On that note, I strongly recommend the movie because now I know it isn't just my opinion, but the opinion of many that it's good. See it. Resistance is futile.

Speaking then of Oscars:

The Oscar Nominees Have Been Announced
Hopefully Village Skycity Cinemas will be running another free-movies-for-a-year competition involving picking the Oscar winners this year, because I don't see how I can lose with this predictable list:

http://www.oscars.org/78academyawards/noms.html

King Kong got only 4 nominations (booo!), and Batman Begins only got 1 while Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang missed out completely (argh!). Of my other Top 5 movies of last year (which I never got around to counting down like I did 6-10, and Harry Potter is now my new number 6 having been dislodged by Munich), Revenge Of The Sith was snubbed and got just a make-up nomination (with Narnia, Geisha and War Of The Worlds beating it into the effects categories) but thankfully SOMETHING I LOVED got a mention: Munich was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Editing, Original Score and Adapted Screenplay. Knowing my luck, it will probably lose all 5.

With 8 nominations, Brokeback Mountain will be the hot favourite for Best Picture, but expect variation amongst the acting categories. I will say no more in case that Village pick-the-oscar-winners competition does run and people steal my picks :p Must... defend... title...