I Eat Fish, Watch Movies

Some Vaguely Interesting (But Not Really) Spider-Man 3 Screenshots

2007-01-25T18:52:00.000+13:00

http://media.movies.ign.com/media/041/041073/imgs_1.html

I guess this is their "bullet in the eye"?

So Many Mexicans: An Oscar Story

2007-01-24T11:25:00.000+13:00

Oscar Nominations
Not good enough for Best Picture apparently, Pan's Labyrinth (the all-time best movie I've never seen) has picked up six Oscar nominations just days after breaking the language barrier and successfully expanding into the wider U.S. market. For all the nominations, if you missed them everywhere else and got all sweaty and anxious and stumbled here by chance during your frantic search for answers, click HERE to where IMDB's given them all a very nice layout I could never hope to emulate on a blog page that rarely posts my pictures in the right place and makes gigantic gaps between paragraphs that make me spend up to four whole minutes correcting them everytime I post.

As you can see, the nominations are largely as was expected. Of course, there's always something (or usually many things) worth griping about, and I'll pick Borat's nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. Okay, it was a funny movie, and that constitutes creative comedic writing. But COME ON. There wasn't even a proper script for the whole movie, probably just a "plan of attack" in terms of narrative and I doubt scripting exceeded funny ways of questioning participants and, later, voice-over (something which should never alone constitute Oscar-calibre writing no matter how clever or funny). Alas, it was Borat's only nomination, so perhaps they simply wanted to not snub it entirely for fear of getting shat on by the press, as would have been inevitable. In fact, forget "perhaps", I'm willing to bet that's EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Because the Academy does this every year to some poor movie, throwing in a sympathy vote while not really wanting it to win a damn thing out of fear of... whatever. Last year they had to go a step further and give Brokeback several nominations and even the sympathy Director win (which it deserved anyway) just to make it seem like they were being fair in snubbing it for Best Picture. Everyone watching knew what they'd done, they just couldn't prove it.

So sure it happens all the time, it's just that this Borat case seems to have exposed many Academy members as apparently not knowing what a screenplay is. Odd really. But given Poseidon made it to the big screen, not entirely surprising.

As Before
An unoriginal topic (already covered last week), but worth mentioning twice because this goes beyond discussing just the quality of the show. Basically, Heroes is killing me. I'll get to that in a minute.

First of all I'll ask: how the hell is ths such a popular hit over in the States? It's not that I can't see why people would watch it, which may seem to contradict my previous sentence, but rather the show is, if Monday's episode is anything to go by, moving at the pace of a snail. You know Lost last year? How nothing ever actually happened? Okay, well Lost progressed more in a single second-season flashback than Heroes has in its first three episodes so far, and the most recent episode was, in that respect, completely ridiculous. Oh, and only 39 minutes long, which may have contributed (ever so slightly). But yeah, at the moment it's all just a bunch of disconnected threads waiting way too long to get tied together (which will obviously happen eventually to some degree) meaning we get maybe six or seven minutes of each character's story per episode. And meaning nothing happens unless they force it in ridiculous ways. And boy oh boy do they force it in ridiculous ways. Just because someone can survive absolutely anything, doesn't mean they'd die every fucking day under normal circumstances. For fuck's sake. Claire, who possesses this power, has (in the space of three episodes) head her entire neck twisted around when accidentally hit by a football tackle (uh-huh), and has now had her neck impaled on a spike during a sex attack by a character who made no sense and made one of the shallowest, most stereotypical turns to evil-doer in TV history. What was I saying? Oh yeah: why is show so popular? Well we've established that nothing happens, there are nearly more ads than minutes of show, we barely spend enough time with characters to learn their names and that the show finds ridiculous means to force things to happen to make otherwise dull story threads interesting. What I don't understand is why millions of people have been happy to wait week after week for more of this. But they have. Last night in the States 24 barely beat it in the ratings. And in 24 shit happens all the time. 24 should be Bauer-ing Heroes.

Sound like a show-quality rant? Well it is and it isn't. My question about why the hell so many damn people have to be watching Heroes stems from my frustration at having millions of people see, and subconsciously commit to memory, a plot device I came up with two years ago (when it was original and innovative) which is getting butchered in the interests of shallow Hollywood entertainment. I've often mentioned, here and around, that man-in-a-bear-costume movie I want to make someday. You know, the one that I told you about while you stood there nodding and smiling and thinking to yourself Yeah, good luck with that, or maybe I hope this nutter hasn't got a knife. I'm well aware I'm the only person in the world who thinks this can be a good movie, and that's enough support for me. But anyway, in Heroes the Japanese guy (whose character and story are the only decent parts of the show so far) finds a comic book in the first two episodes (I forget which, they were played back-to-back here) which shows him himself and what's going to happen to him. When the comic book was introduced I was hoping that was it. It didn't seem to have too big a place in the show beyond making the guy want to contact the comic's author and, yes, I thought that was it. Never to be seen again. I'll explain why that left me relieved in a second. But then this third episode aired and took it further. He saw something in the comic book: a girl getting hit by a truck. And he used the book to find the location, find the girl and save the day. Pretty cool plot device.

Yeah, well I've had basically the same thing happen in the first act of the bear movie since April 2005. Main character, we'll call him Bear for now, is a bear wandering the streets of a big city and who essentially (eventually) amounts to a superhero. He stumbles upon a poster in the window of a comic book store. The poster depicts a superhero: a bear in a big city, like him, only our Bear isn't a hero just yet. He goes inside, buys the comic and in the early hours of the next morning is reading a page in which a man walking by on his cellphone gets into an argument with a lady screaming at him from an apartment window several floors up. Then THIS EXACT THING HAPPENS in front of Bear in real life. Next in the comic book: a young woman is followed at a distance by a man in a car, just across the road from the argument moments earlier. In the comic book, the superhero bear character tails them and finds the woman being attacked in an alleyway around the corner, and he steps in to heroically save the day. Bear then looks up from the comic and sees the woman and the car, sure enough, just across the street, and doesn't hesitate in tailing them, convinced that she's in trouble as depicted in the thus-far believable comic book. He find the woman and the man in the alleyway and saves the day. Thus, a hero is born. Of course there's a little more to it than that, and it plays out much less damsel-in-distress-ish than it sounds. You need to understand these events in the context of the character at that point - it's not as shallow, straightforward and simple as I described it, but the other details are beside the point for now. On top of that, the comic book device also forms both a symbolic and physical link to that other film I blogged about a couple of weeks back, Paris. It wasn't just something that happened that could be replaced if someone else did it in the meantime. It was a crucial element. And now the intrigue that goes with seeing such a device play out for the first time, drawing the audience into what amounts to the film's inciting incident, has been royally fucked in the ass by having Heroes expose millions of people to such a plot device already. I'm not saying millions of people would ever see my bear movie, just that enough will have seen Heroes such that my use of the device will be labelled as a rip-off. I can handle coming up with something that I think is original and interesting and then finding out someone else did it forty years ago. Wasn't so original afterall perhaps. But to come up with something, search the net and find no trace of it having been done anywhere, and then have some hack making a shit show, but nonetheless in a position to actually execute the ideas he has, use the same thing a year later in an emphatic wasting of potential is, yes, somewhat frustrating.

Fortunately, Heroes is walking in all the right directions right now toward setting itself up for homage. The main themes of my film, which admittedly took 18 months to figure out and meant the film was for a long while written on instinct, put it in a perfect position such that the comic thing can act, for anyone who's seen the show, as an homage to Heroes to in turn further the themes its trying to explore through contrast. Or something. But I think it can be done. So that way people don't look at the comic device and say "thief" but rather wonder what point's trying to be made. Of course, I'd rather I didn't have to do that and had people think I'd come up with something original and innovative, but it's not an awful second prize I suppose. Maybe. I'll sob for a couple more days and then get over it.

Lemontree
Been down to Murvale Reserve on Monday and had a quick look around the Macleans fields yesterday to figure out how I'm shooting my "forest scene," and I think that while I might need to rely a little on coverage at times just in case, I can probably shoot most of the shots I had planned, which is awesome. So enough worrying about a movie that's years off if I even get to it at all, the news is all good so far for a current, relevant project at least. So far. I won't breathe a sigh of relief yet until certain casting-related things are sorted out. No pressure. Ahem.

A Rare Proper-ish Review, Littered With Crash Comparisons

2007-01-20T12:55:00.000+13:00

Babel: A Really Good Film In There Somewhere
Babel is the movie Crash wanted to be, and which Paul Haggis (who I maintain contributed the last half-hour of Casino Royale only) could never write. But while its a more insightful and (no-shit) more subtle film than last year's winner of "Best Picture" at the Oscars and "Most Overrated" the second it was labelled "great" by anyone anywhere, and is helmed by a director who at least has somewhat of an idea of how to handle its subject matter, it has its problems.

I guess the whole web of life thing is getting real old real fast as it becomes a more frequently used device for filmmakers to try to "open our eyes," or perhaps damn us all, in the hope that by giving us a broad enough scope we might see "real life" in there somewhere and find the film important and relatable to the world around us. And it's a shame that Babel furthered that feeling for me when it was one less storyline away from nailing the approach. Magnolia nails it. Crash is at the other end of the spectrum, where the director thinks his audience will buy any number of coincidences and contrivances and eat up any message so long as its force-fed with a flavour-masking dollup of obviousness and a glass of bullshit to wash it all down.

Brad Pitt's Oscar clip

Babel's four storylines begin as follows. (1) An American couple holidaying in Morocco: wife is shot while riding a tour bus. A stray bullet? The work of bandits? Terrorists? They're too far from anyone that can really help so they stop off at some shit-hole third world village and Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt cry a lot. (2) A Moroccan family living out in the middle of nowhere, apparently, with some sheep or goats something. The kids are given a gun to shoot predators, and while playing around with it and testing its range, shoot at a car, and then a tour bus. Oooohhhhh. They hit someone. Who we later find out (but guess immediately anyway) is Cate Blanchett. I didn't ruin it. It's obvious, and it's close to the start. Plus if you've seen a trailer or TV spot you knew already. (3) Back at home, Blanchett/Pitt's kids are with their Mexican nanny. The nanny can't go to her son's wedding because she has to look after the kids. She goes anyway. Obviously, something will therefore go wrong and she will be found out, its just a matter of how much Haggis they throw at us along the way. (4) A deaf Japanese girl finds herself constantly rejected by those around her, and seeks attention.

Inarritu said (according to the booklet thing at the Rialto) that he began filming Babel as a film exploring the barriers between human beings but, through constant rewriting as filming progressed and as the locations they were shooting in continued to open his own eyes to the world around him, became a film about the things which bring us together. Like Crash, cultural barriers are certainly a key focus, but its not simply "everyone's a racist at heart." The Western tourists eager to flee the middle-of-nowhere Moroccon town and leave the wounded Blanchett and her husband to wait for help that may not even be coming are perfectly realistic characters driven by realistic motivations - fearing their surroundings, particularly if the shooting was a deliberate targetted attack, you can't really look at these people and judge them. They're fearful of this landscape. And why wouldn't they be: the first thing the public hears of the shooting is that the Americans are calling it a possible terrorist attack. Possible, sure, but only in the sense that anything's possible. The work of a bullet fired by a couple of kids on the edge of their farmlands, remember. But they have to mention "terrorism" as a possibility. That's the world we live in now, with the Western media's (outside perhaps the BBC) tendency to sensationalise (and American government and military's tendency to over-react) no doubt contributing to the divide between the Western world and the third-world as it becames a more foreign and fearful place. Inarritu draws attention to this; America's trigger-happy public assessment of a situation they as yet know nothing about is met with a cold reception from the Moroccan government, claiming to have largely eradicated terrorist cells in the country, frustrated no doubt to be simply thrown into the mix as another dangerous third-world country particularly given the inevitable damage to their image and, consequently, tourism industry. This political locking of horns sees Blanchett's shooting become a worldwide news event before help has even arrived. And that help's been held-up now too; the American helicopter's not getting clearence from the Moroccans because of the debacle. So yeah, she's lying there, bleeding away, while the Americans do their "rabble, rabble!" South Park thing. And I was sitting there thinking: that's so true.

But this movie isn't simply politically motivated. Like I say, there is a broader theme here and the Blanchett/Pitt story is just one angle from which it's approached.

The Japanese story seems quite far-removed at first, and indeed while many may look at this thread and ask "what's the point?" or "how does this connect", I would argue that this is part of the point. The story is connected in a way that could be looked at as almost being Crash-ridiculous; the gun used to shoot Blanchett and Pitt was sold to the boys' father by a guy who received it as a gift from a Japanese hunter he guided several years earlier. And yeah, that Japanese hunter is the father of the deaf girl who stars in the Japanese story. How dare this movie use a silly string of events to justify putting this story on screen, you ask? I hope you didn't, because many people have and they seem to be in the mindset that the connection is ridiculous just because it sounds like it should be. But the connection isn't the point. It's not as if the story at the other end is some other International crisis and that they're connected in such a way would be unlikely and ludicrous. It's Inarritu saying that this is just one of those things happening in some part of the world; this character could be that person connected in that way because that person could be anybody. It's a smaller-scope story, like that of the boys responsible for the shooting in Morocco. I feel the need to emphasise this because I've read the silly-connection criticism everywhere and it's frustratingly moronic.

The Japanese story, one not of cultural clashes but of a girl facing barriers within her own society, eventually emerges as perhaps the strongest element of the film, and is suitably chosen to end the film (in a fairly breathtaking way). As with the story of the boys responsible for the shooting, which as I say is quite straightforward storywise, I won't elaborate too much here because doing so would ruin a few things worth discovering for yourself.

It's not that the film shines throughout. You could pick weak points in any of these stories. But the weakest is undoubtedly the Mexico storyline, the one where the nanny takes the American kids with her to her son's wedding. Now we're fully into Crash territory. It's not simply that the story resembles Crash thematically, which it does (it still does it far better), it's just that now I too have to be critical of the connection here. Shortly after having his wife shot while on holiday, back home Pitt's kids end up involved in a rather eyebrow-raising police chase that seemed a tad what-the-fuck-ish, and soon find themselves wandering dehydrated through the desert, all setting-up for a tragic set of cirucmstances faced by the nanny with the film, in the process, being insightful. You've got to be shitting me. Thing is, I liked what they did with the story; but while the "point" was strong, the means of getting there really let this movie down. It seemed way too contrived that this happened too. But fortunately, I can therefore only label one quarter of this movie as such, whereas with Crash it was the entire thing. And there really are some strong points worth giving credit for too; the use of time for example is superb. We learn of what happens to Blanchett in the days after her shooting not simply by time-lapsing five days but by setting the Japanese story, playing out intercut with the others, five days later. And other stories are set a day or two apart too to provide different perspectives on events also, something the film does effectively.

I said before that this film was a decent pick at the Globes for Best Drama, and I suppose it is - it's far better than Crash, and that won the Oscar. But I should also add that I made that comment within the context of expectation. In other words, for an awards show they could have picked a lot worse. I don't think Babel is brilliant filmmaking. At times it is, certainly, but its one of those flawed films that could undoubtedly have been tighter. The good thing is that if you watch movies a lot (like I do) you let yourself subconciously give films a little bit of room to make mistakes without noticing them too much or letting them hinder your enjoyment - until, that is, said-film crosses the line (like many films do). Well, Babel doesn't really cross that line too often, so I could appreciate it for what it was and it gets a thumbs up from me. Certainly worth your time, unless you're dying of cancer and have like two weeks to live.

Remind Me Not To Bother Next Year

2007-01-18T12:16:00.000+13:00

How Irony-y
Just a minute ago, in the process of removing something stuck between my teeth using a toothpick, the end of the toothpick snapped off and became stuck between my teeth.

Heroes, Fugliness & Golden Balls. And By Balls, I Mean Artistic Vision.
Quite an interesting few days on the entertainment front I guess, over here at least. Heroes and Ugly Betty, two of the highest-rating and most acclaimed shows of the 06-07 U.S. television season debuted on NZ screens, followed by the Golden Globes on Tuesday night. Heroes in my mind came off as a disjointed show with good ideas and no idea how to execute them, but I'll give it time to find its feet; afterall, Prison Break initially seemed like a superficial Shawshank knockoff right down to the character types (Hadley=Bellick, Bogs=T-Bag, Brooks Hatlen=Westmoreland) and protagonist-warden relationship, and that show's turned out more than okay. Ugly Betty? Could be decent I guess. Seemed likable, even if the pilot's resolution was as cliched and predictable (as well as somewhat not-at-all-believable) as hell.

More interestingly, the Golden Globes kicked off the major awards season. Did I say more interestingly? Because the dull bastard child of the Oscars and Emmys just got duller. Hampered by overly long speeches from overly uninteresting "Oh wow! Must thank everyone"ers and the lack of a host, the show remained watchable if only due to the large proportion of British Globe-winners, because while the Yanks kept going up and listing every name in the phone book while doing their best not to faint with surprise, it seemed like every British recipient had something amusing to say and wasn't really taking it all that seriously because, you know, the awards are afterall a load of nonsense. Until at least, as Bill Nighy commented with a sly grin, you win one: then they suddenly seem "so real and meaningful."

The worst crimes of the night came in the major categories at the end which were not only rushed because they'd let everyone, mostly Warren Beatty, talk too long, and were consequently reduced to quick anti-climactic buzzkilling roll-calls of nominees, but were also scarred by Oscar-syndrome at times, especially in the Comedy/Musical category where the best four (consensus-wise) were all overlooked in favour of Oscar-bait Dreamgirls (triumphing in its category over the likes of Little Miss Sunshine and Thank You For Smoking because its "that type of movie" and is also the only one currently in cinemas, which no doubt earned it the all-important retirement-home vote by being the only film most aging critics would have remembered). I can live with Babel taking home Drama; I've always thought awarding zero, one or multiple films in any given year makes more sense (and will never happen) because the "best" film in one year is often the 6th best the next year - i.e. there's no quality standard, rendering the award meaningless beyond an intra-annual comparison - but Babel was at least "at that standard" even though many will probably argue The Queen and The Departed, neither of which I've yet seen, are better and should have taken home the globe if only one is up for grabs. But well done to Babel, or something.

At the Globes they inevitably try to stuff too much into one evening, mainly because the Hollywood Foreign Press knows that without the TV-Cinema hybrid hook they'd be exposed for the redundant pre-Oscar prediction ceremony that it really is; as it happens, nobody seems willing to publicly point out that awarding TV shows barely half-way through their seasons is stupid and pointless, and so the show lives on for another year. So with the lettuce already overflowing from between its one-too-many buns, what you don't get then is that all-important, time-consuming ingredient: the host. The Oscars are the Oscars for a lot of reasons, but its with a strong host and presenting line-up that the show usually ends up more worthwhile for the creativity on-stage than for that which the show's celebrating off it. Who can forget Ben Stiller's "green screen" stunt last year? If you missed it, it's worth a look - possibly the best thing to happen to the Oscars in years. Can't find it on YouTube myself.

Yeah, well this year at the Globes he stood there and announced the nominees and looked bored. And strangely old. In fact, only Tom Hanks's "ballsy" Beatty presentation kicked any kind of ass.

Anyways, the good news is that the next lot of major awards will be at the BAFTAs, a show which inevitably kicks all kinds of ass from a variety of continents because it's crawling with British people who, as we have already established, are entertaining by nature. What's more, the BAFTAs award movies for "being good". Yeah, that old philosophy.

"Pirates" Upgrades Its Wardobe Department

2007-01-13T12:25:00.000+13:00

Following on from a partial script-leak a few weeks back, the latest cat to escape from POTC3's rather porous bag has come in the form of a batch of character posters showcasing a stylish new look... of sorts. At World's End and Dead Man's Chest were shot together and will probably look very much the same (by comparison it took two years between films plus Joel Schumacher before Batman's infamous nipple-suit arrived on the scene) but this radical departure from the colourful marketing approach of the last two films is at the very least intriguing if it's any indication of what to expect from the film itself.

If You've Seen Casino Royale

2007-01-12T18:37:00.000+13:00

Then you'll appreciate the Abridged Script by Rod Hilton.

MADS kidnaps EVA and a car chase ensues.

DANIEL CRAIG
Perfect. A big car chase climax and we've got a nice, taut little movie.

Suddenly the car chase ends abruptly. DANIEL gets TORTURED, then NOT TORTURED.

EVA GREEN
I love you inexplicably. We don't actually need to have any chemistry to get away with this big character change, right?

DANIEL CRAIG
Let's make up for the lack of chemistry by tacking on 30 minutes of trite, mushy garbage.

Well actually that's the best part. But there are some terrific parodies on there such as Click which, if you've seen the movie, nails it to the wall.

Check out the archive here.

Dear Reader

2007-01-12T12:17:00.000+13:00

An Apology
I read over yesterday's blog entry this morning and considered deleting it. In case you were fortunate enough to have avoided it, it reads like this:

"I had some experience with music today that I'm not making an effort to properly articulate in any interesting way and am basically saying nothing."

"By the way, some Simpsons episode was mediocre, as opposed to bad. Now that I have established this as a relevant subject, I can finally write that thing I've been meaning to say for weeks since I last saw the Who Shot Mr. Burns? episode regarding why the Simpsons movie should be like that, but as many weeks have passed by I have forgotten what my main points were and am basically saying nothing."

"Hmm, uh... this is going nowhere... Movies to look forward to in 2007, that could be interesting. Well, could be, but it doesn't mean I'll make any effort to ensure that's the case. In fact, let's write as little as possible, and basically say nothing beyond listing a few titles, quite pathetic for someone so passionate about cinema. But what the hey."

I've thought it over and reconsidered. I think I need the post to stay, and I might even link the main page to it just as a reminder to myself to stop wasting people's time by writing uninteresting bullshit - it'll serve as a reference point whenever I think I might be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Last year when I was writing for I Love Lamp there was a point where we were getting 150-200 hits a day and yeah, with that kind of audience you kind of have to stay on your toes because it's like standing up in front of a small assembly and babbling on about meandering bullshit: if you don't make an effort, and who the hell's gonna come back for more? Especially when it's an assembly, because at assemblies you get sore legs and buttocks and it smells like feet. Well I hadn't checked StatCounter for a while but I found that a surprising fair few unfortunate souls visited here yesterday for whatever reason, albiet many were brief accidental-stumblers from America possibly eager to escape being sent to Iraq, but that's kind of aided yesterday's entry in becoming somewhat of a wake-up call telling me that I shouldn't be vomiting out chunks for dull uninspired nothingness on too regular a basis because it's a waste of a lot of people's time. Where's the passion? The fire? Where the hell did the all-important

go? If I'm gonna talk about why Grindhouse is worth seeing, I shouldn't be listing off a few features like I'm selling a Toyota. I should be calling it for what it is: the most badass you'll-literally-exit-the-theatre-in-a-fuckin'-wheel-chair thing you'll see all year. Let me see that face again:

Ladies and gentlemen, that's Grindhouse.

2007 In Film

2007-01-11T19:52:00.000+13:00

Tool
You know how sometimes you buy an album and it takes a while to see what's so great about it then you'll be sitting there in the right mood listening to it while you do something and it's just kind of "there" playing in the background and you're not paying it much attention and all of a sudden you realise you "get it"? Maybe not. But that happens to me a lot and it just happened to me and Ænima, which I finally picked up from Real Groovy on Monday. Awesome album. Eventually.

Lateralus is up next I guess, which I hear takes ages to "get." May as well tackle it - I do have available "ages" to wait until Chi-Dem arrives. Possibly literally.

"All I Wanted Was A Second Honeymoon And Now The Floor's Made Of Lava..."
Incredibly, an episode of The Simpsons from 2004 they just screened on TV3 this evening didn't completely suck; it wasn't great but it was actually almost passable as an "old episode." Why? It was family-centric for one thing, which always helps, it avoided being overly outrageous and bizarre in ways that simply don't fit in with the tone of the show, it featured some very clever lines and amongst other highlights parodied the Catch Me If You Can credits sequence fairly effectively too, recalling some clever references from the old eps.

But I was thinking about The Simpsons Movie coming out this year, the plot of which is currently unknown, and how they should approach it. From the teasers, it looks like they're going for big dumb jokes, and I'm hoping what we've seen so far won't actually be in the film (might not be, they're pretty basic gags that could have been thrown together to avoid letting us see anything of the film itself), though I get the feeling this is going to be one of those lame "adventure episodes" stretched out over 90 minutes. And I think the best model they should have based this film on would have to be the two-parter Who Shot Mr. Burns? from back in the day. I saw it a few weeks ago and it struck me as the type of thing which, in feature length, could set up for some tight, focussed storytelling within the typical Simpsons mould we're expecting from the film anyway - avoiding it from becoming too bloated in its lengthy form. Right now I honesly think it's gonna suck, and I've been right about movies way too often lately.

Movies You Have To See In 2007
I did this in February last year and was sometimes right (Inside Man, MI3, Superman Returns, POTC2, Snakes On A Plane, The Good Shepherd, Flags Of Our Fathers, The Departed) and sometimes so very, very wrong (Ice Age 2, Poseidon, Miami Vice, X3, The Sentinel). But anyways, looking through the 2007 release schedule, here are my picks for movies you have to see this year and the all important "why"...

Smokin Aces (January) - The new film from the guy who did Narc stars Jeremy Fuckin' Piven and looks funny, action-packed and stylish. Need I say more?
The Number 23 (February) - Jim Carrey's new film is a dark twisted tale of paranoia in which he discovers a book that appears to be based on his life and ends with somebody's murder... Kind of similar to last year's Stranger Than Fiction, but despite that and the fact that it's directed by Joel Schumacher (who did, in all fairness, nail Phone Booth), it looks very cool
300 (March) - A historical epic based on the works of Frank "Sin City" Miller and directed by the guy who did the Dawn Of The Dead remake *drools*
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (March) - This one's done as a CG, but it could be shot on Super 8 and I'd at least rent it
Grind House (April) - I plugged this one last year too when it was scheduled for October 2006. Rodriguez + Tarantino + Kurt Russell + Zombies + Woman with a gun for a leg. Holy fuckin' shitballs, it's a cinephile's wet dream come true
Pirates 3 (May) - Yeah, skipped over Spider-Man 3 because IT WILL SUCK. Heard nothing but bad news. I'm still not sold on Pirates 3 either actually, but if it's better than 2 then it'll at least be worth seeing, because part 2 was quite decent if ultimately unsatisfying due to its inevitable incompleteness
Hostel 2 (June) - Hostel was a surprisingly intriguing, sadistic hardcore-thriller / softcore-porno, and I think we can count on Eli Roth for a sequel of equal "quality"
Ocean's Thirteen (June) - Let's not kid around here: Twelve was abysmal. But, on the other hand, Thirteen has AL PACINO.
Live Free Or Die Hard (June) - Die Hard 4, for those who missed the reference. Like The Simpsons, I think they may take the wrong approach - the trailer hinted at big budget action but little of the suspense or humour that's characterised the series in the past. That said, ITS DIE HARD 4 BABY
Harry Potter 5 (July) - I've skipped Evan Almighty (expecting typical bad Hollywood material and a waste of Carrell's talents) and Transformers (damn you Michael Bay), but I must recommend this one - the series is on the right track after the last two entries, and I'm particularly interested to see how they turn this next installment into a movie given the general lack of movie-ness of the book
The Bourne Ultimatum (August) - The perpetually solid-but-not-spectacular series finishes with a movie directed now by a post-United 93 Paul Greengrass; i.e. maybe he'll calm the fuck down for this one too
Rush Hour 3 (August) - Oh yeah, another awesome sequel - Tucker + Chan equals gold so this should be great. Yes, that's CHRIS Tucker in case you forgot, he hasn't been in a movie since... Rush Hour 2. In 2001. Seriously.
Mr. Bean's Holiday (September) - I'm skeptical, but the awful trailer showed this was closer to Bean-the-TV-character than the last movie's Bean-via-Hollywood, which can only be a good thing
American Gangster (October) - Ridley Scott directs Denzel and Russell Crowe and it's a crime drama. w00t indeed.
The Golden Compass (December) - Based on Northern Lights, which I loved back at Macleans a few years back. Cool.
I Am Legend (December) - Will Smith who, with The Pursuit Of Happyness's incredible success, proved himself once again to be the most bankable actor in the world, stars in a movie where he fights vampires or something: a pretty awesome way to finish the year I say

Poor Nicolas Cage

2007-01-10T16:45:00.000+13:00

A Case Of Having To See It To Believe It
After The Wicker Man received the worst reviews of Nicolas Cage's career so far, I began wondering if it was the end of this once-reliable actor's fragile stint as an arguable A-list star. Coming off the success of National Treasure, his next two films The Weatherman and Lord Of War suddenly bombed within weeks of each other in September 2005; both were decent movies that were simply shafted by their studio, but without a strong marketing campaign each proved he needed more than his name to get people through the door. Then came the Ghost Rider delays, a sign of poor quality and lack of studio confidence if ever you see one. The Wicker Man seemed like the nail in the coffin given what people were saying about it.

But until today I didn't realise just how bad The Wicker Man really was. I haven't seen it yet, but I've seen enough, courtesy of this YouTube "highlight" reel (below). Watching it you have to consciously remind yourself that this is not a comedy, and any serious movie that requires that effort from its audience is in trouble. No professional screenwriter should have ever even dreamt up any of these scenes - ever - let alone written them on paper. And to think that the producers, director and financially-paranoid studio executives must have all read them and thought "super", and then Nicolas Cage, who'd done a movie like Adaptation, read this script and was convinced to sign a commitment to make this movie. What a world we live in.

"NOT THE BEES! ARGGGGHHHH! MY EYES! ARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHflblaghflhfludh!!!!"

We're (less violently) shaking our heads with you, Mr. Cage.

A Quick One While He's Away

2007-01-09T21:32:00.000+13:00

How To Prank A Telemarketer
A slice of genius from YTMND.com. Takes like no time at all to load, and I know you have at least a couple of spare minutes if you're visiting this blog, so you have no excuse not to WATCH IT NOW. With the sound on of course.

James. Cameron. Is. Back. Officially.
Fox has greenlit the $190m blockbuster Avatar, written and to-be-directed by the king of big budget moviemaking, James Cameron - nearly 10 years since his last feature, Titanic, wrapped filming.

Avatar is written by Cameron from an idea he nurtured for over a decade, while working on the technology necessary to realize its wholly imagined world. A return to the action adventure sci-fi genre that made him famous, Avatar is also an emotional journey of redemption and revolution. It is the story of a wounded ex-marine, thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival. It thus again combines the elements of massive spectacle and intimate character that made Titanic the highest grossing film of all time; a title it still holds by over three quarters of a billion dollars.

Said Cameron, "For me, as a lifelong fan of science fiction and action, 'Avatar' is a dream project. We're creating an entire world, a complete ecosystem of phantasmagorical plants and creatures, and a native people with a rich culture and language. The story is both epic and emotional. The two things that make this film even possible are pioneering advances in CG effects and performance capture, as well as my 22 year relationship with Fox, since only with great trust can you operate so close to the cutting edge..."

On the technological side of things:

The film's new image-based process of facial performance capture will get all the subtle nuances of the actors' performances. The virtual camera system will allow Cameron to work intimately with the cast while seeing in real-time, as each scene evolves, the computer generated worlds and characters. This revolutionary approach allows Cameron to direct scenes with CG characters and environments exactly as he would on a live action set.

The edited performances and scenes, incorporating Cameron's hands-on camera moves, will be turned over to Peter Jackson's Oscar-winning visual effects house Weta Digital ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy). Weta's artists will incorporate new intuitive CGI technologies to transform the environments and characters into photorealistic 3D imagery that will transport the audience into the alien world rich with imaginative vistas, creatures and characters. Avatar is produced by Cameron and Jon Landau for Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment. Principal photography will take place in and around Los Angeles, and in New Zealand.

...

Saying the production process is similar to creating an animated film, Cameron estimated that the finished film will be 60% CG elements and 40% live action. He is aiming for the sort of photo-realism achieved by the CG sequences in "Kong" and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. "We had a number of processes we wanted to bring to maturation," he said. "We wanted to kick up to the next level of cinematographic precision the 3-D live-action photography we had been using on the documentary films. We refined the second generation of the Fusion camera." The proprietary Fusion digital 3-D camera system was developed by Cameron and Vince Pace. The performance-capture side took longer, Cameron said, "because as mature as performance capture is for gross body motion, facial performance capture is still a nascent art." The competitive race among four VFX houses for the assignment to supervise the film's visual effects was won by Peter Jackson's Oscar-winning Weta Digital, which worked on "Rings." "Any one of them could have handled the volume of shots, the scale of the project, and handled the technology," Cameron said. "Joe Lettieri and his team had a history of translating facial performance capture to really good photo-real characters. The culture there is imbued from the head down with a passion for fantasy filmmaking. And they met us halfway on the price."

And yes, it does sound kind of like Dances With Wolves in space. Shooting starts in April, and the film will be released in 2009, two years on. This is despite the fact that live-action shooting will last for just 30-40 days, giving an indication of the level of post-production going into this monster I guess. I, for one, am pumped.

Pigs On The Wing 1

2007-01-05T18:47:00.000+13:00

The Prestige
In short? A how-to of set-up and pay-off. Hyphen-hyphen. One of those movies where there were little clues and things said by characters that were significant but which I didn't pick up on the relevance of until a good few minutes after the credits rolled, like Bale telling Jackman about the Chinese guy pulling a Keyser Soze with his cripple-ness and the parallel with his own charade. Looking forward to a second viewing on DVD someday to gather the clues like some forager in the Hollywood bushes.

Pigs (Three Different Ones)
These last couple of weeks I've felt as though my passion for filmmaking has been reignited, having previously let my interest wane (without realising it) through prolonged inactivity. I feel like getting out there and working on every damn project I can get my hands on (assuming they don't resemble the 15 Minutes Of Fame shorts).

And I finally think I have "the idea" that I want to apply all the best ideas I can steal from my discarded scripts and notes over the years to. I've already taken a creepy sinister scene that was the highlight from the hour-long surreal semi-noir drama Paris and am planning to apply it to the new movie's more comical B-movie context, which solves the problem of the scene simply being too dull perhaps, if nevertheless devillishly dark and delightfully disgusting, before. Which means buh-bye to Paris for now, even though it was the best largely-complete thing I've written outside of the bear movie (incidentally, Paris was set in the same fictional city as the bear project and featured two of that film's characters, so it may still see the light of day eventually).

Anyways, this new project could be good. And if not, I'm sure it'll be a fun journey along the way and a good learning experience.

Ice Caps Are Stupid
You ever hear that joke about the blonde falling out of an aircraft and surviving or something because she has to stop and ask for directions on the way down? If not, I ruined the punchline so take out your deneuraliser, remove your RayBans and anticipate enjoying the joke proper someday should you and it cross paths.

Well my point here isn't the joke, it's the parallel between the blonde and nature's own blonde, Ice Caps. As you may be able to see in the tagboard to the right of this post (unless you're randomly reading this post months later and the discussion has since been displaced by more of those penis-enhancing-medicine spam messages that plague this blog from time to time) while Ice Age 2 was still poorly plotted, lazily resolved, featured too many uninteresting and in many cases pointless new characters and also suffered from whatever else I ranted about I may have, in my general disinterest, missed the bit when some annoying character explained that the apparent sea of water extending far beyond the ice wall was in fact the (deeply) melted surface of an ice cap, as opposed to the ocean. My assumption I guess was that ice would never melt like that, so such an explanation never crossed my mind as I marvelled at the only good thing about the film (greatly improved CG textures) and ignored much of the babble.

If the movie was suggesting such a pattern of ice-melting, it seems even worse then the non-sensicle ocean. Now we'd be assuming ice melts from the inside, and that the top-surface is melting faster than the wall-surface. But according to David, who I'll never argue with over such matters because - as I learned at Macleans - he knows obscure stuff like this, this is a rare exception in the movie: of all the stupid things the creators of Ice Age 2 did, they weren't entirely responsible for this one. It is in fact a fuck up of nature. It actually happens. Inexplicably.

Drop a cube of ice in a glass like so.

If it melts like this (below), that's because your glass and block of ice are not Greenlandish fuckups:

If your ice melts like this (below), you are in fact a Giant looking at an Ice Cap. Perhaps you could use your big loud booming voice to tell nature's blonde to stop melting like a freak and start making sense, because this doesn't:

Santa Tung

2006-12-31T11:42:00.000+13:00

2007
New year's about to tick over, couldn't care less really. Seen a few films recently worth mentioning, starting with Ice Age 2. I finally got around to watching the original a couple of weeks back - it was simple, and I mean simple, but it worked. A lot better than Pixar's dull misfire Cars. But boy oh boy is Ice Age 2 a shitfest of Madagascar-proportions or what? After an ugly, muddled & completely pointless opening introducing a large array of entirely irrelevant "characters" (I spit on your boots) just so we get the point that lives will be in danger if/when the valley is flooded (premise), the film proceeds to superficially imitate good elements of its predecessor while lumbering along a "plotline" devoid of any of the elements that could threaten to actually make the damn thing compelling. The first hour was like all those pages of going up and down hills in Tolkein's brick The Lord Of The Rings. Then there were 10-15 minutes of genuinely interesting material when the flood threatened and I realised I gave more of a Ratatuoille's ass about the characters than they really deserved by that point, presumably just a hangover on my part from my association with their formerly likable selves from the first film. Then this crisis was diverted in perhaps the laziest resolution ever digitally animated (for the all-time record it's a showdown vs. Poseidon among others).

Backtrack: the premise of the film starts with the idea that the ice around the valley is the only thing blocking out the ocean which is this high outside:

This ice wall (above) is melting and will soon crumble. Yet when the wall breaks and flood "attacks", the wall then cracks in another part and... no, not more flooding - on the other side we find another valley for all the water to flood into! This means at some point the ocean must suddenly and against the laws of gravity jut-down like this:

Even if we are to accept this (and I'm a reasonable man: I'm willing to give it a shot and perhaps imagine that Valley 2 is ALSO surrounded by an ice wall and ignore the fact that REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS MOVIE ENDS IT'LL ALL MELT SOON AND THEY'RE STILL ALL FUCKED) the breaking of the wall to allow the flood waters to drain out is caused by CHANCE, a deus ex machina; Scrat causes it entirely by accident. Pfffffffftsltft. PLUS: isn't the valley they're all in still flooding from the frickin' OCEAN? When the water drains through the second broken wall and into the second valley are we to assume that this new valley is large enough and deep enough to stem the flow of the entire ocean? NOT ONLY THAT but then some Mammoths in Valley 2 emerge ie. inexplicably not drowned by the GIANT SURGING OCEAN THAT JUST HEADED THEIR WAY. "Oh but it's a kids' movie." So's The Lion King, and that made sense. And had a plot. And generally all-round didn't suck. I make no apologies for not leaving my brain at the door or not letting a bunch of money-hungry executives off the hook for putting in as little effort as possible in milking the Ice Age cash sloth.

However, a glowing recommendation for each of my two most recent viewings, United 93 and The Squid And The Whale. These are two of the best 2000s movies I've seen so it was a pleasure watching them back to back. Squid is a brilliantly written semi-autobiographical dramedy from Wes Anderson-collaborator Noah Baumbach. It's a genuinely genuine movie, one of 'em films that could have easily ended up as pretentious bullshit in the wrong hands, and in the process shows up a lot of pretentious bullshit films for what they really are. Now I'm not some snobby asshole who goes around labelling films left, right and centre as pretentious, that itself would, ironically, be a pretentious thing to do, I guess it's more that there's as obvious gulf between the craftmanship shown in something like this vs. something bland but artsy as a lot of low-budget "arthouse" dramas tend to be (you know the type, the ones that rely on the audience to invent subtlety and subtext that isn't really there), or vs. a more "Hollywood" Oscar-bait type film (the ones you see all the time; watching Squid was like listening to something like Snow Patrol for a few days - nice, pleasent, good and entirely enjoyable, you don't even consider what you're missing - then putting on Physical Graffiti: the alcoholic's moment of clarity). Just as Squid avoids what's almost become mandatory pretentiousness and even that forced kind of quirkiness affiliated with its "type" of movie (if I may be so bold) that only people like Anderson can pull off without making it feel like its there to make up for something lacking everywhere else in the film, United 93 avoids the trap of being manipulative, and that, my friend, shocked the shit out of me. It's realistic and very intense, a no holds barred shotgun-blast-from-inside-the-lense of a film that achieves tension and suspense despite, or perhaps feeding off, the fact that we know what happens. Truly stunning stuff. Oh and while Greengrass's DOP still appears to have Parkinson's, at least he got around to telling his scissor-happy editor to CALM THE FUCK DOWN.

Again With The Globes And The What-Not
I've mentioned before, surely, my criticism of the Golden Globes Musical/Comedy category for Best Picture, with films like Ray and Walk The Line - essentially dramas with splatterings of musical performances tucked away inside - making the cut on a technicality that undermines the whole purpose of the term "musical" in the award heading (the award was created to account for typical Hollywood musicals that were therefore pretty much "comedies" anyway or at the very least captured a less realistic more theatrical form of drama - the title just clarified something so that musicals had a definite place in awards consideration, alongside similar types of non-musical movies). These (*cough* formulaic Oscar-bait *cough*) dramas are therefore competing in the Picture and Acting stakes against entirely dissimilar films requiring entirely dissimilar skill sets - fine if its the Oscars which does that anyway in overall categories, but why bother making the distinction if you're then gonna let The Incredibles compete against Ray regardless?

Well my new annoyance is with the Foreign Language category. The lead-headed Oscars at least got this right: giving recognition to films produced outside of Hollywood which, due to cultural, filmic and language barriers, aren't likely to be embraced in the mainstream and may struggle to gain momentum in major categories against the big-budget campaigning by Hollywood studios looking to cash in on ticket or DVD sales boosts. The Globes this year included in their nominees Apocalypto, directed in true Hollywood style by Mel Gibson for Icon & Disney and funded by American money and which hit number one at the box office in its opening week on the back of strong marketing support and a mega-wide release, and Letters From IWO Jima, Clint Eastwood's other (than Flags Of Our Fathers) Hollywood World War II drama of 2006 that's in Japanese for authenticity (it's from their side of the Iwo Jima story) but is essentially Flags Of Our Fathers 2 and American. Tell me you see where the Hollywood Foreign Press missed the point there.

I Win
In a year when I found myself backing Snakes On A Plane and Borat months before supporting either became a fashionable internet craze, and predicted that despite a ludicrous premise Rocky Balboa would be good, Pan's Labyrinth, which I've been raving about since I first saw out of the corner of my eye an mindblowingly ultra-imaginative single frame printed in a copy of Empire some guy beside me was reading in Real Groovy back in June or July, is currently at 99% on Rotten Tomatoes after a gazillion reviews, proving once again that I have better judgement skills than most Jedi. And if not, then at least Helen Keller. And if not, then at least Rolling Stone's music reviewers.

EDIT: Need to proof-read for errors next time. Geesh.

Correction

2006-12-22T21:44:00.001+13:00

By ever I mean "since 1970." Because that's when The Beatles broke up.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-21T18:57:00.000+13:00

In Advance
Because I probably won't blog on the day, and it's less redundant before than after.

Cheers Dennis, 'tis awesome :D

Radiohead Are The Greatest Band In The World
Back in the day a lot of someday-great artists would first emerge with one crappy album and then quite suddenly transform into legends with subsequent releases (Bob Dylan and Gabriel-era Genesis come to mind), perhaps sparking those age-old selling-your-soul-to-the-devil rumours that have long hung over the heads of rock stars. Well in the case of Led Zeppelin such rumours probably circulated because Jimmy Page worshipped Satan and Stairway To Heaven had evil backwards messages, or so Republicans will inform you. Well in the early 1990s Radiohead released Pablo Honey. It remains their biggest selling record to date (why The Bends wasn't a mainstream blockbuster I still don't know). It featured Creep. It sucked ass. The rest is history. They're a band now so far beyond mediocrity that I cannot imagine them releasing anything less than a great record given when they're at. Dylan went bad for years and years at a time. Twice. Even Zeppelin burned out. Floyd broke up (well Waters left, he was the "creative genius" according to his latest concert posters around the city). Radiohead meanwhile seem like they're still just warming up. And they may well be the best band ever. Not just now. Ever.

The band hasn't topped OK Computer since its release nine years ago but I would argue that their sound has constantly been improving with every album since, and it now appears they've finally found their feet and are on the verge of releasing an album in 2007 which finally sees their immense creativity catch up to the lofty heights of the band's sonic ambitions that have been fairly evident since their risky transformation on Kid A in 2000. With a few days to go before Christmas, why not pass some time listening to these recent live cuts, courtesy of Dutch site lders.nl. I think this album might well surpass OK Computer. Seriously. And if not, it'll beat The Bends at any rate.

All I Need has a sublime, simple backing piano tune you'll listen to a few times then wonder why no-one ever thought of it before (ie. the instant-classic effect), House Of Cards is the closest Radiohead's sounded to U2, Videotape reminds any doubters why they're lightyears ahead of Coldplay and 15 Step combines the band's Hail To The Thief embracing of hip-hop beats with the rock sensibilities of OK Computer to essentially produce Paranoid Android on an acid-trip in Jamaica. Then there's Arpeggi. If this music doesn't change your life, you suck. Buy this album when it's out unless you never plan to buy another album again, because you cannot possibly justify buying something else over this once it hits the shelves. And to think there might even be other better songs they haven't played live yet.

Spooks
Bodysnatchers
House Of Cards
All I Need
Open Pick
4 Minute Warning
15 Step
Videotape
Down Is The New Up
Go Slowly
Bangers And Mash
Arpeggi
Nude

Some files are of a better quality than others, but all are good for bootlegs. Let me know if the links don't work, or just explore the site for these titles yourself (June 8th has great quality tracks and 8 of the above songs can be found there).

Oh Yes

2006-12-11T11:25:00.000+13:00

Courtesy of YouTube

Better even than Titanic Two The Surface? I think so.

Holy Crap: Mel Gibson Does It Again
No he didn't re-insult those damn filthy-rich Jews and their horned children, he directed another unlikely number one box office hit. Remember this movie? With that ridiculous what-the-hell trailer? Well, with $14.2m grossed on its opening weekend it has just topped the U.S. Box Office charts this weekend according to estimates. See for yourself here. Also note at that link that christmas comedy The Holiday (Diaz, Law, Black, Winslet) "somehow" cost $85m to make, proving once again that stars get paid way too much.

This Website Will Change Your Life
Or at least your listening habits. RateYourMusic.com. Go. Now. It's like IMDB but for music and saner and without the fanboyism.

Like a band but don't know which of their records to buy? Is that band Led Zeppelin? Bang, now you know to avoid Presence and Out Door unless you really really fall ridiculously in love with their first six records and want to have babies with them and name one of them Bonzo. No guarantee you'll agree with the ratings of whatever albums/artists you're looking into but it's as good an indicator as any as to quality, especially when music critics are full of BS and just follow trends.

Here's their all-time Top 100 (and beyond if you follow the links):
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
And their all-time Bottom 100
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/bottom/album/all-time

Notice how these lists make much more sense than, say, Kerrang's recent list of the best 100 rock records of all-time that placed some "in" My Chemical Romance record ahead of Led Zeppelin IV? That's because RYM's list is instead what actual fans think, you know - people who actually give records more than a quick spin, investing time to go with that initial monetary investment that demands they give it more of a fair go than any "it-was-free-anyway" critic ever would if it's disappointing on first listen as many great but initially inaccessible records can be.

You may also notice how many artists with Top 100 records are in the Bottom 100 too. John Lennon, The Clash, The Beach Boys, David Bowie, Metallica, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, My Bloody Valentine, The Rolling Stones, Nas... Maybe Britney Spears and Crazy Frog have timeless masterpieces in them yet.

Plus you can sort by decade or year, and become depressed at how many classic records you used to be able to expect in a year compared to now.

So why am I raving on about this damn site? Quite simple really. Before I found it never would have considered buying a jazz/80s pop/thrash metal record. But I gave The Smiths a chance seeing as the consensus was that The Queen Is Dead topped shitloads of my favourite albums. Didn't take it to straight away, of course not - the fact that this wasn't my type of music was well-established in my initial reluctance to trust these so-called music fans and their "opinions". But by working at it I got there, and now I'm open to a whole other genre, with New Order and Joy Division etc. now much more accessible having acquired a taste for the genre. Same deal with jazz (ew) after Charles Mingus's The Black Saint And The Sinner Lady. It really is *that good*. Then I moved onto *gulp* Metallica. Hated it for a day or two. You know how that story ends. I think, in all honesty, anybody can like any genre of music if they give it a chance and are given the right introduction. It can take a bit of work but I know first-hand it can seriously pay off.

Up to you.

"Do I Look Like I Care?"

2006-12-09T10:53:00.000+13:00

Casino Royale
I don't like reviewing movies too extentensively anymore, unless they really piss me off or something, but this one is a "biggie" and deserves a little better than a brief mention.

Bond's a little different this time. Gone are the cheesy one-liners and superfluous innuendo, replaced by smart dialogue, grit, surprises and *shock* *horror* characterisation. The first two thirds of this movie flow incredibly smoothly from one scene to the next with the plotting and action set-pieces intertwining in a natural progression in stark contrast to the contrived explosion-time Michael Bay mentality of the previous few Brosnan entries. Then something happens: it stops being a Bond movie for a while, seemingly losing focus in an instant and spending a good ten to fifteen minutes trying to force a not-buying-it love story out of nowhere in a period of sheer momentum-scuttling stupidity one can only assume was spawned from the clueless pen of Paul Haggis. The third act is largely wasted as a means of setting up for the rest of the series with a finale that feels out of place given what had come before (turning now to events that are forced, lazy and stupid) but not really far from what you'd expect of other recent Bond movies. A sign of things to come? Was Casino Royale's brilliance fleeting? Never to be seen again in this series? Does Bond demand dumbing down? I hope not. Overall, Simon said it best out in the foyer: "a very good movie that could have been a great movie" or something. If I got that wrong, assume I'm quoting some other Simon.

Lemontree
Forgot to mention: finished this script while away on holiday. May actually clock in around or under the seven minute mark, being the first decent script of mine to do so, thus I shall shoot it shortly. Planning to go through a warm-up session or two first to determine who'd be suited for the lead male role and get some practice in for all involved, possibly using an excerpt from my Creative Writing script.

Oh And
Yesterday I was watching TV when I came across an idea for my next project. I won't say what show or what segment I saw or anything in case someone steals it, but I will say that what I saw is "loose inspiration" only really serving to form a framework around a deeper character study, and that the film will probably be a suspenseful (but not suspense heavy) drama. Ooooooh.

Just Like I Left It, Or Not

2006-12-07T16:21:00.000+13:00

Blogger
Has changed. It made me click some evil box to "upgrade" and now buttons look different and the icon in the top left corner of this page won't take me to the Blogger homepage and I grew a third arm. Never click on a suspicious button, even if the button in question won't let you pass across a bridge. Walk away with your dignity and lack of deformities.

Some Kind Of Monster
So whilst away on holiday these last few days C4 screened Some Kind Of Monster, a two-hour-plus award-winning documentary looking at the making of the worst album of all-time, St. Anger, from it's birth to it's death (aka release). Metallica are an... interesting band, and watching this (fairly engrossing) film I often found myself wondering a few things like (1) how they could have still been together at that point, given their extensive internal squabbling, (2) how they could still currently be together five years after those particularly squabbly early scenes were shot, and finally (3) how the hell this band, given how dumb they appeared to be (or just dazed/stoned in Kirk Hammet's case) and how incompetent they came across as in writing such inane lyrics and marvelling at such repetitive riffs, could have completed an album like Master Of Puppets or written a song like Nothing Else Matters or more recently No Leaf Clover (their final "great" song, from 1999's S&M live/orchestral album). Even when their lyrics in the 80s were basic, immature and forced in an effort to appeal to millions of suicidal goth-reject headbangers the songs hung together as a whole on concept albums with strong overall political messages or timely rants against injustices in the world (even the depressing suicidal shit in Fade To Black - track 4 on Ride The Lightning - and Trapped Under Ice (track 5) were followed by Escape, track 6, which revealed the "protagonist" climbing out of that rut, so they didn't wallow too much in self pity). And all the while those early albums, while initially seeming repetitive on first listen, revealed themselves to the persistent listener to be carefully structured in quite a subtle way (subtle? Metallica?) to bring out the strengths of each musician in the band, building toward some sublime Hammet solos or Lars Ulrich drum magic or even a flutter of bass heaven. Or something. Ahem. St. Anger was an obvious attempt to return to the band's thrash metal roots, much like U2's self-conscious return to the sound from their 80s heyday (albeit updated) on their last couple of albums after some 90s failures, but Some Kind Of Monster revealed a deluded band barely stringing music together with no conceptual/thematic focus and, apparently, no understanding of what ever made their music *good*. Even in the 90s, when they "sold out" and switched to radio-friendly hard rock, The Black Album kicked all kinds of ass and the more vocally-variable Load and Reload would have been good if they'd done one album of the best ten or so songs from those sessions instead of two albums filled to the brim with every damn track they'd written over the previous 5-6 years (surrounded by shitty filler or not, songs like Hero Of The Day, Until It Sleeps and Low Man's Lyric were all strong, even lyrically for once, often focussing on deeper personal themes). Why oh why did St. Anger happen? R.I.P. Metallica. Good documentary though.

iTunes NZ Store Is Here
Now I just need a credit card and I can consider uninstalling uTorrent. Can I be bothered getting one for the priveledge of getting music for a cost instead of for free? Stay tuned folks, it's a cliff-hanger.

Obligatory Mention Of Chinese Democracy: An "Impression" Update
Been listening to the demos / live tracks on and off for a while now and I have to say that There Was A Time is fucking awesome. Catcher In The Rye and The Blues are really good too, but it's a shame I haven't heard any new trademark GNR hard-rockers up there with them; instead, these are Axl Rose at his wussy best. Madagascar is "interesting" but aside from the cool voice-clip/solo section in the middle isn't anything special, the title track Chinese Democracy's still "decent" and "solid" while I.R.S. and Better are mixed bags of both good parts and mediocre parts (the I.R.S. solo rocks though). I repeat what I said before: if this turns out to be the best of the bunch, this will be pathetic after ten years of work. But if we get ten There Was A Time calibre tracks, I'll be in heaven.

Cheers Dennis
Tagboard working. Was too lazy to investigate the problem myself :p

Post-Borat Depression

2006-12-01T09:40:00.000+13:00

Courtesy Of VH1.com, Entirely By Coincidence
Two things:
1. Everything you need to know about the on-going joke that is "Chinese Democracy"
and more interestingly
2. Richard Linklater is five years into making a TWELVE YEAR MOVIE

Movies
Back into proper holiday-viewing mode, having watched four movies in four days.

Duel - Spielberg's first proper feature. Thrilling from start to finish, ending a bit deflating if entirely logical and 'fair enough' I suppose. Maybe I'm just too used to expecting twists because of modern movie poison. Maybe that's the genius of Duel, you expect one and there isn't - a twist in itself.... or not... But yeah - I feel like if I get the right idea I, or anyone, could write a movie like this... must get said-idea...

The Abyss - Cool movie. Not Cameron's best. Actually it's probably only better than Titanic and (presumably) Piranha II as far as his directorial efforts go. But cool movie anyway. CG effects are quite stunning for 1989 or whenever it was, foreshadowing 1991's Terminator 2. Oh and the movie was unmistakably Cameron, he's quite an auteur for a largely action-movie director like Hawks (apparently, say lecturers) and Spielberg I guess.

Children Of Men - In theatres now, I recommend you see it - assuming you'll still have money for Casino Royale and Pan's Labyrinth which will probably be better. But the action (and contrary to the marketing, there's SHITLOADS... eventually... ) deserves the big screen treatment. The warzone scenes obliterate anything I've seen before, the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan included. Cool use of well-choreographed long-takes here also, and blood splatter on the camera is a welcome effect. Also, this is the cover of Pink Floyd's Animals:

I thought I was imagining things when it popped up, but yes, it is randomly featured in the movie in perhaps the greatest background reference in cinematic history. Brilliant.

Borat - Certainly inconsistent though most gags at least draw some degree of smile-age. Smile-age. Smilage. New word. Catchy 'cause it's like "milage" so people already know the sound, like Nelly Furtado's hook in Maneater which steals from (and I do mean steals from, no royalties paid or samples taken) the hook in the 80s pop hit Maneater by some old dinosaurs. But yeah, Borat. At it's best, it's brilliant (i.e. when Americans are making themselves look like fools - some of it just has to be seen to believed... or maybe not, because redneck ignorance is widely-documented and Borat visits every out-of-the-way town to track it down) and there are enough "at it's best" moments for this film to deserve your hard-acquired cash. But it's not Holy Grail, so don't believe it'll be the funniest movie ever as some claim (having presumably only seen American Pie etc.).

Fare Thee Well, friedorange Blog
So Dennis's blog has come to an end. Be sure to pay your respects here.

I bid thee farewell with the fitting words of Monier Williams:
god bless you, front of house. you'll be missed. by the people who knew you - and, more importantly, by stuff like blowdarts and bullets when you do that crazy matrix stuff. and then you do a somersault.

Of course, you can now go here instead (off to a good start: "James Blunt does not belong to this category, I can't stand his voice, nor do I like his songs" - yay).

Untitled, Like The White Album

2006-11-27T09:55:00.000+13:00

Looking Back
My last few blog entries appear to have been a bit too rambly for their own good. Probably pays to at least read over what I've written before publishing.

Holiday Viewing
Aiming to watch the director's cut of Abyss (probably the only James Cameron film I haven't seen aside from his underwater documentaries and Piranha II) and the first proper Spielberg feature Duel this week. Oh and MOVIE NIGHT. Possibly Saturday. Leave it free or die. Godfather: Part II and Blue Velvet likely. Maybe The Conversation thrown in for good measure if people's eyeballs are still in tact. Intact? In-tact? Will investigate.

Holiday Movie-ing
On the production front, began properly editing our 48-hours film yesterday after a bit of looking through what files we have and identifying weaknesses in the film. Basically did a rough cut of the deleted dog-sequence, explaining the missing briefcase which nobody watching questioned anyway, and deleted one scene no longer necessary without the requirements of the 48-hours competition and one scene that made absolutely no sense. Still not sure exactly how to tie it all together yet though. We don't quite have a shot showing the protagonist getting up after getting flung from the car to my knowledge. Hmm. After that I need to go back and fix the very end, which killed the film, and the beach sequence to restore a few shots that didn't make the cut and of course Janko's "epic" speech that was cut down for time. And then comes the SOUND editing.

This week I'll be pressing forward with planning for Lemontree. I now have people firmly in mind for the three roles, but only having spoken to Dennis briefly at Sam's 21st I should probably get on with discussing it with these people and seeing if they would be willing to participate before I end up with a shoot and no actors. The film basically centers around a young man, let's call him Tony so I can play Tony's Theme in the end credits, who is stalked by something under his bed sheets, has his lunch escape from his lunchbox while distracted by balloons and meets a girl who shares his interest in Led Zeppelin. Only really need a house (mine), a bus stop (as does every student film apparently, but I will avoid any of the cliched sequences here so don't ye be rolling your eyes) and a park with trees to seem forrest-y (bottom of Macleans or something) as far as locations go. On and a garden with a lemon tree, probably mine again maybe. Still think it might be rather hard to pull off though, but without a challenge I don't see the point in making it.

And I SWEAR I'll finish My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday of whatever the fuck it's called (that 'waiting' movie with Sonny & Rikky & Dennis & Michael from around 2002) when I get my firewire back from Simon. Promise.

Also made a start on the second draft of my long-in-development script about a man in a bear costume. I think I'll end up actually filming someone walking around the city in a bear costume (ala the Creative Writing mask exercise) acting in character at some point just to gauge people's actual responses on the streets, in shops etc. to help with that.

Sweet
Got all my marks back from Uni now, handily beating my expectations. Especially Management. I only finished one of the three essays in the exam and got an A-. What the hell? I don't just mean I "mostly" finished the other two essays and maybe missed the conclusions. I mean I did half of essay two and between a quarter and a third of essay three. Seriously. So yeah, with an A- in Maths that's 3 A- 1 A and 1 A+, a good haul for someone only expecting one A-range grade (Creative Writing) and maybe a C+ for Management. Given the fact I had next to no time to study for 3 of my 4 exams due to a compact and early exam schedule (shortly after my writing portfolio was due in) and I hated 2 of those subjects with a vengeance (and also Maths, the 4th exam) I'm quite stunned to be honest.

Last Night/This Morning

2006-11-25T10:27:00.000+13:00

So
U2 was great. It's just awesome *being there* for the whole experience of it all versus just watching it on TV. Well duh, or else people wouldn't go. But I thought I'd reiterate it because I couldn't just stop at "U2 was great" could I? Maybe I didn't need to, because now more elaborate details are coming to mind as I gaze back upon days past.

Kanye West opened and succeeded in creating a long food/toilet queue of old people who felt their ears had been poisioned judging by the way they all flooded off during his set or (being old and unable to move) sat complaining. Regardless of his big-headed reputation I admit he can comfortably claim the crown of the most credible and talented hip-hop aritst out there today (given Outkast's Idlewild, but they'll bounce back) because his music was certianly a cut above, consistent with my impressions of him before, and having heard some of his stuff only for the first time (only knew the radio/video singles) I'm interested in checking out his albums. Really good beats, lyrics with meaning (not "Smack That" or "Right Thurrrrrrrghgjghjlll") and his apparent obsession for mini-orchestral-accompaniment made for some interesting (in a good way) music.

U2 just kicked ass. Awesome set from across their career, excluding their "techno-influenced" era (Pop etc.) which wasn't really missed. Bono's great, voice maybe a little tired at the end but only because he gave it his all the whole time. Plugged a lot of his Africa-concern stuff and the band made an effort to throw in Kiwi-isms on the big screen (like a poker machine featuring Helen Clarke or something... I was confused too) and lyrically throughout the set (including a random Crowded House interlude, and Bono changing a verse of Beautiful Day to be NZ-relevant, which he did awesomely :D ). Plus they played One Tree Hill. Of course.

Almost forgot: there was this old guy in front of his who, to every song he stood up for, he JIGGLED. When I say jiggle, I mean forget moving to the rhythm. Imagine the hand of a guy with Parkinson's. Now imagine that hand was a chubby old guy. Alternatively, you know that avatar lots of people have on random forums...

And Then
Dennys. But more interestingly, we discovered upon Michael's shelf The Well Cat Book, about caring for your cat, featuring a chapter on "Prolapsed Third Eyelid" and a passage beginning "don't get excited if your cat has something stuck in its mouth." At 2 o'clock this morning, these things were hilarious of course.

And Then
We made up a game that actually worked... until the end. Michael had some tiny bricks so the aim of the game was to stack bricks. You win bricks by either (a) rolling a 1 or a 6 (if you roll a 1, you get a brick but you have to stack it using your teeth) or (b) challenging someone (whoever gets the higher number on the dice wins - the challenger wins the opponent's brick or the defender win's the challenger's "challenge thingee" - ie. a plastic nought or cross, each possessed allowing the player 1 challenge of an opponent). In the end we actually managed to eliminate people, but in the end when there was just me and Michael we realised that the odds of the game being won were extremely slim (I was losing, but would still have to lose 4 straight challenges to lose) so we called it a draw. Does the game sound dumb? Did at the time too it just didn't matter because between us we were either too drunk (on a hard mix of cordial and vanilla essencel) or too tired to care. Janko was already asleep, face down in a weird angle looking slightly dead. Possibly bleeding from the mouth and convulsing, but I might have just made that up. Either way he slept it off.

U2 Today

2006-11-24T12:57:00.000+13:00

Yet I'm Still Awaiting...
Confirmation as to where/when/what/why/who/how/chicken. Phone remains still and silent, like some creepy evil stalker thing, or Robert Altman. R.I.P. Robert Altman. I've never seen your movies.

But I Have Seen
An alien in my fridge. Oh and This Is Spinal Tap again. Like my recent re-watching of Brazil, it's a movie that's lost something over multiple viewings, proving it isn't completely mind-blowingly awesome. Unlike Apocalypse Now which has grown better on each of my seven viewings so far. On a remotely related note, 12 Angry Men remains at the top of my list to see and/or buy (as it has for 6 months or so) yet continues to elude the grasp of my rather graspy eyeballs. I saw it once for sale at Whitcoulls last year, but haven't seen it anywhere since, and incredibly:
It ISN'T IN THE AV LIBRARY???!!!1oneone

Bye Bye Rikky
We will miss you for two months and then forget about you so hurry back.

Uni Grades
Are slowly trickling in. I've picked up my mandatory one-A+-per-semester in Stats 208, joining the consecutive string of Philosophy 101, Film 101 and Stats 108 A+s in the three previous semesters. Only Stats 108 was expected out of the four, and I thought I'd get maybe a B+ or A- in 208 so that's a nice surprise. Also, I stopped taking notes for the entire second half of Accounting 211 this semester to instead listen to my iPod and doodle script ideas and my exam study consisted of a day's cramming and I got an A-. Haha. This is fucked up. I love how I can basically put no effort into commerce subjects and still kick ass. Easiest degree ever. Needs to be seeing as the Arts side of my conjoint actually does require effort to achieve understanding/learning/good grades/chicken.

Also got my Creative Writing mark back. I have to say that of all the subjects I've done, I've grown the most and learned the most in that course. I basically made my portfolio a retrospective character study across the ten or so submitted poems and stories etc., which ultimately meant better, more focussed writing when I knew what I was aiming to say which each story/poem in terms of the portfolio as a whole. Until I decided to make the combined portfolio a single piece (like a concept album, or some lego) I was writing airy fairy drivelly poems and meaningless pretentious bullshit stories and... well actually the script was always okay. I can handle that side of things.

A couple of weaker pieces just to direct the wider "narrative" of the character study were thrown in so it made more sense, but overall I'm pretty proud of the end result and I think I can definitely apply my growth in creative writing to screenwriting in the future because of what the course taught me across the board in terms of character development, freshness and originality (spontaneous writing exercises led to some interesting results I wouldn't have come up with otherwise, like a three-act short script written in 25 minutes that actually kind-of half worked), different approaches to exploring a narrative/character/chicken, and of course, through feedback, a sense of audience response. Because early on I was writing stuff that sounded good in my head but was, in fact, in hindsight and in the sight of my tutor, bollocks. Now I can spot that better myself, especially with my cool 3D glasses.

The Departed
Another movie I rave on about for months before anyone else is remotely interested in it and that I'm the last to see apparently. Cheers :(

Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix

2006-11-19T13:46:00.001+13:00

Teaser Trailer Online-ish
They probably won't bother removing this because it's due out officially (and in better quality obviously) in around 36 hours time or so, but for now YouTube has the very teasing teaser trailer for the next Potter flick, clocking in at 56 seconds including the MPAA warning. As any good teaser trailer should, it leaves you wanting more. And by you I mean me, because you might hate it.

Sam's 21st
Was last night. Included 20 minutes of people watching people play chess.

As for the cake, it tasted like this:

But it looked like this thing:

Applause

2006-11-17T13:56:00.000+13:00

Or At The Very Least: Thumbs Up, Mr. Soderbergh
Steven Soderbergh's made some great movies (like Traffic and The Limey), some shit movies (Ocean's Twelve) and some I'm-not-sure movies (Solaris). But no matter what the outcome I can appreciate the guy's willingness to try new things (like his failed simultaneous theatre/DVD release experiement with Bubble, at least executing a theory that's been talked and talked about for yonks but never before acted upon until Soderbergh hauled his big pair of balls up to the stage and telled all 'em yappers he'd have a crack).

Well now he's gone and done what I've been hoping somebody'd do: make an old-fashioned movie the old-fashioned way. I can cross that off my wishlist, assuming its good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/movies/12kehr.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

And like that The Good German joins Borat, Casino Royale (holy shit, have you seen the reviews?!), The Departed, The Children Of Men, The Prestige and Pan's Labyrinth on a list of must see movies these next few months. This is an exciting time for movie fans everywhere: a whole host of certified genuine quality mainstream movies out in theatres, and James Cameron isn't even behind it. Doesn't happen very often, especially these days. Awwwwwwwwesome. Now if only the music industry could go through a good spell too :s (outside of metal which, thanks to bands like Opeth and a resurgent Iron Maiden, is (as a broad genre) still going strong across the board if you ignore the pathetic mess that's become of Metallica).

Reasons To Check My E-Mail More Frequently

2006-11-15T18:54:00.000+13:00

And Turn My Phone Off 'Vibrate'
A whole bunch of film stuff seems to have whizzed by that I missed (well, very little of it was of interest anyway, but that get-together thing on Monday or yesterday or whenever might have been good just to wind down a bit) and Chris's party's on... right now. Which I'd be at:
(a) If I'd bothered checking my e-mail since (apparently) November 4th.
(b) If my phone wasn't on vibrate. I do that so it doesn't go off during lectures. Still can't remember how to turn the sound back on to be honest. Been meaning to look into that. Anyways, with my phone upstairs and my me downstairs I got Chris's message about four hours after it was sent, ie. 5:15ish today so no luck there. Plus I've already put off doing the company accounts by a day and a bit so it didn't really matter by that stage. Shit needs to get done. Blogging is just a distraction between receipt entries because its mind-numblingly monotonous (contract by contract for everyone who hired a book...). Which brings me to:
(c) If I wasn't such a procrastinator.

Brings Me To Another Point
I've found that G-Mail takes forever to load on my (56k) connection, so I load it in HTML mode. Problem is I no longer seem able to scroll down when I do that.

This Post Was Uninteresting
Now multiply that by 127 and that's how uninteresting these accounts are. Yay. Much better than hanging out with friends for the night at the end of yet another boring day of nothingness. w00tageness.

Question
Who doesn't want to see Romania tackle Namibia at Carlaw Park as is come 2011? Fuck development. All you need's a ball, a ref and a couple of high-power rifles.

Spider-Man 3

2006-11-13T15:21:00.000+13:00

Verdict
Overall, exams went okay-ish. Kind of. Bleh. Expected this given the subjects I was taking and the crap exam timetable I was dumped with.

Chinese Democracy... Revisited
According to some guy in Chicago: November 28. Which could mean December 2nd here. I'm still not convinced.

Endless Wire
So The Who released their first album in 24 years. Still isn't out here in NZ yet for some reason but fortunately if you change your computer clock to a US time zone (any of the four will do) you can fool AOL into letting you hear new releases without having to download them (else it gives a convenient "error" message). w00t. Overall? Haven't listened enough to give the record a fair respose. Like it. It's different. Some awesome stuff there, also some squandared potential due to most of the best songs being chopped up as minute-long parts of a mini-opera and some serious under-production to the detriment of stuff like their best new song Mike Post Theme which kicks ass live.

Bat Out Of Hell III
There is no substitute for Jim Steinman. Long story short, Steinman and the Loaf sued each other for the millionth time and the end result was Bat Out Of Hell III. Comparing it to Bat I is pointless; it's like comparing Kid A to Pablo Honey. But taking Bat III and looking at it for what it is, I guess it has some great highlights in amongst a sea of mediocrity and generic bullshit (like Cry Over Me... by Diane "Don't Wanna Miss A Thing" Warren). If It Ain't Broke Break It is bad and its title also fittingly describes Bat III's entry into the Bat series (its an unnecessary album, especially without Steinman's direct involvement, and tarnishes the Bat reputation a little), and the short lullabye Cry To Heaven is "nice" but a terrible way to close the trilogy when you compare it to Bat I's classic closer For Cryin' Out Loud or even the song from which Cry To Heaven was derived, the powerful Angels Arise from Steinman's Batman musical (please somebody greenlight this project, or at least give the songs for Nolan to throw into the movies as score :D ) which would have worked well in its full form as the end of the Bat series. Jimmy dropped the ball on that one.

That said, Bad For Good is on par with past Bat classics and features Brian May doing some terrific soloing (the song sounds very Queen-esque in parts even without him) on a track dripping with Steinmanisms and brilliant moments of lameness/cheesiness (a nearly-sixty rocker singing lyrics like "you think that I'll be bad for just a little while, but I know that I'll be bad for good" is about as much genuine fun as you can have listening to a quality rock song. Blind As A Bat should have been the first single, its the closest thing to a classic Anything For Love type epic rock ballad and is possibly the only other song to be found here truly worth of belonging on a Bat album (and Steinman didn't even write it). There are other good songs, sure, but they don't sound like Bat songs. Hmm. But like I said, judging for what it is and not what it isn't, even if calling this Bat Out Of Hell III readily invites comparisons to past glories, this isn't a bad album at all. At its best it's awesome, and at its worst it's only awful on maybe one or two occasions during an 80-minute running time. Overall? "Decent" I guess. You'd have to like the other two Bats and not have extremely high expectations to bother buying it though. I haven't bothered yet, downloaded the whole thing about six weeks before release though. Gotta love how that works.

Recommended Downloads:
Bad For Good, Blind As A Bat, Land Of The Pigs, Monstro/Alive (basically one song in two parts), Seize The Night, The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Why so many, and not a glowing recommendation? Because there's a big gulf between the best tracks and the worst tracks. Oh and with an album like this, Mp3s can't really do the production justice I suppose so keep that in mind if there's anything "lacking".

Think You've Seen The New Spider-Man 3 Trailer?
No you haven't. Even with shitloads of incomplete CG this bootlegged trailer makes the movie look a helluva lot better than the crappy teaser and, to a lesser extent, new "official" trailer did. If the link doesn't work its because the studio doesn't exactly want this out yet and will pull it from YouTube eventually when word reaches them. Which will be soon.

Script, $50, Goats
First script done yesterday, just doing some typing up now to get it all together as a whole, but most importantly got it done before the semester ended thus proving that having to otherwise pay people vast sums of money is a good incentive to get work done. Maybe. The script currently sucks, but is complete from a start to a finish with a middle thrown in for good measure. I was watching Brazil for the gazillionth time yesterday and got a few ideas as far as tone and atmosphere goes as to where I can take it when I tackle a second draft. For now, I'll let it simmer in the pan for a while and get working on I Am The Lemontree once I've finished doing the company accounts this week.

Three Exams Down

2006-11-02T09:46:00.000+13:00

Four Days To Go
Surviving maths study on a diet of Pixies, Queen and Entourage. Thank you, Entourage, for not sucking like so many shows that are pissing me off right now.

Filming Prep For The Holidays
Eleven days left to complete a draft of my short noir-satire script I've been at on and off since March last year - one thread of the story's looking great, exactly as I imagined when I got hooked on the idea... the other not so much, probably because it doesn't interest me as much even if *at the moment* I see it as a necessity to get the story from the start I love to the finish I love. As long as I have "an arc" on paper by November 13th I'll be happy. And won't have to pay Sonny $50. But in the long run I want the sub-arc to be as good as the one following the main protagonist or I won't shoot it.

The first thing I'll probably shoot, maybe at the start of December and tentatively titled I Am The Lemontree, is on track scriptwise, doesn't really need immediate revision beyond taking the segments I've scribbled in different notebooks and compiling them into a single screenplay. After that, time to go through some test shots and storyboarding and then looking for my cast of two (thankfully our-age people, thus I can realistically shoot this unlike most of my discarded ideas).

I've pretty much put another idea on hiatus for now, which was a very-short surreal piece depicting a young soldier coming home from a modern warzone and struggling to adjust to fitting back into "normal life" after everything he's been through. I really like the angle that interested me in the first place and I might still tackle the script in the next month or so maybe and see if I can work something out, but right now if I do it it'll probably be practice at creating atmosphere more than an attempt at making a decent short. Might also shoot an exercise based on the first Master's Exercise from earlier in the year (10 shots, silent, in camera editing etc.) about a man with arachnophobia (I can relate to that) afraid to look inside his bag, convinced there's a spider in it, while his girlfriend waits for him to retrieve her bottle of water. May or may not be funny, but I'll try - seemed funny at the time I came up with it, whatever that counts for.

And for further exercise work if I can take the first half of my screenplay written for Engish 252 and give it closure (as opposed to requiring scene two which itself requires the context of a short story earlier in my portfolio to contain its full deeper meaning) I might shoot that because I love the idea: something to do with a long elevator ride ;) Alternatively, I could go for gold and shoot both scenes and try to simply remove the reference to the short story, but I need there to be some equivelant significant moment in it. Maybe it stands alone, implying its meaning. Will have to run it by other people I guess, see what they understand from it.

Began writing notes on changes to make to Slade's American Grill, should be able to have that done (in theory) within a week or so of my maths exam finishing, probably just need to find a day or two to squeeze that editing in. Also finally looking to lay the sound over My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday (yeah, that old piece of shit) just to have it complete and done and over with once and for all now that I actually have the computer space to make it possible.

Fonzie's Legacy

2006-11-01T16:59:00.000+13:00

Plenty Of Shows Lining Up To Jump The Shark
In the past few days I've been witness to such a highly concentrated cluster of shark jumping shows I'm half expecting House to quit the hospital and become a lawyer. Oh wait.

The Office
A minor offender; the smart dry humour's still there, I guess it's just that some of the over-the-top stuff's getting too ridiculous (I'm no longer willing to believe Michael wouldn't have been fired especially after the Oscar incident) and the documentary-approach has firmly planted its feet now as a gimmick rather than a premise in following Jim around at another office entirely. Ah well, big whoop. The show's still hilarious. I'll add that Dwight's attempt at taking over the branch, whether it was his idea or not, seemed like a case of shark-jumping in itself. I dunno, just didn't sit right with his character I guess.
SHARK JUMP RATING: Still fuelling the bike.

24
The best season yet of one of the best shows on television produced possibly its best-ever episode when a nerve gas attack onCTU succeeded, leading to the death (among other faceless extras) of Edgar Stiles in one of those lump-in-throat sequence only 24 can produce where you know what's coming but you still can't believe they're doing it. That was about a month ago. It's been all down hill from there. First, the nerve gas we've been told has an acidic lacing and will penetrate the safety doors unless (of course) Jack Bauer can go outside and save the day (some ventilation/computer plan) does him no damage so long as he... holds his breath. Uh-huh. Then the show gets worse, later in the same episode. Tony Almeida, one of the key characters of the show from the start and who had barely featured all season (presumably building up to some kickass involvement later on) was killed off in patheic circumstances just for the sake of being shocking (which it wasn't). The show used to be fresh, never having to TRY to shock, but rather being that way by nature. It had this "anyone (but Jack) can die" sense of danger to it. Nowadays its "everyone (but Jack) WILL die." Snore. Oh and get this. Now the incompetent President Logan is behind the terrorist attack which, to anyone watching his character for the past two years, is absurd. Is this supposed to be some Keyser Soze type deal? Think he's stupid, then he's behind it all? The only thing stupid is this "twists" execution. It's set-up since the character's been around was not only non-existant, but COUNTERS the twist itself. Like they wrote in the twist on a whim for the hell of it, pulling out of their collective creative arse. And it stinks.
SHARK JUMP RATING: Motoring toward the ramp.

ER
Last night. A "very special episode" they labelled it, I can only assume they meant it was written by people with Downs Syndrome. Noah Wyle returned. Why? Good question. At the start of the episode I was excited to see how they'd tie it in which the main plot in the US, or develop his wider arc from before he left and to be continued in future guest spots, or at the very least give the character closure. Nope, his appearence simply filled up 20 minutes of screentime here and there pointing out to the audience that people are suffering in Africa. Maybe he demanded they do that or he wouldn't guest, I dunno. What a pointless exercise in sensationalism at the expense of solid drama. Pfft.
SHARK JUMP RATING: Racing up in case 24 backs out of the jump.

Extras
How better to jump the shark than to go from being a brilliant slice of comedy to a pathetic waste of space. Season two of Extras has been dreadful. Granted it still has its moments of genius (Bowie at the piano, Orlando Bloom's self-parodying guest spot) but this show has veered so far from what made it brilliant I don't know if I'll bother watching the last two episodes. Urgh. Is it intentional? Gervais, whose character has gone from being an everyday extra to a TV star, says near the start of episode 1: "I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing, this is not the comedy I set out to do. I wanted to write something real that people could relate to and it's all changed because people have stuck their nose in." If there's a hidden layer of genius underneath this season that requires repeat viewings to truly appreciate then fine, but the fact is the basic supercial-level comedy - the situations, the lines etc. - is miles behind where this show was at last year, and similarly behind the UK Office. I'm cringing as much as laughing.
SHARK JUMP RATING: Safely landed on the other side, waving to the crowd.

Pre-Sharp See Flat

2006-10-10T12:11:00.000+13:00

How I Spent Saturday Night
You'd think Wolfgang Peterson, the man who created the greatest underwater-boat movie of all-time (Das Boot) and a pretty decent big-wave-hits-boat movie (The Perfect Storm) could at least hit the middle ground with a movie about a boat that ends up underwater after getting hit by a big wave and make said movie, well, good. And yet, he brings us Poseidon.

Then again, his last film was Troy so perhaps my hopes were unreasonably high from the get-go.

This movie had everything going for it: Peterson, a big wave hitting stuff, Kurt Russell in what I presumed was an 'action role' and a budget big enough to bring out the best in everything. But alas, all we get is Russell acting his age (old) and 84 minutes (at over $2 million a minute) of ridiculously weak drivel. Presumably little of that cash was spent on development. If you've seen any cheesy big budget Hollywood movie before, you've already seen Poseidon. The father character pulls a sneaky move to sacrifice his own life to save the day instead of his daughter's volunteering fiancee (Willis/Affleck in Armageddon) and the kid survives not only 'against all odds' but against all logic (every movie ever, particularly those by Steven Spielberg). The token black guy dies early, as do the token hispanic characters, while the old gay white guy lives (this was a new one, but will probably be a staple plot element by 2010). And in the most laughable deus ex machina I've seen in years, the survivors jump out into the sea for no good reason instead of staying on the unsubmerged part of the boat until (a) it goes down for good or (b) rescue arrives, only to be bailed out of this remarkably stupid decision by a lifeboat that floats by, having inflated itself and come from nowhere. The ship, remember, is UPSIDE DOWN AND 95% UNDERWATER. Who exactly is supposed to have pumped it up underwater and deployed it so it could float up, right way up, not even bogged down by the water you'd expect to be inside it if you can believe it could have floated to the surface bottom-down anyway.

Other highlights include:
- The barebones character set-up in an act one that lasts for all of 10 minutes and tells us not a single word more than is needed to add some rivalry between the Russell and Josh Lucas characters and establish how various people are related to one another in the hopes that the audiences will consequently care for them (instead it simply exposes the tenuous nature of their coincidentally finding each other).
- The bit where the wave hits and the chaos inside the ship is shown in a tight-angle quick-cut sequence resembling something you'd expect on a shoestring budget without showing anything more than flashing lights and shaky camerwork.
- Fergie dies. I mean the Black Eyes Peas idiot, not the other one. Whoops, I forgot these highlights weren't supposed to be ACTUAL highlights. This part brought a genuine smile to my face after having to sit through her singing for no good reason (seriously) for maybe 3 of the first 10 minutes of the movie. What the hell??? Anyways, yay, dead.
- The best "highlight" of all. The kid runs off for no apparent reason when nobody's looking in one of those "Wait - where's X?" scenes you've scene a million times. The next bit you have to see to believe. It's as though they just lift the dialogue straight from the scene description.

INT. YET ANOTHER RANDOM FLOODED ROOM - NEXT

SCREECHING WOMAN finds OBLIGATORY KID - he is INEXPLICABLY TRAPPED inside SOME CAGE THING for no logical reason. He can not get out.

SCREECHING WOMAN
Ohmygodwtfbbq there you are, or something.

OBLIGATORY KID
(literally says this)
I don't know how I got in here. I can't get out.

You don't know how you got in there? Eh? Neither do the screenwriters, kid, neither do the screenwriters. And that's assuming there WERE actual screenwriters and they didn't just dump actors in rooms of water and film them, which might actually provide at least some clue as to how the abomination that is Poseidon came about. Oh and then after the water appears to drown Obligatory Kid, Josh Lucas (you know, star of the KFC movie and the 'leading man' they hire when no one else will take a role) suddenly emerges having saved him somehow. At this point my eyes rolled around in my head so far they detached from their sockets and began rolling around the floor. Doing that on their own saved me some effort for the next 15 minutes, and as an added bonus it meant I couldn't watch Poseidon anymore.

How I Spent Last Monday
Running short of time before class, so I'll have to cut this briefer than I'd hoped after taking some detailed notes on the night. Last week was the annual 15 Minutes Of Fame festival showcasing the best and presumably worst in student filmmaking from aspiring Aucklland Uni-based directors. I missed Tuesday when something came up and thwarted my plans (damn, missed The Deepest Spoon The Drawer after working on it). From what I did see, only one film actually seemed like it could stand alone as a quality short (content-wise) outside of the context of the competiton (Sunday, which to steal from its synopsis is "a drama involving a man and his son having a psychological battle over a gym workout session). The rest? Some had their moments. One Day Of Kitty was brilliant for all of 2 minutes before the director proved what a fluke it was and that they had no idea what they were onto when the joke went on forever. It needed a sharp chop early on to maintain its randomness, rather than adhere to a distinct, a drawn-out "day in the life" form.

Dennis chipped in with a cool fight-oriented piece called You Broke My Camera! showing, as expected, the rest how editing should be done, which was followed by Jusdice, an "uh-huh" afterthought of a film but more enjoyable for its randomness than the incompetent attempts at serious drama that littered the programme. Well done to Random Screaming Lady for some excellent screaming in Ultra Violent. At least there was one positive about the film.

Overall? I may not have been a very active filmmaker this past year, but the evening told me I hadn't exactly lost any ground for it. Oh and people need to see some films shot in the 70s and stop imitating TV shows, and then if they HAVE TO apply those MTV elements to the root cinematic techniques that underly them, or else you aren't really understanding why you're doing what you're doing. Or at least come up with one storyboard frame somewhere somehow at some point before calling "action." Please. Seriously.

How I'm Spending Tonight
Attending the premiere of Jack Woon's Bollywood feature Be Sharp See Flat. Awesomeness. Looking forward to doing a review tomorrow ;)

Apologies for all the spelling errors, didn't put this through Word first like usual.

Hahahahaha

2006-10-07T22:12:00.000+13:00

It's Here...

OMG You can "OWN IT NOW ON DVD"!!!

"Really. Just don't even bother with this one. I was open to a no/low budget film, but this was sad... there was no production value beyond the fake fangs occasionally used and I'm pretty sure they had to share one set amongst the cast... this is the first film I've seen that there is not a single stick of furniture, carpet, nothing on the walls, nothing."
- Disgruntled Amazon Customer.

Or rather, Stupid Amazon Customer. The rest of already knew not to bother with this one.

Guns N' Roses

2006-10-07T12:35:00.000+13:00

The Blog Is Back
On a whim. And the Tagboard Spam is gone. For now. It just keeps piling up. Help?

Chinese Democracy
It's been nine or ten years in the making, but it seems that not only may Chinese Democracy actually exist after all, but it could in fact be released on November 21. This year. (Read more here if you don't know the story).

GNR: The hair… metal.

Guns N' Roses aren't exactly the same band they were back in 1991 when they last put out a record (mostly) consisting of original material. At the moment its Axl on vocals and Dizzy Reed on piano and keyboard, no change there, accompanied by the guy who replaced the guy who replaced Gilby Clarke who replaced Izzy Stradlin on rhythm guitar, Robin Finck (Nine Inch Nails) and "Bumblefoot" (who replaced, would you believe, "Buckethead") in place of Slash (two men needed to do Slash's job? Sounds about right really), "Brain" on drums - having replaced the guy who himself replaced Matt Sorum, plus let's not forget the guy who replaced Duff McKagan on bass (the most notable "new" member, Tommy Stinson of The Replacements fame) and... the addition of a second keyboardist. No, really.

So that makes, what, eight(?) guys to do the job once done by five. But shouldn't we give them a chance? After all the chopping and changing, surely Axl Kubrick wouldn't have settled for anything less than the perfect combination? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, by all reports the band's been lighting the stage on fire this year with Finck nailing Slash's sound on the band’s classics and Axl, incredibly, sounding as good as ever despite the fact he still seems like he must be tearing his vocal chords apart every time he hits one of those gravelly high notes. But the "no" part is that when you consider this is essentially a karaoke outfit; Axl leading a tribute band. That is, until/unless Chinese Democracy allows the new boys to stamp their own names as having been a part of actually achieving something under the GNR banner, other than "still attracting a crowd."

Velvet Revolver, whose GNR members still resemble themselves...

So what has the band lost in losing the majority of its members from the glory days? If Velvet Revolver's anything to go by, not a lot. Slash, McKagan and Sorum proved themselves unable to capture anything resembling their GNR magic with Scott Weiland leading the way on 2004's Contraband. Perhaps they need Axl more than he needs them, with only the screeching-one capable of lighting the necessary melodic spark to get the fire burning? Well it's true that Axl's contributions to the band's best efforts have often been overshadowed by, say, Slash's solos, and understandably so. But it doesn't mean he doesn't need these guys back just as badly. A big potential stumbling block in my eyes lies in Axl's perfectionism itself.

With all the changes he's made it seems he's probably been looking not only for creative minds and competent songwriters (ever wonder why Gilby Clarke was fired? Good luck, Supernova) but people who'll go along with what he wants to do. The thing about Guns N' Roses was that in being a great band their split was inevitable. The only question was going to be whether they'd get back together some day (and obviously they haven't). The conflict within the group, generally between Insert Band Member Here and Axl of course, helped carve their sound in a way that wasn't possible in a band of yes-men. It wasn't entirely Axl-centric, even if Axl was. Listening to the few tracks confirmed (according to Wikipedia) as being on Chinese Democracy, it becomes obvious where the new line-up's deficiencies lie. The one common factor in it all is that it seems like they're all just nodding and following Axl's instructions, with the unique flavours added by Slash and co. lost in favour of simply replicating superficial aspects of their sound.

... and Axl Rose, who doesn't.

The first thing you notice about I.R.S. is that Axl still sounds the same. It's almost eerie to hear him again given how long it's been since the last Roses recordings. After that, there are several things that you'll notice. The lyrics are both (a) in the GNR vein, and (b) pretty crap. But the music sounds good, and if the lyrics are bad it helps that you can barely decipher them anyway. But the warning bells are ringing.

For one thing, this song starts with electronic drum machine bullshit. It ditches it, then it comes back in a couple of times during the song. And ends with it. When GNR split up it was apparently over Axl's desire for a new "direction" - a shift toward a more industrial-rock sound (Finck's inclusion makes a lot of sense) that no one else in the band wanted. Well, however that's changed over the years (and its still present in some of the new material) I can say that if the new GNR is headed in the same artificial music / sound effects direction that saw bands like the Smashing Pumpkins bow out with a whimper in their last few years then Chinese Democracy really might not be worth a decade's wait.

I said that was just one of the main problems with the sound of this song. The other is that, despite the fact I.R.S. sounds like the band's best chance of a hit single from the new (confirmed) material, is that which I alluded to earlier. Finck playing Slash only works so far as imitation and I'm not yet sold that he and his co-conspirator (that Bumblefoot guy) can bring the creative goods beyond technical brilliance, and while the song has its moments of glory (with a solo almost entering Radiohead's The Bends territory in both sound and quality), it highlights what the band lost when Sorum and McKagan left. The rhythm section that drove Axl's ideas to such rollicking heights in execution as on songs like Welcome To The Jungle and You Could Be Mine (a song which this new stuff has finally allowed me to appreciate), tracks that take the listener on a journey of sheer momentum, here merely does an "adequate job" but ultimately leaves much of the new material sounding sluggish by comparison to the GNR of old. Given this version of the song emerged as early as 2003 via... Mike Piazza... yes... perhaps Axl's improved it a little. But I doubt it. The good news anyway is that is IS GNR quality, even for all of its deficiencies. It's just that its hardly "groundbreaking", and if he's not breaking any new ground then why change a winning formula, unless of course the new guys - like all the failed GNR imitators over the years - simply can't do the same job the originals did back in the day.

Obligatory picture of Slash with a guitar

One thing Axl hasn't changed is his desire to create those 5-6 minute "epics". The problem here though is that T.W.A.T. (There Was A Time), The Blues and Madagascar are likely to all end up on the same album. I'm not yet convinced there's room for more than one or two of them, even though Axl hasn’t lost his spark and they probably represent the strongest area of the new GNR material. There Was A Time is incredible, a tie for first among the new songs alongside Catcher In The Rye. It's on songs like this that you can forget for a moment who's missing from the band's roll call because, let's face it, no one does these songs like Axl Rose, the man behind November Rain (the closest anyone's ever gotten to the rock brilliance of Stairway To Heaven). He hasn't lost his touch with these kinds of songs at all which is great to hear. But like I say, even if you slot The Blues in near the tail-end (where it belongs to avoid stuttering the album's momentum) and There Was A Time in there somewhere, having Madagascar in there as well almost seems like a few too many self-indulgent pauses in a series of hard-rock songs. And all three songs are superb with the best solos of the new stuff by a mile (ie. you won't even miss Slash). I'll have to see how it plays out of course, and maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope so.

Better and, in particular, title track Chinese Democracy, are hard-rocking songs that make for solid album tracks. Chinese Democracy is what it is, an industrial-rock hard-hitter, and it’s decent. On the other hand Better is more along the typical GNR lines but suffers from a weak chorus and exemplifies what I was saying about the rhythm section earlier. Without Sorum's drumming and Duff McKagan’s basslines the song sort of chugs along without that explosive energy that drove so many GNR classics. Instead, any energy’s confined to spurts of guitar distortion and a quality solo (3:40).

Axl and the Tribute Band. I assume the other 12 went home early.

Catcher In The Rye is the most promising glimpse though that maybe Guns N' Roses have life left in them yet. This one, inspired by the murder of John Lennon, would work wonders as an album closer and rides on a superb bouncing-rhythm throughout to rank among the best rock material any version of GNR has ever produced. That they can do a song of this quality outside of Axl's "epics" is a good sign indeed. One version of this song reportedly features Brian May on guitar, and while he probably won't make the album cut given that the album's been re-recorded several dozen times each year for a decade, it gives you an idea of the sound. This song would have been among the highlights of any of the past GNR albums if it'd been done back in the day. Seriously. I bet Axl wishes he'd come up with it before he closed Use Your Illusion II with the what-the-fuck-were-you-thinking "My World" at the very least.

Overall, I'm not blown away. But my hopes haven't dwindled either. I think Chinese Democracy will inevitably fall short of the immense expectations built up by ten years of rumours and hype, which basically demand the greatest rock album ever, but the new incarnation of the band is showing plenty of promise and the glimpses of the old magic are enough to suggest that maybe the rest of the album could actually live up to, at the very least, the Use Your Illusion albums, if probably not Appetite For Destruction. But there's still something missing in most of the rock-radio material, and I hope there's still some good old-fashioned fast-paced rockers like the ones that brought GNR to fame in the old days, assuming the new guys can actually pull it off instead of just sounding like every other band like they do at times on stuff like Better. If the rest of the album's at the same level of quality as these tracks, it'll be worth checking out. If it's better, it could be a stunner. But if these are the highlight's I think I might walk away a little disappointed.

That said, it's unfair to judge songs before their final finished forms have been determined and many of the cuts I've been assessing are from unidentified sessions that could date back as early as 2001/2 in some cases (though I understand some are likely from the past year). So, as always, only time will tell if Guns N Roses can set the world on fire for a second time. Hopefully that time will actually come on November 21, because the album was already promised to be released in late 1999, April 2002 and March 2003 by Axl himself within months of those dates rolling around and, of course, nothing ever emerged.

Potential hits:
I.R.S., Better, Catcher In The Rye, There Was A Time
Highlights:
Catcher In The Rye, There Was A Time, The Blues
Meh:
Madagascar (but the recording quality was poor and it's a great song according to people who’ve seen it live)

What I hope these tracks will be joined by:
A cover on par with Knockin’ On The Heaven’s Door & Since I Don’t Have You
- To prove the new guys can spice up other people’s material the way GNR used to do so brilliantly.

An original on par with Sweet Child O’ Mine
- Axl’s had a dozen years to come up with one.

An acoustic gem like Patience or a slow-rocker like Don’t Cry
- Izzy Stradlin’s been touring with them on and off, here’s hoping they let him in the studio to show 'em how it's done.

A whole bunch of fast-paced rocking songs like You Could Be Mine or the classic anthem Paradise City
- Because a lot of the new stuff plods too much.

Verdict:
For now? Waiting patiently & hopefully. Wondering why I.R.S., Better and T.W.A.T. need the stupid artificial drum intros. Hoping this isn't one of those albums where they choose to include filler over stuff like Catcher In The Rye just to make me hate them. It's happens so often with so many bands.

The Post After The Last One

2006-06-05T13:23:00.000+12:00

Existenz Sucks Ass
I can see now why A History Of Violence was considered somewhat of a Cronenberg comeback. Existenz, which screened from 10:20 last night to around midnight on TV2, is a completely abysmal pile of pointless stupidity. It's particularly stupid at the end, when it's trying to be at its cleverest by asking Twilight Zone questions it doesn't feel like answering. Snore.

D- or 0.5 out of 5. Gets half a mark for having the balls to make a gun that can get past metal detectors by being made entirely out of... flesh and bone... with teeth as bullets... or something.

Google

Slade's American Grill

2006-05-31T08:45:00.000+12:00

The Best 48 Hours Ever
Also appropriate: The most exhausting 48 hours ever, the must enjoyable 48 hours ever, the least sleep I've had in 48 hours ever.

So as you've already read at Dennis's blog, and at David's blog (w00t! Behind the scenes pictures!!!), a bunch of us participated in the 48 Hour Film Festival, which for the uninformed is basically where teams of filmmakers turn up at the most difficult to find location in Auckland, tred carefully down the most treacherously bumpy downhill path in Auckland, and receive a genre, a prop that must be used, a line of dialogue that must be spoken, and a character that must be used. So we, Team Squiid, were set the task of creating a Puppet film featuring a mirror, the line "that's what I'm talking about!" (delivered by Mr. Michael Trevelyan) and our character - Robin Slade, an eternal optimist (ie. a Ken doll that can't not smile by virtue of being plastic).

While the zombie children above made the cut, a large black military vehicle with a big gun which was intended to be helmed by similar dolls during the beach scene never made it to filiming due to bad light

So we ran into a few difficulties. Our first story idea saw a superhero getting ready for an important mission to save the day but, upon realising he had five minutes still to spare, stopping off for food at a restaurant and getting squashed by a giant baseball, leaving his important task in the hands of the patrons nearby who were to assume the responsibility of what seemed like an important and easy thing to do - only to encounter dinosaurs and military and discover the task wasn't as important as they thought... maybe. We didn't really have an ending. Or a good arc. Or characters. Fortunately we ditched it and came up with something much better, if entirely silly and occassionally incomprehensible. Oh and the restaurant, dinosaurs, miliary and YES even the giant baseball stayed.

Blink and you'll miss it: The director's cut (probably done this weekend) will feature a bigger bang here and possibly slowed down motion, because the bombing of the dinosaurs is a tad quick and it's actually possible not to catch it :(

So yeah, the screening is at 7:40 at the Civic Theatre on Queen Street. If you worked on the shoot, you need only turn up. If you aren't, turn up with $10 so you can get in. It's sooo worth it.

Actually I just want to say I co-directed a movie that grossed money at the box office.

The verdict? Well, according to a test screening of my Mum, Dad, Sister and Sister's Boyfriend: funny, good, entertaining.... abrupt ending. Ie. everything up until the very end is great. Feck. I see exactly what they mean - the meaning is there, but its not as coherent as it was when we did a rough cut of the final shots on Sunday afternoon, and I think our last 4 seconds would have better been served without a long SQUIID logo at the start and with like... 2 credit titles at the end and instead put in the 2 shots we needed. I think the ending has killed our chances of getting anywhere, if it was good enough to otherwise (pass), which is a shame after all that work. But there's always the 30-seconds longer version at 15 Minutes Of Fame where we will sweep everything because we rock. Oh and there's ALWAYS NEXT YEAR. BECAUSE WE WILL BE BACK.

Thanks to everyone who gave up so many hours of your weekend and helped out, I hope you like the final product on Thursday.

Meat Loaf Is Awesome

2006-05-21T12:07:00.001+12:00

Your Music Collection Sucks: Part II
If you didn't rush out and buy Bruce Springsteen's The Wild The Innocent & The E-Street Shuffle, you suck.

This morning I found an even better and more up to date all-time greatest albums list from some American radio station. THIS is an awesome list. They even remembered that Pinkerton exists (though they rated it below the Blue Album...grr...).

http://www.xpn.org/885ATGA.php

Bat Out Of Hell - Meat Loaf (1977)
On that list, (too low) at number 134 is Bat Out Hell, a seven-song album from, at the time, a three-hundred-and-something-pound actor going by the name of Meat Loaf (I mean that in the sense that he'll ask you call him "Meat" for short), and an album which has sold 34 million copies worldwide, making it one of the ten biggest records ever. Bat Out Of Hell rose from the ashes of Never Land, a dark Peter Pan musical written by Jim Steinman which never got off the ground, and is essentially what you'd expect from such a project - imagine Grease with more grunt and a seventies (rather than fifties) youth attitude. The opening title track is a stunner, a ten-minute hard-rocking epic saga about a gruesome motorbike crash showcasing Meat's unrivalled vocal power. From there the album offers some variety; the straight-from-broadway banter of the hilarious high-school sex song Paradise By The Dashboard Light (at the time the longest song to ever make the US top 40), the classic You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth - another one you could imagine done on the stage, and gentler songs like Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad (his biggest hit until the early 90s), Heaven Can Wait and the powerful For Crying Out Loud. What makes this album so great is its mixture of classic melodies, Meat's powerful voice (at his best, he's arguably the most intense singer in rock music) and writer Jim Steinman's ability to mix wit with emotion, rock with piano ballads, and craft an album that's appealed to fans of all genres for three decades.

Bat Out Of Hell II: Back Into Hell - Meat Loaf (1993)
Proving that if lightning can't strike twice it can still hit nearby, Jim Steinman's second set of Bat songs sixteen years later was better than anyone had any right to expect, and while it didn't match the original's critical acclaim or hit the 34-million mark, 18 million copies sold is hardly something to laugh at when you consider that Meat Loaf basically had NO CAREER between Bat I and Bat II. Every album he tried with various writers was a flop, and by the mid 80s he was a washed-up one-hit-album wonder whose popularity was limited to the tour circuit in Europe. And yet somehow he and Steinman (Steinman himself having failed to launch his own solo career or his late-eighties girl-band project Pandora's Box into stardom) collaborated once more to create what is unquestionably the greatest comeback by any artist ever. I'm not just saying it, its a fact that no one's ever been that big, disappeared that emphatically, and comeback that big again, and they probably never will. Bat Out Of Hell II wasn't just a success because of what its title promised as a marketing tool. It was a success because of what the content delivered. I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That), perhaps longer than it needs to be at twelve minutes, was cut down to seven for the radio and MTV and quickly became the most successful rock single of all-time, hitting number one in twenty-five countries including the US and UK. The rest of the album is not as consistent as Bat Out Of Hell. The first three songs are up there as rock classics, no question, and there's nothing less brilliant about Objects In The Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are (yes, there are many songs on this record which Steinman gave 'odd' names to, but when you hear this song you see the title in a different light). And the final track, Lost Boys And Golden Girls (another one reportedly straight from Steinman's original Never Land songbook) is simple but effective - basically Bat II's Heaven Can Wait. That said, Good Girls Go To Heaven (Bad Girls Go Everywhere) and its instrumental continuation Back Into Hell don't add anything but an unwelcome stench of the eighties. The rest of the tracks are actually great, as in "within millimeters of Bat I"-great, but they're more growers than immediately accessible classics. Overall, this is one of the greatest rock albums you'll ever hear, there's a reason why a middle-aged guy no-one had heard from in a decade and a half became a huge star AGAIN, and you should get it because I'm always right.

So yeah, two albums that will save your record collection. Try turfing out that generic TV-show soundtrack sitting on your shelf while you're at it.

The Monster Is Loose: Bat Out Of Hell III - Meat Loaf (2006)
Now here's a question: three in a row? Meat Loaf hasn't been a no-one since Bat II like he was after the first one, he's been in movies (like Robert Paulson, or 'the guy with boobs,' in Fight Club), had a platinum-album without the help of Steinman in 1995 and toured around the world as a sell-out live act for years on end, and is now set to play Jack Black's father in the Tenacious D movie this November. But it's not as if he's the type of star who guarantees a multi-platinum hit each time out. He's released one album in the last ten years and he had a few health problems which limited his promotion of it (that and the record company sucked ass and screwed up big time) and while it did "okay" in Europe that's not quite the description typical of someone who can still be considered a mega-star. Throw in the factor of Jim Steinman's non-involvement beyond providing a few of the songs (he produced and/or arranged the last 2 Bat albums and wrote every track on each), and it's not as if Bat III's shaping up, on paper, to be another great rock classic. I mention it here because when it comes out on October 31st, it's going to kick ass on the sole basis that I love the last two Bat albums too much that I refuse to believe otherwise.... :(

Here's the first song that got leaked onto the net, hitting radio in July or August, and was reportedly written by producer Desmond Child, Motley Crue bassist Nikki Sixx and former Marilyn Manson guitarist John 5. It's grown on me. A lot. My hopes are up a little.

http://www.badongo.com/file/675382

It's... MUCH less Steinman-esque than expected (except for the epic length), but at least they aren't just trying to imitate his lyrical humour and pop-sensibilities because they'd probably fail to nail what makes it so good and come off sounding second-rate. I just hope there's SOME classic Steinman on the album too or it wouldn't be the same. But yeah, I like the metal-style, interesting for anyone who's heard the first two Bat albums to see if III's consistently like that especially seeing as this record also features another of Steinman's Never Land tracks It's All Coming Back To Me Now, a song originally set for Bat II, then shelved for Bat III, only for Steinman to give it to Celine Dion before Meat Loaf could record it (it was huge in 1994-ish, and yes it's the one you're thinking of). Something covered by Celine Dion... I'd like to hear THAT as a hard rock song :D

Dumb Aussies

2006-05-20T09:26:00.001+12:00

204 Is Over And Done With
For now. Not looking forward to doing the final draft (worth another 30-fucking-percent) after 48 hours weekend. WHICH IS ONE WEEK AWAY. w00t. For those unfamiliar, we get told a genre, a character, a prop that must be used, and then we have 48 hours to make a 4-7 minute film out of it. And Peter Jackson may or may not be one of the judges in the final round or something. Oooooh.

Australia
Australia is a song by the Manic Street Preachers. It is also a country with FUCKED UP copyright laws in relation to recording stuff from TV onto a VCR. Perhaps the most FUCKED UP aspect of it all is the fact that, other than being stupid laws, they're also unenforcable ones. Go Aussie.

From: http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/archives//004567.html

"Australia is finally reforming its backwards copyright law, which made it illegal to record shows off the TV and radio, and to rip CDs for personal playback. However, in the process, they proposed a new law that is even more backwards -- one that prohibits watching your recorded shows more than once, one that doesn't allow you to make backups of your CDs, and that doesn't let you loan them to friends.

<<<Does this mean I can record my favourite television or radio program to enjoy later?
Yes. For the first time you will be able to record most television or radio program at home to enjoy at a later time. This will allow you to watch or listen to a program as it was made available to the public at the time of the original broadcast.

How long can I keep the recording?
The recording must be deleted after one use. It will not be possible to use the recording over and over again.

Can I make a collection of copied television and radio programs?
No. You will not be able to burn a collection (or library) of your favourite programs on DVD or CD to keep. (It will be permitted to record a program on DVD or CD but only temporarily until you watch or listen to it for the first time.)

What can I do with recorded program?
You can watch or listen to the recording with your family or friends. It will not be permitted to sell or hire a recording or to play it at school or work or in any kind of public audience.

Can I give a recording I have made to a friend?
No. A recording is for the personal use of the person who made it. You can invite a friend over to watch or listen to your recording but you can't lend or give it to a friend to take home with them.>>>

Uh-huh.

Bobblehead

2006-05-16T19:41:00.000+12:00

Seriously.

Essay's going okay, wrote lots of rambling bullshit today to be typed up, refined and elaborated upon tomorrow. I'm optimistic of watching The Da Vinci Code on Thursday morning... must use that as motivation to be basically finished by this time tomorrow (plus a couple of hours). I also know IT WON'T FUCKING HAPPEN :(

Greatest Season Finales Ever

2006-05-14T19:52:00.000+12:00

That's What She Said
So JJ Abrams has been talking up the finale of Lost's second season as one of the greatest season finales of all-time. Well, newspaper The Phoenix (whatever that is) has made an awesome list of what its up against to truly deserve that kind of acclaim. Of course, I post it mainly because it has 24 and Twin Peaks in the top 3 and hence I agree with it entirely :p

Oh an I really need to see Dallas I think; what's so good in that famous J.R. episode that it beats the finale of Twin Peaks, the single greatest show of all-time? Seriously???

1. Dallas: "A House Divided" (1980)
2. Twin Peaks: "Episode 29" (1991)
3. 24: "11:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M." (2002)
4. Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "The Gift" (2001)
5. The Simpsons: "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" (1995)
6. Seinfeld: "The Pilot" (1993)
7. Cheers: "I do, and adieu" (1987)
8. Friends: "The One with Ross's Wedding" (1998)
9. Newhart: "The Last Newhart" (1990)
10. Survivor: "The end of the first Survivor"(2000)

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid11602.aspx

Your Music Collection Sucks: Part I
The Problem
It's incredible how popular bad music is. I'm not just talking about hip hop, some of which is actually good...ish...at a push, but stuff like Nickelback. And James Blunt. I've targeted Blunt before, and you can hold back on the tagboard responses because I read them last time, but his latest single deserves more sledging; just when I think he can't possibly excrete something worse than You're Beautiful as a follow up to the perfectly decent Wiseman, he goes out of his way to do it with Goodbye My Lover and succeeds in style. Nickelback is self-explanatory. If you need help, either Rolling Stone ("All the Right Reasons is so depressing, you're almost glad Kurt's not around to hear it") or The New York Times ("for hard-rock ridiculousness, Nickelback is tough to beat") are good places to start. The problem is: you own these records. And if you don't, have a cookie. I have cookie-dough being fed intraveneously into me at all times, that's how good my CD collection is. But you do own the aforementioned shit. And you own a trash can. And you haven't yet made the connection.

The Solution, And Its Free
Sell these records. Trade Me is good for such things. Then use the proceeds for something decent. The strange thing is, new records cost $20-$30 in stores, and yet a few meters away there's always quality stuff that costs less simply because you aren't buying it within a few months of release. And last time I checked, music quality wasn't advancing with time at such a rate that what happens to be popular today must be better than anything in the past, so why limit your shopping list to the Top 20 rack, paying more essentially for less? I say "less" in all likelihood, its not an absolute and its not to say that the occassional new release isnt incredible and I'm not some elitist coot who refuses to listen to new music - I catch the top 40 show on C4 every Friday - but add up the same proportion of incredible records you find this year and apply it to last 40+ years and you might just happen to find a few more great CDs in the alphabetical stands. And by might, I mean will. Yes, this entry is driven by my wishing more people to delve into older music because I did and - holy fuck. It seems dumb even having to explain how much better some of this stuff is. Do yourself a favour if you haven't already. And I'm not writing this because I think everyone only listens to new music either, but I just can't get my head around the idea of a Nickelback CD selling 2 million-plus copies when alternatives exist and guns were not pointed at customer heads. The mind boggles. So yeah. There ARE SOME people who buy a lot of music because its new and "in fashion" so to speak. And maybe its taste but maybe even THAT is because they simply aren't exposed to older stuff for the very reason that "new" gets all the airplay as part of the music industry being a commercial venture like the film industry. But these people might be interested to instead seek out alternatives when they've heard something like:

The Wild, The Innocent & The E-Street Shuffle - Bruce Springsteen (1973)

Unlike a lot of padded-out CDs which either limp to the obligatory ten-track mark or go on longer by repeating the same melodies (Nickelback) to make it look like you get more stuff when you check the tracklisiting on the back of the case, Springsteen's second album stops after track seven, and if you listen to it it becomes clear why. When New York City Serenade comes to a close after just under ten minutes of piano, jazz and rock n' roll you aren't left feeling like you need more. The number of tracks doesn't make an album complete. The quality of the tracks that are already there do. The Wild... feels cohesive without Springsteen doing what a lot of popular modern artists do to achieve the same effect ie. choosing a style and then making a bunch of songs that all sound the same within that style and bunging them on a CD in whatever order works best (the style comment aside, even Radiohead committed this sin with Hail To The Thief - a record of great songs that doesn't feel satisfying because, unlike the band's previous efforts, its all over the place). The album is cohesive because of a sense of setting, the music captures the feel of the "scenes" around which the songs revolve, and if anything its the variation that makes it all the more cohesive because Springsteen is very much a storyteller and listening to something like this is like taking a journey through Asbury Park and along 57th Street witnessing the stories of his songs.

Track Picks: Everything that isn't Wild Billy's Circus Story, the album's one weak point being that (otherwise good) song's plodding intro. The last three tracks are mindblowing. A- or 4.5 out of 5. Not just minus 0.5 points for track four's opening, but because The Boss's 1975 follow-up Born To Run shows there's an even higher echelon of Springsteen album possible, and that must get the A.

Movie Stuff

2006-05-12T20:43:00.000+12:00

Argh
Pump It "by" the Black Eyed Peas pisses me off more than any other Black Eyes Peas song, and they all piss me off. It's such an awful butchering of the song at the start of Pulp Fiction that I may never view what was once a great-for-mood credits sequence the same way again.

Trailers
So here's a new trailer for Click starring Adam Sandler, where he has a remote control that can control things in real life - ie. rip-off of a Paul Jennings story.

And a full trailer for Miami Vice which isn't as good as the awesome teaser, but is still good to some extent. The extent being everything up until actuallty selling a story or having some hook, as it basically just sells "coolness" at the moment. But still, its Michael Mann. And he rocks.

And one for M. Night Shyamalan's Lady In The Water.

And a new one for the Pixar movie Cars.

And lastly decent a SUPERMAN RETURNS TV SPOT which shows very little new stuff unless you freeze-frame it, though at one point it looks like Kevin Spacey maybe stabs Superman in the back or something???

If they don't work but you have iTunes, download the iPod one and play it in there. Some good stuff coming out over the next few months it seems. w00t.

The Last Season Of The Practice Is Back

2006-05-12T10:28:00.000+12:00

Denny Crane
Do you watch Boston Legal? Of course not, because its too awesome a show to actually get watched by anyone, and will probably get cancelled soon because of it. But if you do, or if you ever used to like The Practice and want to see how it ends: THE SECOND GREATEST SEASON OF ANYTHING EVER has begun re-screening on TV3 at 11:15 at night on WEDNESDAY - the final season of The Practice. I never saw the show before the final year, and I saw about a dozen or so episodes of this awesome season of television before TV3 yanked it and replaced it with some reality TV crap. But now its back, and you can see for yourself how great it is, and I can finally see how the season finishes. Oh and we get to see the first appearence of Denny Crane in episode 17ish (who therefore hadn't shown up yet when TV3 pulled the show from the air) and a couple of other characters from Boston Legal who have now, thankfully, left (the show is awesomer for it in season 2). Watch. Compulsory viewing. At least tape it or something.

Expanded
On TV.com they're advertising EXPANDED season finales in the U.S. tonight for My Name Is Earl (meh) and... The OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Expanded Office???? Ooooh. Everything Office makes me go oooooooh, but this is an uber-oooooooooh. I'll take every extra minute I can get.

Madonna
For 204 last week we had to do a music video assignment. I did mine of Madonna's American Life because we looked at it in the workshop and half the work was therefore already done for me. I'm lazy like that. BUT the original cut of the video was actually different and all controversial and stuff so the one we saw was the TAME version.

Full story at Wikipedia as to what happened.

And the one you might catch on C4 once in a while.

And the other one that makes you see why they pulled it, and makes you sad that they did.

Title

2006-05-11T22:00:00.000+12:00

Humpty Dumpty
After another long work-induced blogging break you'd expect something AMAZING is coming. Well, I figured I'd disappoint anyway, so I shall do so in style.

Microsoft Word sucks ass. Word does not consider the plural "auteurs" acceptable, but is more than happy to recommend "spidery" when I misspell "stupidity." The irony. Or possibly the Iraqi.

Oooh...want to be nosy? Try http://www.google.com/trends

End of entry.

Seriously.

Though I'll next start up a series of posts telling you why your music collection sucks and CDs that can save it.

Google

Nope. Couldn't even manage a funny picture.

Choose To Accept This Mission

2006-05-06T12:38:00.000+12:00

Mission: Impossible III
Very good movie, and pretty much everything you could want from a popcorn action-thriller. My full informal review of sorts here. Though I'll add: had a few problems with the very end of the movie, maybe the last 15 minutes or around that. Mainly that the demise of a certain character which is rather anticlimatic. Oh and they repeat something seen in an episode of Lost, right down to how its "resolved." Being more specific would give things away that you don't want to know if you haven't seen it yet. But yeah. Oh and if you've read the Weekend Herald review that came out today, a source I normally disagree with on every movie on a weekly basis except when it comes to blockbusters which I randomly seem to agree with 99% of the time, they summed it up pretty well actually.

Overall, after thinking on it for a couple of days: a strong B or 3.5 out of 5. B+ would be if it had finished a bit better; its a messy route to an overly neat conclusion. This type of movie would struggle to get a higher grade than a B+ in my book just because of it being a spy action-thriller with little purpose other than to entertain, so to almost get that means M:I:III is about as good as what anyone going to see a Mission: Impossible movie can reasonably expect. Main strengths: maintains top-notch action and suspense for a full two hours, the opening scene (which we revisit later in the film), the whole cast, attempt at focusing on Cruise's character beyond just "I'm a hero in typical Hollywood situations", minimal use of those bloody face masks except when absolutely necessary, and a run-of-the-mill twist but executed in a really great way (at least for me because I was easily fooled; some might see it coming as with any twist). Probably more too. Highly recommended.

Brits & Americans

2006-05-02T08:08:00.000+12:00

Three years after the American public had their say in the 2002 Rolling Stone Readers' 100, an occasionally dubious list of what they collectively considered the greatest 100 albums of all-time, the British replied with an equivelant list for Q magazine earlier this year. In 1998 when a similar poll was conducted, the Brits showed themselves to have goldfish-like memories in voting in a number of mediocre 1996/1997 releases, such as Oasis' Be Here Now which is famous as one of the great disappointments of the decade, and not surprisingly many of those have disappeared from the top 20 to not even chart anywhere; so who knows if many of their new picks will stand the test of time?

Americans:
Rolling Stone Readers' 100

Brits:
Q Readers' 100

The problem with both lists is obvious: this is popular opinion, and as such there's bias toward more widely-known releases (as shown by bands more commercially popular in Britain charting higher in the Q poll and vice-versa, oh and of course Britian's failure to recognise Pinkerton in any way shape or form :D). Overall: they're interesting and worth a look, but nothing quite beats a comprehensive list made by the people who listen to everything when it comes to a list determined by actual quality:

Critics' 500

Honestly, with new music mostly sucking ass (especially once you go back and listen to some Led Zeppelin for a few days...) I've been using this critics' list as a guide to what albums to consider buying from some of my favourite older artists and it's worked out awesomely so far.

On that note, and because Dennis showed it can be fun to review music as much as movies:

Exile On Main Street- The Rolling Stones
A or 5 out of 5. A sixteen track album-album with few of their gazillion famous singles and none that get much airplay, this is the work of a band in love with rock and roll and not seeking out commercial success (they'd had plenty by then anyway) and the result is widely considered their greatest achievement - and for good reason. Listen to this album if you have interest in music of any sort whatsoever. It's that good.
Track picks: Rocks Off, Casino Boogie, Sweet Virginia, Loving Cup, Happy, Let It Loose, All Down The Line, Soul Survivor

Holiday Reflection

2006-04-30T18:37:00.000+12:00

I've been waking up later than usual lately. I think about things to do for the day and then settle into the same routine of surfing the net and just looking into whatever catches my attention and listening to music and eventually I find it's late in the afternoon and the day's gone by and it doesn't feel like it could be that late already and I've done little of anything. I've just sat on my ass and I feel worse because of it too, lack of blood circulation probably. I've been far too late starting my economics assignment. I haven't done any of the script work I thought I would. I spent much of the first week with a goal to work towards; getting my film editing done. That was good. Without focus, the second week has been a waste of time and that's how I feel now, like I've just wasted a whole week of my life doing nothing and feeling crap about it at the end of each day. I don't think I was ready for a holiday yet, not one this long. A week would have done. I never felt this way during the whole three or whatever months off around Christmas last year either. I actually did things then. I suppose a return to Uni and the responsibility of having work to do wasn't there then. I dunno. But I guess that means I'm looking forward to Uni. It's been too long.

Another Impersonal Post

2006-04-27T15:01:00.000+12:00

Spam Loves Me
Or so says my tagboard. I love you too, Spam.

Mulholland Drive
It took a year and a half of looking and $41.01 but I finally have a region 2/4 copy of Mulholland Drive. Yay.

This is what it looks like. The end.

Boondock Saints
In the late nineties Harvey Weinstein read a script by a man called Troy Duffy, loved it, paid him $1million and gave him the backing he needed to make a movie called Boondock Saints. The media swarmed around Mr. Duffy, citing him as the next Tarantino, and Duffy let it go to his head. He decided he was above his friends and family who he proceeded to neglect and forget, and soon turned into a big-headed jackass and a two-faced liar who badmouthed Weinstein behind his back. You don't get away with that shit in Hollywood. Weinstein, legally commited to funding the movie, slashed the budget, the stars fled and Saints was made for a small sum, was released to negative reviews and Duffy was never heard from again; left with no dignity, no friends, and just a pile of money he quickly wasted. And so Troy Duffy's story comes to a close. Oh yeah, and Boondock Saints is now a cult classic somehow since its DVD release, earning a 7.7 on IMDB.

The movie itself? It's entertaining, but it's also lazy rubbish. It's one of those films where people say "fuck" all the time because its the only way the writer can get the dialogue and story to flow. I generally like the type of movie it was trying to be genre-wise etc., so even as a failure I guess I didn't hate it all that much, and there were some nice elements to it even if it became increasingly repetitive and nonsensicle. Overall, I'd give it a

D+ or 1.5 out of 5. If you like violent Ritchie/Tarantino crime flicks, you might agree. If you aren't a big fan of either director's work, you'll hate it more than I did, I guarantee it.

Oh yeah, and the DVD says that "with Pulp Fiction-esque humour and Reservoir Dogs type justice, The Boondock Saints is the film Quentin Tarantion could have made." Whoever wrote this clearly didn't unlock the vast majority of Pulp Fiction's humour, which is so different from anything in the largely humourless Boondock Saints that a comparison is laughable. And no, Tarantino could not have made a film like this, because Tarantino's films don't suck. They're violent but not mindless. They make sense. The dialogue is fresh and original; sure they'll say "fuck" but it'll be after some witty comment about hash bars in Amsterdam. Oh and they actually have humour, they don't just claim it on their DVD blurbs.

"I Believe In America"

2006-04-23T19:11:00.000+12:00

Dubbing Done
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

That was to Sonny, Rikky and Dennis for giving up more time than I anticipated to put the finishing touches on my movie this afternoon. Now for some chopping and changing and sound effects recording and hopefully an early May "release" (vs. the optimistic March on the original teaser).

The movie is looking less sucky by the day. It's still stupid and all, but at least it kind of works as far as conveying what its supposed to plotwise (an improvement over the original cut a few days ago). It's amazing that anything fits at all given the lack of shot planning, so yeah. I'm happy. Oh and Michael's random peach-eating cameo sequence seems to fit now in its new position so I can include it in the film. I think there's always room for a character eating a peach in any movie.

More Movies I've Seen These Last Few Days
Quiz Show (B+)
The Godfather: Part II (A) (4th favourite film)
The Godfather: Part III (B)
Narnia (C+...Again)
Big Fish (B+)

The Godfather Trilogy
Part I: IMDB 9.1/10 (#1), Rotten Tomatoes 100%
Part II: IMDB 8.9/10 (#3), Rotten Tomatoes 100%
Part III: IMDB 7.4/10, Rotten Tomatoes 77%

There's a reason why Part II is a better film than Part I in spite of its partial reliance on the audience's knowledge of the original for its brilliance (as a continuation of Michael's story). The Godfather is more direct, more blatantly focused and has a greater sense of inevitability about it for the most part, sure (plus it has Brando's iconic performance and about five times as many catch phrases as the sequels), but I think that Part II's avoidance of the original's strengths, stepping out on its own as a completely different experience (like, though to a lesser extent than, Alien and Aliens) is what leads it to ultimately become a more fulfilling, a more challenging and a deeper - both in terms of themes and character - experience. Part II is infinitely more subtle and more complex, employing without question the greatest use of subtext you'll ever see in a film, and while it initially seems - at least regarding the Michael side of the film's dual-narrative - plot-driven as though on course to simply tell a "what happened next" story like so many ill-fated sequels made for the apparent purpose of feeding the audience more of the same, its mostly setup for a great last 70 or so minutes (basically disc 2 of the DVD), with the film only gradually revealing its cards in a masterful display of set-up and pay-off. And you can't not love the Havana sequence (rebel arrest etc.) leading up to and including Michael's meeting with Hyman Roth.

I think there's a close parallel to be drawn between the Godfather films and the Star Wars series. Star Wars is the original, the most adored, the one that made fans fall in love with the series in the first place. It has more of those individual "classic scenes" that film buffs thrive on and it's fresh and original in a way that can't be emulated. That's basically like The Godfather. Part II meanwhile is like The Empire Strikes Back; a less showy, more complex and subtle dramatic exploration of its characters and themes, building to more of an emotionally driven (rather than action-packed) climax - think Blowing Up The Death Star vs The "I Am Your Father" Revelation. This may sound all very vague but to discuss where the brilliance lies requires a discussion of aspects of Michael's character, Vito's story, and what happens in the films. And I'm partially trying to convince you, the reader, to WATCH THESE MOVIES so spoiling it would be stupid ;)

Then, there's Part III. Coppola wanted to call it The Death Of Michael Corleone and the studio, citing the brand name's recognisability as a money spinner, were stupid (financial reasons aside) to intervene. With the name branded on the movie comes expectations of a Godfather-type film. An epic. But Coppola didn't make one - Part III is the only one that doesn't feel epic. It feels like a typical gangster plot stretched out over an epic-length running time. Sure, the climax is executed with almost as much momentum as that of Part I (not surprising really to find similarities here; much of the film is pointlessly spent either copying or sentimentally referencing the original film). And there are many great elements in the film - it's not bad at all. But the story is so simple and the whole film feels so unnecessary and pointless. If you can put that aside - that and the fact that Sofia Coppola gives WITHOUT A DOUBT the single worst performance I have ever seen (to think that Winona Ryder pulled out... she would have been perfect in the role...) - and try to enjoy the film its actually pretty good. But it just doesn't stack up as a GODFATHER MOVIE and doesn't deserve it's title. So in my Star Wars parallel this can be... well, its more like The Phantom Menace than Return Of The Jedi. And Sofia Coppola is Jar-Jar Binks.

Its a good gangster movie (something thinly disguised by the film's settings to instead resemble a Godfather epic), but the depth just isn't there. Still, it's worth watching (1) out of curiosity to see how it all ends, (2) for the scenes between Michael and Kay, (3) to gauge just how awful Sofia Coppola is and (4) to see how Coppola and Puzo could really make two classics in a couple of years and yet after sixteen years only come up with THIS as a conclusion, in case you've seen the first two and refuse to believe that it's possible.

The whole movie feels like Coppola's trying too hard to just MAKE A CLASSIC, and its an awful approach. It still gets a B, don't get me wrong here, but the series deserved a better conclusion. Proof of the film's failure lies in the fact that Michael's silent scream on the steps in the film's dramatic finale doesn't bring with it an ounce of the power that it should despite Pacino's efforts. Unfortunately for him, this moment that so easily could have been the pinnacle crowning achievement of the series is undermined by the fact that by the end of the film we just don't care that much anymore.

Three Days Later

2006-04-20T18:26:00.000+12:00

Meh
Finished the first cut of my random movie today, it's 9 minutes and 27 seconds long. That's a long time to drag out a pointless conversation, geesh...

This running time basically consists of:
Intro sequence = 29 secs
Things actually in the script = 7 min 25 secs
Final unmoving shot where nothing happens as if leading up to something, only for the film to suddenly end = 1 min 33 secs

Overall, while I still need to fix some stuff up tomorrow and record the voice-over dubbing this weekend and maybe some additional sound stuff next week, it's about on par with my expectations. Which means it sucks. But no worse than anticipated, so I did okay. My constant aim shall be to never make a movie as bad as my most recent movie at any given point in time, a round-about way of saying that I aim to keep improving, so at the moment it shouldn't be hard to fulfill that wish with movie number two.

Movies I've Seen Recently
Fire Walk With Me (D+) - This being a David Lynch-directed prequel to my favourite TV show of all-time...how could it have gone so wrong?
28 Days Later (C-) - Starts really well, disintegrates into rubbish by the third act.
Cinema Paradiso: Director's Cut (B+) - Need to see it again maybe, really enjoyed it, but this IS NOT Life Is Beautiful by a long shot.
Ghost World (B) - Good movie; didn't blow me away but was thoroughly enjoyable, clever, had good characters.
Evil Dead 2 (C-) - Stupid and bad... and it knows it. Fun movie.
The Godfather (A) - My 5th favourite film, though this viewing confirmed that its not as good as Part II.
The Elephant Man (B) - Really solid drama that just seemed a teeny bit without a point thetmatically beyond a superficial "here's the Elephant Man, here he gets abused, these other guys are understanding, sympathise", has a strong and somewhat moving ending, interesting to see a few of Lynch's Eraserhead-like weirdness thrown into the start and finish to bookend an otherwise mainstream-ish drama.

Mission: Impossible III DOES INDEED KICK ASS
I said that a while back when I was just going by the people involved and the teaser trailer. Now it's all but confirmed. AICN's Harry Knowles is calling it better than True Lies, the film he believed previously kicked all other popcorn action flicks asses. Wow. Read that review. It sounds incredible. Seriously.

The best modern pop spy film… movies with gadgets and impossible stunts… James Cameron’s TRUE LIES reigns supreme… or shall I say reigned supreme. J.J. Abrams… first time feature film director has just launched into the stratosphere of badass holy shit watch him go directors. On top of that… That trailer you’ve seen. That little tingle you get from Phillip Seymour Hoffman when he talks about hunting down and hurting the woman that Ethan Hunt cares about… YOU’VE NO IDEA.

If you’ve been a fan of ALIAS or LOST and you’re dying to see what J.J. can do with the big toys, you’re going to be blown away. The difference between this film and his television work is just amazing.

(on True Lies):
Had scene after scene not been hit with jokes throughout… well, it would have been amazing. It would have been… MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3.

Meg Has Lunch

2006-04-17T19:16:00.000+12:00

Awesome
Who wouldn't watch this movie?

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=6429

This jumps straight onto my "most anticipated" list, joining Snakes On A Plane.

I'm Bloated

2006-04-16T16:33:00.000+12:00

Did You Know?
The Red Balloon won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar in 1956 and is a short film. Must... see... this... movie...

Because The "Writing Fantasy" Book Sucked Ass And Rambled On About Types Of Creatures And Magic To Put In Your Movie After Claiming To Cover A Broader View On The Genre (ie. "Big" etc.) Which Was What Attracted Me To It In The First Place:
I've been reading this book on writing short films in general instead - haven't got too far into it - but honestly: there are things in it that are just so damn obvious but that I've been far too ignorant of in the brainstorming and writing of short film ideas.

I think sometimes when you're starting out at something like this (filmmaking) and you know that its hard to get anywhere in the film industry you can tend to get carried away with the idea that you have to stand out and be different; try new complex things that nobody has ever done before without getting a handle on the basic elements. I think I can learn a thing or two from Simon and Dennis in terms of both the approach that Simon took with his first couple of short projects (please say you'll finish the Rose and Raymond one :p) and Dennis's recent stating of an intention to focus on developing an idea of a strong non-gimmicky narrative for his next work (not that his past works have been gimmicky, I mean it in the conventional linear narrative sense - without reliance on editing or some of the absurd/silly elements which themselves can be a bit of a cop-out from having to work on something more substantial (ie. like my random film I'm editing on both accounts)).

I think gimmicks can wait. They're just party tricks. The best way to "stand out" is to develop an understanding of fundamental dramatic principles, flesh out characters in believable situations and work towards developing themes and intended emotional arcs for the audience and get good at doing it. That sounds obvious right? Exactly. But the temptation is there to stray into the "oh, man - what an original (read: gimmicky) idea I just got hooked on" territory. Sometimes making something actually worthwhile can be tough and hard and take ages to get right and a gimmicky film by contrast may seem easy, but I guess in the end that the hard work will be more than worth it. Serena and Shuchi talked at the Production Group meeting about how, on average, their shorts take about 17 drafts to get right or something, and I think that in the end you'd be fooling yourself to think that you can get any good at this without the hard yards.

Anyways, this is probably a memo more to myself than anything so as to remind me not to stray into that "easy way out" frame of mind. But yeah, it makes a lot of sense so I thought I'd write it down and who knows.

Now: my movie sucks for a variety of reasons for which I alone take full responsibility (everyone else involved did a fantastic job with the rubbish I gave them to work with). The reasons include, but are not limited to:

1. I didn't do much planning. That was intentional. I needed to judge how much I'll need to do when I tackle something more substantial.

2. Lack of rehearsel. Didn't think I'd need much. But 1765 outside takes before we got it right have led to drastic changes in lighting between shots. It's unbearable and you can't help but notice it. A quicker schedule would have helped.

3. It's stupid, but stupid in the way that could work... only if executed well. So scratch "3." and replace it with:

3. It's poorly executed. This relates to a lack of planning. With the right storyboarding I could have covered all the shots I needed and known that I could present certain ideas through juxtaposing images in post-production. At the moment there are vague hints that are supposed to be much more obvious but which I simply don't draw proper attention to because certain shots needed to connect things just aren't there.

But ultimately it sucks because it's hard to make something good when substance isn't there. With the right elements in place, all these problems would have so much less potential to become roadblocks. You have a strong story, strong themes and strong characters and you'll end up with a strong sense of purpose: and it should guide anyone with an ounce of knowledge in filmmaking as to the right way to go about making something. Maybe not THE best way, but on the right track. So yeah. Time for some hard work. I'll keep working on my longer scripts too because they're my babies, but certainly some thought must go into simplier, less high-concept short ideas.

Did You Know? Redux
32 years and a few weeks ago Led Zeppelin's first six albums were all in the top 100 albums in the States at the same time. This is because Led Zeppelin is awesome. There isn't a Zeppelin or a Who or a Floyd around these days. 70s rock beats all.

You May Have Known:
That a week or so ago, some single by some guy hit no.1 in the UK before it was released, based solely on legal music downloads. A no. 1 with zero sales is a far cry from the days when Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album never got higher than no. 2 on the record charts yet sold 22 million copies in the U.S. alone.

You Should Know, And I Hope You Do:
That there's a lot more to Led Zeppelin than Stairway To Heaven. Or even Stairway To Heaven, Black Dog, Kashmir and Whole Lotta Love. Houses Of The Holy is a timeless mainstream radio rock song that would be a hit even if first released in today's music scene, and it was recorded over 30 years ago. Awesome. And Since I've Been Loving You features Robert Plant delivering some of the greatest vocals you'll ever hear. And guitarist/producer/principle-songwriter Jimmy Page is a legend.

I'm Bloated
I ate lots of chocolate cake, three marshmallow easter eggs, a few squares of dairy milk chocolate (Cadbury of course), some kumara salad, regular salad, cold chicken, Polish garlic roll, beef pastrami and a slice of camembert cheese since 1pm.

Google

Re: The Short Reply

2006-04-16T13:56:00.001+12:00

I certainly don't want my blog turning into a debate on dog urination either so after these final words I'll leave the argument alone beyond a few final comments below pertaining to the "wider issue" of blog opinions to which you've applied this issue.

I'm sure I could sit here and agree with some points and disagree with others from "The Long Reply", and I do, my argument could have been better (even with some editing of existing material it would seem) and at the same time I could apply a number of these fallacy-tests to your own critical analysis and find over-simplification through loaded language and the use of an inconsistent analogy as a result of misinterpretation, possibly among other things, and possibly I could even be wrong about either or both of those; the effort needed to determine that vs. the importance of doing so at this stage dictates that any such counter-analysis wouldn't be worth my time. It's pretty irrelevant. What it boils down to is this: beyond pointing out that you didn't address the issue correctly in your tagboard response and my countering this response with ideas which were hardly infallible relating to whether or not people do or not care - I was essentially, at the end of it all, asking what the problem is; whether anyone should care. And you admit in reply that it's a pet peeve, and as such if I'd simply began by asking this in the first place, in the tagboard, any further argument would have been quite redundant. You're right to say that what was said was pedantic - correcting an irrelevant line of argument on my part, and your countering by pointing out my employment of certain assumptions that can not be deemed to be true without showing further evidence to support them.

So if that's the case then it is in "The Short Reply" that my interest now lies. You see, the examples you provided here are not only of opinions as in the more general 'points-of-view' on issues which can include opposing sides of a fact-driven argument, but are of opinions about entirely opinion-driven things. Nobody would set about debating whether any one of these opinions is correct or not because there is no underlying factual basis with which to determine an absolute truth - an opinion on these will be fuelled by nothing more than a personal disposition.

Thus I have this to say about your entry in general. Firstly, that on an opinion-based subject like those examples you provided, obviously people may wish to respond in the tag board with an equally opinion-based agreement or disagreement as happens all the time (and beyond that nothing normally escalates) and this would be deemed appropriate and in the spirit of a blog's purpose. However, to make a statement of opinion pertaining to an explicit issue leaves open to discussion differing opinions on whether or not any underlying premise you happen to suggest is "correct" or not, in this case the by now "well-publicised" issue of whether or not dogs urinating in public is in fact a problem (which I get the feeling nobody wants to hear anything more about, so I apologise to anyone else following all this). If there was in fact a problem, a problem I was asking in my blog-response to be enlightened upon, then perhaps there would be relevant facts behind the issue that you might have used to form your opinion on dogs urinating in public. That would be going beyond a simple statement of like or dislike of the action occurring, and would invite discussion on the issue. As your initial reply in the tagboard moved away from opinion vs opinion and provided solutions for an underlying, undisclosed and assumed problem, I felt that I would not be stepping outside of the confines of what is considered reasonable when responding to an "emotionally charged" opinion by responding at length because you had gone beyond the point of simply stating such an opinion in your blog, an opinion like the examples you've provided in "The Short Reply". You at the very least seemed to have implied in your tagboard an underlying 'absolute' problem to which solutions could be applied, because the assumption in your words was that people should do something about dogs urinating in public (why would they if there was not a problem?). So among other things I questioned, at the core of my reply, what this problem was that you were attempting to find a solution to. As you have since expressed that your problem with this issue lies in personal annoyance, you agree then that this isn't the case, that there is no underlying problem about which facts can be used to argue each way as to whether that 'problem' really is a material problem or not, and hence the argument need go no further because it is, clearly, a matter of opinion... now. It is in fact clearly in line with the examples you provided of opinions on entirely opinion-driven issues - now. It obviously was not however when I made my reply, when some underlying problem was being implied and had not been stated.

What I'm leading up to is this: I agree entirely about not taking what people say in their blogs and putting it under a microscrope and going overboard. You made this point well by using the David Lynch example. You did not however provide an example here essentially any different from those at the beginning of the entry; my quoted statement was an exaggerated opinion and of course any discussion at all about its validity would indeed be absurd just as with any argument in search of an absolute truth when dealing with a matter that is purely one of opinion. But I myself did not reply in length beyond a typical-of-tagboards offering of an opinion, which would be fine for all of your examples ("Lynch's last two movies sucked, you're viewing him with rose-tinted glasses and an overly-sentimental bias towards his older works" for example) until you offered what I deemed the makings of an actual argument outside of your initial blog comments through a move away from "I dislike" to "this is a problem", and when you did that I felt invited to make a counterargument in order to clarify the issue.

Did you initially "talk in arguments"? No. Neither did I initially reply as though you had. I never considered what you said in the blog an argument, I just felt that your personal opinion was harsh with respect to the second part of your reasoning (agreeing of course with your first statement that people should clean up the crap their dogs leave behind) and as such replied as people often do to such opinions. Until you provided what I felt was an invalid argument in response in the tagboard, implying that there was a problem that should be fixed by suggesting solutions, something which was not simply a basic opinion consistent with those examples you've provided ("I hate the weather today" etc.), I took it no further. I agree with everything you said in The Short Reply, I just don't believe it has any relevance to my decision to extensively reply in my blog. Because you're right - I don't make a habit of randomly arguing about everything, and I wouldn't argue if you'd simply said something like any of the examples you've provided and nothing more; but I do have a tendency to argue when I believe that somebody has made an invalid statement which I feel has subsequently invited a response and when I happen to feel like expressing my disagreement, and I felt that happend when you both implied an underlying absolute problem that dog owners should be addressing (as opposed to a problem you personally have with something as a matter of opinion and nothing more) and talked about incontinence in your tagboard to support your solutions which I felt was irrelevant.

So, at this point I'm supposed to have said some nice happy concluding thing where we all end up in agreement etc. so it doesn't go on and on. Um. Well yeah, I agree with your overall sentiment about what blogs are for. And sometimes I use mine to express an opinion or a query myself, possibly one I'll try to back up, however successfully, when I disagree with or don't fully yet comprehend an opposing view.

Happy Easter

2006-04-16T09:34:00.000+12:00

I probably should have saved something for the paragraph, with the title summing up what I had to say.

In that case:
Anyone else find Cadbury chocolate to be 1728 times better than any other kind on the market, even if you'd gladly eat Nestle/Whittakers etc. anyway? I don't mean in terms of fancy shit and flavours they add etc., so it can't be compared to some $18/gram Belgian swirly praline thing, I mean the actual flavour of the plain milk stuff to which all additional flavours are applied. It's awesome. If you had to choose one big block of "plain" chocolate, whose would you go for?

My sister's over in England at the moment and while they have Cadbury, they don't have NEW ZEALAND Cadbury and the England one apparently tastes somewhat below-par. If you go to England, bring NZ chocolate. Oh and they don't have Peppermint over there except the one with those little peppermint chip things, as opposed to our Caramello-like gooey-Pepperment.

Oh and Australian chocolate is generally awful. Except their Cadbury stuff is good. And when I went to Australia I found that they made Peppermint not with dark chocolate but with milk chocolate.

Enjoy Easter. Eat chocolate. Lots. Now.

Where Have My Bold Subtitles Gone
This would have been the third straight post without them had I not written the above bold subtitle.

Google

And The Song Is...

2006-04-15T20:44:00.000+12:00

The international radio premiere was April 3, 2006. On this day, Don Jantzen from Houston KTBZ-FM played "Dani California" non-stop for his entire three hour show, from 4pm-7pm CST. This decision drew a mostly-positive reaction from listeners, with several people calling in encouraging the DJ to keep playing the song.
- Wikipedia

Worth three hours of non-stop playing? You be the judge (or here if you're stuck on dial-up like me).

The new Red Hot Chili Peppers album is out next month, a double CD originally planned as... three albums to be released six months apart. No plan was ever more worth shelving.

Re: "This morning I went for a walk"

2006-04-15T18:49:00.000+12:00

I thought I'd reply to something here because I didn't want to keep filling up Dennis's tagboard, but basically this is in reponse to the following.

Dennis's Blog: This morning I went for a walk. During a 30 minute period I witnessed:a) Three different dogs shitting in public, two of them in the Bucklands Beach reserve.b) One other dog pissing by two lamp posts.Some people are fucking assholes.

I responded that: (Are owners expected to dehydrate) their dogs before the walk so they don’t have anything left to piss? When they've gotta go, they've gotta go. And you can’t do much about a dog urinating *shrugs*

To which Dennis replied: As for urinating: some puppies cannot control urination when they get excited, but this dog I saw certainly was no puppy. Most dogs outgrow this behaviour, and if not, there are medical solutions such as phenylpropanolamine which should give 'em just enough control to get through exciting situations. The other common reason dogs can't control urination is when they are beign submissive. The most common cause of this is abusive behaviour from the owner's part. I'm not trying to judge, but I AM saying there are a very large number of options which are better than having dogs urinate in public. (And that this was not a one off situation as the owners were obviously very 'oh sure, go ahead' about it. Sure, they accept it, but that doesn't mean everyone else must.)

Anyways, I felt the need to respond in length because that's the kind of twat I am. So yeah:

That "some (dogs) cannot control urination when they get excited" is the premise of your whole response - and you've missed the point (though, as "phenylpropanolamine" tells me you Googled much of it, this isn't surprising). You're referring to incontinence (such as with the generalising "the other common reason dogs can't control urination") with regards to both seeking a treatment for that medical condition and talking about it potentially stemming from submissive behaviour. Specifically urinating in public is not at all a sure sign of incontinence. Sure, some of those dogs might happen to be incontinent the same way that some people who die of AIDS happen to be Manchester City supporters, but it doesn't form a direct correllation which can be pointed to as a characteristic of even the majority of those in question. Most dogs that urinate in public do so as part of thieir nature to mark territory, and I can tell you that not because an irrelevant Q & A found on the web suggests it but because this is common knowledge. A dog that goes for a walk and urinates against something or on the grass or whatever can be alright toilet-wise at home and not demonstrate submissive behaviour or an inability to be able to hold it in, they can be perfectly house-trained and have no medical reason for going against the grain of this, yet still have a tendency to urinate at intervals while in public.

Honestly, your "large number of options" have so far been limited to not abusing your dog and prescribing medication to treat a condition that most of these dogs don't suffer from. If an owner really gave that much of a crap about their dog urinating in public then they could maybe teach their dog to stop doing it, and if you want to throw some more relevant research in there then I might suggest looking at:

Punishing the dog will not work. If he is punished while in the act he will learn not to lift his leg when you are with him. Even if you punish him a second after the act, he does not equate the punishment with the urine marking and this may make it worse. To help this situation, when you notice the dog is about to lift his leg, give him the command to sit. In this position he cannot urine mark.

http://happypawsontario.tripod.com/id16.html

(the ensuing comment about throwing a toy is irrelevant if they're walking on a leash as is required by NZ law, and as such - if you want to raise this point - could not be seen then as an effective way of eventually teaching a dog the behaviour of wanting to sit instead of marking territory due to the reward of playing that will result)

So the response to an annoyance on the owner's part of having to stop all the time on walks while their dogs mark territory is one which doesn't correct behavour in the long term and leads to constant stopping anyway (the problem identified in this article). Certainly from the point of view of such an owner there isn't any significant gain in attempting to take this action, maybe a few seconds less time on each stop. But of course that hasn't yet addressed your point: regardless of how the owner feels, they should be obligated to do something about it on behalf of everyone else who has to suffer the (as yet unidentified, see below) consequences. Right? Because if not, then taking the action prescribed in the article would obviously be a voluntary matter on the owner's part unrelated to the problem at hand.

Now maybe if I was going to take this stance I should have just jumped straight into it from the beginning, and maybe would have if I'd known this would spiral into debate. But anyways:

That very few do give enough of a crap to do something about it like the suggestion above is probably why the behavour that you observed continues, and I will argue that these people are not assholes. Yes, I own a dog so you can say that maybe non-dog owners are more offended by it or something and maybe I'm missing the point as to where the offense lies so feel free to enlighten me but: if I see a dog peeing in public, whether it be on the grass or against a lamp post or a tree... I couldn't care less. The thing is, I'm actually surprised you feel so strongly about it with your 'why should everyone else accept it' take on it. After the dog's left, unlike shit, you wouldn't even know the pee was there unless you saw the dog doing it and hence couldn't, from what I can get my head around, be offended by that action unless you personally had some irrational phobia-like hatred of the sight of a dog doing it. It's a natural liquid that dries up in the sun, probably feeds the grass some nutrients and doesn't leave a lasting mark. Seriously: so what? There's a reason why they haven't passed a law against it when they went through the motions of demanding owner's clean up the crap.

Again, like I said, if I missed the point of how it's offensive, of any damage that is done, let me know. Right now I'm looking at this issue and thinking offense at dogs urinating in public stems from irrational stigma, but I don't mind being proven wrong.

Kirk Douglas Is The (Old) Man

2006-04-14T21:19:00.000+12:00

When All Is Said And Done...
...the only question weighing on my mind at the end of the break is: why does it seem easier to hear my iPod coming home on the bus than when travelling to uni on it? Yes, I can turn it up REALLY loud and drown the bus out but when I get off at the end it SOUNDS REALLY EXCESSIVELY LOUD and I realise I've probably been damaging my ears. But then, going home, I can have it on a volume that while waiting at the bus stop sounds normal and not too loud, AND which doesn't have to be adjusted to hear the music when on the bus on the way back home.

To summarise, because those sentences were messy and confusing:

Morning = Waiting for bus, volume is at x. On the bus, volume must be turned up from x for music to be heard.

Afternoon = Waiting for bus, volume is at y. y "seems" as though it is as loud as x. On the bus, volume can stay at y and I can hear it fine.

I think maybe it's like how you can turn the TV on first thing in the morning and listen to it at the minimum non-silent volume and hear it, whereas later in the day after hearing all sorts of louder sounds you can't hear it well at all when (and this is where my theory is pure speculation) your ears have maybe adjusted to take in things at a louder volume? That could be bull, but it fits in with the summary above. The volume of the bus is constant. That volume is loud enough to drown out volume x. But later in the day, in order to hear the music at the same perceived loudness as I do at volume x in the morning, I must turn the music's volume up to "y", a much louder setting (although it is not perceivably louder) and a volume which is able to drown out the sound of the bus. In the morning, volume y would seem way too loud, leaving me with a lower volume of music which is then drowned out by the bus. Mystery solved?

Damn it, I knew these holidays wouldn't be a break from thinking :(

Editing
Went back for the first time in... who knows how many weeks, and edited together all the footage I've uploaded for my ambiguously titled short My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday. I still need to find something I can delete in order to upload the rest of the footage though. It's been fun so far. It would be more fun if I'd ended the day with an opinion on the likely finished product which wasn't "this will be awful." Oh well. Like I said, it's fun, I'll get that and a few lessons out of the experience. I just won't get a good movie. Something to work towards.

Paths Of Glory
This is the best movie I've seen since Coppola's incredible The Conversation. It's a film which paints a picture of absurdity in the midst of the second world war as three scape-goat soldiers are made examples of and court-marshalled for retreating in alleged cowardice when a division of the French army fails to fulfill unrealistic orders from a bafoon of a commanding officer.

Oh, did I mention that this film was by Stanley Kubrick? Kubrick is a genius and this is demonstrated here in his overall success in shaping a film that looks and feels much like a(n extremeley competently handled) Hollywood movie of the era but which goes entirely against the grain of typical Hollywood war and drama films in the way that it plays out and in what it accomplishes. It's a "non-Hollywood" kind of movie that, unlike most contemporary examples, doesn't try to be artsy-fartsy and/or experimental. It's a mainstream film that breaks free from mainstream constraints through some genuine ingenuity on Kubrick's part. He does such small things to great effect.

One thing I'll mention as being particularly impressive is Kubrick's portrayal of lines of soldiers falling like flies (in the least dramatised of representations you'll ever see, because Kubrick doesn't NEED that melodrama so many directors rely on in some attempt to manipulate emotion: he just needs to tell a strong story and you react because of that) while attempting to advance in the middle of bombings and gunfire towards an elusive German target. Forget all the Saving Private Ryan-esque bullshit showing all the established lovable characters helping each other and pushing each other to keep going and breaking down mid-battle to have their whingey personal crises: what Kubrick does, in not treating the scene at that individual-solider-level but rather detaching from individuals and giving us a horrific picture through the numbers that keep falling and the way in which each death is treated as just another and as something typical and disturbingly "normal" because of context, is FAR more effective. He paints a big picture over the whole scene and keeps his distance, and I was just watching it and thinking about how cinema has declined from days when they made movies like this that didn't need to rely on all that stupid over-dramatised bullshit that every war movie today is full of.

Paths Of Glory is a film that doesn't force anything. It doesn't feel the need to. And as testament to this, Kubrick tells his story in a brisk 84 minutes.

It gets an A or 5 out of 5. Superb movie, and easily one of Kubrick's best. I'd rate it higher than his other (more blatant) madness-of-war flick, Full Metal Jacket, and might even go so far as to say it's his second or third best effort (behind 2001, and at least on par with Dr. Strangelove).

Need I say this? SEE IT. NOW.

Oh and Kirk Douglas is in this movie, hence his being mentioned in the post title.

Edit: I just found out that this movie received zero Oscar nominations. I post this as a reminder that the Oscars are shit.

Sequel Of The Year

2006-04-13T18:37:00.000+12:00

Let it load to the end then watch this slice of genius.

A Verdict On Nickelback

2006-04-11T08:47:00.000+12:00

Break starts in 3 days! Only.... 2 assignments and a test to go.

Internet Explorer Sucks
I like having the option of starting to type the first few letters of a URL and then having it give me a list of sites that match all conveniently in a scrollable menu so I can be lazy and just click on the one I was going to type.

But there's one problem with this system. Spelling errors.

blgospot.com plagued me for a while after I mis-typed the address of Dennis's blog a few weeks ago. It sent me to blgospot.com, which some evil bastard cleverly registered to catch careless spellers like flies in a web, and as such typing in the beginning of the URL to Dennis's blog from there on in made the blgospot address pop up at the top of the list (with blg coming before blo in the alphabet). Then, naturally, being used to selecting the top address, I'd select blgospot and continually find my way to that damn other page.

If you're curious: blgospot.com.

Thing is: a site will stay on Internet Explorer's "list" so long as you've been to it in the past 2 or so weeks. So until I managed to not click on the damn blgospot link for 2 whole weeks it wouldn't disappear, and this was quite a mission. At the moment I'm currently being taunted by "metacrawler", a search engine I had to use for a Media Analysis worksheet which keeps making me type more letters to get to metacritic.com, a film/book/video game/music/tv show critics-ratings website. On a side note, I strongly recommend that site as a place to go to get a criticial consensus of something first instead of going out and buying an album from a normally-good band and discovering its a dud AFTER paying $25. Even Weezer, with their first 4 albums landing in Rolling Stone reader's 100 greatest albums of all time, managed to produce Make Believe as their fifth. This site saved me $25 right there.

Oh and note that if you clicked on the blgospot link and regularly go through the main blogspot.com home address I may have just caused you the same problem described above. Enjoy.

Did You Know?
Nickelback's most recent album sucks ass.

Actually, if you've heard any of the singles, you probably did.

101 Greatest Screenplays

2006-04-08T08:35:00.001+12:00

The WGA's come up with a list of the 101 greatest screenplays ever written, voted for by its members. I've seen 45 of the movies listed, and while I largely agree with their choices in listing those films among the "greatest," I personally have a few objections to the order.

The one's I've seen:

1.
CASABLANCA - The flashback sequence always drags this film down for me; after success in shaping everything we need to know both in what happens in the present and, in a display of expert subtlety, in hints at the past brought out through character interaction, all of a sudden they shove in a clumsy and, given what the film depicts between Rick and Elsa later, entirely unneccesary flashback sequence, possibly for the sole purpose of giving the line "Here's lookin' at you, kid" meaning so they could use it as a catch-phrase. I honestly still can't give this film an A, just because of that. Just delete the scene in its entirety and the movie's better.
2.
THE GODFATHER
3.
CHINATOWN
4.
CITIZEN KANE
10.
THE GODFATHER II
12.
DR. STRANGELOVE
13.
THE GRADUATE
14.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
16.
PULP FICTION
21.
NORTH BY NORTHWEST - This would possibly be my personal choice for number one, though I've only seen it once and maybe I was just "wow"ed by it first time through, not having seen a film quite like it before. Lawrence, Godfather and Apocalypse for example have more complex scripts so it'd be hard to say without seeing them all again.
22.
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
24.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
27.
GROUNDHOG DAY - w00t
30.
UNFORGIVEN
32.
FARGO
35.
THE USUAL SUSPECTS - Double w00t, though I noticed a lack of "Se7en" on this list...
38.
AMERICAN BEAUTY - This one should be higher, simple as that.
39.
THE STING
41.
GOODFELLAS - Scorsese's great three, mention 1
42.
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
43.
TAXI DRIVER - Scorsese's great three, mention 2
45.
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
47.
THE MALTESE FALCON
49.
SCHINDLER'S LIST
50.
THE SIXTH SENSE
53.
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN
55.
APOCALYPSE NOW
56.
BACK TO THE FUTURE
60.
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
61.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
63.
JAWS
65.
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
66.
JERRY MAGUIRE
67.
E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
68.
STAR WARS
74.
BEING JOHN MALKOVICH - Higher than Adaptation?!
76.
RAGING BULL - And Scorsese's great three, mention 3. No surprise there.
77.
ADAPTATION
78.
ROCKY
83.
REAR WINDOW
89.
FORREST GUMP
90.
SIDEWAYS - No. Just no. Replace with "Se7en."
92.
PSYCHO
93.
DO THE RIGHT THING
100.
MEMENTO

No Life Is Beautiful?

Yesterday Sucked

2006-04-07T07:50:00.000+12:00

Um
"Holidays" (ie. Uni letting us work from home 24/7) start after next week right?

If So
Still got a long way to go before then myself.

Yesterday was basically: Get up. Go to Uni. Come come and work on 204 worksheet for 20mins. Go to hand out fliers at Macleans for tutoring. Come home. Food. 204 worksheet for the rest of the night. Bed. And for all of that, as Uni was a 3-hour block with no breaks, my recreation time was, to say the least, a tad low. Today I shall make up for it by doing as little as possible. Oh and great: getting the 202 assignment I misinterpreted back today. I expect a "Fail" - not a C or something, a FAIL - so anything better will make me... well, not happy, because a C still sucks, but will - when exams roll around - make me happier at knowing I only lost 12% of my total grade by fucking up the essay instead of 15-20.

But as I was saying, long way to go until then. After today's break, tomorrow morning I have some online stats test thing to do which last time was a bit of a bitch because because it takes a while doing the practice tests and looking shit up in my book and all that. Then Saturday afternoon will see me working hardout on my next Stats assignment due on Wednesday. And if that isn't enough Stats for you, I have a Stats test to prepare for on Sunday, while continuing what will no doubt be a lengthy assignment, as that test falls on Tuesday night and is worth either 10 or 20% depending on how my end-of-semester exam goes. So that means Monday and Wednesday morning will be stats studying and stats assignment work too. Then on Thursday I will no doubt have another worksheet to complete for 204. They're worth 0.8% but can still take quite a while. Then the break starts. I think. Someone please answer my question about that above...

Then What?
No idea what's happening with Simon's film though I imagine by now if there was anything I should know about for at least the first week of holidays I would, given I do of course by now have my own plans to continue to upload (no space on computer - grr...), edit and dub the mysteriously-titled My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday, and the possibility (perhaps probability) remains of working on the Master's Exercise film for the Uni production group thing (a group which rocks by the way, or perhaps I'm just saying that because they gave me a free chocolate bunny and I started eating it but then it talked to me and I was all like: "cool, a talking chocolate rabbit" and now we're best friends and it told me to burn things). So anyways, editing should be done by the Tuesday of week one, after which time I'll be able to have a dubbing session whenever Dennis, Rikky and Sonny are free to do so. It'll probably take quite a while so I'll see if I can organise a day when everyone's free for a few hours as I have no idea how long this process takes. Dennis?

But yeah, the "then what?" as applied to the whole holiday is one which must be addressed. When I opened this entry by rephrasing the word 'holiday' as "Uni letting us work from home 24/7", that's essentially the "then what?" These holidays will basically be lots of uni work. Lots and lots of uni work. With bits of blogging, editing, dubbing, reading and writing (not to mention the occasional movie of course) thrown in for good measure. But yeah. Not much of a break until exams are over. And I still have to worry about my three stats assessments of various sorts in five days first.

Reading
Took out a couple of books on writing short films and writing... fantasy films??? The last one's more to address a specific idea I have for a film, but I think it could be helpful in general as fantasy is of course a wide topic that includes stuff like Big and in many ways is just an extension of any other genre into a more imaginitive context. What films don't delve into some degree of fantasy, whether it be the optimistic or pessimistic kinds or a mixture of the two?

Anyways, I'm up to the much built-up 'holy grail' of Julian Young's The Death Of God And The Meaning Of Life, his fifteenth and concluding chapter in which he discusses Later Heidegger. Can Later Heidegger defeat the 'nausea' of meaningless of the first and fourth parts of Sartre's Being And Nothingess which has thus far reigned supreme over the flimsy and inconsequential points of view of the uninteresting Foucault and the showy-but-philosophically-empty Derrida? Perhaps. I shall find out today.

But yeah, Derrida made my head hurt. Young makes all the confusing babble of various philosophers' writings very accessible so the book is very good and well worth the read for anyone after some basic insight into the major significant developments of philosophies on life since Plato, but I guess Derrida's tying so hard to sound smart that even just using his terminology is confusing and weird.

Google
I woke up today feeling compelled to encourage people to broaden their horizons by having them learn the names of some Jamaican towns, allowing you, the blog-reader, to know which part of the island you're on if you ever get washed up on shore with no memory and no-one speaks English and all they can tell you is the name of the town but then someone tries to mug you and you realise you have awesome fighting skills and may or may not be called Jason Bourne. And then you realise you could speak Jamaican afterall because you're Jason Bourne. And then you realise because you're Jason Bourne that you actually got washed up in France.

Lost... My Temper

2006-04-05T21:07:00.000+12:00

Yeah
Argh! Lost! Why must you test my patience so? First six episodes cover like... 2 days? And now a freakin' recap episode???

When will SOMETHING HAPPEN? When will characters stop being so NEGLECTED FOR 18 EPISODES AT A TIME? When will everything fit smoothly together into each individual episode LIKE LAST YEAR? Why did I caps THOSE LAST 3 WORDS of the PREVIOUS SENTENCE when there was no reason FOR EMPHASIS? When will they stop speaking like they do in geeky sci-fi shows: "they" "them" "the others"... stupidstupidstupid... and a further related annoyance that pops up for me every few episodes: how about having characters ask the obvious questions we want to know the answers to that they seemingly *should* want to ask given their situation - it's a cheap way to draw stuff out, the way things are at the moment. Grr. I mean stuff like when Sawyer and co. met the tail-end people and the tail-enders knew more about the others than they did and yet this information was, for no apparent reason, not demanded of them. Etc.

And when will they realise they have a chance to not be so damn conventional here with this thing and... drumroll... actually get away with it? The show's established a fanbase, so the risk isn't high and this type of show is perfect for something a little 'different.' Maybe they should watch a bit of Twin Peaks and be inspired to break some new ground.

I don't know. I began watching Lost seeing huge potential. Now I'm just watching it slip away.

The Simpsons Movie
Yes, there is a Simpsons movie. Teaser Trailer.

Weekend: Part 2

2006-04-04T20:53:00.000+12:00

Doing nothing tonight. At all. No work. Finally. Feels good.

Oldboy
Saw this on Saturday. It's a nicely shot and edited film with a compelling mystery driving what is essentially a pretty strong revenge story. I guess I was a bit meh about the revelations as to the truth; it seemed like they were trying too hard be shocking and dramatic with the whole "You slept with your daughter" "Oh! Must chop off my tongue." Okay, I oversimplified that rather unfairly. But they threw in some highly dubious hypnosis crap for good measure which pissed me off a bit so I'm just lashing out like a grumpy tantrum-throwing child.

B or 3.5 out of 5.

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose
This is a pretty good film. Or rather: a pretty good mystery/drama. It isn't a good horror film. Which is fine, because it doesn't try to simply be a horror film. It's a courtroom drama with some creepy, ominous atmosphere shit thrown in for good measure (hence the mystery/drama). But flashbacks to horror-esque exorcism stuff is stupid and not at all frightening; unlike The Exorcist, when the girl has what may or may not be moments of possession they're laughable instead of unsettling. That's the film's biggest weakness.

As a courtroom case though it's intriguing, and the main character, played by the ever-awesome Laura Linney, is a strong protagonist who demands our interest as she seeks to defend a preist charged with causing death through neglect and in the process looking into whether or not the girl he may have "killed" (inadvertantly) was possessed or if she really just suffered from a mental condition of some sort. The film does in fact balance these possibilities well. And it's all based on a true story which makes it more interesting.

A generous B- or 3 out of 5.

Haircut
For the record, I was not recently kidnapped by V and converted to his cause in the fight against an oppressive fascist government. The hairdresser went overboard. I said a number 4 around the back and sides and longer on top (like... scissors on top). She does part (a), then continues shaving away all over. At the risk of ending up with one quarter of my hair short and the rest long, I said nothing, having realised too late to do anything about it. But that's okay. It's growing on me.

See what I did there?

Google
Anyways, if you see this distinctive-looking hairdresser, my advice is avoid in case you get the same over-eager treatment.

Weekend: Part 1

2006-04-03T09:50:00.000+12:00

IMDB Movie Of The Day
For the last three days it's been the Twin Peaks pilot. Yay. Looking at its rating (8.6, on par with film ratings for a Top 30 movie), I'm not surprised. Watch this series. Now. Download it. Go to the Uni AV Library. Borrow it. Something. Television has never been this good before nor has it been matched since. I feel it never will be.

V For Vendetta
This has surprisingly moved UP to an 8.2/10 from 8.1 yesterday, proving its not just highly rated because Wachowski fans inflated it with lots of 10 votes early. See this too. Now. On the big-screen while you still can. It's even better the second time around too.

Saw (second viewing)
Saw is a cheap movie. It was made for $1.2m, and it feels like the budget is reflected in every aspect from acting to characterisation to story (Danny Glover's character is so superficial and poorly-developed in his "obsession" that its absurd). But I feel that what the film does here is actually what it has to in order to be the film it needs to be: it ignores the shit you don't want to see so it can get to the "good stuff." Bring on the blood. The traps. The ominous feelings. The ending is gimmicky but FREAKING HELL I didn't care; this is one of the best gimmicky twists ever. It's not a revelation that suddenly surfaces about things that have happened before it; it's more of a twist making you realise that the sicko killer is "cooler" in his role as the villain than before and I loved it both times I've seen the movie (on Saturday I only remembered the twist in part, and I couldn't see what impressed me about it; then when I saw it again I went: Oooooh right! Awesome!). I love the idea too that the killer has never killed anyone, he figures out ways to kill themselves (the motive is to make people appreciate their lives more if they manage to get out - all the victims have been wasting their lives in some way, or doing something that might be "frowned upon") even though this too is obviously just a gimmick to drive the film towards more gore. Sometimes gimmicky movies are a whole lot of fun. This isn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. It probably doesn't even deserve the grade I'm giving it. But I'm giving it a B- like I did the first time. Watch it and you might see why a film that doesn't even try to avoid falling short with regards to so many cinematic elements is still this fucking enjoyable. It's fun just to get grossed out sometimes. Some films affect you emotionally. Some affect your appetite. Who's to say which is the greater achievement? :p

Also Saw, But Not "Saw"
Also saw Emily Rose and Oldboy on Saturday. Find out if they suck or not in Part 2....

Google

Saw Saw Again

2006-04-02T12:51:00.000+12:00

I Said "See Saw", She Saw Saw
How tongue-twisting of me. As I mentioned, yesterday I was gonna see a couple of rentals from the video store with my parents - is it so wrong to spend a Saturday night at home in front of the tellie? - and while it took some work, I convinced my Mum she wanted to see Saw when we were deciding what to rent. Put it this way. We won't be seeing Saw 2. In fact: I'll try anyway. If I pull this off I deserve a free pony. I'll name it Heidegger and throw peas at its ears.

Anyways, to cut a long story short: Mum and Dad want to know what kind of sick minds come up with a movie like this :p

Going out now, so shall elaborate on this and the other 2 films I watched yesterday shortly. May the force be with your auntie and her pet hamster.

Black & White

2006-04-01T15:08:00.000+12:00

Colour Me Cunning
It was quite an effort but I've convinced my gore-hating Mum that Saw is worth watching for its twists and turns and thrills and... actually that's pretty much it. The rest really is gore. But those first three elements are in it too. A bit. Oh and there's Danny Glover and that chick who does the funny facial expressions when she's stifling a smile on Boston Legal. Will report back tomorrow with what she thinks of it. Hopefully this will lead to a family viewing of Saw 2 in the near future where we can collectively gasp as a girl is pushed into a pit full of syringes. Moments like these bring families together.

Colour Me Slow
Bravo, Mr. Liu. Bravo. It took me a while. In my defense I didn't realise what the date was until I remembered why Nick and Raymond wanted the company accounts done by today, nor did the "click"ing occur until the thought crossed my mind of sending them false ones as a certain well-timed joke. I'm usually smarter than this. Actually that's not true. But if I frequently employ rather superflous extensively-lettered wording patterns within the realms of these and other such sentence bounds, then the being-for-itself, as Satre would say, typing this period-ended passage may come across as being of a higher level of intelligence than one might otherwise assume if one were to make my more familiar acquanitance, thus conveying an effective illusion which perhaps fulfills my aforementioned intentions.

Google
This is me for writing that last part.

I need to put in Googles that aren't just animals all the time, even if they're relevant, critiquing-through-mere-existance animals. Unless they're the funny ambiguous "what the fuck is that?" kind of animal. I could maybe post some food. Or a machine. Has to be weird though.

Sione, Tremell and V

2006-03-31T17:26:00.000+12:00

Sione's Wedding
Wow - I was one of the few people I know who wasn't all that impressed by what I considered immature and unimaginitive trailer content, but in the context of the film it all works REALLY well. Seriously. See this movie. It's fuckin' hilarious.
B, or 3.5 out fo 5

Basic Instinct 2
Wrote a review here, and the writing of said review is the only reason why I attended the screening. I didn't expect something good. But... it's the entertaining kind of bad. Honestly. And it wasn't boring crap like Underworld: Evolution, it was actually compelling in parts and I didn't feel like walking out at all, which was a surprise.

A generous C- or 2 out of 5 because the more it sucked, the better it was.

*If you haven't seen V For Vendetta yet, don't read the rest of this post until you do.*

V For Vendetta
I didn't give the above warning because this passage is filled with spoilers. There are some VERY MINOR things mentioned that spoil LITTLE BITS, but that's not the point. I said it because I don't like telling people that a highly-buzzed movie is really great before they see it on the basis that raising already-high expectations can turn even a "very good" movie into somewhat of a disappointment. Sin City was one such example for me; a film which after repeat viewings grew on me immensely, but which I was unhappy with after first seeing it when it failed to live up to my expectation that it would be a "classic" as per its IMDB rating and pre-release buzz.

The negative:

V is a flawed film. There's sloppy writing in terms of coincidences (V meeting Evey, then her working at the right place to help him escape the next day; a scientist from Larkhill happening to speak to Steven Rea's character in her role as a coroner JUST BEFORE they learn who she really is through unrelated means, and just before she's "taken care of" by our masked hero).

Then there's the letter Evey reads from Valerie, a former captive at Larkhill, in which her life before the rise of the evil government is described in a way which reminded me of Team America's satirical description of a pre-American-invasion of Iraq as a place where the rivers were made of chocolate and everyone was happy and free. Seriously: I know they're trying to put a human face on what happened at Larkhill and the effects on people's lives of the government's control in general, but unrealistically romanticised elements in this backstory didn't exactly add to the film's genuinity. And the flashback where we see her parents' overly-stereotypical reactions to her coming-out seemed amateruish as well in its attempts to make us "feel for her" and believe more strongly in the idea of being true to oneself regardless of what might happen (a recurring concept in the film). The sequence wasn't up to the skill seen in crafting the rest of the film.

The positive:

Everything else. It gains more and more momentum as it goes and the finale is spectacular. The balance between the story of V as an idea and V as a person is, for the *most* part well-balanced. It's cool. Mr. Rea and Mr. Fry are awesome. The vision of the future isn't that far-fetched (just add where the EU is justifiably-feared to be headed by many, the anarchy in New Orleans last year and our tendency to not learn from past mistakes in human history - and BANG, you're there) making things all the more interesting. And while this film isn't quite up to the brilliance of another fight-against-a-future-vision movie Brazil (which I have no hesitation in declaring a masterpiece because movies that good can't not live up to expectations, no matter how high), it's pretty fucking awesome.

A strong B+ or 4 out of 5.

w00t! So glad it was all I hoped for. Seems like a lot of high-profile movies recently (Batman Begins, Revenge Of The Sith etc.) are actually meeting or beating expectations which makes a change from years of constant disappointments. For George Lucas AND The Wachowski Brothers to go from Jar-Jar and the Matrix sequels to their most recent efforts is indeed a good sign. Maybe even a miracle if you believe in that sort of shit.

Google

The Post That Ends With Tim Burton

2006-03-29T07:51:00.000+12:00

Economics
Test tonight. Argh. Eeek. Wish me luck. Or not, because it won't actually empower me with the answers to questions that I simply don't know. Luck's actually pretty useless.

Dennis Wins
Yesterday I listened to some Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd in an effort to determine who I liked more. I watched Prison Break instead of going to stats. Went to my 204 tutorial. Watched Boston Legal.

On the other hand, yesterday Dennis did this.

Indeed it would seem that Dennis had the better day. Oh how I must become involved in one of these short film projects in some way. It's like... enlightenment and gaining of contacts all rolled into one giant ball rolling around inside an 80s-era house. And fun and newlyness if newlyness is a word. Hmm. Next time the email says they want people with a license I'm replying anyway in case other shit pops up like set-work.

Google-Burton

V For Vendetta...Opens Thursday

2006-03-27T07:21:00.000+12:00

Hard Week Of Uni
Last week was the busiest its been for me at Uni outside of exam time. Argh! I thought taking 4 subjects was going to make life easy this semester, especially as the 4 include Stats and Macroeconomics, both still stage one courses (gotta love the lag of a conjoint). Turns out the stage two Arts ones are enough to keep me occupied... then I have an Econ test this comng Wednesday to *start* studying for. Worse yet, after skipping my lectures to work on my essay for Hollywood & Its Others it still sucked, still went way over the word limit and barely had any relevance at all to anything; I'm quite sure my main point in fact rested on the film supposedly doing something it didn't really do. Oh dear.

Final Week Of Card
Took yesterday off from Uni-related matters and watched shitloads of free movies while I still could (ends on Friday). Here's an update of movies I've seen recently and their grades:

The Pink Panther D+
(mildly amusing at points, stupid, you can see most jokes before they happen, dumb)
Four Brothers B-
(saw it a second time on DVD; good movie, really well-worked ending, still think the "Mum flashbacks" are cringe-worthy in their sentimental over-happy feel... they feel out of place though I can see what they were going for. recommended rental)
Lord Of War B
(entertaining flick about a major arms dealer, his rise, and his fall in his personal life as a cost of what he does; was I supposed to end up not liking Cage's character? because I did, and it all ended up feeling a tad like the journey of the film was to "Destination: Care For What's Happening In The World")
Underworld: Evolution F
(oh dear god... an incredibly boring waste of time about all sorts of nonsense featuring a main villain who looks like what he is: a guy in a costume. nothing of interest happens and I would have walked out but had to see if the ending or anything after the first hour would somehow redeem it ever so slightly, like K-19)
The Weatherman B-
(very strong B-, almost as good as Lord Of War; this movie's a solid down-to-earth dramedy where things don't all turn out all happy and typically Hollywood for the lead character, and the movie is more fulfilling for it)

Google
One of the best episodes of anything ever:

Fake Llama

2006-03-22T16:06:00.000+12:00

Did You Know?
I prefer to sit on the right-hand side of the bus.

Unsolved Mysteries
Today I noticed a small cut on the top of the knuckle of my left index finger. It appears as though it has been there for perhaps a day or so, still looking "fresh" but beginning to heal a little. I had never seen or felt it before. It's origin remains unknown.

Free Company
In Britain in the 1960s, so says my Macroeconomics lecturer, a smart man came to two conclusions about a publically listed company. The first was the the share price was severely undervalued. The second was that the risk-adverse company had a wealth of uninvested funds sitting idle in its bank account earning ordinary interest. The man proceeded to buy the company at its overly-low share price - hence buying it for far less than it was worth - and then paid for this company-acquisition by using the funds from his newly acquired company bank account. In essence, he purchased a company (now worth the difference between the actual previous value before his purchase and the price that he paid from the company's own funds, and thus worth something in the form of assets used to run the business) which was making healthy profits, for free.

Observational Study
It's odd how something you wouldn't normally give a rat's testicle about becomes intriguing to people because of a hoopla which is created around it. In Stats 108, data was collected from a random sample of students in the lecture theatre pertaining to each person's guess of the lecturer's age. The sample was then used to establish a sample mean and spread, and consequently used as an example of how this sample data can be used as an estimate of the corresponding population mean and spread (ie. how close the sample would be to the actual average age guess of everyone in the class). Well anyway, having conducted this age-guessing exercise, almost everyone (myself very much excluded) found themselves whinging at the fact that the lecturer wouldn't offer up as an irrelevant side-note his actual age. It kept coming up over the course of the two days that we covered the topic, and it kept ending in a collective groan of disappointment from 400 or so stats students.

Back up a second. These people went from presumably not caring to suddenly "needing" to know the man's age? An hour earlier, had I gone around and asked everyone if they cared how old he was, I doubt anyone would have said yes. Actually, they'd probably tell me to quit asking stupid questions and/or throw shit at me, and fair enough too. What changed between then and now? "Hype" was created out of nothing: building up the underlying question - which itself was irrelevant to the class exercise - to a point at which it became (unreasonably) intriguing. I found this interesting in that it mirrors what happens often in real life - artificial hype being generated around something out of thin air, and the so-called "masses" mindlessly becoming interested in this "thing" just because of this hype. Think Pop Idol shows and Paris Hilton :p Do these interested people not stop to think about the fact that they're interest lies in a knock-on effect which has simply lead from widespread "hype" to a feeling that one should be interested, as opposed to having a grounded logical reason for being so?

Google
Break over for me. Back to essay-writing.

The llama on the right is a sculpture.

Date Movie Was Worse

2006-03-20T08:58:00.000+12:00

Gigli. Rhymes with "really." As in "really sucks."
So Gigli popped up on primetime TV last night, probably because the cheap-asses at TVNZ wouldn't have had to pay much to screen it and not everyone in the population had (as yet) heard how bad it is. They'll know all too well now. Anyways, I watched it because I felt that, as a movie buff, it was my duty to see what all the negative fuss was all about.

I'm going to be honest here. This movie doesn't really stand out as being that much worse than your typical bad Hollywood movie so as to deserve to be singled out as "the worst movie ever" by so many - the fact that the movie featured the infamous pairing of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez is probably the main thing that elevated it from typical-crapness to a level of notoriety. I have seen worse. Kind of. Date Movie comes to mind, because that was thoroughly unbearable.

On the plus side, Gigli is coherent, which is more than I could say for Advent Children or The Ring Two. Also, it features Christopher Walken making one of the most pointless cameos ever as a detective of some sort (I like crazy shit like that, and as I'm scraping at the bottom of the barrell this scene is considered a "plus").

Walken's character:
"Man, you know what I'd love to do right now? Go down to Marie Callender's, get me a big bowl - pie, some ice cream on it, mmm-hmm good! Put some on your head! Your tongue would slap your brains out trying to get to it! INTERESTED? SURE?"

More good stuff: At one point we see the blown-out brains of a criminal drip into a fish tank and then a fish swims up and eats bloody brain matter. That was quite cool. Oh and Al Pacino is fucking awesome in his... one scene. Basically, like Walken, he bursts into the movie quite suddenly and randomly and is never seen again. But he makes an impact. He comes in, yells at everyone, shoots the guy I mentioned (the guy whose brain-bits get eaten by fish) and acts all smart and cocky and confident and yells at Bennifer. That was sooooo the highlight of this movie.

Wow, I managed to drag out 2-and-a-bit whole paragraphs of "good things" from this movie. Quite a feat. Now for the negative.

For starters, back to the Pacino scene, the situation for Bennifer is defused awfully. All of a sudden J-Lo steps in and unconvincingly (both in what she says and the way she delivers it) "convinces" Pacino that she and Asslick did the right thing, and that Pacino needs them to clean up the mess of the situation. She doesn't do enough to convince him. Yet he's "convinced." Gee. Close call.

The big problem: This movie is a film in which nothing happens. It tries to be a relationship film about Asslick and his big-assed lesbian partner-in-crime. Some movies work well despite nothing happening because there's good material driving the characters etc. to make the film work on a different dynamic to your typical plot-driven drivel. In Gigli, not only does nothing happen, but the elements driving it - the relationship stuff - are pathetic, rendering the entire thing boring. The dialogue is laughably bad. The chemistry is non-existent. In fact, as an extension of that last point, not only do the characters not work as a duo but neither Asslick nor J-Lo (both with the help of the god-awful script) make their characters bearable as individuals away from each other. Boring boring boring stuff.

Ben Asslick as Gigli:
"If by some fuckin' miracle long shot you haven't heard of my reputation let me tell you who the fuck I am! I am the fuckin' Sultan of Slick, Sadie! I am the rule of fuckin' cool! You wanna be a gangster? You wanna be a thug? You sit at my fuckin' feet and gather the pearls that emanate forth from me! Because I'm the fuckin' original, straight-first-foremost, pimp-mack, fuckin hustler, original gangster's gangster!"

Oh dear god.

This movie gets a strong D- or 0.5 out of 5. How does it rise that much above an "F"? For one thing, "D" movies like Madagascar and The Longest Yard aren't much better. Add to that: Al Pacino, the fact that I was able to watch it without switching it off, and the so-bad-it's-good factor (see Ben Asslick quote for evidence of that last one). "So bad it's good" movies get a "D-" by default because they have that redeeming element of enjoyable-watchability to them, and as such are better than Date Movie-esque complete failures.

Retard character:
"She's like the ones at the Baywatch. They make my penis sneeze."
Ben Asslick as Gigli:
"You got a good sense of humor, you know that?"
Retard character:
"God bless you."
Ben Asslick as Gigli:
"Thank you."
Retard character:
"No, not you, stupid. When my penis sneezes, I say, 'God bless you'... God bless you, penis."

You have to see this movie to believe it.

Google
This cat just saw Gigli:

Munich Still Tops

2006-03-19T20:41:00.000+12:00

Best Of 2005, Revised
After some assignment work at uni I watched the complex and intellectually-engaging but rarely-emotionally-resonant-when-it-needs-to-be Syriana today (B). It's a film which does the job well in terms of representing a world where human life is swept aside in favour of corporate and political objectives as per the experiences of Bob Baer, but oversimplifies the "martyr" subplot and tries too hard to manipulate the audience with a contrived child drowning that forces the character drama too much.

So with pretty much all of the "top movies" of 2005 that I'm likely to see now seen, here's an updated list of what I consider the best films of last year.

1 Munich
2 King Kong
3 Batman Begins
4 Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
5 The Constant Gardener
6 Brokeback Mountain
7 Good Night, And Good Luck
8 Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith
EDIT: Hustle & Flow in at 9th, forgot it despite just watching it a couple of days ago.
9 In Her Shoes
10 Crash
11 Sin City
12 Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire
13 Wallace & Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit
14 The Wedding Crashers
15 Syriana
16 Capote
17 Red Eye
18 A History Of Violence
19 Serenity
20 Walk The Line

Every film in this list is worth seeing, guaranteed. Unless you're David and the movie's Serenity.

Google
Blogspot won't let me put any pictures on today - which is a shame: I had a picture of a screaming cat that I found by typing in "hamster" into google. The connection is a mystery.

English people are leading in the triathlon

2006-03-18T15:54:00.000+13:00

Workload
Things to do:
Stats online test (worth 1%) DONE as of an hour ago; due Monday. Got 100% because I kick ass.
Media Analysis assignment (worth 4%) will do tomorrow; due Wednesday
Hollywood assignment (worth ?) will do this week; due Friday
Economics test (worth ?) will study for next weekend; test on Monday-week
Stats assignment (worth 4%) will do next weekend also; due Wednesday-week

New Zealand won the Sevens last night
The problem with my adherence to this subtitle-implementing blog format is that I occassionally say what I need to in the subtitle itself and have little else to ramble on about underneath it. In this case I did quite well though in the previous sentence. To further lengthen this paragraph, the score was 29-21, and was New Zealand's second gold medal at the commonwealth games. I might also add that this is one of the few events where the winners are the best in the world, given that perennial athletic giants like the United States and North Korea can't compete because they are run by ruthless dictatorships instead of the Queen.

A History Of Violence is violent, not very historical
In irrelevant news, the traithlon is on TV right now and it's very close during the first half of the cycling (middle) stage.

I thought A History Of Violence was really compelling for the first hour but once the truth comes to light the last half-hour is kind of... simple. Oh and violent of course.

I admit, as a warning, that this movie is graphic in everything it does (and Cronenberg was quite right in taking the approach because it's effective), but if you don't like that it's because you're a wuss so I don't really care if you watch it and are all shocked and taken aback. Know why movie restrictions stop at R18? Because when you're 18 the law says you should be able to handle anything, and if you can't deal with this film I think there should be a system in place whereby such people have their ages legally wound back a few years. At 18 you can suddenly do all sorts of crazy shit, and if you can't handle fiction then what the hell are you doing being given responsibility in the real world?

B or 3.5 out of 5

Question: How does William Hurt get a supporting actor nomination at the Oscars when he's in the movie for about 4 minutes? It's a cameo if anything. Val Kilmer was miles better in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang which you have just been reminded by this sentence to rent.

Google

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang Is Out On DVD, So Rent It You Twat

2006-03-15T19:07:00.000+13:00

Hustle & Flow
After bombing in New Zealand, today (after just 2 weeks) was the final day that Hustle & Flow was screening at SkyCity Queen Street (Waiting lasted just one week, so I've missed it...grr). I caught the 3:20 session after handing in my stats assignment (Finally done! Now just 2,785 things left before the end of March...).

Awesome movie. For a film about a pimp and his hos (hos? hoes?... hose?) living it tough, that's quite an achievement. What this movie is really about at its core however is wanting more out of a dead-end existence, dreaming of bigger things, making an effort to turn these dreams into a reality, and eventually (and most-impressively in execution) the way in which a character who does everything he can is crushed to see that what he's been dreaming of just simply isn't going to work out like he planned (these are themes similar to some that I'm keen to explore also in my writing, so I found the story of particular interest). It's a film about facing reality and essentially about trying no matter what anyway (I'm a bit "meh" on the application of that to the ending, though I do realise it would have been far too gloomy if nothing went right. I like gloomy).

The complexity of all that in relation to the lead character D-Jay (Terrence Howard in a deservedly Oscar-nominated performance) is something you need to see the film to understand because words really can't do justice to the scenes when (and after) he finally meets up with the famous rapper (played by Howard's Crash co-star Chris "Ludracris" Bridges) who he's been pinning his music-career hopes on, given how they are climactic (sp?) and how they are driven by both the narrative and emotional momentum of what came before.

Anyways, I guess you might not be able to catch it at the theatre now but when it comes out on DVD I strongly urge that you check it out. Seriously.

B+ or 4 out of 5. Keep in mind that B+ means a movie is FUCKING GREAT and that I don't give them out lightly.

If I catch Syriana before it finishes I'll make an adjusted Top 10 or maybe Top 20 list for last year's movies given that I'll have seen most of the supposedly good shit from '05 after that. Hustle & Flow will very much be on these lists.

Google
Today Google found me a picture of what may or may not be a rabbit/cat/dog/rug.

Stats Is Long, Interesting

2006-03-14T09:21:00.000+13:00

Experiments, Observational Studies & Survey Biases
First major assignment of the year; Stats 108. It's a set of questions, some of which are stupid and pointless, that takes ages to answer. I've already written over 2,000 words with 2 of the 5 sections still to go (albeit both are more graphs and charts etc. so it shouldn't be too much more writing... I hope). But given how long its taking, it's actually surprisingly interesting on the whole. I think I'll take a few more stats papers in future.

Good Night, And Good Luck
Good movie. Very good in fact. Glad to see there is still a market for films like these given they haven't made them like this very often since the glorious days of 70s film drama. My mouth waters just thinking about that era...

This movie is quite reminiscent of All The President's Men, the ending in particular, though GNGL is a little less conventional than even that equally not-over-dramatised reporters vs powerful persons drama. Tis truly another great effort by Clooney (after the promising direction applied to the mostly average Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind; think Francis Lawrence's stand-out style in Constantine but on a less-substance-lacking scale in COADM).

Google
Today Google found me a picture of a cute little hamster and his rifle. Awwww.

Day In The City II

2006-03-12T09:24:00.000+13:00

Deja Vu?
It seems fitting that an attempt at some sort of "form revival" should begin with a report mirroring one from a couple of months ago when my posts here were bearable and/or Pulitzer-worthy. Indeed Saturday was a break from the labour of uni work (well, I've had one kind-of-assignment that took me a whole three or so hours to get done) and saw me take a trip into the city, which given the geographical location of uni nearby probably isn't worth getting all that excited about.

Things of note that I saw
StarMart was selling 2 Aero bars for $3. This was advertised as a special. Since when is paying $1.50 for a chocolate bar cheap, let alone so cheap that one would shell out to get two just to enjoy the supposed savings?

Here's an Aero egg apparently. I found it on Google. We can't get them here in NZ yet I don't think. On the inside it looks like something retrieved from the ocean.

I rebelled and went to Munchie Mart, a store whose name I still can't help but cringe at even after more than a year of saying it. I maintain it should be relabelled "Get Shit Here", which is not only more representative of the function that the store performs, but is also more appealing to the target audience who have apparently been mistaken as a bunch of seven year-olds by the store's current owners. At Munchie Mart I got 2 Aeros for $2.50, saving $0.50. But I really got more than just a couple of rectangularish blocks of chocolately goodness and a silver coin in change. I got a feeling of satisfaction at having not bowed down to the so-called convenience of a convenience store, walking that extra mile (quite literally) and *earning* the confectionary reward at the end of the journey. I also learned that Munchie Mart is open on Saturdays, and that people come into Uni on Saturdays for no apparent reason. Possibly to visit Munchie Mart.

There was a small film crew making a student film on that level of the Commons. What struck me as the difference between the collective efforts of Dennis, Simon and myself and the project I was witnessing in utero was that they had this cool torch thing for lighting purposes. Ooooh. I must aspire to their level of professionalism before I can truly become a Jedi. That's my new word for making it as a filmmaker because I see a lot of parallels between Luke learning from Yoda on Dagobah and students learning to make better movies. All that stuff about belief and doing-not-trying and size not mattering seems relevant, although fighting an imaginery Darth Vader in a cave is slightly inconsistent with my theory.

What A Surprise
I saw four movies yesterday. One was very good (In Her Shoes, second viewing), two were good (Downfall, Wolf Creek) and one sucked ass (Firewall). But I shall not bore you with details. Go to IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes if you want to know what people think of these films. Just keep in mind that when they disagree with my opinion, they're wrong.

Free Pie
I'm a pie muncher. Well not really, but Jesters is awesome and it's nearby to the cinema where I spend a day or two most weeks so naturally after a while I'll have reached a point where I've had 10 of their pies. Lucky for me that time was last time I ate there. And I had a card that lets me redeem a free one for every ten that I buy, and hence I redeemed it yesterday. I still had to pay 30 cents for Tomato Sauce, so my Aero saving came in handy.

The pie was fairly good. But the service was not. They have a pile of metal forks and knives wrapped up in napkins from which I normally recieve a pair. But it seems that when you're getting a free pie you become a substandard citizen in their eyes. I was given the pie in a bag despite not ordering it as a take-away, and then when I asked for cutlery and a plate I was given a PLASTIC set of cutlery when the pile of normal cutlery was sitting right there. Wtf? Overall, I'll give Jesters at around 12:30 yesterday a:

C- or 2 out of 5.

Been much better before, and I highly recommended the place if this is your first, tenth or somewhere-in-betweenth pie, but if it's your free one then expect to receive backlash as a secret built-in price that they don't tell you about when they offer you the deal.

Reflection

2006-03-12T09:11:00.000+13:00

Wow. Yesterday my blog hit an all-time low of... 4 visitors and the first thing I did this morning when I came to realise this fact was look at the entries on the main page. No wonder. What happened? Has the enthusiasm of this blog's early days faded away? Has splitting time between this and writing up the occasional piece for I Love Lamp lead to an anemic bleeding of creative juices, leaving nothing but dry, cold, unattractive movie reviews as the only things worth writing about here? Man. Uni's started, and I've barely written a thing on it. What's more, I used to post like... twice a day. Now it's more like three times a week. Argh. For those of you who are still here, I apologise. I think the slump in quality seems to have began in mid-February. It shall end here.

The Post Where I Cheat And Steve Lopez Makes You Laugh

2006-03-10T22:11:00.000+13:00

My posts are becoming short and infrequent. I really have no time left to write anything tonight either, but as part of a determined effort not to let that stop me, I shall cheat and link you to the best thing I've read in a while on some other site. This is from Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times and if you've seen the movie Crash and didn't feel the Best Picture Oscar win was warranted, this may go some way to ease the pain with some sharp and, well, comforting humour - just to let you know that you're not alone in your criticism ;)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-lopez8mar08,1,1907743.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

As I pulled into the parking lot, Latino, Asian, white and black patrons were coming and going without apparent incident, but it was early. I got out of my car, looked both ways, and dived for cover when I saw an Asian driver enter the parking lot. Whewwww! Still in one piece, I spied a suspicious black man standing in the parking lot next to a car. Burglar?Or was it worse? Was he reaching into the glove box for a pistol, planning to knock off Yoshinoya and pistol-whip customers for their teriyaki chicken bowls?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And where does he work? South-Central L.A., he said. He's got a cellphone shop, and his customers are black and Latino, and against all odds, none of them have attacked each other or beaten him over the head. If you can believe him.

I Have Better Things To Do

2006-03-09T17:55:00.000+13:00

Date Movie
Considering how little time I seem to have with all the assorted goings-on that I'm currently caught up in, I was rather foolish in deciding to spend a couple of hours after class at the cinema before going home the other day, perhaps even regarding my original plan to see Syriana. You see, the lines were surprisingly long. And because of that, by the time I got to the front of the queue the damn movie would have already started. Not wanting to miss five minutes of what has frequently been described as the most complex and confusing plot ever conceived, I looked at the monitors above the counter to see what else was starting. Hustle & Flow - could have seen that. But if I wasn't seeing Syriana then I wanted to be home for dinner so I could get on with at least one-third of the 6,418 tasks that awaited me. What was short? Oh look. Date Movie. Maybe that could be funny, like the Scary Movie movies?

Maybe not.

This is the worst movie I've seen in seven years. It has three good sequences, totalling maybe 2 minutes, in its entire running time (Napolean Dynamite, Kill Bill, Mr. & Mrs. Smith parodies that randomly work really well). Not a single scene smoothly connects with the next. Awful. Awful awful awful. Complete and utter failure. Even when Scary Movie 3 has jokes that fall flat (which happens frequently) you're still chuckling often enough to be entertained, and the movie actually works as a movie. Date Movie is a disjointed pile of crap. Absolutely awful on every level. I prefer The Ring 2 and Advent Children to this movie. Seriously. They were better incompetent failures.

F or 0 out of 5.

The Academy Are Shittier Than Even I Thought

2006-03-06T20:11:00.000+13:00

Crash Wins Best Picture; Category Renamed The George W Bush Award
Urgh. What the farcical-fuck? Seriously. They give Titanic the award over L.A. Confidential and As Good As It Gets in 1997, followed in 1998 by Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan. Since then there have been a few minor indiscretions, but none as unforgivable as labelling a movie as contrived and relentlessly heavy-handed as Crash as the best picture of the year.

The Producers
I've anticipated this eagerly since seeing the trailer, but I feel now that the transition from broadway musical to movie has not been a smooth one. The spontaneous zaniness of that medium just doesn't work as well on the big screen without some tweaking, and it just felt too much at times like I was watching said stage musical as opposed to a movie adaptation. It's all very over-the-top and rarely laugh-out-loud funny: it's just loud instead. It is entertaining though, but it seriously drags in the final act following the end of the premiere for Springtime For Hitler.

C+ or 3 out of 5.

Better than the last three movies I've seen. Could have been much better. I wish it was. Also: How did Will Ferrell get a supporting actor nomination at the Golden Globes? I know they like to support comedy more than the Academy, but that's taking things too far. He's hardly in it, and like the rest of the movie is basically just "loud." Lane and Broderick do really well in the lead roles though.

Person A Is Evil, But Actually Inconceivably Good Too

2006-03-05T20:28:00.000+13:00

I'm in the middle of a company meeting and paying no attention. This entire thing is being written while I'm supposed to be discussing important company details. Right now it's expansion plans or something. I dunno. I just count and record the money that comes in.

Bram Stoker's Dracula
A mainly faithful but far too romanticised adaptation of the novel, Dracula is a beautiful movie with great imagery and cinematography and sets which is let down by an uneven tone. It starts off almost camp and certainly comical in parts with the way in which Keanu Reeves meets Oldman's ancient Dracula at his castle as the strangeness initially unfolds and, while entertaining, this makes the film more difficult to take seriously when it needs to be. It fails to be horrifying when it comes across simply as odd; it fails to be captivating as the epic tale of love and lust that Coppola tries to spin and which a film which begins so far off-course desperately needs to get back on track. Very, very uneven. Perhaps the very definition of uneven. I'll give this movie a C-.

And I must ask, what the hell happened to Mr. Coppola after the seventies? The competence in crafting near-perfect cinema which he exhibited in all four films between The Godfather and Apocalypse Now seems to have withered and left behind a director who certainly knows how to pull off the visual style but without the substance to back it up. Crushingly disappointing. But I loved the creepy detached shadows.

C- or 2 out of 5.

The Island

Second viewing of this movie. The premise is interesting. The first 20-30 minutes are intriguing and entertaining. But once the light-humour fades and the action kicks in, this is largely a flat, cold encounter with a moderately interesting conspiracy to keep things running. I will say this though; The Island, and not Narnia, should have grabbed the third visual effects spot in the Oscar nomination list. The action in this movie is at times quite stunning, pushing the limits of what is technologically possible, even if in the context of the narrative it becomes tiresome and repetitive after a while as the film drags on. And it does drag. The pacing and structure of the story is awful. And for all of that I liked it more than Dracula. Let's face it, everything I just said could be mentioned as flaws of any average action movie, and that's exactly what this is. So it gets a:

C or 2.5 out of 5. Being a little generous.

Mindhunters

Awful. Actually most of the movie is bearable. But where it leads is awful, making no sense as Person A is revealed to apparently be the killer, tries to kill person B while saying threatening "I'm a killer" type things and apparently revealing a motive for it too, only to then get knocked out by person C who is the real killer. And when Person B kills off Person C, Persona A wakes up and is all friendly and they walk off together as if all is well. Wtf???

It is left to the viewer to speculate from the murky revelations that Person A actually thought Person B was the killer and hence tried to kill Person B (ie. they thought each other was the killer) but this is not played out well on-screen at all; it is executed in a way which intends the viewer to think Person A is the killer like Person B suspects and simply takes it to an absurdly contrived extent that there is no way Person A would still suspect an obviously innocent and accusing Person B, nor would Person A say what they do say if they were in fact innocent as we are eventually expected to believe. Before this ending, it's okay. But so what if you end up with a bad taste in your mouth?

D+ or 1.5 out of 5. And I'm being verrrrry generous with this one.

I need to see a good movie. Now.

Keanu Reeves As An Englishman? Coppola Says "Yes"

2006-03-04T13:29:00.000+13:00

Hindsight
Editing is going okay I guess. By not planning my shots before the film and now editing what I'm stuck with, it's been a great way to gauge both what extent of shot planning I need when I set out to do something more carefully organised and less spontaneous, and at the same time has given me an idea of how better to shoot angles through the extent of how well those that I have do or do not connect with each other smoothly. Some of the cuts in my film are going to look choppy and awful. Meh :p

Coppola
Saw Bram Stoker's Dracula on Prime last night. I love it and hated it in parts. Will elaborate more upon this later as it's a Francis Ford Coppola film and as such I have much to say.

Horizon
My next film will be After The Zombies, a z-movie about the final two survivors out of an originally-large group of uni students who have been trapped in the library basement for 200 days after zombies took over the world while they were taking an exam.

I Am An Inarticulate Psychic

2006-03-02T15:45:00.000+13:00

I Think My Thought-To-Speech Processor Is Broken
So I've begun editing my short film My Eyes Were Clearer On Sunday (where the f***?! who the...?! what the...?!) and I came across a sound byte of me saying quite possibly the most inarticulate thing ever uttered by a director on set. As a testament to Mr. Rikky Manocha's divine acting prowess, he nailed it the following take despite my garbled directions. I can only assume I was rather successfully telepathically telling him what I meant to say while I burbled:

"Okay, how about we - we do the same shot we just did, okay? Okay, so you look at - down at your bag, okay? And then when you look at him... (long pause) then, like... give his bag a glance, okay? And then you'll just turn back to normal. Okay, no you won't turn back to normal, cause... s'v's'v'say(???)... so don't worry about it, yeah (really long pause) okay?"

Apparently, it was okay.

My Random Oscar-thing, Part III:
I've been posting here on an incosistently frequent basis and as such shall get through less categories than I had originally intended before Sunday's Oscar ceremony in the States. But now to add to Star Wars for greatest ever single-film Achievement in Special Visual Effects and North By Northwest for Best Original Screenplay, I'll finish up with a completely pointless, sparsely-commentary-ed quickfire list of other movies I'd award shit to in an entirely hypothetical all-time Oscar-type scenario that has no reason to exist.

Best Picture: Apocalypse Now (still only seen Redux)
2. American Beauty
3. Pulp Fiction
4. The Godfather: Part II
5. The Godfather

Best Director: Irvin Kershner (The Empire Strikes Back)
2. Francis Ford Coppola (Apocalypse Now)
3. Sam Mendes (American Beauty)
4. Ridley Scott (Alien)
5. Francis Ford Coppola (The Conversation)
6. Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia)
7. David Lynch (Mulholland Drive)
8. Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey)
9. Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull)
10. Stanley Kubrick (The Shining)
11. Alfred Hitchcock (Vertigo)
12. Akira Kurosawa (Seven Samurai)
13. Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver)
14. Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather: Part II)
15. Sergio Leone (Once Upon A Time In America)

Yes. In my opinion The Empire Strikes Back is the greatest directorial effort of all-time. Flawless. And while I had to stop somewhere, Tarantino comes in at 16 for Pulp Fiction (the film is really, really, REALLY well directed (pacing, music, shots all come together really well at times) but I think it's screenplay overshadows that a bit as it is truly the driving force of the film. He's still one of the three or four best in the business overall though, in my view. Spielberg's another one up there who hasn't had any individual effort really stand out enough for me.

Well, that was nice and incomplete. Adapted Screenplay? Who knows. Actors? Maybe next Oscars. Must go do finances / edit On Sunday My Eyes Wer - whatever I called it. It's a really random name. Or is it? Only time will tell what deeper meaning it holds and what secrets of the universe it shall unlock.

Girl at counter / Movie Advertisers think I'm gay

2006-03-01T19:47:00.000+13:00

Gold Card 2?
Entering my Oscar predictions for the Village competition tonight, just polished off some final research. Am very sure on at least 9 categories out of 16, so should be able to get a similar score to the 13 I got right last year. If I win it again, I think next year I'll find an online betting thing and put money on most categories :p As I probably won't win again, I won't get my hopes up.

The competition is on the Village website. If you enter, I advise against the following and say nothing more until it closes:

William Hurt for Supporting Actor
Judi Dench for Actress
Syriana for Original Screenplay
Batman Begins for Cinematography

Watched Some More Movies, No Surprise There
Hostel... is pretty good actually. Gory movie. Lots of gratuitous nudity and violence. So what? It's that type of movie. Eli Roth (director) is awesome, and I look forward to what he does in future.

C+ or 2.5 out of 5.

Also watched Brokeback Mountain. This movie is great, and I don't mind now if it beats Munich on Sunday because they're both terrific. It's quite a minimalistic movie and what really made this film so impressive was the complete control in crafting what it did mainly through subtle actions and seemingly insignificant moments and... I'll end up rambling off an incoherent list, so basically it's a film "at that level" above your typical forced-action dialogue-driven conventional hoo-hah that Hollywood normally pumps out. It's a film that achieves what it achieves in a gradual, calculated manner, and that in my eyes is a mark of a truly competent creative team behind a film in that they knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it / get there over a two-hour plus timespan within which to tell said story. That was rushed, and as such awkwardly written. My review I mean. Not the movie. These last 3 sentences exemplify this.

That said, and while I found few flaws (an occasional "hmm..."-edit especially in the first "part" aside), I just wasn't WOWed enough to give it an A. I guess I just didn't leave the theatre in tears so to speak (then again, the only time I have was when I saw Return Of The King and that was because I forgot to take a leak before it started...the pain...). It's an

A- or 4.5 out of 5.

Would have said more but low on time. Watch Brokeback Mountain, it's great.

Oh yeah, and when I asked for the ticket the girl gave me a distinctive and very much purposeful "funny look". Seriously. I was shocked. I guess she expects only talking animals to buy tickets for Ice Age 2.

Also, one last related thing I just remembered: first trailer they played was exactly the one I predicted and I almost laughed when it actually came up straight after the commercials - Kinky Boots (which predominantly features a drag queen).

What's with the narrow view on who watches certain types of movies??? Can't a film student be interested in a Best Picture nominee and hold onto his sexual orientation at the same time???

Hoff-Man

2006-02-27T19:55:00.000+13:00

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...

2006-02-25T19:20:00.000+13:00

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...

2006-02-24T20:31:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-23T19:21:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-19T14:04:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-19T13:43:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-18T15:48:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-17T11:18:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-16T15:45:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-15T09:25:00.000+13:00

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..."

2006-02-14T11:14:00.000+13:00

"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

2006-02-13T10:46:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-11T19:13:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-10T15:01:00.000+13:00

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

2006-02-10T09:39:00.000+13:00

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"

2006-02-09T15:34:00.000+13:00

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...

2006-02-08T13:17:00.000+13:00

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.