Spin The Wheel Of Fortune & Learn To Navigate

Today the official website for the film version of Neil Gaiman's award-winning fantasy novel launched fully:




And (more importantly) the theatrical trailer has premiered at Yahoo Movies which can be found here. 

The film stars Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Sienna Miller, Michelle Pfieffer, Robert De Niro, Ricky Gervais and Peter O'Toole and is directed by Matthew Vaughan (director of "Layer Cake").  I am both green with envy and, at the same time, brimming with joy and excitement.  Let's hope this will mark the beginning of a string of successful film and TV adaptations of Neil Gaiman's stunning work :-)

Current Mood: giddy

i"Casino Royale" is, hands down flat, not only the single-greatest James Bond movie ever made, but also one of the best genre films I've ever seen.



Watching it this afternoon, I was transported back to a more innocent, childhood, time when I could get caught up in a story and cheer for the goodies and fall in love with the women and feel like I wanted to be just like the hero when I grew up. "Casino Royale" turned this 28-year-old man into an 8-year old boy for two-and-a-half hours this afternoon and I'm so damn thankful for it.

I grew up, as a kid, reading James Bond novels and also the the 60's comic strip which was reprinted in our local paper every day. I've never liked the movies much, they were so much more low-brow and pandering than the books. Although Sean Connery's (very different and interesting) films were a LOT of retro-60's-style fun to watch, they didn't really do that much justice to the novels (with the possible exception of "Dr No" and "From Russian With Love" that were fairly close adaptations). George Lazenby's performance captured the violence of the novels, but little else. Roger Moore was a self-deprecating joke of an Englishman, possibly already sick of the stereotype from playing an identical character in "The Saint" television series. By the time rather good Timothy Dalton (the only actor, till that point, who bothered to even read the novels) came around, the series was in much decline and the films were fairly low in budget and ambition. Pierce Brosnan...I gotta admit I hated his guts. He was a weak compromise to satisfy the Connery fans and the Moore fans and, with the exception of the above-average "Goldeneye", his films were always on the verge of collapsing into the kind of muddled, childish, cartoon-esque drivel found in movies like "Moonraker" or "Octopussy".

I admit that I loved to hate James Bond films. Out of 20 movies over 47 years, less than five were actually good FILMS and there were even couple that were worthy of a "Mystery Science Theater" heckling session for how crap they were. The rest were pretty mediocre.  With that kind of track history, I must admit I'm not actually sure HOW a movie as amazing as "Casino Royale" got made, but they have, somehow, managed it none-the-less.

This movie is a complete reboot of the series. It has absolutely nothing to do with the previous 20 Bond films and the only vague link is Dame Judi Dench reprising her role as Bond's boss "M", although she isn't playing the same character from the previous films. It's a little messed up, but it works and she plays "M" in a very different way in this film which helps. The film essentially covers James Bond's first three missions as a Double-O agent (now clearly defined as an MI6 assassin), all of which are linked together into a massive, sprawling, five-act story of genuine high-stakes drama, love, betrayal and surprisingly brutal violence. Bond, an up-and-coming agent for MI6, gains his Double-O status and is sent to bring in a wealthy businessman who acts as a banker for terrorist organizations and has setup an ultra-high stakes poker game in Montenegro to lure him in. From there the story twists and turns in surprising ways and turns up a clever ace or two up its sleeve to get your adrenaline going and your empathy rising for the, apparently, cold-hearted, body-count-rising, super spy.



What is remarkable is how different this new incarnation of the character and franchise is. Everything that James Bond is identifiable for (and despised for) is virtually removed - the ludicrous gadgets, the bad puns, the silly jokes, the supervillain lairs, the cartoony and unconsequential violence, the total LACK of spying and espionage, the formulaic structure, the ridiculous bimbo women, the generic and poorly researched storylines, politics and art direction. It's ALL GONE. Hell even "Q-Branch" and the James Bond Theme music barely makes an appearance in the film.  And by using this - Bond's first mission - as a reboot position for the series, it completely dispels any old demons that haunt or age the series.  The filmmakers have essentially given themselves license to go anywhere they want without any need to feel responsible for the franchise they are so clearly leaving in their dust.  And that's pretty powerful stuff when you see the quality of this movie.

What IS there is a remarkable balance of unflinching violence, superbly-acted drama, clever spycraft, genuinely believable romance, surprisingly heartfelt dialogue, ABSOLUTELY AMAZING fight choreography and jaw-dropping, bone-crunching, cover-your-eyes-if-you're-squeamish stuntwork and a great big helping of scenic and human eye-candy to send your brain into an endorphine-soaked fizzle. Almost every single aspect of the film is firing on full cylinders and working in overdrive to one-up each other. It's a rare-treat to see a film where everything fits together and works so beautifully and seamlessly, you can almost imagine how exciting and thrilling the process of making the film must've been for the cast and crew. They must have all been aware they were making something VERY different and, practically, rewriting a major aspect of popular culture into something better than anybody could've imagined.



Extra special comments have to, of course, be made about Daniel Craig - the new and, by far, the most believable James Bond ever to grace the screen. His acting performance is a tour-de-force. His physical fitness, focus and character-research alone is a pleasure to behold as he does, even simple, things like checking the chamber of his gun in the absent fashion of someone who's done it thousands of times before or smooth-talk his way into a poker game or a woman into his bedroom (but not for the purpose to sleep with her!).  Craig provides the famous character with a level of believable humanity and fragility that you've never seen before and adds the one thing that every single James Bond actor and movie has been missing since the first film premiered: PATHOS. Craig plays the role almost as if he's not even acting, his thought-processes clearly defined in his eyes, his body fitting every outfit in his wardrobe like a glove, his posture and demeanour befitting that of a man who gets paid to kill people for sake of King & Country. Hell I'll admit it - watching Craig walk around in a polo-shirt made me want to go home and do another 100 pressups!  The man's a freakin' machine and the best thing to happen to these tired-old series of movies in almost 40 years.  And I do, honestly, believe he fully one-ups Sean Connery and - considering how personally he took the insults and outrage against him on the Internet - this film must be the sweetest revenge he could ever have against the cult of the fanboy.  Frankly if Johnny Depp can get a token Oscar-nomination for playing Jack Sparrow then I don't see any reason why Craig couldn't get some kind of recognition for his performance, he's positively electric. 



Supporting him is the drop-dead gorgeous and mesmerizing Eva Green as Vesper Lynd: a British treasury officer who is responsible for the money loaned to Bond to deal him into the poker game at Casino Royale.  Vesper marks a new direction for the films - a fully three-dimensional, believable and resilient "Bond Girl" who not only adds to the plot, but proves that there is a lot more to her than just a pretty face.  While previous movies in the series merely make up pathetic excuses for sexualizing women using cheap gags to "empower them" (Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist?  Talk about adding insult to chauvanistic injury.).  Vesper is not only an active player in the plot, but vital to every dramatic beat of it and Green's sultry, and yet eerily fragile, performance is top-notch. 

Supporting the two leads are a host of well-cast players including Mads Mikkelsen as the terrorist banker, Jeffrey Wright (playing a Magical Negro version of Felix Leiter) and the incredible  freerunner Sebastian Foucan who becomes the star of the movie's first major action setpiece.  Everyone in the cast plays it quite real, lending to the credibility of the film's story and the general menace and danger felt throughout the plot.



Supporting all of these fabulous aspects of the film is the movie's true genius - its outstanding script written by Bond regulars Neil Purvis & Robert Wade, which was then lovingly massaged into fabulous shape by the hottest screenwriter in Hollywood right now: Paul Haggis (writer of "Million Dollar Baby" and director of "Crash").  There is absolutely no doubt that the majority of the movie's power and charm comes from Haggis's penmanship.  In particular Bond and Vesper Lynd's growing love/hate relationship, the film's naturalistic banter (a refreshing change to the crass one-liners of the previous films) and the film's surprisingly uber-complex plot and the scene after scene of clever twists, reversals and superbly-researched spycraft.  Haggis's dialogue also pops with enjoyable freshness and features genuinely moving moments as well as laugh-out-loud comic situations (like Vesper Lynd forcing James Bond to wear his first ever tuxedo).  Along with a genuine dramatic arc, this film is also the first in 40-odd years to feature real character development and also hints that it is the first chapter of a continuous story: without giving away too much of the film, let's just say that the sequel will definitely be a real sequel rather than just another "James Bond adventure" as they were so marketed back in the day. 

New Zealand-born director Martin Campbell's skills at the helm is suprisingly competent (given that his filmography which includes such duds as "Vertical Limit" and "The Legend of Zorro").  Perhaps Campbell is genuinely lost without a script, but in the case of this movie he's about as on fire as he'll ever get and its more than enough to make the story work.  He manages to direct every sequence in the movie with equal competency - to the extent that if "Casino Royale" was just a romance film about Bond and Vesper or just a movie about card-playing, it would still be a rivetting watch.  And that is something worth praising!  He also manages to make this film the first Bond film in a very long time to recreate the romantic sense of armchair-tourism that the Connery movies were famous for (back when people used to go to the movies to see what other parts of the world was like). 



Powerful, violent, sophisticated, well-researched, beautifully written, acted and photographed, "Casino Royale" isn't just the best James Bond movie ever made, but - to my immense surprise as a Bond-film hater - also an absolutely superbly crafted movie that stands on its own against anything else showing at our multiplexes these days.  If this is the direction that James Bond movies are going to be taking then I may have to start joining the ranks of the screaming fanboys.  With all of the stuff I've listed and the hinted promise of the 40-year awaited return of SPECTRE in the next film, this has been the best $15 I've spent in a very, very long time and reminds me, yet again, of why I love going to the movies.  And it's possibly the best date flick out at the moment, so take heed people!

"I love it when a good plan comes together!"

5 out of 5.   Absolutely, utterly, jaw-droppingly awesome.   Bring on the sequel and don't change a single thing! 

Current Mood: excited

Sep. 10th, 2006 09:14 am This one's for cybogoblin...

The full trailer for "Casino Royale" released last night.

I'm starting to catch up on a back-catalogue of so-called "must see" films that I missed out on in the past couple of years due to patches of poor finance (due to filmmaking endeavours which is wonderful poetic irony).  Tonight I finally got around to seeing Sofia Coppola's much lauded "Lost In Translation".



I was certainly interested in checking the film out during it's theatrical release.  For me, personally, it had a lot going.  Bill Murray in - just from looking at the trailers - fine form in a robust, dramatic role.  The fact that the movie was shot entirely, on-location, in Tokyo and dealt with the culture shock of experiencing life in Japan.  And the fact that, well, Scarlett Johansson...need one say more?  I've forced myself to sit through far worse movies for that girl so something as cool sounding as "Lost In Translation" would've been a guilty pleasure I think.

I have to admit I wasn't ready for the realization that the film was something far more than that -- and I have to admit I feel pleasantly satisfied and moved by its light, but strangely real story.  The story is deceptively simple, but what makes this movie so great is its simplicity which allows the full running-time of the film to explore as many facets as possible of that simple story.  Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an aging movie-star arrives in Tokyo to shoot a $2million whiskey commercial for the hyper-commodity focused Japanese market.  He experiences culture shock from day one and, being somewhat older and cynical in nature, struggles to adapt.  Shut up in his expensive  hotel and slightly suspicious of the weird world outside, he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) a young newlywed who is equally trapped in the hotel while her workaholic, glamour-photographer husband cavorts with celebrities and virtually abandons her for a week.  The two strike up a friendship and, hand-in-hand, explore the city together and turn their brief time with each other into a series of fun,  memorable and, somtimes, hilarious experiences.  As their week in Tokyo begins to brighten, they find a great deal of what's missing in their lives within each other...but they do not elope.  Both married and heading off in seperate directions at the end of the week, the story of "Lost In Translation" instead focuses on the yearning of two people bonding and of the hope they give each other in a time when their lives lack it. 



The fact that these two people - a intellectual, witty and handsome older man and a spiritual, soulful, utterly beautiful younger woman - fall in love is a no-brainer.  The fact that they almost do nothing about their feelings is what makes it fascinating to watch.  This deceptively simple story is set against the breathtaking sights and sounds of Tokyo - shown not with the cliche of the classic Hollywood montage, but with long, lingering, sight and sound-filled scenes running through all aspects of city-life.  From the neon-lit skyscrapers, the back-alley sake bars, air-condition-thrumming hotel lobbies all the way to the cramped karaoke booths looking across the city from 70-stories up, the film has as much of a "you-are-THERE" feeling as "Miami Vice", but in a far more whimsical and romantic light.  Speaking as someone who's visited Southeast Asia more than once, I can definitely say this movie captures the atmosphere of that part of the world and that pace of life perfectly and with little cinematic distortion. 

Shot on a measily $4million budget with a half-adlibbed script, the movie is surprisingly sharp, focused and balanced.  Shot entirely on-location (half the movie takes place in a hotel...and was shot in the same hotel in which the cast and crew were staying in) in less than a month, the movie's filmmaking style and place creates a sense of realism that can't be beat.  Part of the reason why the drama works so well is because the setting is so believable...I almost don't have any reason to visit Tokyo given the amount of detail I've seen of it through this movie alone.  Sofia Coppola's directing is - like the story - deceptively understated, but in hindsight you can break down each scene and see how masterfully she progresses the story and builds the characters and your love for them.  The movie IS meant to be a 'comedie-lite' and there are several cute moments where you'll snicker under your breath as well as laugh out loud at Bill Murray's self-deprecating wit.  But in all honesty its more 'drama-lite' - a rather serious sort of story peppered with make-you-smile moments. 


Apart from Murray and Johansson's absolutely superb and incredibly realistic performances, the things that really floored me about "Lost in Translation" was the lighting and the sound-design.  It sounds almost stupid to say this, but this film really works its spell-binding magic on a big screen and with a decent sound system.  And there are very few dramas in the world which you can say something like that about.  The film's gorgeous images and incredibly well thought-out soundscapes all combine to literally make you feel like you are in the same room with Bob and Charlotte.  And that just makes you root for them all the more.  All of this combined with the movie's utterly haunting musical score serves up an emotionally moving experience.

Ultimately existentialist in nature, the movie's rather clever concept of portraying emotional alienation by planting its characters in a place of social alienation (i.e. a very bizarre, foreign culture for an American) works very well.  We spend half the film feeling lost and swamped, just as Bob and Charlotte do, by the strange sights and unfathomable customs of Japanese life.  But as the two characters meet and become strong friends, the film also illuminates the strangeness of a foreign culture and turns it into something of remarkable beauty and  - most importantly - portrays its human commonality. 



The movie is definitely slow-paced, half for its art-film roots and half for allowing the camera to linger on the locations and catch extended glimpses of the wonders of inner-city Tokyo.  And, like all romance films, your likelihood of falling for the story is directly related to the likelihood of you falling for the leads - in my case Murray plays Bob Harris as one very cool and enviable sort of cat and Johansson is twice as lustworthy when seen as the deep and highly philosophical Charlotte.  Their arc isn't cliche nor frought with danger or standard story devices that threaten 'their love'.  For the most part the movie is basically hanging with two rather cool people as they have a pretty cool time with each other.  But by the end of the film - and the completely unforced, but very heartbreaking finale - you can't help, but wonder that the responsibilities of their current lives may not be as worthy as the connection they lost because they could not follow their hearts. 

And believe me, knowing how the movie ends as I've described in this review, does NOT spoil the experience.  They even tell you how it ends on the back of the DVD!

Probably best reserved for drama and artfilm buffs, but this film both impressed me and stirred something deep inside of me.  And I haven't felt anything like that from a film in a very long time.  It genuinely deserves the praise it's collected. 

5 out of 5. 



Oh and, in my personal opinion, some of the grassroots claims of racism against this film that's floating around the net is pretty much unfounded.  Some insecure people reckon this film makes a mockery of the Japanese lifestyle and promotes anti-Asian prejudices because it depicts native Tokyo as "kooky" or "strange" or "wacky".  That, in my book, is a load of crap.  This film can be seen to suggest such notions, but "Lost In Translation" also - at the same time - shows two white Americans who can't adapt for shit, are spiritually so out of tune with themselves that the mere sight of a culture that's steeped in dogma terrifies them and that they behave just like all minority humans do in all races when they're in a foreign land - they sometimes poke fun and tease at the strange sights around them.  Hell by the end of the film, Murray's character even decides to adopt some of the Japanese ways into his lifestyle because he's sick of the life he led back in the States.  If there is racism in this film then it, quite cleverly, cuts both ways in even-handed swarths.

Some live "Sisters of Mercy" TV appearances between 1987 and 1992!!  Prepare your eyes for RETRO-BURN!!  Patricia Morrissey channeling Jennifer Saunders in some of her closeups!

"This Corrosion" 1987, Top of the Pops - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITtorf_g9w

"This Corrosion" 1987, Roxy TV - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Q4YqmdAIE

"Temple of Love (with Ofra Haza!)" 1992, Top of the Pops - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFS0TMQfCAE

I'd completely forgotten about these! 

Earlier in the year I had featured in a series of print ads for MIMS - a very expensive and comprehensive computer database of drugs and medicines - for pharmacists, doctors and various medical publications.  Seeing as the ads have been run I think its safe for me to posts these on here.

Styling and art-design provided by _tinuviel_





Wow I've lost a LOT of weight since then!  Kee-rist!

Current Mood: cheerful
Current Music: Twilight - Edge of Sanity

You know you've been sleep-deprived when you got bed at 9:12am on Wedneday morning and wake up at 2:56am on THURSDAY morning.

18 whopping hours of unconsciousness.

At least I feel a bit better.

*confused look*

Due to the fact that some people in this world are a complete and utter waste of my time, this Livejournal account will be going FRIENDS ONLY in five days. 

If you are someone who reads my livejournal, but are not on my friends list, and you wish to continue reading my journal then get yourself an account so I can add you to my Friends list.  And please remember to tell me what the account name is :-P~

And now a couple of thoughts to leave you with:

Livejournal accounts are a place to vent opinion.  Not fact, not reality, just opinion.  And I usually try my best to ensure that my opinion is as well-researched and as non-offensive as possible before I post on here.  I do not consider anything that I post on here to be more than my own biased opinion and thoughts on the matter.  I'm not changing the world, I'm not making my mark on history, I'm just writing my thoughts at the time.  I do not consider anything posted on here to be anything more than a matter of perspective and I would expect that anyone who reads my journal to approach it with the same level of intelligent wisdom.  We are not children, after all.

Having said that, I do my best to ensure that what I post is neither directly offensive, slanderous nor insulting to anybody who may read it from my Friends list.  If you are on my friends list then you are, ergo, a friend to whatever degree that may affect.  I do not intend on posting anything on here that would hurt you in any way, unless of course you did something to pretty much negate that friendship (in which case I'll pretty much rant my ass off about how pissed off I am at you).

I look after my friends and I respect them.  I expect some kind of respect back. 

If you think I've posted something that you don't like to read, then tell me about it.  You all have my contact details - either by cell or email.  There is no excuse for you NOT to contact me.  Hell, all else fails leave a comment on the bottom of the page.  I don't mind apologizing in public if I've done some harm.  It's the least I can do.

Let me rephrase this so you can fully grasp the meaning of this post - if I ever say anything on here to hurt or harm any of my friends, I will assure you it will not be intentional.  Ever.  And if and when I do this unfortunate thing, I expect to be told about it because that's what a friend would do and what I would do for a friend.

End of story.

On the other hand it is no great loss to make this journal Friends only.  Most of my friends have private journals now and, on top of all that, due to steady development of a career path in the entertainment industry - where non-disclosure agreements get slapped on you at same time as the handshake - I was seriously considering turning my journal private for the sake of my future career direction regardless.

Anyways if you're an anonymous reader of my journal (I know there are a couple of you) then get yourself an account and tell me what that account is so I can add you.

It was fun while it lasted I suppose, but eventually everything has a beginning must have an end.  It's somehow better this way for all involved as well I suppose.

Just about everyone else has posted it, but I'll do the same for those who may not be aware!

Steve "The Crocodile Hunter" Irwin died today!  Stabbed through the chest by a Stingray barb! 

I'm actually, genuinely, saddened to hear this.  The guy was one of the most special (in good and bad connotations) human beings on the planet.  I hardly ever bothered to watch the guy on TV, but I think I will miss him muchly.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20349534-952,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Irwins-stingray-death-unusual-doctor/2006/09/04/1157222051588.html

Also, well over a month ago, I was treated to a free outing to the Rialto Cinema to watch a very little-known independent film called "Colour Me Kubrick".



The movie tells a slightly fictionalized (with many names changed) account of the true story of Alan Conway, a poor and often in debt, gay con-man who spent several years during the mid-1990's pretending to be the extremely famous and extremely reclusive film director: Stanley Kubrick.   Kubrick, who was reknown for being so reclusive that most people didn't even know what he looked like, was busy filming "Eyes Wide Shut" at the time and well out of the public eye.  Despite knowing almost nothing about the film director and not looking a thing like him (in addition to be a particularly over-theatrical gay queen), Conway succeeded in convincing famous British actors, politicians, critics and some American journalists that he was England's most famous movie director.

Using his 'fame', Conway borrowed tens of thousands of pounds off people, was wined and dined like royalty by his 'guests' and cashed in on homosexual favors from a wide variety of people.  Despite all of this, he was constantly broke, lived in a derelict and tiny flat in London's east end and more than once narrowly avoided physical violence threated upon him thanks to his schemings.

Conway was eventually exposed by Variety magazine after numerous reports of his dealings trickled back to press-members who knew Kubrick personally.  He then died, destitute, only a few months before the real Stanely Kubrick shuffled off our mortal coil as well.  Kubrick himself, upon learning of Conway's existence, was fascinated by Conway and hired detectives to follow and report on his daily routines rather than expose his hoax.

The movie "Color Me Kubrick" shows Conway's story in a slightly hightened, reshuffled for comedic effect, narrative.  John Malkovich stars as Conway, delivering sometimes embarassing, but often hilarious displays of the con-man's incredible insecurities, alcoholism and gay flamboyancy - all of which plays a key in Conway's need to pretend to be someone famous rather than live out his mediocre and depressing existence.  However despite the complex construction, most of Conway's weaknesses are laid out and played for uncomfortable mockery rather than sympathy and you alternate in the film between utterly loathing his lechery and feeling sorry for his self-pity.  Malkovich does his usual magic to portray yet another convincing, but very unlikeable character (not exactly flexing his acting muscles given his long line of roles playing similarly unlikeable people). 

The film is extremely simple and suffers its only criticism because of its simplicity.  You spend, essentially, the first 3/4 of the film watching vignette after endless vignette of Conway convincing people he's Stanely Kubrick including an art director wannabe, goofy members of a heavy metal band, a famous New York theater critic and film producer, not to mention several handsome homosexual actors looking for their 'big break'.  Not all of his charades are successful and he suffers from his biggest blowup when he convinces a seaside entertainer (based on his true dealings with Joe Longthorne) that he - as Stanely Kubrick - is going to start his career in Las Vegas, thereby mooching off the guy and his agent for several weeks and assembling an incredible amount of bills for hotel rooms, expensive dinners and shows.  The last 1/4 deals with him trying to overcome his life-threatening alcoholism and battling journalists who want to interview him after his ruse is finally unvieled for the world to see. 

Because the film is almost entirely a series of self-contained tragi-comic sketches showing Conway's different schemes, it does get a bit tiresome towards the end and the lack of any story development really drags the second half of the movie right down.  Malkovich's performance of Conway as a very unsympathetic character doesn't help although there is genuine laughs to be had along the way.  The comedy isn't in Malkovich's performance, but that of the actors portraying people who were duped by one of the most stupidest and blatant cons ever imagined in history. 

There are some real highlights to be had though beyond the comic sketches - the film itself is a strong homage (nearly a fan-film) of Kubrick's own movies.  The cinematography and editing in particular is highly reminiscent of Kubricks surreal, square-blocked, cold and artificial style and "Colour Me Kubrick's" music soundtrack is made up entirely of clips lifted from the scores of Kubrick's own movies - in particular "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Clockwork Orange".  Often the music is juxtaposed with ludicrous and inappropriate imagery e.g. 2001's epic opening credits music set to Alan Conway taking out his garbage and buying his daily bottle of Vodka before staggering drunkenly off into the coal-dusted morning.  There are also some direct spoofs from moments in Kubrick's films as well including a "Spartacus" moment that will have true-Kubrick fans rolling the aisles with laughter (though I'm sad to say I was the only one in the entire theater who laughed at the joke, ergo showing my official film-nerd status to the world). 

"Colour Me Kubrick" is one of those quirky, odd, too-strange-to-be-ignored, but not-well-made-enough-to-be-considered-good sort of independent films that arthouse cinemas love to screen.  There's a lot to laugh at - especially for film buffs and Kubrick fans - but there's a lot lacking which makes it feel like half-a-movie more than a whole.  The story takes second-gear delivering an endless series of scenes showing Conway doing what he does best and Malkovich does a good (if not particularly non-type-cast) job of it. 

Like most art-films it will probably lose most of its effect on DVD so try to check it out at the cinemas if you can.  Currently still screening at Rialto. 

I give it a 2.5 out of 5, but only because it's practically half a movie - albeit a pretty good half.

Tonight, while I while away my time at work, I would like to talk about the television show "Top Gear". 

I don't know a THING about cars nor do I find them particularly interesting, but despite those misgivings I would like to put forward the notion that "Top Gear" is arguably the only decent show left on television and also one of the best documentary shows I've ever seen.

Not since the first season of "South Park" have I ever laughed out loud so much at my television set and never have I laughed so consistently all throughout a series.  It's so good even my parents watch it obsessively and laugh themselves to tears every week!

The "Star In A Reasonably Priced Car" segments alone are worth watching the whole show for - especially Lionel Richie's famous wheel disaster, Michael Gambon's infamous corner and Christopher Eccleston's TARDIS-style entrance onto the race track.  Likewise the arguments around the "Cool Wall", the awesome Power Lap events with the BBC's equivalent of Racer X, known only as "The Stig", and the caravan destruction events are absolutely stunning (my favourite is still the infamous gravel-pit-car-catapault).


James "Captain Slow" May, Richmond "The Hamster" Hammond and the ever caustic and smarmy Jeremy Clarkson.

It's the only television show I've been watching of any regularity in the past twelve months and tonight's episode - where "The Stig" suffers his first ever crash when he drove the Koenigsegg CCX into a tire wall, The Hamster is forced to test drive a hot-pink micro-Nissan around his own neighborhood with a paper-bag over his head and a stunning sequence where all three presenters set fire to an automatic carwash by driving a home-made convertible van through it - pretty much has proved to me that this is one of the greatest things to come out of the UK since The Beatles. 

I would like to send my great heart-felt salute to the only show on television that still makes me laugh out loud (and often).  Thank you for rekindling my hopes against dogshite crap that I thought television had finally succumbed to!

And I have to say that while I still don't understand much about cars, my interest for them has been greatly risen by watching the show which was a totally unexpected side-effect to the solid hour of non-stop comedy and insane stunts that keeps me coming back for more.

THANK YOU "TOP GEAR" for having the balls to be just darn cool.

For those with bandwidth and curiosity - some clips available online:

Odd Vehicles segment 6 minutes (including the famous drivable sofa!) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5891724565857814106&q=top+gear

Making The Convertible Van 20 minutes (from tonight's episode) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3257310064728561018&q=top+gear

An Entire Episode 59 minutes (where they review the incredible Bugatti Veyron, one of the world's most astonishing sports cars) - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997267460336395782&q=top+gear

Sep. 3rd, 2006 10:11 pm It's _poe_, but not as you know him!

I've had an unusually large amount of people recently enquire about what I looked like before I started shaving my head.  So to satisfy curiosity for all time...here's my high school photos I recently dug up when I was visiting my folks this weekend:  


5th Form (I can't believe I had a mullet!  What was I THINKING??)


7th Form (and obviously not happy to be there one bit!)


7th Form Theaterspots photo (christ check out my jaw!  I was a regular Bruce Cambell!)

Pretty much by my first year of Uni I had started to lose that ridiculously huge mop of hair and started shaving a couple of years after.

But looking at these photos now, after not having laid my eyes on them for almost a decade, y'know what really sucks the most?

The fact that I had no idea how bad my body dysmorphism was!  I had absolutely NO IDEA I was actually kind of good-looking.  Christ what I fuckin' moron I was back then to think I was unattractive!  

DOH!

Current Mood: impressed

Saw Michael Mann's "Miami Vice" remake a while back and was meaning to review it, but I've been frustrated by how little point there would be to do so.  The movie is utterly brilliant, but brilliant like French New Wave cinema or a Fellini movie or even a Coil album.  Basically you have to be a) a fairly bit knowledgable about movies b) really frustrated and bored with standard Hollywood crap and c) possibly a fan of Michael Mann to really enjoy it for how amazingly GOOD it is.



If none of these apply and if you're hankering for another brainless "Bad Boys 2" rehash, then for the love of God go see something else.  I don't think there's much point in me harping on too much about it because there's little I can say to validate why its good if the film isn't your cup of tea (and for a lot of people it won't be).  As such "Miami Vice" is a true filmmaker's and film-fan's guilty pleasure - there's almost nothing in here for the casual Saturday night at the movies crowd whatsoever.



Suffice it to say I thought it was of the most beautiful-looking, modernistic and cutting edge films I've EVER seen, it dealt with romance and sexuality in the most adult and amazingly mature fashion (and I personally think people who complain about the sex scenes in this film are really only voicing their own uneasiness on the subject), it was amazingly well-acted and the gunplay sequences will put the fear of guns and gun-related violence right back to the place where Hollywood originally glossed over.  And on top of that the movie makes NO effort to spoon-feed the plot to you - you have to work everything out all by yourself, there is no expositional dialogue and everything has a documentary feel.  Chances are that if you can't keep up with the plot then the movie wasn't made for your demographic.  To quote a friend, it's like a 2-hour, epic episode of "COPS". 

It's really dark, really serious, has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the television show, really gritty and remarkably realistic.  And the High Definition Video cinematography, at times, is so breathtaking you actually feel like you're there  on the film set - the Miami heat and humidity just flows right out of the movie screen at ya.



There are some problems - some of the Digital Video shots are a bit poor and grainy looking (mostly shots taken from a cheaper Sony camera they used in conjunction with their expensive Viper cameras) and the pacing of the film is VERY odd - probably due to the fact that the director had to shave off 40 minutes of running time and decided he was going to remove the majority of the action sequences rather than the drama (leaving only two gunplay sequences at the very end of the film).  Also left on the cutting room floor is a remake of the famous "In The Air Tonight" sequence that appeared in the pilot episode of the TV show which is a shame because it was such an iconic moment in US television history (click here to see the original TV version). 

I loved this film and I loved that people still make movies that treat their audience like they have a braincell or two in their heads and can think for themselves.  I give it a very solid 4 out of 5, my only complaint being the fact that I think the movie would've been perfect if the missing half-hour of chase sequences and gun battles was put back into the film (and its confirmed they will be on the DVD release). 

I can't, however, honestly recommend anybody to go see this film because chances are if you're the kind of person who's tastes would appreciate "Miami Vice" then you would have already gone to see it by now.  After all...it's freakin' MICHAEL MANN!

But I DO recommend that if you get bored in movies easily or need a good chase scene or explosion to wake you up every 20 minutes then you should probably avoid this film at all costs.  ;-)



Okay so I did a bit of rant and it wasn't a very good one either.  For a more far more eloquent explanation on why this film is one of the most avante-garde and brain-kicking things to ever come out of Hollywood in the past ten years, check out these two far-superior reviews to my own measily one:

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/reviews/article.asp?aid=2683&tcid=1

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7222793/review/10905108/miami_vice

Current Mood: frustrated

Got to spend most of today pretending to be an honest-to-god on-set sound recordist while helping out on an Auckland University student film.  Got decked out with a shoulder-slung audio mixer, belt-clipped radio-microphone reciever and about half-a-million cables that I kept getting entangled in.  Operated boom (which I've done before) and also a pair of radio-microphones (which was REALLY REALLY FUN, especially when the actors forgot to turn their mics off!). 

The great jsr came out and played gaffer for the day as well which I think he enjoyed while caliban_man did the anxious producer role again.  We shot out in Howick - Mellons Bay beach and then a suburb out by East Tamaki.  My arms are killing me from humping gear down an almost kilometer stretch of beach including a very heavy portable generator.  Anybody who helped move the generators down Grafton Gulley in the "Big Bad Wolves" shoot will know exactly what I'm talking about.  Owie.

Have to admit being a soundie is a lot of fun.  You get to be on-set, right where they are filming.  You get to play with the flashiest, coolest-looking, blinky-light-riddled gear.  You are solely responsible for your department which makes you particularly invaluable.  And the highly sensitive microphones makes your day filled with interesting audio experiences.  Not a bad way to make a living, especially if you're a self-confessed audiophile.

Lessons for the day:

1) Don't turn yourself into a walking cable-monster.  Always take the time to unravel yourself from the tentacle-cables of your gear.
2) Don't turn the radio-mics off before turning off the reciever.  Except unless you particularly want your ears blown clean off.
3) Make a note never to arm-wrestle boom mic operators.  They must have triceps of steel *massages arm*.

Peter Jackson has selected the guy who has coveted the prestigious role of directing the "Halo" movie.  He is Vancouver based, TV commercial and short-film director Neill Blomkamp.  In an incredible display of testicular fortitude, Jackson and Microsoft have selected a director who has never made a feature-length film, although his short films on robotics and photorealistic CGI are a major underground success.  Blomkamp is known, most famously, for making the Dancing Transforming-Citroen commercial.  Check out this and other of his major, stupendous CGI riddled short films below:

Alive With Technology (The Citroen Transformer commercial)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4740399201852391052

Tetra Vaal
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1845016404760165806

TempBot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9SY2hxIr0

Yellow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmd8BDiB-qU&eurl

Alive In Joburg (his most highly regarded short film dealing with robotic alien refugees who end up seeking asylum in South Africa)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1185812222812358837&q=alive+in+joburg

Lesson for the week: 
If your old job calls you and desperately pleads for you to come back for a day, as a contractor, to help out with some "problems" they're having...turn them down.  ALWAYS turn them down.

Even at $25 an hour and seeing the odd workmate again, this is NOT much fun....especially compared with Touchdown work.  I could be sleeping at home right now *sigh*. 

Yeah caliban_man, I can hear you laughing :)

Ahh well, yay for money at least.  I can't complain about that. 

Oooh another incoming call!  Later y'all!!

VH1 reports that bands like Fallout Boy, Panic and Marilyn Manson are signed on to record cover versions of songs from the movie "The Nightmare Before Christmas" to be included in a 2-disc special edition of the film's soundtrack, to be released during the new IMAX 3D re-release of the movie this coming Christmas.

http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1539534/20060828/fall_out_boy.jhtml?headlines=true&rsspartner=rssMozilla

I'm not big on Emo-punk bands, but dammit this sounds pretty cool. 

18 months
$13,000NZ
75 people
6 gruelling shoot days
4 months of prep
Countless man hours

all for 13 minutes of cinematic glory

BIG BAD WOLVES....is finally completed.

(next movie please)

This has been going around the net for the past few weeks - Ricky Gervais and Steven Merchant (both from "The Office") doing a humerous training video for Microsoft Employees.  It's been posted illegally, so check it out before it gets taken down!  Extremely funny, as anything by Ricky tends to be.

Part One:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9076288729387457440&q=microsoft+training+video

Part Two: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=959125392868390030&q=microsoft+training+video