So, here's another blog.

Australia Day was on the other day. January 26th. I went to Healesville Sanctuary with Michelle, just for something to do that was a bit different. It was quite nice, wandering around and looking at animals. My favourite was the 'Birds of Prey' show, that was quite cool. We also ate lunch at the bistro there, not bad, although some woman smashed a bunch of glasses and then said "I apologise". That's a weird phrase I reckon.

I haven't watched very many films lately although I did watch 'Bad Eggs' again, a DVD I picked up for about 6 dollars at JB recently. I mainly got it because I'm a big Tony Martin fan and it's the only feature film he's directed. It also features a 65 minute documentary on the making of the film, which is quite good.

Other than that, I watched all of 'Dead Set', the Charlie Brooker penned zombie TV show. Solid show that, really well written and paced. The way it's shot looks great too.

Oh, and I bought a Playstation 2. They're quite cheap at K-mart at the moment and games/accessories are very cheap for it too. I reckon it was money well spent. I'm not really in the market for buying a more new console, just wanted something to play now and then and the Playstation 2 has a huge back catalogue of very good games. Anyway, so I'm having fun playing 'Black' at the moment.

So there's an update. Big weekend coming up, I feel.

Pretty good long weekend thus far. Saturday night was a night out with Duy, Pete and Bart. Headed to Cabana, some lounge cocktail bar place where Pete's friend was having a birthday. It was pretty good and long islands were cheap for a little while. After that we headed to Ding Dong, ran into Lashi, drank some more, danced a little, ordered a mystery shot, pretty sure it was chartreuse and vodka, instantly regretted it and then seconds later felt a lot better about it. So that was good but eventually we left, stood around outside while certain members of our party smoked cigarettes. Then a bloke from New Orleans came up to us, gathered the surrounding people into a circle and told a rather lewd joke, the punchline of which, in retrospect, I don't really get. It didn't stop me from laughing wholeheartedly at the time however. Following all that, we went to China Bar for nasi lemak. Somehow in the last 6 months, the late night kebab has been replaced by China Bar. This is not necessarily a good thing.

Yesterday I went to the cinema with Michelle to watch the double feature of 'Toy Story' and 'Toy Story 2' in 3D. It was really good and I recommend it. Although I'd seen both films when they came out originally, I hadn't seen them since then so basically I'd forgotten a lot of the plot, especially the first 'Toy Story'. That film has some really dark elements actually, such as Woody having vaguely murderous thoughts about Buzz. I mean, at one point Woody tries to run over Buzz with a remote control car. There's also that kid who exhibits all the warning signs for a future serial killer who has created all of those bizarre circus freak toys. Scary stuff.

As for the 3D, it's good and not gimmicky, it just makes everything look a lot crisper. The animation of 'Toy Story 2' is a little more sophisticated when compared to the first film, but then you'd expect that. Also, there's an intermission between the two films where for ten minutes you get a bunch of trivia and animations, almost like some special features from the DVD or something. It's quite good and keeps you entertained if you decide to stay in the cinema rather than leave to get, I dunno, toast or something.

To say that I haven't seen any movies lately would not be strictly true. In fact, it would be a downright lie. A downright lie. The reality of the situation is far different.

I have watched three Wes Anderson films. Twice. Twice each, I mean. Once without commentary and then once again with commentary. The films that I have watched are as follows: 'Rushmore', 'The Royal Tenenbaums' and lastly 'The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou'.

I've seen all of these films before, but after recently watching 'Fantastic Mr. Fox', I was keen to re-watch them in greater depth. I suppose what I got out of this was that Wes Anderson is very much the complete writer-director. He writes with a very clear visual sense of what the film will be like and executes it perfectly as a director. It is as though he sees the film as a whole, even at the writing stage. He also has a very strong sense of visual style. I think it would be fair to say that he is an auteur director, certainly.

Other than that, I suppose I consolidated in my mind my responses t0 all of his films.

To me, 'The Darjeeling Limited' is still my favourite. It's a simple film on the surface, but has a lot of depth and it's paced very well. The jokes aren't overt and yet it is still very funny in parts. It helps that it was co-written by Jason Schwartzman, I think. It has a Schwartzman sensibility that complements Anderson's style. This is what made 'Rushmore' such a great film. Schwartzman's lead performance in 'Rushmore' is great and just really suits the film, it has this real quirky feel. 'Rushmore' is probably my second favourite. The storyline is interesting and the relationships are very dynamic, constantly changing throughout the film.

'The Life Aquatic' is the weakest film, I reckon. There's something about it that doesn't quite work, perhaps it's that there are far too many peripheral characters that aren't really fleshed out. Maybe that dilutes the importance of the other characters. Or perhaps it's just too cute. Too much style over substance though and it makes it a little bit boring, even though it's visually so dynamic. I'm not sure, I mean, listening to the commentary track from Anderson and co-writer Noah Baumbach, it seems as though the focus of the film was chiefly on the relationships between the characters. Although, this aspect seems to get a little bit overshadowed by the overall look of the film, I feel. Bill Murray isn't used all that effectively either, he's great when he's playing off other actors but too often in this film he's a solitary figure, acting on his own.

'The Royal Tenenbaums' is somewhere in the middle for me. I'm a little indifferent towards this film. I think it's good, but a bit overrated. It looks great, has interesting characters, but again perhaps suffers from having too many characters. For instance, Bill Murray's character in this film is presented as a main character, but he isn't really. I wonder if this character and the Dudley character could have been cut, who knows. Anyway, there are some great sequences in this movie and I reckon Luke Wilson is excellent here. It just lacks a real emotional punch somehow. The closest is the scene with Angelica Huston and Gene Hackman in the street, near the start of the film.

As for the other films, 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' and 'Bottle Rocket', well I've only seen each of them once. 'Bottle Rocket' was pretty good, but it's Anderson's first film, it's low budget and so it's hard to rate it compared to the other films. I remember it being quite funny though and I'd like to watch it again. And 'Fantastic Mr. Fox', well I'd probably put it somewhere in the middle too, probably after 'The Darjeeling Limited' and 'Rushmore', maybe around about 'The Royal Tenenbaums'.

I know it's a bit of a pointless exercise in ranking films like that, but whatever.

So those are the only movies I've watched lately.

So it's been an interesting week. My car didn't start the other day. Turned out I needed a new starter motor. Money, money. Also had to take a bunch of days off work because they're upgrading the computer system. And my auntie and cousins are visiting. So it's been good.

'Up In The Air' (2009) directed by Jason Reitman

Cool film. It's clever, has interesting characters and while some bits are a little predictable, the overall arc of the film did not end up where I expected. A pleasant surprise, that. George Clooney is excellent in the main role, as is Anna Kendrick playing the main supporting role. Together they work well as a different take on the classic odd couple dynamic. So yeah, I thought it was sharply written and worked well, it's funny but also has a lot of depth. Jason Reitman is certainly shaping up to be an excellent director. Oh, the other thing that was cool was the presence of some excellent comic actors in small supporting roles, including Zach Galifianakis, Danny McBride and Jason Bateman.

'The Princess And The Frog' (2009) directed by Ron Clements and John Musker

I took some of my young cousins along to see this and it was pretty enjoyable overall. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm a bit older these days but it didn't quite seem to have the same charm or humour as some of Disney's earlier animated films. I'm thinking mainly of films like 'Aladdin', 'The Lion King' or 'The Emperor's New Groove'. This film feels a little smaller in scale than those films, less epic somehow, but it's still good fun. The hand drawn animation is in stark contrast to the now more prevalent 3D computer generated style, but it still looks great. The story in this film is perhaps a little bit weak, the bad guy's plan seemed pretty convoluted and silly to me and the essential underlying moral of the film seemed a little unclear at times. Basically though, this film isn't aimed towards me, it's aimed at a much younger audience and the kids I was with seemed to enjoy it.

Bum

Last night I went to Revolver for the premiere of 'Bum', a feature length documentary by two guys I go to uni with, Callum Padgham and Tavis Urquhart. Such an impressive effort, to make a feature film in first year uni.

Anyway, it was a really good night, there was a big crowd and a bunch of Swinburne folks to catch up with. I got in there early, armed myself with a pint and scored one of the few seats in a prime position.

I thought the film itself was excellent. The gist of the doco was that Callum spent 7 nights living on the streets of Melbourne, essentially walking a mile in the shoes of the city's homeless. And by the end of the week, those shoes were looking pretty holey. I must admit, when I first heard the premise of the film, I was a little apprehensive. For one, the idea has been played out before, most recently an episode of 'Dave in the Life' on SBS focused on this very concept. Also, the concept certainly raises the issue of just how close can someone really get to being truly homeless? There are a number of issues associated with homelessness, such as mental illness, physical disability and abuse that are difficult to examine within this film's framework. However, I reckon the film dealt with these intrinsic problems quite well. The main thing was that it remained consistent in asserting that it was presenting a specific individual's experience of homelessness and that this was not at all representative of homelessness as a whole. This was an important point that was reiterated throughout the film and especially at it's conclusion. The point was made that Callum's experience was a particularly lucky and unique one. His was almost the best possible scenario and it was still pretty bad, raising the idea of how bad things could really be for those in less fortunate circumstances.

The key to the film's success was definitely Callum himself. Essentially the viewer is being asked to spend 90 minutes or so with him non-stop so it's important that he remains an entertaining but also sympathetic character. Fortunately, he manages to be charismatic and funny throughout, while also not strictly playing everything for laughs. There is a point quite early on in the film where he risks losing the audience (I won't reveal the moment here cos it will spoil it). However, rather than lose the audience, this moment provoked a roar of laughter at the screening last night. It's a point in the film that shows that Callum is willing to push things to the limit and I reckon it's the point that actually won the audience over. It's an important moment in the film as it sets the uncompromising tone of the whole thing. It's probably for this reason that the film works a lot better than the episode of 'Dave in the Life'. In that show, there is always the sense that Dave is living the experience through the people he meets rather than totally immersing himself in the situation. In 'Bum' however, Callum appears to totally immerse himself in this 7 days and in turn, it immerses the viewer in the film.

Overall it's a bloody good effort, this film. The film certainly raises a number of ethical issues throughout, and it's definitely thought provoking. It really stands on the line between hilarious hi-jinks and serious issues but somehow it retains a sense of balance. The film is very funny, highlights include Callum going to bed on the casino floor, taking an unauthorised dip in a hotel pool and also giving new meaning to the "all you can eat" buffet. These more comedic scenes are used to good effect and are interwoven with other moments that present some really interesting truths about homelessness. In particular, the scene at the end of the film where Callum helps a homeless man in need is very poignant. It's quite a complex multi-layered film really, but then, so are the issues that it's addressing. There's a lot going on here and there's a lot to take in and it doesn't offer any simple answers. It's damn entertaining though and I'm still thinking about it.

Man, that Owl City song 'Fireflies' sucks. I was just taking a look at the current Aria singles chart and it's number 1. Freaking number 1. It's such a blatant rip off of the Postal Service. Maybe not directly in terms of the actual written music or lyrics, but definitely in terms of style. The Postal Service released one album 'Give Up' in 2003, it's a brilliant album that blends Ben Gibbard's distinct vocals with Jimmy Tambarello's stripped back beats. What Owl City have (has?) done is taken that style and simply mimicked it, really badly. The result is the most half-arsed, watered down, syrupy pile of crap, I mean, the dude has actually auto-tuned his vocals to sound more like Ben Gibbard. What annoys me is that this song is number 1 on the charts instead of being condemned to the trash heap for being unoriginal tripe. It's one thing to be influenced by an artist, but it's another thing entirely to take an artist's specific sound and claim it as your own.

And what's with this song at number 5, Jason Derulo - 'Whatcha Say'. I mean, the whole hook of the song is sampled straight from Imogen Heap's 'Hide and Seek'. So what's the point? At least the original was, you know, kind of original. Now it's just been turned into derivative radio-friendly pop nonsense with a killer hook that was already proven a killer hook back in 2005! The song was featured on 'The OC' for fuck's sake. I'm not saying this is as bad as that Owl City rubbish, it's just blah. Maybe I would have less of a problem with this if the song was credited as Jason Derulo featuring Imogen Heap or vice versa. Yeah, probably vice versa.

'The Counterfeiters' (2007) directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky

A fine, fine film. Go to the video store, borrow it now. It's pretty heavy going, but an excellent film. It's basically about a Nazi counterfeiting operation within the Sachsenhausen concentration camp where specifically skilled Jews were made to counterfeit money to fund the Nazis. It was a compelling and deeply affecting story. The performances are really strong and the film itself looks great; I'm not sure if it was shot on digital but it has a very grainy quality which actually works well for the film.

'JCVD' (2008) directed by Mabrouk El Mechri

A weird sort of film where Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a version of himself in a fictional narrative, a narrative that is a lot like 'Dog Day Afternoon', except a really dumbed down version. It's a postmodern take on a Van Damme film, I guess, although it doesn't really work. It has interesting moments in it, but these are chiefly when Van Damme is going about his mundane life - talking to his agent, posing for photographs with fans or just sitting in a taxi. Ironically, it's the central story about a bank robbery that that feels tired and cliched and almost superfluous to the film. It's clunky and pretty derivative and really detracts from what makes the film interesting, which is seeing Van Damme as the ordinary guy that he is. Similarly, the courtroom scenes are pretty cliched too. I guess the film suffers from some average writing, which ensures that what could have been a pretty interesting, perhaps even a 'Being John Malkovich' type film, is relegated to just B-grade action crap. Which is either really ironic and super-postmodern. Or just crap.

'The Piano Teacher' (2001) directed by Michael Haneke

For the most part, I really liked this film. The main character, played by Isabelle Huppert, is fascinating. It's an original character study that really draws you into the film. Haneke has a great style as well, setting up static shots and just leaving them, refusing to cut until it is absolutely necessary. It gives the impression sometimes that you are looking at a still photo as there is only subtle movement within the frame, if any. The main problem that I had with this film was the same problem that I've had with other Haneke films I've seen ('Funny Games' and 'Hidden'). That is, the first two thirds of the film are utterly compelling, masterful works. Then, the final third it feels as though Haneke pulls the rug out from under you, the final act is underwhelming, almost wilfully obtuse. It just didn't seem to flow with what had been set up before. In the case of 'The Piano Teacher', there was an interesting conclusion to the film, but at the same time, not really a conclusion at all. It seemed to cheapen the overall film and also subvert the central character, simply so that Haneke could defy the audience's expectations or sense of satisfaction. I'm not sure, Haneke's films seem to be universally critically lauded so it may just be personal choice here.

'Terminator Salvation' (2009) directed by McG

I found this film pretty boring. Long, tedious action sequences don't really do it for me these days, I think it's probably the prevalence of CGI. There's a long car chase type scene in this film and although it was impressive to look at, it just seemed to lack spark. I just always have this sense that what I'm looking at isn't real, so what's the point? I don't get lost in it because there's no sense of danger. The storyline in this film is kind of interesting but a bit convoluted, I hadn't watched the 'Terminator' films for a while and so I kept going "Wait, so who's this guy?" or "Hey, is he relevant in the other films or is that a totally new guy?" or "That kid from 'Alpha Dog' is in everything these days". There's something about McG's style too, the action sequences are flashy but they always seem to cut right at the crucial moment of impact. For instance, a character will punch another character and just as the fist is meant to make impact, it cuts to show it from a different angle, thereby missing the most interesting bit. It's a style that works a lot better in the 'Charlie's Angels' films where the action and violence are meant to be cheesy. Perhaps this film wasn't as raw as it needed to be. Or perhaps it just needed a bit more Arnie.

2010

First post of the new year. So, Happy New Year.

My new year was good, a fairly quiet night at my place with a few people over. A barbecue and a variety of alcoholic drinks.

I'm heading back to work tomorrow after two weeks off. It'll be good to get some structure back in my life. The last few weeks have been good but fairly uneventful. Can't really remember what I've done, although I went out for dinner the other night for tapas at Basque which was nice. I've been watching a lot of DVDs. Finished 'The Shield' season 7. That was great, a good ending to the show. 'The Shield' is a seriously good show, check it out, it's very cheap at JB HiFi at the moment. Also watched the first season of 'Breaking Bad'. It's a short season, but that show is unreal. I really liked it. I also re-watched all of 'The Office' (UK). I had forgotten how brilliant that show is. It's not just funny, but also very moving because you really invest in the characters. Just wow. I'm also slowly getting through 'Deadwood' and '30 Rock' season 3. Plus, this great show which some kind soul has uploaded all of on Youtube. It's called 'Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe'. Now this is my kind of show. It's basically a show that analyses and critiques TV and it's sarcastic, sharp, savage and very funny. It sometimes reminds me of 'The Angry Nintendo Nerd', a series of video game reviews that I used to watch on Youtube which were similarly sharp and hilarious.

'Fantastic Mr. Fox' (2009) directed by Wes Anderson

I'm a big Wes Anderson fan and I was really looking forward to seeing this. It's great fun and it looks amazing, the animation is very cool and it's stylistically got that obvious Wes Anderson touch. Lots of symmetry and balance, a tightly defined colour palette and trademark camera zooms. The script is offbeat and funny, and the characters are interesting. This film doesn't really make any bold statements or anything, but it's compelling nonetheless. One thing that surprised me was how many young children were in the cinema when I watched this. I suppose the fact that the film is based on a Roald Dahl book and it is an animation suggests that it's a children's film but I didn't think the script itself was geared towards kids. It's very much a Wes Anderson/Noah Baumbach script, dealing chiefly with dysfunctional relationships and family issues. There aren't really any concessions made for kids here (apart from the deliberate lack of swearing). In fact, the film could probably very easily have been a live action film, if you ignored the fact that the characters were written as animals. If this were the case, it definitely would have been an adult film. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the tone feels more adult, I imagine a lot of the charm of the film would have gone over the heads of young children. Anyway, it's cool, go see it.