Holland -vs- Woon

On hiatus

2010-09-02T10:07:00.000+10:00

Apologies to our legions of fans, but Holland vs Woon is taking a break for a few months. Look out for season 1 Blueray and DVD at a fictional store near you. In the meantime there are oodles of humorous videos of cats on YouTube to keep you occupied.

Wave. Goodbye!

2010-08-16T12:07:00.003+10:00

In this week's episode, we review, and wave goodbye to Google Wave... "the future of communication and collaboration". Well it would be, if that future was hard to use and, well, a bit crap.

Drugs, drugs and Rock 'n' Drugs

2010-08-08T15:49:00.001+10:00

In this week's episode, we review drugs. Specifically, is there really a difference between "brand name" drugs and "generic" drugs? Even more specifically, why does Nurofen taste like peanuts, whilst Chemist's Own ibuprofen tastes more like chocolate? Hmmm?

Starburst!

2010-08-01T21:05:00.001+10:00

In this week's episode, we compare the "all new" Starburst versus the suspiciously similar Sugus, from Malaysia. Both lollies look identical, and are made by the same company, so are they, in fact, the exact same product, just with different branding? Our scientific analysis will astound.

What a load of (Red) Bull!

2010-07-25T20:51:00.002+10:00

In this week's episode, we don't review the Masterchef Grand Final, thank god, nor do we go anywhere near the leaders' debate, thankfully. No, we go somewhere much more important; we answer the eternal question: which is better, the original Thai Red Bull, or the European version?

Press Gang

2010-07-18T20:49:00.001+10:00

In this week's episode, we review Press Gang, once the greatest television program Of. All. Time. That time was the early 90s. Now back on Seven Two 8:30 on Sunday mornings. Can a childhood obsession be re-obsessed? Tune in to find out. Kind of. Not really.

Holland vs Woon vs Holland vs Spain

2010-07-12T09:51:00.002+10:00

In this week's episode, we review the humiliating 1-nil defeat of Spain by Holland, in San Sabastian at 3am on a warm summer's night way back in 2001, oh yeah, and the just finished World Cup final.

Paper towel off

2010-07-04T20:39:00.001+10:00

In this week's episode, we compare Handee Ultra paper towels with Viva paper towels, and throw in the cheaper Naturale recycled paper towels as a control. Which is the most absorbent, which works best when wet, and who ends up with egg on their face? Finally, is Matt Preston a dirty stinking lier? Tune in to find out.

Nappy days are here again

2010-06-27T18:59:00.002+10:00

In this week's episode, we review environmentally friendly nappies. It's bamboo disposables vs home made washables. Which is cheaper? Which is better for the environment? Which absorbs a glass of water better? Hilarity ensues.

Burger Battle

2010-06-20T18:53:00.000+10:00

In this week's episode, we review the Hungry Jacks Angry Tendercrisp, and pit it against the gold standard of crappy take-away spicy chicken burgers, the KFC Zinger. Which is the cheapest? Which company has the poorest nutritional information? Are either of them actually edible? How many ingredients does it take to produce an onion ring? All this and more.

So how we doing, then?

2010-06-14T18:43:00.002+10:00

In this week's episode, we, and a very special guest presenter, review Holland-vs-Woon. How many hits on our YouTube channel? Best Facebook comment? Why do we continue producing a blog that Nobody. Ever. Reads? How long are we going to continue with this charade? Tune in to find out.

Ultimate survivor... hair gel?

2010-06-06T19:31:00.002+10:00

In this week's episode, we review Garnier Fructis Ultimate Gel - Survivor. It's hair gel turned up to 11, but does it actually do what it says on the ad?

Amateur kitchen renovations... and amateur video production

2010-05-30T20:09:00.001+10:00

In this weeks episode, we review kitchen renovations, and experience technical difficulties that make a mockery of our "one take only" policy. Most prescient quote of the review - Woon: "let's hope this video turns out well".

Dominos Supreme now less sucky

2010-05-23T17:51:00.001+10:00

In this weeks episode, we test Dominos' new Supreme pizza. So, basically we just eat pizza for four minutes.

Note to Dominos' head honcho, the add says $6.95 and Holland got charged $7.95, and they spelled his name Daroll. So please send $1 to 734 Evergreen Tce. and remember for next time, the correct spelling is Dacool.

It's baby food, baby!

2010-05-16T21:54:00.000+10:00

In this weeks episode, we review baby food... and breast milk.

Bieber Fever

2010-05-09T17:25:00.002+10:00

In this weeks episode, we expose ourselves to the contagious disease that appears to afflict almost every girl between the age of 9 and 16. Are we immune, or do we succumb to the horror of Bieber Fever?

KFC

2010-05-02T19:37:00.001+10:00

In this weeks episode, we review KFC's Mix It Up Meal, and in the process uncover an insidious KFC plot to change - without any public consultation - the original recipe... for their wet wipes. Ends on a cliffhanger.

Werribee Zoo

2010-04-25T19:00:00.000+10:00

In this weeks episode, we review Victoria's Open Range Zoo (if that IS your real name?), and Woon sneaks in a mention of his wife to prove that we are, in fact, not gay (at least, not 100% gay). Don't miss the final note of pessimism, and we'll see you next week for more episodic goodness (hopefully?).

Yogurt

2010-04-18T18:48:00.002+10:00

In this weeks episode, we review berry yogurt... and learn a very important life lesson; never try to high-five a blind man.

Kick-Ass

2010-04-11T19:00:00.000+10:00

In this weeks episode, we review the controversial new comic book move, Kick-Ass. Is it "a truly nasty piece of work" (Tom Ryan, The Sunday Age), or does it, as they say in not so many words, stick the boot into the donkey? It sure does.

3 second reviews

2010-04-04T20:41:00.004+10:00

In this weeks episode, we attempt twenty reviews in three minutes. Do we succeed? Yes. Kind of. Badly.

Hmmm? Seems that the sound cut out with about a minute to go. Not any more. Hurray for alternate sound sources, even if they are a bit crap.

Colgate Wisp

2010-03-28T19:24:00.002+11:00

In this weeks episode, we review the Colgate Wisp, a breath freshening device that will literally make your gums bleed.

Melbourne City Romp

2010-03-21T22:33:00.002+11:00

In this weeks episode, we review the Romp... no, not that kind of romp, dammit... the Melbourne City Romp, a clue hunt around Melbourne organised to raise money for the Burnet Institute. We discuss the benefits of paying $44 to get in "free" to an $8 museum, and detail our mammoth fundraising effort. And some bonus material this week... our very first outtake - yes, even we aren't perfect.

Street Orienteering

2010-03-14T18:15:00.002+11:00

In this weeks episode, we review street orienteering, express pride in beating 12 year olds and receive some good advice from a dog.

All-you-can-eat Chinese food.

2010-03-07T19:00:00.000+11:00

In this weeks episode, we review China Bar Signature. Does this sound like the review of a man who had ALL he could eat? Well, yes. In summary, neither of us puked, just.

Heavy Rain

2010-02-28T19:00:00.000+11:00

In this weeks episode, we review the latest PS3 exclusive, complete with homoerotic undertones. And we forget to mention that it has boobies in it.

Diet pills

2010-02-22T19:00:00.000+11:00

In this weeks episode our attempt at better production values is spoilt by a lack of communication; and a hot light.

3D glasses

2010-02-14T12:11:00.001+11:00

In this weeks episode Woon gets his moneys worth, while Holland vainly tries to make a valid point about the supposed world-beating success of Avatar.

Don't like ads, watch this instead.

2010-02-14T11:35:00.000+11:00

In yet another iteration of our on-again-off-again attempt at world internet domination (or at least get our hit count into double digits), welcome to our weekly 3 minute video reviews. In today's episode, we attempt to introduce the new direction, but can we get to the point in only 3 minutes?

Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-17T13:44:00.001+10:00

Holland:
There is something comforting about a Harry Potter movie. It's a bit like when you meet up with an old friend that you haven't seen for ages, and within five minutes you're happily chatting away, having settled into the old routine like you'd just seen them yesterday. Going into the sixth film in the series, I had read very little about it and had managed to avoid all reviews, yet I was pretty sure that I knew what I was in for, and I got exactly that. Mostly, the reason I enjoyed this film is simply that these characters are fun to hang out with for two-and-a-half hours. And that's lucky, because they don't really do a lot in that time, except, well, hang out. The plot is pretty much this: Harry Potter and friends laugh, cry, whinge and snog their way through another year at Hogwarts, with occasional glimpses of Draco Malfoy up-to-no-good-as-usual and Harry helping Dumbledore save the world and getting chummy with yet-another-new-teacher-with-issues. A lot of the movie focuses on romantic misunderstandings (but we just know that they're going to get together in the end), and I don't think I've heard such blatant use of the word snog since Doctor Seuss' The Snogs that Snogged Snogsville. And the film-makers sneak in a couple of cool scary bits - a scene at the Weasly's house is particularly tense - that will frighten the bejesus out of any little kids watching. I can't wait until I have little kids of my own to torture with stuff like this.

The formerly child-now-adult actors still fit their characters perfectly, and as usual the real adults (a who's who of British acting royalty) are amazing, and obviously having a total blast. Alan Rickman is just brilliant as the squinting, scowling Professor of the Dark Arts, Severus Snape. I used to think that Daniel Radcliffe's standard Harry pose, whether angry, confused or nervous - bolt upright, with a blank expression and a slight tic (almost vibrating) - was caused by a lack of acting ability, but I've come to the conclusion that he's doing it on purpose because that's how Harry Potter is. It makes him much less annoying when one gives him the benefit of the doubt.

So in conclusion, a fun movie for the whole family; don't forget the little kids, and don't forget to change their sheets the next morning. I give it a "See it on the big screen and then buy the DVD when it's cheap".

Sadly, I also own the game-of-the-film, which loosely follows the plot of the movie without actually having any plot, and sees you running around Hogwarts having wand battles, broomstick races and making potions. I give it a "Pull a swifty and get it for free at JB by trading in a second hand game you just bought for $24, then give it to your wife, girlfriend or child, unless you are one of those three, in which case enjoy".

Hold your breath, because Woon will post his review shortly, if and when he actually sees the movie. And here it is...

Woon:
There are good months and then there are bad months when it comes to escaping the family for a few hours for personal social time. July is a bad month, but thanks to the wonders of the internet, I was able to put together the movie via wikipedia, forum posts, trailers, extended trailers and youTube. Okay, not really, but part of the last sentence was true, the internet is wondaarrful.

So to the review. I'd have to admit I am not a Harry Potter fan. Right from the beginning when they pushed a trolley through a pillar in the middle of a train station with "muggles" everywhere was pretty much when I gave up on all the hype. I tried to get into it, I really did but when all the films all look the same, i.e. dark cinematography, way to much CGI to be impressive and a mystery that only gets revealed in the final third of the film, it is much easier to read the corresponding wikipedia article.

This movie is actually quite hard to review if you think about it. All the main characters are the same and played by the same people. And given that it is the 6th in the series, the producers are unlikely to change the look, feel and the amount they stray from the book (I assume). The two highlights are therefore when Harry drinks the "luck" potion and when Ron accidentally sniffs the love letter. Apart from that it more of the same same. I give it a "Go see it if you are fan, and if you are not, wait for the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince in 5 Seconds video on youTube"

For the record Holland, the word "snog" was only said 6 times. I'd reference the times, but I don't think I could sit through those two hours again, even with MasterChef running in the background.

Holland:
Six times is pretty blatant, considering that snog was said a grand total of zero times in the previous five films? I'm also pretty sure that Ron ate love potion infused chocolates and didn't just sniff a love letter (I guess that scene came up when Po was having trouble with her final dish on Masterchef). As for straying from the book, your wiki friend should have told you that the major battle from the end of the book has been omitted from the movie, so you assume wrong. And I don't know why familiarity with the characters and story, and the consistent tone of the series makes it hard to review. You either liked it or you didn't like it. If preconceptions make you more or less likely to enjoy it, so be it.

Woon:
*Retracted*

The Hangover

2009-06-19T12:13:00.001+10:00

Woon:
Giving a movie a title like The Hangover does not leave much to the imagination. And from the ad campaign, which was quite extensive in my opinion, the entire plot was essentially told to you even before you paid for your allocated seats at the box office. I was expecting a T&A romp much like Bachelor Party from the early 80's where movies of that period, such as Animal House, Porky's and Revenge of the Nerds pushed the taste and ratings classification boundaries. And even if I knew the plot and most likely the ending, I was hoping Heather Graham would make it worthwhile.

I believe this movie was trying to sell itself as THE naughty movie for the noughties, but alas, it was not. Everything was so PC and stereotypical. The plot for the first half felt like a TV cop show episode where the protagonists worked from clue to clue, going from the previous nights consequence to consequence. Many of these consequences, as I've said before, were shown in the ads and when the scene came up, it just didn't make me chuckle. It just felt like a re-worked version of Dude Where's My Car.

There were funny moments though but more in the stupidity of the lines delivered as apposed to the situation they were in. The stereotypical characters were well played. In particular the Asian gang leader, quite different to his role in Knocked Up. In fact, this is probably its saving grace. I give it a "Wait for it in a 3 in 1 DVD release"

Holland:
After seeing the crap trailer, I had absolutely no interest in seeing this movie, but I was convinced to go by a favourable review from Margaret and David and a text message from my friend Kristy stating "Funniest. Movie. Ever." (she probably didn't use that many full stops because she's not that geeky, but I know what she meant).

There were a lot of jokes in this movie. Some fell pretty flat, and some brought a small chuckle but were childish, e.g. lets all laugh at the naked fat guy, the naked old man or the naked Chinese guy. Still, there were enough original, clever and funny jokes that I went along for most of the ride. And any movie that can get away with masturbation jokes involving babies gets a thumbs up from me.

While the performances are perfectly fine, all of the characters are pretty much your stock standard bachelor party stereotypes - the obnoxious stud who is up for anything; the nerd who constantly worries - with the exception of the socially inept Alan, played by Zach Galifianakis, who may well have created a new stereotype, like a cross between John Belushi in Animal House and Rain Man. He gets all of the best lines and I would say that this was a not that great movie without him, but include him and it becomes a pretty OK movie.

I found my interest waning from about the middle of the movie, and while most of the movie thankfully lacked melodrama, the ending was painfully awash with schmaltz, and my groaning was only halted by some silly crassness over the end-credits.

Woon, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think they were trying to make this the naughty movie of the noughties, as much as you love the pun. This is just the latest in a long line of frat pack movies, the only difference being that this one doesn't have Vince Vaughn and/or Will Ferrell in it. Just look at the director Todd Philips' filmography for starters. And I think you'll find that the naughtiest mainstream comedy this year is Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It's rated R for starters.

All, up there is quite a bit to like about this movie, and there are enough one-liners that repeat viewings will probably throw out a few gems missed on earlier viewings. I give it "watch the DVD with a couple of mates and a keg".

Woon:
Having Vince Vaughn AND, not or, Will Ferrell in this movie would not have saved it. Nothing was missing from the acting, it just lacked cleverness in the lines. It needed a bit of Apatow wit sprinkled on it.

Holland:
I think having those two in it would have made it a much worse movie. The great thing about the Alan character was that he was so quiet and understated, and if Will Ferrell had played him (as he surely would have) it would have been so manic and over-the-top that the whole thing would have been ruined and I would have had to book the next flight to Hollywood just so I could track him down and punch him in the face.

I've just been looking through his filmography, and I've realised that I haven't seen a single movie that Judd Apatow has written or directed, and of those he has produced, I've only seen The Cable Guy (funny), Anchorman (very funny) and Taledaga Nights (ugh!). We might have to book in an Apatow festival.

Terminator Salvation

2009-06-06T01:31:00.000+10:00

Holland:
Here is the basic premise of T4: John Connor is searching for a young man, Kyle Reese, so that he can then send him back in time to have sex with his mother and, hence, become his father. But John Connor is already there, so he must have found Kyle and sent him back, right? So why all the stress? Time travel movies require the suspension of disbelief, and this is fine, providing the movie is funny (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) or kick arse (T2). In T4, it is just annoying. The other annoyance is with the Terminators themselves, and this is a 2-part annoyance: 1. Why are there so few Terminators, the third act is set in a fricking Terminator factory? 2. Why do they insist on throwing people against walls, giving them a chance to escape or be rescued instead of a) shooting them dead or b) smashing their head in?

There are a couple of pretty good action scenes, and I like all of the actors (Sam Worthington is particularly good). It also has a brief surprise appearance from an old friend, which got a good crowd reaction. If it was a stand alone futuristic action/sci-fi movie I probably would have thought that it was an OK popcorn movie. But this is a Terminator movie, and I demand more, dammit!

The ending of T2 was kind of corny, but it was also perfect. The ending of T4 is kind of similar, but is just stupid. Actually, I think this pretty much sums up the whole movie. It ticks all of the boxes for what you'd expect in a Terminator movie, but it just isn't very good.

They are certainly keeping their sequel options open. Not only does nothing really get resolved in this movie, they don't even get up to the point where Reese is sent back in time. Urgh!

I don't want anybody else spending money seeing this movie. It will just encourage them to think that people liked it, and when the next Terminator movie is made (which is pretty much inevitable), we might get lumped with another mess like this. My score therefore has to be: If you really want to see it, "see it on TV".

Woon:
Let's face it. Time travel movies are a fallacy. James Cameron essentially screwed the pooch in the original Terminator when he let John Conner send his own father back in time to let him be born. There are so many plot holes to do with that side of the story that the only way not to give this movie a zero is to review it without that subplot. OK, so the baddie robots are from the baddie aliens (BA) and the goodie robots are from the goodie aliens (GA). John Conner has a unique DNA mutation that threatens the existence of the BA race. The GAs must protect John Conner because he is the ultimate weapon. Both aliens can't come to earth because it would freak everyone out and we would kill them both.

T1: BA sees John's mother as having the potential to mutate. GA recruits Kyle Reese to protect her. Cool looking robots, bit of T&A, explosions and ends in an industrial setting. T2: BA sees the mutated John, sends next model to kill him. GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, no T&A (just male glutious maximus), explosion and ends in an industrial setting. T3: BA still looking for John, GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, censored T (dammit), explosions and ends in an industrial/military setting.

And now to T4, well you know the drill. The look of the film was a lot grittier than T2 and T3. Scenes reminiscent of Mad Max 2 during the highway chase and Saving Private Ryan during the headquarters escape. All the old favorite lines were there as well as the T-800 (with and with out skin - spoiler). It definitely is like all the other Terminator movies, but minus the fate/can't change destiny tagline. I was expecting a John Conner centric story with his heroism finally shown, but this was not the case. I think the makers could not decide whether to focus the story on him or the Terminators and in the end it was a half arsed attempt to do both and they failed at both.

Giving it a rating of "worth a torrented DVD rip but only if you have nothing else to use your end of month quota on".

Holland:
I'm not sure that your rewriting of the Terminator mythology minus the time travel solves any of the problems with this movie. It vaguely works for the first three, but the whole point of T4 is that it is the future and John and the Terminators are looking to change the past. I prefer to leave time travel in and just not think about it too much. It got me thinking though, that the makers of T4 should have taken your advice and removed the time travel element from the movie. Then we could have just sat back and enjoyed a futuristic robot vs man (I bags being the robot) action romp.

And thanks for the reminder about the hot naked chick in T3.

Woon:
Whomever fed the knowledge into Skynet so it could become self aware should have shown it less of the Austin Power's trilogy and more of Third Riech playbook. I'm calling this as the last of the franchise.

----

Next up: Hanna Montana.

Star Trek 11

2009-06-03T09:42:00.000+10:00

Woon:
7 Years since the last movie and 4 years after the television series ended, this is the much anticipated JJ Abrams reboot. Made for $150M and targeted for a more "general audience", there is no doubt that the franchise owners are hoping for a revival to match that of the 90's.

I am not a fan of TOS but I did follow TNG, enjoyed a bit of DS9, tried to get into VOY but by ENT, the stories were becoming all too familiar and the battles all to infrequent. The canon definitely needed something spectacular. I was hesitant at first that this film would be diluted by TNG centric jokes and the other Star Trek directives of peace, love and conflict resolution without violence. This was not the case and it definitely delivers.

Action scenes were fluid, the level of detail superb and the cinematography extremely grand. The only complaint is to turn down the lens flare. Not every external space shot needs it. The acting was adequate and given that it was a prequel, the writers pretty much had the freedom to do what they wanted as long as the actors were the right colour and had the right accent.

Overall, a solid effort and not a hint of cliffhanger-ness. Score: "Worth a Friday night viewing"

Holland:
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT? It took me a couple of minutes to decipher these acronyms, so I am clearly not much of a Star Trek fan, and I certainly would not consider myself a Trekkie, or is it Trekker? I therefore hope that none of the die-hards read this and take offense that an ignorant outsider is reviewing their precious, precious movie. Actually, given that Trekkies are all four-eyed weaklings with a rudimentary knowledge of astrophysics and a penchant for made-up languages and dress-ups, I don't really care what they think.

But enough of the unnecessarily derogatory taunting, because I actually quite enjoyed this movie. I think the story was well thought out, with the characters introduced in a believable and entertaining way, and it had a good twist of sorts that ensures that the franchise can move into the future unencumbered by the baggage/events of the previous 10 movies. Based on my limited experience - I've seen most of the movies and a couple of episodes of TOS and TNG - this was a bone fide Star Trek experience, complete with ridiculous time-warps, over-the-top space battles and in-the-nick-of-time improvised weapons.

The one gripe I have that totally bugged the hell out of me was a totally contrived and way too coincidental sequence of events leading to Kirk meeting one of his 'old' friends. What are the chances that a person ending up in a random location on a barren planet would, within five minutes, just happen to be saved from certain death by a stranger who just happens to be the one person in the universe that can help him save Earth? Well, I guess it worked in The Empire Strikes Back.

I agree with Woon on the CGI lens flare. Seems like they were trying a bit too hard to make it look like it was actually filmed in space. I think the score "Worth a Friday night viewing" is a bit generous and doesn't give you much room to move up in the scoring system when you actually see a really good movie, especially seeing as "See it on opening night" really isn't an option at this point.

Overall, an entertaining if somewhat forgettable film, like most of the Star Treks. Score: "See it in the cinema, but wait for a 2-for-1 offer"

Woon:
The Force explains a lot in the Star Wars galaxy, but no such luck in the Star Trek one.

Holland:
There might be some lame-arse Vulcan mind thing going on, but I don't buy it.

----
So that's it for this review. It seems kind of poetic that our attempt at rebooting the Holland vs Woon franchise is though a successful reboot of another franchise. At least I hope it is poetic, and not ironic.

As always, comments are more than welcome, and are cherished like diamonds magically falling from the sky into our desperately outstretched hands.

Guess who's back? Back again... Daryl's back... with his friend

2009-06-02T19:40:00.000+10:00

Hey there. It's been almost two and a half years since our last post, and we owe you a lot of reviews. The only solace I can offer is that at least two and a half years isn't as bad as the terrible Two and a Half Men. Boy does that show suck (1 star).

So finally, after some nagging from Meatpopsicle following the latest Star Trek flick (review pending), helped by my being forced to watch MasterChef Australia (2 stars) by the wife and hence I desperately need a distraction, I've rejigged the blog and am attempting to get back into the habit of posting. Note: the writing of this post is now slowing because MasterChef has finished and the very funny Talkin' Bout Your Generation (4 stars) is on.

So what's been happening with Holland vs Woon since the last post? I decided to consult our good friends at Google Analytics for some answers. Amazingly, since my last post on the 12th of February 2007 there has been 427 page views from 398 visitors. Cool! The most popular post has been my rather harsh review of the Nigerian classic End of the Wicked (63 page views, including an amazing 19 on the 10th of November last year... how come?), followed by some other reviews I did of extremely obscure recent British and German genre films (e.g.). Given all of that interest, surely we have a duty to get this blog back in action. Right? Anybody?

Clearly we're bored of the old format, so expect a totally new, totally original new format. Details to follow soon.

If you never got around to deleting us from your rss reader, and that magic '1 new post' icon flashes up like that time you answered the door to find a long dead relative standing there with worm-eaten flesh hanging over some just recognisable bones, say "hi" in the comments section. If we actually know that people give a toss about what we think, we're much more likely to give a toss about telling people what we think.

Hello?

How much for your consideration? Best Director

2007-02-13T08:59:00.000+11:00

Nominations for best director are often the same as those for best film, for obvious reasons. The same is not necessarily true for the winner though, as the last ten years can confirm...

2005 - Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain ($14M)
2004 - Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($94M)
2002 - Roman Polanski, The Pianist ($35M)
2001 - Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind ($60M)
2000 - Steven Soderbergh, Traffic ($48M)
1999 - Sam Mendes, American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan ($70M)
1997 - James Cameron, Titanic ($200M)
1996 - Anthony Minghella, The English Patient ($27M)

Four out of the ten winners here did not also win for best picture, so obviously even though the director 'makes' the movie, the criteria used to decide the two categories differ. How about the budgets involved? Best pictures cost on average $65M, while best directors costs... $59M. It's a little less, but hardly, and a lot more than the average for best actor/actress. As I have repeated ad nauseum, this is basically the average for a studio film (NB: The Pianist and Traffic were 'independently' produced). None of these movies, however, cost less than the magic $10M, and there must be a reason, because coincidences, freak chances and short-term blips on long-term trends never occur, and Ang Lee would not have won if Brokeback Mountain had only cost $9M, do you here!

Maybe good/experienced/popular/whatever directors don't work on cheap movies. Or maybe it actually costs quite a lot of money for the acting, art and production design, lighting, cinematography and editing it takes to make a movie look well directed.

This is not to say that movies made for less than $10M cannot be brilliantly directed (I saw Peter Jackson's Braindead - $3M - on the weekend and it has fantastic direction, but I'm pretty sure he didn't crack an Oscar for it back in 1992) it is simply that what the weirdos in the academy look for in best director nominated films, whatever that might be, is not found in cheap movies.

So how do the 2006 nominees stack up...

Alejandro González Iñárritu, Babel ($25M)
Martin Scorsese, The Departed ($90M)
Clint Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima ($15M)
Steven Frears, The Queen ($15M)
Paul Greengrass, United 93 ($15M)

Well for one, it seems that for this category, 15 is the magic number. To back up my thoroughly research argument (no best directors for less than $10M), poor Little Miss Sunshine ($8M and nominated for best picture) gets bumped by the $15M United 93. Closest to the average is The Departed, so maybe it's finally Marty's year. Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Something to consider until next time.

How much for your consideration? Best Actress

2007-02-03T10:03:00.000+11:00

The best actress in a leading role requiring prosthetics, weight gain, playing a real person, ugliness or pretending to be a man goes to...

I suspect that the best actress award generally goes to movies that have below average budgets. Why? Women simply do not get good roles in big budget movies. Fact. Or is it? As I've done for the last few posts, let's have a look at the last ten years of Oscars and see what budgetary trends we can tease out.

2005 - Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line ($28M)
2004 - Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - Charlize Theron, Monster ($8M)
2002 - Nicole Kidman, The Hours ($25M)
2001 - Halle Berry, Monster's Ball ($4M)
2000 - Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich ($51M)
1999 - Hilary Swank, Boys don't Cry ($2M)
1998 - Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare in Love ($25M)
1997 - Helen Hunt, As Good as it Gets ($50M)
1996 - Frances McDormand, Fargo ($7M)

First of all, four of these movies were made for under the magic $10M mark, and exactly zero were made for more than $100M. Not only that, but exactly zero were made for more than the average cost of a studio movie (about $65M). The average budget was a measly $23M, which Julia Roberts can make herself for a single film. The reason (not why Julia Roberts can make $23M for a single movie, that defies explanation, but why best actress movies are generally so cheap)? Well, for one, four of the movies (Monster, Monster's Ball, Boys don't Cry and Erin Brockovich) had no production input by one of the major studios, and films made by non-major studios by default have lower budgets. For two, see the first paragraph of this post: take this year for example; are they really going to give Audrey Tatou (The Da Vinci Code) an Oscar for being stupid, or Keira Knightly (Pirates of the Caribbean) one for being annoying, or Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns) one for not being as good as Margo Kidder.

And the nominees for 2006 are...

Penélope Cruz, Volver (unknown, say $5M)
Judie Dench, Notes on a Scandal (unknown, say $10M)
Helen Mirren, The Queen ($15M)
Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada ($35M)
Kate Winslet, Little Children ($14M)

Fits the trend nicely, maybe even a little cheaper this year - which makes sense, considering there are no movies with Julia Roberts or Jack Nicholson in to bump up the average. Based on budgetary considerations alone, anyone could win. The first three weren't produced by one of the big six, but that is no help, as explained above, so I'm going to have to throw in the towel. Having said that, surely Judie Dench and Meryl Streep were only nominated because the nominating committee (or however the hell they go about nominations) are just plain lazy, Helen Mirren because she is going to win, Kate Winslet so they can shaft her again and Penélope Cruz as the token 'foreigner', or to piss off Tom Cruise (see also, the first line of this post, i.e. Helen Mirren plays a real person).

How much for your consideration? Best Actor

2007-01-31T04:42:00.000+11:00

Continuing my series of poorly researched and misguided rants on the budgets of movies that win Oscars...

It is well known that famous actors will often lower their fees in order to star in a low budget, important, Oscar-worthy film. Why is this? Does this imply that big-budget movies are somehow not Oscar-worthy, or is this a fallacy, and budget is irrelevant to the chances of Oscar glory in the best actor category?

For the last 10 years, the winners of the best actor Oscar have been:

2005 - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote ($7M)
2004 - Jamie Foxx, Ray ($40M)
2003 - Sean Penn, Mystic River ($30M)
2002 - Adrien Brody, The Pianist ($35M)
2001 - Denzel Washington, Training Day ($45M)
2000 - Russell Crowe, Gladiator ($103)
1999 - Kevin Spacey, American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Roberto Benigni, Life is Beautiful (unknown, say $5M)
1997 - Jack Nicholson, As Good as it Gets ($50M)
1996 - Geoffrey Rush, Shine ($5.5M)

One movie on this list cracks the $100M barrier while three were made for less than $10M (I'm guessing about Life is Beautiful based on it being Italian, first time director, unknown actors etc. If anyone would like to correct me, please do so).

The average winning movie cost $35.6M. This is almost half the cost of the average Hollywood studio movie (about $65M). It just goes to show you can't buy a good performance. Not only that, but Ray, The Pianist, Life is Beautiful and Shine were not even produced by one of the big six studios. So maybe it's true, low budget is better for the best-actor category. There are a couple of reasons why this might be so. The obvious one is that big budget movies are mostly based around action and special effects, with acting and dialogue taking a back seat. The other is that the Academy recognises acting in important or controversial movie, and often these movies are not going to make very much money, and therefore will not be provided with a massive budget.

So the nominees this time around are:

Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond ($100M)
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson ($700,000)
Peter O'Toole, Venus (unknown, say $5M)
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness ($55M)
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland ($6M)

Based on the last ten years, the winner could be any of these, although Ryan Gosling might struggle with Half Nelson's tiny budget. Will Smith and Forest Whitaker split the long term average between them, so flip a coin. Or better yet, roll a 5-sided dice (if one exists).

How much for your consideration? Best Picture

2007-01-29T02:46:00.000+11:00

Let's review the best picture Academy Award winners over the last ten years, and the production budget that got them there.

2005 - Crash ($6.5M)
2004 - Million Dollar Baby ($30M)
2003 - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($94M)
2002 - Chicago ($45M)
2001 - A Beautiful Mind ($60M)
2000 - Gladiator ($103M)
1999 - American Beauty ($15M)
1998 - Shakespeare in Love ($25M)
1997 - Titanic ($200M)
1996 - The English Patient ($27M)

So, one movie makes it in under $10M, and two crack the $100M mark. The rest are in what I like to call the 'mediocre' range.

The average winning movie cost $65M. Let's just compare that to the average cost of a Hollywood studio movie; you guessed it, about $65M. So what does this tell us. Well, on average, any studio movie has as much chance of winning Best Picture as any other, regardless of budget. This doesn't mean that any movie has an equal chance of winning, of course, just any "studio movie". The only movie on the list not produced by one of the big six studios is Crash, which was "independently produced" and then distributed by Lions Gate.

So it appears that any studio film has an equal chance of winning the best picture award - based on budget alone, although presumably making a good film will give you a slightly higher chance. Occasionally, an independent film might sneak through too. Based purely on the numbers over the last ten years, my vote for this year therefore goes to Babel; at $25M the closest to the average of the five movies nominated this year - $30.6M. Having said that, you'd have to be an idiot to bet against Clint Eastwood (Letters from Iwo Jima); the Academy loves that guy! Well, he was born only 1 year after the first Academy Award ceremony, and at 77 is probably the same age as the average Academy member

Now I haven't even mentioned the marketing that goes into getting nominations and votes for the Oscars, which is obscene (millions of dollars - they probably spent a lot more with the "for your consideration" campaign for Crash than they did making the bloody movie). But I'll leave that for another rant.

Let the most average win.

How much for your consideration?

2007-01-24T10:33:00.000+11:00

I just checked out the nominees for the upcoming Oscars and I thought it might be interesting to see what it costs to make it an Oscar worthy movie.

And the nominees for best picture are:
Babel - $25M
The Departed - $90M
Letters from Iwo Jima - $15M
Little Miss Sunshine - $8M
The Queen - $15M

Other movies with more than three nominations:
Apocalypto - $40M
Blood Diamond - $100M
Children of Men - $72M
Dreamgirls - $70M
Little Children - $14M
Notes on a Scandal - N/A
Pan's Labyrinth - $19M
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $225M

So, for $225M you can buy four nominations (Pirates 2: art direction, sound editing, sound mixing, special effects) or for $8M you can earn four nominations (Little Miss Sunshine: supporting actor, supporting actress, movie, original screenplay).

Now, these are production budgets, i.e. not including marketing and distribution costs. It would be even more interesting to see what the studios actually spend specifically on spruiking for an Oscar. More to follow...

Drowning in the bloodbath

2007-01-17T20:23:00.000+11:00

Done, finito, finally!

All of my reviews from the Bloodbath horror festival have now been posted. It only took six weeks, when I intended to take two. And, well, technically, I haven't done a review of the final, bonus movie at Bloodbath, called Porcelain Man. That's because I slept through most of it, and it would be unfair to give a review of something I only saw about half an hour of, although that, in itself, might give an indication of how gripping it is. In short, it's a bit like 28 days later but with less horror, and more political intrigue. I think.

Would I do it again? Well, proper (if you can call them that) reviews take quite a while, at least for me, and I have a life outside the blogosphere (it's called the biosphere, and it's quite nice, there are other people who you can see and touch, there are trees and clouds and home cooked meals and horses running over green fields - you should check it out sometime), so no. But then again, what the hell, bring it on... I don't really like horses anyway. First, though, I think we might need to come up with a similar challenge for Meatpopsicle. After all, this site is called "Holland -vs- Woon", not "Holland where's Woon?".

So now I can get back to the real job of whinging about how unnecessarily expensive movies are these days.

The Silencer

2007-01-16T06:47:00.000+11:00

Director: Steve Lawson, Siman Wyndam
Starring: Glenn Salvage, Maye Choo, Jim Clossick, Steve Lawson
Production Budget: ~US$5,000
Running Time: 75 min
Released: 2006

Glenn Salvage plays Michael Eastmann, a policeman who is framed during a botched drugs bust, shot and then left for dead (not to be mistaken by Left for Dead, another movie starring Salvage, where he isn't - left for dead that is). Horribly injured but not dead, he is rehabilitated and then sets out for vengeance. The only problem is he can no longer talk, and his spine is so badly damaged that a hard knock will paralyse him for life (OK, that's two problems). His wife (Choo) grows distant and his former colleagues shun him, but he can still kick arse.

Director Steve Lawson and star Glenn Salvage were both involved in Left for Dead, which was an overlong mess. The Silencer is the exact opposite, a short, neat action movie. The action scenes are great, including a great moment in an underpass where a bunch of thugs hassling a lady meet their worst, silent, motorcycle helmeted, leather clad nightmare. The story is pretty clichèd (although it flows well), but that's not the point, this is a movie about revenge, and it is served up with quality. This movie was made for virtually nothing (Lawson describes it as the cost of a family holiday). All indoor scenes were set in Lawson's house, where one room was continually remodelled for different scenes, and the cast was kept nice and small and mostly volunteered their services. And good for them too. Everyone looks good in this; Salvage has real presence and just a hint of charisma, the martial arts and stunts are awesome, and the directors show that they can really direct.

"The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting." - Gloria Leonard

One of the most obvious things that shows up a low budget movie is the lighting. The other martial arts movies I saw at Bloodbath, Left for Dead, and Intergalactic Combat were both notable for their bad lighting. The lighting in The Silencer is so much better, with light streeming through windows and a subtle glow on characters faces. Good lighting is one of those things that's difficult to describe, but obvious when you see it. This was $5,000 very well spent. If Left for Dead was martial arts porn, then this is martial arts erotica.

When they can make a $5,000 movie look like a $500,000 movie, imagine what they could do with $500,000. I am curious, and hopefully The Silencer will get the film-makers noticed by some people with some cash. So pay attention, all right!

$$$

Room 36

2007-01-08T05:04:00.000+11:00

Director: Jim Groom
Starring: Paul Herzberg, Portia Booroff, Frank Scantori, Nicola Branson
Production Budget: ~US$300,000 (guesstimate)
Running Time: 90 min
Released: 2005

Set mostly in a seedy London hotel, the Midlothian, Room 36 is a tale of mistaken identity, although in this case it is the identity of the room that causes the confusion. In room 36, an obese salesman (Scantori) awaits a prostitute (Branson), while next door, in room 38 a hit-man (Herzberg) has arranged a meeting with a young, female MP (Booroff). All it takes is one chipped room number and things go horribly wrong.

"It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh that's a McGuffin.' The first one asks 'What's a McGuffin?' 'Well' the other man says, 'It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers 'Well, then that's no McGuffin!' So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all." - Alfred Hitchcock.

This film took 11 years to make, due to one disaster after another, including death, fire and Kodak's decision to stop producing the film they were using half way through filming. Yet the director persisted, and it was well worth the effort. The grainy black and white looks fantastic, giving it very much the feel of a film noir or early Hitchcock. It even has a classic Hitchcockian McGuffin, in the microfilm the MP is supposed to be delivering to the man who turns out to be a hit-man. Yet it is also very funny, at times almost to the point of slapstick. The acting is excellent, not even considering the budget, and the 10 year commitment many of them made to it with little or no pay.

Groom's only other movie was 1991s The Revenge of Billy the Kid which centred around the mutant child of a farmer and his goat (get it, Billy the Kid). I haven't seen it but am intrigued, and who wouldn't be?

I urge you to seek out this film, so then in another 11 years we might get to see what Groom comes up with next.

$$$$

Chain Reaction

2006-12-30T04:59:00.000+11:00

Director: Olaf Ittenbach
Starring: Christopher Kriesa, Martina Ittenbach, Simon Newby
Production Budget: US$1.5M
Running Time: 103 min
Released: 2006

A dead Raven starts a freak chain of events leading to a prison transport bus crashing in the Rocky Mountains. The prisoners escape, kill the guards, take a doctor hostage and flee into the woods, heading for Canada. En route they stumble across an old homestead, and a young woman 'milking' (by which I mean bleeding) a goat. They break in and find a strange family, who speak nothing but dire old-English, resemble 18th century pilgrims and drink goat's blood. It turns out they are a family of vampires or demons or some-such and things soon turn messy, very messy.

This movie is really, incredibly stupid, and at times hilarious. Made by German director Olaf Ittenbach, it is pretty well directed, the acting is mostly OK - especially considering they are mostly Germans playing Americans - and the dialogue is mostly terrible. The residents of the house are supposed to be speaking old-English, perhaps like the Amish would speak, but it is basically incomprehensible. It's kind of a combination of bad Shakespeare and Yoda. Apart from "Aye, have I", which Martina Ittenbach's character constantly answers to every request, I don't have any particular quotes that I could give, as I didn't write them down at the time (and the internet has failed me, curse you!). But trust me, there are some piss-funny lines in there, as the chuckles throughout the cinema at supposedly serious conversation can attest.

Thou be able to enjoyest much bloodshed. Wherein thine prisoners findest a saw of chain, thou does not know, but byest then hast reason been given over to madness.

Sorry, what I mean is, there is plenty of blood, guts and decapitations. Where the hell the prisoners find a chainsaw in a primitive farm house I will never know, but by that point, reason has already taken a severe beating, and soon gets sawn in two (or possibly twain).

This is apparently one of the less gory of Ittenbach's movies, but since he is considered one of the goriest directors around, there is no shortage. He often works as a special effects supervisor on his own and other director's movies, and it shows. The make-up and effects are really good for such a low budget film - although I suspect IMDB (where I get most of my budget info) might be slightly underestimating the budget - if not, I'm impressed. The battle scenes are fairly short, but highly entertaining.

Oddly, this is like a movie and its sequel all in one. Once the first lot of action concludes, our good doctor is sentenced to prison, and while being transported on a prison bus a dead Raven starts a freak chain of events leading to a... never mind. I guess they just didn't have enough material for a full length movie. And the melodramatic ending is surreal and stupid.

Taken with two or three beers and a few mates, you should have a good time with Chain Reaction (called House of Blood if you are in the U.S.). Aye, didst I.

$$$

The Uncanny

2006-12-17T09:36:00.000+11:00

Director: Denis Héroux
Starring: Peter Cushing, Ray Milland, Donald Pleasance
Production Budget: ~US$600,000
Running Time: 89 min
Released: 1977

"Kitty at my foot and I want to touch it"

Peter Cushing brings his unique comic stylings to this trilogy of tales about our fine feathered friends and secret rulers of the Earth, cats. It begins with him visiting a publisher and begging him to publish his book detailing the evils perpetuated by cats around the world. Being a pretty smart guy, he chooses a publisher who is a cat lover, duh. To prove his feline conspiracy theory, he relates a series of far-out feline tales (with plenty of far-out feline tails thrown in for good measure). The first involves an old rich woman who writes a will leaving most of her assets to her dozens of cats, and none to her no-good nephew. The nephew hatches a plan with the maid to kill the woman, destroy the will and take the fortune that is rightfully his (you know, rightfully his because his dad's sister is rich). The cats have other ideas, and things soon turn bloody and people get eaten (there are lots of cats in this one). The second sees a young girl unusual powers move in with her aunt and uncle when here parents die. Her bitchy cousin causes her grief until she and her beloved cat enact a squishy revenge. In the third episode, a famous actor (Pleasance) kills his actress wife in an "accident" and replaces her with a young, pretty, and untalented actress in both his current movie - coincidentally a filmed version of The Pit and the Pendulum - and his bed. But the dead wife's cat has other ideas.

"Kitty ran up and scratched me though my jeans"

British horror studio Amicus was in decline when this movie was made - failing to get adequate funding in the UK, most of the financing and production came from Canada. The Uncanny follows an identical structure to previous Amicus anthologies such as Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1964) and Tales from the Crypt (1972), which is a downside, as, by 1977 the traditional horror anthology had had it's day - although George A. Romero and Stephen King had fun with the concept in the 80's with the Creepshow movies - and this movie has the feel of a 1960s movie rather than a late 70s one, and probably looked dated when it was made. While mostly a bit silly - cats just aren't that scary - it is saved by some cool scenes, especially in the mass attacks and brutal killings in the first episode, and the surprising and bloody ending of the second.

As a life-long cat hater, The Uncanny didn't change my opinion of cats any, but I'd be interested to see what die-hard cat lovers think of it. Maybe if this movie inspires a few people not to own cats, then the birds, small mammals and allergy sufferers of the world will be thankful. So, as an allergy sufferer, I highly recommend this to all cat owners and would be owners. Everyone else, watch if it's on the telly, and there is nothing better on.

"Fuck you kitty, you're gonna spend the night... outside!" - The Presidents of the United States of America

$$$

Albert Fish

2006-12-15T11:15:00.000+11:00

Director: John Borowski
Starring: Oto Brezinn, Derek Hall, Cooney Horvath, Garrett Shriver
Production Budget: Dunno - pretty small
Running Time: 86 min
Released: 2007 - I traveled through time to see it.

This documentary is reminiscent of the types of American 'true crime story' or 'real life detective' shows you get on television. A deep-voiced narrator describes how a criminal was brought to justice, interspersed with recreations of the crimes and interviews with key figures and experts. The only thing that could really distinguish Albert Fish from the hundreds of these shows you get on the Discovery Channel is the criminal himself - Albert Fish, painter, gentleman and child-eater.

While Albert Fish was a deviant of the highest order, into such philias as coprophilia, urophilia and paedophilia, his most noteworthy act - and the subject of a fair chunk of the movie - was the letter he sent to the parents of Grace Budd, a ten year old girl he had abducted and, well, if you really want to know you can read the letter.

"On Sunday June the 3, 1928 I called on you at 406 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheese—strawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat in my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her." - Albert Fish

The most interesting interviewee in this documentary is Joe Coleman, the man who owns the original Albert Fish letter, and is kind of a fan of Fish. Hilariously, he got the letter by going to the police records office and asking for a copy, and the clerk accidentally gave him the original, which he obviously kept. I'm thinking of doing the same with the Mona Lisa at the Louvre.

So, not overly original, but a well made documentary about an interesting topic, or, if you will, a decrepit piece of filth about a total sicko.

"Is that all you've got" - Allegedly said by Albert Fish after the first jolt of electricity failed to kill him. Also said by Marv in Sin City.

$$$

Intergalactic Combat

2006-12-09T10:07:00.000+11:00

Director: Ray Brady
Starring: Gordon Alexander, Elizabeth Tan
Production Budget: ~US$200,000
Running Time: 90 min
Released: 2006

By the same director as Boy Meets Girl but a very different movie, Intergalactic Combat is a movie that sounded great, but disappointed. It has an interesting, if rather juvenile premise. The Earth is invited to submit a team of warriors to an unarmed combat tournament against teams from other planets, with the losing planet destroyed, or something. However, not only do we not get see this intergalactic battle, we don't even get to see the world championships, just the selection trials for the UK team. Like the previously reviewed Dark Intruder, this is actually a T.V. pilot, although not funded by any T.V. station. The plan is for the first season of the series to feature the UK team travelling the world battling against other countries, with the second season concentrating on the interplanetary battle.

The CGI work is pretty basic and the dialogue is terrible, but after all, this is a dumb action film, and the action scenes are pretty well done. I'm not a huge fan of martial arts, unless it is being done by Jacky Chan, but Brady has obviously gotten a pretty decent bunch of fighters together, and the premise works to show off their skills. The characters are interesting enough (big black guy, former world champ coming out of retirement, oriental guy, young girl who learned to fight to get away from bully's, twin's; one good, one bad - that sort of thing) that kids could probably get into it. If made into a series, it would require a much bigger budget (Brady admitted as much at the screening), especially if they intend on having humans battling against CG aliens, which they do.

The main thing that bothered me about this movie was the following quote, taken from the IMDB summary, and featured in the Bloodbath programme.

"An action movie shot in real time that plays out like a shoot-em-up video game. Stunning camera work, complex and always moving. An un-relentless action film that will attract, through word of mouth, all those hooked on gaming on their PC's and drag them back into the cinema auditoriums." - bRAdY

I suppose there is nothing wrong with the director writing his own plot summary, and talking up his "stunning camera work", and the "un-relentless action", however, the phrase "plays out like a shoot-em-up video game" is just plain misleading. As any geek knows, shoot 'em up video games involve a single character or - more commonly - spaceship moving through various levels shooting things up. Intergalactic Combat's real time element involves cutting from character to character as they have battles with a variety of adversaries in different set locations. This is somewhat reminiscent of versus fighting games like Street Fighter II, but certainly bears no resemblance to any shoot 'em up. You need to get your terminology right, Ray! People (like me and the Comic Book Guy) are very particular about this kind of thing. I can assure you, no-one ever recovers from a "Worst. Episode. Ever" put-down, so don't risk it.

"There is no emoticon for what I am feeling!"

As a low-budget pilot for a children's television show in the vain of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, this works. As something I would ever want to see again in a million years, it doesn't.

$1/2

Dark Intruder

2006-12-07T06:46:00.000+11:00

Director: Harvey Hart
Starring: Leslie Nielson, Peter Mark Richman, Judi Meredith, Gilbert Green
Production Budget: Small
Running Time: 59 min
Released: 1965

This was originally filmed as a T.V. pilot for a series called Black Cloak. The series was never made, so they released it as a film in an attempt to recoup costs. It is not immediately obvious that this is a T.V. show, but the structure and especially the ending imply something that will be ongoing.

Leslie Nielson plays Brett Kingsford, a playboy in San Francisco in the late 19th century who secretly aids the police in investigations of the occult. The story concerns a series of brutal murders, apparently committed by someone/thing not entirely human. After each murder a strange statuette appears, which slowly mutates, providing the key clue. Assisting the police in matters of the occult does not sit well within Kingsford's peer group, so he takes to wearing disguises when out with the police - although, why he would need a different costume for each meeting belies explanation. Kingsford's eccentricity is established early on, as we are introduced to him, his dwarf butler and has large old house full of secret passages.

"Surely you cant' be serious."
"I am serious, and don't call me Shirley"

This movie was made well before Airplane (a.k.a. Flying High), after which Nielson became typecast (and made millions of dollars) as the deadpan we all knew and loved, and then got sick of - anyone keen on Scary Movie V? It's in production. In this he plays the playboy (or should that just be 'plays the boy') with a knowing glint in his eye. The character is quite similar to Bruce Wayne, in that he is superficially a self-centred nob, but secretly has a deadly serious vocation, which his wealth allows him to pursue.

It's unlikely that many people will get a chance to see this. After five minutes searching the Internet, I couldn't find any information about DVD availability. I guess it's the philosophical question of our time... if it's not available online, does it actually exist.

"Surely there must be something you can do."
"I'm doing everything I can... and stop calling me Shirley."

Maybe it will come on the telly late one night. If so, it's worth a look. It's entertaining enough and you may see Nielson as you have never seen him before - although if you feel that way inclined, Forbidden Planet is a really good early Nielson film.

$$$

Left for Dead

2006-12-04T03:25:00.000+11:00

Director: Ross Boyask
Starring: Glenn Salvage, Andy Prior, Adam Chapman
Production Budget: Small, self funded.
Running Time: 105 min
Released: 2004

I enjoyed this movie for the first 20 min, up until the time the DVD screening at Bloodbath crashed. It featured a long and inventive battle scene set outdoors in an industrial area in a fictional UK city; loads of Kung Fu, an assortment of weapons, and splatterings of blood. Once the projectionist sorted out the problems and the rest of the movie screened, I was in for a disappointment. The next 80 minutes feature about 5 minutes of unoriginal storyline (mobster thug decides to retire, boss won't let him, sends other thugs to kill him, they fail, and thug sets about enacting revenge) and the rest wall-to-wall martial arts fighting.

"It becomes quickly apparent that the film's main remit is to screen as many fight sequences as humanly possible, but one can have too much of a good thing and ultimately sometimes less is more" - Bloodbath programme notes.

This may work as a CV padding exercise for the director and performers to show off as many of their skills as possible, but as a movie, I found it pretty boring. Practically the whole thing was just people fighting. While the fight scenes are well choreographed, the overall production values are uninspiring. The Silencer, which was shown the following night, features the same lead (Salvage), and many of the same performers and elements as Left for Dead, and is so much better, thanks to a better story, better production and better direction - my review of this should be up in the next week or so.

This movie is basically a porn movie with martial arts replacing sex. It has bad lighting, bad acting, but will work for those looking for some cheap thrills, in the form of people beating the crap out of each other.

$$

Boy Meets Girl

2006-12-03T10:05:00.000+11:00

Director: Ray Brady
Starring: Tim Poole, Danielle Sanderson, Margo Steinberg
Production Budget: under US$100,000
Running Time: 93 min

Boy meets girl, girl drugs boy, girl tortures boy - repeatedly, for 80 minutes. That's about it.

"Sadism: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others" - Merrian Webster Online.

This was banned for 8 years in Britain, yet has no sex, no nudity, and very little blood. Ray Brady has admitted that he set out to make a censor baiting film. He researched the main reasons movies had been banned in the previous few years, then added those elements together to create this movie. It seems the censors weren't especially worried by the obvious things above, it was sustained sadism that got them hot under the collar, and Boy Meets Girl has this in spades (or, in rhyming slang, Marquis de Sades*). Sadism, depravity, torture, microwaved hands... it's all there. When the main character is tied to a dentists chair in his underwear for 9/10ths of the movie, you can be sure this is not going to be a romantic comedy.

Boy Meets Girl is remarkably similar to 2006's Hard Candy. In fact, in many ways they are almost identical. A man is drugged, then tied up, and a battle of wills ensues with his captor. The main difference is the motivation of the female character. In Hard Candy, the girl is motivated by revenge against paedophiles, while in Boy Meets Girl, the motivation is pretty much non-existent. She's just a cruel, cruel person.

Oddly, about 20 minutes in, the female character (Steinberg) is rather inexplicably replaced with a completely different woman (Sanderson). It turns out that part way through filming, Brady decided that Steinberg wasn't working out, and replaced her, and rather than re-film the start, he worked this into the script. It's a bit awkward, but understandable given that he was just starting film school and had a very limited budget to work with.

This is an ultra low budget, psychological thriller, with convincing performances. It's uncomfortable to watch, but you will enjoy this if you take pleasure in watching other people take pleasure in the pain of others (which I guess would make you a metasadist). That doesn't make you a bad person, mind.

$$$

*Marquis de Sade, sadism, spades, get it?

Darklands

2006-12-02T12:14:00.000+11:00

Director: Julian Richards
Starring: Craig Fairbrass, Jon Finch, Rowena King, Roger Nott
Production Budget: US$750,000
Running Time: 90 min

Darklands follows journalist Frazer Truick as he investigates the mysterious death of the brother of trainee journalist Rachel Morris. Delving deeper, Truick becomes convinced that the tragedy was murder, committed by a bizarre religious cult. But as the evidence unfolds, things take on a more sinister and potentially lethal significance for the reporter, as he becomes embroiled in devil worship, witchcraft and ultimately human sacrifice!

Summary written by Julian Richards

The fact that the writer/director had to write his own plot summary on IMDB sums up the lack of interest in this movie. Just to rub it in, there are no trivia and no goof listings.

"Darklands, a 1996 Welsh horror film." - The complete text of the Wikipedia listing.

This movie will probably never be mentioned without being linked with The Wicker Man, which is a shame. It's not that the films aren't similar, (they are) it's more that mentioning the similarities between Darklands and such an iconic film a) belittles this film, and b) ruins the ending which would otherwise come as a shock. It is perhaps because of this that whereas the ending of The Wicker Man is rather drawn out, the ending here is quick and brutal - perhaps Richards realised that the ending would be widely known beforehand, so there was no point dwelling.

Julian Richards admitted before the screening that he didn't know everything about film-making when he made Darklands, which was released in 1996, and for the DVD release he has re-edited the film, removing 7 min that were either awkward (including taking out a sex scene: who has ever done that voluntarily?) or slowed the first act. This 'director's cut' was what we saw at Bloodbath, and while I have not seen the original for comparison, I was pretty satisfied with this version. After the film, Richards complained that he was forced to use Craig Fairbrass in the main role due to a pre-existing contract Fairbrass had with the financiers. He felt that Fairbrass was not suited to the role, but, even so, I thought he was quite good, and certainly the biggest presence in the movie. The other performances are also pretty good.

While others would complain that Darklands is derivative, there are some original elements which I really liked. One particular scene which I found particularly cool (although it may be just me) was when Truik is filling his car up at a petrol station, when the police arrive. He asks the attendant where the toilets are (cliché), then climbs out the window of the toilet (cliché) and flees through the backyard where he has to scale a barbed wire fence. All clichés up to this point. But then, instead of barely escaping with torn clothing as you'd expect, he gets stuck on the fence, rips his leg open, and gets arrested and taken to hospital. Like I said, cool.

I believe this is the best Welsh horror film I have ever seen.

$$$1/2

Pit and the Pendulum

2006-12-01T10:52:00.000+11:00

Director: Roger Corman
Starring: Vincent Price, John Kerr, Barbara Steele, Luana Anders, Antony Carbone
Production Budget: US$200,000 (1961 dollars)
Running Time: 80 min

Roger Corman directed a number of Edgar Alan Poe adaptations in the early '60s, and this was the second - and the second to feature Vincent Price - after House of Usher (1960). Price plays neither the Pit nor the Pendulum, instead taking on the role of Don Nicholas Medina, 16th century Spanish (or possibly Italian, I never quite worked it out) lord and grieving husband. The movie starts with the rather clichéd man rides in carriage to castle, but local carriage driver refuses to get close to the castle so man has to walk the rest of the way scene (also seen in the recently reviewed and much older Nosferatu). The man in question is Francis Barnard (Kerr), Englishman and brother to the recently deceased wife of Nicholas. He insists on finding out the truth about the death of his sister Elizabeth (Steele), while spending some quality time with Nicholas' sister, the lovely Catherine (Anders). Nicholas initially insists that Elizabeth was killed by a blood disease, but things turn a little murky when a local doctor (Carbone) and friend to the Medina's comes to visit, and they admit that she was killed from fright. Or was she? Events begin to get a little darker when we discover that Nicholas' father was in the Spanish Inquisition, and used to hold his 'inquiries' in the dungeon of the castle, and nobody ever bothered to remove the tools of that particular trade.

The mystery evolves throughout the movie, with plenty of twists and surprises along the way, all leading to an excellent shock ending. The castle setting is beautifully realised, especially the dungeon. The performances are fantastic, with Price giving a very subtle performance for most of the film, as the distressed and confused husband, although you get a few glimpses of the wacky and crazy act he was so famous for. Everything works; the scares are scary, the twists are unexpected but 'obvious when you think about it' (the perfect kind of twist, in my opinion) and the tension builds nicely throughout. A class act.

"No one will ever enter this room again" - Catherine Medina

It is worth seeing this movie for that line alone.

$$$$

P.S. I still would like to see Uwe Boll direct an adaptation of Pitfall!, but I guess I'll have to wait until he is done butchering Dungeon Siege.

The Mask of Fu Manchu

2006-11-30T10:33:00.000+11:00

Director: Charles Brabin
Starring: Boris Karloff, Myrna Loy, Lewis Stone, Lawrence Grant
Production Budget: US$327,627 (although it was 1932)
Running Time: 68 min

"Will we ever understand these Eastern races?" - Nayland Smith (Lewis Stone)

Boris Karloff plays Dr. Fu Manchu, Chinese intellectual and wannabe ruler of the world. It took him 2.5 hours each day to apply his make-up, which is a valiant sacrifice considering, well, they could have got a Chinese guy to play the part, who could have spent five minutes combing his moustache and looked more convincing. Likewise, his daughter, Fa Loh See is played by all American girl Myrna Loy. Cultural insensitivity aside, this is a thriller; Archeaologist Nayland Smith is kidnapped by the evil Dr. (as opposed to the Dr. Evil), who tries to wring out of him the location of the tomb of Ghengis Khan, the contents of which will allow Manchu to create an Asian superpower which will enslave the world. Lionel Barton (Grant) travels to Mongolia to find Khan's tomb before Manchu does. Once found, Smith attempts to smuggle the relics - a mask and sword - out of the country. Things don't go exactly to plan; people get tortured, drugged, zapped, donged and fed to crocodiles. I guess Dr. Fu Manchu is the original Dr. Evil.

There have been at least ten Fu Manchu movies, based on the novels of Sax Rohmer, and this is considered the best. I don't really have much good or bad to say about this movie, it was just OK. There are some pretty cool special effects for 1932, such as Fu Manchu manipulating static electricity with his bare hands. Karloff has some charisma, and the other leads are perfectly fine in their respective roles. I may not, however, be judging this movie completely fairly. It was late, and I rested my eyes a couple of times before the end.

If you are a Boris Karloff fan you'll want to see his performance, or you could check out the film as an historical curiosity. Otherwise, stick to Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless - pretty much the same character but less racist, more planetist, and with a kick-arse soundtrack.

$$1/2

The Call of Cthulhu

2006-11-29T10:57:00.000+11:00

Director: Andrew Leman
Starring: Matt Foyer, John Bolen, Ralph Lucas
Production Budget: Unknown (v. small)
Running Time: 47 min

A man inherits the notebooks of his great-uncle, in which are detailed an investigation into a strange cult. He becomes obsessed with continuing the investigation, and travels the world searching for clues, becoming more and more frantic as he gets closer to the horrible truth - that there is a big squid demon living on an island in the pacific (kind of a spoiler, I know, but it is on the poster).

H.P. Lovecraft published The Call of Cthulhu in 1928, and while this movie was released in 2005, it is made to look as if it were made at the time the story was published. Produced by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, this is a fascinating example of budget film-making, and an amazingly well made movie.

The movie was produced in what the makers call 'Mythoscope' - combining modern equipment with old techniques to make the movie appear as though it was filmed in the 1920s. There is no dialogue or sound other than music, and the special effects involve miniature sets, stop motion animation and water imitated by waving sheets. There is no CGI but some green-screen. The attention to detail is such that they even rough up the footage and add silent film flickering in post-production. The music is likewise altered to appear older. While it is unlikely to fool anyone into thinking it was actually made in the '20s - it's still a little new looking - I adore what they have done with it. Rather than attempting to make a low budget film look like a big budget film (like some of the other movies in the festival, which fail rather miserably), they have used the low budget to their advantage - they are not afraid to make things that look a bit fake in order to capture the silent-movie look and feel. They have also avoided the often dangerous task of modernising the story for a contemporary audience (although someone else is doing precisely that, with Tori Spelling, no less), and have instead embraced the anachronisms, and remained very faithful to the story (er, at least I assume so, having obviously not read it - see my preview).

The music is amazing. It is a big symphonic score, precisely matching the on-screen action, and it just blew me away. It's rare that music in a movie has such a big effect on me, but I guess that given that the movie is otherwise silent, the music is more in-your-face than usual. There are some moments that are quite scary, especially a scene involving a police raid on a cult gathering in a swamp. While the imagery is quite disturbing at this point, I can also imagine closing my eyes and being equally frightened by the haunting tunes. Actually I'd probably be more frightened as I wouldn't be able to see what was happening and my imagination would go crazy from the aural bombardment.

Mental Note: keep eyes open

If you are a fan of gothic horror, silent film, or the beauty of low-budget film making, seek this movie out. If you can see it on the big screen, great, otherwise get the DVD and turn it up LOUD.

Apparently some people genuinely believe in and worship Cthulhu, but then people like blood sausage too. People are morons.

$$$$1/2

The Witches Hammer

2006-11-28T06:34:00.000+11:00

Director: James Eaves
Starring: Claudia Coulter, Johnathan Sidgwick, Stephanie Beacham
Production Budget: Unknown (small)
Running Time: 93 min

A young woman is killed, then genetically modified into a vampire by government scientists and forced to work in their vampire slaying department. When her agency is destroyed by vampires and witches, she hooks up with a different set of witches to find an ancient tome called Malleus Maleficarum or, in English, The Witches' Hammer (what do you know, I was right about the bad grammar in the title) before the bad guys get it. This main story is interspersed with the back-stories of a number of the supplementary characters, and the story of the book itself.

A fanboys wet dream, this movie has it all: vampires, witches, demons, ninjas and circus freaks. The producers are obviously big fans of Buffy, Highlander and Blade.

There isn't much new here. It very much resembles an early episode of Buffy, with special effects to match. Coulter is effective in the main role, being tall, athletic and sexy, and Stephanie Beacham adds some class as the head witch. There are a few inventive set pieces, and a clever torture scene involving a vampire and a sun-bed, and the back-stories look nice.

A few things don't make sense, like at the beginning of the film I am sure she was attacked by a vampire. Why then, was it necessary to genetically modify her into a vampire? Anybody? Also, while it is admirable to incorporate historical facts into the movie, it's a little odd that the Witches' Hammer is this movie is a handbook for witches, when the actual Malleus Maleficarum was a witch-hunters handbook. This is the kind of thing the Buffy crowd are going to pick up on. I feel sorry for the director and actors if they ever find themselves at a science fiction convention.

Least. Historically. Accurate. Movie. Ever.

Not a bad effort, but the concept is perhaps a bit ambitious, and the small budget does hurt (did I just say that?). It lacks the wit of Buffy, but people who are into that kind of thing will find plenty to like here.

$$1/2

Bloodbath - Aftermath

2006-11-28T05:07:00.000+11:00

Urgghhgghhh...

That is the best description I can come up with for how I felt at 2:30 this morning after 30 hours sitting in a dark theatre in a small, non-ergonomic chair watching low-budget horror, martial arts and conspiracy movies. I'm still a little dazed, but I figure I should get some thoughts out there before the blood dries.

Some of the movies were great, some bad, some really bad and some downright bizarre. The reason I hadn't heard of most of the movies was that many were ultra-low budget labours of love for their respective makers, and many haven't had a cinematic run of any consequence and are not even available on DVD. A few of the directors were on hand to discuss their films, and freely shared their experiences of the nightmare that is independent film-making. These Q&A sessions were a highlight.

Unfortunately for the organisers and the film-makers, not many people turned up, with the audience ranging from about 40 people to as few as 4 (sounds like the average readership for this website). There were a few technical glitches over the weekend, and I was disappointed that so many of the movies were shown on DVD rather than on proper film. Projecting standard definition DVDs onto a large screen looks blurry, unlike film which, even if a little scratched, gives a much more defined picture. But I understand that film prints are expensive, and given the nature of many of these movies, it was just not an option.

The focus of this festival was definitely on recent, independent, British films, and while interesting, I would have liked a couple of more crowd pleasers (of the evil, bloody, limb hacking kind) and some genuine scares (e.g. horror), which were rare. The scariest moment of the weekend was walking the 2km home through the back-streets of Bristol through a gale at 2:30 this morning.

Reviews of each of the feature-length movies will follow over the next couple of days. I'm looking forward to sharing some of the gems, as some of these movies deserve an audience. It will become clear, however, that some probably don't.

And you should probably ignore my preview, as I wasn't even close.

Time for your bloodbath, Easyl. Part III

2006-11-24T10:19:00.000+11:00

All good movies have three acts. For some the final act brings the joy of completion, like inserting the final few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. For others, it just brings the relief that this piece of crap will soon be over.

By Sunday's bath I'll be a bloody prune. Let's see what's on.

12pm - Intergalactic Combat
Pretty straight forward, this one. Earthlings battle creatures from another planet. I suspect those creatures from another planet to be human sized but apparently made out of rubber and bubble wrap. I also expect there to be a blonde woman in a miniskirt and boots, and men in tight monochrome jumpsuits waving blasters about. It should be a, um, blast.

2pm - Albert Fish
Now this is a toughy. Is it about a fish called Albert, a guy who's last name happens to be Fish, or is it an instruction to someone named Al to get his rod out? I'd love it to be the last one, especially if it was really all a dirty pun, but I'm going to have to guess:

Albert is an unassuming guy who lives by himself and has a dull office job. One day he finally gets up the courage to ask out his beautiful co-worker - who he has had a crush on for two years - and he gets brutally rejected, to the amusement of everyone else in the office. He decides to end it all in the most clichéd way of all; by jumping off a bridge. Things don't go exactly as planned as Albert is rescued by a passing Mermaid, who magically and sexily turns him into a Merman, and what a Merman! Meanwhile, up on the surface, nobody really notices or cares that Albert is gone. There are some kooky special effects, and it's pretty obvious that all of the underwater scenes are just done with fans, but it is an enjoyable fantasy, with a genuine emotional core.

4pm - The Uncanny
The title is clearly not a complete phrase. What is the missing noun? Maybe that is the mystery of this movie, or maybe the producers just really liked the Uncanny X-Men comics but didn't want to get sued. I'll go for the later and expect to see a story of mutants with strange powers, but much darker and messier than anything the X-Men can come up with. I think tentacles are a pretty good bet, along with extra eyes, and maybe a seven-assed monkey.

6pm - Chain Reaction
Hmmm... I have a feeling this is a science fiction movie with Keanu Reeves and Morgan Freeman. Hopefully I'm wrong and it is a completely different movie, maybe one based on the John Farnham song, Chain Reaction. Actually, now that I think about it, that song has horror movie written all over it:

One shot in a revolution
One drop from a poison pen
One fruit too small and bitter
One tree too proud to bend
One man to start the trouble
One kiss to seal your fate

I got a fever, a fever in my soul
No I don't want to die
Before I get old
It took some time just to bring me here
Nobody's gonna put me down
Do I make myself clear

I've got trouble, trouble in my life
And I've been living
On the edge of a knife
But I don't intend to let you down
I'm gonna give you love
Before I hit the ground

One cruel and callous lover
One blow below the belt
One chance without another
One heart too cool to melt
One kid that needs some action
One link in a chain reaction

Knives, poison, chains, blows below the belt. I'm really looking forward to this now.

8pm - Room 36
Intriguing. The tag-line reads:

Room 35 is nice, Room 37 is a bit drafty but otherwise OK, while Room 36 is a little uncomfortable.

Banned for 17 years, it has only recently been released in its full, uncut glory (although this is not entirely true as this movie is full of cuts; cuts with razors, axes, chainsaws, a very sharp scalpel etc). If there are no graphic torture scenes in this movie I am going to be very disappointed.

10pm - The Silencer
It could be about a gun, but I'm tipping it's about an assassin.

Jack Bradshaw is the popular governor of an unnamed mid-western U.S. state. While publicly espousing moral values and conservative ideals, he secretly spends his nights cruising for young gay men that he uses to fulfil his uncontrollable and often bizarre sexual desires. There is no way, however, that this secret can ever be made public, so when he has done his business with these men, he hands them over to... The Silencer.

11:40pm - A Surprise Screening
I wouldn't want to ruin the surprise by telling you what this one will be about, even if I am full of crap.

Well, that's it for my stupid made-up preview of the Bloodbath Horror Festival in Bristol. It's on at the Cube Cinema this Friday, Saturday and Sunday (November 24-26 2006).

I'll be back soon with some genuine, truthful (but probably still stupid) thoughts on the 15 movies I plan to see this weekend.

Time for your bloodbath, Easyl. Part II

2006-11-22T09:26:00.000+11:00

Check out Part I if you are wondering what the hell is going on.

On to Saturday's Bloodbath in Bristol.

12pm - The Pit and the Pendulum
This is obviously a filmed version of the classic Atari video game Pitfall!. I remember it fondly. The film-makers weren't able to secure the movie rights from Activision, so they had to change the name. It's pretty obvious, though, that they've copied most other aspects of the game, as it is just 90 minutes of a guy running along in a straight line jumping over pits and snakes and swinging over alligator infested ponds, just to collect piles of gold and silver. The Pendulum part of the title describes the hypnotic swinging ropes that populated this classic game, and the Pit is, well, I'll move on. Unfortunately, this movie was directed by Uwe Boll, the German director of such "classic" video game adaptations as Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead and BloodRayne, all fully entrenched in the IMDB all time bottom 100 movies.

2pm - Darklands
This is not the most descriptive title I've come across, so I'll just make up a movie that I'd like to see:

The world is in eternal darkness. Demons roam the land, dragons rule the sky and all people are enslaved, except a small group who remain hidden, living underground, scavenging what they can. A young woman with special powers and a leather G-string may be the only one who can bring the world back to the light. Can she find the magic sword that can unleash her powers, and can she keep her top on for more than five minutes? All is revealed, and I mean all.

4:30pm - Boy Meets Girl
OK, I'm tipping this has lots of sex in it. After all, how can you have a weekend of horror, cult and exploitation movies without at least something with lots of sex in it? I'm sure there will be a story of sorts, but who cares because this one has lots of sex in it.

8:30pm - Left for Dead
Time for a revenge movie:

Kerry is a slightly geeky teenager living in middle America. One night she is hit by a car full of High School boys out on a drunken binge. They drive off leaving her unconscious and bleeding. She is saved by a passing cyclist, but spends the next five years in hospital rehabilitating. No one is ever charged for the hit-and-run, because that's the kind of thing that you get away with in a small town when you are the quarterback of the local football team and your daddy is the mayor. She knows who they are, however, and it's not long before all involved start dropping dead in the most unusual of circumstances. Notable for early performances by Naomi Watts and Matthew McConaughey.

10:30pm - Dark Intruder
I thought about going down the route that this was some kind of KKK propaganda film ending with an almighty lynching, but that's going a little too far. So how about this:

In the vane of classic slasher flicks like Halloween and Friday the 13th, this sees a quiet Denver suburb terrorised over one night by a knife wielding maniac dressed entirely in black. The only distinguishing feature is that the arse cheeks have been cut out of his trousers (in Sweden it had the alternate title Full Moon). Strangely there was no Dark Intruder 2, 3 or Freddy vs Dark Intruder.

That's it for Saturday's programme. One day's B.S. to go, then I might have some actual information to impart.

Time for your bloodbath, Easyl. Part I

2006-11-21T09:22:00.000+11:00

I mentioned in an earlier post that I am planning to go to the Bloodbath Horror Festival in Bristol this coming weekend. Now that the full festival programme is out and there are only four sleeps to go, I can practically taste the blood.

I checked out the programme, and was shocked/pleased to note that I know nothing about any of the films being shown. Nothing about the stories, nothing about the directors, the actors, or when or where they were made. So I thought the best thing to do was to go for a bit of IMDB research on each of the films and write a brief preview, so any of the (2, possibly 3) people who regularly visit this site can share my anticipation.

But then I changed my mind. Screw that! I like not knowing anything about these movies, I'm excited to go to the festival completely blind, and take it as it comes.

So instead of a well researched preview of the Bloodbath Horror Festival, I'm going to do the classic judge a book by its cover. So here is my impression of each film, taken solely from the title, followed by a brief, completely made-up summary and review.

I'll start with the Friday session, and move onto Saturday and Sunday over the coming days.

7:30pm - The Witches Hammer
I have an inkling that this is some sort of classic, but I haven't a clue about it. I'm going to assume that the grammar is correct and Hammer is the name of the Witches rather their property (otherwise it would be called The Witch's Hammer or The Witches' Hammer). So here goes:

Three girls, Betty, Jane and Esmerelda Hammer, are bored teenagers who start meddling with the dark arts. Pentagrams, magic circles, animal sacrifice and frequent nudity ensues. Meanwhile, the school principal gets suspicious when the school mascot, Buttman the Goat, goes missing. Atmospheric in parts, but largely disappointing.

9:30pm - The Call of Cthulhu
I actually know that this is based on the novels of H.P. Lovecraft, and I reckon there is some kind of monster in it. How about:

Made in 1965, this movie uses the threat of a large monster terrorising a small U.S. community as a metaphor for the cold war, e.g. the lurking beast only comes out at night, when it's cold, just like those filthy commies. Beautifully filmed in black and white, this is a chilling movie which is as relevant in the post 9/11 world as when it was made.

10:45pm - The Mask of Fu Manchu
This one is pretty self-explanatory. There is an mask that belongs or belonged to an oriental gentleman. I'm going to go with belonged, and make this a Film Noir:

An ancient Chinese artifact is stolen from Metropolitan Museum in New York, and a series of bizarre murders follow. Starring B-actor Jonathon West as P.I. Jack Cramble, and Chinese superstar-turned Hollywood also-ran Ping Kai as femme fatale Missy Ho, this is more a detective story than a fully fledged horror, although there are a few nasty surprises. There is also a long and beautifully filmed chase sequence through the sewers of New York that strongly references Carol Reeds The Third Man, although it has an altogether different and more horrific conclusion. It is quite nicely shot, mostly outdoors on location at night, in deep fog. It is, however, let down by the wooden acting, and not your soft kind of wood like balsa, but more an ancient hardwood that has fallen, down, been buried by volcanic ash and turned to stone. West in particular is just bloody awful.

Here ends the Friday session and Part 1 of my made-up preview to the Bloodbath Horror Festival.

Feel free to mock me and/or make up your own preview. Just don't tell me what really happens.

Hey Borat! Show me the money!

2006-11-19T22:35:00.000+11:00

So I went and saw Borat yesterday. This is a very funny movie and I was intending to do a glowing review. A clever movie filmed on virtually no budget, documentary style, just the kind of thing I love. Imagine my horror, when, in the course of my online research, I find out that 'virtually no budget' is actually US$18M. I am outraged.

Some movies are lauded as $5M movies that look like they cost $20M. Well, here's a movie made for $18M that looks like it cost $100,000.

Let's just see if we can work out where all that money went.

Sets: zero (it is filmed entirely on location in Romania and the U.S.A.)
Cast: 3 credited (all other people on screen are real people, reportedly unpaid)
Special effects shots: 1 (a black bar over Sacha Baron Cohen's willy). FX crew: 1
Costuming: Borat wears the same suit (never washed) throughout the movie
Bears: 1

The previous weeks highest grossing movie in the US, Saw III, cost $12M, has a cast of 27, complex, specially built sets and an 11 man visual effects crew. That sounds like pretty good value. Admittedly it didn't have any bears in it, as far as I know.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it is really expensive to make a movie look this cheap. I can't really see why, though - surely the easiest way to make something look cheap, is to make it with very little money. Certainly, if the entire thing was a setup, it would have cost a fortune to stage. However, given the publicity surrounding the 'victims' of Borat and subsequent litigation it is pretty clear that the majority of the film was not setup.

I can only think of one cost the could blow the budget out that high. Wages.

I have one word for Mr. Baron Cohen... percentages. If you are the creative force behind a movie project, or any kind of big star, have enough confidence in your success to take minimal payment upfront, and a percentage of profits.

Another possibility is that the production budget included a large war-chest to fund the inevitable lawsuits that followed the release of this film, à la Google's Youtube purchase. I doubt it, though, and that doesn't count as a 'production' cost anyway.

Regardless, I can't and I won't review this movie, as much as I'd love to.

Even though Borat has passed $100M at the box-office, I just hope they realise that by not making this movie for less than $10M they will be missing out on the significant revenue that would have been generated through a full review on this site. According to Google Analytics, there have been 11 unique visitors in the past week, not including Meatpopsicle and myself. That's right, 11, Mr. Greedy Baron Cohen. Think about that next time you make a 'low-budget' movie.

Dust Devil

2006-11-15T12:54:00.000+11:00

Director: Richard Stanley
Starring: John Matshikiza, Robert John Burke, Chelsea Field, Rufus Swart
Production Budget: £4,300,000
Running Time: 103 min

The last film in the Compass of Horror, was, oddly, North, considering the movie shown was 1992's Dust Devil, made by a South African in Namibia. Not to worry, as it was a fine end to a great festival.

The titular Devil is a shape-shifting spirit who takes the form of an American nomad (Burke), wandering the desert roads of Namibia around the end of South African 'administration'. He finds lost souls - the lonely and unloved - and rather violently puts them out of their misery, usually after fulfilling their and his immediate sexual desires. Wendy (Field) is one such soul. Having run off from her husband, she picks up a hitchhiker who, while charming at first, turns out to be the previously mentioned psycho killer. Meanwhile, the local police are on the lookout for a serial killer with the help of the local shaman/drive-in movie manager, and Wendy's husband is looking for his wife.

Filmed on location in Namibia, Dust Devil is slow moving yet riveting. There is not much to the story itself - with a mystical element added to the traditional serial killer/slasher flick/road movie formula - and the acting is reasonably good, but the visuals are fantastic. There are some nice shots of long, straight desert roads, and Stanley makes great use of the heat haze that sits over the desert. There is also an amazing scene set in an abandoned mining town, half buried in sand. There are only a couple of scenes that could be considered horror per se, mostly centering on Wendy's attempts to escape from the Devil. The tension, however, is well maintained throughout, and the Dust Devil is well crafted bad guy. It cuts nicely between the three competing story lines, following Wendy, the police, and the husband at different points. The ending is also clever, with a bit of a twist that I wouldn't have seen coming, except that some academic spoiled it for me in a lecture on psychoanalysing movies the previous evening. If I ever see him again, I'll give him something to psychoanalyse.

The film includes elements referencing the end of apartheid, and the effect this had on not only the South Africans, but the people of Namibia, which was administered by South Africa during this period. Scenes invoking the after-effects of South African politics include the beating of a white man in a bar full of black men (they just can't trust him, even though he means no harm), and the beating of a black man by a couple of white policemen. The pull-out of troops enlivens the final scene of the movie.

I can't recall seeing many movies set in southern Africa. There is The Gods Must Be Crazy and that's about it. A location can have such a big impact on the feel of a movie, and Dust Devil is all about the location. This gives the movie a uniqueness, when it otherwise could have been just another horror/road movie.

After the movie, Richard Stanley and critic Kim Newman had a panel discussion, with Stanley giving some great and some bizarre answers to audience questions. He described spending a night painting mystical drawings on a wall with pig's blood in order to get one of the classic shots in the film. He also described his relationship with the druids (they won't let him in their stone circles because he won't wear white), and his sister (he genuinely expects her to be murdered for her continued belief in Apartheid). He also explained why he was booted off/quit the remake of The Island of Dr. Moreau, that he had written and had started shooting before John Frankenheimer took over. He thinks the reason is that the movie he wanted to make would be too extreme for a mass audience, yet the budget was such that a mass audience was needed to recoup costs, and the producers got scared. Also, he's not allowed to make any more movies in Namibia, even though he'd love to, because the government has a thing against sex and violence. Apparently for his next movie, he's moving on to Canary Islands sex and violence, for a project called Vacation, which sees an American couple stuck in the Middle East when a nuclear war begins.

This may be the last time this film gets shown in a cinema, as Stanley is donating his copy of the print to the BFI archives, which is a shame, because the scope of this film is such that it really shines on the big screen. Unlike End of the Wicked, oh man, did I mention how crap that was?

$$$$

End of the Wicked

2006-11-12T03:55:00.000+11:00

Director: Teco Benson
Starring: Charles Akafor, Hilda Dokubo, Alex Usifo
Production Budget: US$50,000
Running Time: ~100 min

The Nigerian film industry (Nollywood, seriously) is one of the biggest producers of feature films in the world. Nearly all of their films are produced on video, and are therefore called video-film. Why have we westerners never heard about this industry, and why do these films not cross-over to the western cinema audience, as occurs with the occasional Bollywood and Iranian movie? The Nigerian video-films are nearly all in English, even. But you won't see this movie at your local video store, cinema or T.V. channel. You won't even see it on the IMDB (so therefore it doesn't exist, right?). How come?

Well, I could go into the rather extreme cultural differences between us and them so-to-speak, and how the traditions in storytelling and Nigerian superstitions do not translate well. But I couldn't really be bothered, so I'll leave that to other, more understanding critics (like this , the only other review I could find). I'm just going to rail into it, because I think is that this movie sucks, badly.

There is a story. Chris Amadi has a good life. He is prosperous and has a loving family. There is just one problem, his mother is really a witch named Lady Destroyer. She begs the devil to destroy him and his families. I couldn't exactly work out why she did this, but I think it was something to do with him being happy and successful, and witches can't stand that kind of thing. So Chris' life starts falling to pieces, his son becomes one of the devils minions, his business falls apart, people close to him start dying, and in desperation he seeks help through black magic. Bad idea. His wife, on the other hand, seeks solace in Jesus Christ, and things turn out OK for her.

"This film is coming to you by the special grace of God. There have been several near successful attempts by the powers of darkness to stop it, because of its great expositions" - Opening credits, End of the Wicked.

I can forgive poor production values; Nigeria is a third world country with many poor people, and no government support for the arts. The special effects are outrageously bad, and sometimes truly hilarious, especially the flying scenes, where you can clearly see that the guy is lying on a bench. The acting is actually OK, in a pantomime kind of way. However this movie is not just badly made, it is a misguided piece of religious propaganda.

The first half an hour or so are quite fun, in a 'this is so bad it's funny' kind of way. The scenes in the witches coven (which are genuinely supposed to be terrifying) are particularly funny, with the witches dancing around (seductively, according to the devil's instruction) and laughing manically except when the devil (frequently) raises his arm to speak. The soundtrack for these scenes consists of a chorus of people crying 'woooooooooo... woooooooooo... wooooooooooooooooo', you know, like you used to do to scare your little sister. But once I grew tired of these scenes, which are basically the same scene over and over again I got bored, and then I got concerned at the in-your-face religiousness of it, gaped at the mother producing a giant penis with which to rape her daughter-in-law and then they cut a goats throat on screen and I pretty much gave up on it from there. There is no motivation for anything that happens (money, power, sex, surely everything in life is related to one of these), it is simply that these witches are bad people and they like bad stuff to happen to other people.

This movie was not disturbing like other horror films can be, but I was disturbed. It appeared to be an attempt to perpetuate myths and superstitions among an uneducated population to scare them into going to church. Or was it? It all became a bit clearer and scarier when the producer of the film, Evangelist Helen Ukpabia spoke following the screening. Those opening credits weren't some ironic joke, of the 'this is based on a true story' kind. No, she actually believes this stuff, and is intent on showing true representations of the effects witchcraft can have on families in Nigeria. So, it is 'based on a true story' but without the irony. Suffice to say I'm staying the hell away from Nigeria.

If you are truly interested in an unusual cultural experience, well I suppose you could do worse. After all, female circumcision is an unusual cultural experience.

$

Ginger Snaps

2006-11-09T09:42:00.000+11:00

Director: John Fawcett
Starring: Emily Perkins, Katharine Isabelle, Chris Lemche, Mimi Rogers
Production Budget: US$5 million
Running Time: 108 min

They Don't Call it the Curse for Nothing

Ginger (Isabelle), 16 and Brigitte (Perkins), 15 are inseparable sisters who live in the dull Canadian suburb of Bailey Downs, well, dull apart from the 'Beast of Bailey Downs' which has been tearing apart the local dog population. They hate the world, and they cannot stand the idea of growing up and being like everybody else (they have had a suicide pact since they were seven). For their school project they stage and photograph violent death scenes.

They are out in the woods one full moon when Ginger gets her first period. The blood draws the attention of a certain 'beast' which proceeds to savage Ginger, who quickly recovers - a little too quickly - but is not quite the same from then on. Obvious changes such as hair where their wasn't any, and a tail that grows longer each day combine with psychological changes such as a sudden interest in boys to put a strain on Ginger and Brigitte's relationship. The death of the local bitches (one dog, one girl) doesn't help matters. Things draw to a head as the next full moon approaches.

"It's a metaphor you see, for being horny." Sid Greenfield - Chef Aid: The South Park Album

This movie wears it's metaphor on it's sleeve. Blood, hair, libido, uncontrollable rage - it's par for the course for a teenage girl, and here it's all wrapped in up in a snarling beast, with breasts.

The performances from the leads are good. Perkins sulks her way through the whole film, while Isabelle transforms from boy-hating virgin to slut to beast with ease. The supporting cast are pretty forgetful, apart from Mimi Rogers who is fun in her role as the girls' ever-optimistic mother.

The special effects are pretty cool for such a low budget film. There is no extended transformation scene such as in An American Werewolf in London, A Company of Wolves or The Howling, but this movie concentrates more on relationships and diallogue than over-the-top effects. The werewolf itself is a little odd looking (did I mention it has breasts) but effective, and the last ten minutes are suitably creepy to mark this as a genuine horror film.

Ginger Snaps is funny, scary and nicely directed, and it make you wonder why no-one previously thought to link werewolves and their lunar cycles with girls and their menstrual cycles. It was obviously a good enough idea that two sequels were produced; Ginger Snaps Unleashed, which follows the events in the first movie, and Ginger Snaps Back, an alternate universe type sequel set in the 19th century. I saw Unleashed a couple of years ago without realising it was a sequel, and still liked it, and I'm keen to see the third.

After the movie, they showed the short documentary Menstrual Monsters: The Ginger Snaps Trilogy, a somewhat interesting dissection of the themes in the films, although it had what I thought was a rather pointless audience survey portion at the end, which came to the obvious conclusion that girls generally like it and think it has feminist themes. The panel discussion with director John Fawcett and the makers of Menstrual Monsters had some interesting moments - apparently the Americans hated Ginger Snaps, while the Brits loved it - although way too much time was spent talking about feminist themes and lesbian subtexts, when they could have been talking about why they put breasts on the werewolf. Actually, I guess that's all part of the same thing.

$$$$

Rampo Noir

2006-11-07T06:09:00.000+11:00

Directors: Akio Jissoji, Atsushi Keneko, Hisayasu Sato, Suguru Takeuchi
Starring: Tadanobu Asano, Mikako Ichikiwa, Hanae Kan, Ryuhei Matsuda, Kaiji Moriama
Production Budget: unknown but small
Running Time: 134 min

Rampo Noir is a four part horror anthology from the more extreme end of the Japanese film industry. It is based on the short stories of 1920s Japanese supernatural author Edogawa Rampo (who was himself hugely influenced by Edgar Alan Poe, hence his name). Each part has a different director, and a different aesthetic, although all are linked by the presence of Tadanobu Asano, the Johnny Depp of Japanese cinema.

The Mars Canal: A short, almost silent piece following a naked man in a stark, otherworldly wilderness.

The Hell of Mirrors: Police investigate the strange deaths of several women, and the trail leads to a beautiful man with a strange fetish for mirrors.

The Caterpillar: A woman cares for her armless, legless, scarred and mute husband (the caterpillar). She cares for him by keeping him in a partially destroyed WWII bunker, feeding him, torturing him and using him for her own sexual gratification. Nice.

Crawling Bugs: A man with uncontrollable itchiness (due to the presence of imaginary bugs) fantasises over the actress he chauffeurs, and naturally ends up killing her, then setting about dressing her and painting her skin to preserve her beauty while her corpse slowly rots. Very black and quite funny.

It is strange that while this movie is not overly explicit in either sex or violence (it received an MA15+ classification in Australia), the visuals are still at times highly disturbing. This is especially so in The Caterpillar, where the man is so horribly deformed and helpless that it is as if the woman is doing these horrible things to a baby. The fourth story is the best, with Asano giving a great performance as the chauffeur, going about his preservation of the rotting corpse as if it is the most normal thing in the world. The ending is bizarre, yet brilliant.

I'm not a big fan of anthology movies, but this is suitably bizarre and fascinating that I did really enjoy it.

The director of The Caterpillar segment, Hisayasu Sato, attended the screening, and had plenty to say about the film, in Japanese, and I am sure we missed lots of juicy bits in the translation. A number of times he matter of factly mentioned his past as a creator of 'adult films', and how he sees little difference between that kind of film-making and how he went about making this movie. I suppose he is right, in that while this is no porno, it is certainly a film for adults, and pushes boundaries in a way that his 'pink' films no doubt do, er, not that I've ever see one. He also mentioned that Rampo Noir was a conscious effort by the producers to create a Japanese 'horror' film that moved away from the commercially successful but overly clichéd J-horror movies such as The Ring, Ju-On: The Grudge and Dark Water. I believe they succeeded, as I cannot really see this movie being remade in Hollywood, starring Sarah Michelle Gellar as the caterpillar.

A great start to the festival. Next up is Canadian werewolf chick-flick Ginger Snaps.

$$$$

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

2006-11-01T11:11:00.000+11:00

Director: F.W. Murnau
Starring: Max Shrek, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder
Production Budget: unknown but small (it was 1921 after all)
Running Time: 88 min approx.

The first filmed version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, Nosferatu almost ceased to exist when Stoker's widow tried to sue the production company for copyright infringement (they declared bankruptcy) and had all 'known' prints destroyed. Being unable to secure the movie rights to Dracula, the producers had simply changed the names of the characters and hoped no one would notice that it was otherwise almost exactly the same. Fortunately, it has survived, and a number of different versions are floating around, some poor video transfers in black and white, and some, like the version I saw in the cinema, beautifully restored with colour tinting.

If you've seen any version of Dracula, or read the book, you already know the story: The Count (in this case Count Orlok) sends word to a local real estate agent that he wants to buy a house, so the agent sends a young employee to Transylvania to get the paperwork sorted out. While there, the Count sees a picture of the young man's wife, gets a bit peckish for her beautiful neck, and sets about making his way via ship to see her, while the young man rushes back overland to try and stop him.

I had not seen this film before, but I had seen Shadow of the Vampire, the fictionalised account of the making of Nosferatu (where it turns out the Shrek really is a vampire - or is he a big green ogre?), and combined with the many references and scenes that have made their way into other movies, T.V. shows and music videos (e.g. Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie) meant I had already kind of seen a reasonable chunk of this movie. It was however nice to watch it in it's entirety, to get a feel for the pacing and how it all went together.

When watching a film like this, like looking at a classic painting, it is important to take into account the time and place in which it was created. With that in mind, I can forgive the bizarre acting (especially Wangenheim and his incredible overacting) and the extremely dated special effects (one ends up giggling at scenes such as one where Nosferatu's carriage comes racing through the forest in fast forward, which was probably terrifying at the time, but now gives it a Benny Hill feel), and concentrate on the brilliant performance of Shrek, and the
technical brilliance of the production.

Nosferatu is most effective when Shrek is on screen. The rest of the film drags a bit. He is only on screen for a few minutes total, so the audience doesn't get used to his bizarre appearance and mannerisms. Whether beautifully framed in a doorway, filmed as a shadow only or glimpsed staring out a distant window or rising from a coffin, every shot is awe inspiring. The way he stares out with those bulging eyes (he never blinks on-screen) is hypnotic, and creepy. It is very easy to see why his performance has been so admired/referenced/copied over the years.

I saw this film the Saturday before Halloween at the Arnolfini in Bristol, complete with live musical accompaniment by COMA. Having the live music certainly added to the experience, although I found it a bit too improvised, and lacking in melody. I haven't really experienced colour tinting on black and white films before, and it previously would have had me worried that it meant the kind of dreadful colourisation of black and white films that used to be popular in 70s T.V. versions. Actually, colour tinting was used extensively during the black and white era in order to evoke particular moods or lighting conditions. A great example in Nosferatu is that darkness is always represented as a blue tint, while dawn might be represented pink, and a forest at midday by green, etc.. It's all very subtle, and without this it would be impossible to recognise that Count Orlok only ever comes out at night: the technology back then made it impossible to actually film in low light.

I cannot promise that you will love (or even particularly enjoy - although I did) this film, but if you are interested in the origins of film and especially horror film, this is essential viewing. Nosferatu is now in the public domain, meaning it can be shared freely. So, you could watch the whole thing on, for example, Google Video, though if I were you I'd look out for it on the big screen. Otherwise you might mistakenly think it's crap.

$$$1/2

Easyl's horrible month

2006-11-01T10:06:00.000+11:00

By a lucky series of coincidences, the period from the 28th of October - 26th of November has suddenly become packed with a whole lot of horror movies, all on the big screen, that I just absolutely must see.

It all started last Saturday at the Arnolfini with a screening of Nosferatu: A symphony of terror, the 1922 silent vampire movie, complete with live orchestra accompaniment. Next up was a visit to Cineformation at the Watershed, where Christopher Smith, the director of Creep and Severance discussed his movies, along with a couple of local short film-makers. I've not seen either of these movies, but after seeing the clips that Smith showed, 'the operation' and 'the beartrap', I'm keen, and will see them soon.

Next up is the Compass of Horror International Film Festival, a mix of horror films from around the world, with Rampo Noir from Japan, Ginger Snaps from Canada, End of the Wicked from Nigeria, and the British film Dust Devil. These films were selected by four different contributors to Film International, and these critics and the directors of the films will be there to discuss the films and the genre in general. I am well excited.

And from the highbrow, intellectual musings of Compass, I move on to the lowbrow dodgefest that is Bloodbath at the Cube from the 24th to the 26th of November. A three day marathon of feature films and shorts from extreme horror to extreme sci-fi to extreme exploitation. I sure am a sucker for anything with the word extreme in it.

So, as I'm pretty sure every one of the (possibly) 20+ horror films I'll be watching were made for considerably less than $10 million they get the Easyl stamp of approval and therefore I'm going to attempt the improbable and write a review for every single one. Wish me luck.

If you are anywhere other than Bristol, U.K., most of these movies won't be coming to a cinema near you, but hopefully I can find a few gems to bring to your attention. Then you can keep an eye out for them in your local video store bargain bin.

Clerks II

2006-10-11T05:13:00.000+10:00

Director: Kevin Smith
Starring: Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Rosario Dawson, Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith, Trevor Fehrman
Production Budget: US$5 million
Running Time: 97 min

In 1994 I was an innocent 18 year old. I believed the Death Star was built by bad people, that the number 37 had no particular meaning, and if anyone had asked me to make like a Circus Seal I would have clapped. Then I saw Clerks, and my eyes were opened. This was the greatest "No Budget" film ever made (US$27,000). Smart, funny and extraordinarily crass, I loved every minute of it. So, 12 years later, has Clerks II opened my 30 year old eyes?

Most of the original male cast returns, older, fatter and no better at acting. There is poor loser Dante (O'Halloran), at his last day at work before moving to Florida and getting married. There is his best friend Randall (Anderson), who seemingly spends most of his life trying to ruin Dante's. And, as always, there is Jay and Silent Bob, the perpetually loitering local drug dealers. The two main additions are Mooby's manager Becky (Dawson, who can act) and nerdy, god-fearing 19 year old Elias (Fehrman, who can act, weirdly), aka Optimus Prime, the butt of many a Randall put down. And there's a donkey.

The story pretty much mirrors the original: Instead of the Quick Stop convenience store, Dante and Randall now work at fast-food restaurant Mooby's, and we once again experience a day in their lives, with all the hijinx and emotional turmoil it entails. The jokes are all there, be they scatalogical or sexual, or sexually scatalogical, or about drugs, beastiality, racism or The Lord of the Rings. Before seeing this movie, I had never realised that you could put the words 'ass' and 'mouth' together with a simple preposition and get something so distasteful. It's not outrageous, splitting your sides funny, but it does have a lot of great jokes, the kind you'll want to quote among your friends (but not your grandma). Awkwardly, it also has a lot of melodrama, which tends to fall flat through parts of the movie, although I guess the romantics in the audience probably appreciate it more than I do. And it does have a surprisingly emotional and uplifting ending.

So, to answer my own question, no, I am not a changed person for having seen Clerks II. Basically, it's Clerks all over again, with different jokes, colour film and a donkey. The main thing that was missing was originality, and I didn't have the same "I'm cracking up because I can't believe they are saying that" experience I did with the first movie. But I did have an enjoyable hour and a half, and I look forward to seeing it again on DVD.

What are you waiting for? Go and see it, you little porch monkey. And take your girlfriend... tell her it's a romantic comedy, with a donkey.

$$$$

Superman Returns - IMax 3D

2006-09-15T05:40:00.000+10:00

Director: Bryan Singer
Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey, James Marsden, Parker Posey
Production Budget: US$270M
Running Time: 154 min

The title sums it up really. After a five year search for his home world, Superman (Routh), er, comes back. Everyone is pretty chuffed to see him, except the love of his life, Lois Lane (Bosworth). Nevermind the fact that he has just saved her from guaranteed death on an aeroplanes stuck to a space shuttle - in 3D thank you very much - she's moved on with a new man (Marsden as Richard White), a small child, and a Pulitzer prize for an article entitled "Why the world doesn't need Superman". Meanwhile, professional evildoer Lex Luthor (Spacey) is up to no good, with a typically harebrained scheme to create a new continent in the middle of the Atlantic.

The events in this movie follow on from Superman 2 - Singer has wisely ignored the travesties that were Superman 3 and 4; advice we would all do well to follow.

If you are of the age where the original Superman was a childhood masterpiece, there is no way to watch this film without making comparisons. Unlike in Batman Begins, Singer hasn't tried to do recreate the Superman mythos from the beginning; he has remained faithful to the original movies. Brandon Routh was specifically cast for his resemblance to Christopher Reeve, and he does a fine job, although he doesn't bring anything new to the character. Kate Bosworth is OK as Lois Lane, although she lacks the sassiness of Margot Kidder. Kevin Spacey has fun as Lex Luthor, channeling Gene Hackman to good effect. His mistress Kitty, played by Parker Posey, is a joy.

In 1978, the SFX in Superman: The Movie were groundbreaking. Looking at them now, some are good, some look terrible. The effects in Superman Returns are in general awesome. It contains the best use of bullet-time since The Matrix, including an awesome shot of Superman being shot at point blank range in the eye. In the Imax version, four scenes have been transformed into 3D: a scene from Clark's childhood where he first learns to fly, the aforementioned jumbo jet + space shuttle near disaster, a sea rescue and the final scene. They look pretty good, with plenty of depth, but as with all 3D movies, fast action is a little hard to follow. I enjoyed the novelty of the 3D scenes, but I was pleased that the whole movie wasn't done in 3D, because 2.5 hours of it would probably have done my head in.

My favourite scene in the film involves an earthquake in an amazingly detailed scale-model city, complete with explosions, train collisions, people falling into cracks in the ground - all the things you'd expect to see in a real earthquake. It's beautifully filmed, and is clearly a nod by Singer to the scale model effects that were used in the original Superman.

The love triangle between Lois, Clark/Superman and Richard is quite well done. Typically, you would expect the Richard character to be either bad or incompetent, someone the audience can easily hate, and who is bound to get dumped by the end. In Superman Returns, however, Richard as a nice, loving, genuinely resourceful and even heroic character. This adds a lot of emotional weight to the story, as the audience is torn over who to support, and there is therefore no linear progression to an obvious, happy ending.

Superman Returns is probably the most expensive movie made to date, and the spectacle is, as they say, spectacular. Throw in a pretty decent story and you have the best blockbuster I have seen this year. I still find it hard to see $270M on the screen. Considering most of the effects are obviously completely computer generated, I reckon you could get a lot of computers (and nerds to work on them) for much less than that. But at least it was a good movie.

Overall, a fun time was had by all.

$$$$

Summer is almost over. I want my blockbuster!

2006-08-11T19:07:00.000+10:00

So I'm still waiting to see a summer blockbuster that's better than just OK. It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

This is the list of $100M+ films being released in the UK in the next month.
Miam Vice - $135M
...er, I guess summer must be almost over.

And some highlights in the sub $10M category
A Scanner Darkly - $8.5M
Clerks II - $5M

I'm hoping something blows me away soon, after all, I don't want to become disillusioned with the movie industry, because, well, I have no where else to go. I guess I could give a weekly 5 star review of the latest Simpsons episode, but then hopefully I'm here to tell you something you don't already know.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2006-08-09T22:21:00.000+10:00

Director: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Kiera Knightley, Bill Nighy
Production Budget: US$225M
Running Time: 150 min
Extraneous Running Time: 50 min

The biggest hit of the Northern Hemisphere summer, DMC reunites pretty much all of the characters from the previous film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, and some.

The story goes: Will Turner (Bloom "what I lack in personality I make up for in prettiness") is threatened with the execution of himself and his soon to be wife Elizabeth Swann (Knightley "when are people going to realise that I'm not that attractive and am a bit annoying, really") unless he gets Captain Jack Sparrow's (Depp "woohoo, this is fun, and I'm getting paid a shitload of money") magic compass for the new head of the East India Company. Not everything goes to plan (duh?) and Turner ends up getting caught up in Captain Jack's latest adventure, trying to escape the dreaded Davy Jones (Nighy who is always good in a grumpy kind of way, although surely it would have been more appropriate to use the real Davy Jones), who has come to claim Jack's soul for eternity, which is about how long the movie goes for.

The Dead Man's Chest title turns out to be quite clever, given that it refers to the chest or locker that our heroes must find to defeat Davy Jones, but it also alludes to the object that resides therein. Hmmm...

What follows is a mash of action, comedy and drama. Most of the way too long running time is spent either in huge action set-pieces (some are over-the-top great, especially early on, and some are over-the-top confusing, especially later on) or introducing or re-introducing a multitude of semi-major characters. They manage to squeeze in a story, although it doesn't make a lot of sense, and that doesn't seem to matter. Its pretty easy to get the gist of it. One gripe I have is that there is no sense of time or distance between locations, leaving me wishing for a simple map like that used so effectively in Indiana Jones. After all, it is a pirate movie, a map would make sense.

DMC is a mostly enjoyable movie. It's fun to watch Johnny Depp hamming it up, and the locations are stunning, but it's too long. Some movies genuinely need a long running time because there is so much story to get through, but here the story is very light, and it's not like they had a huge novel that they had to remain faithful to, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. I just think they had such a massive budget, that the producers must have kept saying things like "Uh, Gore, we've still got $80 million left, better make the Cracken attack the ship again, and uh, that scene where three men are sword fighting on a huge waterwheel, it looks great on the trailer, make it twice as long will you, and why not have it go crashing through the jungle. We've paid for this location, so we're bloody well going to trash it. Thanks".

If you've seen Star Trek 2 or The Empire Strikes Back then I guess I just gave away the 'Cliffhanger' ending... and the plot of the next movie in the trilogy. I think it's going to be called The Return of Barbossa's Search for Sparrow.

$$1/2

The Seven Samurai

2006-07-04T10:20:00.000+10:00

Director: Akira Kurosawa
Starting: Takashi Shimura, ToshirÃ´ Mifune, Yoshio Inaba, Seiji Miyaguchi, Minoru Chiaki, Daisuke KatÃ´, Isao Kimura
Production Budget: $500,000

I was planning on seeing Superman Returns last weekend for my big budget action movie review, but things unfortunately didn't pan out. So in lieu of that, I've decided to go back to the beginning, the beginning of all action movies that is. The Seven Samurai, made in 1954, is touted as being the very first action movie. Ranked at number 7 on the IMDb top 250, I had high expectations that this movie was going to be an all out sword slashing, face pummeling, blood gushing samurai romp. Let me tell you now, it is not. The first piece of sword play comes almost 45 minutes into the movie and without a hint of that Hollywood metal clinging and clanging.

The basic plot runs like this. A farmer inadvertently hears the bandit's plans to attack his village after their barley harvest. They gather round and seek the advice of an elder who tells them to seek out samurai who are willing to help them in return for 3 meals a day. The first part of the movie deals with the recruitment and each samurai(s) character introduction. It would have been insanely boring if all 7 samurai were ruthless warriors, instead we had a commander, a youngen, a perfectionist, a crazy man, a joker, commander's friend and a red shirt. They return to the village and work on training the farmers and building defense. The final battle sequence does not disappoint, long enough to make the whole 206 minutes worth it.

The movie works on subtle cinematic techniques. Suspense is built with clever cinematography; close up on faces, body language, environmental effects. All taken for granted in today's movies. Action sequences are rudimentary, not like the scripted and rehearsed scenes nowadays where combatants SOMEHOW know where their opponent is going to strike next. They are also filmed in wide angle so you can actually see what is going on. Dialog, even though it is in Japanese, is well delivered, interspersed with jokes to not make the whole film too dire or desperate. The only negative points I have about the movie are the farmer characters. They can't all be that scared and sad!

The Seven Samurai has been consistently listed as one of the top movies of all time. This, of course, is subject to other peoples tastes, likes and dislikes. If you had never planned on seeing this movie, I would recommend you find the time to do so, even if it is just to see what all the fuss is about.

$$$$

Poseidon

2006-06-22T07:19:00.000+10:00

Director: Wolfgang Peterson
Starring: Kurt Russell, Josh Lucas, Richard Dreyfuss, Jacinta Barrett, Emmy Rossum
Production Budget: US$160M

Poseidon was a flop (it did less than $60M in the USA, creeping towards $130M worldwide). What a disaster of a disaster film... the irony of it all! Although really, if a cheaper film had made that kind of money, it would be a massive success. Hell, Brick, my favourite film so far this year, has only made just over $3M worldwide, yet it is technically as successful as this year's biggest movie at the box-office, The Da Vinci Code (both made back around 6 times their production budgets).

And the strange thing is, Poseidon is better than The Da Vinci Code. Unlike The (abysmal) Da Vinci Code, it doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't (i.e. clever), it goes for less than 100 minutes (i.e. it isn't boring) and it has reasonably likeable characters and they are used to suitable dramatic effect. That doesn't mean that Poseidon is a good movie, but it is a reasonably well made genre movie. The problem is that the genre is high concept disaster movie, which typically has mediocre acting, horrible cliches throughout and costs a lot of money. This movie is typical of the genre.

Even if you can't tell from the poster, or the fact that it's a remake of a 70's movie, the plot of Poseidon doesn't take a lot of explaining. A ship tips over, and a group of survivors try to escape. The survivors fit the following stereotypes: father figure, young lovers, old man (although he is gay, and he is Richard Dreyfuss which adds some interest to the character), mother and child, the arsehole (I wonder if he's gonna die comically early on?), and a single, attractive man and woman. Sadly, there is no token black guy, unless you count the ships captain.

The best two scenes occur before 20 minutes have passed. The opening scene, panning from underwater to a 360^o tour around the ship, entirely computer generated, is cool, and the ship-tipping scene is equally impressive... big, loud and not at all like a model in a bathtub. From then on, it's a by-the-book escape from the sinking and burning ship type thing. Coincidentally, the two main stars just happen to be a former fire-fighter and navy seal... how convenient. The female leads do nothing except provide the usual eye candy, emotional angst and up the tension by slowing down the men. And the kid isn't at all annoying, which is annoying. Once the wave hits, we pretty much follow this group as they race to reach the bottom (which is the top... the boat tipped over you see) before the ship sinks... cue lots of just making it to the next level as the level they are on goes completely under water.

I saw this in the IMAX, and it certainly is an IMAX friendly movie, big, loud, and dumb.

So, while Poseidon has very little going for it, apart from some nice effects at the start, it isn't bad, and if you like this kind of thing, then you'll like this. And I did enjoy the fact that for most of the movie the floor is the ceiling and vice versa.

$

Warning: although it is not a long movie, Poseidon has over an hour of the sound of pouring water, so you may want to check the level of your bladder before entering the theatre.

X-Men: The Last Stand

2006-05-31T22:34:00.000+10:00

Director: Brett Ratner (not as good as Bryan Singer, well duh)
Starring: Hugh Jackman (good), Halle Berry (dull), Ian McKellen (good at being bad), Patrick Stewart (good) and many, many, many more...
Production Budget: $210M

Whose side will you be on? Indeed. Following on from the rather good X-Men and X2, the third and final (shyeah right, I'd bet its $100M+ opening weekend in the U.S. on there being more) X-Men movie has a reasonable amount to live up to. Replacing director Bryan (The Usual Suspects) Singer with Brett (Rush Hour) Ratner did not so much increase my anticipation as reduce my expectations, which I suppose made it harder for me to be disappointed.

X3 yet again sees a disagreement between the two factions of mutants, the 'good-guys' led by Patrick Stewart's Prof. Charles Xavier, and the 'bad-guys' led by Ian McKellen's Eric Lensherr/Magneto. And once again this disagreement leads to the near destruction of the world as we know it. Why can't these guys just learn to get along? This time around it's a 'cure' that turns mutants back into regular people, with Magneto deciding that this is yet another attempt by the humans to wipe out mutants, and therefore all humans must die. Throw into the mix the return of Jean Gray (Famke Janssen) as the super-powerful, emotionally desturbed, boyfriend-killing Phoenix and about twenty new mutant characters and you're in for one hell of a super-speedy, porcupine skinned, Goldengate Bridge levitating juggernaut of a ride.

The problem with this film is that there are too many characters, and therefore too many subplots involving teenage angst, love triangles, prodigal sons and other distractions. The main characters, do still get ample screen time even if they don't really contribute to the story, presumably to either apease fanboys or to fulfill contractual obligations (I'm still not sure what the point of Halle Berry's character is after three movies). Sometimes it looks like instead of writing a story, and adding characters where appropriate to the story, they have chosen characters, and then written a series of set-pieces showing off each of their powers, and slapped a story around it. At other times it's as though characters have been inserted into the story to somehow increase the emotional impact, but really, how can one become emotionally attached to a character with five minutes of screen time (see Angel below).

Here is a selection of new characters and how they fit into the story:

Beast (Kelsey Grammar): The mutant ambassador to the White House. He's a bit embarrassing as the blue-skinned/glasses wearing/suited ambassador, but quite cool when he starts kicking arse.

Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones): Magneto's new toughguy. He looks a little weird with his huge body, but is good fun as he runs through walls head first, and the highlight of the movie is his battle with Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page replacing Katie Stuart from X2).

Angel (Ben Foster): Son of the guy who invents the mutant cure, oh, and he's a mutant. Everything that is wrong about this movie is summed up in this character. Corny and overly melodramatic, and more of a plot device than a fully developed character. Oh, and he is a crap mutant - sure he can fly, but I reckon I could beat him with a pair of wing-clipping scissors, or maybe one of those leather thongs falconers use to control their birds.

Callisto (Dania Ramirez): Magneto's new 'flashy' right-hand woman. The badguy equivalent of Halle Berry's Storm. Would you be surprised if I told you they came up against each other one-on-one at some point?

And I have to mention Rebecca Romijn's character Mystique because... well... you know...

The special effects cannot be faulted, but then for that kind of money they bloody well should be good. And that's all they are, good. Not awesome, not mind- or wad-blowing, just good. The major set-piece involving the Golden Gate Bridge is so ludicrous that it's kind of distracting from what is otherwise a reasonably cool standoff on Alcatraz. And I kept wanting to say "Pyro, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!".

The ending keeps the sequel option wide-open, and by doing so ruins the emotional edge it would otherwise have had. Oh, and there is a bonus scene after all of the credits that fans will probably enjoy (if, like me, you couldn't be bothered waiting through the credits, or you saw the film and didn't know about it, there is a good description in the wikepedia entry).

As far as this kind of crap goes, it was OK, I guess. But then I'm more of a D.C. boy anyway.

$$1/2 (in other words, exactly average)

Mission: Impossible 3

2006-05-25T11:58:00.000+10:00

Director: JJ Abrams(Felicity, Alias, Lost)
Apperances: Felicity (Felicity), Eric Weiss(Alias), Flight Attendant #2(Lost)
Production Budget: USD$150M

What do the three pictures on the right have in common? Answer, they're all COOL. When going to see a movie that was made for over $150M, you can't expect the producers to spend $140M on the script and $10M on the action. The more likely distribution is to have $5M on the plot and $145M on COOL.

Being the third installment of the M:i franchise, this movie works on an already proven formula. (Just like for Bond films). We not only see one infiltration operation, but three. We not only see that patented face first drop from a wire once, but twice. Add a storyline where the agent tries to hide his work from his wife and his co-workers ribbing him about it. Combine in COOL guns(H&K G36E), COOL locations(Shanghai), COOL hotties(Felicity), a plot twist and you've blown your $150M.

Okay, top 3 COOL scenes:
1. Swinging from building top to building top, landing on your back, sliding backwards while taking out 2 former Red Army soldiers, spinning around, and stopping yourself on the very last edge.

2. Lip reading. Once at the beginning to then be linked to a crucial plot direction later on.

3. An older, but still hot, Felicity firing a H&K P9S.

$$$(out of 5)

Continuing with the trilogy theme, my next movie will be X3(Hugh Jackman), not to be confused with xXx(Vin Diesel) or a triple X(crazy horse).

Brick

2006-05-24T05:27:00.000+10:00

Director: Ryan Johnson (also writer)
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (the kid from 3rd rock from
the sun)
Nora Zehetner (girl at party in American Pie 2)
Lucas Haas (saves the world in Mars Attacks!)
Emilie de Ravin (the pregnant Aussie girl in Lost)
Production Budget: $0.5M

When his girlfriend (de Ravin) is murdered, Brendan (Gordon-Levitt) goes in search of the truth behind the killing. He does this the only way he knows how, by asking tough questions, and having the crap beaten out of him repeatedly. He slowly insinuates himself in with the local drug dealers, headed by the mysterious Pin (Haas), and the pieces start falling into place. This is set in and around a Southern California high school, but with Femme Fatales, coded messages, and language more reminiscent of The Maltese Falcon than the O.C., this is no lame-arse American Pie rip-off high school film.

The central mystery is intriguingly played out. Brendan doesn't give much away, only really speaking when he is asking questions of others. We don't even find out what the 'Brick' is until a good way into the film (and if you are wondering, it's not the shit-a kind). And unlike The Da Vinci Code, it does not pound you over the head with its 'revelations'. Instead, you have to actually pay attention in order to fully appreciate the plot machinations. And best of all, it makes you want to see it again (take that Ron Howard).

It all sounds a bit like kids acting out adult roles, but Johnson plays to this with the few adult interactions in the film. The Pin's mother is particularly hilarious - reminiscent of Marge Simpson and "Are you boys through playing war? Then here are some cupcakes".

Writer/director Ryan Johnson has done a brilliant job with this film. You never get the feeling that it was filmed on money raised from families and friends. It looks great, it's funny, occasionally shocking and so very cool. A death scene is particularly evocative. The cast is fantastic. The script is written in old-school noir stylings ( e.g. "Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I've got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you."), and the actors speak the lines like they own them. Gordon-Levitt is particularly charismatic as the main man.

It's not for everyone, and that is why you should go and see it. Now!

$$$$1/2 (out of 5)

Please Follow The Usher To Your Seat

2006-05-23T10:20:00.000+10:00

Hello and welcome to our change of direction. This site previously detailed the diet challange between Daryl and I, and since that has been run and won (congratulations again to Holland), we had to find something else to do with this site. We could not think of any better way to show off our new found figures than by sitting in the dark.

Welcome to FilmQuest. A site dedicated answering the ultimate question of Budget vs Blockbuster. Easyl (along with a new figure a new alter ego for Daryl) and I, as you can read from the title, each have differing opinions on what consitiutes a good movie. We have each been dragged into one anothers movies once too often in the past only to walk out in the end wanting our two hours back. In the coming weeks/month/whenever we get around to it, we will each be reviewing our criteria-ed movie. We hope you can stick around and enjoy this site as much as we enjoying watching our own choice of movies. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions on what movie we should review next.

And Now For Something Completely Different

2006-05-18T21:56:00.000+10:00

Holland -vs- Woon is changing. This is a post to show you what the original page looked like.

It aint over 'til...

2005-11-25T03:06:00.000+11:00

...now.

83kg

I should also appologise for not mentioning that I've been training for a half marathon for the last two months (ran it on Sunday... bloody freezing but I finished). I think that's fair enough given that Meatpopsicle didn't mention that he's been training for the world hotdog eating championships for the last two months.

Well, it was a good fight. I thought I was screwed when Meatpopsicle got sick that time and was down to 78kg or so. But I guess it's the classic tale of the tortoise and the hare, as I already suspected on the 2nd of June (if I knew how to do it there would be a link here). The meat jumps out of the blocks, takes a massive lead, then gets lazy and falls asleep before the finish line, allowing me to waddle past, slowly but surely.

What was it? The golden arches called you once too often? You forgot what the F in KFC stands for? Your wife got pregnant and you are having some kind of sympathetic response?

Still, in both % and kg lost terms, meat wins hands down. Well done... your arteries can thank me later.

What next?

Game Over

2005-11-24T14:15:00.000+11:00

Well it's reached the moment of truth. After many weeks of hard toil and many months of not so hard toil, it has come to today. As you might have guessed, I have been updating infrequently because I was actually off the diet and not exercising. As such, my weight is now... (drum roll)...

86.0kg!

We have a winner and I am sad to say, it is not me. Great effort Holland, your keg will be in the mail and I will make sure to write "do not shake" on it.

Holland - weigh in (06/10/05 08:30 BST)

2005-10-13T00:27:00.000+10:00

Missed a couple of weigh-ins through overseas commitments and general forgetfulness, so let's see where we're up to....

83kg

Of course.

Only about 6 weeks to go by my reconning... let's see if Meatpopsicle can hold out for just a little bit longer... or has he finally caved-in to the allure of the fast-food diet?

Holland - weigh in (29/08/05 09:30 BST)

2005-08-30T06:41:00.000+10:00

Woops! Time flies when you are stuffing your face silly.

84kg.

At last some movement, but not in the right direction. At least it might give me some impetus to actually try a bit.

Anyway, if the result is a tie, I think Meatpopsicle wins on a countback, having lost the most weight.

Woon - wiegh in (25/08/2005 AEST)

2005-08-26T09:09:00.000+10:00

81.5kg.

I was thinking, we never put a clause in the contract to cover the outcome in case of a draw. Any suggestions?

Holland - weigh in (11/08/05 08:30 BST)

2005-08-13T03:00:00.000+10:00

Yaaawwn... 83kg.

I think my body has decided that 83kg is a good weight, and that no matter what I put through my gut, that is how it will stay, barring loss of a limb in a bizarre letter mailing accident.

So I think the new challenge -Mr. Meatpopsicle - is, can you stay below 83kg for another two and a half months?

Woon - weigh in (11/08/2005 07:30 AEST)

2005-08-12T11:18:00.000+10:00

After receiving 2 reminder notices from the gym, finally returned on Wednesday.

79.5kg

Being pigging out lately too. I have a nasty habit of eating all the left over food on the table at the end of a meal. It's just so anonying to have one piece of vegatable or one bowl of soup or one peice of steak left over.

Holland - weigh in (28/07/05 08:20 BST)

2005-07-29T02:23:00.000+10:00

No diet... just the regular routine, eat, sleep, play a bit of sport.

83kg

I give up. I'm ready to accept that 83kg I am and will remain until such time as I get lazy and become like Marlon Brando on a pacific island.

And I think I'll pass on the panadol and ulcers diet, thanks.

Woon - weigh in (28/07/05 07:45 AEST)

2005-07-28T09:44:00.000+10:00

I have cracked the great diet code.

78.5kg

Stay in bed for 3 days and have only Panadol. On the 4th day, you should have enough ulcers and sores in your mouth so that it prevents you from eating anything solid. Continue until you reach your ideal wieght.

On another note, I got a reply back from Kellogg's.
"The Kellogg's Drop a Jeans Size 2-week challenge is a kick-start to a healthier lifestyle and an effective way to begin a weight loss programme. For two weeks, you should eat a 45g bowl of any Kellogg's cereal with semi-skimmed milk for breakfast then another bowl instead of either lunch or dinner and ensure you eat normally throughout the rest of the day - you do not need to change any other aspect of your diet. Kellogg's recommend that at the third meal you eat a balanced mix of foods and remember to include plenty of fruit and vegetables. In tests carried out at Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh participants lost up to 6lbs with an average weight loss of 4lbs (2kg). The weight loss is purely dependent on the reduction in energy intake by eating cereal instead of lunch or dinner. The rest of the day's diet remains unchanged - you can still have your snacks and drinks like you normally do."

I'm A Loser

2005-07-20T09:55:00.000+10:00

So it's been two weeks since the Kick Start Challange and we have a winner. You might have noticed that I didn't actually give an update, and the reason for that was I actually didn't start the Kick Start Challenge. I tried though, I bought the product and the skim milk (which I got told off for since Marcus does not drink skim milk) and actually had two bowls over two days. Anyway, no excuses, I lost, gave up, quit, threw in the towel, whatever.

So what's next Holland?

p.s. I think we should report to Kelloggs and try and get some form of reimbursement for those 4 boxes that you consumed.

Holland - weigh in (16/07/05 09:00 BST)

2005-07-19T07:25:00.000+10:00

After the 2 week kick-start challenge I am now down to the amazing weight of...

83kg.

Which just goes to prove my theory, Special K isn't just boring, it is also a complete waste of time. Today I am on the bacon and brie baked potato diet, tomorrow it will probably be the left-over spaghetti bolognaise diet, and the day after that, who knows. I feel happier about my body already (well, at least about my taste buds, which have been feeling a little left out recently).

And for those that are interested, my jeans still fit just fine, exactly the same as they did before.

Woon - weigh in (15/07/05 07:00 AEST)

2005-07-15T14:37:00.000+10:00

Testing the technology here. I am posting this update via email.

82.0kg

First serious rise. Could this be the beginning of the end or just extra motivation

56" and dropping... maybe

2005-07-09T01:05:00.000+10:00

Special K is fine f0r breakfast. For lunch, it sucks dogs balls. I've been going with boring, regular Special K for breaky, followed by a treat for lunch, Special K red berries or Special K apricot and peach.

I'm pretty sure I'm losing weight, although I haven't checked since last week, but is it worth it? Food is a beautiful thing. Special K is merely roughage with a bit of sugar, and a few added vitamins and other % daily requirement crap. Hello taste?

Here is a list of the things I miss most so far.

1. Leftovers (e.g. pizza, roast chicken, fajitas, tuna puff).
2. Pub lunches. Baked potatoes, big, juicy burgers, omelettes with cheese, ham AND mushrooms.
3. Bacon and eggs. Just once a week or so, a full English breakfast breaks up the cereal routine nicely.

I have to stop writing, my stomach is complaining.

Diet Experiment #1: The Kick-Start Challenge

2005-07-01T22:40:00.000+10:00

The weigh-ins are getting monotonous so we have decided to run a series of Diet Experiments. First up "The Kelloggs Kick-Start".

More info can be found here, but the gist of it is to:-

"For two weeks, eat a bowl of Kellogg's Special K (approximately 45g) with semi-skimmed milk for breakfast then another for lunch or dinner."

By the end of the two weeks, the participant should have dropped a jeans size. We have already taken our BMI and both Holland (BMI 25.6) and Woon (BMI 26) qualify.

Task:- Both subjects will follow the instructions outlined in the above link and report waistline measurements now and in two weeks time. "A jeans size" definition can be found here. We both fall into the Regular Table and it looks to be 2" for a size difference.

Woon - weigh in (01/07/05 08:30 AEST)

2005-07-01T22:27:00.000+10:00

Two weeks seem to pass so quickly. Still out of wit, but I got something good for when I hit the 70's.

81.0kg

Holland - weigh in (30/06/05 08:30 BST)

2005-07-01T05:44:00.000+10:00

83kg.

What can I do to get out of this rut I'm in? I'm treading water at the moment, but I really need to start swimming, swimming towards that golden keg I can see on the horizon.

Swimming? That gives me an idea... how to lose a bit more weight... no wait... it's gone. Oh well, plenty of time to go, and I do have the advantage of youth.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing how the witless wonder is going.

I remember now... swimming... golden keg... I need a beer.

Woon - weigh in (18/06/05 08:30 AEST)

2005-06-19T07:59:00.000+10:00

81.5kg

I am out of wit! We must recolonise immediately!

Holland - weigh in (16/06/05 8:20GMT)

2005-06-17T12:14:00.000+10:00

83kg

And once again, we're yet to hear from the Meat, even though he's had a good 19 hours to hit the sauna since his weigh in was due.

And I'm quite chuffed that my big birthday BBQ on the weekend didn't add to my very slowly receading gutline.

Woon - weigh in (02/06/05 08:30 AEST)

2005-06-03T16:50:00.000+10:00

Sorry, I was in the toilet bring up lunch.

81.5kg

I am thinking we need to take a new set of photos, I am at the 10kg mark so there should be some visible difference.

Holland - weigh in (02/06/05 08:30 BST)

2005-06-03T02:10:00.000+10:00

83kg and dropping.

I don't see any post from the meat. He must be in the sauna trying to lose some of the 4kg he put on in the last fortnight before he makes his post.

This hare and tortoise race may just be turning my way.

Holland - weigh in (19/05/05 08:20 BST)

2005-05-19T18:02:00.000+10:00

Hmmm...

84kg.

I think my new regime might be working, because I've been eating like Nibbles the last week (travelling with the parents-not quite in-law with lots of free meals out) and yet still managed a whole digit off.

So, my latest formulla is football x2+ kempo x2+ squash = keg.

P.S. New rule: If you starve yourself to death or otherwise die in some bizarre weight loss accident (eg impaled on your exercise bike, choking on your heart monitor), you lose, and the keg comes out of your estate.

Woon - weigh in (19/05/05 07:20 AEST)

2005-05-19T09:00:00.000+10:00

Have been sick the last few days and didn't get any exercise in, but yet I am still...

82.0kg

I might have found a new way to lose weight. All I need now is a catchy product name...
"The Go Sick Diet"?
"The Through The Nose Diet"?
"The Fat Out With Phlegm Diet"?

Holland - weigh in (05/05/05 08:20 BST)

2005-05-06T02:19:00.000+10:00

85kg.

Holy shamoly!

I could be seriously screwed here. Time to bring out my secret weapon. I just joined a Shirenji Kempo club... 3hrs, 2 nights a week. Hopefully combined with soccer 2 lunchtimes a week and the odd swim, jog or cycle I should get back in the contest. If not, at least I can beat the crap out of anyone who makes fun of my weight (in self-defence of course, for that is the way of the Dojo).

Now, if only I hadn't had Burger King for dinner last night?

Woon - weigh in (5/05/05 08:45 AEST)

2005-05-05T12:05:00.000+10:00

Almost at the 10kg mark.

83.5

I will consider the delivery of a keg as acceptance of your defeat at anytime.