Blog

  • History according to Hollywood.

    According to Hollywood, the Americans practically won World War II on their own (which is probably true), they retrieved and decoded the German Engima encryption machine before the British, and now it seems that Tom Cruise will be making “The Few”, a film which will, according to the IMDB, be about “…the true-life story of American pilot Billy Fiske, who ignored his country’s neutrality rules in the early days of WWII and flew Hurricanes against the Germans. ”

    I still remember that old “Richard, Not Judy” sketch from the BBC a few years back where Stewart Lee was ripping into Braveheart because it was so historically incorrect.

    I wonder if this film will be about how one sole American turned the tide and won the Battle of Britain himself, rescued Prime Minster Winston Churchill from Hitler’s personal unpenetrable fortress whilst developing the world’s first nuclear bomb and dropping it (and riding it) on the way down towards Berlin singing the Star-Spangled banner?

    Sorry, I really couldn’t come with anything more original, which is kinda ironic considering we are talking about Hollywood here.

    At least it won’t be as bad as Star Trek V: The Final Frontier where it was basically “Kirk vs God – Kirk wins!”

    Ah well.

    Link:
    IMDB site on “The Few”

  • Is Chris Tucker really worth $20m?

    According to themovieblog.com, Chris Tucker is getting “$20 million for the movie PLUS 20% of the box office gross”.

    The thing is, I don’t think he’s worth it. He’ll be paid more than Chan and will probably have his name above Chan’s on all the posters. Is Tucker’s ego really THAT big, or is it just him?

    As one poster correctly points out “$20 million for this ‘name’ who has NEVER opened a movie on his own as *the main draw*. He is either a supporting player (Fifth Element, Friday) or he is in a buddy film (Rush Hour films). What other gilm, **besides the Rush Hour films**, has this guy been in within the last SEVEN years? Name one. Just one. I don’t care what it is just spit it out. You can’t do it; no one can!”

    Tucker isn’t worth $20 million, but seeing as they’ve already splashed the money out on this ego-trip clown, we might as sit back and await the overhyped trailer showing every stunt in the movie so that we don’t have to go watch it!

    Yey!

  • Action movies were better in my day!

    I was watching 80s nostalgia trip Mannequin the other day (dont ask!) and Im convinced after seeing the cheese-fest that when I look at the CGI filled action adventures movies of today, I somehow get the feeling that action movies of my generation were just better.

    Whether it was the stunts, the danger or just the overall fun factor, the movies of today still dont get what action is all about. 10 years ago (1997) Hollywood was just coming to the end of what I call its action cycle.

    Sure, back then it was all die-hard clones. But for some reason I just think those movies were just plain better. The stunts were better done, they didnt rely on CGI and the plots were okay. There was none of that overplayed emotional content that didnt connect with the audience or there just to fill out the time.

    Here are ten great movies that prove why I think action movies of my generation were just better than the ones we have now.

    1) Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) A classic then, a classic now!
    2) Die Hard (1988) Defined action for well over 10 years
    3) Robocop (1988) Verhovens classic still is great, even though its starting to show its age
    4) Total Recall (1990) Perhaps Schwarzeneggers best movie bar Terminator
    5) Scarface (1983) – Yeah, I know… it’s over the top.
    6) Blue Jean Cop (1988) Before there was Die-hard, there was Blue Jean Cop.
    7) Commando (1985) Schwarzenegger hits our screens in an utter cheese fest!
    8) Hard Boiled (1992) Caused the whole two-gun pandemic in action movies that you see in movies such as Equilibrium and Underworld. But it did it far, far better!
    9) The Killer (1989) Some argue this as being better than Hard Boiled. If you are a member of Blockbuster and want real action, Id hire both Hard Boiled and The Killer and watch them over the course of an evening. Just make sure they are the subtitled uncut versions!
    10) Police Story (1985) Sure it might look incredibly ropey for todays standards, but Jackie Chans Police Story totally broke the mould in terms of Hong Kong action movies and most of the action sequences were lifted verbatim by Hollywood, including the Bus stopping scene and the part where Jackie drives a car down and through a shanty town and remains my favorite Jackie Chan movie.

    The Matrix has cool fights and a complex story, but the action just isnt as good as any of the above. The over-reliance of CGI in action movies just makes films unbelievable and in some cases, such as Die Another Day, just plain unbearable.

    Will stunts make a comeback? Will fun make a comeback, or are we all doomed to watch stunts where the hero is in no mortal danger, or threat and does impossible feats, feats that even Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd probably wouldnt do, regardless of their dexterity.

  • Casino Royale Trailer

    The latest James Bond movie, Casino Royale has now got a small teaser trailer, which looks very interesting.

    It would appear that Bond is taking a leaf out of The Bourne Identity, and is downsizing on the CGI, and increasing visual stunts such as the “free-running”.

    It looks like it will be very interesting. But will Royale be the end, or the begining of a new Bond? Only time will tell.
    http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/

  • Mission:Impossible III – Review

    Tom Cruise returns as IMF agent Ethan Hunt in Mission:Impossible III. Billed as this year’s adrenalin-filled action of the summer, the movie doesn’t disappoint either on action, stunts or story-line.

    Directed by JJ Abrams, whose many credits include “Alias” and “Lost”, the film follows Hunts pending marriage to his wife and trying to move on, away from IMF when he is drawn back into the merky world of espionage by bad guy Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

    The movie starts dark and moody and utilises a non-linear storyline and steals (or copies) ideas from other movies such as not revealing what the object that Hunt is trying to retrieve, or using a opening which is much like Pulp Fiction (ie: starting at the end).

    During the movie, MI:III makes light reference of the “langley” mission. Earlier, a lady proclaims that Hunt has no dad or mom – but I remember them! They were in the first movie and were set up as drug dealers or something.. what happened to them? Who knows, it’s never answered! There are a lot of holes in this movie, but not enough to ruin the whole movie. Other things do that…

    The movie then moves to being all about Hunt being the great married man, who is so in love with his wife. The fawning is well done, but was a bit heavy handed. Was this really about Hunt, or was it a call from Cruise directly to his audience (and critics) saying “Hey, I love my wife”, “See how much I love my wife”…

    There was a scene in the movie where vicious bad guy Hoffman asks who Cruise is dating and for a moment, albeit a brief one, I was expecting an exchange such as;

    Cruise: But how do you know I’m not gay?
    Hoffman: Are you?
    Cruise: (Long pause) No

    This didn’t happen — but I was expecting it to, I kinda got the feeling that the producers suddenly brainstormed (probably with himself) “that, hey, you know – Cruise — well, he’s married! Let’s show a movie where he’s constantly fawning over his new wife, overplay the sentimentality and overempthaise just how much Cruise, I mean Hunt, is really in love with his wife!”

    I mean, com’on — we get it! He loves his wife! The movie isn’t about Hoffman, his plot, or the villians, or the team, or (unlike the first part of this trilogy, Hunt) — it’s about his god-damn wife!

    Apart from this “fourth wall” factor, MI:III is impressive. It is a resounding and definite improvement over John Woo’s collection of tired action clichs that made up Mission:Impossible II and is on a par with the first one, with much a much better arsneal of action, stunts and impressively used CGI.

    Hoffman just isn’t in this movie enough for me. What were his motives? Money, power, glory? The main bad guy of the movie is introduced as a “turncoat”, but you can spot him within minutes of seeing him on screen.

    There’s a crucial scene where Hoffman “kills” Hunt’s wife and makes Hunt think he’s won — but what REALLY ruins this whole part is that the turncoat comes into the room and starts blabbing about everything. BUT Hunt never suspected him, Hoffman made Hunt believe he had won — THERE IS NO REASON for the turncoat to be even in the same room, let alone talk to him about how the death of his wife was staged!

    The thing is the whole thing was built up, and built up and then they wrap everything up within 20 minutes. It was really frustrating for me as a viewer because this whole film felt like Cruise was just on cruise control and nothing really happened in the movie, except “Cruise loses wife, Cruise rescues wife. The end”.

    JJ Abrams may be an accomplished director, but the movies are a totally different medium. The movie felt like it was the first part of a trilogy, or maybe Abrams thought he could slap on a “to be continued” and continue it in the next episode… except there can’t be a next episode Abrams!

    Hoffman’s demise was very “slapped-on” for me, and I just didn’t connect with the movie.

    In my opinion the storyline seems to be very thin, coupled with that is a cast of surplus characters with no background or history. This all gives the feeling that you are watching a selection of clips from other plots that really don’t seem to flow.

    Take out all the stunts that we’ve already seen hundreds of times over in the trailers and TV spots and you essentially have a 2 hour episode of Alias.

    My problem with MI:III isn’t that it’s a summer blockbuster, but that it seems so … we’ll unforfilling. Sure, the stunts are great, the action is brilliant and some of the intimate scenes between Hunt and his wife are well done. The thing is they all just didn’t connect.

    Another problem I had with MI:III is that it reeks of a Hollywood-type ending, and you can smell it a mile away. Why can’t Hollywood have the guts to say “let his wife die, this will give him reason to find Hoffman and kill him. Moreso, we’ll make it so that the whole mission is actually impossible because even if he wins, he actually loses”… but instead, we just get the same old Hollywoood action adventure yarn that although good, lacks the sparkle, the edge, the wow factor to make it great.

    Overall: Leave brain at door.
    My Rating: 6/10.
    IMDB: http://imdb.com/title/tt0317919/

  • 28 day Slater

    28 Day Slater

    So, your a child of the early 90s, and most probably; you were most probably a fan of Saved by the Bell. Yes, the one with the kid who kept saying “Zoinks” all the time for no real reason that I can think of.

    I found this video, just by accident, called 28 day Slater, a parody of the AC Slater character. Be sure to check out the sequel to!

    Just another reason why virals work!

    Check it out:
    Youtube: 28 Day Slater Video

  • Drive-by yelling doesn’t make you cool

    Why is it that idiots think they are big, cool, hip when they do a drive-by yelling ego trip at me? Listen up jackass… you’re a jerk!

    I don’t care if you *think* you know me, or that it’s somehow cool or okay to yell, spit or try to shoot ballbearings at me (that did happen once, fortuently the guy was a really bad shot and got pulled over by the cops!)… or try to dump lucozade over me…

    Enough ranting…

  • How to find statistics on popular websites?

    How do you find out just how popular a website is? If you’re investing money in banner advertising or other forms of e-marketing on a forum or on a “popular” website, you’re gonna need numbers to prove that the site is indeed successful.

    Here are some links that will help you find out the popularity of websites. Please note that the numbers may/may not be accurate and you should use several report generation systems to find out just how trend-setting that website really is.

    • Hitwise is a market research firm specialising in Internet usage, and offers stories about popular and trendy search terms.
    • Alexa regularly posts snippets of information on its front page, and is useful for comparing the popularity of websites (such as those of your competitors). See, for example, myspace.com ranks incredibily high on Alexa.
    • Nielsen NetRatings is another useful source of information about surfing behaviour and Internet usage.

    This should give you some ideas about how your website marketing can be improved.

  • Teen Wolf — Review

    Just how old was Mick anyway?

    Before the Back to the Future series, Micheal J Fox starred in this cult classic underground movie. In the huge list of teenager films that make up the 80s, including Ferris Bueller’s Day Off – I’d argue that Teen Wolf should be up there – just because it was pure 80s cheese and it is nostaglic fun.

    The movie has Fox as the nerdy kid who wants to be popular, date the prettiest girl at his school and be the coolest kid – but is often knocked back by bullies, including Mick – who I assume must be the only 30-something still at school.

    Although the “werewolf” is an allegories of puberty has been done to death in movies, I did find it kinda strange that no-one seemed to mind that he was a werewolf and suddenly put the kid on a pedastool? Maybe they were all distracted by Stiles’ cashing in on the werewolf craze and mixing his own unique T-shirt company too.

    Perhaps the most memorable sequence in the movie (other than “Pamela Wells” disrobing in front of Fox and the Van-surfin’) would be the classic montage using the song “Win in the End” by Mark Safan which is played in full during the final basketball sequence… it’s a very powerful song, even though it’s incredibly cheesy and 80s-esque.

    Overall, a fun enjoyable trip down nostalgia lane.

  • Should you use a portal website for your website?

    Of all products/services, perhaps websites are misunderstood by small business owners, and perhaps rightly so – there’s a lot of confusion out there, a lot of techno-babble and very little answers. Secondly, cost seems to be a large issue; although strangely it’s not the main reason…

    I’ve noticed that portal sites (ie: local community driven websites) are starting to offer low-cost websites to local small businesses and essentially using the brand of the local portal site to act as a “piggy-back” to traffic. I’ve also seen some portal websites that offer FREE google adverts for 10.00+ per month.

    But whilst this is all good, I see one or two problems.

    1. Firstly, it’s not really *your* website.
      What do I mean by that? Well I mean it’s not a proper www.yourcompanyname.com website – in fact, if you look closely, it really the portal’s website, and your brand/business is piggybacking on the back of the brand of the portal
    2. Over-reliance on Google PPC (Pay-per-click)
      Some portal sites offer guaranteed low-cost adverts on google, but most of the time the adverts on Google aren’t specifically for *your* company, if you look *very* closely you’ll notice the advert URL (website address) is that of the portal, not your website. Yes, the key phrases will market your business, but what you’re really doing is driving traffic to the portal’s website, not to your website… Secondly, relying soley on PPC makes you incredibily dependent on the PPC scheme, ask yourself do people really click on PPC adverts, or do they rely on normal (or organic) search results?
    3. The thinking of “I just need a website”
      Of course we you just want a website, and the natural assumption with using a portal website to hang your website on is a cheap, low-cost, low-mainteance and high-traffic way of getting your business online, but is it really helping your business – or is it just an advert on a portal website and nothing more? The question isn’t I just need a website, but rather what will the website do for your business, and why?
    4. There are other competitors advertising on the portal
      You might think so what, right? But hang on, if your advertising your website on the same place that your competitor is, then how is the whole portal different to say the classifieds or the yellow pages? There is no reason why anyone would want to choose you over a competitor. Sure the website’s cheap, but if the cost of having your website along your competitors is the price of your customer going elsewhere, then you need to ask yourself if it’s really of benefit to your business.

    Should you ever use portal websites as a piggy back for your own website? Well, depending on your budget and of course if you don’t really care about your business brand, and you *just* want a website — then sure go for it, but if your serious about your business, serious about your website and recognise that your brand needs an effective web site (note, I didn’t say a web presence) then forget about portal sites, they won’t help your business in the long-run.