I don't like to touch on touchy subjects (in my blog, at least), but there's this one Church in my town that I just feel like going up to and... well... smacking some sense into whoever is doing their marquee sign outside.
You know the type, the kind of sign where they put up the individual letters that spell out words--they're quite common.
Anyways, most churches I've found have something incredibly corny that has nothing to do with the Bible (or in some cases, religion at all), but this one church, over the course of the last two months, have put up not only cheesy little sayings, but lawsuit-worthy phrases.
Without exaggerating, here are some of the things said:
'Geico saves you money, Jesus saves your soul'
'God is like Allstate--you're in good hands'
'Save money? Go to Wal-mart. Save your soul? Go to church'
I'll stop here... though I think there are a few others.
Now, I'm no lawyer. Still, I believe the term Trademark refers to something like Intellectual Property that is owned by a person or company. I even believe some companies have copywrited (copywritten?) actual phrases so that they can't be used commercially. Since when do churches feel they get an exemption from this? And it's not even like they're clever sayings. They basically just watched a commercial at 11 PM at night and thought, 'Hey, that sounds like a good thing to put on my sign.'
Not i'm not religion-bashing here. But I do believe that the signs have to go. Or at least put something worth reading on there, not just when Bingo is this week.
That's my opinion, at least.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
On a serious note...
Oftentimes, I try to incorporate a little humor or sarcasm in my comments, but I just can't manage it today. I've been listening to some songs that really bring back some memories. It's really funny how music has the ability to attach itself to memories to make them seem more vivid or alive to you, where you weren't even thinking about them before the song. As if music has a direct attachment to the parts of the brain related to memory storage. Any scientists out there want to take this up as a study?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Signatures and News
And a hearty good morning to all.
I decided this past weekend to (once again) fire up this IMHO blog. This time, sincerely keeping them short--thus increasing the chances I can actually put something up most every day. ... Well, within reason, of course.
So, it's only 10:30 AM here. I've been at work for a little over 2 hours (Now on my 15-minute break, in case anyone from management is checking in). Yet, I've somehow come across two interesting thoughts that just have made me laugh.
Signature Lines on Emails
I received an email from a colleague earlier today necessary for research. This was the first time I emailed this person (and in all honesty, have never actually met this person), and thus, saw her email signature ever.
Now for those unfamiliar with an email Signature, business individuals who use a program to manage their email will oft-times personalize their email templates to already have their name and contact information at the bottom. Usually, this is nothing more than a name, title, address, phone number... that sort of thing.
However, this email I received today had a pithy saying at the end of it. (I really should call it a 'pity' saying, as you'll soon discover) Now, this in itself isn't really unusual--on the occasional online forum, I'll do the same. However, this particuar line actually had created a paradox in space and time. I'm surprised my computer has not imploded from receiving an email from her.
The message, for fear of crashing this blog server, is read below:
YOU ONLY FAIL, WHEN YOU DON'T TRY
I actually spent about 5 minutes dissecting this sentence. Take a minute to gather your own thoughts about it before reading on. I'll wait...
Ok, back with me?
First of all, the line itself is a falsity. There are plenty of people who try and fail. Consider my high school career. I did fine in every class except Calculus, which I tried my best at, and still failed. Thus, the sentence itself is not true.
However, my biggest concern was the paradox in it. The grammar is incorrect. There is a comma where there should be no comma, and no period where there should be at the end. Thus... she failed. However, by the context of the information in the statement itself, she didn't fail, because she tried. Thus is born a paradox. It's one of those English Faux Pas that you learn about in College English I; like 'There is no error in this sentance.' I know this seems like nit-picking, but for a professional LEGAL businesswoman to have a paradox in their signature line... well, it scares me.
News Articles that make you think...
My workmate, Becky, on her 15-minute break, was reading news articles from the local paper's website reciting of the news. She brought to my attention that 'From the news desk', at the top of the page, told the story of a local woman who just today won $1,500 dollars in a contest that her local bank was holding. Talk about a slow news day, huh?
Well, our gripe comes in the form of the fact that this story is... well, how do I put this.... NOT NEWS. In fact, one would go so far as to say that many readers wouldn't really CARE about this particular story. In general then, the point is how newspapers, television reporters, and Web news sites, when choosing their 'top stories', always puts some article that nobody really cares about. For instance, when Yahoo puts on their top four links under 'News' a video of a 6-month old kitten batting around a ball of yarn. Cute? Of course. Sharable with friends? Absolutely. News? To my friend's 3 year old daughter, perhaps, but not to me.
To reinforce this point, referring back to the news article Becky was looking at, the stories that the money winner TRUMPED included a plane crash (in a town about 50 miles away), a child being killed in his driveway, as well as some seasonal medical advice that could help hundreds.
Do you see the problem here? Not that it doesn't matter some random lady won money from a bank--I think it's great... wish it was me. It just... isn't news.
In my honest opinion, I believe that Newspapers and TV News programs should have some sort of a section separate from the news... Actually, wait... they do. It's called Editorials, Opinions, or OTHER FLIPPIN' SHOWS OTHER THAN THE NEWS. At the very least, have a section called Not News to talk about it. Not 'Entertainment News' or 'Film Reviews'--just Not News. Is that so much to not muddy the definition of News for the people today?
I decided this past weekend to (once again) fire up this IMHO blog. This time, sincerely keeping them short--thus increasing the chances I can actually put something up most every day. ... Well, within reason, of course.
So, it's only 10:30 AM here. I've been at work for a little over 2 hours (Now on my 15-minute break, in case anyone from management is checking in). Yet, I've somehow come across two interesting thoughts that just have made me laugh.
Signature Lines on Emails
I received an email from a colleague earlier today necessary for research. This was the first time I emailed this person (and in all honesty, have never actually met this person), and thus, saw her email signature ever.
Now for those unfamiliar with an email Signature, business individuals who use a program to manage their email will oft-times personalize their email templates to already have their name and contact information at the bottom. Usually, this is nothing more than a name, title, address, phone number... that sort of thing.
However, this email I received today had a pithy saying at the end of it. (I really should call it a 'pity' saying, as you'll soon discover) Now, this in itself isn't really unusual--on the occasional online forum, I'll do the same. However, this particuar line actually had created a paradox in space and time. I'm surprised my computer has not imploded from receiving an email from her.
The message, for fear of crashing this blog server, is read below:
YOU ONLY FAIL, WHEN YOU DON'T TRY
I actually spent about 5 minutes dissecting this sentence. Take a minute to gather your own thoughts about it before reading on. I'll wait...
Ok, back with me?
First of all, the line itself is a falsity. There are plenty of people who try and fail. Consider my high school career. I did fine in every class except Calculus, which I tried my best at, and still failed. Thus, the sentence itself is not true.
However, my biggest concern was the paradox in it. The grammar is incorrect. There is a comma where there should be no comma, and no period where there should be at the end. Thus... she failed. However, by the context of the information in the statement itself, she didn't fail, because she tried. Thus is born a paradox. It's one of those English Faux Pas that you learn about in College English I; like 'There is no error in this sentance.' I know this seems like nit-picking, but for a professional LEGAL businesswoman to have a paradox in their signature line... well, it scares me.
News Articles that make you think...
My workmate, Becky, on her 15-minute break, was reading news articles from the local paper's website reciting of the news. She brought to my attention that 'From the news desk', at the top of the page, told the story of a local woman who just today won $1,500 dollars in a contest that her local bank was holding. Talk about a slow news day, huh?
Well, our gripe comes in the form of the fact that this story is... well, how do I put this.... NOT NEWS. In fact, one would go so far as to say that many readers wouldn't really CARE about this particular story. In general then, the point is how newspapers, television reporters, and Web news sites, when choosing their 'top stories', always puts some article that nobody really cares about. For instance, when Yahoo puts on their top four links under 'News' a video of a 6-month old kitten batting around a ball of yarn. Cute? Of course. Sharable with friends? Absolutely. News? To my friend's 3 year old daughter, perhaps, but not to me.
To reinforce this point, referring back to the news article Becky was looking at, the stories that the money winner TRUMPED included a plane crash (in a town about 50 miles away), a child being killed in his driveway, as well as some seasonal medical advice that could help hundreds.
Do you see the problem here? Not that it doesn't matter some random lady won money from a bank--I think it's great... wish it was me. It just... isn't news.
In my honest opinion, I believe that Newspapers and TV News programs should have some sort of a section separate from the news... Actually, wait... they do. It's called Editorials, Opinions, or OTHER FLIPPIN' SHOWS OTHER THAN THE NEWS. At the very least, have a section called Not News to talk about it. Not 'Entertainment News' or 'Film Reviews'--just Not News. Is that so much to not muddy the definition of News for the people today?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
'Australia' the movie
My wife and I saw the movie Australia at the behest (and the allowance of borrowing the DVD) of friends of ours. I was a bit apprehensive from seeing it, as the movie really isn't my style of something to watch. (To further my fears, the back cover lists the movie as a 'romantic action adventure, with comedy, drama and spectacle. High bar, much?) I surprisingly endured the whole 165 minutes (That's almost 3 hours!) without any alcohol, usually a must for this sort of 'adventure'.
Long story short, I would give the movie a 5 out of 10. It wasn't bad. It was... well... it was a movie, and it was obvious they spent a lot of time on it. However, for me to be writing about it, there would have to be certain irks, right?
Oftentimes, when I'm playing a video game or watching a movie (etc.), I like to do a little roleplaying in my head as if I were the writers, director, actors and so forth. It helps me to look past what I'm actually looking at or listening to--to actually understand what is going on here. Often, this makes things good, because I can be pleasantly surprised when my expectations are shown to be wrong. A good twist on a prediction always is worth a few points in my book. (You'll note that those points were missing from Australia's 5 given above.) Thus, I would like to mention my thoughts while watching Australia for the first (and probably last) time.
---
Pre-movie: The writers (there were 4 of them) brainstorm.
Writer 1: Alright, guys. We've got a sure blockbuster ahead of us. What should we write about? Come on. What sort of things are you all into?
Writer 2: Well, I'm certainly a fan of westerns and those sort of adventures. Oh, and I love Chuck Norris. Gotta be something like that in there.
Writer 3: Maybe, the Chuck Norris thing works, but we definitely have to do a war piece. I mean, look how successful 'Pearl Harbor' was! In fact, it's gotta take place in the middle of World War II. People can't get enough of that!
Writer 4: This sounds kinda dark. We need something lighthearted. Something pure and innocent... What if we included some sort of running theme tied in with a classic movie. You know, 'The Wizard of Oz' is my favorite movie. That Judy Garland....
Writer 1: Ok, ok... lots of different ideas. They're all so good, too. Seems like they would clash, though.
Writer 2: Nah, not at all. I'm sure we can fit them all in.
Writer 4: Yeah. "Wizard of Oz" would have been out by World War II, so that fits.
Writer 1: Just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it'll work though.
Writer 3: Sure it will. People love genre mixing. Romantic Comedies, Epic Adventures, that sort of thing.
Writer 1: Well, let's just see. I'll write down all these ideas for now, but I think...
Writer 4: Oh, you know what? You liked Chuck Norris, right Bill? I was watching X-Men the other day, and that Hugh Jackman looks a lot like him.
Writer 1: I don't think he looks exactly...
Writer 2: You're absolutely right! We must get Hugh Jackman to play the lead. He'll be all like carrying a gun on a beach, storming Vietnam...
Writer 3: Except it's World War II.
Writer 2: Yeah, World War II. But he's got a gun and he's all like, rat-a-tat-a-tat-a...
Writer 1: Wait a minute... just wait. I get a say in this, too. I was kinda hoping to do a period piece, maybe about life in Aboriginal Australia...
Writer 3: ...And then the Japanese can drop bombs all around him, and he comes up from the smoke running, sweat pouring from his forehead.
Writer 1: Guys...
Writer 2: And he has to rescue a house full of children from all of these evil army men. Just him and his obedient sidekick.
Writer 1: Guys?
Writer 4: Now, come on... This is way too violent. There's no way we can fit songs into this movie as it is now. I want songs! "Somewhereeee over the rainbow..."
Writer 1: GUYS! Now, I'm head writer, and I say we're going to do my Aboriginal Australia idea.
Writer 2: ... With Chuck Norris.
Writer 3: And bombs and soldiers...
Writer 4: And Judy Garland every 10 minutes.
Writer 1: FINE! Whatever!
---
I'll take a little break here. But you get the idea. Honestly, I've covered most of the synopsis of the movie with that little pow-wow. However, this was just one conversation flowing through my head. During the course of the movie, I also was piecing together a brief overview of the movie. As if to say, 'How could I describe this movie in about a minute or two? After all, it's almost 3 hours long!'
If you've never been to Rinkworks.com, Rinkmaster Sam has a section called Movie-a-Minute wherein he makes a (comical) shortened form of the movie that truthfully tells the movie. I'd like to do my own version below.
---
Dan's Movie-a-Minute of 'Australia'
Extra 1: Crikey, I'm Australian. Hear my strong Australian accent? Blimey. People love accents.
Hugh Jackman: Crikey, that's true. Accents make a movie worth watching. See how much Australian lingo I know? There's a Shirley crossing the never-never...
Nicole Kidman: I'm an uptight British lass in Australia. Hugh Jackman, you are a man of the land, whom I could never warm to.
Fletcher: Crikey, I'm a lecherous Australian man, but so is everyone else here, because it's World War II era, and there's no such thing as equality.
Nicole Kidman: Hugh Jackman, save me from these close-minded people.
Hugh Jackman: Crikey, I can't do that, Shirley, I mean, Ms. Ashley. I'm a man of the land. I go as I please.
Nicole Kidman: Please?
Hugh Jackman: Fine, but we do things my way. We have to move cattle.
Aborigines: We're just going to chant Aboriginal things. That ok?
Nicole Kidman: I love Australia. I've become so attached that I'm going to become motherly to everyone. WHERE ARE YOU GOING?! DON'T LEAVE ME!!
Hugh Jackman: Bye.
Fletcher: Hey, babe... Er... G'day Ms. Ashley. Your ranch will be mine, and I will bug you about it every day until you sign it over.
Townspeople: We hate the Aborigines and Hugh Jackman, because he likes them.
Japan: Huzzah! Bombs away!
Townspeople: We still dislike the Aborigines, but less now.
Hugh Jackman: I found myself. Anyone seen Ms. Ashley?
General: She's dead. Please, Mr. Jackman, please turn into Chuck Norris and save the children.
Hugh Jackman: Shapeshift into Chuck Norris!
Townspeople: (Cheers)
Hugh Jackman: I'm back, after my loyal friend sacrificed his life, as per custom dictates.
Nicole Kidman: I'm alive!
Hugh Jackman: Wonderful! I'm going to the bar.
Fletcher: My life is ruined, which it pretty much has been this whole film. Die, main characters.
Aborigine Witch Doctor: No you don't.
Fletcher: Ack! I am dead.
Hugh Jackman: At least me, Ms. Ashley, and the aboriginal child can live happily ever after.
THE END
---
Really, this sums up the main points of the movie. Just stretch it out into 3 hours. I have more to say about this, but I'll save it for tomorrow. After all, we started the movie at 8:30 PM, and with me typing this all immediately after the movie, it's now Midnight on the dot.
---...---
8:00 AM, the next morning
Sorry, I was drifting asleep there last night. I still had a little more to go on about the movie. I did want to say real briefly that I thought the movie was okay. As mentioned at the outset, I would give it a 5, so there are some elements that really work for it. (Not to mention I keep expecting Hugh Jackman to grow claws and attacks the bad guys. The bar fight scene at the beginning doesn't help my impression.) However, there are 3 problems with the film that hinder it from being anything more than an 'ok' movie. I've listed those three problems below in increasing importance, along with a 4th 'It's just me' reason.
#4. It's just me... but it's not my type of movie. War movies are not my thing, and cattle driving isn't exactly a spectator sport for a reason. Of 3 hours, at least 1 solid hour of it involves watching them drive cattle, and about 35 minutes or so involves Chuck Norris-mode Hugh Jackman. In fact, now that I think about it, it was more like 30 minutes or even 25, which, comparitavely makes the cattle driving part seems not only much longer but the ending (where this is located) a bit rushed. All in all, just not my cup of tea.
#3. It's just too formulatic. I'm not a film critic. I only watch about 3 movies a year as they come out, and usually 2 of them are after the DVD is released. Yet, if I, the average joe, can predict everything that happens in a movie right before it happens, not enough thought was given the script. Granted, for a 90-minute movie, there's only so many 'twists' one can write in without seeming like a circus. Still, for a 3 HOUR MOVIE, this kinda becomes tedious. From the second Ms. Ashley arrives and 'proves that she's not as stuck up as the first 10 minutes of the film would lead you to believe' all the way to the 'if you kill the kid, we can't have a happy ending' last minute, most average movie watchers can predict what's going to happen. Nothing much exciting happening here, folks.
#2. There's no reason this should have been one movie. By now, you've picked up on these two points: The movie was tediously long and the movie encompassed two very differing genres involving cattle driving and war. Why couldn't this have been split into two separate movies? You had enough material, obviously. It even FEELS like a seperate movie once Drover leaves the ranch half way through. As soon as they even MENTION the war going on, flashbacks of 'Pearl Harbor' start flooding the minds of the watcher. I all but expect Cuba Gooding, Jr. to run across the beach of Darwin, Australia, looking to help Hugh Jackman out. This just feels like two movies glued together at the seam.
#1. 3 Hours of poor, poor cinematography. Oh man, this just stood out like a sore thumb the entire time, with the apex of goofiness during the moments that should have been tear-jerkers. I'll give you an example...
***SPOILER ALERT***
There's a scene where, while on the drive, Fletcher, the OBVIOUS bad guy* (See Below), is trying to sabotage the drive by running the cattle off of a cliff. Two of Drover's helpers try to steer them away from the cliff. One of the horses trips, sending the helper, Mr. Flynn, under the stampede. As he falls, the camera zooms in on his face (which looks cartoonish to begin with). However, there are jaw-droppingly bad blue/green screen effects going on that are so unrealistic, my pet cat, who watched the film with us, shook his head and laughed like Muttley from Hanna Barbara. I was supposed to be feeling for the man trampled to death, as well as the drovers who almost died stopping the stampede. Instead, I just sat there grinning, trying my best not to laugh.
***SPOILER ALERT***
I felt bad that I wanted to laugh, especially since my wife criticizes me for constantly making fun of movies. Still, this was just a taste of things to come. There were two reasons why the computer-imposed screens looked so fake. A) They ALWAYS were zooming in on the characters' faces during these moments, and the transition just didn't work well. B) They would always have a clearly live shot of, say, a canyon before moving to a computerized scene behind the people. The two just didn't match, and it was obvious. You just have to see the movie to understand what I'm talking about, but I guarantee you won't cry during the sad parts. None of them.
I do have an honorable mention to give, as footnoted above. This really isn't a 'bad' movie trait, as there are plenty of good movies that does this. However, those good movies usually get the last 4 points right. This movie really didn't justify bad guys or good guys as to why they did what they did. They just did. You know the whole drill. Good guys do good because they're good. Bad guys... well, they're Bad, right? They do bad things.
In most 'realistic' movies today, the writers give good reason why the bad guys do the things they do. Take the latest Batman movie with Heath Ledger. The Joker had a very sordid childhood, together with other elements that they explained well in the movie. He was believable as a villian, as was Two-Face (who I still believe is alive by the way--they just can't get rid of him THAT quickly!).
Australia, though... Fletcher is a bad guy because his father is a millionaire bigot. That's the only real reason they make him the way he is. Still, for three hours, he does all but try to push a boulder off of a cliff on the cattle drove. I'm surprised his horse doesn't say ACME on the side of it. All the way to the last minute of the film, he just comes across as a creep who gives no rational thought to anything except, "I'm evil, I must do evil." A little fleshing out of the characters would have been nice.
Ok, that's enough for me. Australia, it was good, but it needed some work...
Long story short, I would give the movie a 5 out of 10. It wasn't bad. It was... well... it was a movie, and it was obvious they spent a lot of time on it. However, for me to be writing about it, there would have to be certain irks, right?
Oftentimes, when I'm playing a video game or watching a movie (etc.), I like to do a little roleplaying in my head as if I were the writers, director, actors and so forth. It helps me to look past what I'm actually looking at or listening to--to actually understand what is going on here. Often, this makes things good, because I can be pleasantly surprised when my expectations are shown to be wrong. A good twist on a prediction always is worth a few points in my book. (You'll note that those points were missing from Australia's 5 given above.) Thus, I would like to mention my thoughts while watching Australia for the first (and probably last) time.
---
Pre-movie: The writers (there were 4 of them) brainstorm.
Writer 1: Alright, guys. We've got a sure blockbuster ahead of us. What should we write about? Come on. What sort of things are you all into?
Writer 2: Well, I'm certainly a fan of westerns and those sort of adventures. Oh, and I love Chuck Norris. Gotta be something like that in there.
Writer 3: Maybe, the Chuck Norris thing works, but we definitely have to do a war piece. I mean, look how successful 'Pearl Harbor' was! In fact, it's gotta take place in the middle of World War II. People can't get enough of that!
Writer 4: This sounds kinda dark. We need something lighthearted. Something pure and innocent... What if we included some sort of running theme tied in with a classic movie. You know, 'The Wizard of Oz' is my favorite movie. That Judy Garland....
Writer 1: Ok, ok... lots of different ideas. They're all so good, too. Seems like they would clash, though.
Writer 2: Nah, not at all. I'm sure we can fit them all in.
Writer 4: Yeah. "Wizard of Oz" would have been out by World War II, so that fits.
Writer 1: Just because something 'fits' doesn't mean it'll work though.
Writer 3: Sure it will. People love genre mixing. Romantic Comedies, Epic Adventures, that sort of thing.
Writer 1: Well, let's just see. I'll write down all these ideas for now, but I think...
Writer 4: Oh, you know what? You liked Chuck Norris, right Bill? I was watching X-Men the other day, and that Hugh Jackman looks a lot like him.
Writer 1: I don't think he looks exactly...
Writer 2: You're absolutely right! We must get Hugh Jackman to play the lead. He'll be all like carrying a gun on a beach, storming Vietnam...
Writer 3: Except it's World War II.
Writer 2: Yeah, World War II. But he's got a gun and he's all like, rat-a-tat-a-tat-a...
Writer 1: Wait a minute... just wait. I get a say in this, too. I was kinda hoping to do a period piece, maybe about life in Aboriginal Australia...
Writer 3: ...And then the Japanese can drop bombs all around him, and he comes up from the smoke running, sweat pouring from his forehead.
Writer 1: Guys...
Writer 2: And he has to rescue a house full of children from all of these evil army men. Just him and his obedient sidekick.
Writer 1: Guys?
Writer 4: Now, come on... This is way too violent. There's no way we can fit songs into this movie as it is now. I want songs! "Somewhereeee over the rainbow..."
Writer 1: GUYS! Now, I'm head writer, and I say we're going to do my Aboriginal Australia idea.
Writer 2: ... With Chuck Norris.
Writer 3: And bombs and soldiers...
Writer 4: And Judy Garland every 10 minutes.
Writer 1: FINE! Whatever!
---
I'll take a little break here. But you get the idea. Honestly, I've covered most of the synopsis of the movie with that little pow-wow. However, this was just one conversation flowing through my head. During the course of the movie, I also was piecing together a brief overview of the movie. As if to say, 'How could I describe this movie in about a minute or two? After all, it's almost 3 hours long!'
If you've never been to Rinkworks.com, Rinkmaster Sam has a section called Movie-a-Minute wherein he makes a (comical) shortened form of the movie that truthfully tells the movie. I'd like to do my own version below.
---
Dan's Movie-a-Minute of 'Australia'
Extra 1: Crikey, I'm Australian. Hear my strong Australian accent? Blimey. People love accents.
Hugh Jackman: Crikey, that's true. Accents make a movie worth watching. See how much Australian lingo I know? There's a Shirley crossing the never-never...
Nicole Kidman: I'm an uptight British lass in Australia. Hugh Jackman, you are a man of the land, whom I could never warm to.
Fletcher: Crikey, I'm a lecherous Australian man, but so is everyone else here, because it's World War II era, and there's no such thing as equality.
Nicole Kidman: Hugh Jackman, save me from these close-minded people.
Hugh Jackman: Crikey, I can't do that, Shirley, I mean, Ms. Ashley. I'm a man of the land. I go as I please.
Nicole Kidman: Please?
Hugh Jackman: Fine, but we do things my way. We have to move cattle.
Aborigines: We're just going to chant Aboriginal things. That ok?
Nicole Kidman: I love Australia. I've become so attached that I'm going to become motherly to everyone. WHERE ARE YOU GOING?! DON'T LEAVE ME!!
Hugh Jackman: Bye.
Fletcher: Hey, babe... Er... G'day Ms. Ashley. Your ranch will be mine, and I will bug you about it every day until you sign it over.
Townspeople: We hate the Aborigines and Hugh Jackman, because he likes them.
Japan: Huzzah! Bombs away!
Townspeople: We still dislike the Aborigines, but less now.
Hugh Jackman: I found myself. Anyone seen Ms. Ashley?
General: She's dead. Please, Mr. Jackman, please turn into Chuck Norris and save the children.
Hugh Jackman: Shapeshift into Chuck Norris!
Townspeople: (Cheers)
Hugh Jackman: I'm back, after my loyal friend sacrificed his life, as per custom dictates.
Nicole Kidman: I'm alive!
Hugh Jackman: Wonderful! I'm going to the bar.
Fletcher: My life is ruined, which it pretty much has been this whole film. Die, main characters.
Aborigine Witch Doctor: No you don't.
Fletcher: Ack! I am dead.
Hugh Jackman: At least me, Ms. Ashley, and the aboriginal child can live happily ever after.
THE END
---
Really, this sums up the main points of the movie. Just stretch it out into 3 hours. I have more to say about this, but I'll save it for tomorrow. After all, we started the movie at 8:30 PM, and with me typing this all immediately after the movie, it's now Midnight on the dot.
---...---
8:00 AM, the next morning
Sorry, I was drifting asleep there last night. I still had a little more to go on about the movie. I did want to say real briefly that I thought the movie was okay. As mentioned at the outset, I would give it a 5, so there are some elements that really work for it. (Not to mention I keep expecting Hugh Jackman to grow claws and attacks the bad guys. The bar fight scene at the beginning doesn't help my impression.) However, there are 3 problems with the film that hinder it from being anything more than an 'ok' movie. I've listed those three problems below in increasing importance, along with a 4th 'It's just me' reason.
#4. It's just me... but it's not my type of movie. War movies are not my thing, and cattle driving isn't exactly a spectator sport for a reason. Of 3 hours, at least 1 solid hour of it involves watching them drive cattle, and about 35 minutes or so involves Chuck Norris-mode Hugh Jackman. In fact, now that I think about it, it was more like 30 minutes or even 25, which, comparitavely makes the cattle driving part seems not only much longer but the ending (where this is located) a bit rushed. All in all, just not my cup of tea.
#3. It's just too formulatic. I'm not a film critic. I only watch about 3 movies a year as they come out, and usually 2 of them are after the DVD is released. Yet, if I, the average joe, can predict everything that happens in a movie right before it happens, not enough thought was given the script. Granted, for a 90-minute movie, there's only so many 'twists' one can write in without seeming like a circus. Still, for a 3 HOUR MOVIE, this kinda becomes tedious. From the second Ms. Ashley arrives and 'proves that she's not as stuck up as the first 10 minutes of the film would lead you to believe' all the way to the 'if you kill the kid, we can't have a happy ending' last minute, most average movie watchers can predict what's going to happen. Nothing much exciting happening here, folks.
#2. There's no reason this should have been one movie. By now, you've picked up on these two points: The movie was tediously long and the movie encompassed two very differing genres involving cattle driving and war. Why couldn't this have been split into two separate movies? You had enough material, obviously. It even FEELS like a seperate movie once Drover leaves the ranch half way through. As soon as they even MENTION the war going on, flashbacks of 'Pearl Harbor' start flooding the minds of the watcher. I all but expect Cuba Gooding, Jr. to run across the beach of Darwin, Australia, looking to help Hugh Jackman out. This just feels like two movies glued together at the seam.
#1. 3 Hours of poor, poor cinematography. Oh man, this just stood out like a sore thumb the entire time, with the apex of goofiness during the moments that should have been tear-jerkers. I'll give you an example...
***SPOILER ALERT***
There's a scene where, while on the drive, Fletcher, the OBVIOUS bad guy* (See Below), is trying to sabotage the drive by running the cattle off of a cliff. Two of Drover's helpers try to steer them away from the cliff. One of the horses trips, sending the helper, Mr. Flynn, under the stampede. As he falls, the camera zooms in on his face (which looks cartoonish to begin with). However, there are jaw-droppingly bad blue/green screen effects going on that are so unrealistic, my pet cat, who watched the film with us, shook his head and laughed like Muttley from Hanna Barbara. I was supposed to be feeling for the man trampled to death, as well as the drovers who almost died stopping the stampede. Instead, I just sat there grinning, trying my best not to laugh.
***SPOILER ALERT***
I felt bad that I wanted to laugh, especially since my wife criticizes me for constantly making fun of movies. Still, this was just a taste of things to come. There were two reasons why the computer-imposed screens looked so fake. A) They ALWAYS were zooming in on the characters' faces during these moments, and the transition just didn't work well. B) They would always have a clearly live shot of, say, a canyon before moving to a computerized scene behind the people. The two just didn't match, and it was obvious. You just have to see the movie to understand what I'm talking about, but I guarantee you won't cry during the sad parts. None of them.
I do have an honorable mention to give, as footnoted above. This really isn't a 'bad' movie trait, as there are plenty of good movies that does this. However, those good movies usually get the last 4 points right. This movie really didn't justify bad guys or good guys as to why they did what they did. They just did. You know the whole drill. Good guys do good because they're good. Bad guys... well, they're Bad, right? They do bad things.
In most 'realistic' movies today, the writers give good reason why the bad guys do the things they do. Take the latest Batman movie with Heath Ledger. The Joker had a very sordid childhood, together with other elements that they explained well in the movie. He was believable as a villian, as was Two-Face (who I still believe is alive by the way--they just can't get rid of him THAT quickly!).
Australia, though... Fletcher is a bad guy because his father is a millionaire bigot. That's the only real reason they make him the way he is. Still, for three hours, he does all but try to push a boulder off of a cliff on the cattle drove. I'm surprised his horse doesn't say ACME on the side of it. All the way to the last minute of the film, he just comes across as a creep who gives no rational thought to anything except, "I'm evil, I must do evil." A little fleshing out of the characters would have been nice.
Ok, that's enough for me. Australia, it was good, but it needed some work...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)