It's one of those films that's just passed me by for years now - never got around to it myself, and it was never shown during my three years of university (Duel, Jaws and ET were all shown) ... so it was when I was skipping around the movie channels recently that I stumbled across the film part-way-through, and liked what I saw.
I knew I'd dig it anyway - it's got not only "that 70's vibe", but it's also got that fresh new blood feel of a filmmaker's early works. Away I scurried and picked up the 30th anniversary ultimate DVD with all three versions, and I finally sat down and watched Close Encounters (after having hummed that five-note tune, and done the hand signals for years since I was a kid being told about it by my Dad).
It's still impressive three decades later - the special effects specifically - which were incredibly hard to pull off with those techniques and with those limitations. But something fantastic was created that holds up to this day, with essentially a simple premise of just using light to it's full, creative effect.
One thing that always bothered me about it though, and still does now that I've finally seen it, is Roy Neary just upping sticks and ditching his family - even if it means he gets to fly around space and see things everyone else could only dream of seeing. That never sat right with me, and it's interesting that Spielberg thinks along similar lines - as he describes, it's the film which dates him (as a person) most of all. It's where he was at long before he became the family man he is today (seven kids, or thereabouts) and as a result it would be a different film if he made it today.
Regardless, it's simply just one of those films which inspires awe - it's a spectacle movie, and a true-hearted one at that - you can almost feel as if you're experiencing the film in the 1970s. You can feel that sense of event, of wonder and slack-jawed interest (much like the men and women who witness the actual third encounter in the final act).
A must-see for any Spielberg fan, or anyone fascinated by alien life (or the prospect of).
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Thursday, 19 February 2009
DeadShed 2009 Show-Reel now online!
Click the link below to see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6lUqqnVcaw
I actually had this completed about a month ago, but it ended up being a bit of a fuss getting it uploaded onto YouTube - it was a case of video quality, as well as getting it properly into the 16x9 (although mine is actually in 1.85:1 - hence the tiny slivers of black above and below the video image) - it's not a case of me not knowing how, Sony Vegas makes it simple - it was just getting the ideal file type, quality and size to go along with the true widescreen setting.
I had a couple (or three, I think) failed uploads - well, failed in my eyes anyway, because the quality just looked awful - either too low and therefore blocky, or the black was all washed out and looking grey, or the widescreen setting wasn't translating.
Those were mostly all on smaller files - so I ended up rendering it out as a widescreen MPEG-2, which also got rid of two glitches I was experiencing with the lower quality versions, on top of the other aforementioned problems.
So indeed, an MPEG-2 at almost 170mb in size - so for the first time, you can actually watch one of my videos, not only in true widescreen so it fills the YouTube window, but also "High Quality" ... mind you, for the sake of trimming the size by 20 or 30 megabytes, I lowered the resolution to 640x480 instead of the usual 720x576 or whatever - these sizes, in Vegas, getting trimmed vertically - like a butcher might slice off a bit of fat, Vegas just slices off the black bars and only puts out the actual moving picture part.
I know, a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo, but thought I'd explain - so anyway, enjoy the updated show-reel, which now features a bunch of new footage from some recent projects ... in fact, this show-reel covers stuff that I've done from 2003 through 2008, so there's five years worth of stuff all crammed into four and a half minutes ... have some of that then. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6lUqqnVcaw
I actually had this completed about a month ago, but it ended up being a bit of a fuss getting it uploaded onto YouTube - it was a case of video quality, as well as getting it properly into the 16x9 (although mine is actually in 1.85:1 - hence the tiny slivers of black above and below the video image) - it's not a case of me not knowing how, Sony Vegas makes it simple - it was just getting the ideal file type, quality and size to go along with the true widescreen setting.
I had a couple (or three, I think) failed uploads - well, failed in my eyes anyway, because the quality just looked awful - either too low and therefore blocky, or the black was all washed out and looking grey, or the widescreen setting wasn't translating.
Those were mostly all on smaller files - so I ended up rendering it out as a widescreen MPEG-2, which also got rid of two glitches I was experiencing with the lower quality versions, on top of the other aforementioned problems.
So indeed, an MPEG-2 at almost 170mb in size - so for the first time, you can actually watch one of my videos, not only in true widescreen so it fills the YouTube window, but also "High Quality" ... mind you, for the sake of trimming the size by 20 or 30 megabytes, I lowered the resolution to 640x480 instead of the usual 720x576 or whatever - these sizes, in Vegas, getting trimmed vertically - like a butcher might slice off a bit of fat, Vegas just slices off the black bars and only puts out the actual moving picture part.
I know, a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo, but thought I'd explain - so anyway, enjoy the updated show-reel, which now features a bunch of new footage from some recent projects ... in fact, this show-reel covers stuff that I've done from 2003 through 2008, so there's five years worth of stuff all crammed into four and a half minutes ... have some of that then. Enjoy.
Blindness (the film)...
Quite possibly the most depressing and harrowing movie I've seen since Requiem For A Dream.
Both have their own visual flairs - the former at times takes on the persona of an 'end of the pier' theme park, while the latter seeks to 'white out' the frame to bewilder the viewer into getting a taste of what it's like for the protagonists, all of whom are going blind.
Kind of like Children of Men - but instead of not being able to have kids anymore, it's not being able to see ... in fact it's almost like a zombie movie, minus the living dead.
Although I'm still struggling to understand why and how on earth the government - as well as the populace - could be so stone-hearted and uncaring to simply bung a bunch of blind people, as if they were lepers, into a completely unadapted and decrepit old sanatorium to basically fend for themselves aside from occasionally getting chucked boxes of food.
It seems too far to suggest that not a single group (such as a charity, or human rights defenders) would bother about the atrocity of essentially throwing victims of a disease onto a squalid trash heap. Not a single person - in hazmat gear of course - even tries to help adapt the building to the victim's disability or anything.
It's actually quite distracting - but then you've soon got people pissing and shitting in the corridors and stepping in it, so you're too busy trying to not grimace yourself into a stupor. Throw in a fury-inducing assumption of power (essentially what you've got in places like Burma, but with a self-proclaimed "King" instead of a military junta) - which dissolves into an absolutely horrifying demand for food to be paid for with "your women".
At this point the film is at its most harrowing and downright depressing, heck - even anger-inducing. It's unfathomable.
This is all merely surface-talk however, the film really has to be seen to be believed ... for lack of a better term. At times it's endlessly sickening as the tale of 'small band of good people versus unbelievable amount of selfish, greedy, uncaring scumbags' gets into full swing. It really is quite shocking.
Towards the end you'll no doubt guess, without even trying, what the ending will be - but bloody nora is it some tough going to get there. Similar to Requiem For A Dream, Blindness is the kind of movie you'll not soon forget - but not soon re-watch either. Why would you need to with such vivid and haunting imagery imprinted on your mind, and with such strong themes swirling around your brain.
Aside from the obvious plot hole you could drive ten trucks through - i.e. why did not a single bugger even attempt to help these inflicted people? - it is a good film, and perhaps even a little bit important. Harrowing, however, would be the one word I'd choose to describe it.
Both have their own visual flairs - the former at times takes on the persona of an 'end of the pier' theme park, while the latter seeks to 'white out' the frame to bewilder the viewer into getting a taste of what it's like for the protagonists, all of whom are going blind.
Kind of like Children of Men - but instead of not being able to have kids anymore, it's not being able to see ... in fact it's almost like a zombie movie, minus the living dead.
Although I'm still struggling to understand why and how on earth the government - as well as the populace - could be so stone-hearted and uncaring to simply bung a bunch of blind people, as if they were lepers, into a completely unadapted and decrepit old sanatorium to basically fend for themselves aside from occasionally getting chucked boxes of food.
It seems too far to suggest that not a single group (such as a charity, or human rights defenders) would bother about the atrocity of essentially throwing victims of a disease onto a squalid trash heap. Not a single person - in hazmat gear of course - even tries to help adapt the building to the victim's disability or anything.
It's actually quite distracting - but then you've soon got people pissing and shitting in the corridors and stepping in it, so you're too busy trying to not grimace yourself into a stupor. Throw in a fury-inducing assumption of power (essentially what you've got in places like Burma, but with a self-proclaimed "King" instead of a military junta) - which dissolves into an absolutely horrifying demand for food to be paid for with "your women".
At this point the film is at its most harrowing and downright depressing, heck - even anger-inducing. It's unfathomable.
This is all merely surface-talk however, the film really has to be seen to be believed ... for lack of a better term. At times it's endlessly sickening as the tale of 'small band of good people versus unbelievable amount of selfish, greedy, uncaring scumbags' gets into full swing. It really is quite shocking.
Towards the end you'll no doubt guess, without even trying, what the ending will be - but bloody nora is it some tough going to get there. Similar to Requiem For A Dream, Blindness is the kind of movie you'll not soon forget - but not soon re-watch either. Why would you need to with such vivid and haunting imagery imprinted on your mind, and with such strong themes swirling around your brain.
Aside from the obvious plot hole you could drive ten trucks through - i.e. why did not a single bugger even attempt to help these inflicted people? - it is a good film, and perhaps even a little bit important. Harrowing, however, would be the one word I'd choose to describe it.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Sex Drive...
I figured this would be good for a laugh with my mates when I saw the trailer, but wasn't expecting much from it - and while it's not got that little extra something which the likes of American Pie exhibited - Sex Drive is actually pretty good, and it certainly entertains, achieving what it sets out to do.
This is the sort of movie where our geeky-ish lead gets into all manner of embarrassing situations involving jizzy pants, flung johnnies, and big black dildos secretly attached to his giant donut work costume ... Citizen Kane it most definitely isn't - it's mainly gross-out, low-brow yuck-yucks, and it does that well.
Not the best in show, so-to-speak, but far more convincing than other movies in its territory.
Were "teh lulz" had? Yes. It's not the dawn of a new era, and it's not a pile of garbage either - plenty of juicy low-brow moments throughout makes it ideal fodder for a bunch of mates in search of a good old chuckle to distract them from the pressures of modern life.
This is the sort of movie where our geeky-ish lead gets into all manner of embarrassing situations involving jizzy pants, flung johnnies, and big black dildos secretly attached to his giant donut work costume ... Citizen Kane it most definitely isn't - it's mainly gross-out, low-brow yuck-yucks, and it does that well.
Not the best in show, so-to-speak, but far more convincing than other movies in its territory.
Were "teh lulz" had? Yes. It's not the dawn of a new era, and it's not a pile of garbage either - plenty of juicy low-brow moments throughout makes it ideal fodder for a bunch of mates in search of a good old chuckle to distract them from the pressures of modern life.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Choke...
It was never going to be Fight Club - if anyone thought otherwise, they're morons.
It would be like expecting 2010 to be as good as or better than 2001 - it's impossible.
Regardless, Choke - the second film to see fruition from the work of Chuck Palahniuk (whose other works are seemingly almost all lined up for movie development at varying stages) - is rather enjoyable, especially due to Sam Rockwell in the lead role.
Choke could have done with a longer running time, a mere 90 minutes or so simply isn't enough to squeeze all the plot threads into an understandable state - side plots are therefore relegated to lip service and not a lot more, while the main drive of the plot (all to do with, of course, Rockwell's Mancini - who may or may not be the son of Jesus). Still though, despite losing a variety of extraneous elements that work better in the book (or perhaps if it was done by the likes of David Fincher), it's fantastic to finally see a new based-on-Palahniuk movie out there, after all it's been almost a decade since Fincher's Fight Club thrust onto the silver screen, with such balls and determination of vision that you do think - no wonder it's taken so long for Choke to get made.
Or indeed any Palahniuk book for that matter - apparently Survivor was in the running after Fight Club did well, but 9/11 firmly stuffed the script into a drawer ... what with it being about a guy delivering his final tell-all autobiography into the flight recorder of an passenger aircraft he's hijacked. Still though - it was a bloody good book.
Hopefully we'll see more Palahniuk adaptations with as much dedication to the source material as we've so far been blessed with ... even if Choke doesn't live up to the lofty standards set by Fight Club, it's still a thoroughly enjoyable film - it isn't a remake, it's not some limp-arsed PG-13 adaptation, Sam Rockwell is awesome in the lead role, and it's an actually interesting story. It's just a shame they didn't flesh it out to a full two hours, which it sorely needed in my view - just to flesh out everything going on in the background, and indeed make a slightly bigger deal of the titular scam.
It would be like expecting 2010 to be as good as or better than 2001 - it's impossible.
Regardless, Choke - the second film to see fruition from the work of Chuck Palahniuk (whose other works are seemingly almost all lined up for movie development at varying stages) - is rather enjoyable, especially due to Sam Rockwell in the lead role.
Choke could have done with a longer running time, a mere 90 minutes or so simply isn't enough to squeeze all the plot threads into an understandable state - side plots are therefore relegated to lip service and not a lot more, while the main drive of the plot (all to do with, of course, Rockwell's Mancini - who may or may not be the son of Jesus). Still though, despite losing a variety of extraneous elements that work better in the book (or perhaps if it was done by the likes of David Fincher), it's fantastic to finally see a new based-on-Palahniuk movie out there, after all it's been almost a decade since Fincher's Fight Club thrust onto the silver screen, with such balls and determination of vision that you do think - no wonder it's taken so long for Choke to get made.
Or indeed any Palahniuk book for that matter - apparently Survivor was in the running after Fight Club did well, but 9/11 firmly stuffed the script into a drawer ... what with it being about a guy delivering his final tell-all autobiography into the flight recorder of an passenger aircraft he's hijacked. Still though - it was a bloody good book.
Hopefully we'll see more Palahniuk adaptations with as much dedication to the source material as we've so far been blessed with ... even if Choke doesn't live up to the lofty standards set by Fight Club, it's still a thoroughly enjoyable film - it isn't a remake, it's not some limp-arsed PG-13 adaptation, Sam Rockwell is awesome in the lead role, and it's an actually interesting story. It's just a shame they didn't flesh it out to a full two hours, which it sorely needed in my view - just to flesh out everything going on in the background, and indeed make a slightly bigger deal of the titular scam.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
%20001.jpg)
Posts
