Magical instruments.

Hooray for feeling sick and taking the day off of work.

So, last night I played at the Belgrave convention. It was pretty good, despite the fact there was no amp there so I had to D.I. I wouldn't have minded that, it's just that I didn't get to choose the tone of my bass, and I would have liked a deeper, richer sound. Additionally, I had little sound in my foldback, so I couldn't hear if my fills and everything were being played well. However, everyone else seemed to think it sounded fine, so I guess it worked out alright. The rest of the band knew what they were doing; a gift for any musician. Especially Liz, The Flutist From the Heavenly Realms Above. My goodness, that girl can play. She just pulls these ad-libbed riffs out from nowhere, it sounded really great.

And there might be film reviews up later.

Is it odd that I prefer to think of the new year not as the start of 2007, but as the new week beginning on Monday? I think a new orbit around the sun has been overshadowed by my concerns of other, and frankly, more important things. But it's always good to reflect on the year that has passed, and in a swift move that shall dissapoint none, such a memoir will appear on this beloved blog before the clock ticks onto twelve on Sunday.

My Christmas was fun. I hope yours was, also. No matter the circumstances.

Tonight, I'm playing at the never-ending Belgrave convention. Yes, on the off chance that you are reading this blog post AND going tonight, you'll see me cranking out some funky tunes on the bass.

www.bhc.org.au

I am quite bored, right now. Yes, I know it isn't a perfect word to use, but I am. There are most like a myriad of things I could be doing: organising things for the new year, putting away my clothes, ironing, or something. But here I sit, glued to the computer screen, listening to Thousand Foot Krutch and chatting with a friend about snowmen.

Then the realisation hit Patrick - he was less interesting than a lot of other things.

I suppose I should write some film reviews. I have Sin City and Happy Feet to review...but I can do those tonight. I've purchased the extended edition of Sin City, and I loooooooooooooooooooooove it. Does that get the point across? It's great.

Anyway, peace out. Film reviews tonight, if I can be bothered.

Funniest thing I've seen in a while...

Voila, parlez vous francias? Did I spell that correctly?

Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (Jeunet; 2001) [France]

...or, "Amelie" as some others may know the film. If you don't know the plot, check imdb.com because I can't be bothered writing it out here.

Audrey Tatou is such a terrific casting choice for this film. She has the ability to pull of a sense of innocence and curiosity within Amelie, but is able to portray her strengths at the same time. It may sound easy, but it isn't, and only a handful of actors/actresses can pull it off well. Given the fantastic nature of the film's storyline and cinematography, her ability to pull something like this off works very well in conjuction with the rest of the plot. The wacky and unusual characters, blah blah blah.

The rest of the cast is fine. I particularly liked Serge Merlin.

And yes, Audrey. I forgive you for the Da Vinci Code.

Jeunet, or rather, Bruno Delbonnel, keeps a fantastic tone throughout the film, lacing the frames with either red or green. Amelie's costumes are either red or green, her apartment is laced with these colours. I suspect the camera filters have a green tinge to them as well. This method gives the cinematography a very concise and particular sense of vision and coherency - traits a film like this absolutely requires, or it just comes across as way, way too much and ruins the blend between exaggerated detail and keeping a simple story.

But what I really enjoy about this film, is that Jeunet isn't afraid to grab the viewer's attention through an unusual narrative style. I mean, from the get-go, this film is just different. He makes the ordinary, extraordinary. E.g., each character's likes and dislikes are described from the beginning. Jeunet exposes the gritty detail of a film so much that it almost reads as a book. The editing during this "prologue", if you will, is snappy enough that it keeps our attention, but is lengthy enough between shots to give us enough breathing room to soak it all in. Which is essential, given the colour tone theme I wrote about earlier. This film is about the micro, but Jeunet puts a lot in to admire.

And that's all I can be bothered writing.

5/5

A trip.

My trip to Queensland was relaxing, enjoyable, and most of all, fun. I took a lot of pictures and I'm sure I'll upload a few sometime. I thought about entering some details about what happened, but we really didn't do that much. Lounged about, swam, went shopping, etc. We hit a kangaroo on the way back, though. Does that count as something?
We also went to the cinema. Which brings me to my next point:

Casino Royale

Casino Royale is a prequel to all the Bond films in existence, but also takes place in present day. A fact which annoyed some of my friends, but for whatever reason, I didn't have a problem with it. James Bond, who has only just recently acquired a 007 status, is on a mission to stop a terrorist banker from funding various terror groups. To do this, he must win a high stakes poker game at the casino royale. There, that's the short version.

Ever since Daniel Craig was appointed as the new Bond several months ago, there was a massive hysteria that spread through the internet. Criticism arose from all corners of fan sites and nerds from across the globe. Though I thought Craig was an odd choice, I wanted to reserve judgement until I saw the film. Though I can't help but admit that a 95% Fresh reading on the rottentomatoes.com meter encouraged me.

Quite simply, Craig is excellent. Even from the opening scene, he captures the audience's interest with his cocky way about him, and his deep blue eyes that seem to penetrate through the celluloid. He is Bond, and he captures the character and molds it into his own style. The way he delivers dialogue is so crisp and real, I doubt even Connery could pull off lines like Craig could. He has a cheek and almost arrogance that is certainly attractive. So, really, the fear that he would suck was an unsubstantiated one indeed. He has an aura that few actors could pull off, even with practice.

SPOILER

A scene I particularly thought captured Craig's way of doing things was at the poker game. The villian, Cherife, (excuse the spelling, I cannot be bothered checking imdb.com)), has laced Bond's drink with a poison. It starts to take it's toll, and Bond has to leave. He struggled towards his car, panting, gasping for breath. He attaches a device to his chest that will kick start his heart, but passes out. He begins to flatline, when Eva Green comes and kick starts the machine. He revives, cleans himself up, and heads back to the game. He sits back down, looks at Chreife square in the eyes and says, "Sorry about that. That last hand almost killed me."

It was such a cool moment, and one that defines the new Bond.

END SPOILER.

I don't want to focus too much on the casting, because for the most part it was pretty spot on. Eva Green I particularly liked, and everyone else suited their parts just fine.

What I really want to focus on, however, is the screenplay and cinematography. This is not a typical Bond film. There are no gadgets, there are no wink-wink nudge-nudge jokes, and thank God, there are no ridiculous villains who want to TAKE OVER TEH WOLRDD!111. Sure, it's a Bond-flick, so one's perception of reality is a little jolted about, but this is the first Bond film I've seen that has actually used emotion to fuel the characters and their actions. You get a sense of "Hey, some of these things could actually happen." Bond gets hurt. You see him covered in blood and staggering along. He nearly dies. He is flawed, and it is good that we see him this way. Bond is human; he is not a superhero that will save the day every time. Occasionally, he fails. And it is his trust of people that makes him fail this time; a mistake that turns him into the agent that literally trusts no one.

The script is clear and crisp, with scenes never too long or too short. And we actually delve into Bond's emotions - we see him fall in love. Like I said, he is not a piece of stone. He is a human being, beneath the agent.

But of course, what is a Bond film with cars and action scenes, and they are both present in CR. The action felt real and up close and personal, and you could almost taste the blood.

All in all, this film was excellent. Re-watchable, with a screenplay that stripped away the crap, and added what needed to be added to a Bond film: Realism.

4/5

Eragon

There are moments in a man's life that he remembers for his entire existence. A first kiss, perhaps. Maybe even the first film he saw with his parents. The stories he read as a child.

Another one of those things has happened to me recently. I saw Eragon.

It's an event that is carved upon the memories of my heart.

Oh, but no, it isn't an event that is cause for joy. No, not at all. The memory of this film is painted upon my nightmares. I weep for the celluloid this film has wasted.

This film is terrible.

That's it, quite simply. I mean, there is so much wrong with this film I don't even know where to start. Editing is the most outstanding problem. Too quick. The scenes didn't have enough time to breathe, and you never got settled. The script was full of cliches, and there was no character development whatsoever. There were totally unnecessary scenes. Eragon's cousin leaves home. Um...okay? Why did we have to spend 5 minutes of screen time on that, when we could have seen a more interesting prologue, or some more development between Brom and Eragon? Props looked cheap, sets even cheaper.

That said, the CG was good, and Jeremy Irons was entirely under-used.

This is such a shame, because the storyline is just so rich, and remnants of it are quite original. Plus there are dragons.

Dragons.

...Dragons.

Look, I'm so dissapointed with this film, I can only give it:

1/5

Do NOT go and see it.

And with that, have a good day.

I apologise for the lack of entries, but I've been away on a holiday with some friends for the past week and a half. A full report of our antics, along with reviews of Casino Royale and Eragon shall come tomorrow.

But for now, I need sleep.

French 1 - D 76
Reporting and Newswriting - D 76
Communication Law - D 75
Authorship and Narrative in the Cinema - D 78

I'm not exactly complaining.

Maybe my apathy...

A recent discussion on a forum sparked a chain of thoughts in my head - I don't care about the book of Revelation. I honestly don't care about the whole 'end times' debarcle and debate. Tribulation and rapture and post-whatever. I don't care, I don't think it's fundamental to the Christian faith. I'm all for an argument, but why do we need to let something so...trivial, in my opinion, take over the way we believe things? I think the other things Jesus taught about were/are much, much more important. Treating your neighbour as yourself, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc.

Anyway. That's my view.