Off Topic: Dot Dot Dot

In May 2009 developer Jeremy Bush (aka Rhete) created a flash "game", Super PSTW Action RPG, that was clearly a joke parodying adventure and RPG games. PSTW stands for Press Space To Win, which is explained on the front screen of the "game".

In February 2010 a kid (aka Axeman13), too stupid to realise it was a joke, posted an earnest, but typo riddled, rant about just how crap the game was.

Amused the comments, the developer enlisted a voice actor, Deven Mack (aka D-Mac-Double), to record a reading of the review including phonetic pronunciations of all the misspellings.

Then this month, a graphic artist (aka RicePirate) created an animated flash of the comments to accompany the voice actor’s reading.

Here’s the end result, which I thought was hilarious...



…but you might think is worthles.

You’re Entitled To My Opinion: Gervais At The Globes

Did Ricky Gervais go too far with some of his jokes at this year's Golden Globe awards?

I think you can get away with being "controversial" if you're actually funny, but the problem for Gervais (as is often the problem with Gervais) is that he just wasn't.

I mean, did anyone actually find his gay Scientology gag funny? Tom Cruise and Scientology are pretty easy targets but still Gervais' gibe was clunky, and lacked any real wit. I didn't laugh, and neither did anyone at the award ceremony.

You can usually tell when people find an "offensive" or "controversial" gag funny: they laugh first and groan second. When a joke is not funny, the groan comes first, as it did on a number of occasions during Gervais' hosting duties.

And his "Ashton Kutcher's Dad" joke didn't even really make sense.

I've never found Ricky Gervais to be terribly funny and his stint on the Golden Globes hasn't changed my mind. The thing I do find amusing, however, is that many observers are now posing the question "will this kill Gervais' chances of making it big in Hollywood?" Honestly, I though Ghost Town and The Invention Of Lying already had.

Of course, in this age of faux controversy publicity stunts the whole thing was probably a deliberate attempt to generate interest in an award ceremony that no one gives a gay scientologist's dad's ass about anyway.

Today, When I Committed Treason: Tomorrow, When The War Began (2010) Review

Sometimes I feel like a traitor for not being as generous towards Australian films as a lot of Australian film critics seem to be. But I just can't bring myself to forgive a film for clichéd characters, clunky dialogue, dull action, and an incomplete story simply because the people that made it come from the same country as me. Err... mate!

In Tomorrow, When The War Began, Ellie (Caitlin Stasey) and Corrie (Rachel Hurd-Wood) are BFFs living in the small town of Wirrawee. One day, they decide to go on a camping trip to a remote secluded location with Corrie’s boyfriend (Lincoln Lewis).

In what turns out to be the first of many examples of lazy screen-writing, Ellie's parents arbitrarily stipulate that at least seven kids must go on the trip, so Ellie does a phone around enlisting a bad boy (Deniz Akdeniz), a hot girl (Phoebe Tonkin), an Asian guy (Chris Pang), and a religious nerd (Ashleigh Cummings) to accompany them. Before you ask "where's the stoner slacker kid?" don't worry, they pick him (Andy Ryan) up later in the adventure. If it were established that these kids were actually good friends, or if fate threw them together somehow, I might forgive the clichéd character types, but the setup is so lazy and unconvincing that the contrivance (of these disparate kids deciding to go camping together) becomes a particularly annoying way to establish proceedings.

After the short camping trip, filled with clunky pseudo-philosophical dialogue that I defy anyone to describe as anything other than completely unconvincing, our Whitman's sampler pack of teenage character types returns home to discover a foreign alliance has invaded the country and taken everyone they know and love prisoner. Of course, our heroes do what those American kids in 1984's Red Dawn did and decide to fight back.

If an alliance of foreign nations really did invade Australia, their motivation might very well be to stop us making films like Tomorrow, When The War Began.

I really wanted to like this film. I mean, I do appreciate that someone in this country has tried to make something other than another depressing, gritty, urban drama. Unfortunately, Tomorrow just ends up being a stark illustration of the fact that attempting to make an engrossing action/adventure film and actually succeeding are two significantly different things.

Most of the film's problems come from writer/director Stuart Beattie's screenplay. It's just littered with unconvincing situations and dialogue, that continually jar you out of the moment. Take for example a scene where the religious nerd gets permission from her strictly religious father to go on the camping trip. He clearly has serious reservations about his precious daughter fraternising with any boys, so the notion that he'd approve of her camping with the local criminal bad boy, just doesn't ring true. Also, early on, a big deal is made of Ellie borrowing her parents Landrover for the camping trip, but when hot girl vomits in it, Ellie, oddly, just laughs like it's no problem. It's almost as if Beattie continually forgets what he wrote on the previous page of his script.

The main attack that the kids plan and execute against the occupying force is also hopelessly unconvincing. We're expected to believe that an invading force that can so ruthlessly and efficiently round up so many people as POWs, and orchestrate such a well organised invasion would leave a key strategic piece of infrastructure guarded by half a dozen infantry that could be easily displaced by a herd of cows? Really? I mean, really?! Perhaps if North Korea continue to get out of hand we should just send South Korea some cattle.

Another annoyance is just how hackneyed the characters' transformations all are. They are all just as obvious as their character type. Will bad boy ultimately become good? Will the timid religious nerd come out of her shell? Will hot girl become more down-to-earth? Will Corrie’s cowardly boyfriend become more courageous? Will the stoner kid become more responsible? You know the answer to these questions as soon as you recognise the types and, sadly, that is very early on in the proceedings.

Finally, Tomorrow commits my favourite movie making sin: it has no ending. It finishes like a TV pilot with all the main "characters" established but most of their adventures obviously yet to come. Note to film's producers: TV pilots belong on TV!

All the films flaws would be more forgivable if the film was funny, or entertaining in an escapist sort of fashion. But the whole thing is fairly humourless and the action sequences, whilst impressive by Australian film standards, are pretty low rent compared to your average Hollywood action/adventure. Sorry, but, exploding ride-on lawn-mowers just don't get the blood pumping.

The film's one saving grace is the excellent cinematography. I can't deny that the film looks great, but that's just not enough to elevate Tomorrow above being a dull, predictable, b-grade genre pic. Err... fair dinkum!

Quick BIQ Review: The Ring Two (2005)

Compared to it's predecessor, The Ring Two is less scary, makes less sense, and contains more Australians.

The most intriguing thing about The Ring Two is why Naomi Watts' hairstyle inexplicably changes so dramatically shortly after the film begins.

The performances are good and the direction is solid, but the story is so silly and arbitrary this muddled sequel really fails to impress.

True Horror: Keli Lane found guilty of murder

Have you ever had one of those conversations that go something like this:

"Did you hear about that guy who they think killed his daughter in Dubbo?"
"Oh, you mean the little girl they found in the oil drum?"
"Oil drum? No, she was drowned in the bath tub. Wasn't the oil drum murder in Adelaide?"
"Hmm, I'm not sure, I thought it was Dubbo, but I could be wrong. I heard about a bathtub drowning in Sydney."
"That was the little boy who drowned at his Aunt's place wasn't it?"
"Was it an Aunt? I thought it was the father's girlfriend."
"Oh, yeah. No, this one was a little girl in Dubbo."

These conversations are the result of the fact that real life criminal stories have such a disjointed narrative. It can be literally years between the first media reports of a crime taking place and any kind of resolution. And whilst one case "goes quiet" for an extended time there are many other cases that get reported in between. Cases with similar details seem to blend together, particularly if you are only taking a casual interest.

I rarely take more than a casual interest in real life criminal cases, and am always confusing facts from one case with another, but the recent trial of Keli Lane for the murder of her newborn infant, Tegan, in 1996 really piqued my interest. It's just such a bizarre case. If it had been a fictitious film I would almost certainly be scoffing at how implausible it all was.

It seems truth really is stranger than fiction.

If you're not familiar with the case I'll do my best to sum it up in 50 words or less...

Between 1995 and 1999 a young elite water polo player, Keli Lane, had 3 unwanted full-term pregnancies. She gave the first and third babies up for adoption, but the second baby, born in 1996, is still unaccounted for to this day.

Lane kept all three pregnancies and births secret from her parents (with whom she was living), her boyfriend (who she was shagging), the biological fathers (confirmed not to be the boyfriend for babies no. 1 and 3), her friends and her water polo team mates. How? Don't ask. No one, including Lane, has provided a convincing explanation of how she did it.

Because Lane had kept all pregnancies secret no one seemed to know that Tegan even existed, let alone that she was missing. It wasn’t until Keli was organising the adoption of her third baby that social workers realised Tegan was unaccounted for. At first, Lane tried to deny ever having given birth to Tegan. When presented with evidence that she'd given birth to Tegan in Auburn Hospital in 1996 she changed her story and said she'd given Tegan away to a couple in Perth. When social workers referred the matter to police as a "missing person" case, Lane again changed her story saying that she gave Tegan to the biological father, a man she first identified as Andrew Morris, but then later identified as Andrew Norris.

In the 10 years since, there's been a coronial inquiry (which recommended Tegan's disappearance be investigated as a homicide) and an extensive police search for Andrew Morris/Norris and Tegan. The police ultimately concluded that Andrew Morris/Norris did not exist and Tegan must have been killed by Keli sometime between leaving Auburn Hospital at approx 11am, on 14th Sept. 1996, and arriving at her parent’s house, without Tegan, at approximately 3pm on the same day.

Keli Lane was tried for Tegan's murder this year and after a 4 month trial, the jury spent a week deliberating before telling the judge that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. The judge then gave the jury the option of returning a majority verdict (IE 11 votes to 1). Before you could say "Keli Lane is fast running out of friends" the jury returned with a majority "guilty" verdict.

...OK, that's a lot more than 50 words, but I did my best.

Keli Lane outside court - before the verdict, obviously.

I think most observers were shocked by the verdict. Whilst it's pretty obvious Lane is a pathological liar and her story is bollocks, the prosecution case was highly circumstantial. With no physical evidence and a less than compelling motive (Tegan was a "problem" that Keli wanted to get rid of) in light of the fact that she'd adopted out the other babies, "reasonable doubt" seemed to be built in. Apparently eleven out of the twelve Jurors didn't see it that way.

After the trial concluded, the Judge released police interview footage from 2003. In it police confront Keli about the fact that none of her stories are checking out, and if she doesn’t come clean about what happened to Tegan it will be referred to the coroner. The really weird thing about Lane, in that video, is the way she reacts to various things the police say to her. When she’s confronted with the suggestion that Tegan is untraceable and possibly dead, Lane doesn’t seem too perturbed. But when the police indicate that they’ll have to start interviewing family and friends to try to get to the truth of the matter, Lane gets really upset at the prospect of them finding out she ever had Tegan. Dead kid = no problem. Embarrassing pregnancy = "No! Please don’t tell anyone!" And if Lane really is innocent, then it’s truly bizarre that she doesn’t protest her innocence in the police interview more. She denies killing Tegan, but doesn’t seem that interested in explaining what became of Tegan, in order to clear her name.

That police interview is the only real incite we get into Keli and her strange behaviour. She didn’t give evidence at the coronial inquest, she didn’t give evidence at the trial, and she’s never been interviewed by the media. According to freelance journalist Rachel Jane Chin, who twittered updates throughout the trial and is publishing a book about the case in the new year, Keli always appeared calm and confident in court. Chin observed that Lane’s parents had “aged 10 years” during the trial, but Keli always looked “fresh”. Whilst a person’s physical appearance is really not an accurate barometer of their psychology, it’s still unsettling that such a normal, dare I say attractive, looking woman led such a bizarre life.

Of course the story will probably go quiet again, in the media, until Keli’s sentencing hearing in February next year. I guess it’s possible her lawyers will mount some sort of an appeal after that time too. It’ll be very interesting to see if Keli’s story changes again in a bid to get out of jail.

Even though Keli Lane is now behind bars, officially guilty of killing her daughter Tegan, I suspect this story still has some way to run.

And I’ll be very surprised if someone doesn’t make a movie about it.

Quick BIQ Review: Cube 2: Hypercube (2002)

I don't know whether to praise the film makers for injecting some new ideas into the Cube universe, or to slap them for even attempting to make a sequel to a film which simply didn't need one.

I'm leaning towards the later.

On the plus side, the performances are better and the rules of the new Hypercube make the familiar narrative (of a bunch of people stuck in a bunch of cubes) seem fresher than it probably is. But the attempt, this time around, to explain who and/or what is outside the cube feels all wrong. I have to admit that I wasn't particularly enamoured with the ambiguity of the original's ending, but the ending to Cube 2 is even less satisfying.

Rant O'Clock: 3D Blu-ray

Earlier this year I decided it was about time I replaced my 13 year old RPTV, that resembles 2001's big black monolith, with a nice new LCD or Plasma HD flat screen TV.

I've got the cash and I'm ready to buy, but nine months later I haven't made a purchase. Why? The very people that stand to profit from my purchase are the very people who seem to be going out of their way to discourage me from buying.

My conundrum is simple. I don't want to buy a 2D TV only for it to become a white elephant in 12 months time, if 3D takes off. But I don't want to go to the extra expense of buying a 3D TV right now because you simply can't get any content for them.

The ridiculous thing about the lack of content is not that 3D movies haven't been published on 3D Blu-ray. They have. The ridiculous thing is these films are being exclusively released bundled with the TVs or some other "starter" pack. If you buy a Samsumg you'll get Monsters Vs Aliens for "free", but you can't go and buy Avatar. If you buy a Panasonic you'll get Avatar for "free" but you can't buy Alice in Wonderland.

Virtually all the major titles released on 3D Blu-ray are not available for purchase separately. In other words, after you spend thousands of dollars on your new 3D TV, 3D Blu-ray player, and (proprietary) 3D glasses you're stuck watching the one lousy movie that came bundled with your TV.

What the flying fuck are these corporations thinking? Do they honestly think that I'll spend thousands of dollars without thinking about what else I might be able to do with the equipment, apart from watch Monsters Vs Aliens?

The vague promise from retail sales people that more 3D Blu-ray titles are coming seems pretty hollow in light of the fact that some of these exclusivity deals (like Panasonic's Avatar deal) allegedly last for 12 months, and "big" upcoming releases (like the Shrek 1 to 4 3D Blu-ray set) are still being stitched up in exclusive bundles.

So, I'm going to keep my cash and continuing to holding off purchasing any TV, until the likes of Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony quit with this ridiculous "exclusive bundling" nonsense.

So there!