The Justin Guber Institute

You Do Not Fuck With This Man

		Tuesday, 25 August 09 - 09:56 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

You just don't. I can't think of a single movie where it would be a good idea to fuck with Clint Eastwood. And from some of the stories I've heard about in Hollywood, it's probably not a good idea to fuck with him in real life either. Shit, even when he had a monkey for a sidekick (sorry, I meant ape) you didn't fuck with his sidekick. And Gran Torino has every bad ass motherfucker Clint's ever played rolled into one bitter old son of a bitch.

I've been watching a lot of comedies for the past two months (though for about two days last week it was violent and bleak movies), just trying to keep my spirits up. 'Mallrats' has never failed me, nor has most of Kevin Smith's work (though 'Chasing Amy' is a bit too painful to watch) but it's been getting old and a lot of the new comedies feel... cheap. The last mind-blowingly refreshingly good comedy I saw was 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' and though there've been a few since that have been good, nothing particularly exciting or surprising.

The last thing I expected was to find myself laughing throughout a Clint Eastwood drama.

Don't get me wrong - the movie's not a comedy, and I wasn't laughing at the movie as if it was so bad it was humorously good. I was laughing in surprise, in joy at watching the movie. Most of all, I was laughing in rejoice at how unabashedly badass Clint is.

Like I said earlier, this is all those characters of his that you've loved rolled into one - the political incorrectness of Dirty Harry Callahan, the no-bullshit attitude and moral code of every cowboy he's ever been from The Man With No Name to the Outlaw Josey Wales. All rolled into a man that's knocking on heavens door.

And he growls. He fuckin' growls, like a pitbull that you've just accidentally fucked with.

This is an old school man in every respect, and it's insanely refreshing to see a character like this on screen. He's not a bad man, and you can see his heart if you look past the unpleasentries. He's just a man, the way men were portrayed all those years ago, back when being a man meant something. And just watching this man go through this movie was an insanely fun ride.

And don't get me started on the direction and the script. I think anyone who's reviewed a Clint-directed movie has said the same thing - lean as fuck. Not an ounce of fat in the direction or the script, not a scene in that's unrequired, not a shot that's indulgent, just what you need and full stop.

By now you've probably noticed I haven't touched on the story at all. Why should I? There are tons of reviews out there and there's the trailer to check out. It's a movie where Clint is Clint, which is one of those things that are just a joy to watch.

Check it out. Find it. Slip it in your DVD player, sit back and enjoy. No CGI, no fancy editing, no pretty stars and starlets either banking in another paycheck or trying to prove their acting chops - just a good story starring Clint Eastwood. And if this truly is his last appearance as an actor, then it's a fitting end to a brilliant career.

This Is How I Remember Him

		Saturday, 27 June 09 - 12:35 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

 

In a white suit and fedora, singing 'Smooth Criminal' in the 'Moonwalker' movie (click the pic to check out the whole 9 and a half minute sequence).

I loved this moment in the movie. It brought about my love for suits, a love I carried on till I was in my early twenties and arrived in Malaysia where wearing a suit everyday was not a viable option. I loved the moves, the coreography, the coolness of it all and the song. That song was a brilliant piece of pop music.

Right now I'm listening to 'The Way You Make Me Feel' and I think about how much we all ridiculed the King of Pop, how he was such an easy target for the press. But just listen to one of his songs and it makes you realize one inalienable truth -

This man knew how to do pop music, and pop music hasn't reached it's heights since.

We live in an age where everything is designed for maximum catchiness at the shortest span of time, we are bombarded with imagery of the latest hip new trends in music and everything sounds exactly the same as everything else. Hell, even so-called lo-fi garage rock has been put through the corporate-homogenizer, pre-packed and survey-tested.

Michael Jackson's music was pop music that everybody could appreciate it. And it was original, it was fresh and it was exciting. Why do people sick of the current radio-friendly pop trends search far and wide for obscure music for them to discover? Because pop music isn't as exciting as it was when MJ was at his peak.

Whatever his sins, whatever his eccentricities, he will be missed and he will be remembered.

Snickety-Snick, Snickety-Sucked

		Thursday, 30 April 09 - 09:02 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

 

When the first X-Men movie came out, I wasn't completely blown over by it, but I was happy enough - Brian Singer had brought the characters to life. It was too much of an introduction movie for me to be completely happy about it, the same way I felt about the first Spiderman movie. And like the Spiderman franchise, I was VERY happy with the second installment. And like Spidey again, I was unsure about the third part - a bit overblown, with additional characters added in for the sake of pleasing the fanboys though adding nothing to the plot.

I wasn't sure what I was expecting with Wolverine's solo outing, but I didn't expect this.

The movie opened adequately enough, with a nod to the Origins book itself, and went on to a very cool montage showing how Logan and Creed fought pretty much every war America's been involved in.

And then, just like that, it all gradually nosedives.

Now, don't even get me started on the writing. There are so many characters added in for no fucking reason whatsoever, half of which were inspired by the past few years of X-Men comics and stuck in as if to satiate the needs of us comic geeks whilst at the same time showing how 'cool' their powers are, but are they really required? Last I checked, the movie was called 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine'. Just concentrate on fucking Logan and his relationship with Creed. Instead, we rush through Wolverine's entire story, using the moments in his life to jump from plot point to plot point in order to show sequences with a bunch of different mutants.

Seriously, why? Why is Scott Summers and Emma Frost even in this picture? Why have the Weapon XI storyline? Weapon XI is frickin' Deadpool?! I wasn't too sure about Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, even though I think the dude's great in anything he does and sure enough, the second we meet him we get a taste of that trademark smart-aleck banter that he can do with his eyes closed, but then he dissapears for the length of the movie until the end, where they've stitched the character's mouth shut and turned Deadpool into the ultimate Mortal Kombat character - Sub Zero's looks, Baraka's blades and the teleportation powers of the other dude besides Rayden with a wok on his head. Then there's Agent Zero - a very cool character from the Morrison run of 'New X-Men' now reduced to Stryker's lackey. Joy.

The most obvious pointless inclusion award has to go to Gambit, though. What a goddamn pointless exercise. There is absolutely no reason, no fucking reason at all, for Gambit to be in the picture. He has one cool fight sequence and helps bring up some exposition before bringing Wolverine to the third act. Fucking why?! It's blatantly obvious the only reason the dude's in there is because everybody's been complaining about how Gambit hasn't been in the movies considering that he's the coolest character of the comics after Wolverine himself and Taylor Kitsch plays it well, but this is what we get? This is all we get?

And it's not any of the actors fault. Most of the casts' characterization of these comic book legends are pretty spot-on, especially Liev Schrieber as Victor Creed. The bad memory of lumbering WWE champion Tyler Mane as Sabretooth is completely removed with Liev's performance and simple make-up as compared to Mane's fluffy boa ensemble. But here's the sad fact - Tyler Mane got the movie with the better script. Liev's stuck with some insanely dumb lines, as is everyone in the cast, and everybody tries to do the best with what they have but what they have ain't much. Not all the performances are great - why is there a Black Eyed Pea in the movie? Why not cast Fergie in the movie while you're at it? - but overall everyone tries their darndest to make the lines work.

Sorry, guys - they just don't.

But let's face facts. It's meant to be a big Hollywood movie, right? We're not supposed to expect a decent script, are we? No. I'll tell you what we're meant to expect - big, cool, action set pieces.

So why, oh God why, is the CGI so fucking horrendous?

Apart from the claws coming in and out, most of the time in the X-Men movies Wolvie's claws are props attached to him. Not here, no. 80% of the time his claws are computer graphics as he fights in a CGI-enhanced background together with other CGI effects and CGI bullets and CGI mattes...

...and it was so utterly beyond crap we weren't even pissed in the cinema. We were laughing our fucking asses off.

The basic rule of CGI has always been that as time passes, each new CGI movie makes the older CGI movies look crap in comparison (except for Terminator 2 - the CGI in that movie hasn't dated one bit) but this was just terrible. Wolverine's claws are now shinier, longer and faker than ever before. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I bought the bootleg DVD that was making the rounds for the past two weeks with the unfinished CGI because then I could just imagine how good it could have been. Have programmers gotten lazy? Have all the good ones been bought over by the Transformers post-production team? What the fuck is going on, godammit!?

I swear, Hollywood, I'm hurt. Hurt beyond recognition. Every movie I've gone to in the cinema this year has been either dissapointing, infuriating or just plain shit. And what's more, thanks to this run of crap Kitty now thinks I'm a jinx when it comes to watching movies in the cinema because every movie I've taken her to since we've started dating has been so utterly beyond salvation. None of the smaller movies make it on the big screen here, Hollywood, only your big-ass franchises, and every single one has sucked balls. The only movie that came out in the cinemas here that I enjoyed was 'Slumdog Millionaire', and I watched that on DVD because I didn't think it was coming out (although I discovered from Col. Kurtz that it was censored pretty heavily, so I'm glad I watched it on the small screen). 'The Wrestler' didn't come out in cinemas here, I had to buy the DVD too. I doubt 'The Brothers Bloom' will be on the big screen here either. Or 'Inglorious Basterds'. Or 'Drag Me To Hell', 'Crank 2', 'Downloading Nancy', 'Paper Heart', 'Public Enemies', 'Facing Ali' or 'Soul Power'.

Instead, we get 'Streetfighter: Legend of Chun Li' and fucking 'Dragonball Evolution'.

My last hopes are left on 'Star Trek', 'Transformers' and 'Terminator: Salvation' as far as big budget movies go. I might go check out the lattest Potter flick or 'Angels & Demons' and I hope 'The Taking of Pelham 123', 'Coraline' and 'Where the Wild Things Are' come out here.

But if Trek, Transformers or Terminator suck, that's it. No more. I shall not step into a local cinema for a while. This is too fucking much. What is going on, Hollywood? Is the recession that depressing that you've forgotten how to entertain? I don't expect you to make me think, or make me marvel at how brilliantly crafted a plot is. I only expect you to entertain me for two hours. To make my popcorn worthwhile and give me the opportunity to discuss the movie with my friends at length. I am sick of stepping out of the cinema shell-shocked.

Do something. Please. Because right now the only movies I want to see I can only get bootlegged, and you have only yourself to blame.

Knowing Me, Knowing Poo

		Tuesday, 07 April 09 - 02:45 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

Dear God. What can be said about this movie that hasn't already been said about anal bleaching? Painful to the bum, completely un-needed but somehow it's a big thing.

There has been, in the history of cinema so far, no other movie that has caused my innards to want to burst out from my body and strangle its creators than 'Knowing'.

Some would retort: "Come on, it couldn't have been as bad as Batman & Robin! Or Indy 4!" Well, to that I tell you this. Batman & Robin was shit from the first two minutes of film. I stayed in the cinema to see whether it could get any better and was sadly mistaken. Even the close-up of Alicia Silverstone's bum couldn't make it better, but from the moment the movie started, it was shit. And Indy 4 is bad predominantly because it has three other well made movies to live up to and just flat out couldn't.

'Knowing' is bad because for three quarters of the film it's actually good. Sure, the CGI looks like the product of a first year student in animation, and if it was, that student should be applauded and his or her skills nurtured but no, this was a Hollywood film at a time where CGI has come a long way since the Nintendo 64 looking graphics of 'Species'. Regardless of this fact, the story still grips because it kicks off with an interesting premise and keeps building up on it: a series of numbers are found in a time capsule, each group of numbers signifying the date of an event that will cause the death of a number of people, the amount of people that will die and the coordinates of the location where the event will take place - 9/11, hurricane Katrina, etc, all leading up to present day. Three dates are of the future, and it's up to Nicolas Cage to figure out whether or not he can stop these events from happening and what it all has to do with him.

The kicker? The last date signifies the end of the world.

Sounds interesting, right? Pretty good so far. And whilst many in the world may not like the Cage-meister, he's done a lot of good movies such as 'Leaving Las Vegas' and 'Adaptation as well as flicks that I dig even though some may think they're wrong and cheesy like 'Con Air'.

Fuck you. The 'bunny in the box' moment is a landmark in action cinema.

Since it's a Hollywood Cage flick, certain things are required, such as running...

Chillin' With Dubya and Yoko

		Tuesday, 24 March 09 - 08:08 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

So I couldn't sleep last night, even though I was desperate to. It had been a pretty work-packed evening and I wanted to get some rest, but my room refused to cool down, regardless of what I did with the air conditioner.

When I woke up the next day I was still unrested and for the past week I'd been suffering some annoying aches in my shoulders, probably as a result of not sleeping properly or not in the proper position. By 3.30pm I couldn't hold out and had to take a nap where I dreamed of being in a supermarket in England buying lots of chocolates and sweets unavailable here. When I woke up, the shoulders were aching even more and I couldn't resist anymore. It was time. I had to do it. There was no other choice.

I had to venture into the world and get some Yoko Yoko.

Somehow I returned with not only the miracle cure that is Yoko Yoko, but also a tub of Haagen Daz cookies n' cream (not sure how that happened) and applied the Japanese wonder drug...

...and burned.

Seeing as I was still quite tired I popped open the ice cream and decided to pick a DVD from the unwatched stack - a pile of DVD's that I've bought over the years because I wanted to watch them, but wasn't in the mood to watch them yet. Picking one out from this stack is very difficult because it's not based on recommendation or knowledge, just feel.

And today I felt like watching 'W'.

I remember when I heard about the project and reacted with a simple "whaaat...?" Oliver Stone's directing it. "Whaaat...?" It's gonna star the jock from Goonies. "Whaaat...?" And the chick from Zack and Miri. "Whaaat...?"

Then I saw the trailer and thought, "waitaminute. Is this... is this a comedy?"

I thought it would come out in the cinemas here in Malaysia. From the looks of the trailer, why wouldn't it? The trailer pretty much made Dubya look like how the media had presented him throughout his term - a chimpanzee with the intellectual capacity of a termite's cock. It looked like it was taking the piss, and really, how could you not? How do you not take the piss out of someone who told the press, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" (Sep. 29, 2000)?

But imagine this, if you will: Imagine being at school and there, amongst all your other class mates, is the school idiot. I mean, this guy is dumb. He says so much stupid shit a single sound from his mouth guarantees laughs across the class and cafeteria. And you, being with your friends, join in. But one day you get to see him without your gang of friends and see him for what he is: not too bright, plain and simple. Doesn't mean you can't feel sorry for the guy, and you do.

Dubya's the school idiot. He just happened to also be the president.

There's a lot of fun to be had in this movie and, at least for me, I found myself caught completely off-guard feeling sorry for the guy. Now whilst all his press conferences and public appearances are all on record and the going-ons behind the scenes are probably works of fiction based on what facts the writers have, it sure makes for an interesting story about a man trying to get out of daddy's shadow.

It's not an incredible movie, by any means, and though the casting is spot on for most of the cast (Josh Brolin's come a long way since Goonies) some of the other supporting characters do tend to fall into stereotype. Even though Richard Dreyfuss and Scott Glen are brilliant as Cheney and Rumsfield respectively and Jeffrey Wright almost steals the spotlight as Powell, Thandie Newton's Condoleezza Rice feels like a comedic caricature (although kudos to hair and make-up. I had no idea it was Thandie).

And why couldn't they just hire the same guy that played Tony Blair in The Queen as opposed to Mr. Fantastic? I'm sorry, I like Iaon a lot as an actor, but for some reason throughout the one scene he has I kept thinking his arms were gonna stretch out.

Dubya's past doesn't forgive the amount of crap he's done not only to his own country but the whole world as we know it, but what do you expect when you put the class dunce in charge?

Don't "misunderestimate" this movie. "I think we agree, the past is over" and seeing these events through our own eyes over the past eight years doesn't mean there aren't any stories about it left to tell. And Dubya's an interesting character to study. There's a story there and you couldn't call it "a struggle between good and it's a struggle between evil" because we all witnessed that struggle in our lifetimes and heard the arguments. This is a story about a "poppy" and his junior and it's a fun one too.

Originality is Underrated

		Thursday, 29 January 09 - 05:23 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

 So I was surfing around out of random boredomness (though it could be procrastination, one never knows the difference) when I thought I'd go check out trailers at the Apple Quicktime website. This was the first page:

After fifteen minutes of browsing and viewing trailers, I wondered if originality still exists.

The first trailer I checked out was 'Push' which, in a nutshell, looks like 'Heroes' shot like an MTV video. The premise was practically the same - amongst ordinary people are those born with superpowers of some kind and an agency is hunting them down. 'Heroes' itself isn't really original, but it was an original way of looking at an existing concept, that of people with extraordinary abilities and their persecution by those that don't understand or fear their difference (analogy? Allegory? It's definitely one of those, something beginning with an 'A').

That plot device leads on to another tale of people with superpowers - 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine', a spin-off of the X-Men movies which were an adaptation of the comic books of the same name.

Talking about comic book adaptations, there's the 'Watchmen' movie, based on one of the most celebrated graphic novels of all time (graphic novel - fancy way of saying comic book) and the animated motion picture adaptation of 'Coraline', a childrens book written by one of the most celebrated comic book writers of all time.

It's not just comic books that are getting adapted, though. Even though the track record has been poor, Hollywood still tries to adapt video games into movies (especially Uwe Boll. The man makes his bread and butter off of shitty video-game-to-movie adaptations). This years video game adaptation is 'Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun Li'.

And then there's the spin-off of the adaptation - the remake. First off there's 'State of Play', a remake of the BBC drama of the same name but now with more famous people in it and set in America instead.

After that you have not one but two remakes of classic horror films: 'The Last House on the Left' and 'Friday the 13th', both slicker and less edgier than their predecessors.

And finally, lest we forget, the sequel. Or, in this case, the fourth installment of the 'Fast & Furious' franchise, called 'Fast & Furious', where the original cast from the first movie have been brought back together to do another one.

Below is the same screen as above, except this time I've highlighted the movies that are either adapted, a remake or a sequel (or, in the case of 'Push', just flat out unoriginal though visually exciting enough to pique my curiosity):

Out of the 20 trailers on the first page, 9 of them are based on something else. That's almost half. If you count 'Valkyrie', which is based on history, then it is a total of half. Shit, there may be a movie I missed somewhere in the mix. I know for a fact there's another upcoming movie that's a based on something else which was originally on this page - Star Trek.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm looking forward to the comic book adaps of Wolverine and Watchmen and sheer curiosity may push me into watching the others (except for 'Chun Li', maybe). But it's worrying that almost half of the upcoming movies featured on this page were based on something else.

I don't know if it's (1) because of the rise of corporations controlling the media hence forcing the need for guaranteed returns which should be calculable when your movie happens to be based on something with an already existing fan base, (2) because writers have all decided that big budget TV series' are the way to go or (3) because the ideas pool of the creative universe is running out.

All I know is I hope it's not number three.

Photography vs. Videography

		Wednesday, 21 January 09 - 03:10 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

I swear, if the internet didn't exist, I'd be knee deep in photography magazines right now, researching reviews like a raving racoon.

And so it goes that, after almost a year of using my trusty Canon Powershot G9 (and watching with annoyance as the G10 is announced) I had decided that, with my next check, I'd go out and buy a digital SLR. And since I also make movies and things, the D90 did become a serious option.

The Nikon D90 is the first DSLR to allow you to shoot HD video (and a while after that Canon came up with their own, much better and more expensive HD capable DSLR) and is relatively affordable for what it can offer. This satiated my interest because of the fact that you can shoot HD video through still photography lenses as opposed to the fixed zoom lens that you find on video cameras. I also intend to buy a HD camera at some point this year so it felt like a good way to kill two birds with one stone.

But even though it was relatively affordable, for me and my current state of financial affairs I have the money to buy it, but not the means to afford it (in other words, I can buy the bugger but I'll have to starve for a while, walk to every meeting and quit smoking).

And then there's all the issues with it that a photographer may not consider but a videographer would - the insanely slow rolling CMOS sensor can cause a 'jello-effect' when there's two much motion in terms of camera work, be it handheld or panning. You can't manually control it as much as you can a proper video camera and the final output of the video is in 30 fps, which is very video-y. There's no audio input, all you have is the onboard mono mic built into the body. And then there's the compression - a low resolution motion jpeg compression which is incredibly lossy.

Sure, if you use it right, you can get some great results - a music video I saw online was shot with the D90 and it looks incredible. Photographer extraordinaire Ariff Aris recently got himself this camera and shot some great test footage.

But even though I was with him when he shot the test footage and loved the images I also couldn't help but notice the drawbacks.

Out of curiosity, I went and looked up footage of a HDV camera I'm fond of which falls in the price range of the D90 - the Canon HV30. And after watching some examples of this tiny single sensor HDV camcorder shooting flowers by a window sill and put through a film look filter, the decision became even more obvious.

As a filmmaker, there are a lot of things I expect a camera to be able to do when I'm shooting that the D90 can't offer. The one thing I love about the D90's video capabilities is the image itself, like a moving Nikon picture, those beautiful lenses capture such gorgeous depth-of-field and the sheer variety of lenses is insane... but I know I'll be pissed with the format, the compression, the sound recording, the loss of a lot of controls, the strobing under flourescent light, the jello effect of the rolling shutter... the list goes on. I can imagine shooting certain things with the D90, such as music videos or dream sequences, and it would be a great camera to have along side a proper HD camera, but I don't have the disposable income to own a D90 just to have it on the side. Don't get me wrong, as a DSLR, it's insanely good - the low light capabilities on this camera are insane - but as a HD camera it's not all there, which is a shame, because it would be nice to have everything in one neat little package.

And so it is that I have come to my conclusion - no D90 for me. I'll probably get a Canon EOS 1000D or something else within that price range and have my photo camera as my photo camera and save up for the HD camera that I'll love and cherish...

...which does not mean I may not ask to borrow the D90 from time-to-time for some interesting video footage (if the owner's willing... hehe).

Then again, I may change my mind about the whole thing when I'm at the shops. Who knows. I'm silly like that.

Kill the Body and the Head Will Die.

		Thursday, 20 November 08 - 03:04 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

For those who actually read this blog (yes, all seven of you), you'd notice in my last post I wrote about what bugged me as a writer in the local television and film industry. Since that post I have become hooked on a TV series from America that my producer form Ciplak insisted I watched called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and I can see why.

Now, for those of you wondering why it took me so long to check out this show, I usually only watch a series long after it's been hyped up. The only TV series of recent times that I watch as it's airing is Heroes. And usually I would be waxing lyrically about how much I love this show, four episodes in, and showering praise on the direction, the insanely witty writing, the smooth as fuck and insanely choreographed steadicam sequences, the cast and especially Mathew Perry's brilliant performance (sure, he has his shtick, but it's less sitcom-y here and his character has more depth than one would attribute to an ex-Friends cast member) but I write this with reference to the last post I wrote for one simple reason.

Because of ratings.As good as it was (and it is insanely good), it was canceled after one season. At least, unlike Firefly (which I also love), they got to do a whole season.

For fucks sake.

Hot Rod has a MySpace...

		Monday, 27 October 08 - 11:45 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

And he uses it to post pics of him fishing.

...

Why, God? WHY?!

Remembering Mila Kunis

		Monday, 29 September 08 - 06:28 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

Watched 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' last night and thought it was great. Not as funny as previous Apatow outings but good nonetheless, with a lot of heart. Russell Brand is stand out but the main thought after watching that movie was simple:

I am totally crushing over Mila Kunis right now.

The Good Ol' Days of Comics

		Tuesday, 19 August 08 - 06:12 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

 One day, when I had nothing to do (which is a day that comes around very rarely these days), I was walking around One Utama and popped into the Pay Less Books store - one of those second hand book stores which has a stock consisting of reading material circa 1970 - 1995.

It was there that I found a bunch of old comic books considered little or no value, but nonetheless amusing, such as this:

For those of you who read 'Nextwave', you may recognize the character - yup, it's Aaron Stack, a.k.a. the Machine Man. Check out that four color coloring!

Now, I never used to read Machine Man. In fact, even though I knew the Nextwave characters were all existing Marvel characters that weren't very known, I never thought I'd come across an actual comic book of one of the characters. However, even though I never used to read Machine Man, there's something all the comics during this period share in common:

That's right - silly 80's ads! I don't think anyone my age can forget these ads, how much we wanted all these toys that we thought we're so incredibly cool and cursed the fact that we weren't in the States to enjoy such toy-filled wonderment.

Flipping through the comic, though, I found some ads that, in retrospect, are frickin' hilarious, such as:

If OJ Simpson was in an ad now, it would be for leather gloves with the tagline "show them it don't fit!"

Does anyone even remember 'Spot-bilt'?

Yes, times have indeed change. And just to show how much times have changed, check this ad out:

Gain pounds and inches to gain confidence. Indeed. Does this mean, if I go back into the eighties, I'm automatic stud-muffin material? I certainly have the pounds and the inches.

Oh, happy days...

There's only one trilogy.

		Tuesday, 19 August 08 - 04:48 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

Most of you know I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith. Most of you also know I'm a big fan of Star Wars. And though I don't think lowly of the Lord of the Rings, I do believe there's only one return and it's not of the king, it's of the jedi.

I don't hate the Lord of the Rings, I'm just not into the 'fantasy' section of 'sci-fi/fantasy', so when Randall goes into his tirade on the Rings in Clerks II, I couldn't help but side to his argument that all three movies we're about people walking. That entire bit of Clerks II was my favorite scene in the whole movie, stolen only by the donkey humper looking up from his duties saying, "ooh, cake".

I also love how, for the competition to 'swede' movies a la Be Kind Rewind, someone condensed all three Lord of the Rings movies into a minute and a bit:

(And before anyone starts, yes, I know the movies are based on a book. I'm not that thick.)

Someone also sweded my beloved Star Wars:

However, one thing that does bug me about Star Wars is how it's seeped into our pop culture a bit too much. So much so that things like this occur:

Just because it's funny doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Fuck Brains, Bring the Brawn...

		Friday, 13 June 08 - 04:53 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

In all honesty I wasn't sure what to expect from a new Hulk movie. The Ang Lee movie had an incredibly emotional story which felt a bit too long and a cool comic book panel editing style which felt quite out of place. And when the Hulk did pop up... nyahhh. I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't enjoy it as much as the other superhero movies that were coming out, and there was that overriding feeling that the filmmakers were probably thinking "this is all a bit silly, isn't it?" and trying to give it more meaning.

The meaning of the Hulk is all in the simple premise of the character. The way he's conceived is tragic enough. Dr. Bruce Banner, a mild mannered scientist, fucked up one of his experiments and you shouldn't make him angry. You won't like him when he's angry.

That was the classic tag line from the TV show, a reference point which the last Hulk movie seemed to ignore but had everything that we loved about the character - we felt for him, that theme tune made us want to bawl our eyes out at his misfortune. The dude really had the short end of the stick, moving from one town to another, all the time hoping for a cure so that he can just be another average Joe. We felt for the dude, we wanted him to get just a glimmer of hope and happiness...

...but at the same time, we wanted him to Hulk out. We wanted Banner to blow his fuse because it was something we could all relate to as well - being pushed too fucking far and desperately wanting to just let loose, without having to think of the consequences. The Hulk is that release in all of us, just a 1000 times more powerful.

And green.

That's the main problem with making a Hulk movie, isn't it? The green. Believing in a 12 foot not-so-jolly green giant. Whilst the CGI has advanced, it's still not 100% satisfactory, not in the same way it felt to watch Transformers and go "holy shit, it's Optimus Prime!" (even with the bitchin' flames).

As I watched the movie, there was first that sense of "okay..." with the first appearance of the Hulk. A kind of "he's better, but still..." feeling about the CGI. The main problem is that the Hulk is so human-like, and to believe that a humanoid being is 12 feet tall and green is a pretty tough sell unless it really looks like one. The other problem is that we all have an image of the Hulk in our heads from the TV show, and unlike other comic book adaptations at the time, we could believe the Hulk. Lou Ferrigno (here in a cameo) brought the character to life, even with the dodgy wig. We accepted him and believed him. We had never seen Optimus Prime in real life, so it gives the CGI guys a bit more room. We've seen the Hulk for quite a while, and it's not just believability that's the issue, it's breaking the mold.

But unlike the first Hulk movie, we see him for a good part of the movie and after a while he grows on you and you accept his appearance, the same way we accepted Lou Ferrigno (at least, for the duration of the movie). When Abomination pops up, though, it felt a bit more believable, which I think is because of the whole issue of believability - we've never seen Abomination, so when we're introduced a new CG character it's easier to accept. Of course, by this point we've seen a good chunk of Hulk footage to accept him too, smashing through all and sundry.

And boy, does Hulk smash.

Unlike the first movie, this one doesn't play out the drama too well. I love Edward Norton as an actor, as well as Tim Roth, but the story felt like filler, hitting the right points, pushing the story forward, but it wasn't anything spectacular compared to the brilliant scripting of sequel superhero movies like Spiderman 2 and X-Men 2. But when the Hulk pops up and starts kicking ass, he kicks ass. Most of the trademark moves of the comics are all here, and you see just how powerful a hulking green giant can be. And when he locks arms with Abomination, it's like watching Godzilla vs. Ultraman or something, a real clash of the titans crash boom bang destruction sequence that will have you cheering.

Directed by Louis Leterrier, I felt the same way about this movie as I did with the Transporter movies - I wasn't really interested in the story as much as I was amazed by the action sequences. Crazy, unique and mind-blowing action sequences from the mind of an insane Frenchman.

I wonder what Godard would say?

Next post: Dorothy can have the Tin Man, Iron Man's hitting up the Playboy bunnies...

The Doctor is in...

		Saturday, 31 May 08 - 02:31 AM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

When I first picked up season 1 of the revamped Doctor Who with Christopher Eccleston I was pleasantly surprised and thrilled - the new Doctor was a true 21st century revamp in every good way possible and Billie Piper was a revelation, but the true star of the show was definitely the creator and its writers.

Every story made me want to hone my writing more and more as I watched with envy at how good people like Russell T Davis and Stephen Moffat at crafting such intelligent, thrilling, funny and downright enjoyable shows within the 'confines' of a children's TV slot - the two-parter set during the blitz in WWII was a kicker, with the freaky "Are you my mummy?" kid in the gas mask and 51-st century man Captain Jack.

Then, by the end of the season, the Doctor regenerated into a relatively unknown actor at the time by the name of David Tennant, who's now more synonymous with the role than ever. More of a charmer than Eccleston's Doctor and able to blurt out incredibly huge speeches at high speeds and still make sense, David Tennant's been the Doctor for three seasons now.

The second season blew me away by not dropping in quality at all, just getting better and better, but the third season felt... a bit different. There was nothing wrong with Martha Jones, in fact she was a great companion to the Doctor, and I though John Simm as the Master was a stroke of genius, but... I dunno. I thought the episode with the angel statues that can only move when you're not looking was a work of genius, but there was still something missing in the season overall.

Perhaps I just missed Rose Tyler. Did Billie Piper make that big an impact on television for me? Perhaps I should stay away from that show where she's an escort (although deep down the thought of Rose Tyler getting nasty does put a sly grin on my face).

The last two Christmas specials also left me a bit wanting after the first Christmas special that introduced David Tennant. Kylie looked... incredibly old for some reason, and though Catherine Tate was a nice change, I was very glad she didn't hop onto the Tardis at the end, so when I heard she was going to be the new companion for season four I was a bit worried.

Then I watched it. And all I can say is WOW.

Russell T Davis and his team have really excelled themselves this time. Whilst the earlier seasons had a few big episodes where none of the stops are pulled in terms of effects and then keeping things smaller for the other episodes, every episode in this season so far feels big (spoiler alert):

Episode one - full CGI characters and a big ass 'Close Encounters'-style UFO... and Rose is back! Briefly and teasingly, though.
Episode two - Pompeii and CGI molten rock people.
Episode three - on another frickin' planet.
Episode four - seems small, present day, planet earth, (good) rubber alien suits...
Episode five - ...but it's a two parter and shit goes off the hook with UNIT kicking ass and spacecrafts in abundance!

And even though I've put the spoiler alert, for those who still haven't seen it and dig the Doctor, I'm not gonna say anything because I thought this was the coolest surprise yet, up there with "holy shit, Rose Tyler's back!"

Tate, though a bit on the annoying side as Donna in the Christmas special, is pretty cool in the series, acting as a proper foil to the Doctor and definitely not a love interest. They're chums, pals, traveling companions, mates... which gave one of the funnier gags in the show:

DOCTOR: Look, I only want a mate.
DONNA: You're not mating with me, sunshine!

Though my favorite gag in the entire series (so far) was in episode five, referencing season one, where the Doctor's been told to put on a gas mask by UNIT and after they show off their modified weapons the Doctor simply turns to the commanding officer and asks, "Are you my mummy?" Hehehe...

...95% of you people reading this think I'm a complete and utter fucking geek right now, don't you? Well, you can suck my sonic screwdriver.

Indy...? Jonesy...!

		Wednesday, 28 May 08 - 05:58 PM (GMT +08:00) By Khairil Mokhzani Bahar in Geek-o-rama

Ah, we meet again, Dr. Jones...

Like most people of my era, Dr. Jones is an institution, much like Star Wars. We grew up with it, we were dazzled by it, we wanted to be Harrison Ford, just in the same way we wanted to be Han Solo and later on Dr. Richard Kimble.

What? No one wanted to be Ford in the Fugitive? I'd rather be Kimble than Jack Ryan.

Either way, I grew up on Indy. The score alone brings up a whole swell of emotions and memories of a much more innocent time, a time when I wore one of my dad's hats that vaguely resembled a fedora and made my own bullwhip out of a shit load of rubber bands linked together and practice whipping the clothes stand in an attempt to wrap it around, Indy-style. Indiana Jones was the type of hero that made you think that being a hero was possible, because the dude often got three shades of shit kicked out of him. He wasn't as acrobatic and agile and strong as other so-called heroes. He felt a bit more... real. Real, yet fantastic at the same time. I'm sure a lot of people out there felt the same way and, as much as they may not want to admit, definitely got a kick out of the thought of another Indy movie, regardless of any doubts about age.

The night before I was going to see it, Col. Kurtz buzzed me...

"Hey, I saw Indy 4 tonight."

"Yeah, how was it?"

"Answer me this: how would you put the Indiana Jones movies in order, from favorite to least favorite?"

"Well, I love all of them, but I'd put Last Crusade at the top and Doom at the bottom. I loved Doom as a kid but nowadays I totally get a kick out of Sean Connery being his dad."

"Ok. Well, this Indiana Jones movie makes Temple of Doom look like the Godfather."

He then proceeded to tell me just how shit he thought the movie was, with choice quotes such as,

"This movie made Shia LeBeouf's acting in Transformers look like Marlon Brando."

"National Treasure 2 was better than this shit."

"Ray Winstone sounds like an American trying to put on a British accent."

"John Hurt is Dumbledore on crack."

Regardless, I went and watched it last night, and yes, I totally understand where old Kurtz was coming from, but at the same time...

...that shit was fun.

Don't get me wrong: it definitely won't replace any of the slots of anyones 'top 3 Indy movies' list, but it's still fun. Silly, mindless fun, and I enjoyed it. There's fisticuffs and snakes and weird artifacts and a bullwhip and Marion Ravenwood and military bad guys and jet setting adventures. And fuck it, Shia was fun too. And the rest of the cast. It was a fun adventure movie, full stop.

Though there are two comments of Kurtz's  that did ring true...

The lighting - what... the... fuck...? There's some strange ass cinematography going on in this movie. There are some scenes where I was actually thinking "my God, I've never seen a movie so wrongly lit in my life."

The CGI - what... the... holy... fuck...? Spielberg's CGI is usually better than anything ILM comes up with for other directors, but this one just looked... supremely fake. Badly matted and composited with that blurry finish which cheaper production companies usually use to hide the errors.

And that's where the biggest gripe about the movie comes in, the main difference between this one and the previous movies - the overdose and over-reliance of CGI. One of the most consistent memories of the Indiana Jones movies was that feeling that Indy's in real trouble because those were real people riding horses and jumping on tanks and holding on to a truck with a piece of rope. I know that Doom and Crusade had some CGI but ever so slightly to enhance the whole thing. In this one, the major race set piece through the jungle was totally CGI, which kinda made it feel lesser compared to the other ones.

And it's not like stuntmen haven't been able to pull off the insane ideas the filmmakers had for Indy - in Last Crusade Indy takes on a tank on a horse. A fucking horse!

Perhaps what's going to alienate people the most is the setting - Indiana Jones was so much the product of a 40's environment that some people may not be able to follow him into the fifties, where it's no longer religious artifacts but sci-fi tinged spookiness and ruskies.

All I can say is go in without expecting any of the past movies, and you should have a decent time. Sure, Indy looks old as fuck now, but he's still Indy, and he can still throw a hook harder than any of you other cats.

Peace, daddy-o.

... More items are available in my News Archive