Just something fun to break things up a bit!
Harry
Sunday, November 23, 2008
A slight difference of opinion
Following up from Angus's post on the "bitchslutwhoreskank" I just thought I'd share a little article that I came across a couple of days ago. Complete coincidence incidentally.
Lara Bingle Fan Club
Thought I'd share my thoughts and maybe include some more photos to allow a proper analysis.
Why is it that the girl always receives the blame when cheating or adultery goes on? Are we back in the dark ages? Are we in 2008 and living under Islamic law?
Of course not, yet the woman nearly always gets the blame. Now yes, I know the woman controls the source of all that men seek out in life (vagina) and that men are prone to do silly things to achieve said goal. But despite jokes about big head and little head, it still comes down to the fact that we all have free will. While I certainly wouldn't complain if Lara tried to have her way with me, I think it's very dubious that she managed to rape a big unit like the Fev.
He entered into a relationship with her in the full knowledge that he was married, and possibly even lied about his marriage to Lara to enable the relationship to occur.
So instead of going hammer and tongs for Lara, why don't you spread a bit of abuse the Fev's way?
Just because the woman controls the vagina doesn't mean that your brain automatically turns to mush. Apparently for some men it means that their moral compass goes all heywire, but that isn't an excuse or a justification. And trying to use it as such is simply weak.
So just remember, if you're in a relationship, keep it in your pants! And if you do stuff up, don't go around blaming other people, deal with it yourself.
And girls, try blaming the guy for a change, rather than the girl who quite possibly had no idea that he was married!
Harry
Lara Bingle Fan Club
Thought I'd share my thoughts and maybe include some more photos to allow a proper analysis.
Why is it that the girl always receives the blame when cheating or adultery goes on? Are we back in the dark ages? Are we in 2008 and living under Islamic law?Of course not, yet the woman nearly always gets the blame. Now yes, I know the woman controls the source of all that men seek out in life (vagina) and that men are prone to do silly things to achieve said goal. But despite jokes about big head and little head, it still comes down to the fact that we all have free will. While I certainly wouldn't complain if Lara tried to have her way with me, I think it's very dubious that she managed to rape a big unit like the Fev.
He entered into a relationship with her in the full knowledge that he was married, and possibly even lied about his marriage to Lara to enable the relationship to occur.
So instead of going hammer and tongs for Lara, why don't you spread a bit of abuse the Fev's way?
Just because the woman controls the vagina doesn't mean that your brain automatically turns to mush. Apparently for some men it means that their moral compass goes all heywire, but that isn't an excuse or a justification. And trying to use it as such is simply weak.
So just remember, if you're in a relationship, keep it in your pants! And if you do stuff up, don't go around blaming other people, deal with it yourself.
And girls, try blaming the guy for a change, rather than the girl who quite possibly had no idea that he was married!
Harry
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Test Cricket
For those who may not be aware, Australia is currently playing New Zealand in the first test in Brisbane.
There's been a lot written by the commentariat recently about test cricket and the failings of the Australian test team and it's captain. A lot of this bloviating has focussed on the lack of 'entertainment' provided by the team whilst in India. A lot of the complaints seem to be specifically targetted at the fact that a) we didn't win and b) we didn't hit enough boundaries, this seemingly being the only worthwhile measure of value left in international cricket.
Who knows what they're going to say about the current test. Australia just a minute ago lost its last wicket in its second innings. The top scorer was Simon Katich, not out on 131, while the second top score was from Johnson, who scored 31 batting at number 10 (I think it is quite safe to say that Mitchell Johnson is not a recognised batsman). All the other batsmen failed dismally in their efforts to make the slightest impression on the bowling or the scoreboard.
Yet even though the previous two days have featured similar scenarios, when the two Australians walked off it was quite obvious to see that there were lots of people there to watch. Not the 10 on the boundary that never get seen except in close up so we can't tell there are 15000 empty seats behind them, I saw packed stands and people standing and cheering for the Australians.
What does this tell you? It tells me that test cricket is a game of ebb and flow, a game of mental strength and toughness, a game that is often lost, rather than won. And it tells me that people are interested in seeing that. Who cares if you can hit 20 boundaries in 50 balls on a pitch that completely favours the batsman with a boundary rope 10 metres in from the fence?
Test cricket needs to recognise that pitches should favour the bowlers, not the batsmen. Does anyone really care that Matthew Hayden has the highest score ever recorded in a test? I know I don't. A pitch that suits batsman against a side like Bangladesh is not the record that stirs the hearts of men.
What really gets people excited is bowlers doing their best to get wickets, trying their hardest to limits runs, straining their utmost to provoke a mistake that will open up an opportunity and lead to victory. And do you think Australian fans are going to look at the current innings and complain that there weren't enough boundaries? They're going to recognise the determination and mental toughness of Katich and his 171, a score immeasurably more valuable because it stands next to the failure of the other batsmen.
We live in a new era, with no Gilchrist, no Warne, no McGrath. Off course Australia is going to struggle to win. But we have to play TEST cricket if we want to win TEST matches. Cricket Australia needs to wake up, smell the boredom and accept the fact that test cricket needs wickets that suit bowlers, not batsmen.
When the spectacle that is 20/20 is played, let them favour the batsmen, but lets not get confused between the two.
cheers
Harry
(and BTW, I personally think we should get rid of the abomination that is the boundary ropes. If you want a 6, you should hit it over the fence, if you want a 4 it should have to carry those extra few metres)
There's been a lot written by the commentariat recently about test cricket and the failings of the Australian test team and it's captain. A lot of this bloviating has focussed on the lack of 'entertainment' provided by the team whilst in India. A lot of the complaints seem to be specifically targetted at the fact that a) we didn't win and b) we didn't hit enough boundaries, this seemingly being the only worthwhile measure of value left in international cricket.
Who knows what they're going to say about the current test. Australia just a minute ago lost its last wicket in its second innings. The top scorer was Simon Katich, not out on 131, while the second top score was from Johnson, who scored 31 batting at number 10 (I think it is quite safe to say that Mitchell Johnson is not a recognised batsman). All the other batsmen failed dismally in their efforts to make the slightest impression on the bowling or the scoreboard.
Yet even though the previous two days have featured similar scenarios, when the two Australians walked off it was quite obvious to see that there were lots of people there to watch. Not the 10 on the boundary that never get seen except in close up so we can't tell there are 15000 empty seats behind them, I saw packed stands and people standing and cheering for the Australians.
What does this tell you? It tells me that test cricket is a game of ebb and flow, a game of mental strength and toughness, a game that is often lost, rather than won. And it tells me that people are interested in seeing that. Who cares if you can hit 20 boundaries in 50 balls on a pitch that completely favours the batsman with a boundary rope 10 metres in from the fence?
Test cricket needs to recognise that pitches should favour the bowlers, not the batsmen. Does anyone really care that Matthew Hayden has the highest score ever recorded in a test? I know I don't. A pitch that suits batsman against a side like Bangladesh is not the record that stirs the hearts of men.
What really gets people excited is bowlers doing their best to get wickets, trying their hardest to limits runs, straining their utmost to provoke a mistake that will open up an opportunity and lead to victory. And do you think Australian fans are going to look at the current innings and complain that there weren't enough boundaries? They're going to recognise the determination and mental toughness of Katich and his 171, a score immeasurably more valuable because it stands next to the failure of the other batsmen.
We live in a new era, with no Gilchrist, no Warne, no McGrath. Off course Australia is going to struggle to win. But we have to play TEST cricket if we want to win TEST matches. Cricket Australia needs to wake up, smell the boredom and accept the fact that test cricket needs wickets that suit bowlers, not batsmen.
When the spectacle that is 20/20 is played, let them favour the batsmen, but lets not get confused between the two.
cheers
Harry
(and BTW, I personally think we should get rid of the abomination that is the boundary ropes. If you want a 6, you should hit it over the fence, if you want a 4 it should have to carry those extra few metres)
Australia redux
So our school got some free tickets to go see "Australia" on Wednesday night, the night after the proper premiere.
As already posted, it was a good movie, I enjoyed it. However, there were a few issues with it that did grate somewhat and a few things that were just silly. I'll try and see what I can remember :)
Firstly, Baz is riding around on his high horse trying to make everyone feel guilty about the stolen generations, including extremely prominent placement in the beginning and ending credits. It is a also a constant theme throughout the film. Baz has never actually done anything to help aboriginal people, but he's assuaging his own guilt and bagging out John Howard at the same time (a combo move of max awesomeness for some people) in his film so it doesn't matter. Of course the way in which he portrays the stolen generations occurring is extremely dubious.
I've never heard of any case of a child being taken from his mother while she was in gainful employment and living on a station. Maybe if his mother was a drunk, or lived in a humpy out in the scrub where the rest of the community was threatening to kill the kid because of his mixed blood. Anyway he does manage to use the kid to tie the movie together nicely, but his hobby horse approach to the issue did annoy me. Incidentally, the kid annoyed me a bit as well, but that's a different matter altogether. The scene where the official talks about breeding the aboriginal out of them is also taking a licence, as there was never any policy anywhere in Australia along these lines (to the best of my knowledge).
And the Brothers in charge of the mission also manage to contradict Baz's narrative, on the one hand, refusing to listen and dragging the kid away (but obviously believing that there were doing it with the best of intentions), and then on the other risking life and limb to rescue the children and expressing joy that they were still alive. Even if Baz's version of events is true (which I don't believe) he still portrays a deeper truth, that they honestly believed that they were doing the right thing.
Something in the film that was stupid (but quite funny) were the couple of aboriginal people chatting to Hugh while running along next to the truck he was driving. This only occurred right at the start, than the movie started to get much less tongue in cheek, I think some of that humour from the earlier scenes could have been retained throughout the movie. A couple of them are very funny.
The scenes in the Bungle Bungles also annoyed me, if I was to guess I would suggest that they were all computer generated. That particular part of the movie was quite annoying in fact, with the fake landscape and the slighty dodgy plot twist.
It would have also been good to show more of the waves of planes attacking Darwin, rather than focussing on the smaller detail, however this isn't vital for the plot.
I thought that Nicole did quite well, especially in the earlier parts of the movie where the ice queen persona fitted the character to a T. And of course Hugh Jackman managed tough and laconic rather well, although he's pretty much the most buff stockman in history, I think all that time riding a horse and eating crap food would have you looking a little more lean. As soon as they were together the chemistry definitely worked, in fact the hostility between the two was quite fun and was abandoned a bit too soon, it would have been good to see this continue.
However, Hugh is, lets face it, rather wooden when it comes to acting. I mean he sucked in "Swordfish" and the wooden persona works for the Wolverine, but range of emotions? I think I'm being rather harsh here, in general he suited the movie well, particularly the earlier scenes where he's got no time for Nicole.
The real revelation here is the supporting cast, all these amazing Australian actors you might have forgotten about. David Wenham is excellent, apart from a little bit of overacting right in the final scene, but he is top notch. Bryan Brown absolutely dominates the screen when he's on it, he fits the character perfectly. Jack Thompson is outstanding and quite funny, his death doesn't really have a lot of point to it in terms of the immediate narrative and the mouth organ part of it could have easily be done another way. I think he only died to make the Bungles scene more interesting, as I said, possibly the weakest part of the movie.
Essie Davis, playing Bryan Brown's daughter is very very good in the small amount of screen time she has. Tony Barry, the cop, is very good, portraying his character as sympathetic but also a little bit of a bastard. His black tracker is also very good, giving a real sense of menace on the screen. Ben Mendehlson's character of the Captain is probably the worst performance, in my opinion. It seems overacted and pompous, it just didn't gel with me. David Gulpill is the Grandfather and he is quite good. Once again, all the "black fella" magic was a bit ridiculous, but he gave real gravitas to his closeups, even without speaking he was a very sympathetic character. This contrasted with the kid, played by Brandon Walters, who was just annoying. He wasn't believable, he wasn't endearing and he wasn't lovable, although he was somewhat sympathetic in terms of his background. "Bah Humbug Scrooge McDuck!" is no doubt what you're all saying, but get stuffed, it's my blog!
I actually think that one of the best actors in the movie was Hugh Jackman's aborignal stockman mate, David Ngoombujarra. He didn't have a huge amount of lines, but he delivered them with authority and believability. He seemed one of the most authentic characters in the movie. And the scene near the beginning with Hugh and the bucket was very funny!
In general, the landscapes used in the film worked really well (apart from the Bungles). It was really cool to see lots of the places around here and mostly they conveyed the surroundings effectively. I don't know how, but they could have conveyed the heat a bit better, as you got the impression that the temperature was quite balmy most of the time, not blistering hot and ridiculously humid as it would have been at that time of year. As already said, I think the landscapes could have been done even better, but still that part worked really well.
The story itself also worked really well. It was very long, and almost had the feeling of 2 separate parts joined together somewhat artificially, but it was enjoyable. As mentioned, the feel of the movie towards the start was particularly entertaining but it kept on entertaining, and that's why we see movies after all. It definitely had that epic movie feel, similar to Indiana Jones or older style westerns. And it definitely stacks up very well. I wouldn't be saying it's Oscar bait, but it's got nothing (much) to be ashamed about, hell all the Indiana Jones movies are full of gaping plot flaws and ridiculous juxtapositions.
Oh, one more thing. Lots of reviews I've seen have concentrated on the use of the word "crikey". I was listening out for it and I think I only heard it about 4 times. And it was quite appropriate each time, I think it was meant to be a running joke (not a particularly funny one, but I liked it). I was just disappointed with the lack of other Australianisms. No-one said "I'm dry as a dead donkey's donger!", there wasn't a mention of "stone the crows!" and I didn't hear " Howyagoinmateorright?" once.
Anyway, go and check it out.
Harry
As already posted, it was a good movie, I enjoyed it. However, there were a few issues with it that did grate somewhat and a few things that were just silly. I'll try and see what I can remember :)
Firstly, Baz is riding around on his high horse trying to make everyone feel guilty about the stolen generations, including extremely prominent placement in the beginning and ending credits. It is a also a constant theme throughout the film. Baz has never actually done anything to help aboriginal people, but he's assuaging his own guilt and bagging out John Howard at the same time (a combo move of max awesomeness for some people) in his film so it doesn't matter. Of course the way in which he portrays the stolen generations occurring is extremely dubious.
I've never heard of any case of a child being taken from his mother while she was in gainful employment and living on a station. Maybe if his mother was a drunk, or lived in a humpy out in the scrub where the rest of the community was threatening to kill the kid because of his mixed blood. Anyway he does manage to use the kid to tie the movie together nicely, but his hobby horse approach to the issue did annoy me. Incidentally, the kid annoyed me a bit as well, but that's a different matter altogether. The scene where the official talks about breeding the aboriginal out of them is also taking a licence, as there was never any policy anywhere in Australia along these lines (to the best of my knowledge).
And the Brothers in charge of the mission also manage to contradict Baz's narrative, on the one hand, refusing to listen and dragging the kid away (but obviously believing that there were doing it with the best of intentions), and then on the other risking life and limb to rescue the children and expressing joy that they were still alive. Even if Baz's version of events is true (which I don't believe) he still portrays a deeper truth, that they honestly believed that they were doing the right thing.
Something in the film that was stupid (but quite funny) were the couple of aboriginal people chatting to Hugh while running along next to the truck he was driving. This only occurred right at the start, than the movie started to get much less tongue in cheek, I think some of that humour from the earlier scenes could have been retained throughout the movie. A couple of them are very funny.
The scenes in the Bungle Bungles also annoyed me, if I was to guess I would suggest that they were all computer generated. That particular part of the movie was quite annoying in fact, with the fake landscape and the slighty dodgy plot twist.
- Also of annoyance, the fact that apparently the entire northern Australian cattle industry was controlled by one man, with the exception of one little station, and that the sale of 1500 head would somehow break that monopoly. Considering that the Kimberley itself had 700,000 head in 1917 (with many more in the Northern Territory), it seems likely that putting 1500 head on a boat would have as much impact as an open bar at a Mormon wake.
- Also, since they were puttting them on a boat, not slaughtering them at Darwin, why couldn't they just get them from down south?
- And why is a Captain the highest ranking officer to be seen throughout the movie, even during the wartime bits when supposedly there are ships of war and combat units stationed in town?
- And why is the same policeman the first point of call in Darwin and way to buggery out on the Western Australian border?
- And why was Hugh carrying so much shit on his truck when he first drives Nicole to the station? I think the story is meant to be that it's all her clothes, but if so it wasn't done very well, it just looked a little farcical, more Beverley Hillbillies than realistic way to travel through the scrub.
- How does a small Aboriginal boy get on top of a bloody big stallion and ride in the saddle like he was born to it, but he can't tread water for a few minutes? In a place where he would swim regularly and he even talks about being a good swimmer later on?
- The big thing that really grated though, was the "black fella" magic. They kept on putting it out there and it fitted into the story, but it was of course complete bullshit, you'll know what I mean when you see it.
It would have also been good to show more of the waves of planes attacking Darwin, rather than focussing on the smaller detail, however this isn't vital for the plot.
I thought that Nicole did quite well, especially in the earlier parts of the movie where the ice queen persona fitted the character to a T. And of course Hugh Jackman managed tough and laconic rather well, although he's pretty much the most buff stockman in history, I think all that time riding a horse and eating crap food would have you looking a little more lean. As soon as they were together the chemistry definitely worked, in fact the hostility between the two was quite fun and was abandoned a bit too soon, it would have been good to see this continue.
However, Hugh is, lets face it, rather wooden when it comes to acting. I mean he sucked in "Swordfish" and the wooden persona works for the Wolverine, but range of emotions? I think I'm being rather harsh here, in general he suited the movie well, particularly the earlier scenes where he's got no time for Nicole.
The real revelation here is the supporting cast, all these amazing Australian actors you might have forgotten about. David Wenham is excellent, apart from a little bit of overacting right in the final scene, but he is top notch. Bryan Brown absolutely dominates the screen when he's on it, he fits the character perfectly. Jack Thompson is outstanding and quite funny, his death doesn't really have a lot of point to it in terms of the immediate narrative and the mouth organ part of it could have easily be done another way. I think he only died to make the Bungles scene more interesting, as I said, possibly the weakest part of the movie.
Essie Davis, playing Bryan Brown's daughter is very very good in the small amount of screen time she has. Tony Barry, the cop, is very good, portraying his character as sympathetic but also a little bit of a bastard. His black tracker is also very good, giving a real sense of menace on the screen. Ben Mendehlson's character of the Captain is probably the worst performance, in my opinion. It seems overacted and pompous, it just didn't gel with me. David Gulpill is the Grandfather and he is quite good. Once again, all the "black fella" magic was a bit ridiculous, but he gave real gravitas to his closeups, even without speaking he was a very sympathetic character. This contrasted with the kid, played by Brandon Walters, who was just annoying. He wasn't believable, he wasn't endearing and he wasn't lovable, although he was somewhat sympathetic in terms of his background. "Bah Humbug Scrooge McDuck!" is no doubt what you're all saying, but get stuffed, it's my blog!
I actually think that one of the best actors in the movie was Hugh Jackman's aborignal stockman mate, David Ngoombujarra. He didn't have a huge amount of lines, but he delivered them with authority and believability. He seemed one of the most authentic characters in the movie. And the scene near the beginning with Hugh and the bucket was very funny!
In general, the landscapes used in the film worked really well (apart from the Bungles). It was really cool to see lots of the places around here and mostly they conveyed the surroundings effectively. I don't know how, but they could have conveyed the heat a bit better, as you got the impression that the temperature was quite balmy most of the time, not blistering hot and ridiculously humid as it would have been at that time of year. As already said, I think the landscapes could have been done even better, but still that part worked really well.
The story itself also worked really well. It was very long, and almost had the feeling of 2 separate parts joined together somewhat artificially, but it was enjoyable. As mentioned, the feel of the movie towards the start was particularly entertaining but it kept on entertaining, and that's why we see movies after all. It definitely had that epic movie feel, similar to Indiana Jones or older style westerns. And it definitely stacks up very well. I wouldn't be saying it's Oscar bait, but it's got nothing (much) to be ashamed about, hell all the Indiana Jones movies are full of gaping plot flaws and ridiculous juxtapositions.
Oh, one more thing. Lots of reviews I've seen have concentrated on the use of the word "crikey". I was listening out for it and I think I only heard it about 4 times. And it was quite appropriate each time, I think it was meant to be a running joke (not a particularly funny one, but I liked it). I was just disappointed with the lack of other Australianisms. No-one said "I'm dry as a dead donkey's donger!", there wasn't a mention of "stone the crows!" and I didn't hear " Howyagoinmateorright?" once.
Anyway, go and check it out.
Harry
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wyndham Airport
According to the Bureau of Meteorology, it was 43 degrees celsius at Wyndham airport today. I would suggest it might have been even hotter, as it's been 40+ for weeks now and it definitely felt extra hot today especially in the shade.
Wyndham, beautiful one day, friggin' hot the next!
Wyndham, beautiful one day, friggin' hot the next!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Australia
Saw the movie premiere of "Australia" last night. I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.
There were lots of niggling issues, but not necessarily the ones pointed out by critics and overall it was an entertaining movie. For me the word "crikey" wasn't an issue at all, it was used appropriately throughout as a kind of running gag and was possibly only slightly out of place just the once.
Probably the biggest issues I had was with Baz's constant effort to shoe horn a political issue into the movie in a way that really didn't fit, I'm talking here about the so called 'Stolen Generations'. For me parts of that detracted from the movie, although in the end he was able to use that angle to wrap everything up nicely.
There were also lots of other small niggling issues, but it had humour, excitement, human drama, characters you cared about and some pretty speccie scenery.
Overall, I think you should go see it, it's a big epic movie on an Indiana Jones scale, and I'd almost suggest it's better than any of the Indiana Jones movies (sacrilege to some I know).
Will post at length about some other aspects later.
cheers
Harry
There were lots of niggling issues, but not necessarily the ones pointed out by critics and overall it was an entertaining movie. For me the word "crikey" wasn't an issue at all, it was used appropriately throughout as a kind of running gag and was possibly only slightly out of place just the once.
Probably the biggest issues I had was with Baz's constant effort to shoe horn a political issue into the movie in a way that really didn't fit, I'm talking here about the so called 'Stolen Generations'. For me parts of that detracted from the movie, although in the end he was able to use that angle to wrap everything up nicely.
There were also lots of other small niggling issues, but it had humour, excitement, human drama, characters you cared about and some pretty speccie scenery.
Overall, I think you should go see it, it's a big epic movie on an Indiana Jones scale, and I'd almost suggest it's better than any of the Indiana Jones movies (sacrilege to some I know).
Will post at length about some other aspects later.
cheers
Harry
Monday, November 17, 2008
Props to Angus
Thanks to Angus I now know what to put in a blog post, so here goes.
First off, we need something funny, and this is DAMN funny!
Next, we need something pretty, and she is DAMN pretty!
Lastly, we need something awesome and it doesn't get much more awesome than this photo, at least in my humble opinion.
So there you go, the perfect blog post!
enjoy
Harry
First off, we need something funny, and this is DAMN funny!
Next, we need something pretty, and she is DAMN pretty!
Lastly, we need something awesome and it doesn't get much more awesome than this photo, at least in my humble opinion.
So there you go, the perfect blog post!
enjoy
Harry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
