A few weeks ago, I was invited to take part in an arduous and earnestly essential one-question survey regarding my preferential choice of soon-to-be-released animated features.  The question was – Out of Toy Story 3 or Shrek Forever After (i.e. Shrek 4) – which movie would I prefer to watch at IMAX?  The question followed assurances that the winning movie would receive a theatrical run at IMAX (in Melbourne), and the loser would not.  For those who're unaware of what IMAX is – in short – it's a seven-storey-high movie screen – and is freakin' awesome!  Every chance I have to go watch a movie, IMAX is always the preference.

Okay, it wasn't really arduous – but it was earnestly essential.  The question-in-question proved important for any respectable movie fan – and was followed by an equally important yet blatantly obvious answer – it had to be Toy Story 3!  There is absolutely no reason why any sane person would choose otherwise – let me try to explain why.

The original Shrek was a great movie – one that I've watched a number of times.  I loved the way it took well-known folklore/fairy-tale characters and used them in an inventive and contemporary way.  The humour was fresh – adding just the right amount of double entendre – keeping the kids laughing and parents interested.  It had an all-star voice cast, who weren't excluded from its marketing campaign – something seldom done prior.  It was the first major movie to truly shake Pixar – kings of the computer generated film – giving them a run for their money.  It was the first movie to ever win an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.  In short, I really enjoyed this movie.

Its sequel looked to capitalise on the success of its predecessor – in spades.   The 12th most successful movie of all time – Shrek 2 was a juggernaut.  Essentially recycling what I loved from the first film, it also introduced some fairly colourful secondary characters.  It featured more pop culture references than you can poke an enchanted stick at – but despite this – it was funny, delightful and overall an entertaining night at the movies.  I saw it once in Australia and again on a trip to England.

And then cometh Shrek the Third – I have to be honest – I've still not seen it.  Against the idea of them for a very long time, I've grown to trust film critics' opinions in guiding me towards movies I'd pay to go see – even finding myself wanting to be one.  After the universal acclaim that came with both Shrek and its sequel, it was almost universal dismay with The Third – a blight shared by many almost-great film trilogies.  (The Godfather III?  Anyone?)  The consensus of the overall critic community was (from RottenTomatoes.com) – "Shrek the Third has pop culture potshots galore, but at the expense of the heart, charm, and wit that made the first two Shreks classics".  Ouch.

Suffice to say, I heeded their warning and stayed clear.  Some critics contributed the creative demise of the franchise to the departure of 1 & 2's director – Kiwi Adam Adamson – who left the franchise to bring Narnia to the big screen.  Narnia’s gain was Far Far Away’s loss.  Even my beloved Empire Magazine lamented – "Little ogres might love it. Big people will be glad of the short running time" – it was a darn shame.

Shrek 3 made money – a big steaming pile of money – and not a cent of it was mine.  With Shrek and its first sequel being the classics that they are – and The Third being a supposed turd – I've absolutely no desire to tarnish the love I have for the inventiveness of the earlier Shreks by watching Shrek Forever After – the promised final chapter.

Yes, I voted for Toy Story 3.

The original Toy Story started it all.  For better or worse, Pixar's first full-length computer-generated feature can be thanked for – or blamed for, depending on your opinion – the rise and eventual inundation of CG animated films in the years since its release.  It didn't win the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature – because the category didn't exist then.  It did however win a Special Achievement Oscar for being the cinematic milestone that it was.  Since its release, the geniuses at Pixar have continued to pump out film after quality film, including – but certainly not limited to – Finding Nemo, WALL-E and Up – all Oscar winners.  Up was even nominated for Best Picture.

Something admirable about Pixar is that they're skilled at recognising when they're onto a good thing and are excellent at showing restraint – overkill being a dirty word.  Okay – I appreciate that I’m talking about Toy Story 3 – the franchise's second sequel – but let’s do a timeline:

1995 - Toy Story; 1999 - Toy Story 2; 2001 - Shrek; 2004 - Shrek 2; 2007 - Shrek the Third; 2010 - Shrek Forever After & Toy Story 3.

Notice a trend?  Like clockwork, Shrek films have been spat out every three years – I believe to the detriment of the franchise.  The wonderful Toy Story 2 was released four years after its predecessor – and Toy Story 3 is being released 11 years later again.  Pixar can appreciate that good stories aren't just thrown together for the sake of mass-marketing or a decent fiscal return.  Good stories take years – in some cases decades – to flow organically.  I can't say that DreamWorks Animation share that sentiment.

In reference to the all-important vote – the below screenshots were taken from IMAX Melbourne's Facebook page, and are current as of Friday April 16th 2010 @ 6:00pm.

I don't understand –

1. "We need your help to decide which one of these movies to release- Shrek Forever After or Toy Story 3?"
2. 84% vs. 16%
3. "Due to film release obligations and scheduling commitments, we’ll be releasing Shrek Forever After 3D…Unfortunately we’re unable to screen Toy Story 3".

Angry!  Hulk SMASH!

That line – "Due to film release obligations" – what about customer-expectation obligations?  We were given the idea that should enough votes be rallied, the people's voice would actually make a difference.  And in a time of creativity overuse and the frequent rehashing of cinematic ideas – the Toy Story franchise is a rarity.  Part two wasn't a steroid-enhanced carbon copy of part one – each movie are standalone and succeed on their own merits.

I concede that a 7-storey-high IMAX screen is a vastly superior method of going to the movies – and it’s like business class – you just can't go back.  If you get a chance – and you have a Facebook account – check out some of the comments on their page.  Suffice to say – hell hath no fury like a movie-nerd scorned.  It's probably true that this is all out of IMAX's control – that's not why I'm angry – the problem I have is that of jumping the gun.  Every poll or vote has the possibility of being a landslide – something that cannot be ignored when launching it – so why even have a vote if it's fruitless?

If a winning actor can't make it to the Oscars, the Academy doesn't handball their award off to the next best in the category.  If you vote for a President, the winning candidate takes office – unless you’re voting in Florida or Iran or IMAX.  Making guarantees without certainty is irresponsible – you don't assure a soldier who's leaving for Afghanistan that the defence force guarantees they'll return home safe – you can't because it’s uncertain.  It's an extreme comparison, but it's the same principle.  

Perhaps it would have been better for IMAX – instead of running a poll – to place bets on which movie  would get a run.  More money would've been placed on Toy Story 3, that way IMAX would have had something to show for it – if you're going to gamble, it might as well be for a gain.

Two months since my last blog huh?  Wow, I'm slack.  I can say that the last month of this recently re-discovered (and sorely missed) slackness was due in part to taking the entire month off my day job and taking a trip up and down this great country of mine.

I've even set aside it's very own heading... find it here.

I'm not a bad driver.  I wouldn't consider myself an excellent driver (as my KC considers herself), but with no doubt in my mind, I know that I am not an "idiot driver".

Now let's not confuse an idiot driver with a bad driver.  A bad driver is someone who might slam their brakes on at the last minute, narrowly missing the car in front of them (or not).  They could rarely check their blind spot, or fail to indicate when turning/merging, or flat out doesn't give way to oncoming traffic when reversing (in a tow truck).  These are "bad" drivers. 

An idiot driver is a step up again.

These morons probably know the rules of the road, but choose not to acknowledge them because (and certainly not limited to) they:

• Have a powerful/expensive car and feel it's their right to use it the way they want to.
• Are far too confident in their driving abilities and probably think, "I ain't gunna hurt no one".
• Have such confidence in their driving machine, that even on wet days, they truly believe that their car can handle the treacherous conditions, regardless of the situation.
• Are an idiot.

Yesterday was a particularly bad day on the roads.  In Melbourne, we had a decent dumping of rain (glourious rain!) and with it came the bane of slippery roads.  In these circumstances, the shine of an idiot's stupidity can be retina burning.  For some ridiculous reason, they feel that their insane tactics are still manageable when they will clearly have less control of their vehicle.  And this, I just don’t get.

Other idiot drivers include those who:

• Speed with kids in the car.
• Smoke with kids in the car.
• Speed, knowing they shouldn't be.
• Drink or use drugs, then get behind the wheel.
• Talk on their mobile phone, without a "hands free" device.
• SMS while driving.
• Intentionally tailgate other cars.
• Drive through an amber light, when cars in the opposite direction are waiting to turn right.

Now, my attitude towards idiot drivers isn't limited to those in control of 4 wheels, this rage is also extended to riders (be it bicycle, motorcycle or scooter).  I think it's only fair for riders to insist upon (and receive) equal rights on the road.  But equal rights doesn't mean that randomly veering in and out of lanes is okay, or darting through narrow gaps between cars, or doing twice the signed speed limit.  In the fairness competition, that's not equal, and most of these things cars can't even do, because of their larger size. Equal rights?

Just because you can to something, doesn't mean you should.

I will be honest and agree that KC is a good driver.  To the point where on wet days, she leaves a couple of car lengths between her and the car in front of her, so there is enough distance to break if needed to.  Not sure about you lot, but I remember being taught this when I got my license, and even if I wasn't... that shit is real common sense.

So why do those, um, "morons" (or fuck knuckles, dipshits...etc) who think it's a good idea to quickly (and without indicating) cut in front of KC (and me, after all, I'm probably her passenger) when she's done the sensible thing and left enough room (so she doesn't rear-end the car in front of her).  At what point did they decide, "Yep, it's fine for me to cut in front of that car, who was nice enough to leave me enough room to squeeze in.  It's a wet day, but I wont indicate, after all, I'll do it quick!" 

What are they thinking?  People die on the road everyday.  The chances of this increases when:

1. Roads are wet
2. Drivers are speeding; or
   
3. At least on of the drivers is an idiot.

I've known people that've died in car accidents that weren't their fault.  Please, someone explain to me why this is cool?

I don't support Capital Punishment, but you could probably convince that 0.01% of me (that's right-wing) to take up the cause, just for idiot drivers.

Fuckers.

Did you know that I'm deaf?  Not "sign language deaf", but I am hard of hearing.  If a room is noisy, and someone starts talking, I've got to lean in or move closer if I've any chance of making sense of their words.  This can be awkward; as invading one's personal space isn't always a good idea. 

I will turn the TV or Radio up louder than most people would.  At work I have a double-ear headset.  I'd say at least 10 times a day, I ask someone to repeat what he or she said.  Occasionally I get the "open your friggin' ears" (or similar) comment, but honestly, it's not my fault.  The worst part about it is that I spent the first 23 years of my life not realising that I had a problem.

When I was very young, I was diagnosed with having "pre-mature ageing of hair follicles in the ear", or in layman's terms, I have "old ears" (I have the ears of a 60 year old man, or a 30 year old rock star).  I was tested around the age of 4 years and once I was diagnosed, that was it.  No treatments, no medications, no regular trips to the Audiologist or Ear Doctor... nothing.

And for another 19 years, I went on my merry way.

It wasn't until I was 23, where I needed my hearing tested for a job (which I failed), that I realised I had a bigger problem.  And boy, did it explain a lot.

The Audiologist explained to be that I had mild High Frequency Deafness.  He was surprised that I was surprised and asked me how I couldn't have known.  And then it dawned on me:

• In school, I'd be accused of not paying attention in class, just because I failed to hear an instruction.
• At home, I would be told that I had "selective hearing" if I didn't respond when spoken to.
  
• Also at home, I'd be repeatedly told off for having the TV or Radio too loud.
• I quite often mix up similar sounding words, when I really shouldn't be (my most famous being 'permitted' and 'prohibited').
• I know the lyrics of about 1% of my favourite songs.

SHAZAM!  The epiphany finally dawned.  For years and years I was so confused as to why certain songs were popular, when quite often, they had ridiculous lyrics.  Or so my 'not very well developed' ears were telling me.  

Apparently it's not "too late to call the Jize" (Apologise by Timbaland), it's not an "Elephant Overdrive" ("Argument Over God" from Black Fingernails, Red Wine by Eskimo Joe), the Black Eyed Peas don't "Gotta Kit-Kat" ("Gotta Get That" from Boom Boom Pow), Nirvana weren't proclaiming, "Here we are now!  In containers!" and it's not "I guess it rains down in Africa (which is actually "I bless the rains down in Africa", but I'm told that's a tricky one).

And even though it's common knowledge now, I always suspected Elton John was gay, why else would he want Tony Danza to hold him closer?

According to my Facebook page, my religious views are "Darwinistic-Agnostic Humanism".  In short, this means that I believe in the theory of evolution, I believe you can never prove that a God does (or doesn't) exist and I believe in universal morality for all humankind (or to the Religious Right, simply a "non-believer").

A few years ago, when I was single and a hell raiser, I thought it would be a good idea to pick a fight with a church.  Not just any church though, I wanted to take the online torch and pitchfork to the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, USA (the church's pastor, Fred Phelps Snr, is pictured).

But, I hear you ask, why a church so far away?

Well, without explaining anything about the church, their members or beliefs, I'll tell you their website address.  Are you ready for this?  I'm being serious; because it took me back the first time I read it  (just a warning, there is no sarcastic zinger waiting at the end of this paragraph, just a disgusting, disgusting web address).  Okay, you're ready now.  The name of their website is:

www.godhatesfags.com

No shit.  Three words: GOD + HATES + FAGS.

I have to admit, the first time I read this, I kind of giggled.  I thought to myself, these fearers are being funny, because if this web address is true, and God truly does "hate fags", then GREAT!  Me too!  Cigarettes are a blight on humanity.  With God behind us, surely they'd be outlawed.

But no, according to them, God does not hate cigarettes (although, if he/she existed, I reckon she would hate ciggies).  According to this particular church, God hates "Homosexuals".

Hang on.  Isn't God supposed to be loving and compassionate?  Or am I thinking of someone else?  Why does God hate fags?  In his 33 years on this planet, I'm sure Jesus wasn't propositioned by a gay man (yes I do believe JC existed, but all that water into wine stuff, it's all about misdirection, he really was the Harry Houdini of his day), so why does God take the existence of Homosexuals so personally?  Perhaps God's mother or father was a bigot and encouraged the same hatred they felt towards those who were different to them.  It could just be a multi-generational thing.

Wait, does God even have parents?  Ah, I'm confused.

Anyway, I'm off track.  I was saying that I picked a fight with Westboro Baptist Church (WBC).  Indeed I did.  Well, not much of a fight really.  If I had to compare my actions to a real confrontation, I'd say I threw a stone (via carrier pigeon) from one sky scraper, across an entire city, to a church on the other side, with no stone returned in my direction.  But lots and lots of stones coming from my targeted church aimed at friends of mine, not to mention millions of others.

To give you an idea of what this church condones, and encourages, let me enlighten you.  Know activities by WBC in the past (and planned for the future) include:

• Picketed funerals of known gay (and straight) defence force personal, recently KIA in the Middle East, with signs saying "God Hates Fags"
  
• Openly incited hatred against other religions
• Through advertising, portrayed Topeka's African American Mayor as a gorilla in a Nazi uniform
• Created the website: godhatestheworld.com, inciting hatred toward 40 countries, including Australia
• Hates everyone that does not share their beliefs

Other signs carried by members of WBC include:

• Fag Santa (carried at Christmas time)
• Thank God for 9-11
• Thank God for the Tsunami
• Thank God for Katrina
• God Hates You
• Thank God for AIDS
• Fag Flag (with an American flag)
• Repent or Perish
• Dyke nuns and Fag Priests (carried outside Catholic churches)
• Dyke Sows Wed Here (complete with pictures of pigs in wedding dresses covered with faeces; carried at lesbian weddings)
• Brides of Satan (referring to lesbian weddings)
• Fags Doom Nations
• Fags Are Worthy of Death
• Fags Eat Faeces = Scat
• Thank God for Dead Soldiers
• Don't Worship the Dead
• Fag Troops
• God Hates Your Tears
• God Hates Fag Enablers

Now, part of my core beliefs include one's right to choose.  If you want to believe in a God, go nuts.  If you want to believe in 10, the more the merrier.  If you believe that when you die, you go to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory, please live your own life the way you believe you should.

On one condition: Do not, under any circumstances, inflict pain (emotional, physical or mental) on anyone for not sharing your beliefs.  You have the right to worship any God(s) that you so desire, as I have the right not to.

As evolution goes, the human race was designed for men and woman to have sex, which in turn brings reproduction, and life goes on.  But evolution works because it's allows change, that's the whole point of it.  The human race, like all living things, came from single celled organisms, and over the millions of years we were lucky enough to leave the pool to grow legs, develop thought, eat meat and build cities.  It's choice that's so important, the ability to rationalise and use our noodle to try new things, that is what sets us apart from other species in the Animal Kingdom.

Once again, I digress.  Back to the stone throwing.

A couple of years ago I was so enraged by their completely unwarranted attack on anyone different from them, that I wrote them a letter (which you can too - go to www.godhatesfags.com/contact.html).  But I have a confession to make, re: my letter.  I wasn't completely honest with them.  I didn't give them my name and correct contact details and I actually posed as someone else.  Oops.  My bad.  I don't think he'll mind, I mean, after all, I believe there is no way to prove (or not prove) that he exists. 

No, I didn't pose as God.  That would have been way too obvious.

Here is my letter:

Name: I go by many names
Subject: I PLEDGE MY FULL SUPPORT TO YOUR CAUSE
 
GODHATESFAGS.COM is by far my favourite site on the Internet.
 
Just the title alone makes me jump with excitement and anticipation.  GOD HATES FAGS.  Wow, such hatred.... AND it implies that the statement is coming from the big cheese herself.  Since I was cast out of heaven for rebelling against her, all those eons ago, GOD has always preached nothing but love, acceptance and compassion in her countless sermons (the ones those “priest” guys constantly rant on about).  So in her old age she seems to be contradicting herself.... not that it bothers me.  FINALLY she is seeing my way of life.  But why stop there?
 
Since the beginning of time, I have made it my sole purpose to induce and support unconditional hatred throughout every demographic that exists.  So naturally I am filled with JOY (my own dark kind) when I browse through your site.  But honestly, who says that we should discriminate towards just homosexuals.... lets not stop there God.  So far you have jumped on board with Gays and Lesbians... but there is so much more work to be done. 

Let me list for you:

• Gays and Lesbians (you have my full support God)
• Caucasians, Asians, Europeans, Polynesians, Blacks and Hispanics
• Cowboys and Rednecks
• Politicians and Socialites
• Truckers and Bikies
• Parents who spend their children's inheritances
• Parents who don’t spend their children's inheritances (I don't like to discriminate)
• Priests and Holy Men (lets include the Pope in that one too)
• Holy Women (lets face it - there are some, no use pretending there isn't)
• EVERYONE that resides in Hollywood
• Tabloid newspaper editors and Gossip Columnists
• Anarchists, Christians, Communists, Communalists, Conservatives, Fascists, Feminists, Greens, Muslims, Liberals, Libertarians, Nationalists, Socialists and anyone else with or without a point of view.
• AND lets not forget - Fred Waldron Phelps, Snr.

 
Lets encourage all of the above to stand up and work tirelessly until the end of their days promoting that anything and everything is wrong and should be quashed!  Free speech and a person’s right to choose is NOT their right and the entire worlds population should bow down and worship me in my FIREY HELL for ALL TIME!
 
Or you could shut up and let me do my job?
 
Yours in flames,

Lucifer J Satan >:)

See if you can outdo me.  Go on, I dare you.

Today, I had an RDO.  I love working a 40-hour week and only getting paid for 38 of them.  This means that one day a month, I get to choose any day during the week to have off.  This month, I chose today.

My original plan was to go see Coraline in 3D.  As soon as I parked my car in an undisclosed shopping centre car park, I realised that I left my "movie money" at home.  Damn!  Now I'll need to pay full price!

After making the long journey from my car to the cinema, and after calling KC to tell her how annoyed at myself I was, I realised that to see a 3D movie at this particular cinema, I would need to hand over $20 of my hard earn cash.  This just happens to be the same price to see a full-length movie at an IMAX cinema (and that screen is 7 storeys high).  So I made the decision not the see the movie.  Although I love seeing movies, and love everything about them, I hadn't quite prepared myself to see a movie for $20, instead of $11.20 that I was planning on spending originally.

I had also decided to get a couple of t-shirts printed, with a couple of designs I liked.  I've got a few nerd related ones I've wanted to get done for a while, and even unsuccessfully tried doing myself (those do it yourself iron on transfers are no good…. avoid them at all costs). This unnamed shopping centre has a custom print design shop that I had passed on a number of occasions, and having dealt with a similar business in Christchurch, I figured I’d give one a shot here in Melbourne.  

It made sense to go see them prior to the movie, get the designs done during the movie and pick them up after the movie.  But since I was no longer seeing a movie, I was off course.

They told me not to worry, that they would both only take 30 minutes total, so to come back then.  Easy!  I could go have lunch, spend $2-$4 at the video arcade (which I can only do when I don’t have KC with me, being in a relationship and all) and then head back to pick up the t-shirts.

Around 40 minutes passed and I returned to the print shop, only to see a worried looking “Printing Attendant” (really, what else can I call them?) eyeing my approach.

To cut a very long and nervous explanation short, they screwed up the prints.  This meant that both t-shirts I left with them were unwearable (unless I wanted it with a half finished “Comedian Button” from Watchmen on it).  The first one screwed up, so instead of trying my second design, they re-tried the first, only for it to not work either.

He presented me with a deal, he said to go and buy two more t-shirts and the printing will then be on the house.  Bargain!  This means I’d come out in front.  So I raced down to the retail outlet I originally bought the (very cheap) t-shirts from, to buy two more.

Alas!  They had none in my size.  Never mind, off to the next large retail store.  They didn’t have ANY plain black t-shirts.  They only had ones with wanky designs on them.  Hmm, this nerd doesn’t do “wanky”.
So I went to a third store, and after establishing that they had my size, I bought two new t-shirts.  Strange, because the t-shirts were a smaller size than I thought I needed (I doubt this has anything to do with my attempt at weight loss, but rather inconsistent industry sizes).

With 50 minutes left before I needed to leave the shopping centre (to pick KC up from work) I raced back to the printing store, to hopefully get what I came for.  In the meantime, they had done a test print on a spare t-shirt, using my design, and it work perfectly.

I stood there and watched as they did their work, and halfway though the first t-shirt, all was good.

Until it wasn’t!  The machine then started doing what it had done previously and the design started printing wrong.  The poor lad who was doing it could not believe his luck, and all the while his superior (in “store hierarchy” and not “moral code”) stood back doing… how can I describe it… “fuck all”?

I told them to try the last t-shirt, but the other design I came with.  At this stage, dealing with the Comedian’s Button wasn’t funny at all.

The last design worked mostly fine (for some reason it lost a little colour toward the end, but by that stage, I was happy with anything), but while it was being printed by “Mr Boss” (he nicely patronised his subordinate with a term of endearment: “Poof”) I asked him what we were going to do about me being down one t-shirt.  He offered me nothing, zip, zero.  I then had one of those Scrubs “surreal moments” where I imaged myself choking this idiot to death with his own “wanky” t-shirt.

After he finished the only (partial) success of my order, he threw the t-shirt to his lackey to finish the sale.  When Mr Boss Man was off helping (oxymoron?) someone else , I asked his staff member what we were going to do about me being down a t-shirt, to which he did the noblest thing I’ve seen a Shop (I’m sorry, Print) Assistant do since, well, forever.  He took out his own wallet, and handed me a $20 note.  I told him I wasn’t going to take his money, only for him to insist and hint to me that I wasn’t going to get it from “Arseface over there”.

I felt like a prick taking his money, but also felt that by no means should I be out of pocket.  I said to him to get that money back off the business, because it’s either a crap machine they are using, or Shithead hasn’t trained him well enough.  Either way, I couldn’t blame him and in a way felt sorry for the novice.

That “boss” needs to take some goddamn ownership over his investment.  Sure, he probably isn’t the owner, and is only just a manager or something, but I’m sure he is earning a lot more than the new guy.  And it was the new guy and him alone who admitted to their fault and moved to do something to keep the customer happy.

And early on, before anything screwed up and everyone was happy, me and new guy were chatting about nerdy stuff, like comics and Watchmen, and the other dude thought it would be funny to say, “bloody nerds”.

Good call, Fuckface.

District 9 opens tomorrow and with it hold the dreams of many a gaming nerd.  More specifically, an XBOX gaming nerd and more specifically again, a Halo nerd.

Long before director Neill Blomkamp was approached by Peter "Lord of the Rings" Jackson to direct a full length adaptation of his own (and very good) short movie Alive in Joburg, he was signed up as the director for one of the biggest movie announcements in recent history.  A movie based on the Xbox cash cow: Halo.

And he isn't even 30 (he reaches that milestone next month).

For reasons unknown to the general movie going public, Halo never saw the light of day, but instead Jackson wanted to capitalise on a young and exciting talent.  So he gave Blomkamp the financing and resources (WETA) to turn his short into a 2 hour "summer blockbuster", but don't write it off just yet. 

Here is what some critics have said about District 9:

"This grossly engrossing speculative fiction bears Jackson's blood-splattered fingerprints but also heralds first-time feature director Neill Blomkamp as a nimble talent to watch." - Variety

"District 9 is a brave, intelligent and exciting film. Some of its story beats fall into the "unlikely" category, but the central idea, the design, and the acting are so strong that you'll likely go with it and have a damn good time doing so." - FILMINK Australia

"Technically superb, District 9 is a feast of seamless digital work fused to live action, as it is also a smart fusion of documentary format with narrative fiction." - IGN Movies Australia

"Completely absorbing and intense. As audiences are compelled early in the film to "learn from what has happened", Blomkamp uses District 9 to quietly remind us that it's too late for some." - Urban Cinefile

To check out two very exciting trailers for District 9 click here.

Below is his original short, Alive in Joburg.  Check it out!

A trailer has finally been released for Heath Ledger's last film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.  If you've been living in a sealed cave for the last two years, you might be unaware that Ledger died of an accidental overdose in early 2008, while filming this movie.

In a surprise move, director Terry "Bad Luck Magnet" Gilliam cast three actors to fill in the gaps that Ledger could not: Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law.  So for one character, in one movie, there are 4 actors of 4 different ethnic backgrounds,  (Australia, USA, Ireland and England) playing the same role (of an Englishman).  Surely there is a Guinness World Record in there somewhere.

Since the announcement of 3 simultaneous replacements, I've been somewhat puzzled as to how Gilliam would re-work the script, to make Ledger's untimely departure explainable.  After watching the trailer, I am no longer worried.  And to be honest, I'm kind of excited.

To check out the trailer, click here.