And He's Outta There!

Justice has been served. Jacob Butler is no longer forcing his grotesque and ridiculously over-the-top singing and dancing style upon our horrified eyes and ears. I'm sure he's gonna go home and whinge about how nobody likes him and how people are big giant meanieheads blah blah blah. Now, if only his murdering of several quite good songs wasn't etched into my memory. Yikes.

Bankrupt

I'm not making a big thing about this, but I am just so glad that Kanye West sold more albums than 50 Cent. Hopefully Fiddy is true to his word and retires from releasing albums because his album Curtis is worst of the year potential. I wrote my review tonight and he's a sample.

On ‘Man Down’ he raps “I told you I’d murder them” over the Scooby Doo theme (I am not joking). ‘I’ll Still Kill’ features Akon boasting “Don’t even look at me wrong when I come through the hood,” before charmingly discussing how he can still kill within the blink of an eye. How gangster of him. On ‘Amusement Park’ he reaches new and unheard of levels of filth.

But, the thing that really made me angry was the album sleeve. There are pictures of:

Fiddy standing on a dirty ghetto door stoop in his finest ghetto flash gear.

Fiddy and (who I believe to be) Akon aiming guns at the readers.

Fiddy eating a hand pistol with a knife and fork.

Fiddy wearing a plaid suit reading the newspaper (?!)

Fiddy smoking a cigar while wearing a white suit.

Fiddy with a near-naked (she's only wearing knickers!) woman wrapped around him in three different positions.

Fiddy with a woman's hand stuck down his boxer shorts, showing off his pubic hair.

I have scanned in two images (opposite each other though) to give you a vague idea of how repulsive it is. Just deplorably grotesque.


Charming, huh?

Public Enemy #1

Please get this man off of our television!


His name is Jacob Butler and he is a contestant (read: he's there for the prizes, not the music) on the fifth and current season of Australian Idol. This man has previously disgraced our screens on the disaster that was Australia's version of X Factor. He's a serial talent show pest, having made the top 100 of Idol in 2005, the same year as his X Factor experience. He's obviously been trying to become a professional singer for quite some time (so much so that he aged five years in the two years since X Factor, hmmm). He's also worked overseas but, as his profile tells us, that fell flat on it's face.

So, obviously, his career has gone nowhere and so he just continues to enter these competitions hoping that his chubby cheeks will make him instantly famous. He's an attention seeking fame-hungry whore. His performances on Idol are so overdone that they actually split apart and form a parallel universe where they become good, but then they implode and form a blackhole that sucks inside everything that is good and right with the world because that's how much of a talent vacuum he is. He does these ridiculous faux-hardcore dancemoves (mid air scissor kicks! falling over on stage!) while wearing stupid outfits (a button-up wool jacket with a shirt and tie on rock night?) Dicko was entirely right when he said he'd be laughed off stage in the real world. I can't stand to watch him whenever he's on screen. He repulses me.

Also, his hair is gross.


He seems to at least have accepted that his mere modicum of talent won't make him famous and instead needs a television reality program to do it. He relishes the sound of applause, yet when a judge actually critises him he looks like he'll chuck a tanty - hi Courtney from season two! I hated you as well! So my wish is that people will realise all Jacob is is filling his desire for fame and fortune and doesn't deserve to be on there anymore.

Besides, you just know that if he does win Australian Idol he'll be forgotten about within a week because he's so unspectacular and hasn't got anything distinguishable about him whatsoever.


I didn't make this, my friend Jo did, but it's funny non?

House: An Abridged Teleplay

INT. CLASS ROOM - DAY
TEACHER
Ow, my heart.

Teacher collapses.

INT. HOSPITAL - DAY
HOUSE
Whatever could be wrong with this man? Also, I'm grumpy.

NO-NAME DOCTOR #1
Perhaps it's something relatively common and can be treated with panadol.

HOUSE
You're an idiot and I hate life.

NO-NAME DOCTOR #2
You've gone too far!

House grumbles to himself and takes two bottles of vicadin.

INT. PATIENT'S ROOM - NIGHT
HOUSE
I think you have a rare disease found only in the tropical jungles of Machu Pichu.

TEACHER
Oh my god!

HOUSE
You're delusional and I dislike you.

INT. HOUSE'S OFFICE - NIGHT
House listens to opera while swallowing a bottle of pills. NO-NAME DOCTOR #3 enters the room.

NO-NAME DOCTOR #3
What on earth could be wrong with the teacher, House?

HOUSE
It's simple, really! I've discovered that he was actually pregnant.

NO-NAME DOCTOR #3
Wow. You're amazing.

HOUSE
I hate you.

NO-NAME DOCTOR #3
I quit.

HOUSE
How will I ever get out this tricky situation?

House grumbles to himself.

NO-NAME DOCTOR #3
You need to quit the drugs and start being a man! Only then will I consider coming back to work.

House throws the pills in the trash.

NEXT WEEK ON HOUSE: House becomes a drug addict again and must try and solve the mystery illness discovered in a patient while also battling with his clearly idiot staff, but this time... HAS HOUSE GONE TOO FAR? And will be discover the mystery illness in time?! Why ask because you already know the outcome! And if you don't you are obviously a fuckin' moron!

Brett Ratner and the BJ Of Doom!

My first blow job was from a man, but I didn't know it was a man. That's where that comes from. It's based on personal experience. It happens to a lot of people.

This is certainly one of the more... intriguing interviews that I've read in a long time. Brett Ratner, director of the upcoming Rush Hour 3, discusses blowjobs from men pretending to be women, the difference between being a "bear" and a "cub" and how Britany Spears is "complex".

I'm as confused as you why he was even having an interview with The Advocate in the first place, but there you go.

Eli Roth and the Attack of the Critics

I was reading Dave Poland at The Hot Blog bring Eli Roth to task about violence in cinema and was intrigued by what I read. Also frightened. And bewildered. I was also a bit happy. Hopefully if Poland is any indication (which, let's face it, he isn't a lot of the time) then maybe - just maybe - people will actually get out there and make some mothafuckin' noise about this shit. From what I have read about Hostel Part II (as if the "Part" makes it sound like some important addition of a story that needed to be be told all over again) - and Poland makes a case for it himself - it is utterly absurd that this movie is rated a mere R in America. It's rated R18+ here in Australia too, but our R is the equivelent to America's NC17. However, here that rating is not seen as a reason to go into damage control - there've been lots of box office hits rated R18+. What will it take for a film to get an American NC17 rating based on violence? Will it take an actual on-screen murder? Or is that not enough? They'll give something like director Bernardo Bertolucci The Dreamers an NC17 based on nothing but a dick shot and a sex scene, yet all these horror films of late are deemed socially acceptable for anyone as long as they have a parent with them. How considerate.

Poland's review of Hostel Part II is scathing. It's worse than a bad movie. It's an offensive demeaning one. In referring to a much-discussed scene in which Heather Matarazzo is hanged upside down:

And then, I watched a scene that was the most disgusting, degrading, misogynistic, soulless shit I have ever seen in a movie that is going to be released widely in this country.

...

You have to remember, this is a movie. Not only did Eli Roth come up with this inhuman idea that has no meaning whatsoever other than his masturbatory fantasies about raising the bar.

...

And not only did he think of this, but he hung an actress, however willing, upside down and naked, gagged and bound, screaming, as nothing but a piece of objectified meat as Roth's camera moves her breasts in and out of frame like some sort of sick porn tease. This is not the first time a director has done something horrible to an actress, but as the scene dragged on, I felt as though I was watching Ms. Matarazzo being raped on a spiritual level. This director did not identify with her as a human in the scene ... she is just the target for a bloody gag.

And about Eli Roth himself.

Eli Roth became a little less human to me.

...

I never did respect Roth's work. Now, if he and I crossed paths, I would refuse to shake his hand.

Ouch. I've discussed before my ill-feelings towards Hostel Part II, what with it's niggling focus of tortured women, it's desire to advertise towards young males and a desire to be grotesque for no reason (although Roth is now putting on a cover of "subtext", which is the most ridiculous thing I've read all week). And as the anticipation for this apparently quite revolting freakshow gears up (My man Ja is completely guilty of that, teehee) I get not only continuously nauseated, but also continuously interested in actually seeing it merely so I can insult it some more out in front of the "but you haven't even seen it" argument. Maybe on a Cheap Tuesday? Ja joked that an entry about Eli Roth wouldn't be the same without a negative comment from me, and that's because he makes me angry. He's a deluded wanker. If he wants subtext in a movie, then maybe actually put it in there and not just disguise torture scenes as some allegory to the war in Iraq.

I hope more than enough people can show restraint and not see this movie. Roth has said that this will be the last Hostel film but, quite frankly, I'll believe that when I see (or not as the case may be). Even if Roth isn't directing, there will be more. And his insidious attitude* will continue to perforate through the filmmaking universe.



*Let it be known that I know Roth isn't the first, and won't be the last (unfortunately), person to make this type of film but it's just a fact that he's a damn good punching bag (who even knows the name of anyone involved with the Saw films?) And I know that these types of films have been around for a long time, but back in the '70s when the films Roth is seemingly trying to recreate in all their glory, these films were shown in driveins and were "underground". They needed violence to attract a crowd. But with movies going out to 3000 cinemas every week and with the internet, these movies market themselves. It's not fun knowing that there are 15-year-old boys out there thinking to themselves "aw man, that bitch is gonna get cut up!" with a thrill and excitement to it.

For me, horror films are split into two camps. Those that are scary and terrifying and are like punches of adrenalin (even stuff like The Last House on the Left from the '70s falls into that camp) and then there are the fun variety. The slasher ones, mostly. What they lack in genuine frights, they gain in being a sorta fun way to spend an hour and a half. But then there are ones like Hostel and the Saw movies. Those that aren't made to be scary (although they're marketed as being such), nor are they made for teen-thrill fun. They're made to have their filthy destructive energy out there. It's a disturbing trend having them out there in the mainstream and that people are going to these movies for the excessive gore, not the scares or the thrills. They're going to watch people get murdered.

I toyed with the idea of turning comments off for this entry because I'm sure at least one person has something to say against my thoughts, but I've left them on. If you feel so inclines as to defend these movies then go ahead. It'll be more entertaining than anything found in an Eli Roth film.

XXX Torture Porn

**Sorry for this being one big chunk of text, but you'll understand why soon. The thought of posting images to make an example just isn't worth it quite frankly.**

This started out as a simple reply to an entry at My New Plaid Pants featuring a newly released image of Heather Matarazzo gagged and hanging upside down, but it started getting way too long for a comment so I thought I'd just post something here instead. It's incredibly rushed and not at all structured well, but it's 1am so I don't care. This entry contains spoilers to the original Hostel I guess, not that there's much to spoil. People die gruesomely. Yawn. Anyway.

I've been reading some of these articles that have been popping up alot lately about violence in film and the whole "torture porn" subgenre that's emerged (as if it's only a NEW thing in horror, geez). Usually I just let the writer continue their deluded attitudes about horror films (well, the majority of horror films) and think that they're looking way too much into the issue when most people just go to horror movies for some jumps and scares and to frightened witless by something that isn't actually happening in the world as we know it.

But the more that I think about Hostel 2 the more I get kind of repulsed at the idea and the more that I really start to think Eli Roth is quite a repulsive man.

I don't generally buy the whole misogynistic angle that writers seem to take to horror movies, but then again neithr do I always buy the idea of directors that say it's all about female empowerment (well, certainly not in this day and age), but that's not the point. I do however think there's something incredibly disgusting about what Eli Roth is doing with this film. He is, in my opinion, selling the film as being about the torture and murder of young women. Pure and simple. Just like those quite revolting posters for Captivity, I think Hostel Part II is praying on the desire to watch young attractive women be murdered. As if the entire point of the movie is just to observe some sick fantasy. And considering the plot of the movie being rich people enacting murder fantasies there's certainly credence to that theory.

Eli Roth is, clearly, a man that relishes in violence but I'm not sure if it's in a particularly healthy way. There doesn't seem to be any noteworthy skill to what he decides to put on the screen. Like, he seems to be getting off on just having the ability to kill people for the sake of it - just as the Saw movies do equally reprehensively I think.

Maybe I too am just over-thinking the situation like the issue writers I typically think are being myopic, but it really does make me feel kind of sick. To be honest, in the original we actually didn't see all that much of the males tortured, but in the end he decided to have the woman kill herself and have the good looking American get away free and easy basically. In Part II it just seems to be all women, all torture, all the time. The IMDb lists a lot of females that are, probably to Roth, ripe for the taking. I may decide to watch the film on DVD and it may prove to not be this, but that doesn't make it appear to be anything more than just the classic Scream quote - "Some big-breasted girl who can't act who's always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door. It's insulting."

Taking a look at the poster archives for Part I and Part II also brings up another frightful element to Roth's party. The original film had posters that showed a man holding a chainsaw, another showed some tool of some sort and another involving a man with a drill placed in his mouth. Only the third one is particularly nasty (ignoring the international posters). The posters for the second film are of a particularly more grizzy variety. Ignoring the "slab of beef" I implore to you look at this one and not think it's sick. I refuse to post it on here because I just think it's detestable. I guarantee a whole swag of 15-year-old boys would see that on the Internet and go "sweet!"

I dunno, it just worries me. I didn't like the original much at all, I thought it was sort of silly and only attempted to be scary in the last 20 minutes or so (and even an untrained monkey could wrangle suspence out of that). I will usually defend gory movies. I think there's a place for them. But I do think there gets to a point when it is simply a sick director playing out his sick fantasies for people to watch under the guise of "it's just a movie."

Anyway, New Young Pony Club just came on iTunes so I'm going to finish this now because the song makes me happy and hopefully I can just get the repulsiveness of this stuff out of my mind. Until, of course, the movie opens and tonnes of young men go to the movie and cheer everytime someone gets their face blown away with a blowtorch or something. :/

[Holy shit, the conversation really drags on in the comment section. Have a gander if you're interested and leave a thought. It's incredibly interesting.]

I don't like Jonathan Rhys Meyers

I don't like Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Sorry. But it's true. I was never a big fan of his, but upon a recent rewatching of the otherwise awesome Woody Allen film Match Point I decided that no, I do not like him. I don't think he's particularly good looking (too... feminine, I think), and I really hate his voice (definitely too feminine) and I don't think he's a good actor (in Match Point he seems like he doesn't have a clue what he's doing). I liked him in Velvet Goldmine, but that's because it played up to his androgynous features.

Now comes word that he's heading to rehab ("I say No! No! No!" I love that song) and I make a big ol' yawn. It seems like people are just going to rehab these days for something to do on the weekend. Especially considering they only seem to stay their for a few weeks. Anyway. I just wanted to say that I don't like Jonathan and be done with it. The End.

Grocery Store Confidential

So, I was working the closing shift tonight at my job and it was about 9.30pm and it was very quiet but I was serving these two women. Blah blah. This man goes walking through my checkout and I see that he has packets of what look to be Starburst lollies shoved into his pockets so I go to him "Excuse me sir" and he turns around and I go "Would you mind showing me what's in your pockets there?" and he goes to me "Are you the manager", to which I reply "No, but I'm going to call him down" and he's all "Fine" and then turns around and runs out of the store, jumps on his bike and rides away.

Thing is, the guy is a regular customer! He comes in pretty much every day (or, at least, every day I am there) and buys cigarettes and whatever else. Like... why would you steal from a store that you routinely shop at? Anyway, he was clearly caught on camera.

I've been involved with something like this before when two guys scammed a carton of cigarettes. I ended up having to go to court! I didn't end up having to testify against them though because they finally realised they were being idiots and that we had enough evidence against them. Crazy.

I mean, really. Starburst are nice and all, but still...

Steal This Movie (But Not These Words)

So, earlier today Nat made mention of websites that steal people's work. He wrote about his own experience as well as that of MaryAnn the Flick Filosopher of websites just blatantly stealing blog entries and claiming them as their own (or, at least, not attributing it as otherwise). I have indeed noticed this several times before with my own stuff through the magic of technorati. Mostly Fametracker taking entries about Steve Carell, Natalie Maines and Rinko Kikuchi, but my understanding of Fametracker is that they are just a site that accumulates work from all over the web and everyone knows.

However, there are several sites such as Celebrity News which seem to be stealing work and passing it off as their own. They even stole Ja's recent entry about not being able to see Twin Peaks' first season. What use is an entry like that to anyone other than My New Plaid Pants readers? That site also stole my When Bad Posters Strike entry on I Could Never Be Your Woman. People who don't read me would have no freakin' clue what they're on about! This other site called Sexy Celebrity took my entry about The Home Song Stories and popped it up on their site. And because I'm going through the archives and giving all my older entries labels (to benefit y'all) all my older entries are floating to the top and even those are being stolen. I mean, the news is old so I don't get it at all.

While my situation isn't anywhere near as frustrating as Nat or MaryAnn because I don't get any revenue from writing this blog (although when I get a full time job and start living in Melbourne sometime in the next year, who knows...) so I'm not losing money, but it's still frustrating that these weird news services steal people's work and just pop it up without even a hint that it's not their own, let alone whose it actually is. I'm sure it's happening to you.

It's incredible bizarre when these sites steal either very person entries about people we know in real life (like, for instance, my friends Georgie and Hannah who I have mentioned on occasion) or link entries. I just... ugh.

I know none of you guys read these weird sites so I can't really tell you to stop (well, no, if you read them STOP) but if you do come across something that you know is written by me or anybody else then please fire off an email (addresses in the top right corner) and (if possible) leave a comment. I'm not sure how to stop it (none of these places have contact info) but my work and everyone else's that is written by them is under copyright from the moment they put it into the public domain (I've studied this so, at least, that's the law in Australia as I remember it from hazy studying two years ago) so it's actually illegal, and it's also just unfair and really stupid.

I'd really like to investigate this further. I should get in contact with one of my former teachers who was all about copyright. She'd know. Anyway. Thank you for letting me get this off my chest.

edit: I got an email from Joe at Low Resolution. That "Fametracker" thing I mentioned isn't www.fametracker.com it's another one that I can't seem to locate now (they've all disappeared from my Technorati page). So, yeah, don't think that that actual fametracker steals stuff. Cause they don't.

Announcement

LOL. I totally make it sound like it's even remotely interesting. It's about my "annual" awards, The UMAs. Let it be known I am only going to see two more 2006 films theatrically - Inland Empire and Curse of the Golden Flower because I want to see them for myself, not because I think I should just so I can add one person to the Best Actor category (that means you Ryan Gosling). I figure, by April that I just have to cut them off unless I really want to see them (such as those two films I mentioned). So that means there will be no Half Nelson, Running with Scissors, The Painted Veil (I really did want to see this but it has no release date. If it suddenly gets released within the next month I'll totally see it though), Sherrybaby, Fur (YES, even though it's Nicole), Three Times, The Science of Sleep, The Dead Girl (I did really want to see it but the time has passed) or a few others.

There's a few more that I just won't get to see such as Venus, Letters From Iwo Jima (ugh, I really wanted to see this one too), Blood Diamond, etc. You can blame bad distribution for some and disinterest for others. I can't see everything! I'll choose to see some of these on DVD and adjust the awards when I do, but... yeah. Don't expect them to be getting any prizes this time around despite high praise from places (and Oscar nominations for some). I blame the distributors for not releasing stuff like Half Nelson when it had Oscar buzz. They've lost my $12 now. And I only have illegal DVDs (thanks Par! thanks Georgie!) for being able to see Dixie Chicks: Shut Up & Sing and Factory Girl. At least that's something. I wish they'd just release movies like Fur or The Dead Girl as direct-to-DVD. At least we'd get to see them.

I still have some 2006 films to see on DVD that are in my QuickFlix queue, stuff like The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Spellbound 2 Wordplay, BoyTown, Art School Confidential (I know it's supposedly shithouse, but it's Zwigoff!) and some others.

But. Yeah. Hopefully when Inland Empire finally gets here I'll be able to do my awards, because that's probably the only movie left that even has a hope to disrupting the major categories (Picture, Director, Actress specifically). By the way, I have finally decided on a concrete final five for my Best Picture category should Inland Empire not make it. I was umming and aahing over what the last slot should go to, but I decided and it's delightfully off-centre (no, not The Black Dahlia) so I'm happy now. Although that final spot in the director category is up for grabs still. Best Actress is still tricky but I think I've got it, although as mentioned, Laura Dern could throw a wrench into the works. Supporting Actor is, typically, a big fat mess with only one performance that I just wanna surround myself in, but I think there's a surprise or two in there (rock stars! mutes! non-performers! but that could still change).

edit: So, I'm scrapping Inland Empire from the awards. Reasoning? Well, turns out the movie has a new Aussie release date. It makes me wanna throw up (JUNE 21!!) So, I think when I see Golden Flower (out in 2 weeks I think) I'm just gonna go ahead with the UMAs because I'm not waiting until bloody JUNE! Ugh. I tellsya. The lineup is still pretty good though and there's good films represented throughout so the omission of Inland Empire won't be felt that badly. But still. I totally expected it to play a somewhat major part. Oh well.

Gay Music

So, is there any doubt that Mika is one of the most exciting new artists of 2007? "Grace Kelly" is indeed a stunner of a single (not many artists have a first single as brilliant as that). Time will tell whether Mika can turn into the Freddie Mercury of his generation, but it's about time that somebody brought the fun and the frivolity and the kooky catchy hooks back to the top 40. Too many wonderful British and European pop acts get lost in translation, but thankfully Mika is on his way to conquering the world. "Grace Kelly" has been a world wide smash (soon to be American too) so yay for that! Watch the video below. It, much like the song itself, makes me wanna get up and do a dance routine of cheerleader kicks and Star Wars lightsabre shwooshes. Make sense?



I knew "Grace Kelly" reminded me of another song, but couldn't place my finger on it. But then this song came on right after it and the lightglobe above my head burst. It's totally "Wig in a Box" from Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Mika and John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig) have similar vocal styles and the music is also very similar (camp rock with pianos with a big bombastic chorus). Enjoy "Wig in a Box". It's totally delicious.



Mika hasn't come out and said that he is gay, by the way, but there's enough evidence to support the thought that he is. He's currently saying he doesn't discuss that sort of stuff with the press and that's fine by me. At least he's not doing an Anthony Callea by constantly saying he's straight and then when it's appropriate (ie; somebody accidentally did it for him just as his album sales were lagging) do a complete 180 and say that he is gay. Most people already figured he was gay, but it's just frustrating when people such as him who could have clearly done so much (he was a contestant on Australian Idol) to confront homophobia only decides to "accept" his sexuality (what the fuck? He's had a boyfriend for two and a half years, so it's not like he's only just figured it out) when it suits.

Look, I'm glad Anthony has finally come out and all that jazz and I can understand his trepidation to do so when he was at the forefront of the Idol phenomenon, but that show was three years ago for him. He's released two albums and emassed a decent-sized fan following (hell, he has the highest selling single of all time!) But people have been asking him ever since Idol and his reply has always been a steadfast "No, I'm straight" and now that one of his idiot friends did it for him on the radio he's decided it's time to finally come out? It smells fishy to me.

So, yeah, I'm glad he's finally out, but just because he's gay and he's come out in the media and all doesn't mean he should be given a free pass like so many online bloggers do (like they do with Lance Bass, another fame hungry whore who only came out because he had nothing better to do and his boyfriend had a book to sell). No siree.

Dancing with the Bizarre

So, Dancing with the Stars is into it's sixth series here in Australia (we have plenty of D-grade celebrities), but this current one is the first I've ever watched. It's really quite an annoying show, but like other shows of a similar vein where you're pretty much asked to pick favourites and watch them throughout a series (Idol, Big Brother) I'm watching it for two people and two people only (well, two of the celebrities anyway). They would be the hilarious Fifi Box and the supurb Kate Ceberano.

One of the "celebrities" is David Graham. He was on the fifth (and most recent) series of Big Brother. He annoys the bloody hell outta me. I hated him on Big Brother and I hate him on Dancing with the Stars. David is gay, but he's one of those sort of gay men who, for some reason or other, feels the need to teach the straight people of the world about the life of gay people. He came out on Big Brother in, like, the third episode, and from then on at least once a week (but usually much more) he would go into a long-winded lecture about how hard gay people have it and all that crap. I just wanted to throw something at him. We (er, gay people) don't need some farmer from the bush crying on tv to get sympathy.

It was clearly all an act though because he was trying to come of as all sensitive and shit because that's what Australian voters always seem to vote to win. Yawn. He'd always play the diplomat ("I don't want to vote for anyone" yet then turn around and vote for the only person in the house who, at the time, wasn't hating his guts. ugh.) Read more about his wankfilled life here. He scored 4/40 tonight (that's one point from each judge! lol) so hopefully he'll disappear into the crater that swallows up all Big Brother contestants and we'll never have to see his ugly mug ever again. I was going to put a picture of him besides this but then I was all "wait, I don't wanna force his stupid face upon the readers" so I didn't.

I gotta say though, I have a huge big ol' crush on Fifi Box's partner, professional dancer Paul Green. I rarely use this word, but he's a major stud. Yummo. Unfort, there aren't any pictures of him except for the tiny tiny one on the website (which you can see to your left). I just wanna ravage him silly.

OMG Sonia Kruger just slammed Anthony Callea. God she has some good calls R-rated ("the lesbians like Fifi's box!"). Teehee. Silly Anthony Callea. You're gay now, but when people asked you for the last three years you were straight. Riiiight. Could it be that your album sales are down and you need some free publicity? I think so.

Pardon This Break In Transmission

FUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate Blogger so much right now.

Rogue Issues

So, Greg McLean's last directorial effort was the terror-injected Wolf Creek. It was pretty great as those sort of movies go and Greg McLean could clearly be seen as a man of talent (remembering some of those scenes just gives me chills). So, naturally, when word came out about McLean's next picture, the mad-crocodile thriller Rogue, I was pretty excited. It has a freakin' kickarse cast - Radha Mitchell, Michael Vartan, Sam Worthington, Heather Mitchell (ASHKA!!!!!!!!!), John Jarratt, Stephen Curry, Mia Wasikowska and some more. It's set in the Northern Territory (cue stunning cinematography) and, early word gave us all hope that it could be really great.

But, of course, the Harvey Weinstein train had to come along and derail all of that. The movie had about 20 different release dates in America, and had all of about none here in Australia. There has never been a poster (there's been fan made ones though!) and no trailer. There are scant few still images on the net (maybe five or six in total). It's almost as if the movie didn't exist.

Then today, I read the horrifying news that Rogue was going straight-to-dvd! (link curtosy of My New Plaid Pants.) I was shocked, to say the least. How does a movie that costs up to (but most likely more than) $20 million dollars and from the easiest genre to sell to American audiences (horror) go direct-to-dvd? Is it because the Weinstein's were disappointed with the American returns of Wolf Creek? Well, maybe they would have made more if they didn't release it ON CHRISTMAS DAY! Ugh. Or was it because the other mad croc film, Primevil, died at the box office even though there was no advertising to make customers believe there was even a crocodile in it!

So, there I was - shocked. I told my friend Simon (who lives outside of Sydney) and he informed me that Australia at least still had a release date for Rogue of August 30. Still some time away, but I can deal. I'm still scared it will go direct-to-dvd, which would be strange considering Wolf Creek is one of the most successful and famous Aussie films of the last decade. All they have to do is throw a "from the director of Wolf Creek" on the poster and it's sold to a fairly decent amount of people.

But THEN, I start to peruse the IMDb forums because occasionally the people on there actually dig up something worth nothing. And, ta-dah, they sorta did. Over at Moviehole they were reporting the direct-to-dvdness of Rogue yet had to edit it later and put a disclaimer at the top of the page that read as thus. (edit - Bloody Disgusting is reporting it too)

The Fangoria report, mentioned below, was a little off it seems. The films local distributor tells us that "Hot off the press : The Rogue U.S DVD release is wrong, Weinstein are still releasing in the US market as are we [in AU]. TWC have pulled the info off the site."

So, what does that mean? Well,it means that the Weinstein's are probably still planning on releasing Rogue theatrically in the USA and that the Australian distributer (Village Roadshow? Who?) is definitely still releasing it theatrically. Maybe the DVD thing was just a rumour? Who knows. There's still the not-so-slight possibility that it is indeed still going to be "[...] delegated to a few bits of white space at Blockbuster."


I suppose we won't know until we actually get a poster or a trailer or something that gives us a vague idea of what the hell is going on over at the Weinstein Company. Crazy.

Although, in all honesty, the reason this film deserves to be shown in US cinemas is so American audiences can experience the brilliance that is ASHKA!!!!!!!!! Granted, it's not actually ASHKA!!!!!!! in the movie, but it's CLOSE ENOUGH!

Return of the Fame-Sucking Publicity Whore!!!

I've mentioned multiple times on my displeasure with reading about those salivating fame hounds Lance Bass and Reichen whateverhisnameis. They're so transparently desparate for our adulation and peering eyes. And of course Lance came out (to a magazine, of course) just at the same time that Reichen had a book (an autobiography) being released soon after.

Well, now I've read the fabulous stunning news that Lance himself is to pen an autobiography, which amuses me to no end. Apparently he'll write about being a member of N' Sync (even though a quick glance at Wikipedia could tell you all about it) and how his case of keeping himself in the closet from fans was so radically different from all the other cases he read about. Yawn.

On one final note, as you can tell, I am not a fan of Lance, but as a gay man I feel sorry for the dude. Every time People publishes an article about him they use that same sad sorry photo of him (left) with bags under his eyes, pale blotchy skin, ratty facial hair, crooked smile and horrible shirt. That poor man. Everytime he googles himself (y'all know he does) and up pops an article from People he has to be spooked by that awful photo.

Stab her.

Stab Norma right in the neck.

Or maybe just make her see Epic Movie. I'm not sure which is the worst deal.

PS; I hate Norma. Like, a helluva lot and I hope she's reading this (although I highly doubt she is because her brain capacity is very low and she probably can't turn the computer on without yelling at it, telling it it does nothing, is worthless and that she is the supreme leader of all things ...just maybe)

Oh. My. God. !!!!!!!!!!.

What I am about to bestow on you guys is the holy grail of comedy. The most brilliantly ridiculous thing in the history of everything. Of course, pretty much anyone in the North or South American continents is not going to have any idea what the hell is so funny about this, but boy oh boy - for the rest of us (or those who have the slightest knowledge about cricket)? If this doesn't tickle your funny bone then I give up trying.

I give to you...

"You Are The One For Me" by Brett Lee featuring Asha Bhosle.

Watch. Disbelieve. Laugh your arse off.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHY IS HE PLAYING AN ACOUSTIC GUITAR?!?!

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe Dakota isn't Satan herself, but is just your ordinary garden style variety vampyre (or some other blood sucking creature like a snake on a plane?). I fear for the lil piggies from the set of Charlotte's Web now.

[Src]

She's breached the third level of HELL!!

What is the world (or, should I say, Hollywood?) coming to when Satan herself Dakota Fanning gets projects tailor made around her. I know she had Charlotte's Web, but imagine being a newcomer, all the way from Deep River, Ontario trying to break into the movie business. You want to become a movie star, or a great actress, but preferably both. You're staying in your hot-as-fuck apartment and between your Nancy Drew on crack investigations you receive word of an audition. Your landlady/madame gets a fax with sample scenes for the audition the next day. As she's bringing them to you a weird old woman (who was in Shampoo!!) tells you "something bad is happening" and you just brush it off. But then you look at the cover page of the audition notes and *gasp* it says UNTITLED DAKOTA FANNING PROJECT

It'd be enough to make you create a physical manifestation of your hatred who likes to play with a mysterious blue pandora's box, which when opened you would fall into and suddenly become somebody with the name Diane who's forgotten how to shower. And then you'll be so full of disgust that you hire an assassin to kill Dakota Fanning and when it's done he will leave a blue key somewhere.

Except, because Dakota Fanning is in fact Satan, it is impossible to kill her with mere manmade weapons and then she grows to epic sizes and decides to kill every single person on the planet (except for Rachel Ray, Satan's minion) by reflecting the sun rays from her giant hideous braces, setting everything on the planet on fire thus making it, quite literally, Hell On Earth.

And then you'll wake up and realise IT WAS ALL A HORRIBLE DREAM.

And then an old couple will show up and you'll scream your face off before shooting it off with a gun, thus ending the tragic story of your life.

Meanwhile Dakota Fanning's untitled project gets a title and another poor unfortunate up and coming actress receives audition scenes, goes to audition with the creepy old man (aka, Dakota's father cause he'd probably be the kind of father to aprove all of the lesser beings who appear in his daughter's films) and then when she gets the role in the film (which may or may not be directed by a hot up and coming man with zero percent body fat) is all excited but then discovers that the leading lady is DAKOTA FANNING, which terrifies her so much that she runs screaming from the studio to a friend's place. But then she discovers that the friend is a rotting disgusting corpse and then in a possibly earths-falling-off-it's-axis moment of metaphysics she realises the rotten disgusting corpse is HERSELF and subsequently desolves into a puddle of sticky gelatinous goo.

Or that's how I imagine it panning out.