I don't know if I'll ever be able to go back to peanut butter now that I've had an almond butter fluffernutter.  It was mind-blowing.  Seriously.  Try it, and prepare for your life to change -- forever.

So I just saw 29 movies over the last nine days.  Good times.  Some highlights:

Up in the Air -- This was just as good as the awesome trailer would lead you to believe.  Maybe better, even.  The trailer makes it out to be a flat-out drama but it's actually surprisingly funny -- but the humour never comes at the expense of the characters.  George Clooney gives what is quite possibly his best performance ever.  Jason Reitman has definitely come a long way since the enjoyable but overrated and smug Juno.  This is tied for my favourite movie of the festival with...

Enter the Void -- Sprawling, bizarre and amazingly visceral, this is definitely not a film for everyone, but I thought it was pretty mind-blowing.  I've heard it described as the last 20 minutes of 2001 stretched out into a whole movie, which I think is somewhat apt.  It was quite possibly one of my most memorable movie-going experiences ever, and a film that absolutely needs to be seen on the big screen.  Seriously -- I don't think they should even bother releasing this on home video.  You need to watch this on a gigantic screen and just let it surround you and draw you in.

The Loved Ones -- A really well made horror film that just gets more and more twisted as it goes along.  Kinda reminded me of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original, not the awful remake).  

Harry Brown -- This is a movie about Michael Caine as a badass vigilante -- if that's not a sure thing, I don't know what is.  The director would have had to really work hard to mess up this concept, which he thankfully did not.  Michael Caine was amazingly good.  Plus, there was a scene involving Michael Caine buying a gun off a shifty drug dealer that was one of the best things I've seen in a while.

[REC] 2 -- Just as good as the original [REC] if not better.  Pure, unadulterated awesomeness.

Perrier's Bounty -- An Irish gangster movie starring Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson and a scene-stealing Jim Broadbent.  Funny,well made and almost ridiculously fast-paced, this was definitely one of the better entries in the gangster genre of late.  

There were some other gems as well -- A Serious Man was bizarrely hilarious, Last Ride featured a great performance from Hugo Weaving (A.K.A. Agent Smith from the Matrix), and Leaves of Grass was yet another winner from Tim Blake Nelson.  As for the duds, the Dirty Saints was so pretentious it almost came off as a parody of strange foreign art-house films, Making Plans for Lena (a "mystery screening" that didn't actually play in the festival proper) was unpleasant and boring, and Kamui (a movie featuring both ninjas and shark-hunting pirates) wasn't nearly as good as the premise would lead you to believe.  There was also Air Doll, which, while not a dud by any means, was a pretty big disappointment.  

Can't wait for next year!

George Clooney will win the Oscar next year for his performance in Up in the Air.

I shall post a link to this prediction the day after the Oscars next year, so that I may gloat.

That is all.

So the air conditioner broke down a couple days back, and now the damn repairman is saying that the part he needs probably won't come in until next Monday.  Next Monday!  Of course this had to happen during the like two weeks that it actually gets really hot in this damn country.  Son of a bitch.

So I'm thinking about starting a business doing wedding videography / corporate videos, and I'm applying for a government program that gives assistance to new entrepreneurs.  Part of the application is that I need to survey some potential customers, so... you're a potential customer (work with me here): what are you looking for in a wedding video?  What's important to you? If you're already married, what did you like/dislike about your wedding videographer?

If anyone can help out with opinions, I'd really apreciate it.  And I need to hand in this application on Monday, so I need feedback in the next day or so.

So, about a year and a half ago, I made this short film.  I submitted it to a bunch of film festivals, and it got rejected everywhere I sent it.  It's ridiculously long -- just about half an hour, which really makes it too long for a short, and too short to be a feature.  Plus, I think my reach really did exceed my grasp; I had pretty much no budget at all, so this particular heist movie was a bit over-ambitious (putting it mildly).  I should have just made a film with two people talking, especially since I wanted this to play in a few festivals and be a "calling card" of sorts.  Oh well.

So here you go.  It's not the best film ever, but if you have a half an hour to kill, I can think of worse ways to spend it.  It'll probably end up being the the last film I ever make. 

So I saw Star Trek yesterday, and it was pretty awesome.  I know I probably don't have the most credibility ever, but you'll just have to take my word for it.  I think it may just be my favourite movie of the year so far, and it's definitely right up there with the best Trek films.  The casting is great across the board, and the film does a perfect job of straddling that fine line between staying true to the original material while still appealing to people who've never watched any Star Trek (unlike, say, the ridiculously terrible Nemesis, which also tried to go for a wider audience with a more action-heavy film, but failed miserably).  There are definitely quite a few changes, but you never get the "this is a slap in the face to the fans!" feeling, or the feeling that things have been changed just to be different.  It's nicely reverential to the source material, with lots of little references for the fans.  It's exciting when it needs to be, emotional when it needs to be, and has a healthy dose of humour sprinkled throughout.  It's pretty great.

   

I don't get it.

The Far Side is easily my favourite comic strip ever, and makes me laugh-out-loud more frequently than any other comic, but I just don't get this one.  I've showed it to a bunch of people, and they don't get it either.  So what's the deal?  Clearly, it has something to do with the bowl of meat and the tattered state of the guy's house, but I just don't see the connection.  Someone needs to tell me what the joke is. 

And in case you're wondering -- no, there isn't supposed to be a caption.  I thought maybe it was some kind of misprint, but I checked another copy and there wasn't any caption there, either.

In case you care (you probably haven't noticed but I've been pretty much non-existent around here for the last couple of months).

 A)

I've been horribly addicted to World of Warcraft since the last expansion came out a couple of months ago.  If you value your free time, stay as far away from this crazy game as you can.

 B)

I've been preparing for my impending move to South Korea.  I'll be teaching English to a bunch of rowdy Korean children.   I leave on Saturday, so I'm starting to freak out just a little bit.

 I'll probably be back in full force here in a few weeks (once I get settled in and get my internet connection going) as my shitty laptop can barely run World of Warcraft.  I've been accumulating a fairly large stash of videos since I've been gone, so I'm all ready to go (assuming that everything hasn't been posted already).

...which has completely screwed up my plan to hit level 70 in time for the expansion on Thursday (I'm 68 at the moment).

 Yeah, that's right  -- I'm a big enough nerd to play World of Warcraft, but not enough of a nerd to have hit 70 months ago.  I'm subject to ridicule from nerds and non-nerds alike.

 Anyone else playing WOW at the moment (well, not right at the moment... you get my drift)?  I'd say we should have an in-game Videosift meetup, but I suspect that even if a number of us do play, we're all on different servers.  I'm on Uldum (or at least I would be if it were up right now -- damn you, Blizzard!).

 

Yeah, that's right, I'm about to use this space for some pretty shameless self promotion.  [cue evil laughter]

 I just started a blog called Candyrageous, where I'll be reviewing various candies.  I've got a few reviews up, but the blog is still very new so if anyone has any feedback I'd definitely appreciate that.  I've been using Wordpress, which so far I would recommend pretty highly for anyone starting a blog -- I first tried it a couple of years ago, and it seemed pretty buggy, but I think they've worked out most of the bigger kinks because it's (mostly) seamless.

Oh, and I don't think you realize how difficult it is to find a decent domain with the word "candy" in it.  Sheesh.  I think I must have tried a hundred different things before I came up with Candyrageous.

Well, I just finished watching 28 films over the last eight days, and I think it's safe to say that I'm all movied out.  I think TIFF is one of my favourite times of the year -- as a movie city, Toronto may not have the cache of New York or L.A., but as far as film festivals go we've got everyone else beat.  I saw some really great films at the festival this year, and some not-so-great ones.  A few highlights:

The Wrestler -- Wow.  Easily the best film of the festival.  I wasn't sure what to expect from this one going in, but this was an exceptionally well made character study (featuring none of Darren Aronofsky's usual stylistic quirks) with an absolutely stunning lead performance from Mickey Rourke.  Yes, you heard that right: Mickey Rourke (!) gives the performance of the year, if not the decade.  He's that good.

Still Walking -- From Hirokazu Koreeda, director of stuff like After Life and Nobody Knows, this was an extremely low-key and slow-paced drama about a family gathering -- under a lesser director it probably would have been pretty dull, but Koreeda's style suits the material perfectly.  This has been compared a lot to Tokyo Story, but I like it even better than that film.

RocknRolla -- This is coming out really soon, but I'm a fan of Guy Richie's, so I couldn't resist.  Richie doesn't exactly cover any new ground here, but if you enjoyed Lock Stock and Snatch, you'll enjoy this.

Chocolate --  Prachya Pinkaew's follow-up to Ong Bak and the Protector, this kicks some pretty serious ass, despite the absence of Tony Jaa.  It takes a bit too long to get started, but once the action starts it pretty much doesn't let up until the end credits roll.  Good stuff.

Che -- Ah, Che.  This was my most anticipated movie going into the festival, and while it's seriously overlong at four-and-a-half hours (!), I'm still glad I saw it.  It's worth it if only for Benicio Del Toro's powerhouse performance as Che Guevara.  

Of course, there were some duds too -- Three Monkeys was dull beyond belief despite getting some positive buzz,  and Deadgirl (about a couple of guys who stumble onto a nude zombie in an abandoned sanatorium and proceed to use it as a sex toy) was one of the worst films I've seen in a while -- but overall it was a pretty good festival.

If you build it, they will come... depending on the disparity between the American / Canadian dollar.

Apparently, they've just opened Toronto's biggest movie studio, the Filmport, only...  no one's interested.  It's empty. The part that really struck me from the article was this:

Additionally, Universal is eyeing Filmport for its "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" project, which is based on a comic by local writer Bryan Lee O'Malley and set in Toronto. But with the Canadian dollar at near parity with the American greenback, and New York offering a 35 percent tax credit, Universal producers also are considering the Big Apple as a stand-in for Toronto.

New York as a stand-in for Toronto??  Wha...?  Toronto has doubled for New York in what I'm sure amounts to hundreds of movies and TV shows, but New York doubling for Toronto?  Has that ever happened?  What has the world come to?

Apparently this happened half-way between changing the marquee from Hancock to the Dark Knight...

 

I liked it.  Quite a bit, actually.  My expectations were very low -- I just rewatched the first three films, and they were even better than I remember them being, particularly Raiders.   Plus, while I think that Spielberg and the '80s are the best combination since peanut butter and chocolate, I haven't liked most of his films in well over a decade. 

 My first apprehension with this film was Janusz Kaminski, Spielberg's cinematographer (who has a very distinctive stlye, which was one of the contributing factors in Spielberg's creative downfall).  I was afraid he'd shoehorn his usual aesthetic into the film, which would have been completely out of place (though I think it's been out of place in pretty much every Spielberg film since Saving Private Ryan, but I digress).  But he was actually able to tone himself down (for the most part), and did a good job of mimicking the look of the first three (again, for the most part).  Spielberg did a pretty spiffy job himself, emphasizing longer takes during action scenes rather than the more fashionable super-quick-cut style.

 Then there's Harrison Ford, who seems to be getting gruffer and gruffer as he ages, and losing some of his charismatic appeal.  He was in peak form here, and seemed perfectly at home with the usual assortment of fisticuffs and stunts despite his advanced age.  The rest of the cast was just as good, even Shia LaBeouff (I know, I'm as shocked as you are).  It was also nice seeing Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood, though I wish they had at least tried to keep the fact that she's in the film a secret (she doesn't appear until at least 40 minutes in).

 Don't get me wrong, it's far from a perfect film -- it's easily the slowest of the four films, and probably a tad too long as well.  And despite Spielberg's claims to the contrary, there's clearly a lot of CGI in the film.  A lot less than your average summer blockbuster, but it is there, and it is noticeable.  Also -- without going too far into spoiler territory -- there's a lot of sci-fi stuff (particularly in the third act) which feels a bit out of place within the context of the Indy universe (there's a difference between the mystical stuff from the first three and... well, you'll just have to watch it, I don't want to spoil anything).

 It's definitely the weakest of the four films, but not by much -- it's actually fairly close in quality to the two sequels.  The reviews seem to be really mixed so far, so your mileage may vary, but I thought it was quite enjoyable -- the type of rollicking adventure we don't see nearly enough of these days.