Daniel Mason

Somewhere, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA


Joined May 28th 2008

Number of Posts:
15

Number of Comments:
38

Karma:
9

Mentored by:



Blogs

Daniel Mason's Blogs

1118 Vote(s)
22 Comment(s)
15 Post(s)

I mentor these bloggers

Learn more about the Orble Mentoring Program.


I do not mentor any bloggers.

Friends

I have no friends :(

Recent Posts

The Proposition

August 18th 2008 04:01


If there's any justice The Proposition will be recognised as one of the great Australian films in years to come. Director John Hillcoat and writer/musician Nick Cave lead us into a none-too-pretty vision of Australia's colonial past. The film makes excellent use of the outback locations: the sun is constantly beating down upon the landscape, the pretence of civilisation is making its slow intrusion onto this untamed plain. It's not a story that looks back proudly upon life in the 1880s: the characters are dirty, the landscape is open and dusty, abundant flies are just part of the scenery. The violence is stark. The Proposition is the best western ever set outside of the American Old West.

It opens in the middle of a violent shootout: the police have cornered the outlaw Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce) and his younger brother Mikey. The infamous Burns gang are captured one man short: their leader, the psychopathic Arthur Burns (Danny Huston). He's a man - or perhaps an animal - the Aboriginal tribesmen won't dare approach. The police can't get close enough. Captain Stanley (Ray Winstone) offers Charlie a proposition: he has nine days to find and kill his brother Arthur, or else poor little Mikey (Richard Wilson) will be hanged on Christmas Day. It's an exchange of lives that Charlie is willing to accept, having broken away from his crazed elder brother after a series of horrible events. But their bloody past doesn't mean that Charlie is actually capable of killing Arthur when the opportunity arises...


The Proposition is embedded with colonial themes: Captain Stanley is determined to civilise this harsh country. The film offers a genuine subtext about living upon the land versus living in harmony with the land. Stanley lives in a quaint little cottage complete with gardens and a picket fence - the kind of building that wouldn't really stand out anywhere but the arid landscape upon which it sits. The captain is determined to make his wife (Emily Watson) feel at home in this strange environment. He's attempting to recreate stability in his quest to eliminate the madman Arthur Burns from the natural order.

The police also use indigenous trackers to locate the Aboriginal tribesmen considered "rebel blacks" who are hunted and enslaved or killed. The depiction of indigenous culture and the treatment of Aboriginals feel startlingly accurate to the period. It's a harsh reality shown with unflinching realism.

The film pulls no punches when it comes to violence: there are exploding heads, savage beatings and torture. It's delivered without ever going over the top, but it remains exceedingly brutal.

Writer Cave teams with frequent collaborator Warren Ellis for the haunting soundtrack. It's a perfect score that fits this ancient, wonderful landscape. Some of these locations and shots are simply awe-inspiring. The Proposition is a good-looking movie even at its grittiest. The performances are wonderful (including some great work from smaller characters David Wenham and John Hurt), but Ray Winstone is easily the stand-out in this piece. His Captain Stanley is a man with real presence throughout this story.

This is one of my absolute favourite movies to watch and I'd recommend checking it out if you haven't seen it before. John Hillcoat delivered a brilliant film with The Proposition. I'll be very keen to see his approach to Cormac McCarthy's novel The Road (coming to screens later this year).
90
Vote
Shared on
   


Tideland

August 12th 2008 09:39


I'm going to preface this review by saying that I'm usually a big fan of Terry Gilliam's work. The former Monty Python animator delivers films with a distinct visual flair, though sometimes his storytelling prowess leaves much to be desired. One thing is generally certain: you can be assured of a surreal atmosphere when it comes to a Gilliam-directed feature.

It's a genuine shame to find that Tideland is such an awful mess, because Mitch Cullin's novel of the same name is a brilliant little effort. I was excited upon hearing that Gilliam would be tackling this adaptation, but the book was clearly a difficult work in translating to the screen.

Tideland tells the story of an imaginative young girl, Jeliza-Rose (Jodelle Ferland), who finds herself alone in a strange new home after her junkie father (Jeff Bridges) overdoses on heroin. She's not unaccustomed to seeing him vague out for extended periods of time, so while her father begins to decompose Jeliza-Rose retreats further into her own psyche. It's a bizarre fantasy world in which dismembered Barbie doll heads hold conversations while a monster shark roams the countryside.

Jeliza-Rose befriends her neighbours, a retarded man named Dickens and his demented sister, Dell. Neither of these strange characters serve any use in bringing Jeliza-Rose around to the reality that her father is now dead. As the film grows increasingly dark and more twisted, Dell actually preserves his body through taxidermy.

If you're disgusted by the idea of watching a child prepare a syringe of heroin for her father, there's a sexual connotation to Jeliza-Rose's relationship with Dickens that makes the film even more horribly uncomfortable as it progresses. But it's a movie that plenty of viewers will probably switch off even before reaching that point.

Jodelle Ferland is a fantastic young actress, but her captivating performance doesn't manage to save this creepy film. Tideland is too enamoured in its own eccentricities to convey a meaningful story. The potential for such a tale exists in the source material, but Gilliam hasn't managed to deliver that here. It's sadly one giant catastrophe unfolding onscreen.
57
Vote
Shared on
   


Vantage Point

August 12th 2008 08:04


Here's the premise of Vantage Point in a single line: there has been an assassination attempt on the President of the United States while he's attending an anti-terrorism summit in Salamanca, Spain. One might ask why Salamanca, but if that question crosses your mind it's obvious that you're thinking too hard about things. Fleeting reference to the Madrid train bombings reminds viewers that Spain has been the victim of terrorism in the past, but it's a flimsy connection at best. The film offers no particular reason for this bizarre choice of location beyond making for some pretty viewing.

Vantage Point is all about the gimmick. The audience witnesses the circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt from multiple perspectives as the film rewinds to show events over and over again. This would be fine if the process didn't feel so damned repetitive. It's actually a clever gimmick, but the execution here is flawed. We see an explosion play out from the same angle so many times that it loses any impact by the third replay.

Once again the subject of terrorism is being used purely for entertainment. And it's a reasonably engaging film if you're willing to check your brain at the door. I just couldn't get past some of the gaps in logic here. I'm still not entirely sure how one of these stories fits into the overall picture. It feels like some of the details were forgotten amidst the desire to excite and intrigue the audience. You get to see most of the puzzle falling into place, but there are some frustrating pieces missing in the end.

To its credit there's a pretty fantastic car chase, and a committed ensemble cast help to smooth things over. Vantage Point is just one of those movies that's not worth thinking about deeply once the credits begin to roll. I'm prepared to forget it already.
73
Vote
Shared on
   


Six Feet Under

August 8th 2008 11:06


Never has the stark reality of death been confronted with such a combination of humanity and black humour as you'll find on Six Feet Under. The creator of this award-winning television series is Alan Ball, a name some might recognise as the man who won an Oscar for writing American Beauty. There are no metaphorical plastic bags floating in the breeze here, though. Corpses, instead, offer a means of symbolism on this show. It may strike some as being morbid, but that comes with the territory


[ Click here to read more ]
40
Vote
Shared on
   


Apocalypto

August 7th 2008 08:48


Put aside whatever personal feelings you might have toward Mel Gibson. This review won't be touching upon his public actions or beliefs. I'm discussing the man as a director. I will only briefly mention The Passion of the Christ here, and that's because Apocalypto similarly uses a foreign language to convey dialogue


[ Click here to read more ]
75
Vote
Shared on
   


The X-Files: I Want To Believe

July 24th 2008 05:26


I want to believe there's life yet to be found in the X-Files universe. In the years since avidly watching the show I've reached the opinion that standalone episodes hold up better than anything from its mythology. It's a great television series that sadly never went anywhere satisfactory in the end. This new movie wisely doesn't get mired in the conspiracy mess that weighed down the show until it sank


[ Click here to read more ]
66
Vote
Shared on
   


Superman: Doomsday

July 22nd 2008 06:43


It's not as gorgeous nor stylish as DC's animated Gotham Knight, but this adaptation of 'The Death of Superman' storyline works better here than it ever did in the comics. There have been some obvious liberties taken with the story to accommodate a seventy-five minute runtime, preventing things from getting too insane (there aren't four Superman flying around here). It's not short on doubles or action, though. At times it seems as if the entire city of Metropolis is being destroyed. I love to imagine the sheer number of innocent lives that were lost as a result of Superman's actions


[ Click here to read more ]
57
Vote
Shared on
   


Batman: Gotham Knight

July 16th 2008 02:48


We're already finding ourselves bombarded with hype for The Dark Knight, so Batman is currently registering on plenty of radars. Cashing in on this hype, DC and Warner Brothers have released an animated prequel that will surely bear no impact on your eventual viewing of the main feature


[ Click here to read more ]
58
Vote
Shared on
   


The Mist

June 20th 2008 04:29


In a perfect world nobody but Frank Darabont would bring Stephen King works to the screen. There's a symbiotic relationship between these two creators that translates to great films, and viewers can only benefit from its continuation. Darabont has previously brought us two of the greatest King adaptations: the prison dramas The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Now he's turned his attention toward one of King's best horror stories


[ Click here to read more ]
64
Vote
Shared on
   


Street Kings

June 14th 2008 06:35


Stories of police corruption make for great viewing in my house. Whether it's the classic Serpico or the highly-compelling television series The Shield, I don't mind kicking back to watch tales of crooked cops. You can mine the territory several different ways and never run short on material. It's a moral minefield of potential. And there are plenty of blurred lines between justice and criminality when it comes to Street Kings
[ Click here to read more ]
75
Vote
Shared on
   


 

Recent Comments

Comment by Daniel Mason
on Choke

October 13th 2008 05:46
I think Fight Club, Survivor and Invisible Monsters are quite good... if you can deal with his occasionally pretentious writing style. After those books he just displayed a lack of growth that left me uninterested. At first his style felt unique and cool, but with everything I've read those same tricks that once felt unique became increasingly overused and banal.

Comment by Daniel Mason
on If you've seen it in print. Don't use it.

October 12th 2008 11:07
Then I apologise, Ann. I was trying to be funny and make a point at the same time, but I thought you'd misread me and then used the term 'smartarse' to be insulting. In the end it was I who misread you.

I've studied writing and never heard that advice. Like I said earlier, I can get behind the principle, but it strikes me as being too vague overall. I'm glad you explained your view of it, because I really couldn't see where you were coming from with that initial post. Sorry again.

Comment by Daniel Mason
on If you've seen it in print. Don't use it.

October 12th 2008 05:37
I'm not sure that resorting to the use of a clichéd phrase as a two-fold act of explanation and insult actually helps your argument, Ann, but it's certainly very clever.

I'll make it clear that I'm not advocating plagiarism. I simply failed to see the point of your brief opening post, which to me felt generalised, vague and lazy. What you've replied with in regard to my comment would have made for a more substantial argument in the beginning, so thankyou for offering that much when I asked.

You are, however, still quoting a piece of writing advice without actually citing where it comes from.

Comment by Daniel Mason
on If you've seen it in print. Don't use it.

October 11th 2008 09:13
What is the whole point of this post? I'm afraid that I just may have missed it myself, sorry.

While I understand the basic principle in that advice, I can't get behind such a vague notion. Could you elaborate on where that advice comes from? Give it some context?

I have seen the following sentence used in print countless times:

"Yes," he said.

So does this mean that I should never use such wording in my own writing? Does repeating this mean that I'm plagiarising another writer's work?

Comment by Daniel Mason
on Choke

October 11th 2008 07:30
I, too, was not a fan of the novel. Palahniuk has failed to impress me ever since Invisible Monsters. He falls back on the same devices until it feels like every single book could be narrated by the same character, so I gave up reading his work... but I've heard many positive things about Rant, enough to contemplate giving him another chance.

So while I was not particularly enthused with Choke as a novel, I do like Sam Rockwell and I think the material could make for a more interesting film than book. I'd wait for it on DVD, though. Spending money to see a mere 85-minute feature in the cinema makes no sense to me.

I'm looking at the National Classification Code right now, and I'd like to know which specific item 1(a) Debus is referring to. He should have quoted directly from the text rather than left it so deliberately vague.

Part of the classification code states that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want. But the OFLC has, several times over the last eighteen months, prevented me from experiencing material that I want to.

The code also says that classification is judged on the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. The barometer for 'generally accepted standards' here is actually determined by common law. If we don't accept the standards that are dictated to us we'd be 'dangerous individuals', not 'reasonable adults'. Standards are generally accepted because they are the law.

Another part of the code says that films and computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence. Now think about how many films and games you can think of that were given classification despite contravening this particular section of the code. I wouldn't know the specifics of how to shoot up heroin if I'd never seen it happening onscreen.

Where the classification board succeeds most clearly is in displaying a true lack of consistency.

I wrote a novel (Rush) that includes scenes of mass murder played for laughs. Nobody in the government took public issue with the content of the novel. They did, however, take issue with the cover image of a gun being pointed at someone's head. Yet the content, which defies morality and decency, was deemed award-winning as part of a government initiative. To this day I still don't know if anybody in the government quite realised what they were endorsing.

Perhaps it's easier for books to slip under the radar. It certainly appears easier for movies to get classification approval over videogames.

Comment by Daniel Mason
on Silent Hill: Homecoming BANNED in Australia

October 4th 2008 02:09
I foresee a future in which gamers start buying their consoles from overseas, importing contraband despite taking an illegal risk, and damaging the sales of game systems in this country. I seriously wouldn't expect customs to pay a great deal of attention to a single video game crossing our borders, and if people want their simulated drugs and violence, damnit, they'll probably take the risk of importation.

I'd be interested in seeing figures on how many films get banned on the basis of containing positive drug references and high-level violence in comparison to videogames. The regulations don't seem to apply across the whole board, and games are left suffering.

I don't think it's possible for this sixth book to ruin Adams' legacy. While I'm certainly hesistant to read my beloved characters as written by another, some initial positive reviews might pique my curiosity. Though I didn't even read The Salmon of Doubt, so it's unlikely that I'd spend money on this one.

Comment by Daniel Mason
on The Raw Shark Texts

October 3rd 2008 09:03
It's one of the best novels I've read so far this year. Wonderfully inventive, vivid, scary and mind-bending; full of concepts that sound impossible yet effortlessly crafted to sustain a tense and thoughtful narrative. I wanted to review it a while ago, but couldn't find the right words to sustain even a short review. It comes highly recommended from me, though.