You are browsing the archive for 2011 September.

Movie Review: Horrible Bosses (2011)

September 16, 2011 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Horrible Bosses is, in many ways, this year’s Couples Retreat – amazing ensemble cast, clever premise, Jason Bateman, tremendous potential…and disappointing result.  To be fair, it’s a lot funnier than Couples Retreat (not difficult), but Horrible Bosses never reaches the heights it could have soared to.

Anyone who has ever worked for a shitty boss can relate to the premise of this film — Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis (Hall Pass) and Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) are friends with horrible bosses: the tormenting maniac Kevin Spacey, the douchebag Colin Farrell and the harassing nympho Jennifer Aniston.  Their lives are hell and they dream of killing their respective bosses, leading them to procure the services of ex-con Jamie Foxx.  The plot starts off being somewhat cookie cutter but to the writers’ credit it went places I didn’t expect it to.

A friend of mine who saw the movie before me found it funny but had problems with the swearing and crudity.  He’s not alone as there have been reports of senior citizens walking out in the middle of the movie.  Jennifer Aniston in particular tries to shed her good girl image with lots of raunchy dialogue.  Personally, I didn’t have a whole lot of problem with the swearing and crudity — what irritated me more was that it wasn’t particularly funny, or at least not enough of it was.  The scenarios were there, the set ups were there, but the jokes lacked the finishing punch.

It’s a shame, because Horrible Bosses has one of the best comedic line ups of the year.  The three main leads play to their strengths.  Bateman is the regular straight-faced, dead-pan character (which works so well for him), Sudeikis is, like he was in Hall Pass, sleazy and a bit of a sexual deviant, and Day is his usual high-pitched, freaking-out self that we know from It’s Always Sunny.  The bosses are indeed horrible and serve their purpose, but aren’t that funny.  Spacey makes you believe he is real (in fact he reminds me of a few real people), Farrell is physically impressive but just okay, and Aniston is not bad, but may be trying too hard at times.  Foxx is probably the highlight despite limited screen time.

I’m not sure what exactly went wrong with Horrible Bosses.  Don’t get me wrong, I laughed a few times and I enjoyed bits and pieces of it.  Dreaming of killing your boss is a deliciously wicked idea, and watching three bumbling idiots trying to get it done is pretty funny.  But at the end of the film I sat there wondering why I didn’t find it funnier.

2.5 stars out of 5

‘Getting Started as a Freelance Writer’ by Robert W Bly

September 15, 2011 in Best Of, Book Reviews, On Writing, Reviews

Robert W Bly is one of the most successful freelance writers in the world. He earns over US$600,000 a year and was a self-made millionaire whilst still in his 30s. And according to his book, ‘Getting Started as a Freelance Writer‘, you can too. Well, maybe not to that extent, but Bly believes even an average writer can earn $100,000 a year (that’s $400 a day, five days a week for 50 weeks) by simply following the principles he has devised in his book.

So is the book everything it promises to be? Hard to answer. Bly does offer many tips to people who are already freelance writers or are aspiring to be freelance writers, and most of that advice is fantastic and can help you become extremely successful, but it’s not exactly a ‘getting started’ guide as the title suggests. In reality, the book is a guide on how to be a ‘successful’ freelance writer who can potentially make a comfortable living, but if you are a writer with little or no experience in freelance writing hoping this book will provide a miracle shortcut to a cruisy lifestyle then you might be sorely disappointed.

Bly does not sugar coat it — freelancing is hard work. Extremely hard work. To make a comfortable living you’ll need to treat it like a business. You’ll have to make sacrifices. Work 50 or 60 hour weeks. Only get a week or two off a year. Kill your social life. There is no secret formula.

But on the bright side, freelancing does have its advantages. Flexibility. Being your own boss. Write about things you are interested in. Fairly good money. For many people, like me, being able to write for a living is a good enough reason in itself.

Then what does this book offer in terms of constructive advice? There are a few very important points that Bly tries to drill into his readers.

First of all, in order to make good money in freelance writing, you have little choice but to pursue commercial projects — that is, write for businesses. Marketing brochures, technical writing, annual reports, speechwriting, direct marketing, etc. These are the only types of writing jobs that will make you enough money on a regular basis to sustain a comfortable living. Sure, you can submit the occasional magazine or newspaper article, poem or short story, but there’s simply not enough money or regular work to survive on if that’s all you do.

Secondly, marketing and networking are just as important as, if not more important than, your actual writing ability (after all, I did receive this book in the mail from the publisher without asking for it, and Bly makes numerous references to his other guides in the book). It doesn’t matter how fantastic a writer you are if people don’t know who you are. Bly suggests that you treat your freelancing job like a proper business — organised, with proper files, business cards, letterheads, websites, newsletters, and so forth. Networking is also imperative — joining relevant clubs and societies, attending functions, workshops and conferences are all part of the job. You have to be a salesman — you might have to cold call potential clients (ie call them out of the blue), explain to them what you can do for their business, make yourself stand out from the pack. And once you get a client, you have to nurture the relationship to garner more work in the future. It’s exactly the type of stuff that shy, introverted writers might hate doing.

Thirdly, you have to work like a freaking Trojan and understand that time is your most valuable asset. Don’t waste your time doing things that will take you away from your writing. Hire people to do things if they can do it more efficiently than you can — your time is better spent doing what makes you money — ie, writing! For instance, Bly hires assistants to do all the stuff he doesn’t want to deal with, like running down to the post office, researching, negotiating fees and doing the accounts. Since he earns much more per hour than they do, he can afford to do so.

Other tips include specialising in a few niche areas rather than be a jack of all trades (clients prefer specialists, you can charge more, and it cuts down research time if you’ve written something similar before), recycling and reselling your old work, don’t sell yourself short and be persistent in wooing clients and tracking payments.

Now, all of this is fabulous advice — but probably for someone further down the track and with a little bit of writing experience and business savvy. What about the newbies who are genuinely just ‘getting started’? Surely it can’t be a wise idea for someone who hasn’t had much work published to start printing a stack of business cards, hire a secretary and research assistant, writing newsletters and calling random strangers out of the blue.

I suppose that’s the thing that disappointed me most about this book. While it does include a chapter suggesting ‘entry level’ work such as writing for a local newspaper and a couple of other vague ideas, there really wasn’t a whole lot of precise information for the true beginner. There’s probably a good reason for that; most people don’t go straight into freelance writing from an unrelated profession (Bly himself had worked in writing/marketing roles before switching to full time freelancing) but it would have been good to see some more concrete suggestions and realistic ideas on where to look for well-paid work when you’re just starting out.

While I would have liked to have seen more pages on the ‘getting started’ part of the profession, I would have liked to have seen less from the chapters on stuff such as poetry, novel writing and short fiction — areas that didn’t really deserve more than a couple of paragraphs and are covered in much greater depth by other books.

The one undeniably great thing about this book is that it can help you decide whether or not you are really cut out for a freelancing lifestyle. You might read it and think, darn, this is all far too hard and involves too much work I don’t want to do, or you might think, fantastic, I can definitely picture myself doing this for a living. It could motivate you into freelancing or it could scare you out of it — either way, it can assist you in making an informed decision about your future.

As for me — I was very excited when I received the book in the post. Freelancing seemed like the perfect life for a writer, and I had often been told by those in the industry that freelancers had the best of both worlds — write for a living but not being tied down by the constraints of a normal day job. It seemed too good to be true, and as this book has revealed, it kind of is. You really do need a fair bit of experience or have worked in a related industry to be able to jump into a freelancing career.

The most heartening thing about Bly’s book is finding out that being a freelance writer can be a viable career for those willing to put in the effort. Looking around online, all you see these days are content mills paying writers atrocious rates such as a cent a word, or less. However, what this book demonstrates is that there are well-paid writing jobs out there if you know how to find them, if you know how to sell yourself and obtain the all-important contacts for repeat work. It’s not a silver bullet but it could be exactly what struggling and/or writers need to boost their careers.

3.75 out of 5

Fight Prediction: Mayweather vs Ortiz

September 14, 2011 in Boxing, Sport

On September 17 in Las Vegas, undefeated 34-year-old Floyd Mayweather Jr (41-0,  25KOs) will return from a 16-month lay off take on 24-year-old southpaw brawler Victor Ortiz (29-2-2, 22KOs) for Ortiz’s WBC Welterweight belt.

Love him or hate him, you can’t deny that Floyd Mayweather Jr is entertaining.  Some would say more out of the ring than in it, though true fans of the sport can’t help but be in awe of his phenomenal ability.  And sure, Mayweather is not fighting the man everyone wants him to fight, Manny Pacquiao, but Victor Ortiz does make a very interesting ‘tune up’ for the Pacman — if the megafight is to finally take place next year as recent reports would suggest.

In the meantime, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.  Ortiz is a dangerous young opponent coming off a career reviving win against previously undefeated Andre Berto in April 2011 — his most satisfying win since being stopped by Marcos Maidana in 2009 where many believed a badly cut Ortiz had quit against his heavy-hitting opponent.  But does he stand a chance against someone in the class of Floyd Mayweather Jr?

Personally, I’m kind of torn here.  I’d love to see someone knock Mayweather off his pedestal, but at the same time that could spell the end of Mayweather-Pacquiao — and after all these years of waiting, that would be a monumental disappointment.

That said, the probability of Ortiz pulling off the upset is incredibly slim.  On paper, at least, or if you’ve ever watched the two men in action, Mayweather should punish Ortiz and give him a boxing lesson all night long.  Mayweather is simply too skilled, too slick, too fast, too experienced, and too defensively sound for someone as raw as Ortiz.  On top of that, Mayweather seldom gets hit flush, and when he does, he has survived and come back stronger.  His ability to adjust mid-fight is second to none.

But as the saying goes, anything can happen in boxing, and Ortiz at least appears to have the weapons and temperament to trouble Mayweather, whose form after 16 months off could potentially be a little off.

First of all, Ortiz is 10 years younger than Mayweather and, judging from his last fight, is in the form and shape of his life.  He’s like a caged animal that has been released after years in captivity and has this fearless attitude about him, like he just wants to tear through everyone in front of him.  His motivation and determination is through the roof right now.

Secondly, Ortiz is physically stronger than Mayweather and visibly bigger.  At 5’9″ he is an inch taller and has arms like tree trunks.  His thick body is also built like a brick house.  His punches can do serious damage and it looks like he’ll be able to take a punch much better than he used to.

Thirdly, Ortiz may not be as fast as Mayweather but he does have decent speed.  I’m not sure if it’s enough to bother Mayweather but it could be a significant factor in the fight if Mayweather underestimates it.

Fourthly, Ortiz is a southpaw, and we’ve all heard about Floyd’s troubles with southpaws throughout the years (Corley, Judah, etc).  The conventional response to that assertion is that Floyd has beaten every southpaw he has faced, but it must give Ortiz encouragement that Floyd has more difficulty with southpaws than orthodox fighters, primarily because his celebrated shoulder roll technique doesn’t work as well against southpaws.  It has to count for something, right?

Another thing Floyd is said to have problems with is a strong, stiff jab, which Ortiz also has.  He just has to learn to utilise it consistently throughout the fight.

On the flip side, Mayweather has not fought for 16 months, not since his May 2010 fight against Sugar Shane Mosley which he dominated after a major scare in round 2 where Mosley rocked him with a couple of big right hands.  Before that, Mayweather dominated Pacquiao’s next opponent, Juan Manuel Marquez, in September 2009.  And before that, a KO against Ricky Hatton in December 2007.  That’s three opponents in 45 months!  Yes, Mayweather won all those fights, but the inactivity, combined with his age (34) could come back to bite him in a hurry.

Mayweather also has brittle hands and hasn’t shown genuine KO power for quite some time, which could allow Ortiz to walk through some punches in order to land his own.  And if he does, will Mayweather be able to withstand the onslaught?  As the fight against Mosley suggested, if a big power shot lands in the right place, Mayweather can be hurt.

Lastly, there’s the distractions.  We all know about the Mayweather family’s legal troubles, and now the first episode of the Mayweather-Ortiz 24/7 series (one of the best yet, by the way) has revealed another rift between father and son.  Junior insists it doesn’t bother him at all, but his face suggests a different story.

Do all of these things add up to an upset in the cards?  Possible, but unlikely.  I’d put Ortiz’s chances of pulling off the improbable win at around 10-15%, and he’ll most probably have to do it via a stunning knockout.  He’ll have to be aggressive but patient, use that stiff jab of his to control the pace and pounce on Mayweather and not give him a chance to dictate.  If Ortiz goes in looking to brawl his way to a win he’ll become the perfect target for Mayweather’s counters.  If he remains disciplined and uses controlled aggression he could shock the world.

The more likely scenario is one where Ortiz comes out with guns blazing, takes it to Mayweather in the first couple of rounds, maybe even win them…before Mayweather figures out Ortiz’s style and schools him the rest of the way en route to a clear unanimous victory or even a late round KO.  I am still suspicious of Mayweather’s power at this stage of his career so I am going to predict a comfortable Mayweather UD.

[yt]K9KOUDktcVs[/yt]

Canberra’s Best: Aubergine

September 14, 2011 in Canberra, Food, Reviews, Travel

Sydney has plenty of fine dining restaurants that have delightful food, but the majority of them cost a leg, an arm, and two balls, especially if you are having wine.

Canberra, being the tiny town that it is, doesn’t have nearly as many, so we did our research before going.  And according to that research, the best fine dining restaurant around is Aubergine, which could be described as modern Australian with strong French and European overtones.  The Chef is Ben Willis, who had previously worked at Michelin-starred restaurants overseas.

The best part?  Two course meals are only $60.  Three course meals are $70.

We went for the three course set, chose six different dishes, and shared.  Here is what we had.

First up…well, we didn’t order this appetiser — almonds and olives — surprisingly good!

The first course, roast quail, scallops wrapped in bacon, braised lentils and soubise (like an onion puree sauce).  I’m not a big fan of lentils but this was deluxe.  That thing on top is a quail egg.

The alternate first course, the saute of sand whiting, chorizo, south coast squid and smoked rice.  When I first saw it I didn’t think much of it, but I think this turned out to be my favourite dish.  That black stuff mixed in with the lightly flavoured whiting and the salty chorizo was phenomenal.

Then the first main course: mustard crust pork loin, black pudding, pork croquette and braised fennel.  Ohh…I loved this one.  Big fan of mustard crust and the croquette, and the sauces mixed in together was simply sensational.  Even the black pudding was pretty good.

The alternate main course: white river veal fillet, veal sweetbreads, creamed potatoes, glazed shallots and salsa verde.

Dessert was very nice too.  The chocolate fondant with praline parfait.  Interesting array of textures with the soft fondant and the creamy parfait was a great combination.

Lastly, crepe suzette with mango ice cream.  A little disappointed with this one as the crepe got a bit soggy, but it was probably because they left this out while waiting for the fondant to bake.

In all, still an exquisite meal that would have cost twice as much back in Sydney.  Definitely one of the highlights of the trip!

8.5 out of 10!

Aubergine
18 Barker Street, Griffith, ACT, 2603
Phone: +61 2 6260 8666
Lunch: Tuesday-Saturday from 12pm
Dinner: Monday-Saturday from 6pm
Website: http://www.aubergine.com.au 
Note: Book online in advance!

Movie Review: Friends With Benefits (2011)

September 13, 2011 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

You know what?  I am quite certain that at some point I vowed to never see Friends With Benefits (you might even be able to find it on this blog).  But as Estelle Costanza once asked her son George, ‘Why, George?  Why?’, I have the same answer: ‘Because it’s there!’

At the end of the day, Friends With Benefits is a movie, and one that has had surprisingly decent reviews — so I watched it.  Had I seen it before the inescapable comparison film No Strings Attached (with Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher), I might have liked it better than its predecessor.  But how is that possible when the two films have virtually the same premise and the I like Portman and Kutcher a lot more than Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis?  I know the two films were in production simultaneously, but the fact is one came out before the other.

Like No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits tells the story of two friends who decide to have a sexual relationship without becoming boyfriend and girlfriend.  Timberlake is Dylan, a Los Angeles native who moves to New York for a job procured for him by headhunter Jamie (Kunis).  The two quickly become friends, decide to become friends with benefits, realise that the arrangement produces problems, and yada yada yada, you know the rest.

To be fair, Friends With Benefits does have its strengths.  It has sharp dialogue, great chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis, a few clever laughs and, as usual, a scene stealing performance from Patricia Clarkson.  The raunchiness and nudity (despite body double involvement) exceeds No Strings Attached, which I suppose is a plus considering it’s a movie about sex.  The film is directed by Will Gluck, who also helmed the surprise comedy hit of last year, Easy A, so you know the quality can’t be too bad.

That said, predictable is predictable.  That wouldn’t have been so bad if Friends With Benefits was super funny, but it’s not.  I’m not sure if it was because they were trying too hard to be witty, but at times it certainly felt that way.  I also had trouble buying the premise that they were genuine ‘friends with benefits’ — to me they were a couple right from the start that just didn’t want to admit they were — or maybe that was the premise?  Maybe I’m nitpicking.

Technically, Friends With Benefits was probably the stronger film, but as a matter of personal preference, I thought No Strings Attached was funnier and had more heart.

2.75 stars out of 5

PS: Is this a continuation of the Black Swan dichotomy involving Portman and Kunis?  After all, No Strings Attached is more naive, slightly dorky but with more heart, whereas Friends With Benefits is naughtier and cooler.

Bad Behavior has blocked 263 access attempts in the last 7 days.