Title:	Gizmo Freelance Web Design
rating: **** it can have another star if I get more cash.
Type:	Personal/Business Web Site
Address:	http://www.gizmo.net.au
For:	Web Designers and other Kool Kats

I n b r i e f:

This nifty site is the brainchild of young Australian designer Steven Huntriss. As an individual effort, you'd be hard pressed to find a more professional and snappy site. Steven's awareness of the requirements of IBM/Mac platforms and the idiosyncrasies of Netscape and Explorer mean that his site is a friendly place to visit for most users. (There is, of course no acounting for pre-peristroika parents like mine who insist on keeping their 386 because "it works just fine" but then you have to remember that most russian nuclear submarines are largely held together by bits of string and wire and this too is viewed as acceptable) Steve's skill as a designer makes this site visually stimulating, easy to navigate and some of it is actually interesting to read. It is also a good illustration of the frightening things you can do with a digital camera.

K o o l s t u f f:

The site features an online magazine, free downloads and Steven's pick of the top 10 losers; and given that there are so many of you out there, Steven has done a good job to narrow it down to just 10. The site is being constantly updated and rebuilt, so it makes you wonder if this guy has a life, but it means that there's usually something different to look at each time you visit which is a definite winner in my books. You know how much it hurts me to say nice things, so take a look for yourself. Another plus is that if you email you're guaranteed a response whereas I promise to read your email and then ignore it. The site also features a rather interesting little gem where you can send in ideas to make the world a better place. Of course this is a futile gesture given how stupid the average person is. Steve is too polite and community-minded to say that. I, on the other hand, am not, which is probably why you read this in the first place, isn't it? This section is worth checking out for novelty value if nothing else and who knows, if you can prove that you have a brain larger than a pistachio, you get your name on the net you shameless hussies so get into it.

S h a m e j o b:

What's the catch you ask? Surely Kidzje isn't going soft!? Of course not!! If I suspected that for one second I would exile myself to Siberia immediately, or worse still, commit all of Yeltzin's biography to memory and wear national costume on Tuesdays. Fortunately that will not be necessary since I have a complaint about this site: there's not enough of it! Too much is never enough! We're insatiable, like the rest of the capitalist pigs out there, we want more. Stop all that pointless sleeping and eating, and get back on that keyboard kid!

Imagine if you will, this conversation:
"You'll really like this movie."
[pause]
"Well, you'll probably like this movie."
[pause]
"Well alright, this is a big and stupid American movie. But it has a Russian in it."
[pause]
"He's like you..."
I scoff at this. Is he cute? Is he devastatingly intelligent?
"Ahh... No. But he's Russian."
I'm not convinced.
"He's stoic and he has that real dry sense of humour."
Now we're getting closer to the mark.
"He's a little mad."
Hmm. That's more like it.
"I'll bring it over on the weekend and you can watch it."
I'm sceptical, but in deference to the owner of the video I concede to view it. Little did I know what I was in for. I suppose it was a good idea, use the underdogs to save the day and show up all the top dogs. I like those kinds of stories. I always go for the battler. There's only one problem: the characters were so stupid, talentless and fundamentally unlikeable that I must say it was a relief to see them die.
The contrived sentimentality of Harry and his daughter, Grace seemed ill at ease with the likes of the donut scoffing lecherous greasy drillers. The plot had lots of holes in it, but I must say I did enjoy seeing Paris get a hole in it. (Draw what conclusions you will about that statement.) Yep. What do you do when you've got unlikeable characters? Have LOTS of them, that way you make sure you don't let the audience get to know them. The producers should have watched Aliens a few times to see how to develop and knock off characters in a more satisfying way. Of mild interest was the relationship of Chick (Will Patton) with his estranged wife and it would have been nice to see that explored more fully, but no, we get 'animal crackers.' Yeah, right. The world is about to end and we're comparing notes on the active ingredients in biscuits.: a thinly disguised plot device for something entirely different. Ugh. It was like seeing my little sister playing with Ken and Barbie. These two were just a bit too pretty for my taste and their function in the story was pretty obvious too. The only truly plausible character for me was Truman. He was believable, and expertly portrayed. The throw away reference to the Apollo tragedy was touching but I wonder just how many of the audience would have understood the reference to the crew who were burned alive on the launch pad.
I watched the first hour rather hoping that an asteroid would hit the earth and put me out of my misery. I thought about taking the tape out into the driveway and crushing it under the car. Then came Lev Andropov (ably played by Swede Peter Stormare- but does he always sound like he's stoned or was that 'acting'?). Our token Russian seemed to spend most of his time looking dishevelled and shouting. It's amazing that Lev only had about 15 lines (and the odd yowl) but they were all good ones. Just say one of his lines to anyone who's seen the film and they will grin like an idiot. (I speak from personal experience.) Call me prejudiced if you like, but the only reason I'd watch this elephant again would be to see Peter Stormare take to the shuttle engine with a spanner. Hell, that's how I fix stuff, just ask Josh and Kit. I was rather hoping that Rockhound (Wow, there's a fine example of American Manhood, what girl could resist him) might actually do something useful with the gun... like shoot the scriptwriter. The question needs to be asked, why did they have guns on the 'Armadillo' anyway? Just who were they expecting to meet up there? Obviously not the Russians, Lev saved the love interest AJ and although a bit... well odd (as we so often are) he was harmless. Who does that leave as a serious threat? Columbian drug runners? Insurance assessors? Elvis? Given that this whole Y2K thing can be traced back to NASA not wanting the extra weight of those last 2 digits going to the moon, one wonders why they suddenly have the resources to send machine guns into space. Ever heard of recoil and inertia? Think about it and read on.
While we're on plot holes, would someone like to explain to me why the astros needed thrusters to hold them on the asteroid in lieu of gravity and yet they seemed to have no trouble bopping around in the shuttle? This brings me back to Lev, given that space suits are tailormade for each astro at a cost of over a million bucks each, how is it that the boys from the US just happened to have no less than 2 suits to fit the lanky Lev? (One grey and one international distress orange) Not only did Lev mysteriously fit into an extra suit they just happened to have but he seemed remarkably mobile for someone who had spent so long in a zero-g environment. The only good thing about the end was that it was mercifully short.

• Lev Andropov (who had just enough lines to maintain my interest in the second tedious hour.)
• Truman not quite as sugar sweet sentimental as some of the others, but more believable for that.
• SFX

• Too many characters (with stupid nicknames)
• Disjointed plot elements
• Technical flaws.