http://uk.news.yahoo.com/28112005/80/longer-needles-needed-fatter-buttocks-study.html
Uh-huh.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Review DOOM
Review: DOOM
When Doom first came out I was not a PC owner, so I couldn't play it much; only on visits to my mate's house. I never really got too far through the game, but I'll never forget the effect it could have. Running through dark virtual corridors, never knowing when the next creature attack was coming. You always knew when they were close as you could hear them growling in the distance, catch fleeting glimpses of them around corners and the tension was a world away from the games we had played before. Prior to Doom this type of first-person game required the computer to re-draw the screen after each step taken. One button press took you one pace forward or turned you through 90° and it could become very disorientating. Often the games were as much exercises in mapping as they were in hunting monsters.
Doom was something new. The story was pants, but it was a game and it really only existed as an excuse to run around shooting things. The fact that your character actually had to die at one point to get to hell and continue hunting demons just made it clear how silly the whole enterprise really was. Yet, somehow the effect was more immediate and visceral than any horror movie I had ever watched. I got more genuine scares from turning around a corner and being jumped by a monster I didn't know was there than I ever got in a cinema. There were moments of tension creeping along a corridor listening to those growls that even Hitchcock couldn't have improved upon. Doom was something new and special.
It's been bettered in the gaming world since, even re-made for new, more powerful computers. Now, like many successful gaming franchises it has spawned a movie. In a world where movies of games are uniformly pants (and, oddly enough the reverse is also true, games of movies are usually awful) and totally fail to capture what it was about the original that made it special in the first place, could Doom once more break the mould?
The short answer is; yes.
Now don't go getting too excited. This is not any great cinematic experience. It's not a classic movie, maybe not even a particularly good one. But it does capture the game rather well in that the story's pants and only there as an excuse for several set-piece action sequences and some running around in corridors.
Oh, it's got the usual cinematic conceits, the dumb voice-over to explain the premise for the hard of thinking at the beginning, the compulsion to turn it into an accident caused by genetic experimentation and to stick really unnecessary character conflicts and stereotypes in at every conceivable moment. The dialogue is clunky, often badly delivered and 'The Rock' is a frequent offender in this category. (Odd how he seems to have given up on trying to get people to use his real name, isn't it?) The film is clearly targeted at what the producers think is a typical games-playing audience of teenage boys who listen to death metal. There are several in-jokes about games & gaming. Constant references to things like "getting my game face on." soon become wearing though. Calling one of the characters 'Duke' just has to be referring to one of Doom's rivals/imitators, Duke Nukem.
The game's monsters all make an appearance, though none seem to be able to spit fireballs like they can in the game and having made them genetic mutations instead of demons leaves the audience unsure why there are different types. Indeed, this seemingly minor change leads to many instances of bad science. Apparently, having an extra chromosome pair would turn you into a superhuman, smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantly and injecting blood from an alien who has such an extra chromosomal pairing will result in a spontaneous mutation in homo sapiens and it can tell if you're good or evil and turn you into a super-soldier or a monster accordingly.
One of the big things about Doom was getting bigger and better weapons to deal with bigger and badder monsters. To fit in with the action movie requirement of buff action heroes stripped to the waist punching the living daylights out of one another, there seems to be no real need for the likes of the BFG (yes, it does mean what you think). The monsters, true to the game, stay in the dark, are rarely seen clearly and as a result don't look unrealistic. Something many other users of cgi could do with heeding.
One sequence of the film takes the viewer into the experience of playing Doom by adopting the first person perspective and running through what appears to be a section of the game, including what happens when you die in it. It's all there: the re-loading sequence, the swaying as you run, the occasional glimpses of yourself in reflective surfaces and an appearance of the infamous chainsaw. It's totally cheesy, but it works. Med-packs and even the booster drugs make an appearance, too.
That is, in the end, what makes this film work. It knows what it is, it doesn't try to be something better than that and it makes the most of its strengths. It's good fun, it has a couple of good scares and gross-out moments and it passes away a couple of hours in over the top fantasy. You didn't play Doom expecting depth, characterisation and coherent thought. If you don't expect them from the movie you'll be happy enough.
I liked it.
One coda to that is the scene in which a character self-harms. I think it's there in some feeble attempt to appeal to that sad goth stereotype that the producers tried to appeal to. Lots of kids do that these days, so they'll think it's cool, right? Kids who self-harm don't need to see that being portrayed as acceptable and even noble behaviour.
Here’s a new feature for my reviews. I love nit-picking at crappy logic in films. You know, like in Highlander 2 where Macleod gets Ramirez back from the dead just by calling for him. If he could do that why didn’t he do it in all the time up to now if he missed him so much? Stuff like that. So here’s the new bit:
Things that don't make sense
1. 'Duke' has been estranged from his sister for 10 years. She is unaware of his marine nickname until she hears it used. So why is it the only thing she ever calls him?
2. You can't pull your own ear off. There's not enough traction, especially when covered in blood.
3. When designing a holding cell that's a pit in the ground, putting in electrified walls to stop the prisoner climbing out is a good idea. Hanging chains from the ceiling into the pit that can be climbed up is not.
4. When holding someone against said electrified wall the electricity will not only zap them in the real world it will get you, too.
5. Firing a really big gun you’ve never seen or used before is a bad idea. Especially when you have no idea what the ammunition is/does and you are in an enclosed space. You never know where that explosion’s going to go.
6. Genes have no idea if you’re good or bad. They don’t actually have any equipment for making moral judgments. Trusting a scientist who wants to inject you with an experimental drug whose only proven effect is to turn the previous recipients into freaky flesh-eating monsters just because she’s your sister means you probably shouldn’t have the right to say no to being a guinea-pig in the first place.
7. Just having a higher number of chromosomes than Homo sapiens does not actually mean that you will be smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Not even if you are an alien. It is unlikely that scientists would be able to create a serum from that chromosome that will make Homo sapiens smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Especially not without more extensive testing than putting it into a convicted murderer.
7a. Even if the above rubbish did turn out to be true why is it that at the end of the film there are suddenly many zombies attacking the soldiers? What’s the explanation for them, then? Are they the people who weren’t either good, altruistic, all-American boys or murdering, goat-raping psychopaths? (See the problems you create when you don’t want to upset the bible-belt and take the demons out of the story?)
8. Just because a soldier is new to your unit and younger than the rest of you does not mean that he will be issued with a smaller gun than everyone else. The military gives everyone the same crap, in the same colour and the same size. Unless you’re a 5-star general. Then you get pretty much whatever you want.
9. The military tend not to programme electronic equipment with your nickname. Especially not when even you don’t know it yet. Your name, rank and serial number, yes. What the rest of the boys in your squad call you, no.
10. Where does the female doctor suddenly materialise from? She’s never been mentioned and she’s in a med-bay in the section where everyone else is dead.
11. Why is it that everyone in this film is a bloody American? Even the non-American actors pretend they are, too. Okay, maybe the RRTS are some part of the American military, though that’s not stated. But the corporation who own the base on Mars are likely to be a multi-national and will have staff from all over. In the game the same company employs you as the scientists.
When Doom first came out I was not a PC owner, so I couldn't play it much; only on visits to my mate's house. I never really got too far through the game, but I'll never forget the effect it could have. Running through dark virtual corridors, never knowing when the next creature attack was coming. You always knew when they were close as you could hear them growling in the distance, catch fleeting glimpses of them around corners and the tension was a world away from the games we had played before. Prior to Doom this type of first-person game required the computer to re-draw the screen after each step taken. One button press took you one pace forward or turned you through 90° and it could become very disorientating. Often the games were as much exercises in mapping as they were in hunting monsters.
Doom was something new. The story was pants, but it was a game and it really only existed as an excuse to run around shooting things. The fact that your character actually had to die at one point to get to hell and continue hunting demons just made it clear how silly the whole enterprise really was. Yet, somehow the effect was more immediate and visceral than any horror movie I had ever watched. I got more genuine scares from turning around a corner and being jumped by a monster I didn't know was there than I ever got in a cinema. There were moments of tension creeping along a corridor listening to those growls that even Hitchcock couldn't have improved upon. Doom was something new and special.
It's been bettered in the gaming world since, even re-made for new, more powerful computers. Now, like many successful gaming franchises it has spawned a movie. In a world where movies of games are uniformly pants (and, oddly enough the reverse is also true, games of movies are usually awful) and totally fail to capture what it was about the original that made it special in the first place, could Doom once more break the mould?
The short answer is; yes.
Now don't go getting too excited. This is not any great cinematic experience. It's not a classic movie, maybe not even a particularly good one. But it does capture the game rather well in that the story's pants and only there as an excuse for several set-piece action sequences and some running around in corridors.
Oh, it's got the usual cinematic conceits, the dumb voice-over to explain the premise for the hard of thinking at the beginning, the compulsion to turn it into an accident caused by genetic experimentation and to stick really unnecessary character conflicts and stereotypes in at every conceivable moment. The dialogue is clunky, often badly delivered and 'The Rock' is a frequent offender in this category. (Odd how he seems to have given up on trying to get people to use his real name, isn't it?) The film is clearly targeted at what the producers think is a typical games-playing audience of teenage boys who listen to death metal. There are several in-jokes about games & gaming. Constant references to things like "getting my game face on." soon become wearing though. Calling one of the characters 'Duke' just has to be referring to one of Doom's rivals/imitators, Duke Nukem.
The game's monsters all make an appearance, though none seem to be able to spit fireballs like they can in the game and having made them genetic mutations instead of demons leaves the audience unsure why there are different types. Indeed, this seemingly minor change leads to many instances of bad science. Apparently, having an extra chromosome pair would turn you into a superhuman, smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantly and injecting blood from an alien who has such an extra chromosomal pairing will result in a spontaneous mutation in homo sapiens and it can tell if you're good or evil and turn you into a super-soldier or a monster accordingly.
One of the big things about Doom was getting bigger and better weapons to deal with bigger and badder monsters. To fit in with the action movie requirement of buff action heroes stripped to the waist punching the living daylights out of one another, there seems to be no real need for the likes of the BFG (yes, it does mean what you think). The monsters, true to the game, stay in the dark, are rarely seen clearly and as a result don't look unrealistic. Something many other users of cgi could do with heeding.
One sequence of the film takes the viewer into the experience of playing Doom by adopting the first person perspective and running through what appears to be a section of the game, including what happens when you die in it. It's all there: the re-loading sequence, the swaying as you run, the occasional glimpses of yourself in reflective surfaces and an appearance of the infamous chainsaw. It's totally cheesy, but it works. Med-packs and even the booster drugs make an appearance, too.
That is, in the end, what makes this film work. It knows what it is, it doesn't try to be something better than that and it makes the most of its strengths. It's good fun, it has a couple of good scares and gross-out moments and it passes away a couple of hours in over the top fantasy. You didn't play Doom expecting depth, characterisation and coherent thought. If you don't expect them from the movie you'll be happy enough.
I liked it.
One coda to that is the scene in which a character self-harms. I think it's there in some feeble attempt to appeal to that sad goth stereotype that the producers tried to appeal to. Lots of kids do that these days, so they'll think it's cool, right? Kids who self-harm don't need to see that being portrayed as acceptable and even noble behaviour.
Here’s a new feature for my reviews. I love nit-picking at crappy logic in films. You know, like in Highlander 2 where Macleod gets Ramirez back from the dead just by calling for him. If he could do that why didn’t he do it in all the time up to now if he missed him so much? Stuff like that. So here’s the new bit:
Things that don't make sense
1. 'Duke' has been estranged from his sister for 10 years. She is unaware of his marine nickname until she hears it used. So why is it the only thing she ever calls him?
2. You can't pull your own ear off. There's not enough traction, especially when covered in blood.
3. When designing a holding cell that's a pit in the ground, putting in electrified walls to stop the prisoner climbing out is a good idea. Hanging chains from the ceiling into the pit that can be climbed up is not.
4. When holding someone against said electrified wall the electricity will not only zap them in the real world it will get you, too.
5. Firing a really big gun you’ve never seen or used before is a bad idea. Especially when you have no idea what the ammunition is/does and you are in an enclosed space. You never know where that explosion’s going to go.
6. Genes have no idea if you’re good or bad. They don’t actually have any equipment for making moral judgments. Trusting a scientist who wants to inject you with an experimental drug whose only proven effect is to turn the previous recipients into freaky flesh-eating monsters just because she’s your sister means you probably shouldn’t have the right to say no to being a guinea-pig in the first place.
7. Just having a higher number of chromosomes than Homo sapiens does not actually mean that you will be smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Not even if you are an alien. It is unlikely that scientists would be able to create a serum from that chromosome that will make Homo sapiens smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Especially not without more extensive testing than putting it into a convicted murderer.
7a. Even if the above rubbish did turn out to be true why is it that at the end of the film there are suddenly many zombies attacking the soldiers? What’s the explanation for them, then? Are they the people who weren’t either good, altruistic, all-American boys or murdering, goat-raping psychopaths? (See the problems you create when you don’t want to upset the bible-belt and take the demons out of the story?)
8. Just because a soldier is new to your unit and younger than the rest of you does not mean that he will be issued with a smaller gun than everyone else. The military gives everyone the same crap, in the same colour and the same size. Unless you’re a 5-star general. Then you get pretty much whatever you want.
9. The military tend not to programme electronic equipment with your nickname. Especially not when even you don’t know it yet. Your name, rank and serial number, yes. What the rest of the boys in your squad call you, no.
10. Where does the female doctor suddenly materialise from? She’s never been mentioned and she’s in a med-bay in the section where everyone else is dead.
11. Why is it that everyone in this film is a bloody American? Even the non-American actors pretend they are, too. Okay, maybe the RRTS are some part of the American military, though that’s not stated. But the corporation who own the base on Mars are likely to be a multi-national and will have staff from all over. In the game the same company employs you as the scientists.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Review Mrs Henderson
Review: Mrs Henderson Presents.
This should be a great British film. It stars two of British cinema's greatest luminaries, Dame Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins. It has a good, if not great, director in Stephen Frears. It has an interesting leading character for its' central protagonist and a wartime backdrop to add danger, threat and pathos to what might otherwise be a totally lightweight tale. Finally, it is filled with gorgeous, naked girls.
Sadly it falls into that oh-so-common category of British cinema of the near-miss.
There is a lot of truly good stuff in this film (sharp dialogue, excellent acting, interesting social comment and more). So much, in fact, that it's hard to see why it's not as good as it should be. Why, then is this a film I'd only recommend as a rainy Sunday afternoon time-waster?
Let's talk first about the central performances.
Bob Hoskins is a bad choice for Vivian Van Damme. As much as I hate to say it Mr. Hoskins has become typecast in my mind as the rough diamond. He has a broad London accent and mostly plays slightly dangerous characters. Being an actor and despising typecasting as a general principle I really shouldn't feel this way, but I do. Perhaps it's because the RP just doesn't seem entirely comfortable to Bob. I have a similar problem with RP; I can do it, but it never truly flows naturally from my lips. There are times one can get away with this, but not when sharing the screen with Judi Dench and her ilk. Sadly, he also lacks the right brand of charisma and charm for the part. Mr. Hoskins is not lacking in either characteristic, but just not in the way Van Damme needs it. Charles Dance, say, or Denis Lawson both have the smooth charm this character cries out for and does not have. Perhaps the fact that the executive producer and the actor cast are the same man helped with this piece of mis-casting?
Judi Dench, on the other hand is ideal to play the eponymous character. She has the poise, the self-assuredness and the charm Mrs. Henderson needs and one always has the sense of a wicked and mischievous wit underlying the strength and decorum in so many of her characters. She gives a fine performance, but is criminally under-used, especially considering the film is her story. Much of her motivation or her reactions are simply skipped over. The strange episode of her turning up to be auditioned dressed as a polar bear, for instance. Certainly, she explains herself, but who arranged the audition, and how?
Kelly Reilly does an interesting job as the lead tableaux girl. She's beautiful, poised, elegant and sweet (though, somehow strangely unsexy), but we rarely get a glimpse into the feelings engendered or effects on her life created by being the first nude performer in Britain (or in England, as the script resolutely states. Apparently, the rest of the UK were not in the war.) A minor bitch in a café from dancers in other shows is as close as we get to see the way these girls were perceived in prim and proper 30's society. I have heard it said that the Soho of the time was not the sleazy place it is today and that families attended the shows. Maybe that is the case, but if so then why is that scene there at all?
Indeed, this is the case with just about any indication of strong emotion or serious topic; it's just glossed over. Kelly's character falls pregnant, but before we can really see anything about how it affects her she's killed, thus relieving the film of any need to deal with the issue.
The biggest failure is the effects and, surprisingly, the cinematography. Andrew Dunn seems to have forgotten how to get a shot in focus at times. Doubtless this has to do with the efforts to integrate archive newsreel footage into the film. The result is a grainy, almost soft-focus look that merely manages to convey an impression of shoddy-amateurism and cheap production values.
Much of the problem stems from the very poorly done digital shots used. It seems to me that archive footage or photographs have been used to create many of the digital backdrops and they just look like those crappy old stock-footage shots from 60's and 70's Brit-flicks. You know, the ones that never quite merged with the rest of the film because they weren't shot on the same quality of film stock. Even shots filmed from scratch fail to look believable. The scenes on the roof of the theatre are particularly poor. There are times when looks like Bob Hoskins is a CG character or that neither he nor Judi were on the set or at the same time. Look out, too, for the shot of London in flames after a bombing raid. There is smoke rising from a fire in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen... It judders! I've seen computer games do better shots than the one of the biplane over the channel. Oh, speaking of which; to France & back from London on one tank of petrol?
The set of Windmill Street after it has been hit by a bomb suddenly looks like a set where it looked fine before the explosion.
No doubt this will be a very popular film when the BAFTAs next come around. It won't deserve a fraction of what it will likely win.
This should be a great British film. It stars two of British cinema's greatest luminaries, Dame Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins. It has a good, if not great, director in Stephen Frears. It has an interesting leading character for its' central protagonist and a wartime backdrop to add danger, threat and pathos to what might otherwise be a totally lightweight tale. Finally, it is filled with gorgeous, naked girls.
Sadly it falls into that oh-so-common category of British cinema of the near-miss.
There is a lot of truly good stuff in this film (sharp dialogue, excellent acting, interesting social comment and more). So much, in fact, that it's hard to see why it's not as good as it should be. Why, then is this a film I'd only recommend as a rainy Sunday afternoon time-waster?
Let's talk first about the central performances.
Bob Hoskins is a bad choice for Vivian Van Damme. As much as I hate to say it Mr. Hoskins has become typecast in my mind as the rough diamond. He has a broad London accent and mostly plays slightly dangerous characters. Being an actor and despising typecasting as a general principle I really shouldn't feel this way, but I do. Perhaps it's because the RP just doesn't seem entirely comfortable to Bob. I have a similar problem with RP; I can do it, but it never truly flows naturally from my lips. There are times one can get away with this, but not when sharing the screen with Judi Dench and her ilk. Sadly, he also lacks the right brand of charisma and charm for the part. Mr. Hoskins is not lacking in either characteristic, but just not in the way Van Damme needs it. Charles Dance, say, or Denis Lawson both have the smooth charm this character cries out for and does not have. Perhaps the fact that the executive producer and the actor cast are the same man helped with this piece of mis-casting?
Judi Dench, on the other hand is ideal to play the eponymous character. She has the poise, the self-assuredness and the charm Mrs. Henderson needs and one always has the sense of a wicked and mischievous wit underlying the strength and decorum in so many of her characters. She gives a fine performance, but is criminally under-used, especially considering the film is her story. Much of her motivation or her reactions are simply skipped over. The strange episode of her turning up to be auditioned dressed as a polar bear, for instance. Certainly, she explains herself, but who arranged the audition, and how?
Kelly Reilly does an interesting job as the lead tableaux girl. She's beautiful, poised, elegant and sweet (though, somehow strangely unsexy), but we rarely get a glimpse into the feelings engendered or effects on her life created by being the first nude performer in Britain (or in England, as the script resolutely states. Apparently, the rest of the UK were not in the war.) A minor bitch in a café from dancers in other shows is as close as we get to see the way these girls were perceived in prim and proper 30's society. I have heard it said that the Soho of the time was not the sleazy place it is today and that families attended the shows. Maybe that is the case, but if so then why is that scene there at all?
Indeed, this is the case with just about any indication of strong emotion or serious topic; it's just glossed over. Kelly's character falls pregnant, but before we can really see anything about how it affects her she's killed, thus relieving the film of any need to deal with the issue.
The biggest failure is the effects and, surprisingly, the cinematography. Andrew Dunn seems to have forgotten how to get a shot in focus at times. Doubtless this has to do with the efforts to integrate archive newsreel footage into the film. The result is a grainy, almost soft-focus look that merely manages to convey an impression of shoddy-amateurism and cheap production values.
Much of the problem stems from the very poorly done digital shots used. It seems to me that archive footage or photographs have been used to create many of the digital backdrops and they just look like those crappy old stock-footage shots from 60's and 70's Brit-flicks. You know, the ones that never quite merged with the rest of the film because they weren't shot on the same quality of film stock. Even shots filmed from scratch fail to look believable. The scenes on the roof of the theatre are particularly poor. There are times when looks like Bob Hoskins is a CG character or that neither he nor Judi were on the set or at the same time. Look out, too, for the shot of London in flames after a bombing raid. There is smoke rising from a fire in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen... It judders! I've seen computer games do better shots than the one of the biplane over the channel. Oh, speaking of which; to France & back from London on one tank of petrol?
The set of Windmill Street after it has been hit by a bomb suddenly looks like a set where it looked fine before the explosion.
No doubt this will be a very popular film when the BAFTAs next come around. It won't deserve a fraction of what it will likely win.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Pardon me?
7/11/05
Whilst on our visit to the in-laws we were told a story about our niece's school that just typifies a lot of what's wrong about our society.
Out niece has been brought up with manners and respect for others. During a recent parents’ night they were asked to discourage her from saying things like ‘please’ and ‘thankyou’ as it was making the other children think she was ‘posh’ and not talk to her!
Pardon me? Stop setting a good example to the other kids? Worse, encouraged by the teacher. Isn’t it part of a primary school teacher’s job to help teach manners to their pupils? It’s certainly not part of her job to recommend that her manners be removed so the other children don’t feel inferior. The teacher should be insisting that the pupils use please and thankyou within her class. Just because their parents don’t bother their arses doesn’t mean she shouldn’t. Or is it just that she doesn’t use manners much herself.
Review CURSE OF THE WERERABBIT
Review: CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
Ardman return to their most famous characters in this brilliant comedy. Even the title graphic of the movie is amusing, and that, of course, is one of their trademarks - superlative attention to detail.
The voice talents are excellent and Helena Bonham-Carter must now be beginning to think of a career solely based on voice work (though she's going to have to polish up her repertoire of accents if she is. Have you heard that abomination she used in "Women Talking Dirty"?). However, it is the animators who pull off the best performance in Gromit's expressions. Their subtlety in conveying even quite complex thought processes - and Gromit is the only character who can see beyond the immediate- is nothing short of genius and has to be an Oscar© winner.
A sharp eye for the things going on behind the main action is essential. This is a big feature of Nick Park's work and guarantees either a second look or a lot of freeze-framing when you buy the DVD. It's only when you do that you really get the full extent of the wonderfully eccentric inventions. Do see if you can spot the brief cameo from one of the "Creature Comforts" tortoises.
Being a typically dour Scot it is hard to make me laugh out loud, especially sitting on my own at a press screening. This movie achieved real belly-laughs with ease. Not only from me, but from all the hacks in the room as Nick Park once again proves that style, wit and imagination out-do big budget, cgi projects every time.
Ardman return to their most famous characters in this brilliant comedy. Even the title graphic of the movie is amusing, and that, of course, is one of their trademarks - superlative attention to detail.
The voice talents are excellent and Helena Bonham-Carter must now be beginning to think of a career solely based on voice work (though she's going to have to polish up her repertoire of accents if she is. Have you heard that abomination she used in "Women Talking Dirty"?). However, it is the animators who pull off the best performance in Gromit's expressions. Their subtlety in conveying even quite complex thought processes - and Gromit is the only character who can see beyond the immediate- is nothing short of genius and has to be an Oscar© winner.
A sharp eye for the things going on behind the main action is essential. This is a big feature of Nick Park's work and guarantees either a second look or a lot of freeze-framing when you buy the DVD. It's only when you do that you really get the full extent of the wonderfully eccentric inventions. Do see if you can spot the brief cameo from one of the "Creature Comforts" tortoises.
Being a typically dour Scot it is hard to make me laugh out loud, especially sitting on my own at a press screening. This movie achieved real belly-laughs with ease. Not only from me, but from all the hacks in the room as Nick Park once again proves that style, wit and imagination out-do big budget, cgi projects every time.
No Future
"No future but that we make ourselves."
That's what they said in the Terminator films. Of course, they're quite right, but I very much doubt if it'll be killer robots under the control of a deranged defence computer that does for us.
Greed, selfishness and arrogance will deal with us long before that could ever come about. From all walks of life there are examples of how so many of us now only look after #1. From the people who moved in above us who didn't bother with sound-dampening under their laminate flooring to the executives whose first impulse if profits dip is to fire more workers and ruin hundreds of lives, other people just don't matter to most of us now.
I'm sure that not one of those who behave like this think of themselves as anything other than truly decent human beings. Yet in so many ways - little and big - we just make life worse for those around us. In some cases - and I truly see much of government & council policy as big culprits in this - they're going out of their way to make things harder. How?
Well, start at the bottom of the scale with the neds who'll roam the streets at night howling just to disturb as many people as possible. Or how about the way so many people now refuse to make the slightest effort to give way to others on the street. Not so much as a turn of the shoulder. As Abby and I were waiting for a bus the other day a boy-racer car crossed the street and pulled up in front of us. The door opened, the shell-suited ned driver leant out, pinched the bridge of his nose and expelled a long stream of snot onto the pavement, not into the gutter, in front of us. We were then fixed with a challenging glare before the door was slammed and he wheelspun back across the road forcing two other cars to brake. There were no other pedestrians within sight so this must have been purely to offend us. We'd never seen him before so he just went out of his way to spoil someone's day.
Government level? How about my recent attempt to apply for a driving licence? After filling in the form I went to sign it. The box is about the size & width of that on a credit card with a strict injunction not to touch the sides when signing it. As it happens my signature places one name above the other so it is quite impossible to fit it into this space. I called the DVLA 'helpline' and the callcentre drone I spoke to refused me any advice other than, "If your signature touches the side of the box it will be rejected." repeated in monotone at the end of every question.
Yeah, thanks. Very helpful.
Al Qaieda and their kind don't need to destroy our society, we're doing fine all by ourselves.
So to make sure they don't, make sure that you do something to make a stranger's life a bit better just by being considerate. All it takes is stepping to one side and smiling.
That's what they said in the Terminator films. Of course, they're quite right, but I very much doubt if it'll be killer robots under the control of a deranged defence computer that does for us.
Greed, selfishness and arrogance will deal with us long before that could ever come about. From all walks of life there are examples of how so many of us now only look after #1. From the people who moved in above us who didn't bother with sound-dampening under their laminate flooring to the executives whose first impulse if profits dip is to fire more workers and ruin hundreds of lives, other people just don't matter to most of us now.
I'm sure that not one of those who behave like this think of themselves as anything other than truly decent human beings. Yet in so many ways - little and big - we just make life worse for those around us. In some cases - and I truly see much of government & council policy as big culprits in this - they're going out of their way to make things harder. How?
Well, start at the bottom of the scale with the neds who'll roam the streets at night howling just to disturb as many people as possible. Or how about the way so many people now refuse to make the slightest effort to give way to others on the street. Not so much as a turn of the shoulder. As Abby and I were waiting for a bus the other day a boy-racer car crossed the street and pulled up in front of us. The door opened, the shell-suited ned driver leant out, pinched the bridge of his nose and expelled a long stream of snot onto the pavement, not into the gutter, in front of us. We were then fixed with a challenging glare before the door was slammed and he wheelspun back across the road forcing two other cars to brake. There were no other pedestrians within sight so this must have been purely to offend us. We'd never seen him before so he just went out of his way to spoil someone's day.
Government level? How about my recent attempt to apply for a driving licence? After filling in the form I went to sign it. The box is about the size & width of that on a credit card with a strict injunction not to touch the sides when signing it. As it happens my signature places one name above the other so it is quite impossible to fit it into this space. I called the DVLA 'helpline' and the callcentre drone I spoke to refused me any advice other than, "If your signature touches the side of the box it will be rejected." repeated in monotone at the end of every question.
Yeah, thanks. Very helpful.
Al Qaieda and their kind don't need to destroy our society, we're doing fine all by ourselves.
So to make sure they don't, make sure that you do something to make a stranger's life a bit better just by being considerate. All it takes is stepping to one side and smiling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
