Ow!
At a Clann gig the other night I put my foot down & felt something kinda ripple in the back of my leg. It was the last fight and I knew I’d done something nasty, but I got through it & finished, got off stage and suffered a nasty bout of shock form the wave of pain that washed over me as the adrenaline wore off.
Seems I’ve torn my calf muscle. It has a few nasty bruises showing up on it now and I have crutches and a session of physiotherapy in the morning. It’s also cost me the part I was playing in Play On as the director has decided that I “…declared [myself] unfit to play the role.”
Unfit to play a character who stands at the side of a rugby field with a clipboard and then shakes hands with someone? Aye, right.
Truth is they screwed up my pickup in the morning and rather than correct their error they fired me. Americans not taking into account British labour laws. Equity here we come…
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
'Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them' - Yahoo! News UK
'Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them' - Yahoo! News UK
Does this mean that the hand isn't actually quicker than the eye? Or just that it doesn't have to be after all?
Of course, every illusionist knows that misdirection is what makes a trick work but I guess it's nice to have some scientific proof.
Does this mean that the hand isn't actually quicker than the eye? Or just that it doesn't have to be after all?
Of course, every illusionist knows that misdirection is what makes a trick work but I guess it's nice to have some scientific proof.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Review The Grudge 2
Review: The Grudge 2
Sequel to the re-make of the sequel of the original Japanese film Ju-on. Or something like that. Better than most of these remakes because, although the original director has also directed these films he has also made enough concessions to Western preferences that this is neither as weird nor as tedious as I’ve found previous Japanese horror films in this vein. Indeed, although there is little to distinguish this film thematically or plot-wise from The Ring and so on there is much better use made of the plot. Sometime in the past something bad was done to a Japanese woman and she’s become some kind of freaky ghost that kills people who were nothing to do with her suffering but are unlucky enough to cross her path. In this case by entering the house where she was murdered.
What is different from The Ring films is that this actually manages to create some tension and some real jump-in-your-seat moments. It is an effective and truly creepy film, but is marred by being somewhat confusing for most of its length. It’s not until most of the way through the film that it becomes clear the events we are seeing take place not only thousands of miles but several years apart. Since the curse has now followed one its victims to Illinois, we can safely assume that any future sequels will be firmly set in America thus saving budget and depriving it of any cultural context which might confuse the more Xenophobic of the Peoria audience.
Sequel to the re-make of the sequel of the original Japanese film Ju-on. Or something like that. Better than most of these remakes because, although the original director has also directed these films he has also made enough concessions to Western preferences that this is neither as weird nor as tedious as I’ve found previous Japanese horror films in this vein. Indeed, although there is little to distinguish this film thematically or plot-wise from The Ring and so on there is much better use made of the plot. Sometime in the past something bad was done to a Japanese woman and she’s become some kind of freaky ghost that kills people who were nothing to do with her suffering but are unlucky enough to cross her path. In this case by entering the house where she was murdered.
What is different from The Ring films is that this actually manages to create some tension and some real jump-in-your-seat moments. It is an effective and truly creepy film, but is marred by being somewhat confusing for most of its length. It’s not until most of the way through the film that it becomes clear the events we are seeing take place not only thousands of miles but several years apart. Since the curse has now followed one its victims to Illinois, we can safely assume that any future sequels will be firmly set in America thus saving budget and depriving it of any cultural context which might confuse the more Xenophobic of the Peoria audience.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Reids Speech
Reid's Speech
Few people would think that telling members of a group that they are in the best position to be aware of signs that their children are being subverted by radical elements is a bad thing. Especially if that community is insular to the point of racism and further distance themselves from the rest of us by continuing to refuse, in some cases, to even learn the language of their adopted country. When the radicals we're worried about are exclusively from within their community and when these radicals have openly declared war upon the rest of us, is it in any way surprising that we ask the non-radical majority of that community to be involved in policing themselves?
To have made that request at an open meeting within that community can be considered either brave and courteous or opportunistic and manipulative. With New Labour involved you can guess which is my call, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. However, to allow known radicals to just walk in without the slightest check was foolhardy and stupid.
The guys who did, whose names I can't relate, clearly are not the ones who would ever be strapped to a bomb. No, those cowards talk others into doing that for them. Reid did, however, hand them something of a media coup.
Few were talking about his request or his attempt to encourage ordinary, decent muslims to engage with the rest of us, in some way, in the war against terror. Those that were were were doing so in the terms of the radicals. The rest were just simply talking about what those radical hecklers said and did. News-wise they were far more interesting than boring old Dr Reid and New Labour's spin-meisters should have expected that.
Leaving that aside, though, am I the only one in the word to have noticed one chilling comment amid the bile they were spouting? "How dare you come into a muslim area?" they said. A tacit admission that they have already identified areas which they claim from the rest of us, areas that they want in this country where the indigenous population are not only not welcome but are actually banned.
Some would say that such areas have long existed, but that no one chose to pass comment on it, that Dr Reid himself allowed them to publicly claim such an area for themselves was equally terrifying to me. Was he afraid to dismiss such a claim?
Few people would think that telling members of a group that they are in the best position to be aware of signs that their children are being subverted by radical elements is a bad thing. Especially if that community is insular to the point of racism and further distance themselves from the rest of us by continuing to refuse, in some cases, to even learn the language of their adopted country. When the radicals we're worried about are exclusively from within their community and when these radicals have openly declared war upon the rest of us, is it in any way surprising that we ask the non-radical majority of that community to be involved in policing themselves?
To have made that request at an open meeting within that community can be considered either brave and courteous or opportunistic and manipulative. With New Labour involved you can guess which is my call, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. However, to allow known radicals to just walk in without the slightest check was foolhardy and stupid.
The guys who did, whose names I can't relate, clearly are not the ones who would ever be strapped to a bomb. No, those cowards talk others into doing that for them. Reid did, however, hand them something of a media coup.
Few were talking about his request or his attempt to encourage ordinary, decent muslims to engage with the rest of us, in some way, in the war against terror. Those that were were were doing so in the terms of the radicals. The rest were just simply talking about what those radical hecklers said and did. News-wise they were far more interesting than boring old Dr Reid and New Labour's spin-meisters should have expected that.
Leaving that aside, though, am I the only one in the word to have noticed one chilling comment amid the bile they were spouting? "How dare you come into a muslim area?" they said. A tacit admission that they have already identified areas which they claim from the rest of us, areas that they want in this country where the indigenous population are not only not welcome but are actually banned.
Some would say that such areas have long existed, but that no one chose to pass comment on it, that Dr Reid himself allowed them to publicly claim such an area for themselves was equally terrifying to me. Was he afraid to dismiss such a claim?
Better
Better?
Tony, Dubya and all their pals on the side of Might=Right keep telling us that Iraq and her people are better off since they removed Saddam Hussein. People trying to make a fool of anti-war campaigners keep telling us that, especially regime change for the benefit of Iraqis has become their justification for going in there since they admitted there never were any WMD. According t them we're spreading democracy and freedom and the Iraqi people are grateful to us, that things are getting better all the time.
Manfred Nowak, UN's chief anti-torture expert, would beg to differ. According to his report things there are now far worse than they ever were under Saddam. According to him, things are now completely out of control in that beleaguered country. Bodies in the Baghdad morgue frequently show signs of severe torture. Who's responsible for this?
Local militia, insurgents and the security forces.
At least in Saddam's day they knew who they had to watch out for. Now it seems that anyone could head into their homes in the middle of the night, take them away and pull out their nails & teeth.
Which part of this sorry mess has improved these peoples' lives?
And in a timely addendum, the US Security services have reported that The War on Terror has made America (never mind the rest of us) less safe. We all knew that, but I’ll be interested to see how George & the rest of the NeoCons spin this one out. I also discovered that the US apparently has sixteen spy services. What do they need so many for?
Tony, Dubya and all their pals on the side of Might=Right keep telling us that Iraq and her people are better off since they removed Saddam Hussein. People trying to make a fool of anti-war campaigners keep telling us that, especially regime change for the benefit of Iraqis has become their justification for going in there since they admitted there never were any WMD. According t them we're spreading democracy and freedom and the Iraqi people are grateful to us, that things are getting better all the time.
Manfred Nowak, UN's chief anti-torture expert, would beg to differ. According to his report things there are now far worse than they ever were under Saddam. According to him, things are now completely out of control in that beleaguered country. Bodies in the Baghdad morgue frequently show signs of severe torture. Who's responsible for this?
Local militia, insurgents and the security forces.
At least in Saddam's day they knew who they had to watch out for. Now it seems that anyone could head into their homes in the middle of the night, take them away and pull out their nails & teeth.
Which part of this sorry mess has improved these peoples' lives?
And in a timely addendum, the US Security services have reported that The War on Terror has made America (never mind the rest of us) less safe. We all knew that, but I’ll be interested to see how George & the rest of the NeoCons spin this one out. I also discovered that the US apparently has sixteen spy services. What do they need so many for?
BLOODY HELL
BLOODY HELL!
It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with the leader of the Tory party, but that's exactly where I am today.
In a speech in Glasgow Mr.Cameron has acknowledged the errors his party has made in Scotland and called for more understanding of Scots from the English. I never imagined that when a Sassenach politician finally addressed the behaviours, attitudes and policies which helped create so many Nationalists it would be a Tory. It is particularly ironic that it comes so close to Scot and likely soon-to-be Labour leader Gordon Brown made another statement of his Unionist credentials, even going so far as to cite Margaret Thatcher as his role model!
That this is a clear appeal to the sort of "sour Little Englander" Mr.Cameron talks of (for a perfect example of whom see the response to my entry about the World Cup furore) is neither surprising nor new from any Unionist politician. What is new is a Tory risking offending what has to be seen as his core voters.
Labour has always thrown sops Scotland's way. It makes sense for them to keep us predominantly Labour-voting as it swings the result their way if the polls are close in England. At the same time they blocked our desire for any degree of self-determination far more effectively than the Conservatives ever did because they need a compliant Scotland in the Union.
Conversely, the Tories treated us with complete contempt because they could never swing enough voters in Scotland to make a difference to them. So we had our industries stripped and taken South and we were used, as Cameron admits, as a test-bed for new policies.
So, is this a heartfelt apology and change of attitude from the Conservatives? Naah! They see a potential close vote in which actually winning some seats up here might help them gain control of Westminster again. I bet the smug little git won't dare stand up and repeat those sentiments at a party meeting in the Home Counties. I doubt if they're even being reported in either the English or national media.
Besides, did he do anything to stamp on the anti-Scottish rantings of his senior party members during that World Cup nonsense? Did he even distance himself from them?
Did he hell.
It's a strange day indeed when I find myself in agreement with the leader of the Tory party, but that's exactly where I am today.
In a speech in Glasgow Mr.Cameron has acknowledged the errors his party has made in Scotland and called for more understanding of Scots from the English. I never imagined that when a Sassenach politician finally addressed the behaviours, attitudes and policies which helped create so many Nationalists it would be a Tory. It is particularly ironic that it comes so close to Scot and likely soon-to-be Labour leader Gordon Brown made another statement of his Unionist credentials, even going so far as to cite Margaret Thatcher as his role model!
That this is a clear appeal to the sort of "sour Little Englander" Mr.Cameron talks of (for a perfect example of whom see the response to my entry about the World Cup furore) is neither surprising nor new from any Unionist politician. What is new is a Tory risking offending what has to be seen as his core voters.
Labour has always thrown sops Scotland's way. It makes sense for them to keep us predominantly Labour-voting as it swings the result their way if the polls are close in England. At the same time they blocked our desire for any degree of self-determination far more effectively than the Conservatives ever did because they need a compliant Scotland in the Union.
Conversely, the Tories treated us with complete contempt because they could never swing enough voters in Scotland to make a difference to them. So we had our industries stripped and taken South and we were used, as Cameron admits, as a test-bed for new policies.
So, is this a heartfelt apology and change of attitude from the Conservatives? Naah! They see a potential close vote in which actually winning some seats up here might help them gain control of Westminster again. I bet the smug little git won't dare stand up and repeat those sentiments at a party meeting in the Home Counties. I doubt if they're even being reported in either the English or national media.
Besides, did he do anything to stamp on the anti-Scottish rantings of his senior party members during that World Cup nonsense? Did he even distance himself from them?
Did he hell.
Review DOA
Review: D.O.A.
When is someone finally going to make a videogame film that's anything more than mediocre? Not that this is anywhere near that good.
This is grade-a Bernard Matthews product. Its one saving grace is that it's well into so bad it's good territory. Oh! Did I say 'one saving grace'? Not quite true. The female cast are stunning and spend a great deal of time semi-naked. Which is just as well as there's bugger all else to pay attention to.
The plot is laughable, the dialogue execrable and the fights derivative to the point of being lifted from the likes of Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Apparently each of the fighters summoned to this "ultimate" competition is master of one fighting style. Jaime Pressley (Giving a performance completely indistinguishable from her turn in My Name is Earl), for example, is a wrestler. Apparently. Yet all of them, without exception, are clearly using the same eastern martial arts forms. And whichever skill they've mastered also gave them the same floaty, ninja-style gymnastic and climbing abilities as well as master-level swordsmanship.
I often found myself laughing at this film, but never at a point the writer would have intended. Especially if the scene featured Devon Aoki from Kill Bill. Dialogue featuring her always sounded like the kind of stilted overly-formal, literal translation you get in 70's chop-socky films or scholar-done versions of Ibsen or Chekov. Quite how a script that was written in English can end up sounding like it was translated one word at a time from a dictionary by someone with no comprehension of idiom or casual speech patterns I'll never fathom. No more than I will understand how any self-respecting actor could actually speak these lines as written.
As an out & out turkey there is some fun to be had from this film. Take half a dozen lads (preferably still undergoing puberty), copious amounts of beer and a couple of pizzas and you'd have the perfect audience for this film. Especially if they happen to be American frat-boys.
The underlying tone of misogyny, especially in the way all of these strong, independent women just have to get paired off with a matching male (no matter what he's done to her or what a twat he is), leaves a nasty taste, though.
If Uwe Boll had directed this it would have an excuse. Corey Yuen, who helmed the excellent Transporter, has no such mitigation. Although it does explain much of the chop-socky dialogue…
When is someone finally going to make a videogame film that's anything more than mediocre? Not that this is anywhere near that good.
This is grade-a Bernard Matthews product. Its one saving grace is that it's well into so bad it's good territory. Oh! Did I say 'one saving grace'? Not quite true. The female cast are stunning and spend a great deal of time semi-naked. Which is just as well as there's bugger all else to pay attention to.
The plot is laughable, the dialogue execrable and the fights derivative to the point of being lifted from the likes of Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Apparently each of the fighters summoned to this "ultimate" competition is master of one fighting style. Jaime Pressley (Giving a performance completely indistinguishable from her turn in My Name is Earl), for example, is a wrestler. Apparently. Yet all of them, without exception, are clearly using the same eastern martial arts forms. And whichever skill they've mastered also gave them the same floaty, ninja-style gymnastic and climbing abilities as well as master-level swordsmanship.
I often found myself laughing at this film, but never at a point the writer would have intended. Especially if the scene featured Devon Aoki from Kill Bill. Dialogue featuring her always sounded like the kind of stilted overly-formal, literal translation you get in 70's chop-socky films or scholar-done versions of Ibsen or Chekov. Quite how a script that was written in English can end up sounding like it was translated one word at a time from a dictionary by someone with no comprehension of idiom or casual speech patterns I'll never fathom. No more than I will understand how any self-respecting actor could actually speak these lines as written.
As an out & out turkey there is some fun to be had from this film. Take half a dozen lads (preferably still undergoing puberty), copious amounts of beer and a couple of pizzas and you'd have the perfect audience for this film. Especially if they happen to be American frat-boys.
The underlying tone of misogyny, especially in the way all of these strong, independent women just have to get paired off with a matching male (no matter what he's done to her or what a twat he is), leaves a nasty taste, though.
If Uwe Boll had directed this it would have an excuse. Corey Yuen, who helmed the excellent Transporter, has no such mitigation. Although it does explain much of the chop-socky dialogue…
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Murphy Strikes Again
The wee bastard's just trying to wind me up.
As if it's not bad enough that, thanks to our new, pointless security procedures, I have to be up at the crack of frigging dawn to get a mid-morning flight to my sister-in-law's wedding, I've just discovered that the moth I kindly haven't killed whilst it spent the last two days fluttering about my flat has eaten the arm off my suit.
Bastard!
I've only worn the damn thing about four times, too.
That's it. No more Mr Nice Guy. Anything flying gets twatted in future and the next mouse-eating spider I find running across the living-room floor will not be caught under a glass and gently evicted to the outdoors. Oh no! It'll be put in my wardrobe to eat any sumbitch moth that decides to have a go at whatever I have to buy to replace my suit.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
REVIEW SEVERANCE
REVIEW: SEVERANCE
This British horror film starts off as a pretty bog-standard slasher/survival-type movie and pretty much stays there.
Yes, the characters are the usual clichéd bunch. Yes, the situation is pretty unimaginative and somewhat poorly explained. Yes, you can see who’s going to survive and who’s going to die within moments of meeting the characters. We all know that the token American will be the hero because that’s the only way an American audience will ever even think of watching any film not made there and starring the same people they’ve seen in the last fifteen moovees they saw. Yes, it’s trying to cash in on the likes of Dog Soldiers and Descent (Not, as other reviews & even its own trailers will tell you, Shaun of the Dead. This is not a spoof.) And, yes, I do realise that this is shaping up to be a negative review.
It’s not, though, and the film’s far from bog-standard.
Because full of clichés though this film is it uses them very effectively, turns quite a few of them on their heads and is a great, fun-filled, thrill-ride. Too many survival films either take themselves too seriously or try to be funny and don’t manage it. This sends itself up as it goes along and does it well from the characters spinning tall tales and recounting urban myths about why all this might be about to happen down to the kind of Babes with Guns-type sequence members of the NRA are so fond of. The performances are excellent, especially Tim McInnery who turns in his usual, but wonderful, chinless-wonder character. The script is fairly tight, though it could be a little quicker to the point and clearer over which urban myth is right. The effort to make all of them at least partly true is quite clever but does add to the confusion a little. Then again, when you’re lost in a forest in Eastern Europe and someone’s killing your friends in gruesome and imaginatively cruel ways the odds are rather long on your having or caring about a complete grasp of their motives and, since they’re not Bond villains, and you don’t speak even a word of their language, anyway, explanations aren’t likely to be forthcoming, either. Put rather more bluntly, though, this kind of film doesn’t need a whole lot of plot just something to hang it on that’s remotely plausible then you get on with the action.
Once it starts it’s relentless. The body-count is pretty high, the deaths are satisfyingly gruesome and there’s no indestructible Jason/Freddy/Michael Myers type villain. The violence is pretty realistic, too. There’s none of moviedom’s usual nonsense about people not feeling pain or fear or making altruistic gestures just because they’re the good guys. With their lives on the line the worst comes out in just about everyone.
Cock-ups to watch out for: the most ineptly hidden blood-bag in history on the first victim. It’s not even needed as it’s opened out of shot. Wondering why a CEO who’s been ‘…dying to demonstrate this.’ BFG doesn’t know what it’s going to do. (It gives one of the best laughs in the film, though, so I’ll forgive them.)
Well worth a viewing with some great scares and some genuinely creepy moments. Highly recommended.
This British horror film starts off as a pretty bog-standard slasher/survival-type movie and pretty much stays there.
Yes, the characters are the usual clichéd bunch. Yes, the situation is pretty unimaginative and somewhat poorly explained. Yes, you can see who’s going to survive and who’s going to die within moments of meeting the characters. We all know that the token American will be the hero because that’s the only way an American audience will ever even think of watching any film not made there and starring the same people they’ve seen in the last fifteen moovees they saw. Yes, it’s trying to cash in on the likes of Dog Soldiers and Descent (Not, as other reviews & even its own trailers will tell you, Shaun of the Dead. This is not a spoof.) And, yes, I do realise that this is shaping up to be a negative review.
It’s not, though, and the film’s far from bog-standard.
Because full of clichés though this film is it uses them very effectively, turns quite a few of them on their heads and is a great, fun-filled, thrill-ride. Too many survival films either take themselves too seriously or try to be funny and don’t manage it. This sends itself up as it goes along and does it well from the characters spinning tall tales and recounting urban myths about why all this might be about to happen down to the kind of Babes with Guns-type sequence members of the NRA are so fond of. The performances are excellent, especially Tim McInnery who turns in his usual, but wonderful, chinless-wonder character. The script is fairly tight, though it could be a little quicker to the point and clearer over which urban myth is right. The effort to make all of them at least partly true is quite clever but does add to the confusion a little. Then again, when you’re lost in a forest in Eastern Europe and someone’s killing your friends in gruesome and imaginatively cruel ways the odds are rather long on your having or caring about a complete grasp of their motives and, since they’re not Bond villains, and you don’t speak even a word of their language, anyway, explanations aren’t likely to be forthcoming, either. Put rather more bluntly, though, this kind of film doesn’t need a whole lot of plot just something to hang it on that’s remotely plausible then you get on with the action.
Once it starts it’s relentless. The body-count is pretty high, the deaths are satisfyingly gruesome and there’s no indestructible Jason/Freddy/Michael Myers type villain. The violence is pretty realistic, too. There’s none of moviedom’s usual nonsense about people not feeling pain or fear or making altruistic gestures just because they’re the good guys. With their lives on the line the worst comes out in just about everyone.
Cock-ups to watch out for: the most ineptly hidden blood-bag in history on the first victim. It’s not even needed as it’s opened out of shot. Wondering why a CEO who’s been ‘…dying to demonstrate this.’ BFG doesn’t know what it’s going to do. (It gives one of the best laughs in the film, though, so I’ll forgive them.)
Well worth a viewing with some great scares and some genuinely creepy moments. Highly recommended.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Review A Scanner Darkly
Review: A Scanner Darkly
Keanu Reeves plays an undercover cop in this animated version of a Philip K. Dick tale of a near-future dystopia. As usual with Dick's works this story is heavily coloured by his own substance-abuse and paranoia, but given the subject of this tale it gives him a perspective which, for once, enhances the narrative. That is presuming you can be entertained by an hour and a half of paranoid junkie rambling to get to a not very surprising 'twist'. You won't even get a satisfactory ending as the film just peters out without a conclusion.
Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson, neither one unfamiliar with, shall we say, major elements of their characters' makeup, act the pants off everyone else in a show-stealing double act so believable one could believe they got stoned and were left in the Big Brother house. They bring a much-needed lightness and sense of humour to an otherwise rambling, leaden and tedious script. Reeves' preferred underplaying technique by comparison leaves him looking more wooden and dull than ever. Given his manic turn in the Bill & Ted films we know he can be freer, so why he refuses to do so any more is a mystery.
Another mystery is why this is animated. As you doubtlessly know the scenes were all filmed as normal and then the animation was Rotoscoped over it. With the exception of the suits the undercover agents wear to hide their identities there are no special effects so it wasn't to cut the budget. This would have had an inflationary effect and served to delay the film's release by over a year. One is tempted to say that it's an attempt to enhance the feelings of unreality and disassociation, but can't escape the feeling that it's just one big technical jerk-off.
Too much is left unresolved - including the main plot. When Reeves has an apparently drug-induced hallucination that the girl he's sleeping with has transformed into his touch-averse girlfriend (Winona Ryder in her only nude role. Oh, that's why they animated the whole thing!) it makes sense as a guilty reaction. At least it does until his character is watching the surveillance tapes (don't ask) and we see the face morph and he doesn't question it.
Philip K. had a lot of good ideas for stories. Sadly, his writing technique and his own paranoia usually left them poorly developed and even undermined. That's why adaptations of his works are often so heavily re-written. This needed more of that treatment. Worth seeing but should/could have been much better. Far too much concentration on the kind of rambling waffle only the seriously stoned could care about.
Keanu Reeves plays an undercover cop in this animated version of a Philip K. Dick tale of a near-future dystopia. As usual with Dick's works this story is heavily coloured by his own substance-abuse and paranoia, but given the subject of this tale it gives him a perspective which, for once, enhances the narrative. That is presuming you can be entertained by an hour and a half of paranoid junkie rambling to get to a not very surprising 'twist'. You won't even get a satisfactory ending as the film just peters out without a conclusion.
Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson, neither one unfamiliar with, shall we say, major elements of their characters' makeup, act the pants off everyone else in a show-stealing double act so believable one could believe they got stoned and were left in the Big Brother house. They bring a much-needed lightness and sense of humour to an otherwise rambling, leaden and tedious script. Reeves' preferred underplaying technique by comparison leaves him looking more wooden and dull than ever. Given his manic turn in the Bill & Ted films we know he can be freer, so why he refuses to do so any more is a mystery.
Another mystery is why this is animated. As you doubtlessly know the scenes were all filmed as normal and then the animation was Rotoscoped over it. With the exception of the suits the undercover agents wear to hide their identities there are no special effects so it wasn't to cut the budget. This would have had an inflationary effect and served to delay the film's release by over a year. One is tempted to say that it's an attempt to enhance the feelings of unreality and disassociation, but can't escape the feeling that it's just one big technical jerk-off.
Too much is left unresolved - including the main plot. When Reeves has an apparently drug-induced hallucination that the girl he's sleeping with has transformed into his touch-averse girlfriend (Winona Ryder in her only nude role. Oh, that's why they animated the whole thing!) it makes sense as a guilty reaction. At least it does until his character is watching the surveillance tapes (don't ask) and we see the face morph and he doesn't question it.
Philip K. had a lot of good ideas for stories. Sadly, his writing technique and his own paranoia usually left them poorly developed and even undermined. That's why adaptations of his works are often so heavily re-written. This needed more of that treatment. Worth seeing but should/could have been much better. Far too much concentration on the kind of rambling waffle only the seriously stoned could care about.
Cyclists beware: inflamed bladders ahead - Yahoo! News
Never trust a Computer #009
Cyclists beware: inflamed bladders ahead - Yahoo! News
Councils trying to save money by using free internut services rather than employing a translator. Wonder how much it'll cost to re-make the signs...
Cyclists beware: inflamed bladders ahead - Yahoo! News
Councils trying to save money by using free internut services rather than employing a translator. Wonder how much it'll cost to re-make the signs...
Friday, August 11, 2006
Terror Plot
Interesting watching all this stuff about the terrorist plot develop. Especially as John Reid made an announcement about how we'd all have to be prepared to surrender some of our freedoms in order to protect them just the day before. Classic Orwellian doublespeak if ever I heard it.
One wonders why, given that the plot centred around flights between Heathrow and America, it is that the largest number of restrictions and messed up flights centre on internal flights? Not to mention why, since the police have stated that the planned attacks were not due to take place for some time after they made their arrests, that these restrictions were begun on that day. Or why it was deemed safe for planes to begin to fly out of Heathrow after 3.00pm. Finally, why, since this was a plot based in and heading out from Britain, was it deemed necessary to restrict incoming flights?Actually, I know the answer to the last one. At least, I can guess; the airlines didn't want their planes grounded in the UK.
This business about liquid explosives has long been known. Christopher Brookmyre's novel "A Big Boy Did it & Ran Away" -released just before 9/11- opened with a terrorist doing exactly what was described by the police yesterday. Except Chris wasn't dumb enough to actually list the chemicals - unlike the tabloids here today. So why, given that this technique was known to be in the terrorists’ arsenal, do we suddenly have these restrictions now? And what's to stop them putting them into a suitable container and carrying them the same way drug mules do?
I'm flying south for a wedding in 2 weeks and I'm doing the video & some of the photography at it so I need to carry cameras. I've seen the way baggage handlers treat luggage. Now they've had their workload tripled do you really think anything fragile will be making it to the other end intact? And with the new check-in times my 40 minute flight is now going to take up to 6 hours - longer than by coach. Oh, and I just can't wait to stand in a loooong queue in a sweaty security hall with a load of people with their shoes off waiting to put them through the x-ray machine.Look, I know they need to be vigilant and they have to try to counter these plots, but this smacks more of being seen to do something than actually controlling events. What's next? Internal exams for all 'plane passengers? The terrorists are achieving their aims without even having to detonate a device. Our own governments are doing the job of restricting our freedoms and disrupting our lives for them. I just hope that they’ve got it right this time. If their intelligence has screwed up again I hate to think what the consequences might be. They can evade shooting some poor slob for having a beard and a suntan but disrupting this much business? They’d better have real evidence this time and not just ‘credible intelligence’.
Oh, and instead of being on the street actually dealing with crime, you might be interested to hear that Strathclyde Police - my local force, who have in the past refused to send officers to investigate gangs with axes in the park or reports of burglaries in progress - will be hand-delivering letters to local Muslims to 'reassure' them that none of this is personal. Priorities...
One wonders why, given that the plot centred around flights between Heathrow and America, it is that the largest number of restrictions and messed up flights centre on internal flights? Not to mention why, since the police have stated that the planned attacks were not due to take place for some time after they made their arrests, that these restrictions were begun on that day. Or why it was deemed safe for planes to begin to fly out of Heathrow after 3.00pm. Finally, why, since this was a plot based in and heading out from Britain, was it deemed necessary to restrict incoming flights?Actually, I know the answer to the last one. At least, I can guess; the airlines didn't want their planes grounded in the UK.
This business about liquid explosives has long been known. Christopher Brookmyre's novel "A Big Boy Did it & Ran Away" -released just before 9/11- opened with a terrorist doing exactly what was described by the police yesterday. Except Chris wasn't dumb enough to actually list the chemicals - unlike the tabloids here today. So why, given that this technique was known to be in the terrorists’ arsenal, do we suddenly have these restrictions now? And what's to stop them putting them into a suitable container and carrying them the same way drug mules do?
I'm flying south for a wedding in 2 weeks and I'm doing the video & some of the photography at it so I need to carry cameras. I've seen the way baggage handlers treat luggage. Now they've had their workload tripled do you really think anything fragile will be making it to the other end intact? And with the new check-in times my 40 minute flight is now going to take up to 6 hours - longer than by coach. Oh, and I just can't wait to stand in a loooong queue in a sweaty security hall with a load of people with their shoes off waiting to put them through the x-ray machine.Look, I know they need to be vigilant and they have to try to counter these plots, but this smacks more of being seen to do something than actually controlling events. What's next? Internal exams for all 'plane passengers? The terrorists are achieving their aims without even having to detonate a device. Our own governments are doing the job of restricting our freedoms and disrupting our lives for them. I just hope that they’ve got it right this time. If their intelligence has screwed up again I hate to think what the consequences might be. They can evade shooting some poor slob for having a beard and a suntan but disrupting this much business? They’d better have real evidence this time and not just ‘credible intelligence’.
Oh, and instead of being on the street actually dealing with crime, you might be interested to hear that Strathclyde Police - my local force, who have in the past refused to send officers to investigate gangs with axes in the park or reports of burglaries in progress - will be hand-delivering letters to local Muslims to 'reassure' them that none of this is personal. Priorities...
Friday, August 04, 2006
Breast isn't best: readers tell US parenting magazine - Yahoo! News UK
Breast isn't best: readers tell US parenting magazine - Yahoo! News UK
This reminds me of directing a play called Spitting Image some years ago. It was written just after the legalisation of homosexuality in the 60s and concerned a gay couple, one of which falls pregnant. Demi Moore just having done her Vanity Fair cover I decided to pastiche it for our promotional posters and had a photo of one of the leads re-touched to make him appear pregnant. The outrage caused by this astounded me. Many places refused to display it and of those which did many were deluged with demands to remove it.
All the complaints were from women, so I think in that case it was about somehow feeling threatened by it, as if we were somehow infringing on a personal and strictly feminine area. Indeed, the few who bothered to articulate their hatred of the poster mentioned just such feelings amidst words like 'disgusting', 'obscene' and 'filth'.
So I understand the antipathy so many women feel towards the sight or images of breast-feeding even less. Especially in connection to this cover, which is a natural, beautiful and entirely non-sexual image. My own wife feels uncomfortable if another woman breast-feeds near her and she can't explain why.
I believe that in the West we've so ingrained the image of breast as sexual rather than nurturing object that it now subconciously triggers unnatural associations when we see one being used for its 'designed' purpose. Put a bit more bluntly, we see breast-feeding as a sexual act and the existence of strands of pornography dedicated to lactating tends to back this theory up. So when we see images of breast-feeding or -heaven forfend!- an actual act of public breast-feeding we are made uncomfortable by our own subconcious associations and guilt.
When I say we, though, I don't include myself in this. I see it as a natural, nurturing and beautiful thing. It should never be hidden or made shameful by the kind of 'puritans' mentioned in this article. That kind of mindset is anything but 'pure'. It's the kind of person whose sexual map is so screwed up by guilt and shame that they can turn even the most innoccuous phrase into a double entendre and will turn their protests against it into a misguided crusade to protect children. Few ever ask why children would get some of the more obscure double-entendres the likes of Irn-Bru campaigns have used, for example. Think about it, why do their children understand these jokes? Why would children be 'confused' or 'upset' by a traditional pantomime dame as the politically correct lobby would have us believe they are?
The answer is, as it is with the breast-feeding issue, that they wouldn't. It is the adult's skewed perception that sees these threats where they don't exist. Indeed, it's that very oerception that twists sex itself into something disgusting, unnatural and shameful.
This reminds me of directing a play called Spitting Image some years ago. It was written just after the legalisation of homosexuality in the 60s and concerned a gay couple, one of which falls pregnant. Demi Moore just having done her Vanity Fair cover I decided to pastiche it for our promotional posters and had a photo of one of the leads re-touched to make him appear pregnant. The outrage caused by this astounded me. Many places refused to display it and of those which did many were deluged with demands to remove it.
All the complaints were from women, so I think in that case it was about somehow feeling threatened by it, as if we were somehow infringing on a personal and strictly feminine area. Indeed, the few who bothered to articulate their hatred of the poster mentioned just such feelings amidst words like 'disgusting', 'obscene' and 'filth'.
So I understand the antipathy so many women feel towards the sight or images of breast-feeding even less. Especially in connection to this cover, which is a natural, beautiful and entirely non-sexual image. My own wife feels uncomfortable if another woman breast-feeds near her and she can't explain why.
I believe that in the West we've so ingrained the image of breast as sexual rather than nurturing object that it now subconciously triggers unnatural associations when we see one being used for its 'designed' purpose. Put a bit more bluntly, we see breast-feeding as a sexual act and the existence of strands of pornography dedicated to lactating tends to back this theory up. So when we see images of breast-feeding or -heaven forfend!- an actual act of public breast-feeding we are made uncomfortable by our own subconcious associations and guilt.
When I say we, though, I don't include myself in this. I see it as a natural, nurturing and beautiful thing. It should never be hidden or made shameful by the kind of 'puritans' mentioned in this article. That kind of mindset is anything but 'pure'. It's the kind of person whose sexual map is so screwed up by guilt and shame that they can turn even the most innoccuous phrase into a double entendre and will turn their protests against it into a misguided crusade to protect children. Few ever ask why children would get some of the more obscure double-entendres the likes of Irn-Bru campaigns have used, for example. Think about it, why do their children understand these jokes? Why would children be 'confused' or 'upset' by a traditional pantomime dame as the politically correct lobby would have us believe they are?
The answer is, as it is with the breast-feeding issue, that they wouldn't. It is the adult's skewed perception that sees these threats where they don't exist. Indeed, it's that very oerception that twists sex itself into something disgusting, unnatural and shameful.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Review Miami Vice
Review: Miami Vice
The original TV series of this show never did much for me. I always considered it to be style over substance. There were lots of 'beauty' shots, an excess of beautiful people and all the locations would have looked ideal in a tourist board brochure.
If I'm really honest I'd have to say that I never really watched enough of it to get a real handle on the characters or the writing. Which is good because it means I'm not comparing this to something of which I harbour fond memories.
At the opening it seems as if the tourist board are going to get some more free advertising. The film opens with the team on a stakeout at a nightclub. The beautiful people arrive in a succession of flash cars (in one case in a matching fleet, no less) and walk past the ordinary punters queuing outside. All of which serves to highlight the veneer of glamour on the seedy side of this beautiful city. We soon learn that the VIPs we've seen arrive are a crime-boss and his entourage, including the girls he's using to sweeten the deal.
We're also introduced to this film's most irritating feature. Whilst I'm sure the dialogue is highly accurate and authentic (actually, I'm not sure at all but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt) it is often entirely incomprehensible. Technobabble and jargon in dialogue are often cited criticisms levelled at SF films by folk who can't use their imaginations. At least they generally have the excuse of talking about things which don't exist. Here the dialogue is just so obscure and often mumbled so quietly that one is left feeling alienated and divorced from what is going on. Jamie Foxx is particularly guilty of a frequent failure to enunciate or energise his voice enough to be comprehensible. All too often you will be left with no clue at all as to what the hell they're on about.
This opening scene is something of a case in point, who they're watching, why and what their plan is are all left irritatingly obscure. Yet, somehow, it doesn't really matter. Just like the technobabble in SF the details of the organisation of deals and the jargon involved can be allowed to flow past. The characters know what they're talking about, so the rest of us can assume that they are competent at what they do and can move with ease in the world they are trying to penetrate.
The performances are exceptionally strong throughout, with a surprising number of Brits filling roles I'd normally expect to see go to the usual company of American character actors. Gong Li gives a wonderful performance showing more range and depth than anyone else in the cast. Her accent is heavy and at times difficult to follow, but she's still clearer than Foxx who's using his native language.
The film is shot with high grain in the film stock, either making a virtue of using film rather than digital stock or trying for a degree of documentary feel. During the last battle we are even 'treated' to the sight of rain drops on the lens. Actually, stuff like that makes it harder to stay involved in the story as one is instantly reminded that one is watching a film. So a wee note to directors here; if you're not making a documentary don’t use documentary techniques. It doesn’t add to the realism of your piece of fantasy and it can be a big distraction.
What does help the suspension of disbelief is that we get to see the underside of Miami. The bits which aren’t so pretty and touristy. We also see a lot of Havana and Cuba giving a much clearer idea of how close they all are and just how hard it must be to keep drugs from crossing America’s borders. Unlike the tv series the colour palette is very subdued, the weather is often poor and the fashions are not embarrassing. The vehicle porn count is still very high, everyone’s still pretty and the cops all live in luxurious houses. Given how little we are lead to believe they are paid these days one has to assume that this is for effect rather than an further attempt to stretch the cinema verite motif.
The story is nothing special. There’s nothing new here and much that can be spotted a mile off and is well into cliché territory. It would be nice if, even for one moment, we could believe that Crockett is going to go over the edge and side with his new girlfriend but we can’t. None of these cops could be suspected of being tempted by the huge wealth they see in front of them every day. The success and fantastic writing on shows like The Shield indicate that this would be fertile ground and leave much scope for innovative plot twists and America certainly has the writers to produce such a rich and imaginative script. So here’s another hint for Hollywood directors: You’re a director; you don’t think an amateur could do your job, so hire someone who can write to produce your script. All you’re going to come up with is hackneyed clichés. I’ve heard tales from writers who have worked with directors whose egos insist that they can improve what writers do. Sometimes they might even manage it. Probably they won’t.
In short, this is not an exceptional film, but it is very far from being bad. Worth watching, but of dubious return value.
The original TV series of this show never did much for me. I always considered it to be style over substance. There were lots of 'beauty' shots, an excess of beautiful people and all the locations would have looked ideal in a tourist board brochure.
If I'm really honest I'd have to say that I never really watched enough of it to get a real handle on the characters or the writing. Which is good because it means I'm not comparing this to something of which I harbour fond memories.
At the opening it seems as if the tourist board are going to get some more free advertising. The film opens with the team on a stakeout at a nightclub. The beautiful people arrive in a succession of flash cars (in one case in a matching fleet, no less) and walk past the ordinary punters queuing outside. All of which serves to highlight the veneer of glamour on the seedy side of this beautiful city. We soon learn that the VIPs we've seen arrive are a crime-boss and his entourage, including the girls he's using to sweeten the deal.
We're also introduced to this film's most irritating feature. Whilst I'm sure the dialogue is highly accurate and authentic (actually, I'm not sure at all but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt) it is often entirely incomprehensible. Technobabble and jargon in dialogue are often cited criticisms levelled at SF films by folk who can't use their imaginations. At least they generally have the excuse of talking about things which don't exist. Here the dialogue is just so obscure and often mumbled so quietly that one is left feeling alienated and divorced from what is going on. Jamie Foxx is particularly guilty of a frequent failure to enunciate or energise his voice enough to be comprehensible. All too often you will be left with no clue at all as to what the hell they're on about.
This opening scene is something of a case in point, who they're watching, why and what their plan is are all left irritatingly obscure. Yet, somehow, it doesn't really matter. Just like the technobabble in SF the details of the organisation of deals and the jargon involved can be allowed to flow past. The characters know what they're talking about, so the rest of us can assume that they are competent at what they do and can move with ease in the world they are trying to penetrate.
The performances are exceptionally strong throughout, with a surprising number of Brits filling roles I'd normally expect to see go to the usual company of American character actors. Gong Li gives a wonderful performance showing more range and depth than anyone else in the cast. Her accent is heavy and at times difficult to follow, but she's still clearer than Foxx who's using his native language.
The film is shot with high grain in the film stock, either making a virtue of using film rather than digital stock or trying for a degree of documentary feel. During the last battle we are even 'treated' to the sight of rain drops on the lens. Actually, stuff like that makes it harder to stay involved in the story as one is instantly reminded that one is watching a film. So a wee note to directors here; if you're not making a documentary don’t use documentary techniques. It doesn’t add to the realism of your piece of fantasy and it can be a big distraction.
What does help the suspension of disbelief is that we get to see the underside of Miami. The bits which aren’t so pretty and touristy. We also see a lot of Havana and Cuba giving a much clearer idea of how close they all are and just how hard it must be to keep drugs from crossing America’s borders. Unlike the tv series the colour palette is very subdued, the weather is often poor and the fashions are not embarrassing. The vehicle porn count is still very high, everyone’s still pretty and the cops all live in luxurious houses. Given how little we are lead to believe they are paid these days one has to assume that this is for effect rather than an further attempt to stretch the cinema verite motif.
The story is nothing special. There’s nothing new here and much that can be spotted a mile off and is well into cliché territory. It would be nice if, even for one moment, we could believe that Crockett is going to go over the edge and side with his new girlfriend but we can’t. None of these cops could be suspected of being tempted by the huge wealth they see in front of them every day. The success and fantastic writing on shows like The Shield indicate that this would be fertile ground and leave much scope for innovative plot twists and America certainly has the writers to produce such a rich and imaginative script. So here’s another hint for Hollywood directors: You’re a director; you don’t think an amateur could do your job, so hire someone who can write to produce your script. All you’re going to come up with is hackneyed clichés. I’ve heard tales from writers who have worked with directors whose egos insist that they can improve what writers do. Sometimes they might even manage it. Probably they won’t.
In short, this is not an exceptional film, but it is very far from being bad. Worth watching, but of dubious return value.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Another One Bites the Dust
Another One Bites the Dust
When they came to power in 1997 New Labour promised they would be making radical changes to the house buying/selling process. This was based around the principle of the so-called "Seller's Pack" which would include details and searches on the property. The idea behind this was to put all the information on a place together and thus make buying more straightforward. A brilliant idea that would actually benefit millions of ordinary people, especially the bit relating to surveys.
As you no doubt know every potential buyer of a property is currently required to hire their own surveyor to examine the property. Not too bad if the place is fixed-price and you know the sale is going through. Not so good if you lose the sale due to not being given any clue what the other prospective buyers are offering. Last time I was house-hunting I had to pay for three of the damn things before I finally got a place.
Of course, this system is great for one group of people. The surveyors. Since it is not unusual for the estate agencies or mortgage lenders to 'recommend' a surveyor it is possible the same surveyor will get multiple requests for one property. A property for which they may well have done the initial valuation survey. Somehow, I doubt if they'll be doing repeated surveys so they're getting repeatedly paid for the work.
So the eminently sensible idea was to make the seller responsible for the survey and make the report available to all prospective buyers, not only cutting the cost of house-hunting at a stroke but helping the decision-making process, too. One of the houses I missed out on was down to its being sold whilst I was awaiting a survey report on it. Besides, I don't see why I should need to pay £100 plus to find out something that might make me not want to buy.
So, finally, this long-awaited piece of legislation is about to become law. Without the clause regarding surveys.
Yes, Tony & his cronies have once again caved in to pressure from business and corporate lobbying saying that was a bad idea. The groups who make money on this think that cutting the number of surveys on any one property is bad for the public. Wonder why they think that, eh?
Remember, these are the people whose services you are compelled to use when buying a property, at least if you want a mortgage. Once you've paid their fees you have absolutely no legal redress if the information they provide is entirely wrong and you end up with a place that's riddled with dry rot and hasn't been re-wired since the 1940's. These are the people whose incomes our dear premiere has chosen to protect.
The mortgage lenders had a hand in it too. They said they'd still want their own surveys done for "security". Apparently it would be too easy for a homeowner to fake a survey or somesuch. Nothing to do with their cosy commission arrangement with the surveyors, then.
If ever any evidence were required that New Labour couldn't give a stuff about ordinary people and their needs then betraying this promise must be it.
When they came to power in 1997 New Labour promised they would be making radical changes to the house buying/selling process. This was based around the principle of the so-called "Seller's Pack" which would include details and searches on the property. The idea behind this was to put all the information on a place together and thus make buying more straightforward. A brilliant idea that would actually benefit millions of ordinary people, especially the bit relating to surveys.
As you no doubt know every potential buyer of a property is currently required to hire their own surveyor to examine the property. Not too bad if the place is fixed-price and you know the sale is going through. Not so good if you lose the sale due to not being given any clue what the other prospective buyers are offering. Last time I was house-hunting I had to pay for three of the damn things before I finally got a place.
Of course, this system is great for one group of people. The surveyors. Since it is not unusual for the estate agencies or mortgage lenders to 'recommend' a surveyor it is possible the same surveyor will get multiple requests for one property. A property for which they may well have done the initial valuation survey. Somehow, I doubt if they'll be doing repeated surveys so they're getting repeatedly paid for the work.
So the eminently sensible idea was to make the seller responsible for the survey and make the report available to all prospective buyers, not only cutting the cost of house-hunting at a stroke but helping the decision-making process, too. One of the houses I missed out on was down to its being sold whilst I was awaiting a survey report on it. Besides, I don't see why I should need to pay £100 plus to find out something that might make me not want to buy.
So, finally, this long-awaited piece of legislation is about to become law. Without the clause regarding surveys.
Yes, Tony & his cronies have once again caved in to pressure from business and corporate lobbying saying that was a bad idea. The groups who make money on this think that cutting the number of surveys on any one property is bad for the public. Wonder why they think that, eh?
Remember, these are the people whose services you are compelled to use when buying a property, at least if you want a mortgage. Once you've paid their fees you have absolutely no legal redress if the information they provide is entirely wrong and you end up with a place that's riddled with dry rot and hasn't been re-wired since the 1940's. These are the people whose incomes our dear premiere has chosen to protect.
The mortgage lenders had a hand in it too. They said they'd still want their own surveys done for "security". Apparently it would be too easy for a homeowner to fake a survey or somesuch. Nothing to do with their cosy commission arrangement with the surveyors, then.
If ever any evidence were required that New Labour couldn't give a stuff about ordinary people and their needs then betraying this promise must be it.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Thanks for auditioning, we'll call you - Yahoo! News
Thanks for auditioning, we'll call you - Yahoo! News
A cautionary tale for directors and producers treat actors like shit.
A cautionary tale for directors and producers treat actors like shit.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Review: Cars
Review: Cars
Have you seen Doc Hollywood? You’ve seen this, then.
There’s no escaping that this is a direct take on that story, but it’s done with Pixar’s usual flair, love and attention to detail. The humour is a little weaker than we’re used to, the animation is as splendid as always. The characterisation and voice talents are superb. Who’d have believed that you could care this much for hunks of tin?
Pixar really do show the way in how digital techniques should be used. I’ve long ranted about how digital characters don’t seem to truly interact with their environments or with other characters whether digital or not. In Pixar films it just doesn’t seem to matter.
As yet digital characters don’t work properly. Even the wonderful Gollum is just not quite there yet. As close as I’ve seen, but still not quite touching everything. Take these characters out of a situation where it matters and the difficulty with them vanishes, especially when they’re not human. We’re really good at picking up on visual clues from one another. A surprisingly large amount of our communication relies on visual signals and the digital characters don’t send them. When the character is a car, a monster or a toy you can accept their absence because they’re not human.
Cars is by no means Pixar’s finest hour but it’s a lot better than most of the other drivel being passed off as entertainment.
Have you seen Doc Hollywood? You’ve seen this, then.
There’s no escaping that this is a direct take on that story, but it’s done with Pixar’s usual flair, love and attention to detail. The humour is a little weaker than we’re used to, the animation is as splendid as always. The characterisation and voice talents are superb. Who’d have believed that you could care this much for hunks of tin?
Pixar really do show the way in how digital techniques should be used. I’ve long ranted about how digital characters don’t seem to truly interact with their environments or with other characters whether digital or not. In Pixar films it just doesn’t seem to matter.
As yet digital characters don’t work properly. Even the wonderful Gollum is just not quite there yet. As close as I’ve seen, but still not quite touching everything. Take these characters out of a situation where it matters and the difficulty with them vanishes, especially when they’re not human. We’re really good at picking up on visual clues from one another. A surprisingly large amount of our communication relies on visual signals and the digital characters don’t send them. When the character is a car, a monster or a toy you can accept their absence because they’re not human.
Cars is by no means Pixar’s finest hour but it’s a lot better than most of the other drivel being passed off as entertainment.
Review: Superman Returns
Review: Superman Returns
The effects are good. The acting’s not bad, especially Brandon Routh but the story sucks and you’ll believe a turkey can fly.
Actually, it should be called Superman Reruns because, frankly, it’s nothing more than cobbled together bits of the first movies and a lot of Lois & Clark thrown in for good measure.
Superman is a truly heroic character. He has immense super-powers, but – in celluloid at least – he’s never been truly challenged. I mean, the guy’s indestructible, has x-ray & heat vision, he can fly, he has super-hearing, he’s unbelievably strong and fast. What does he get as an arch-villain nemesis? A bald bloke.
The Chris Reeve movies had some degree of an excuse. Cinematic technology hadn’t yet caught up with the scope of the comics. This can no longer hide behind that. To reduce this story to yet another whinge about how Superman & Lois Lane can’t get it on is a pathetic cop out.
That’s bad enough, but it’s too long, too waffly and just plain dull. The sense of humour is absent, the sense of wonder is minimal and the attempts to make Mr Routh look as much as possible like Mr Reeve are pathetic. Not only is it insulting to the actor to hint that no-one can surpass Reeve’s performance but it’s insulting to the audience to assume we couldn’t accept someone making the role their own. If it’s true that they digitally altered Mr Routh to make him look even more like the late Mr Reeve then it’s a truly shameful act on behalf of the producers and director. Not to mention a little worrying about how likely they will be to stop looking for new talent once digital technology actually allows them to ‘resurrect’ dead stars.
A lot has been made of the messianic aspects of Superman’s character. I see him as a wonderful analogy for America itself. Although it acts for what it sees as the right reasons, it is essentially a bully using its overwhelming might to enforce its world view. Take away what makes it powerful and it’s pretty useless. Superman’s the same. Alright, his reasons are clearer, but ultimately he’s a bully and a coward without his powers. Look at the previous movie, number 2 where he surrendered his powers to be with Lois. He got beaten up by a jock at a truck-stop and when he couldn’t win he ran away. When he got his powers back, instead of taking his lumps as a lesson in humility he goes back and beats the guy up. Yeah, real hero.
If you go to see this film you will believe a turkey can fly. (Thanks to Ian Cairns for the last joke.)
The effects are good. The acting’s not bad, especially Brandon Routh but the story sucks and you’ll believe a turkey can fly.
Actually, it should be called Superman Reruns because, frankly, it’s nothing more than cobbled together bits of the first movies and a lot of Lois & Clark thrown in for good measure.
Superman is a truly heroic character. He has immense super-powers, but – in celluloid at least – he’s never been truly challenged. I mean, the guy’s indestructible, has x-ray & heat vision, he can fly, he has super-hearing, he’s unbelievably strong and fast. What does he get as an arch-villain nemesis? A bald bloke.
The Chris Reeve movies had some degree of an excuse. Cinematic technology hadn’t yet caught up with the scope of the comics. This can no longer hide behind that. To reduce this story to yet another whinge about how Superman & Lois Lane can’t get it on is a pathetic cop out.
That’s bad enough, but it’s too long, too waffly and just plain dull. The sense of humour is absent, the sense of wonder is minimal and the attempts to make Mr Routh look as much as possible like Mr Reeve are pathetic. Not only is it insulting to the actor to hint that no-one can surpass Reeve’s performance but it’s insulting to the audience to assume we couldn’t accept someone making the role their own. If it’s true that they digitally altered Mr Routh to make him look even more like the late Mr Reeve then it’s a truly shameful act on behalf of the producers and director. Not to mention a little worrying about how likely they will be to stop looking for new talent once digital technology actually allows them to ‘resurrect’ dead stars.
A lot has been made of the messianic aspects of Superman’s character. I see him as a wonderful analogy for America itself. Although it acts for what it sees as the right reasons, it is essentially a bully using its overwhelming might to enforce its world view. Take away what makes it powerful and it’s pretty useless. Superman’s the same. Alright, his reasons are clearer, but ultimately he’s a bully and a coward without his powers. Look at the previous movie, number 2 where he surrendered his powers to be with Lois. He got beaten up by a jock at a truck-stop and when he couldn’t win he ran away. When he got his powers back, instead of taking his lumps as a lesson in humility he goes back and beats the guy up. Yeah, real hero.
If you go to see this film you will believe a turkey can fly. (Thanks to Ian Cairns for the last joke.)
No More Noddy
No More Noddy
Do you think someone’s had a wee word with Jack Straw about how stupid he used to look sitting on the front bench behind Tony or whichever crony was speaking and nodding away like a plastic mutt in the back of a car?
I do.
Since he’s had his style makeover and bought contact lenses he really has packed it in. But you can see he’s having to work hard not to…
Do you think someone’s had a wee word with Jack Straw about how stupid he used to look sitting on the front bench behind Tony or whichever crony was speaking and nodding away like a plastic mutt in the back of a car?
I do.
Since he’s had his style makeover and bought contact lenses he really has packed it in. But you can see he’s having to work hard not to…
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
THE BOOTS ON THE OTHER FOOT
THE BOOT’S ON THE OTHER FOOT
I’ve been watching the increasing bitchiness of the English towards Scotland since the advent of devolution and I am actually rather worried by the increase in resentment, bigotry and racism it seems to have provoked in our southern neighbours. The recent nonsense about the World Cup is bringing it to the fore, especially in the media who have, as usual, been reporting it all from an entirely Sassenach point of view.
Of course, now that I’ve said that it will be assumed that I am the kind of parochial Scot that they portray us all to be, but isn’t that exactly the point? I make no bones about being a nationalist. I became a nationalist almost as a direct result of the ‘British’ media’s bias against my nation and years of listening to the English use the words ‘British’ and ‘English’ as synonyms. I first recall really noticing it during an Olympic games in the 70s when any English athlete’s success was hailed as a success for England whilst Scots, Welsh & Irish successes were for Britain. Remember the humiliating footage we were all subjected to after out football fans’ celebration at Wembley? Yes, it was out of order but all it was was a pitch invasion that resulted in some broken goalposts and a bit of missing turf. The constant use of the images and the language used to describe the jubilant fans was so vitriolic it instilled a sense of national shame in Scotland so deep that it actually had the effect of seriously inhibiting the spread of football hooliganism in Scotland.
Surely that’s a good thing? Well, yes. Of course it is, but it was not the media’s intention. They were enjoying portraying Scots as a barbarian horde of thugs, vandals and outright scum. Where is that vitriol when their fans’ behaviour results in running street battles, riots and even deaths? The media then always seem to find a way to portray the trouble as poor English boys defending themselves from Johnny-foreigner and his corrupt English-hating police.
And so to the current series of games. Scots have never supported England in any competition. Many have tried to pass it off as a bit of light-hearted banter, but it’s much more deep-seated than that. Our neighbours have spent centuries attempting to subsume, destroy and belittle our country, our people, our culture and our heritage. In school, after I began to notice the media’s bias towards the south, I began to notice the cultural and historical subversion Scots were suffering. Our national heroes were portrayed as usurpers, murderers and outlaws. ‘British’ history covers such topics as the Magna Carta, the Battle of Hastings, the Wars of the Roses and the English Civil War (which was actually a British civil war but never mind) and even today Scottish children can tell you all about these things. They all happened before there was a Union but you’d be forgiven for thinking that we were a part of them since the dawn of time and our kings were traitors fighting against their lawful monarchs. Teach Scottish children about the formation of Scotland by Kenneth MacAlpin from Alba? The truth about Macbeth? The Declaration of Arbroath? James Graham? When Bannockburn took place and why it was important? The Scottish Enlightenment? Of course not. Why is it that the exploits of the English national teams are on the national news, but those from the other countries in the Union barely rate a mention? Surely England’s results should be in regional broadcasts? Mentioned nationally, certainly, but at the same level Scotland’s football results are and then looked in more depth in the regional broadcasts. Because, despite the average Englishman’s perception of the country, England is one region of four in the Union and should be treated as such.
So, of course, we harbour some resentment towards them. However, it is resentment towards them as a nation, not as individuals. Someone, somewhere has made the decision to stir up English resentment towards Scotland and this series of games has been the spurtle they’re using. Throw in the oft-repeated claims of over-subsidisation and the spurious sophistry of the so-called West Lothian Question and you can whip up the Sun & Star-reading sections of the English masses to a level of hatred that allows some down South to pave the way to enhancing their own political power. It’s also being used as a justification for the racism coming from much more important and worrying quarters than some football fans getting beaten up by the kind of brain-dead thug who was, frankly, just looking for someone to pick a fight with anyway. Mr Blair says that our attitude is a disgrace and that we should always be ready to support our neighbours. Oh aye? Let’s see the English support France sometime, then. Actually, as Scotland historically had closer political ties with France than with England maybe we’re not wrong in choosing to support them over England. We did in several wars after all. Were the death threats against Andy Murray for being Scottish and not supporting England ever reported as racist? Don’t be silly, they were made by English people and they can’t be racist against Scots. The Racial Equality Commission has said so repeatedly in statements where they have refused to support Scots in claims of race discrimination. What about the Scots who have been attacked in England just because of their accents during the world cup? Where are the reports about that on the national news? Oh, that’s right; it’s not happening, is it?
Politicians like the Conservative David Davies talking about restricting the rights of Scottish MPs to vote in the British parliament, of reducing our representation in that national body and saying that it is against the British Constitution (when did we get one of those, by the way?) for a Scot to be Prime Minister of Britain, this is real racism and far more serious than us not supporting your national football team. Take one of these English MPs’ statements and substitute the word Asian or Muslim or Black for Scottish and see how they sound then. Yet our politicians are fighting a losing battle in trying to justify our non-support of them in this tournament rather than pointing out and combating this blatant racism. Why? The aforementioned centuries of being told how inferior we are has made a deep psychological scar on our national psyche. We actually believe we’re not good enough so we defend ourselves and apologise for having the temerity to want to take control of our own affairs and to have a reasonable say in the governing of the whole country. Any actual defence of the position of nationalism is jumped upon and portrayed as a defence of racism.
The West Lothian Question which is being used as such a motivation for this resentment towards, and restriction of, Scotland’s political position is not the great conundrum it’s made out to be. Yes; it is unfair that Scots MPs get to vote on English matters. Just like its been unfair that English MPs who outnumber all the other nations’ MPs by a huge margin have been doing to the rest of us for the entire existence of the Union. During the last Tory government they packed the Scottish debates with English MPs to force their measures on us despite having been almost completely voted out of our country. We’ve had centuries of their policies being forced on us and the only time the votes of Scots MPs have influenced an English matter is when it has been a close vote between the English MPs. We just don’t have enough MPs to create more than the slightest influence on English policy. Resentment at the high-handed way the Tories forced their policies on Scotland despite having absolutely no mandate to do so helped to fuel the demands for devolution. (Isn’t it odd that it’s those same Tories who are now whining about Scotland’s Westminster MPs?) All we really got out of Devolution was essentially another toon cooncil, but there’s hope for the future. There is only one reason why Scots MPs should continue to have a vote on English matters. The English have chosen not to have regional assemblies to take control of them.
Why should this be so? Only one region has had a vote on gaining its own assembly and it was overwhelmingly rejected? Given this resentment towards Scotland why should they refuse the chance to take that fictional control away from Scots?
Simple: most English people already believe they have an English parliament.
It comes back to that basic failure to comprehend the difference between England and Britain, a form of blindness the English share only with foreigners who at least have the excuse of having always been told by the English that the two are the same thing. The shameful thing is that the English believe this so deeply that they cannot see the genuine and justified anger and resentment it causes the rest of us in the Union. From the constant referral to things like the Queen of England, the English Parliament and English money, none of which exist, through the forcing of English agendas and attitudes on the rest of us each one causes us to move away from them.
Please do go ahead and take control of your own education and health policies. Please do it in such a way that the fictional notion that Scots are somehow already controlling these matters and causing all the failures in these areas is completely dispelled. A word of warning, though; If you do it by making the Scots, Welsh and Irish (the others must eventually be included in these proscriptions as only talking about Scotland makes the race issue much clearer at the moment) second class members of the British Parliament you will simply make the Independence movements stronger.
Actually, go ahead and do it your way, Mr Davies. I want to be independent.
I’ve been watching the increasing bitchiness of the English towards Scotland since the advent of devolution and I am actually rather worried by the increase in resentment, bigotry and racism it seems to have provoked in our southern neighbours. The recent nonsense about the World Cup is bringing it to the fore, especially in the media who have, as usual, been reporting it all from an entirely Sassenach point of view.
Of course, now that I’ve said that it will be assumed that I am the kind of parochial Scot that they portray us all to be, but isn’t that exactly the point? I make no bones about being a nationalist. I became a nationalist almost as a direct result of the ‘British’ media’s bias against my nation and years of listening to the English use the words ‘British’ and ‘English’ as synonyms. I first recall really noticing it during an Olympic games in the 70s when any English athlete’s success was hailed as a success for England whilst Scots, Welsh & Irish successes were for Britain. Remember the humiliating footage we were all subjected to after out football fans’ celebration at Wembley? Yes, it was out of order but all it was was a pitch invasion that resulted in some broken goalposts and a bit of missing turf. The constant use of the images and the language used to describe the jubilant fans was so vitriolic it instilled a sense of national shame in Scotland so deep that it actually had the effect of seriously inhibiting the spread of football hooliganism in Scotland.
Surely that’s a good thing? Well, yes. Of course it is, but it was not the media’s intention. They were enjoying portraying Scots as a barbarian horde of thugs, vandals and outright scum. Where is that vitriol when their fans’ behaviour results in running street battles, riots and even deaths? The media then always seem to find a way to portray the trouble as poor English boys defending themselves from Johnny-foreigner and his corrupt English-hating police.
And so to the current series of games. Scots have never supported England in any competition. Many have tried to pass it off as a bit of light-hearted banter, but it’s much more deep-seated than that. Our neighbours have spent centuries attempting to subsume, destroy and belittle our country, our people, our culture and our heritage. In school, after I began to notice the media’s bias towards the south, I began to notice the cultural and historical subversion Scots were suffering. Our national heroes were portrayed as usurpers, murderers and outlaws. ‘British’ history covers such topics as the Magna Carta, the Battle of Hastings, the Wars of the Roses and the English Civil War (which was actually a British civil war but never mind) and even today Scottish children can tell you all about these things. They all happened before there was a Union but you’d be forgiven for thinking that we were a part of them since the dawn of time and our kings were traitors fighting against their lawful monarchs. Teach Scottish children about the formation of Scotland by Kenneth MacAlpin from Alba? The truth about Macbeth? The Declaration of Arbroath? James Graham? When Bannockburn took place and why it was important? The Scottish Enlightenment? Of course not. Why is it that the exploits of the English national teams are on the national news, but those from the other countries in the Union barely rate a mention? Surely England’s results should be in regional broadcasts? Mentioned nationally, certainly, but at the same level Scotland’s football results are and then looked in more depth in the regional broadcasts. Because, despite the average Englishman’s perception of the country, England is one region of four in the Union and should be treated as such.
So, of course, we harbour some resentment towards them. However, it is resentment towards them as a nation, not as individuals. Someone, somewhere has made the decision to stir up English resentment towards Scotland and this series of games has been the spurtle they’re using. Throw in the oft-repeated claims of over-subsidisation and the spurious sophistry of the so-called West Lothian Question and you can whip up the Sun & Star-reading sections of the English masses to a level of hatred that allows some down South to pave the way to enhancing their own political power. It’s also being used as a justification for the racism coming from much more important and worrying quarters than some football fans getting beaten up by the kind of brain-dead thug who was, frankly, just looking for someone to pick a fight with anyway. Mr Blair says that our attitude is a disgrace and that we should always be ready to support our neighbours. Oh aye? Let’s see the English support France sometime, then. Actually, as Scotland historically had closer political ties with France than with England maybe we’re not wrong in choosing to support them over England. We did in several wars after all. Were the death threats against Andy Murray for being Scottish and not supporting England ever reported as racist? Don’t be silly, they were made by English people and they can’t be racist against Scots. The Racial Equality Commission has said so repeatedly in statements where they have refused to support Scots in claims of race discrimination. What about the Scots who have been attacked in England just because of their accents during the world cup? Where are the reports about that on the national news? Oh, that’s right; it’s not happening, is it?
Politicians like the Conservative David Davies talking about restricting the rights of Scottish MPs to vote in the British parliament, of reducing our representation in that national body and saying that it is against the British Constitution (when did we get one of those, by the way?) for a Scot to be Prime Minister of Britain, this is real racism and far more serious than us not supporting your national football team. Take one of these English MPs’ statements and substitute the word Asian or Muslim or Black for Scottish and see how they sound then. Yet our politicians are fighting a losing battle in trying to justify our non-support of them in this tournament rather than pointing out and combating this blatant racism. Why? The aforementioned centuries of being told how inferior we are has made a deep psychological scar on our national psyche. We actually believe we’re not good enough so we defend ourselves and apologise for having the temerity to want to take control of our own affairs and to have a reasonable say in the governing of the whole country. Any actual defence of the position of nationalism is jumped upon and portrayed as a defence of racism.
The West Lothian Question which is being used as such a motivation for this resentment towards, and restriction of, Scotland’s political position is not the great conundrum it’s made out to be. Yes; it is unfair that Scots MPs get to vote on English matters. Just like its been unfair that English MPs who outnumber all the other nations’ MPs by a huge margin have been doing to the rest of us for the entire existence of the Union. During the last Tory government they packed the Scottish debates with English MPs to force their measures on us despite having been almost completely voted out of our country. We’ve had centuries of their policies being forced on us and the only time the votes of Scots MPs have influenced an English matter is when it has been a close vote between the English MPs. We just don’t have enough MPs to create more than the slightest influence on English policy. Resentment at the high-handed way the Tories forced their policies on Scotland despite having absolutely no mandate to do so helped to fuel the demands for devolution. (Isn’t it odd that it’s those same Tories who are now whining about Scotland’s Westminster MPs?) All we really got out of Devolution was essentially another toon cooncil, but there’s hope for the future. There is only one reason why Scots MPs should continue to have a vote on English matters. The English have chosen not to have regional assemblies to take control of them.
Why should this be so? Only one region has had a vote on gaining its own assembly and it was overwhelmingly rejected? Given this resentment towards Scotland why should they refuse the chance to take that fictional control away from Scots?
Simple: most English people already believe they have an English parliament.
It comes back to that basic failure to comprehend the difference between England and Britain, a form of blindness the English share only with foreigners who at least have the excuse of having always been told by the English that the two are the same thing. The shameful thing is that the English believe this so deeply that they cannot see the genuine and justified anger and resentment it causes the rest of us in the Union. From the constant referral to things like the Queen of England, the English Parliament and English money, none of which exist, through the forcing of English agendas and attitudes on the rest of us each one causes us to move away from them.
Please do go ahead and take control of your own education and health policies. Please do it in such a way that the fictional notion that Scots are somehow already controlling these matters and causing all the failures in these areas is completely dispelled. A word of warning, though; If you do it by making the Scots, Welsh and Irish (the others must eventually be included in these proscriptions as only talking about Scotland makes the race issue much clearer at the moment) second class members of the British Parliament you will simply make the Independence movements stronger.
Actually, go ahead and do it your way, Mr Davies. I want to be independent.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Now We Know How
Now We Know How
It seems that Surrey & Sussex Health care trust has paid KPMG £700,000 to help them figure out how to deal with their £40.9 million deficit. Considering they’ve spent this money since January one has very little difficulty in figuring out how the highly-paid executives and managers got the trust into this mess in the first place.
What wonderful, innovative and imaginative strategies did these over-paid consultants come up with?
Fire 400 of your staff to save money.
Genius! I wonder how many microseconds it took them to come up with that stroke of inspiration. I mean it’s not as if that’s a solution they’ve ever used before, is it? I really have to give up the theatre and become a consultant.
Apart from anything else, isn’t it the managers’ responsibility to run the place efficiently and prudently? I can just imagine how long any one of the staff keeping their jobs would last if they went to these managers and said, “Excuse me, sir, but I seem to be unable to do my job properly, so I was wondering if it might be possible to hire a consultant to come in and do it for me? Yes, sir, I do realise this will be cripplingly expensive but I do believe that it will represent exceedingly good value.”
You can stick in your own Alan Sugar quote to end the conversation.
Having done exactly that how many of these executive dimwits are amongst the 400 losing their jobs?
Aye, right.
It seems that Surrey & Sussex Health care trust has paid KPMG £700,000 to help them figure out how to deal with their £40.9 million deficit. Considering they’ve spent this money since January one has very little difficulty in figuring out how the highly-paid executives and managers got the trust into this mess in the first place.
What wonderful, innovative and imaginative strategies did these over-paid consultants come up with?
Fire 400 of your staff to save money.
Genius! I wonder how many microseconds it took them to come up with that stroke of inspiration. I mean it’s not as if that’s a solution they’ve ever used before, is it? I really have to give up the theatre and become a consultant.
Apart from anything else, isn’t it the managers’ responsibility to run the place efficiently and prudently? I can just imagine how long any one of the staff keeping their jobs would last if they went to these managers and said, “Excuse me, sir, but I seem to be unable to do my job properly, so I was wondering if it might be possible to hire a consultant to come in and do it for me? Yes, sir, I do realise this will be cripplingly expensive but I do believe that it will represent exceedingly good value.”
You can stick in your own Alan Sugar quote to end the conversation.
Having done exactly that how many of these executive dimwits are amongst the 400 losing their jobs?
Aye, right.
Review UltraViolet
Review: UltraViolet
Here we have yet another stylish, high-octane science fiction/horror-based action flick starring Mila Jovovich.
Don't get me wrong, though; when I say 'stylish' I don't mean it in any good way because this pile of dross is as perfect an example of style over substance as it has ever been my misfortune to sit through. I've never seen so many people walking out of a press showing and that included some of the teenagers who'd wangled a pass and at whom this MTV-generation extended pop-promo is clearly aimed. When I say ‘high octane’ I mean that it is filled with flashy cuts and camera work in an attempt to mask the weak script, inept direction and cheap production values.
Let me be clear: there is nothing good about this film.
The script is clumsy, incoherent, self-obsessed, drivel with delusions of profundity. Delusions of adequacy would be more accurate. For example, after going on extensively about how much she hates humans, is going to kill them all and was ‘born into a world we probably wouldn’t understand.” within sixty seconds she’s trying to avoid killing innocent people and is all out to be ‘cured’. There is much awkward over-verbose nonsense of the kind found in poorly translated European video games.
The CGI work is atrocious and frequently of a level I'd consider inadequate in a video game. Mention must be made at this point of the incomprehensible decision to 'paintshop' Miss Jovovich's face for most of her close-ups. Why cast such a stunning looking woman if you're only planning to paint over her face and make her look unreal?
Speaking of our heroine, the best I can say is that she's done the best she can with this dross but you really cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. No matter how good you are. I swear I saw genuine pain in Mila's eyes as she tried to make this tosh sound anything less than embarrassing. Actually, I felt that the actors generally came off fairly well in this. No one was good but it took a surprising level of talent not to look really bad - and there are a few who prove that point perfectly. There’s one chap who delivers all his lines in the style of those really cheesy over-dubs you get of foreign films. The cheap ones. You know; the ones where the actor is trying really hard to sell himself because he thinks he’ll get more work so he almost ends up singing as he tries in vain to show off the range and versatility of his voice. I swear to god this guy, who has the most trivial part, speaks like that the whole time. It’d be funny if the whole movie wasn’t about as embarrassing and illogical.
Violet’s hair and clothes change colour frequently and for no apparent reason. In one case standing right in front of some guards who are checking her identity at a super-secret research facility. And they don’t seem to mind. When the woman Violet’s impersonating turns up she looks nothing like her. The bad guy’s a vampire, too yet he manages to exist within a facility designed to be secure against infiltration by them. At one point they clearly couldn’t figure out how to extract Violet from a trap, so the camera pans behind a guard and when the screen clears again all the guards surrounding her drop dead. No one’s moved, though Violet now has a sword in her hand, but about eight guards are now dead.
You can just see the studio exec’s sitting in an office somewhere trying to figure out what the kids are into these days and shoehorn it into this film. “I know,” says one, “Comic book movies are really hip these days so we need to include them.” Forgetting that anyone who says ‘hip’ nowadays clearly isn’t the head honcho –who’s even less ‘hip’ – believes him so we get a title sequence of comic book covers depicting Violet as a super-sexy heroine. Except, as she’s part of a group of essentially terrorist plague-victims, it’s not that likely the society would want their kids to idolise her, is it? As far as I’m aware this is not a pre-existing comic character so the only reason for the montage can possibly be an attempt to connect to kids. “Alright, that’s good.” says the head honcho. “What do we need next?”
“Well, The Matrix was really popular and has a huge teenage following, so let’s use that.” And they do. They lift sequences from it wholesale. Not homages or pastiches just totally blatant rip-offs. “Gadgets! Kids love gadgets.” So there are gadgets but they’re not used well.
“Vampires?” So the tale is about vampires, but only in the sense that their blood is infectious, some of them have pointy teeth and they give an excuse for super strength and speed. They don’t seem to drink blood have problems with garlic or sunlight – apart from when the bad guy makes some mention of some of the infected having sensitivity to light. That, though, is just an excuse for a fight in the dark which, in turn, is an excuse to have swords burst into flame. Honestly. For no apparent reason the antagonists’ swords burst into flame during the end battle. Steel. On fire. Setting light to more steel. Think about it, though. If there’s no need to die, you don’t become a blood-sucking fiend who bursts into flames at the merest hint of a sunny day and you become faster, stronger and almost invulnerable why would you want to not have this ‘disease’?
“Pokemon!” Yes, they have one of those sort of japanime Pokemon power-activation sequences which we get to see repeated a few times.
“Martial arts fights with swords! Guns! Motorbikes! Rock music!” So they’re all there. Lousy examples of all of them. You know those studio execs from the Orange ads? This is the kind of movie they would make. Hell, there are even product-placement spots for mobile phones. In one piece of absurdity Violet complains it should be impossible for the big bad guy to call her as her mobile number “…changes every sixty seconds.” She should be surprised anyone can call her if that’s true.
A few years back there was a thrilling and genuinely innovative British TV show starring Jack Davenport which was about vampires. It made the same kind of virus/infection parallels this does. It talked about vampires trying to take over the world and many of the themes that are mentioned but so badly wasted in this. It lasted only one season and was rumoured to be being re-made in America. Then the rumour was that it would be a feature film. The series was called Ultraviolet.
If this piece of shit is what it has ended up as then it is a sad, depressing legacy for what was a thoroughly creepy and disturbing story.
My Verdict: Avoid at all costs. Not even funny-bad.
Here we have yet another stylish, high-octane science fiction/horror-based action flick starring Mila Jovovich.
Don't get me wrong, though; when I say 'stylish' I don't mean it in any good way because this pile of dross is as perfect an example of style over substance as it has ever been my misfortune to sit through. I've never seen so many people walking out of a press showing and that included some of the teenagers who'd wangled a pass and at whom this MTV-generation extended pop-promo is clearly aimed. When I say ‘high octane’ I mean that it is filled with flashy cuts and camera work in an attempt to mask the weak script, inept direction and cheap production values.
Let me be clear: there is nothing good about this film.
The script is clumsy, incoherent, self-obsessed, drivel with delusions of profundity. Delusions of adequacy would be more accurate. For example, after going on extensively about how much she hates humans, is going to kill them all and was ‘born into a world we probably wouldn’t understand.” within sixty seconds she’s trying to avoid killing innocent people and is all out to be ‘cured’. There is much awkward over-verbose nonsense of the kind found in poorly translated European video games.
The CGI work is atrocious and frequently of a level I'd consider inadequate in a video game. Mention must be made at this point of the incomprehensible decision to 'paintshop' Miss Jovovich's face for most of her close-ups. Why cast such a stunning looking woman if you're only planning to paint over her face and make her look unreal?
Speaking of our heroine, the best I can say is that she's done the best she can with this dross but you really cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. No matter how good you are. I swear I saw genuine pain in Mila's eyes as she tried to make this tosh sound anything less than embarrassing. Actually, I felt that the actors generally came off fairly well in this. No one was good but it took a surprising level of talent not to look really bad - and there are a few who prove that point perfectly. There’s one chap who delivers all his lines in the style of those really cheesy over-dubs you get of foreign films. The cheap ones. You know; the ones where the actor is trying really hard to sell himself because he thinks he’ll get more work so he almost ends up singing as he tries in vain to show off the range and versatility of his voice. I swear to god this guy, who has the most trivial part, speaks like that the whole time. It’d be funny if the whole movie wasn’t about as embarrassing and illogical.
Violet’s hair and clothes change colour frequently and for no apparent reason. In one case standing right in front of some guards who are checking her identity at a super-secret research facility. And they don’t seem to mind. When the woman Violet’s impersonating turns up she looks nothing like her. The bad guy’s a vampire, too yet he manages to exist within a facility designed to be secure against infiltration by them. At one point they clearly couldn’t figure out how to extract Violet from a trap, so the camera pans behind a guard and when the screen clears again all the guards surrounding her drop dead. No one’s moved, though Violet now has a sword in her hand, but about eight guards are now dead.
You can just see the studio exec’s sitting in an office somewhere trying to figure out what the kids are into these days and shoehorn it into this film. “I know,” says one, “Comic book movies are really hip these days so we need to include them.” Forgetting that anyone who says ‘hip’ nowadays clearly isn’t the head honcho –who’s even less ‘hip’ – believes him so we get a title sequence of comic book covers depicting Violet as a super-sexy heroine. Except, as she’s part of a group of essentially terrorist plague-victims, it’s not that likely the society would want their kids to idolise her, is it? As far as I’m aware this is not a pre-existing comic character so the only reason for the montage can possibly be an attempt to connect to kids. “Alright, that’s good.” says the head honcho. “What do we need next?”
“Well, The Matrix was really popular and has a huge teenage following, so let’s use that.” And they do. They lift sequences from it wholesale. Not homages or pastiches just totally blatant rip-offs. “Gadgets! Kids love gadgets.” So there are gadgets but they’re not used well.
“Vampires?” So the tale is about vampires, but only in the sense that their blood is infectious, some of them have pointy teeth and they give an excuse for super strength and speed. They don’t seem to drink blood have problems with garlic or sunlight – apart from when the bad guy makes some mention of some of the infected having sensitivity to light. That, though, is just an excuse for a fight in the dark which, in turn, is an excuse to have swords burst into flame. Honestly. For no apparent reason the antagonists’ swords burst into flame during the end battle. Steel. On fire. Setting light to more steel. Think about it, though. If there’s no need to die, you don’t become a blood-sucking fiend who bursts into flames at the merest hint of a sunny day and you become faster, stronger and almost invulnerable why would you want to not have this ‘disease’?
“Pokemon!” Yes, they have one of those sort of japanime Pokemon power-activation sequences which we get to see repeated a few times.
“Martial arts fights with swords! Guns! Motorbikes! Rock music!” So they’re all there. Lousy examples of all of them. You know those studio execs from the Orange ads? This is the kind of movie they would make. Hell, there are even product-placement spots for mobile phones. In one piece of absurdity Violet complains it should be impossible for the big bad guy to call her as her mobile number “…changes every sixty seconds.” She should be surprised anyone can call her if that’s true.
A few years back there was a thrilling and genuinely innovative British TV show starring Jack Davenport which was about vampires. It made the same kind of virus/infection parallels this does. It talked about vampires trying to take over the world and many of the themes that are mentioned but so badly wasted in this. It lasted only one season and was rumoured to be being re-made in America. Then the rumour was that it would be a feature film. The series was called Ultraviolet.
If this piece of shit is what it has ended up as then it is a sad, depressing legacy for what was a thoroughly creepy and disturbing story.
My Verdict: Avoid at all costs. Not even funny-bad.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Dying comet offers celestial spectacular - Yahoo! News UK
Dying comet offers celestial spectacular - Yahoo! News UK
Seems to be worth a look. I'll certainly be doing so as long as Scotland doesn't do the usual & go cloudy throughout the entire event...
Seems to be worth a look. I'll certainly be doing so as long as Scotland doesn't do the usual & go cloudy throughout the entire event...
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Didn't We Just Say...?
But didn’t we just say…?
I noticed today that the courts have overturned a Home Office decision to deny a crowd of Afghan hijackers asylum in the UK.
Now, apart from the fact that they also quashed their convictions on a technicality isn’t this just the kind of thing all that furore about not deporting convicted criminals is about? Okay, as I just said, their convictions were quashed on a technicality but the fact remains that these men used guns and explosives to terrorise the crew and passengers of a plane and clearly committed several crimes. Doesn’t that make them exactly the kind of people we don’t want running around here?
I noticed today that the courts have overturned a Home Office decision to deny a crowd of Afghan hijackers asylum in the UK.
Now, apart from the fact that they also quashed their convictions on a technicality isn’t this just the kind of thing all that furore about not deporting convicted criminals is about? Okay, as I just said, their convictions were quashed on a technicality but the fact remains that these men used guns and explosives to terrorise the crew and passengers of a plane and clearly committed several crimes. Doesn’t that make them exactly the kind of people we don’t want running around here?
FINALLY
FINALLY…
So, George Lucas seems to have finally listened to his fans and is to release unaltered editions of the original Star Wars Trilogy on DVD. News here: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/news20060503.html
It’s probably too late for a lot of us as owners of the original video tapes who were technically savvy enough already transferred them, but it’s nice to know that he’s listening.
That said, I do think there were actually some improvements here and there and all of them are exactly the kind of thing CG imagery is actually good at. The improved vistas in Cloud City, for example, or the new shot of Jabba’s sail barge were great. We don’t actually need to see the “Emperor’s Slugs” and, though it was nice to have the right face on the hologramme of him in Empire the new lines were so clunky as to be embarrassing.
But the badly-done Jabba scene – which he was right to cut in the first place – is going and, most importantly: Han shoots first!
That last always showed me how little George actually understood his own characters and just how much he undermined the Solo character by having him sit there meekly and wait to be shot at before killing Greedo. The point George somehow completely missed is not that this was a cold-blooded killing inappropriate in your hero, but that it shows Han could have become a bad guy unless he had met up with Luke & Ben. In many ways the ‘second’ trilogy is about redemption. Not just Anakin’s, but Han’s, too.
Thanks for giving it back to us, Mr Lucas.
So, George Lucas seems to have finally listened to his fans and is to release unaltered editions of the original Star Wars Trilogy on DVD. News here: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/news20060503.html
It’s probably too late for a lot of us as owners of the original video tapes who were technically savvy enough already transferred them, but it’s nice to know that he’s listening.
That said, I do think there were actually some improvements here and there and all of them are exactly the kind of thing CG imagery is actually good at. The improved vistas in Cloud City, for example, or the new shot of Jabba’s sail barge were great. We don’t actually need to see the “Emperor’s Slugs” and, though it was nice to have the right face on the hologramme of him in Empire the new lines were so clunky as to be embarrassing.
But the badly-done Jabba scene – which he was right to cut in the first place – is going and, most importantly: Han shoots first!
That last always showed me how little George actually understood his own characters and just how much he undermined the Solo character by having him sit there meekly and wait to be shot at before killing Greedo. The point George somehow completely missed is not that this was a cold-blooded killing inappropriate in your hero, but that it shows Han could have become a bad guy unless he had met up with Luke & Ben. In many ways the ‘second’ trilogy is about redemption. Not just Anakin’s, but Han’s, too.
Thanks for giving it back to us, Mr Lucas.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Review: Merlin's Apprentice
Review: Merlin's Apprentice
This sequel to 2003's Merlin follows the main rule of the sequel: it's crap.
There's not a single redeeming feature in this ill-advised piece of drivel. It's badly written, directed, acted and thoroughly cheap. Most of the effects are old-fashioned lights and pyrotechnics, armies are represented by 10 extras. Every cliché of word, stunt, performance, costume and camera is used.
The story manages to be trite, clichéd and confused all at once. The usually reliable Sam Neill looks like he’s barely keeping his face straight a lot of the time and Miranda Richadrson is wasted. I can see the idea of keeping her as the villain of the piece, but surely her character could have been the same one? Or does every evil woman in this world have the same face?
Frankly (which I just appropriately typo’ed as ‘Rankly’), I can’t be bothered talking about this turd of a production. Avoid like a persistent floater in the local swimming pool.
This sequel to 2003's Merlin follows the main rule of the sequel: it's crap.
There's not a single redeeming feature in this ill-advised piece of drivel. It's badly written, directed, acted and thoroughly cheap. Most of the effects are old-fashioned lights and pyrotechnics, armies are represented by 10 extras. Every cliché of word, stunt, performance, costume and camera is used.
The story manages to be trite, clichéd and confused all at once. The usually reliable Sam Neill looks like he’s barely keeping his face straight a lot of the time and Miranda Richadrson is wasted. I can see the idea of keeping her as the villain of the piece, but surely her character could have been the same one? Or does every evil woman in this world have the same face?
Frankly (which I just appropriately typo’ed as ‘Rankly’), I can’t be bothered talking about this turd of a production. Avoid like a persistent floater in the local swimming pool.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
It's official -- beans make you fart - Yahoo! News UK
Under the heading of 'No Shit, Sherlock!'
It's official -- beans make you fart - Yahoo! News UK
They actually went to court over this?
It's official -- beans make you fart - Yahoo! News UK
They actually went to court over this?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Low-flying bomber disperses mob
BBC NEWS Scotland Low-flying bomber disperses mob
Can we have these to deal with the local neds?
Please?
Can we have these to deal with the local neds?
Please?
Saturday, March 18, 2006
"South Park" battle over Scientology heats up - Yahoo! News UK
"South Park" battle over Scientology heats up - Yahoo! News UK
A storm in a teacup or a symptom of the increase in religious fundamentalism and intolerance?
It seems to me that Isaac Hayes was happy enough to lampoon religion as long as it wasn't his religion which was the butt of the joke.
Did TC use his influence to get the show pulled? I don't know and I'm tempted to say I don't care, but that would be a bad attitude to take to this isue. Why? Because, if true, it is another example of a network censoring their output die to pressure froma minority and that is becomong a big problem.
Other religions - especially minority ones for whom such a stushie can give world-wide exposure - have seen the influence over the media that Islam has gained through the intolerance and threats and they want the same 'respect'. That favourite phrase of the politician, the slippery slope is particularly apt here and the appeasement of Islamic fundamentalists was the top of it. We've come a long way from the days of the Inquisition. Religious fanatics want to see us return to it and we mustn't let it happen.
A storm in a teacup or a symptom of the increase in religious fundamentalism and intolerance?
It seems to me that Isaac Hayes was happy enough to lampoon religion as long as it wasn't his religion which was the butt of the joke.
Did TC use his influence to get the show pulled? I don't know and I'm tempted to say I don't care, but that would be a bad attitude to take to this isue. Why? Because, if true, it is another example of a network censoring their output die to pressure froma minority and that is becomong a big problem.
Other religions - especially minority ones for whom such a stushie can give world-wide exposure - have seen the influence over the media that Islam has gained through the intolerance and threats and they want the same 'respect'. That favourite phrase of the politician, the slippery slope is particularly apt here and the appeasement of Islamic fundamentalists was the top of it. We've come a long way from the days of the Inquisition. Religious fanatics want to see us return to it and we mustn't let it happen.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Theaters may ask to jam cell phones - Yahoo! News
Theaters may ask to jam cell phones - Yahoo! News
And about time, too if you ask me. Though I do recall a previous attempt to do this being blocked over concerns of the jammers interfering with the operation of pacemakers. Maybe they've found a way around that.
Maybe the faulty ticker brigade are just going to have to take one for the team and stick to DVDs.
And about time, too if you ask me. Though I do recall a previous attempt to do this being blocked over concerns of the jammers interfering with the operation of pacemakers. Maybe they've found a way around that.
Maybe the faulty ticker brigade are just going to have to take one for the team and stick to DVDs.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Review V for Vendetta
Review: V for Vendetta
I find myself in disagreement with Jonathan Ross more and more often these days. I used t find that our tastes pretty much coincided on films. Much more so that I did with his predecessor, Barry Norman. So when he was so viciously scathing about this film I very nearly decided not to bother going to the press screening.
How glad I was that I decided to make up my own mind.
I found this to be a thoroughly enjoyable couple of hours. It has more depth than the average comic-book story and its ambiguous politics and morals appeal to me much more than the usual squeaky-clean superhero flick. The action scenes are generally well-paced and appropriate to the piece and have not succumbed to the temptation of going overboard just because it can be done. Since I’d heard that Alan Moore had his name removed from the credits I even went off and read his graphic novel before I wrote the review. I don’t really see what his problem is with it.
Unless it’s that, in some ways, the film’s better…?
Not wildly or completely better, you understand, but there are distinct improvements in plotting, tension and just being able to follow who’s who. Because of the way a large part of the film-going audience are presumed to be by studios (i.e. stupid) it has a clearer villain and a more satisfying dénouement. The bad guys are badder and the good not quite so grey. I don’t think anything was gained in the GN by having the police inspector take drugs and end up a tramp. I thought Evey taking on the mask was good in the GN, but probably better not done in the film as it would probably have seemed more clichéd there. I was offended by the awful attempt at representing a Scots accent and more-so by having all the tramps in the GN being given one.
The acting is excellent, especially from the estimable Mr Weaving who not only carries off being masked throughout the entire film, but shows a surprising subtlety and breadth of emotion whilst being deprived of all the tools actors mostly rely upon. Like C-3PO and Darth Vader’s masks before it, V’s mask with its fixed expression is a masterpiece of the sculptor’s art. The mind wants to see more, so the bland expression can be interpreted in many ways by the viewer’s imagination, but this in no way detracts from what the actor has added to it.
There are, however, some problems.
I’m afraid that Natalie Portman’s accent is a little weird for someone who has supposedly never left London. Seems to veer into Australian rather frequently, and Stephen Rea lets his Irish brogue drift in from time-to-time as well. Now, they do make a comment about his mother being Irish, but the point is that it’s his mother who was. Not him, and he wasn’t brought up there. Of course, due to the American influence on the film there is no comprehension of the difference between British and the nationalities which make up the discrete groups who comprise it. Hence all the references, apart from that one about Rea’s mother, to the relationship between England and the other nations of the United Kingdom have been excised. This leads to that awful use of ‘England’ when ‘Britain’ is meant and vice-versa.
Whilst the fights are good and V is shown to be thoroughly skilled, but not super-powered, there are a few problems. Especially in the seeming ability of bladed weapons to penetrate anti-stab vests. I don’t know why the police bother to wear them in this film as it seems even a thrown knife will cut through them as easily as a cotton t-shirt.
Steven Fry’s character is an excellent invention, drawing comparisons to those who helped the targets of the Nazis to hide during WWII and showing that even in such an oppressive police state with deeply intrusive powers (just like Tony & his cronies seem to want in real life) people will still try to do good things. One does rather wonder, though, how he got his seditious programme made and transmitted. John Hurt is, as always masterful and it I extremely weird for anyone who enjoyed his performance in 1984 to see him playing a very Big Brother-ish character.
Neither this film with its pat ending or the Graphic Novel with its ambiguous finale are perfect. Both serve the tale well for their particular medium, though and V for Vendetta is a more than acceptable way to pass a little time. If either can provoke some debate or even a doubt in some minds about the current use of the politics of fear and our government’s erosion of civil liberties even better, for both do so without the liberal partisanship of the likes of The Road to Guantanamo.
PS Why is it that trailer-editors are so keen to give away the end of a film? If you watch any trailer for this film you will realise very quickly that you have seen V’s objective reached before you got into the cinema. Moving this objective gave the film a more concrete objective than that of the GN and leaving it to Miss Portman’s character to decide what to do is a better story choice than in the original but any tension about whether or not she’ll do it is ruined by the trailer which delights in showing the target explode. Alright, it’s not really in too much doubt because we all want the satisfying bang and the whole film builds up to it, but there are other explosions in the film, other equally dramatic shots, so why not use them instead of giving the game away?
I find myself in disagreement with Jonathan Ross more and more often these days. I used t find that our tastes pretty much coincided on films. Much more so that I did with his predecessor, Barry Norman. So when he was so viciously scathing about this film I very nearly decided not to bother going to the press screening.
How glad I was that I decided to make up my own mind.
I found this to be a thoroughly enjoyable couple of hours. It has more depth than the average comic-book story and its ambiguous politics and morals appeal to me much more than the usual squeaky-clean superhero flick. The action scenes are generally well-paced and appropriate to the piece and have not succumbed to the temptation of going overboard just because it can be done. Since I’d heard that Alan Moore had his name removed from the credits I even went off and read his graphic novel before I wrote the review. I don’t really see what his problem is with it.
Unless it’s that, in some ways, the film’s better…?
Not wildly or completely better, you understand, but there are distinct improvements in plotting, tension and just being able to follow who’s who. Because of the way a large part of the film-going audience are presumed to be by studios (i.e. stupid) it has a clearer villain and a more satisfying dénouement. The bad guys are badder and the good not quite so grey. I don’t think anything was gained in the GN by having the police inspector take drugs and end up a tramp. I thought Evey taking on the mask was good in the GN, but probably better not done in the film as it would probably have seemed more clichéd there. I was offended by the awful attempt at representing a Scots accent and more-so by having all the tramps in the GN being given one.
The acting is excellent, especially from the estimable Mr Weaving who not only carries off being masked throughout the entire film, but shows a surprising subtlety and breadth of emotion whilst being deprived of all the tools actors mostly rely upon. Like C-3PO and Darth Vader’s masks before it, V’s mask with its fixed expression is a masterpiece of the sculptor’s art. The mind wants to see more, so the bland expression can be interpreted in many ways by the viewer’s imagination, but this in no way detracts from what the actor has added to it.
There are, however, some problems.
I’m afraid that Natalie Portman’s accent is a little weird for someone who has supposedly never left London. Seems to veer into Australian rather frequently, and Stephen Rea lets his Irish brogue drift in from time-to-time as well. Now, they do make a comment about his mother being Irish, but the point is that it’s his mother who was. Not him, and he wasn’t brought up there. Of course, due to the American influence on the film there is no comprehension of the difference between British and the nationalities which make up the discrete groups who comprise it. Hence all the references, apart from that one about Rea’s mother, to the relationship between England and the other nations of the United Kingdom have been excised. This leads to that awful use of ‘England’ when ‘Britain’ is meant and vice-versa.
Whilst the fights are good and V is shown to be thoroughly skilled, but not super-powered, there are a few problems. Especially in the seeming ability of bladed weapons to penetrate anti-stab vests. I don’t know why the police bother to wear them in this film as it seems even a thrown knife will cut through them as easily as a cotton t-shirt.
Steven Fry’s character is an excellent invention, drawing comparisons to those who helped the targets of the Nazis to hide during WWII and showing that even in such an oppressive police state with deeply intrusive powers (just like Tony & his cronies seem to want in real life) people will still try to do good things. One does rather wonder, though, how he got his seditious programme made and transmitted. John Hurt is, as always masterful and it I extremely weird for anyone who enjoyed his performance in 1984 to see him playing a very Big Brother-ish character.
Neither this film with its pat ending or the Graphic Novel with its ambiguous finale are perfect. Both serve the tale well for their particular medium, though and V for Vendetta is a more than acceptable way to pass a little time. If either can provoke some debate or even a doubt in some minds about the current use of the politics of fear and our government’s erosion of civil liberties even better, for both do so without the liberal partisanship of the likes of The Road to Guantanamo.
PS Why is it that trailer-editors are so keen to give away the end of a film? If you watch any trailer for this film you will realise very quickly that you have seen V’s objective reached before you got into the cinema. Moving this objective gave the film a more concrete objective than that of the GN and leaving it to Miss Portman’s character to decide what to do is a better story choice than in the original but any tension about whether or not she’ll do it is ruined by the trailer which delights in showing the target explode. Alright, it’s not really in too much doubt because we all want the satisfying bang and the whole film builds up to it, but there are other explosions in the film, other equally dramatic shots, so why not use them instead of giving the game away?
Who Wants HD/Digital?
Who Wants HD & Digital TV?
. I could hardly be called a Luddite as I truly love my gadgets (Except when they all seem to conspire to screw up my life, that is), so to find myself actually being against advances is something of a novelty for me.
Last night’s Gadget Show on Channel Five really got me thinking about the so-called digital revolution. I mean, who really wants it? You see, they did a group test of some HD-ready tellies and the best comment that the presenters could come up with when talking about the winner was that they ‘…could live with…’ its picture. Hardly a glowing recommendation, really. It seems that, although only plasma and LCD screens are going to be HD-TV compatible neither is actually up to the job.
As for the programming we’re going to get do we actually want it? Yes, it’s nice to have access to sport if you’re into it, or movies on demand. I could possibly be persuaded to watch the Sci-Fi channel, but experience has shown that more channels simply generate more crap. And cheap crap at that. I have this pet theory that, as society has become more insular, many have switched to soaps as being their actual contact with other people. As we have progressively less contact with our neighbours and our families many of us adopt the soaps as a sort of surrogate. They’re who we gossip about, worry about and relate to, to the extent that many viewers seem to be unable to distinguish actors from characters. The stories some of my friends tell about having to deal with idiots who take them to task about their character’s behaviour are legion, and many of them are in ways and at times which most decent people wouldn’t even think of doing to their real families! So there’s no advantage to us in that, really. Plus, previously what kept many of us in conversation were shared events on TV. Look at how many tuned in to Dallas to see JR get shot and ho big an event that was. There’s nothing – and I include the execrable Big Brother in this –that compares. Telly was, believe it or not, one of the few remaining social glues in Western society. Multi-channel TV viewing patterns make the likes of that impossible already. Why would we want even more?
Speaking of digital, the analogue switch-off is being forced on us with no apparent consultation, at huge cost and is, in the UK being extensively funded by the TV licence. It doesn’t even work particularly well yet and the signal coverage is pants with no extra transmitters being planned. So, again; why? Who really wants all these things?
They’re even putting TV onto phones now. Or beginning to. I think that once they start pursuing people for a TV Licence for their phone that route will be killed stone dead. Who in their right mind is going to pay for another licence – because your home licence doesn’t seem to cover you – just to watch slowly-loaded clips on a 2” screen?
. I could hardly be called a Luddite as I truly love my gadgets (Except when they all seem to conspire to screw up my life, that is), so to find myself actually being against advances is something of a novelty for me.
Last night’s Gadget Show on Channel Five really got me thinking about the so-called digital revolution. I mean, who really wants it? You see, they did a group test of some HD-ready tellies and the best comment that the presenters could come up with when talking about the winner was that they ‘…could live with…’ its picture. Hardly a glowing recommendation, really. It seems that, although only plasma and LCD screens are going to be HD-TV compatible neither is actually up to the job.
As for the programming we’re going to get do we actually want it? Yes, it’s nice to have access to sport if you’re into it, or movies on demand. I could possibly be persuaded to watch the Sci-Fi channel, but experience has shown that more channels simply generate more crap. And cheap crap at that. I have this pet theory that, as society has become more insular, many have switched to soaps as being their actual contact with other people. As we have progressively less contact with our neighbours and our families many of us adopt the soaps as a sort of surrogate. They’re who we gossip about, worry about and relate to, to the extent that many viewers seem to be unable to distinguish actors from characters. The stories some of my friends tell about having to deal with idiots who take them to task about their character’s behaviour are legion, and many of them are in ways and at times which most decent people wouldn’t even think of doing to their real families! So there’s no advantage to us in that, really. Plus, previously what kept many of us in conversation were shared events on TV. Look at how many tuned in to Dallas to see JR get shot and ho big an event that was. There’s nothing – and I include the execrable Big Brother in this –that compares. Telly was, believe it or not, one of the few remaining social glues in Western society. Multi-channel TV viewing patterns make the likes of that impossible already. Why would we want even more?
Speaking of digital, the analogue switch-off is being forced on us with no apparent consultation, at huge cost and is, in the UK being extensively funded by the TV licence. It doesn’t even work particularly well yet and the signal coverage is pants with no extra transmitters being planned. So, again; why? Who really wants all these things?
They’re even putting TV onto phones now. Or beginning to. I think that once they start pursuing people for a TV Licence for their phone that route will be killed stone dead. Who in their right mind is going to pay for another licence – because your home licence doesn’t seem to cover you – just to watch slowly-loaded clips on a 2” screen?
Seeking Ancient Thrills
Seeking Ancient Thrills
As I was watching this evening’s programme about ‘shocking art’ I was struck by how much it seemed that some of the participants were clearly tuning into some ancient way of testing and challenging themselves. Especially those who were involved in the ‘suspension’ parts of the show.
Clearly there were those who were expressing a fetish for pain and this was really the way that Channel Four has been advertising the programme. A heavy focus on the more fetishistic aspects and the shock aspects in the advertising for the show clearly seem to be attempting to appeal to the prurient tastes of the audience.
Yet I was left thinking about those who were basically following ancient tribal rites about pain and self-testing, those rites of passage which seem barbaric and pointless to most of us seem to be stimulating a growing section of the modern, western populace. Are we so devoid of ways to challenge and confront ourselves that we are looking into our primitive past for ways to do so? In an increasingly nannying state we have seen the rise of so-called extreme sports and generally silly practices like bungee jumping. Base-jumping, free-running and so on all seem to me to be expressions of a need to challenge ourselves and our environment and that so many of these activities are at least frowned upon makes them all the more thrilling to their participants.
I’m doing some fight directing later in the week for a major TV series. The ‘fight’ is, as they are in many UK dramas, so brief and minor as to be a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it affair. In fact, I think my presence for it is almost entirely pointless and is costing the production money just to shut up insurers. Insurance and risk-assessment is making everyday life almost impossible. I have to do a risk assessment for pulling someone around and having them flinch back and pretend to hit their head on a wall and by the time I’ve worked out every possible – but extremely unlikely – eventuality and made the actors aware of them, I’ll have them so scared that they’ll likely be very awkward when it comes time to perform the action. In this state they’ll be more rather than less likely to have an accident and will respond to minor pain stimuli in a more extreme way than they would otherwise, because they’re anticipating it and will therefore subconsciously add to any minor impact they feel. All of which adds to the difficulty of my job, their job and all the crew’s jobs because it will be more difficult to get anything done quickly. And all because of insurance. Not that I should complain; if the insurers weren’t like this I’d get a lot less work, though what I would get would be more interesting.
Glasgow Libraries are introducing free wireless connection to the ‘net at all libraries. So far only three are capable of it and I tried to use one last week. I couldn’t because the council’s health & safety bods had been around and had covered up all the power sockets because they were worried about people plugging in untested electrical equipment. Seems we just might blow up the whole library or something. Now apart from the fact that the tests an item would be subjected to to be cleared by this body for use are the same ones that the manufacturers use before they leave the plant is one thing, but do they really think that there is any way on this earth that people will send off the power supplies for their computers to be tested by the council before they can be used? Of course they won’t, so a great initiative will be strangled at birth by a foolish interpretation of a regulation.
There are already ‘organisations’ in America pressuring for legislation to ‘protect’ people from using their own bodies in this way. For ‘protect’ read ‘prevent’ and you’ll get what’s really on their mind. It’s that whole thing of not understanding it, so it must be bad, so we’d better ban it. I don’t feel the need to hang myself from a meat hook to make myself feel alive. I think that the people cutting themselves in front of audiences and calling it ‘art’ are self-deluding, pretentious and essentially un-talented. But it’s their choice to do so and the choice of their audience to chose to view it and to take from it what they will. It is not the place of the government, the council or some right-wing prude hiding behind protecting children to impose their views on them.
Human beings need challenge. We need to find a way to make us feel alive and if regressing to some ritual from our tribal past does that for some of us then who are the rest of us to say it’s wrong?
As I was watching this evening’s programme about ‘shocking art’ I was struck by how much it seemed that some of the participants were clearly tuning into some ancient way of testing and challenging themselves. Especially those who were involved in the ‘suspension’ parts of the show.
Clearly there were those who were expressing a fetish for pain and this was really the way that Channel Four has been advertising the programme. A heavy focus on the more fetishistic aspects and the shock aspects in the advertising for the show clearly seem to be attempting to appeal to the prurient tastes of the audience.
Yet I was left thinking about those who were basically following ancient tribal rites about pain and self-testing, those rites of passage which seem barbaric and pointless to most of us seem to be stimulating a growing section of the modern, western populace. Are we so devoid of ways to challenge and confront ourselves that we are looking into our primitive past for ways to do so? In an increasingly nannying state we have seen the rise of so-called extreme sports and generally silly practices like bungee jumping. Base-jumping, free-running and so on all seem to me to be expressions of a need to challenge ourselves and our environment and that so many of these activities are at least frowned upon makes them all the more thrilling to their participants.
I’m doing some fight directing later in the week for a major TV series. The ‘fight’ is, as they are in many UK dramas, so brief and minor as to be a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it affair. In fact, I think my presence for it is almost entirely pointless and is costing the production money just to shut up insurers. Insurance and risk-assessment is making everyday life almost impossible. I have to do a risk assessment for pulling someone around and having them flinch back and pretend to hit their head on a wall and by the time I’ve worked out every possible – but extremely unlikely – eventuality and made the actors aware of them, I’ll have them so scared that they’ll likely be very awkward when it comes time to perform the action. In this state they’ll be more rather than less likely to have an accident and will respond to minor pain stimuli in a more extreme way than they would otherwise, because they’re anticipating it and will therefore subconsciously add to any minor impact they feel. All of which adds to the difficulty of my job, their job and all the crew’s jobs because it will be more difficult to get anything done quickly. And all because of insurance. Not that I should complain; if the insurers weren’t like this I’d get a lot less work, though what I would get would be more interesting.
Glasgow Libraries are introducing free wireless connection to the ‘net at all libraries. So far only three are capable of it and I tried to use one last week. I couldn’t because the council’s health & safety bods had been around and had covered up all the power sockets because they were worried about people plugging in untested electrical equipment. Seems we just might blow up the whole library or something. Now apart from the fact that the tests an item would be subjected to to be cleared by this body for use are the same ones that the manufacturers use before they leave the plant is one thing, but do they really think that there is any way on this earth that people will send off the power supplies for their computers to be tested by the council before they can be used? Of course they won’t, so a great initiative will be strangled at birth by a foolish interpretation of a regulation.
There are already ‘organisations’ in America pressuring for legislation to ‘protect’ people from using their own bodies in this way. For ‘protect’ read ‘prevent’ and you’ll get what’s really on their mind. It’s that whole thing of not understanding it, so it must be bad, so we’d better ban it. I don’t feel the need to hang myself from a meat hook to make myself feel alive. I think that the people cutting themselves in front of audiences and calling it ‘art’ are self-deluding, pretentious and essentially un-talented. But it’s their choice to do so and the choice of their audience to chose to view it and to take from it what they will. It is not the place of the government, the council or some right-wing prude hiding behind protecting children to impose their views on them.
Human beings need challenge. We need to find a way to make us feel alive and if regressing to some ritual from our tribal past does that for some of us then who are the rest of us to say it’s wrong?
Monday, March 13, 2006
If It Were You or I
If It Were You or I We’d be Arrested
Sir Ian Blair is fast becoming as big a joke as Dubya. He certainly seems to make about as many gaffes.
Problem is that this guy’s in charge of the Metropolitan Police. From his cack-handed response to the shooting of Mr Menezes, through to the outrageously insensitive comments about the murders of Jessica Simpson and Holly Wells (not to mention the inept and inadequate apology for it) he’s given us all much to ponder. Not least about how someone so apparently self-seeking and incompetent managed to get the job in the first place.
He’s recently been caught out recording conversations with the Lord Advocate and others. Now, apart from the level of mistrust and paranoia that shows which is worrying enough in someone holding his position and would seem to indicate that he holds the Lord Advocate to be on a par with terrorists. After all, it’s to catch terrorists that he wants the right to tap our phones with impunity and without a warrant. If he’s already doing bugging his political masters, then it seems likely that he’ll have no compunction doing so to the rest of us.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t secretly recording a telephone conversation a criminal offence? My answering machine can do it, but in the manual it quite clearly states that you are required to inform the other person that you are doing so and it beeps every 15 seconds to remind them that it is being done. Now that Sir Ian has been caught doing so and has admitted it publicly, shouldn’t he be getting charged?
Sir Ian Blair is fast becoming as big a joke as Dubya. He certainly seems to make about as many gaffes.
Problem is that this guy’s in charge of the Metropolitan Police. From his cack-handed response to the shooting of Mr Menezes, through to the outrageously insensitive comments about the murders of Jessica Simpson and Holly Wells (not to mention the inept and inadequate apology for it) he’s given us all much to ponder. Not least about how someone so apparently self-seeking and incompetent managed to get the job in the first place.
He’s recently been caught out recording conversations with the Lord Advocate and others. Now, apart from the level of mistrust and paranoia that shows which is worrying enough in someone holding his position and would seem to indicate that he holds the Lord Advocate to be on a par with terrorists. After all, it’s to catch terrorists that he wants the right to tap our phones with impunity and without a warrant. If he’s already doing bugging his political masters, then it seems likely that he’ll have no compunction doing so to the rest of us.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t secretly recording a telephone conversation a criminal offence? My answering machine can do it, but in the manual it quite clearly states that you are required to inform the other person that you are doing so and it beeps every 15 seconds to remind them that it is being done. Now that Sir Ian has been caught doing so and has admitted it publicly, shouldn’t he be getting charged?
Friday, February 17, 2006
Why Do Computer Mags Hate PDAs?
What Is It With Computer Magazines?
During my present bout of insomnia I've been reading PC Advisor, which is, in my opinion, a pretty good publication. Apart from the fact that it pretty much ignores PDAs. I can't help but wonder why this might be. Surely computer owners and enthusiasts are likely users of these great little machines?
It can't be a prejudice against small computers as they do extensive reviews of laptops. It can't be that there's so much coverage in specialist magazines that there's no point in trying to compete with them as there're only two in the UK market. Yet if there's any comment on PDAs at all it's usually so brief you could be forgiven for thinking that they're trying to fit it into something with severe memory constraints.
No, I think that there is at best, a blindness and at worst, a prejudice towards the machines in the computer press. But why? Why are laptops seemingly accepted when PDAs are not?
I think it's because despite the fact that they should know better, they do share the general public's perception of them as pointless gadgets and a waste of time. To most people the PDA is nothing more than a glorified filofax©. That was true, once upon a time. My Sharp IQ 7000 was nothing more than an electronic diary. Its ABC keyboard was painfully slow for inputting data. Yet that was fifteen years ago and the scorn and comments heaped upon my Axim 50v are pretty much unchanged in that decade and a half.
Unlike the PDA.
My present machine-only my third- has 128 times more RAM than my first computer did and I can't begin to calculate how much faster the processor is. It plays music and video-all the way up to full movies. It plays games-well, it should; it has a graphics card. I can do my accounts on the fly, write letters, write and send e-mail, read books, surf the web, run a GPS system, plan a trip, operate anything with a remote control and even translate both in writing and just by speaking to it.
It even still serves me as a Filofax©. Except no paper diary backs itself up, rings alarms or dials the number I just looked up.
So why the scorn? Why are these great devices all-but ignored not only by computer journalists but by computer shops? Go into your local PC World and see if you can find the PDAs without a map. I guarantee you that they'll be in the most obscure corner, low down and probably bolted into a display so that you can't handle them. They won't have any extra software added so the they can show off their abilities, either.
Can you imagine a multi-media PC or laptop sitting on a shelf with only Outlook installed to let the world know what they can do? Joe Public would never put one in his house. No, they come with lovely little demo discs that let anyone walking past see them singing, dancing and playing Quake. Mind you, it's not entirely the shops' fault; the manufacturers don't send out demo machines with stuff like that pre-installed, and you can hardly expect the stores to set up PCs to install software to the PDA they can't sell because it's had to be used as a demo model. How hard would it be to send out a SD card with a demo of some description installed on that?
So, the teenage wage-slave doesn't know what they do or are capable of. They can’t demonstrate them and so they add to the notion that all they can be is a glorified diary. The magazines rarely refer to them at all and when they do these days it's usually about the 'death' of the PDA. Apparently, smartphones are now so good that there's no need for a separate device. Not for me. I like my phone and my PDA being separate. Much of the time just having one device would be fine, but I don't want my PDA when I go out for the evening, for example.
My phone and my PDA both exchange the same data with my PC, so I'm triple-backed up. I'm not going to lose all my details if one or other device goes missing or breaks down. If my phone rings I don't need to stop whatever I'm doing to answer it. Which would be a particular pain if I were using a separate keyboard. Because of the form factor of phones they tend to have smaller screens, so watching films on them is a poor experience.
Why not use a laptop if I'm on the move? Quite simply, for most people and most purposes they're just too powerful. Most people on the move do a bit of text editing, some number crunching and maybe run some presentations. I can do all of that with a device that fits into my briefcase instead of needing its own to be carried around in. Remember I mentioned insomnia? I've just written this in bed without disturbing my wife or having to get up. Try that with a laptop.
During my present bout of insomnia I've been reading PC Advisor, which is, in my opinion, a pretty good publication. Apart from the fact that it pretty much ignores PDAs. I can't help but wonder why this might be. Surely computer owners and enthusiasts are likely users of these great little machines?
It can't be a prejudice against small computers as they do extensive reviews of laptops. It can't be that there's so much coverage in specialist magazines that there's no point in trying to compete with them as there're only two in the UK market. Yet if there's any comment on PDAs at all it's usually so brief you could be forgiven for thinking that they're trying to fit it into something with severe memory constraints.
No, I think that there is at best, a blindness and at worst, a prejudice towards the machines in the computer press. But why? Why are laptops seemingly accepted when PDAs are not?
I think it's because despite the fact that they should know better, they do share the general public's perception of them as pointless gadgets and a waste of time. To most people the PDA is nothing more than a glorified filofax©. That was true, once upon a time. My Sharp IQ 7000 was nothing more than an electronic diary. Its ABC keyboard was painfully slow for inputting data. Yet that was fifteen years ago and the scorn and comments heaped upon my Axim 50v are pretty much unchanged in that decade and a half.
Unlike the PDA.
My present machine-only my third- has 128 times more RAM than my first computer did and I can't begin to calculate how much faster the processor is. It plays music and video-all the way up to full movies. It plays games-well, it should; it has a graphics card. I can do my accounts on the fly, write letters, write and send e-mail, read books, surf the web, run a GPS system, plan a trip, operate anything with a remote control and even translate both in writing and just by speaking to it.
It even still serves me as a Filofax©. Except no paper diary backs itself up, rings alarms or dials the number I just looked up.
So why the scorn? Why are these great devices all-but ignored not only by computer journalists but by computer shops? Go into your local PC World and see if you can find the PDAs without a map. I guarantee you that they'll be in the most obscure corner, low down and probably bolted into a display so that you can't handle them. They won't have any extra software added so the they can show off their abilities, either.
Can you imagine a multi-media PC or laptop sitting on a shelf with only Outlook installed to let the world know what they can do? Joe Public would never put one in his house. No, they come with lovely little demo discs that let anyone walking past see them singing, dancing and playing Quake. Mind you, it's not entirely the shops' fault; the manufacturers don't send out demo machines with stuff like that pre-installed, and you can hardly expect the stores to set up PCs to install software to the PDA they can't sell because it's had to be used as a demo model. How hard would it be to send out a SD card with a demo of some description installed on that?
So, the teenage wage-slave doesn't know what they do or are capable of. They can’t demonstrate them and so they add to the notion that all they can be is a glorified diary. The magazines rarely refer to them at all and when they do these days it's usually about the 'death' of the PDA. Apparently, smartphones are now so good that there's no need for a separate device. Not for me. I like my phone and my PDA being separate. Much of the time just having one device would be fine, but I don't want my PDA when I go out for the evening, for example.
My phone and my PDA both exchange the same data with my PC, so I'm triple-backed up. I'm not going to lose all my details if one or other device goes missing or breaks down. If my phone rings I don't need to stop whatever I'm doing to answer it. Which would be a particular pain if I were using a separate keyboard. Because of the form factor of phones they tend to have smaller screens, so watching films on them is a poor experience.
Why not use a laptop if I'm on the move? Quite simply, for most people and most purposes they're just too powerful. Most people on the move do a bit of text editing, some number crunching and maybe run some presentations. I can do all of that with a device that fits into my briefcase instead of needing its own to be carried around in. Remember I mentioned insomnia? I've just written this in bed without disturbing my wife or having to get up. Try that with a laptop.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Do you love your Saint?
I knew the religious types were a bit weird, but this is ridiculous!
http://www.philosophersguild.com/index.lasso?page_mode=Product_Detail&item=0195
http://www.philosophersguild.com/index.lasso?page_mode=Product_Detail&item=0195
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Technical Difficulties
At the moment, I’m having some mild technical difficulties getting my articles from my PDA, where they’re usually written, into my PC for uploading. It should all be automatic, but I’ve just noticed it’s not happening and I’m trying to figure out why. I think it has something to do with the idiosyncratic file structure that PPCs use. I’ll get to it soon.
Promise.
(I once tried uploading directly from the Axim to Blogger, but they really hate each other. Blogger crashes my Axim. If anyone more technically savvy than I am – not hard – could explain why, I’d love to know.)
Promise.
(I once tried uploading directly from the Axim to Blogger, but they really hate each other. Blogger crashes my Axim. If anyone more technically savvy than I am – not hard – could explain why, I’d love to know.)
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Set-top Spies?
After reading this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4614598.stm
I wondered if it’ll mean the little bastards will start reporting non-licence fee payers to the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4614598.stm
I wondered if it’ll mean the little bastards will start reporting non-licence fee payers to the BBC?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Train Etiquette
Train Etiquette
I reckon that the audition went well and I've even managed to get back to the station early enough to beat the proscription on cheap-day return tickets from Edinburgh. As it happens, the train I'm on has been delayed from about an hour ago and it's absolutely stowed.
Yet the number of people trying to hog double seats is amazing. As is the number of people who will stand for an hour rather than ask any of these selfish morons to move themselves or their luggage. Being an awkward sod, I have no such compunctions and you should have seen the look I got from the business-type hoping that the old broadsheet trick would guarantee him all the space on this side of the table.
Actually, whilst I was sitting looking at the blank screen trying to think of something to write, his antics with the paper inspired this little diatribe. Since sitting, and whilst setting up the Axim and keyboard to write on, I've been shouldered, bumped and huffed at as he tried to dominate the now-shared space. When it became clear that I wasn't to be squeezed into the corner he then tried leaning across the table and the poor lady opposite practically got the top of the broadsheeet up her nose as his territorial expansion efforts shifted from the lateral to the forward. When that didn't work he leant out into the aisle.
It really has been quite funny and, in its way, identical to any ned trying to control those around him and intimidate them by intruding upon their personal space. Society looks upon the ned as some sort of anti-social delinquent with no idea of how to behave in public. They're brought up that way; noone teaches them any manners.
What's the excuse of the business-types etc who, despite the thirty-odd people standing in this carriage, are still hogging a seat for themselves and one for their luggage?
I reckon that the audition went well and I've even managed to get back to the station early enough to beat the proscription on cheap-day return tickets from Edinburgh. As it happens, the train I'm on has been delayed from about an hour ago and it's absolutely stowed.
Yet the number of people trying to hog double seats is amazing. As is the number of people who will stand for an hour rather than ask any of these selfish morons to move themselves or their luggage. Being an awkward sod, I have no such compunctions and you should have seen the look I got from the business-type hoping that the old broadsheet trick would guarantee him all the space on this side of the table.
Actually, whilst I was sitting looking at the blank screen trying to think of something to write, his antics with the paper inspired this little diatribe. Since sitting, and whilst setting up the Axim and keyboard to write on, I've been shouldered, bumped and huffed at as he tried to dominate the now-shared space. When it became clear that I wasn't to be squeezed into the corner he then tried leaning across the table and the poor lady opposite practically got the top of the broadsheeet up her nose as his territorial expansion efforts shifted from the lateral to the forward. When that didn't work he leant out into the aisle.
It really has been quite funny and, in its way, identical to any ned trying to control those around him and intimidate them by intruding upon their personal space. Society looks upon the ned as some sort of anti-social delinquent with no idea of how to behave in public. They're brought up that way; noone teaches them any manners.
What's the excuse of the business-types etc who, despite the thirty-odd people standing in this carriage, are still hogging a seat for themselves and one for their luggage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
