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?
Sunday, January 15, 2006
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?
It Never Rains but it Pours
It Never Rains but it Pours
Well, it's the final week to Xmas and I thought I was pretty sorted. The in-laws had visited at the beginning of the month so we'd done all the family shopping by then. My sister's gift was sussed and there was only the usual torment of trying to figure out my parents' pressies to do. Better yet, I had practically no work booked in for the month so everything I needed to do I had plenty of time for.
Then a role-play got added, then my agent talked me into doing a charity panto' and I finally got the appointment to go get the cyst removed from my head. All this week.
When I actually got to this week it got even worse!
An audition came in at the same time as the role-play, after several hours of running around re-scheduling another audition comes in, but this one's in Edinburgh. More reshuffling until its finally decided that I can't risk the vagaries of public transport so cancel the role-play and the first audition in favour of the newest one in Edinburgh.
It's always like this, though. Every time you think you're sorted out in this business you get times like these. Months without an audition, then several at once, usually timed and/or placed to prevent you from making both of them and all called at the very last minute.
I just want to know what the hell the Universe thinks it's playing at.
Well, it's the final week to Xmas and I thought I was pretty sorted. The in-laws had visited at the beginning of the month so we'd done all the family shopping by then. My sister's gift was sussed and there was only the usual torment of trying to figure out my parents' pressies to do. Better yet, I had practically no work booked in for the month so everything I needed to do I had plenty of time for.
Then a role-play got added, then my agent talked me into doing a charity panto' and I finally got the appointment to go get the cyst removed from my head. All this week.
When I actually got to this week it got even worse!
An audition came in at the same time as the role-play, after several hours of running around re-scheduling another audition comes in, but this one's in Edinburgh. More reshuffling until its finally decided that I can't risk the vagaries of public transport so cancel the role-play and the first audition in favour of the newest one in Edinburgh.
It's always like this, though. Every time you think you're sorted out in this business you get times like these. Months without an audition, then several at once, usually timed and/or placed to prevent you from making both of them and all called at the very last minute.
I just want to know what the hell the Universe thinks it's playing at.
Shotts Panto
Shotts Panto
I mentioned this panto briefly before. It's the second charity panto' I've agreed to do this month, but the only one I'll actually be doing.
It's for prisoners and their children at Shotts Prison and I think that it's a great idea. Many of the cast seem to think it's wrong to do such a thing on the behalf of convicted criminals. Of course, none of them have ever been in prison and they have enough faith in the system to believe that everyone in prison deserves to be there. Oh, and apparently the loss of liberty and dignity associated with it isn't enough punishment; we should be taking any kind of relationship with their children away from them, too.
I've had the misfortune to spend some time inside. I know that there are people for whom there is very little sense of punishment associated with it and that in many ways it is not harsh enough. Whatever your opinion of the prison system is and whatever you think of the prisoners, I'm doing this for the children who are deprived of their fathers at what should be family time of year. They're not to blame and shouldn't be made to suffer any more than is unavoidable.
The sound was dreadful, we were rather under-rehearsed and I think we knda lost the audience after the interval. However, we got a lot of really positive feedback and there were a lot of happy-looking kids when we left.
I’m really glad I did this one.
I mentioned this panto briefly before. It's the second charity panto' I've agreed to do this month, but the only one I'll actually be doing.
It's for prisoners and their children at Shotts Prison and I think that it's a great idea. Many of the cast seem to think it's wrong to do such a thing on the behalf of convicted criminals. Of course, none of them have ever been in prison and they have enough faith in the system to believe that everyone in prison deserves to be there. Oh, and apparently the loss of liberty and dignity associated with it isn't enough punishment; we should be taking any kind of relationship with their children away from them, too.
I've had the misfortune to spend some time inside. I know that there are people for whom there is very little sense of punishment associated with it and that in many ways it is not harsh enough. Whatever your opinion of the prison system is and whatever you think of the prisoners, I'm doing this for the children who are deprived of their fathers at what should be family time of year. They're not to blame and shouldn't be made to suffer any more than is unavoidable.
The sound was dreadful, we were rather under-rehearsed and I think we knda lost the audience after the interval. However, we got a lot of really positive feedback and there were a lot of happy-looking kids when we left.
I’m really glad I did this one.
Ho Ho Ho!
By Erik KirschbaumTue Dec 20,10:39 AM ET
Drunken Santas on a rampage in New Zealand, armed German robbers in Santa disguises, a British St. Nick wanted for flashing, and a Swedish vandal in a Santa outfit are giving the big man in red a bad name this year.
Reports of "Bad Santas" breaking the law or otherwise wreaking havoc have been circulating around the world.
Armed with a gun, a man in a Santa outfit held up a furniture store in the German town of Ludwigshafen Saturday and forced two cashiers to open the safe. He filled his sack with cash, locked the two women in the safe and escaped.
He is still on the loose, but police in Tuebingen were able to nab a bank robber armed with a machine gun in a Santa costume with the aid of an infrared camera and helicopter. They found him hiding in a ditch in a nearby forest.
"The machine gun was fake," a police spokesman said. Dressed in a Santa cap, beard and wearing sun glasses, he was wanted for stealing 500,000 euros in four separate bank robberies.
One Santa was stopped by police for driving 150 kph (90 mph) on a northern German motorway, 50 kph over the speed limit.
"He said he was in a rush because he still had packages to deliver," said a spokesman for the police. They gave Santa a fine and took away his license.
Last week an inebriated half-naked Santa disrupted a Christmas market in Dabringhausen before police intervened.
That incident paled in comparison to what happened in Auckland Saturday when 40 drunken Santas rampaged through the city center, stealing from stores and assaulting security guards in a protest against Christmas becoming too commercial.
In Britain, police said they were looking for a Santa acting suspiciously -- a flasher who exposed himself to women.
Officers in Swanage on the south coast of England said the flasher had struck a number of times since December 6, and a week later exposed himself whilst wearing a Santa Claus outfit.
A British agency recently issued a code of conduct to root out substandard Santas. "Santa is a magical and cuddly man, not a fat, smelly slob," said James Lovell of the Ministry of Fun agency in London. "He must not smell of drink or body odor."
Last Christmas, a shopping center in south Wales installed a webcam dubbed "Santacam" in his grotto to overcome parents' concerns after several high-profile pedophile cases in Britain.
Drunken Santas on a rampage in New Zealand, armed German robbers in Santa disguises, a British St. Nick wanted for flashing, and a Swedish vandal in a Santa outfit are giving the big man in red a bad name this year.
Reports of "Bad Santas" breaking the law or otherwise wreaking havoc have been circulating around the world.
Armed with a gun, a man in a Santa outfit held up a furniture store in the German town of Ludwigshafen Saturday and forced two cashiers to open the safe. He filled his sack with cash, locked the two women in the safe and escaped.
He is still on the loose, but police in Tuebingen were able to nab a bank robber armed with a machine gun in a Santa costume with the aid of an infrared camera and helicopter. They found him hiding in a ditch in a nearby forest.
"The machine gun was fake," a police spokesman said. Dressed in a Santa cap, beard and wearing sun glasses, he was wanted for stealing 500,000 euros in four separate bank robberies.
One Santa was stopped by police for driving 150 kph (90 mph) on a northern German motorway, 50 kph over the speed limit.
"He said he was in a rush because he still had packages to deliver," said a spokesman for the police. They gave Santa a fine and took away his license.
Last week an inebriated half-naked Santa disrupted a Christmas market in Dabringhausen before police intervened.
That incident paled in comparison to what happened in Auckland Saturday when 40 drunken Santas rampaged through the city center, stealing from stores and assaulting security guards in a protest against Christmas becoming too commercial.
In Britain, police said they were looking for a Santa acting suspiciously -- a flasher who exposed himself to women.
Officers in Swanage on the south coast of England said the flasher had struck a number of times since December 6, and a week later exposed himself whilst wearing a Santa Claus outfit.
A British agency recently issued a code of conduct to root out substandard Santas. "Santa is a magical and cuddly man, not a fat, smelly slob," said James Lovell of the Ministry of Fun agency in London. "He must not smell of drink or body odor."
Last Christmas, a shopping center in south Wales installed a webcam dubbed "Santacam" in his grotto to overcome parents' concerns after several high-profile pedophile cases in Britain.
Review Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire
Review: Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire
The Harry Potter Express trundles on and the latest effort hit the cinemas last week. I actually saw it three weeks ago, but I’ve been too busy conquering the ancient world and being visited by the in-laws to write about it. So, other than to say I think it’s the best in the series so far I’m not really going to review it. It’s tight, thrilling, probably too scary for a great many of the children who will be taken to it (I saw it first at a private showing full of RBS staff & their children and there were a great many whimpers of fear during certain passages). Most of the flab has been cut right out – and this was a flabby book that needed a lot more editing than it got – though some good stuff is missing. Neville’s enchanted shoes for one thing.
What I am going to discuss about it is the queasy feeling some scenes gave me. Both scenes regard the sexual undertones between some characters and the age differential between them.
The first, and least worrisome is that between Hermione and Viktor Krum. There’s nothing even slightly worrying about this in the book. However, the choice of actor for Krum makes it a bit disconcerting under the present political climate. He’s too old for her. Now, there are only a few years between the characters. I’ve had bigger age gaps in many of my own relationships and in both directions. Somehow, this just seems wrong. He’s so much more mature looking than any of the other male students in the film, perhaps the addition of a beard adding to that appearance but more than that is Emma Watson’s appearance. More than any of the other girls in the film, when she turns up in her ball gown she looks like a little girl dressed up. Combine his seeming maturity to her look of immaturity and it’s just a little bit off-key.
That disparity pales into insignificance when put next to the Harry/Moaning Myrtle scene in the bath. I can see the attempt at humour of having this ghost turn up and be trying to get a look at Harry’s tackle in the bath. The kids in the audiences I’ve seen it with thought it was funny enough when they caught it. The trouble again is in the casting as the actress playing Myrtle is in her thirties rather than being a teenager. Having her come on to a fourteen year-old in the bath made me feel very uncomfortable. And that was before I found out just how old she is. The sexual overtones in this scene are quite out of place in a film for young children.
I’m prepared to admit that my feelings about these scenes has more to do with the conditioning even I seem to be picking up from the politically correct lobby, but when I’ve mentioned it to others they agree. These are fairly trivial incidents and concerns. I’m actually more concerned with wondering about the effect the conditioning I’ve mentioned and whether or not it is actually colouring my judgement. The recent stories about teacher who have lost their jobs and been criminalised because they snogged boys in their late teens has really made me think about this sort of thing. In the most recent case there was only about five years between the two, there was no implication of anything more than a kiss and, indeed the teacher, said that the second time it happened the boy had forced it. True or not why was this woman turned into what our society sees as the worst type of criminal, the sexual offender?
Any teenage boy who managed to get a kiss from a pretty, young teacher would once have thought of himself as privileged and would have cherished the memory for the rest of his life. It is clear to me that this boy turned this into a complaint of sexual assault in a fit of pique after being rejected.
Put young men, and let’s be clear about their being young men and not children as the press likes to report them (I was pushing six feet at fourteen), and young women in close proximity and there will be occasions where they end up having some kind of relationship. These will either fizzle out or may go on to become a real, actual, affaire. We have to look at the circumstances, the age gap and the maturity of the student before we go stigmatising people for life. Especially when we live in a society that insists on sexualising children through advertising and example at ever-earlier ages.
The Harry Potter Express trundles on and the latest effort hit the cinemas last week. I actually saw it three weeks ago, but I’ve been too busy conquering the ancient world and being visited by the in-laws to write about it. So, other than to say I think it’s the best in the series so far I’m not really going to review it. It’s tight, thrilling, probably too scary for a great many of the children who will be taken to it (I saw it first at a private showing full of RBS staff & their children and there were a great many whimpers of fear during certain passages). Most of the flab has been cut right out – and this was a flabby book that needed a lot more editing than it got – though some good stuff is missing. Neville’s enchanted shoes for one thing.
What I am going to discuss about it is the queasy feeling some scenes gave me. Both scenes regard the sexual undertones between some characters and the age differential between them.
The first, and least worrisome is that between Hermione and Viktor Krum. There’s nothing even slightly worrying about this in the book. However, the choice of actor for Krum makes it a bit disconcerting under the present political climate. He’s too old for her. Now, there are only a few years between the characters. I’ve had bigger age gaps in many of my own relationships and in both directions. Somehow, this just seems wrong. He’s so much more mature looking than any of the other male students in the film, perhaps the addition of a beard adding to that appearance but more than that is Emma Watson’s appearance. More than any of the other girls in the film, when she turns up in her ball gown she looks like a little girl dressed up. Combine his seeming maturity to her look of immaturity and it’s just a little bit off-key.
That disparity pales into insignificance when put next to the Harry/Moaning Myrtle scene in the bath. I can see the attempt at humour of having this ghost turn up and be trying to get a look at Harry’s tackle in the bath. The kids in the audiences I’ve seen it with thought it was funny enough when they caught it. The trouble again is in the casting as the actress playing Myrtle is in her thirties rather than being a teenager. Having her come on to a fourteen year-old in the bath made me feel very uncomfortable. And that was before I found out just how old she is. The sexual overtones in this scene are quite out of place in a film for young children.
I’m prepared to admit that my feelings about these scenes has more to do with the conditioning even I seem to be picking up from the politically correct lobby, but when I’ve mentioned it to others they agree. These are fairly trivial incidents and concerns. I’m actually more concerned with wondering about the effect the conditioning I’ve mentioned and whether or not it is actually colouring my judgement. The recent stories about teacher who have lost their jobs and been criminalised because they snogged boys in their late teens has really made me think about this sort of thing. In the most recent case there was only about five years between the two, there was no implication of anything more than a kiss and, indeed the teacher, said that the second time it happened the boy had forced it. True or not why was this woman turned into what our society sees as the worst type of criminal, the sexual offender?
Any teenage boy who managed to get a kiss from a pretty, young teacher would once have thought of himself as privileged and would have cherished the memory for the rest of his life. It is clear to me that this boy turned this into a complaint of sexual assault in a fit of pique after being rejected.
Put young men, and let’s be clear about their being young men and not children as the press likes to report them (I was pushing six feet at fourteen), and young women in close proximity and there will be occasions where they end up having some kind of relationship. These will either fizzle out or may go on to become a real, actual, affaire. We have to look at the circumstances, the age gap and the maturity of the student before we go stigmatising people for life. Especially when we live in a society that insists on sexualising children through advertising and example at ever-earlier ages.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Review DOOM
Review: DOOM
When Doom first came out I was not a PC owner, so I couldn't play it much; only on visits to my mate's house. I never really got too far through the game, but I'll never forget the effect it could have. Running through dark virtual corridors, never knowing when the next creature attack was coming. You always knew when they were close as you could hear them growling in the distance, catch fleeting glimpses of them around corners and the tension was a world away from the games we had played before. Prior to Doom this type of first-person game required the computer to re-draw the screen after each step taken. One button press took you one pace forward or turned you through 90° and it could become very disorientating. Often the games were as much exercises in mapping as they were in hunting monsters.
Doom was something new. The story was pants, but it was a game and it really only existed as an excuse to run around shooting things. The fact that your character actually had to die at one point to get to hell and continue hunting demons just made it clear how silly the whole enterprise really was. Yet, somehow the effect was more immediate and visceral than any horror movie I had ever watched. I got more genuine scares from turning around a corner and being jumped by a monster I didn't know was there than I ever got in a cinema. There were moments of tension creeping along a corridor listening to those growls that even Hitchcock couldn't have improved upon. Doom was something new and special.
It's been bettered in the gaming world since, even re-made for new, more powerful computers. Now, like many successful gaming franchises it has spawned a movie. In a world where movies of games are uniformly pants (and, oddly enough the reverse is also true, games of movies are usually awful) and totally fail to capture what it was about the original that made it special in the first place, could Doom once more break the mould?
The short answer is; yes.
Now don't go getting too excited. This is not any great cinematic experience. It's not a classic movie, maybe not even a particularly good one. But it does capture the game rather well in that the story's pants and only there as an excuse for several set-piece action sequences and some running around in corridors.
Oh, it's got the usual cinematic conceits, the dumb voice-over to explain the premise for the hard of thinking at the beginning, the compulsion to turn it into an accident caused by genetic experimentation and to stick really unnecessary character conflicts and stereotypes in at every conceivable moment. The dialogue is clunky, often badly delivered and 'The Rock' is a frequent offender in this category. (Odd how he seems to have given up on trying to get people to use his real name, isn't it?) The film is clearly targeted at what the producers think is a typical games-playing audience of teenage boys who listen to death metal. There are several in-jokes about games & gaming. Constant references to things like "getting my game face on." soon become wearing though. Calling one of the characters 'Duke' just has to be referring to one of Doom's rivals/imitators, Duke Nukem.
The game's monsters all make an appearance, though none seem to be able to spit fireballs like they can in the game and having made them genetic mutations instead of demons leaves the audience unsure why there are different types. Indeed, this seemingly minor change leads to many instances of bad science. Apparently, having an extra chromosome pair would turn you into a superhuman, smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantly and injecting blood from an alien who has such an extra chromosomal pairing will result in a spontaneous mutation in homo sapiens and it can tell if you're good or evil and turn you into a super-soldier or a monster accordingly.
One of the big things about Doom was getting bigger and better weapons to deal with bigger and badder monsters. To fit in with the action movie requirement of buff action heroes stripped to the waist punching the living daylights out of one another, there seems to be no real need for the likes of the BFG (yes, it does mean what you think). The monsters, true to the game, stay in the dark, are rarely seen clearly and as a result don't look unrealistic. Something many other users of cgi could do with heeding.
One sequence of the film takes the viewer into the experience of playing Doom by adopting the first person perspective and running through what appears to be a section of the game, including what happens when you die in it. It's all there: the re-loading sequence, the swaying as you run, the occasional glimpses of yourself in reflective surfaces and an appearance of the infamous chainsaw. It's totally cheesy, but it works. Med-packs and even the booster drugs make an appearance, too.
That is, in the end, what makes this film work. It knows what it is, it doesn't try to be something better than that and it makes the most of its strengths. It's good fun, it has a couple of good scares and gross-out moments and it passes away a couple of hours in over the top fantasy. You didn't play Doom expecting depth, characterisation and coherent thought. If you don't expect them from the movie you'll be happy enough.
I liked it.
One coda to that is the scene in which a character self-harms. I think it's there in some feeble attempt to appeal to that sad goth stereotype that the producers tried to appeal to. Lots of kids do that these days, so they'll think it's cool, right? Kids who self-harm don't need to see that being portrayed as acceptable and even noble behaviour.
Here’s a new feature for my reviews. I love nit-picking at crappy logic in films. You know, like in Highlander 2 where Macleod gets Ramirez back from the dead just by calling for him. If he could do that why didn’t he do it in all the time up to now if he missed him so much? Stuff like that. So here’s the new bit:
Things that don't make sense
1. 'Duke' has been estranged from his sister for 10 years. She is unaware of his marine nickname until she hears it used. So why is it the only thing she ever calls him?
2. You can't pull your own ear off. There's not enough traction, especially when covered in blood.
3. When designing a holding cell that's a pit in the ground, putting in electrified walls to stop the prisoner climbing out is a good idea. Hanging chains from the ceiling into the pit that can be climbed up is not.
4. When holding someone against said electrified wall the electricity will not only zap them in the real world it will get you, too.
5. Firing a really big gun you’ve never seen or used before is a bad idea. Especially when you have no idea what the ammunition is/does and you are in an enclosed space. You never know where that explosion’s going to go.
6. Genes have no idea if you’re good or bad. They don’t actually have any equipment for making moral judgments. Trusting a scientist who wants to inject you with an experimental drug whose only proven effect is to turn the previous recipients into freaky flesh-eating monsters just because she’s your sister means you probably shouldn’t have the right to say no to being a guinea-pig in the first place.
7. Just having a higher number of chromosomes than Homo sapiens does not actually mean that you will be smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Not even if you are an alien. It is unlikely that scientists would be able to create a serum from that chromosome that will make Homo sapiens smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Especially not without more extensive testing than putting it into a convicted murderer.
7a. Even if the above rubbish did turn out to be true why is it that at the end of the film there are suddenly many zombies attacking the soldiers? What’s the explanation for them, then? Are they the people who weren’t either good, altruistic, all-American boys or murdering, goat-raping psychopaths? (See the problems you create when you don’t want to upset the bible-belt and take the demons out of the story?)
8. Just because a soldier is new to your unit and younger than the rest of you does not mean that he will be issued with a smaller gun than everyone else. The military gives everyone the same crap, in the same colour and the same size. Unless you’re a 5-star general. Then you get pretty much whatever you want.
9. The military tend not to programme electronic equipment with your nickname. Especially not when even you don’t know it yet. Your name, rank and serial number, yes. What the rest of the boys in your squad call you, no.
10. Where does the female doctor suddenly materialise from? She’s never been mentioned and she’s in a med-bay in the section where everyone else is dead.
11. Why is it that everyone in this film is a bloody American? Even the non-American actors pretend they are, too. Okay, maybe the RRTS are some part of the American military, though that’s not stated. But the corporation who own the base on Mars are likely to be a multi-national and will have staff from all over. In the game the same company employs you as the scientists.
When Doom first came out I was not a PC owner, so I couldn't play it much; only on visits to my mate's house. I never really got too far through the game, but I'll never forget the effect it could have. Running through dark virtual corridors, never knowing when the next creature attack was coming. You always knew when they were close as you could hear them growling in the distance, catch fleeting glimpses of them around corners and the tension was a world away from the games we had played before. Prior to Doom this type of first-person game required the computer to re-draw the screen after each step taken. One button press took you one pace forward or turned you through 90° and it could become very disorientating. Often the games were as much exercises in mapping as they were in hunting monsters.
Doom was something new. The story was pants, but it was a game and it really only existed as an excuse to run around shooting things. The fact that your character actually had to die at one point to get to hell and continue hunting demons just made it clear how silly the whole enterprise really was. Yet, somehow the effect was more immediate and visceral than any horror movie I had ever watched. I got more genuine scares from turning around a corner and being jumped by a monster I didn't know was there than I ever got in a cinema. There were moments of tension creeping along a corridor listening to those growls that even Hitchcock couldn't have improved upon. Doom was something new and special.
It's been bettered in the gaming world since, even re-made for new, more powerful computers. Now, like many successful gaming franchises it has spawned a movie. In a world where movies of games are uniformly pants (and, oddly enough the reverse is also true, games of movies are usually awful) and totally fail to capture what it was about the original that made it special in the first place, could Doom once more break the mould?
The short answer is; yes.
Now don't go getting too excited. This is not any great cinematic experience. It's not a classic movie, maybe not even a particularly good one. But it does capture the game rather well in that the story's pants and only there as an excuse for several set-piece action sequences and some running around in corridors.
Oh, it's got the usual cinematic conceits, the dumb voice-over to explain the premise for the hard of thinking at the beginning, the compulsion to turn it into an accident caused by genetic experimentation and to stick really unnecessary character conflicts and stereotypes in at every conceivable moment. The dialogue is clunky, often badly delivered and 'The Rock' is a frequent offender in this category. (Odd how he seems to have given up on trying to get people to use his real name, isn't it?) The film is clearly targeted at what the producers think is a typical games-playing audience of teenage boys who listen to death metal. There are several in-jokes about games & gaming. Constant references to things like "getting my game face on." soon become wearing though. Calling one of the characters 'Duke' just has to be referring to one of Doom's rivals/imitators, Duke Nukem.
The game's monsters all make an appearance, though none seem to be able to spit fireballs like they can in the game and having made them genetic mutations instead of demons leaves the audience unsure why there are different types. Indeed, this seemingly minor change leads to many instances of bad science. Apparently, having an extra chromosome pair would turn you into a superhuman, smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantly and injecting blood from an alien who has such an extra chromosomal pairing will result in a spontaneous mutation in homo sapiens and it can tell if you're good or evil and turn you into a super-soldier or a monster accordingly.
One of the big things about Doom was getting bigger and better weapons to deal with bigger and badder monsters. To fit in with the action movie requirement of buff action heroes stripped to the waist punching the living daylights out of one another, there seems to be no real need for the likes of the BFG (yes, it does mean what you think). The monsters, true to the game, stay in the dark, are rarely seen clearly and as a result don't look unrealistic. Something many other users of cgi could do with heeding.
One sequence of the film takes the viewer into the experience of playing Doom by adopting the first person perspective and running through what appears to be a section of the game, including what happens when you die in it. It's all there: the re-loading sequence, the swaying as you run, the occasional glimpses of yourself in reflective surfaces and an appearance of the infamous chainsaw. It's totally cheesy, but it works. Med-packs and even the booster drugs make an appearance, too.
That is, in the end, what makes this film work. It knows what it is, it doesn't try to be something better than that and it makes the most of its strengths. It's good fun, it has a couple of good scares and gross-out moments and it passes away a couple of hours in over the top fantasy. You didn't play Doom expecting depth, characterisation and coherent thought. If you don't expect them from the movie you'll be happy enough.
I liked it.
One coda to that is the scene in which a character self-harms. I think it's there in some feeble attempt to appeal to that sad goth stereotype that the producers tried to appeal to. Lots of kids do that these days, so they'll think it's cool, right? Kids who self-harm don't need to see that being portrayed as acceptable and even noble behaviour.
Here’s a new feature for my reviews. I love nit-picking at crappy logic in films. You know, like in Highlander 2 where Macleod gets Ramirez back from the dead just by calling for him. If he could do that why didn’t he do it in all the time up to now if he missed him so much? Stuff like that. So here’s the new bit:
Things that don't make sense
1. 'Duke' has been estranged from his sister for 10 years. She is unaware of his marine nickname until she hears it used. So why is it the only thing she ever calls him?
2. You can't pull your own ear off. There's not enough traction, especially when covered in blood.
3. When designing a holding cell that's a pit in the ground, putting in electrified walls to stop the prisoner climbing out is a good idea. Hanging chains from the ceiling into the pit that can be climbed up is not.
4. When holding someone against said electrified wall the electricity will not only zap them in the real world it will get you, too.
5. Firing a really big gun you’ve never seen or used before is a bad idea. Especially when you have no idea what the ammunition is/does and you are in an enclosed space. You never know where that explosion’s going to go.
6. Genes have no idea if you’re good or bad. They don’t actually have any equipment for making moral judgments. Trusting a scientist who wants to inject you with an experimental drug whose only proven effect is to turn the previous recipients into freaky flesh-eating monsters just because she’s your sister means you probably shouldn’t have the right to say no to being a guinea-pig in the first place.
7. Just having a higher number of chromosomes than Homo sapiens does not actually mean that you will be smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Not even if you are an alien. It is unlikely that scientists would be able to create a serum from that chromosome that will make Homo sapiens smarter, faster, stronger and able to heal instantaneously. Especially not without more extensive testing than putting it into a convicted murderer.
7a. Even if the above rubbish did turn out to be true why is it that at the end of the film there are suddenly many zombies attacking the soldiers? What’s the explanation for them, then? Are they the people who weren’t either good, altruistic, all-American boys or murdering, goat-raping psychopaths? (See the problems you create when you don’t want to upset the bible-belt and take the demons out of the story?)
8. Just because a soldier is new to your unit and younger than the rest of you does not mean that he will be issued with a smaller gun than everyone else. The military gives everyone the same crap, in the same colour and the same size. Unless you’re a 5-star general. Then you get pretty much whatever you want.
9. The military tend not to programme electronic equipment with your nickname. Especially not when even you don’t know it yet. Your name, rank and serial number, yes. What the rest of the boys in your squad call you, no.
10. Where does the female doctor suddenly materialise from? She’s never been mentioned and she’s in a med-bay in the section where everyone else is dead.
11. Why is it that everyone in this film is a bloody American? Even the non-American actors pretend they are, too. Okay, maybe the RRTS are some part of the American military, though that’s not stated. But the corporation who own the base on Mars are likely to be a multi-national and will have staff from all over. In the game the same company employs you as the scientists.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Review Mrs Henderson
Review: Mrs Henderson Presents.
This should be a great British film. It stars two of British cinema's greatest luminaries, Dame Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins. It has a good, if not great, director in Stephen Frears. It has an interesting leading character for its' central protagonist and a wartime backdrop to add danger, threat and pathos to what might otherwise be a totally lightweight tale. Finally, it is filled with gorgeous, naked girls.
Sadly it falls into that oh-so-common category of British cinema of the near-miss.
There is a lot of truly good stuff in this film (sharp dialogue, excellent acting, interesting social comment and more). So much, in fact, that it's hard to see why it's not as good as it should be. Why, then is this a film I'd only recommend as a rainy Sunday afternoon time-waster?
Let's talk first about the central performances.
Bob Hoskins is a bad choice for Vivian Van Damme. As much as I hate to say it Mr. Hoskins has become typecast in my mind as the rough diamond. He has a broad London accent and mostly plays slightly dangerous characters. Being an actor and despising typecasting as a general principle I really shouldn't feel this way, but I do. Perhaps it's because the RP just doesn't seem entirely comfortable to Bob. I have a similar problem with RP; I can do it, but it never truly flows naturally from my lips. There are times one can get away with this, but not when sharing the screen with Judi Dench and her ilk. Sadly, he also lacks the right brand of charisma and charm for the part. Mr. Hoskins is not lacking in either characteristic, but just not in the way Van Damme needs it. Charles Dance, say, or Denis Lawson both have the smooth charm this character cries out for and does not have. Perhaps the fact that the executive producer and the actor cast are the same man helped with this piece of mis-casting?
Judi Dench, on the other hand is ideal to play the eponymous character. She has the poise, the self-assuredness and the charm Mrs. Henderson needs and one always has the sense of a wicked and mischievous wit underlying the strength and decorum in so many of her characters. She gives a fine performance, but is criminally under-used, especially considering the film is her story. Much of her motivation or her reactions are simply skipped over. The strange episode of her turning up to be auditioned dressed as a polar bear, for instance. Certainly, she explains herself, but who arranged the audition, and how?
Kelly Reilly does an interesting job as the lead tableaux girl. She's beautiful, poised, elegant and sweet (though, somehow strangely unsexy), but we rarely get a glimpse into the feelings engendered or effects on her life created by being the first nude performer in Britain (or in England, as the script resolutely states. Apparently, the rest of the UK were not in the war.) A minor bitch in a café from dancers in other shows is as close as we get to see the way these girls were perceived in prim and proper 30's society. I have heard it said that the Soho of the time was not the sleazy place it is today and that families attended the shows. Maybe that is the case, but if so then why is that scene there at all?
Indeed, this is the case with just about any indication of strong emotion or serious topic; it's just glossed over. Kelly's character falls pregnant, but before we can really see anything about how it affects her she's killed, thus relieving the film of any need to deal with the issue.
The biggest failure is the effects and, surprisingly, the cinematography. Andrew Dunn seems to have forgotten how to get a shot in focus at times. Doubtless this has to do with the efforts to integrate archive newsreel footage into the film. The result is a grainy, almost soft-focus look that merely manages to convey an impression of shoddy-amateurism and cheap production values.
Much of the problem stems from the very poorly done digital shots used. It seems to me that archive footage or photographs have been used to create many of the digital backdrops and they just look like those crappy old stock-footage shots from 60's and 70's Brit-flicks. You know, the ones that never quite merged with the rest of the film because they weren't shot on the same quality of film stock. Even shots filmed from scratch fail to look believable. The scenes on the roof of the theatre are particularly poor. There are times when looks like Bob Hoskins is a CG character or that neither he nor Judi were on the set or at the same time. Look out, too, for the shot of London in flames after a bombing raid. There is smoke rising from a fire in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen... It judders! I've seen computer games do better shots than the one of the biplane over the channel. Oh, speaking of which; to France & back from London on one tank of petrol?
The set of Windmill Street after it has been hit by a bomb suddenly looks like a set where it looked fine before the explosion.
No doubt this will be a very popular film when the BAFTAs next come around. It won't deserve a fraction of what it will likely win.
This should be a great British film. It stars two of British cinema's greatest luminaries, Dame Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins. It has a good, if not great, director in Stephen Frears. It has an interesting leading character for its' central protagonist and a wartime backdrop to add danger, threat and pathos to what might otherwise be a totally lightweight tale. Finally, it is filled with gorgeous, naked girls.
Sadly it falls into that oh-so-common category of British cinema of the near-miss.
There is a lot of truly good stuff in this film (sharp dialogue, excellent acting, interesting social comment and more). So much, in fact, that it's hard to see why it's not as good as it should be. Why, then is this a film I'd only recommend as a rainy Sunday afternoon time-waster?
Let's talk first about the central performances.
Bob Hoskins is a bad choice for Vivian Van Damme. As much as I hate to say it Mr. Hoskins has become typecast in my mind as the rough diamond. He has a broad London accent and mostly plays slightly dangerous characters. Being an actor and despising typecasting as a general principle I really shouldn't feel this way, but I do. Perhaps it's because the RP just doesn't seem entirely comfortable to Bob. I have a similar problem with RP; I can do it, but it never truly flows naturally from my lips. There are times one can get away with this, but not when sharing the screen with Judi Dench and her ilk. Sadly, he also lacks the right brand of charisma and charm for the part. Mr. Hoskins is not lacking in either characteristic, but just not in the way Van Damme needs it. Charles Dance, say, or Denis Lawson both have the smooth charm this character cries out for and does not have. Perhaps the fact that the executive producer and the actor cast are the same man helped with this piece of mis-casting?
Judi Dench, on the other hand is ideal to play the eponymous character. She has the poise, the self-assuredness and the charm Mrs. Henderson needs and one always has the sense of a wicked and mischievous wit underlying the strength and decorum in so many of her characters. She gives a fine performance, but is criminally under-used, especially considering the film is her story. Much of her motivation or her reactions are simply skipped over. The strange episode of her turning up to be auditioned dressed as a polar bear, for instance. Certainly, she explains herself, but who arranged the audition, and how?
Kelly Reilly does an interesting job as the lead tableaux girl. She's beautiful, poised, elegant and sweet (though, somehow strangely unsexy), but we rarely get a glimpse into the feelings engendered or effects on her life created by being the first nude performer in Britain (or in England, as the script resolutely states. Apparently, the rest of the UK were not in the war.) A minor bitch in a café from dancers in other shows is as close as we get to see the way these girls were perceived in prim and proper 30's society. I have heard it said that the Soho of the time was not the sleazy place it is today and that families attended the shows. Maybe that is the case, but if so then why is that scene there at all?
Indeed, this is the case with just about any indication of strong emotion or serious topic; it's just glossed over. Kelly's character falls pregnant, but before we can really see anything about how it affects her she's killed, thus relieving the film of any need to deal with the issue.
The biggest failure is the effects and, surprisingly, the cinematography. Andrew Dunn seems to have forgotten how to get a shot in focus at times. Doubtless this has to do with the efforts to integrate archive newsreel footage into the film. The result is a grainy, almost soft-focus look that merely manages to convey an impression of shoddy-amateurism and cheap production values.
Much of the problem stems from the very poorly done digital shots used. It seems to me that archive footage or photographs have been used to create many of the digital backdrops and they just look like those crappy old stock-footage shots from 60's and 70's Brit-flicks. You know, the ones that never quite merged with the rest of the film because they weren't shot on the same quality of film stock. Even shots filmed from scratch fail to look believable. The scenes on the roof of the theatre are particularly poor. There are times when looks like Bob Hoskins is a CG character or that neither he nor Judi were on the set or at the same time. Look out, too, for the shot of London in flames after a bombing raid. There is smoke rising from a fire in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen... It judders! I've seen computer games do better shots than the one of the biplane over the channel. Oh, speaking of which; to France & back from London on one tank of petrol?
The set of Windmill Street after it has been hit by a bomb suddenly looks like a set where it looked fine before the explosion.
No doubt this will be a very popular film when the BAFTAs next come around. It won't deserve a fraction of what it will likely win.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Pardon me?
7/11/05
Whilst on our visit to the in-laws we were told a story about our niece's school that just typifies a lot of what's wrong about our society.
Out niece has been brought up with manners and respect for others. During a recent parents’ night they were asked to discourage her from saying things like ‘please’ and ‘thankyou’ as it was making the other children think she was ‘posh’ and not talk to her!
Pardon me? Stop setting a good example to the other kids? Worse, encouraged by the teacher. Isn’t it part of a primary school teacher’s job to help teach manners to their pupils? It’s certainly not part of her job to recommend that her manners be removed so the other children don’t feel inferior. The teacher should be insisting that the pupils use please and thankyou within her class. Just because their parents don’t bother their arses doesn’t mean she shouldn’t. Or is it just that she doesn’t use manners much herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
