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...
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
