This is a weird film, but I liked it. The beginning and most of the middle don't make sense until the end... but there are plenty of little clues to keep you interested, or at least intrigued, by the slow parts.
The reported budget for Under The Skin was £8,000,000. I'm guessing most of that was Scarlett Johansson's fee, because I'd class the look of the film as very much in the low-budget category (I don't mean that in a bad way) and according to the blu-ray extras most of the actors were amateurs.
SPOILERS
At the very start there are some odd lighting effects that look in turns like stars, or planets, or some sort of broken camera lens effect. Maybe this is supposed to convey space and/or time travel. It didn't mean anything to me. Then we see a motorcyclist racing along narrow Scottish roads and the film gets going.
The motorcyclist (as I'll call him... because no-one in this film has an actual name that we learn) meets a van coming in the opposite direction. Both stop. The motorcyclist then walks calmly off the road into the dark and re-appears with a woman over his shoulder. He puts the woman in the back of the van. Odd?
Next we see the (dead?) woman being undressed by a naked woman (played by Scarlett Johansson). The scenery is completely white and featureless. Is this the back of the van? We see the dead woman's face a few times, but not very clearly. She looks a lot like the other woman. The woman puts on the dead woman's clothes and touches her skin as if curious about something. Then we see the woman driving the van.
She drives the van about a lot. Mostly in a large town / city at night. Glasgow probably.
Eventually she starts approaching single men and asking them directions, but also questions to determine if they are single and live alone. I found this part quite slow, but I suppose it was necessary to show that the woman didn't just hit the ground running, she had to work at her strategy.
I really liked the way that the action escalates ever so slightly each time the woman finds a new "victim". The first time we just see a guy get in the van, then it cuts straight to the woman in the van alone again. The next time we see the guy follow the woman into her house. And so on.
It's not really clear what the woman is doing to these men. Just as the van scene was white and featureless, the house scenes are black and featureless. The men seem to just sink into a black liquid whilst transfixed on the woman. Later the woman chooses a disfigured man as her victim and he seems to partially realise what is happening - "We are dreaming?" he says, "Yes, we are dreaming." replies the woman. We see him start to sink, but then the camera cuts to the woman leaving the house.
She stops to look in an old mirror, for a long time. I wasn't sure if she was deciding whether or not to release the disfigured man, or checking her "condition" because she hadn't "eaten" for a long time. On balance, I think the latter, because she probably decided to free him when he realised what was happening... or maybe he was just lucky and she got tired of killing people. Anyway, I think the sinking into black liquid was just how the men felt as they were being absorbed somehow by the woman.
So, the disfigured man is released and wanders off naked. Somehow though the motorcyclist knows this and goes after him. He catches him and, presumably, kills him. Earlier in the film I thought that the motorcyclist was simply a male version of the woman and that he was off doing the same thing she was. But later he seemed to be more of a guardian / troubleshooter for her ... this is never resolved.
Having lost her "appetite" for people the woman then wanders off (abandoning the van). She eventually meets a man who helps her, seemingly out of kindness. Eventually they kiss and start to have sex. The woman seems very inexperienced but goes along with it until the man tries to penetrate her. Frantically she pushes him away and examines her vagina with a lamp... quite disturbing for the man!
The woman leaves the man's house and wanders in a forest. She is attacked by a man who is working there and he tries to rape her. In the struggle the woman's skin tears and the man runs away in horror.
We finally see that the woman is a black alien creature. Is this why the men sank into a black liquid? And we know why the dead woman looked like the naked woman at the start. The alien wasn't just taking her clothes, it copied her skin too... that's why it was touching her so curiously.
Does her skin tear because she hasn't absorbed anyone for a while? Earlier when she falls in the street she stays down for a long time, as if worried that she might have torn then. So maybe the false skin is just delicate. The creature certainly seems to be lost in despair now.
The very last part was slightly gratuitous, I thought. The rapist returns with a can of petrol, douses the alien and burns it alive. Then we see the motorcyclist, who has been looking for the woman, stopped and suddenly with no idea where to go... as if following a signal which has gone dead.
Brilliant. The film is only about 100 minutes long but manages to build up so many interesting questions... only a few of which it answers. We have to work out for ourselves what the alien / aliens were doing here and what the motorcyclist did next.
Friday 31 October 2014
Wednesday 29 October 2014
12 Years A Slave
This is a brutal film. Shockingly brutal. Almost from the beginning it smashes you over the head with the brutality of slavery. Then it keeps smashing you over the head. Pausing only to move the scene from one set of brutalisers to another set of brutalisers. In the end, after 12 years, one slave escapes to freedom ... one ... and for that we are supposed to be grateful?
There is no entertainment in 12 Years A Slave. People only watch it out of curiosity following the hype, or from a perceived duty fuelled by racial guilt. It is hard to criticise because so many people have praised it so highly. But praising the message that slavery is appalling shouldn't be confused with praising a movie for being a good film. I don't think this is a good film.
It drags on. There is very little progression. I found it hard to tell how much time (of the 12 years) had passed at any one point. Solomon didn't visibly age. There are few clues to the intervals between events. How long was Solomon with his first "master", how long was he with the second before being leased out to the third, how long before he came back? I have no idea. That's a flaw.
There are very few characters. Solomon is the only black character we learn much about. What did the other black characters think of him, what did he think of them? We don't really find out. Another flaw.
I didn't learn anything from this film that I didn't already know. Slavery is horrible. Treating people like that is inhuman. I was hoping for an interesting exploration of that, but instead this film gives you a succession of graphically violent scenes which only shock.
There is no entertainment in 12 Years A Slave. People only watch it out of curiosity following the hype, or from a perceived duty fuelled by racial guilt. It is hard to criticise because so many people have praised it so highly. But praising the message that slavery is appalling shouldn't be confused with praising a movie for being a good film. I don't think this is a good film.
It drags on. There is very little progression. I found it hard to tell how much time (of the 12 years) had passed at any one point. Solomon didn't visibly age. There are few clues to the intervals between events. How long was Solomon with his first "master", how long was he with the second before being leased out to the third, how long before he came back? I have no idea. That's a flaw.
There are very few characters. Solomon is the only black character we learn much about. What did the other black characters think of him, what did he think of them? We don't really find out. Another flaw.
I didn't learn anything from this film that I didn't already know. Slavery is horrible. Treating people like that is inhuman. I was hoping for an interesting exploration of that, but instead this film gives you a succession of graphically violent scenes which only shock.
Tuesday 28 October 2014
The Book Thief
SPOILERS
I really enjoyed the book The Book Thief, so I didn't really expect the film adaptation to be very good. That's usually the way. But in some ways it is good. Not completely though.
In the book having Death as the narrator is very clever. It's an idea that works surprisingly well given the setting of Germany during WWII. The film tries to keep true to this, but narration in films is notoriously tricky. We get a flavour of Death, but it is very superficial compared to the book. I think it just about works. Much as I like Roger Allam as an actor, his voice is nothing like what I imagined Death to be like from the book, which is probably the case for a lot of people. He sounds far too kind. Death has to be a bit grimmer, doesn't he? That's why his interest in Liesel is so unusual and intriguing.
One thing the film does do very well is capturing the setting. Use of common German words and a decent smattering of Germanic accents adds a lot. Emily Watson and Geoffrey Rush are very strong as Mr and Mrs Hubermann. Sophie Nélisse is a great find and a perfect Liesel. Her relationship with Nico Liersch's deliberately slightly annoying Rudy is somewhat downplayed for a lot of the film which makes the tragedy near the end a bit less dramatic than it should be.
Obviously there's a lot left out in the film. I felt that the tone of the film was a lot lighter than the book. Herr Hubermann's decision not to join The Party was only mentioned in passing once, I think. Apart from the book-burning rally, the Nazis didn't seem very frightening. Some of the persecution scenes just didn't seem to work for me.
I did enjoy the film though. The story is fairly true to the book and the cast carry off the characters very well. The ending is paradoxically both happy and sad.
I really enjoyed the book The Book Thief, so I didn't really expect the film adaptation to be very good. That's usually the way. But in some ways it is good. Not completely though.
In the book having Death as the narrator is very clever. It's an idea that works surprisingly well given the setting of Germany during WWII. The film tries to keep true to this, but narration in films is notoriously tricky. We get a flavour of Death, but it is very superficial compared to the book. I think it just about works. Much as I like Roger Allam as an actor, his voice is nothing like what I imagined Death to be like from the book, which is probably the case for a lot of people. He sounds far too kind. Death has to be a bit grimmer, doesn't he? That's why his interest in Liesel is so unusual and intriguing.
One thing the film does do very well is capturing the setting. Use of common German words and a decent smattering of Germanic accents adds a lot. Emily Watson and Geoffrey Rush are very strong as Mr and Mrs Hubermann. Sophie Nélisse is a great find and a perfect Liesel. Her relationship with Nico Liersch's deliberately slightly annoying Rudy is somewhat downplayed for a lot of the film which makes the tragedy near the end a bit less dramatic than it should be.
Obviously there's a lot left out in the film. I felt that the tone of the film was a lot lighter than the book. Herr Hubermann's decision not to join The Party was only mentioned in passing once, I think. Apart from the book-burning rally, the Nazis didn't seem very frightening. Some of the persecution scenes just didn't seem to work for me.
I did enjoy the film though. The story is fairly true to the book and the cast carry off the characters very well. The ending is paradoxically both happy and sad.
Friday 24 October 2014
Hitman
Films based on video games are often pretty poor. Remember Doom? Not if you are lucky. But I don't think the whole genre deserves the universal reflex panning it usually gets. The first Tomb Raider and Resident Evil films were reasonable. And I propose that my favourite, Hitman, is actually quite good.
SPOILERS
OK, so there are some silly points... such as Interpol not being able to find a large bald man with a bar-code tattoo on his head, who always wears a black suit and a bright red tie, for over 3 years. Oh, and the ultra-highly trained member of The Organisation sent to kill Agent 47 manages to miss by miles from just across the street... just after equally well trained Agent 47 has killed Belicoff from a range of 4 kilometres!
Put those things aside for a moment. No action film is without the need to suspend disbelief a little.
I think Hitman works because Timothy Olyphant is brilliant. He's an anti-hero who has his standards and sticks to them. Everything from the way he walks and talks to the silent looks he gives some people says "just don't mess with me, alright!"
There's a great scene where he comes crashing through a hotel window. He doesn't say anything. He just looks at the occupants as if to say "you got a problem with this?" and then leaves. Observant film-goers might notice that the occupants were actually playing the Hitman video game! Nice bit of self-referencing there.
This is more than a one man film though. Olga Kurylenko as the bitchy-exterior Nika is the perfect foil for Agent 47. She's annoying enough to provide some good exchanges between the two characters, but nice enough to not want 47 to kill her... and being something of a beauty "it's impolite to stare" she provides a few distractions from the rough edges.
Unlike similar capers the guys chasing the "hero" are not complete idiots. Dougray Scott and Michael Offei are refreshingly competent Interpol cops who are continuously foiled by corrupt agents and the vested interests served by The Organisation. This is an important point. The fact that they are good at their job only serves to further heighten Agent 47's prowess and the sinisterness of The Organisation.
Overall I think that Hitman has an atmosphere very similar to some of my favourite man-with-no-name westerns starring Clint Eastwood. Yes, it has flaws, but it's very entertaining too.
SPOILERS
OK, so there are some silly points... such as Interpol not being able to find a large bald man with a bar-code tattoo on his head, who always wears a black suit and a bright red tie, for over 3 years. Oh, and the ultra-highly trained member of The Organisation sent to kill Agent 47 manages to miss by miles from just across the street... just after equally well trained Agent 47 has killed Belicoff from a range of 4 kilometres!
Put those things aside for a moment. No action film is without the need to suspend disbelief a little.
I think Hitman works because Timothy Olyphant is brilliant. He's an anti-hero who has his standards and sticks to them. Everything from the way he walks and talks to the silent looks he gives some people says "just don't mess with me, alright!"
There's a great scene where he comes crashing through a hotel window. He doesn't say anything. He just looks at the occupants as if to say "you got a problem with this?" and then leaves. Observant film-goers might notice that the occupants were actually playing the Hitman video game! Nice bit of self-referencing there.
This is more than a one man film though. Olga Kurylenko as the bitchy-exterior Nika is the perfect foil for Agent 47. She's annoying enough to provide some good exchanges between the two characters, but nice enough to not want 47 to kill her... and being something of a beauty "it's impolite to stare" she provides a few distractions from the rough edges.
Unlike similar capers the guys chasing the "hero" are not complete idiots. Dougray Scott and Michael Offei are refreshingly competent Interpol cops who are continuously foiled by corrupt agents and the vested interests served by The Organisation. This is an important point. The fact that they are good at their job only serves to further heighten Agent 47's prowess and the sinisterness of The Organisation.
Overall I think that Hitman has an atmosphere very similar to some of my favourite man-with-no-name westerns starring Clint Eastwood. Yes, it has flaws, but it's very entertaining too.
Thursday 23 October 2014
Saving Private Ryan
I just happened to notice that Saving Private Ryan was on TV and thought I'd give it a go. I know it is supposed to be good, but it looked to be way too long.
SPOILERS
I liked the fact that you start with a survivor visiting war graves in the present day, but don't know who he is. Especially when we go back in time to the D-Day landings and immediately see Tom Hanks character, who could be the guy... or not. For most of the movie I actually thought it would turn out to be him.
The long scene on the beach (20 minutes) is some of the most harrowing cinema I have ever seen. It is intense, frightening, sad and relentless. You start to wonder if any of the US soldiers are going to survive. It just goes on and on. If you ever thought war films over-glorify war then watch this. It almost had me in tears.
Then we get 2+ hours of something else. Obviously there has to be some respite, but after the opening battle everything seems pretty dull thereafter.
The fact that Private Ryan is one of the few survivors in the battle at the end was just a bit too unbelievable. And the planes turning up just in time to blow up the tanks, but too late to save Hanks and crew... apart from the quivering translator who grows enough balls to shoot a German, again just too late to save Hanks.
So, in summary, watch the first half hour then skip to the end if you want to know who the guy visiting the cemetery is.
SPOILERS
I liked the fact that you start with a survivor visiting war graves in the present day, but don't know who he is. Especially when we go back in time to the D-Day landings and immediately see Tom Hanks character, who could be the guy... or not. For most of the movie I actually thought it would turn out to be him.
The long scene on the beach (20 minutes) is some of the most harrowing cinema I have ever seen. It is intense, frightening, sad and relentless. You start to wonder if any of the US soldiers are going to survive. It just goes on and on. If you ever thought war films over-glorify war then watch this. It almost had me in tears.
Then we get 2+ hours of something else. Obviously there has to be some respite, but after the opening battle everything seems pretty dull thereafter.
The fact that Private Ryan is one of the few survivors in the battle at the end was just a bit too unbelievable. And the planes turning up just in time to blow up the tanks, but too late to save Hanks and crew... apart from the quivering translator who grows enough balls to shoot a German, again just too late to save Hanks.
So, in summary, watch the first half hour then skip to the end if you want to know who the guy visiting the cemetery is.
Thursday 16 October 2014
Revenge of the Sith
In a moment of weakness I decided to watch Revenge of the Sith again last night. The only surprise was just how angry the terrible story still makes me. Three whole prequels leading up to Anakin Skywalker turning to the Dark Side and this was all we got!
SPOILERS
Another thing that struck me more heavily this time was just how rubbish a part Natalie Portman was given in this movie. She is a brilliant actor and can't have been happy with the weak role she got. All she does is sit/stand around waiting for Anakin, with the occasional bit of dreadful dialogue. Until the end when her previously valiant character gives birth (even though the medical droid says they are going to operate) and just about has the energy to name the twins before dying of grief. What? Come off it. Padme wouldn't just give up and leave her newborns to the perils of the Empire. She would fight like hell!
The other plot holes are well documented too, but the one that still really bugs me is why does Obi-Wan Kenobi pick up Vader's light sabre and walk off? Vader is apparently going to burn to death and has no means of escape (until the Emperor comes to get him in person) that Kenobi can see. If Kenobi loves Anakin like a brother as he claims then he would mercifully finish him off with his light sabre rather than letting him burn. If he thinks Vader is evil and has to die then he should finish him off with his light sabre to be sure... in case, I dunno, the Emperor comes to get him in person. Either way, Obi-Wan should have killed Vader.
Yes, I know he can't kill him because Vader is in EP 4, 5 and 6. I'm just saying that the plot of RotS stinks big-time.
SPOILERS
Another thing that struck me more heavily this time was just how rubbish a part Natalie Portman was given in this movie. She is a brilliant actor and can't have been happy with the weak role she got. All she does is sit/stand around waiting for Anakin, with the occasional bit of dreadful dialogue. Until the end when her previously valiant character gives birth (even though the medical droid says they are going to operate) and just about has the energy to name the twins before dying of grief. What? Come off it. Padme wouldn't just give up and leave her newborns to the perils of the Empire. She would fight like hell!
The other plot holes are well documented too, but the one that still really bugs me is why does Obi-Wan Kenobi pick up Vader's light sabre and walk off? Vader is apparently going to burn to death and has no means of escape (until the Emperor comes to get him in person) that Kenobi can see. If Kenobi loves Anakin like a brother as he claims then he would mercifully finish him off with his light sabre rather than letting him burn. If he thinks Vader is evil and has to die then he should finish him off with his light sabre to be sure... in case, I dunno, the Emperor comes to get him in person. Either way, Obi-Wan should have killed Vader.
Yes, I know he can't kill him because Vader is in EP 4, 5 and 6. I'm just saying that the plot of RotS stinks big-time.
Tuesday 14 October 2014
Like Father, Like Son
SPOILERS
On the surface the story of Like Father, Like Son is very simple, yet the movie is emotionally very complex.
We start off by seeing a nice comfortable Japanese family. Hard-working father, doting mother and six year old son Keita who is preparing for school entrance exams. Life isn't perfect - Dad works too much and doesn't spend enough time with his wife and child - but everyone seems happy enough.
Just as we've got to know the family a bit, the parents get called to the hospital where Keita was born and told that there was a mix-up at the birth and Keita is not their son...
The next part of the film was a bit too slow for me. We meet the other two parents who got a boy that they called Ryusei. The parents are told that they should probably swap the boys. Obviously they can't just do it overnight so they have a few trial visits and sleepovers.
I must admit that I got a bit bored of some scenes where the parents and kids were just doing ordinary stuff. I guess that had to be there to show the length of the process... which was months, I think. But I'm glad I stuck with this film, because the final third is incredibly moving.
Both families are very different, so the boys struggle to settle in their "real" homes. Also, being six they aren't old enough to understand why things are happening, but they certainly know what is happening... and the parents are all in bits because they love their original sons but feel almost obliged to swap back to their blood relatives. What is more important, DNA or six years of shared experiences?
There are a few twists and turns. Because the families are so different we get four different perspectives from the parents... plus various friends and relatives have to offer their own opinions.
After dithering for months the parents finally decide to swap for good. But things don't quite work out and Ryusei runs away back to his original family. His parents go after him and when Keita sees his original dad he runs away! But dad chases and pours his heart out to the boy.
The film finishes with everyone together, so you have to guess for yourself what happens. I like to think that the boys went back to their original families, but that the families stayed friends so that the parents could see their offspring and Keita and Ryusei could see each other (as they had become friends).
Everyone involved should be very proud of this film.
On the surface the story of Like Father, Like Son is very simple, yet the movie is emotionally very complex.
We start off by seeing a nice comfortable Japanese family. Hard-working father, doting mother and six year old son Keita who is preparing for school entrance exams. Life isn't perfect - Dad works too much and doesn't spend enough time with his wife and child - but everyone seems happy enough.
Just as we've got to know the family a bit, the parents get called to the hospital where Keita was born and told that there was a mix-up at the birth and Keita is not their son...
The next part of the film was a bit too slow for me. We meet the other two parents who got a boy that they called Ryusei. The parents are told that they should probably swap the boys. Obviously they can't just do it overnight so they have a few trial visits and sleepovers.
I must admit that I got a bit bored of some scenes where the parents and kids were just doing ordinary stuff. I guess that had to be there to show the length of the process... which was months, I think. But I'm glad I stuck with this film, because the final third is incredibly moving.
Both families are very different, so the boys struggle to settle in their "real" homes. Also, being six they aren't old enough to understand why things are happening, but they certainly know what is happening... and the parents are all in bits because they love their original sons but feel almost obliged to swap back to their blood relatives. What is more important, DNA or six years of shared experiences?
There are a few twists and turns. Because the families are so different we get four different perspectives from the parents... plus various friends and relatives have to offer their own opinions.
After dithering for months the parents finally decide to swap for good. But things don't quite work out and Ryusei runs away back to his original family. His parents go after him and when Keita sees his original dad he runs away! But dad chases and pours his heart out to the boy.
The film finishes with everyone together, so you have to guess for yourself what happens. I like to think that the boys went back to their original families, but that the families stayed friends so that the parents could see their offspring and Keita and Ryusei could see each other (as they had become friends).
Everyone involved should be very proud of this film.
Sunday 12 October 2014
47 Ronin
SPOILERS
I've decided that it's just too hard to write about films without giving away any of the plot. So from now on posts that start with the word SPOILERS are going to contain plot details.
I watched 47 Ronin with friends who are really into Japanese culture. They seemed to know about the original story, which I assumed was a legend since the film starts off talking about dragons and demons. But the original story is actually a real-life story from 18th century Japan. There actually were 47 Ronin who avenged their lord ... it's just Hollywood that added the demons and dragons.
And that's where the film falls down for me. It's neither a fully fledged historic drama nor an all out fantasy action film. It is a bit of both. Both angles are done pretty well: I thought the historical parts were fascinating and the action parts were exciting and fun. But they just don't seem to fit together all that well. I think I would have preferred just one or the other... or both as separate films.
I think the most telling example of the discord is in the ending. As an action adventure film the good guys have to win and get the girl. As a historical drama the ronin have to die (granted a samurai death by the Shogun with their honour restored). So they die, but Keanu Reeves character gets some vague line about searching for the girl across all worlds for ever until he finds her. Hmm, OK, that's fine then.
I've decided that it's just too hard to write about films without giving away any of the plot. So from now on posts that start with the word SPOILERS are going to contain plot details.
I watched 47 Ronin with friends who are really into Japanese culture. They seemed to know about the original story, which I assumed was a legend since the film starts off talking about dragons and demons. But the original story is actually a real-life story from 18th century Japan. There actually were 47 Ronin who avenged their lord ... it's just Hollywood that added the demons and dragons.
And that's where the film falls down for me. It's neither a fully fledged historic drama nor an all out fantasy action film. It is a bit of both. Both angles are done pretty well: I thought the historical parts were fascinating and the action parts were exciting and fun. But they just don't seem to fit together all that well. I think I would have preferred just one or the other... or both as separate films.
I think the most telling example of the discord is in the ending. As an action adventure film the good guys have to win and get the girl. As a historical drama the ronin have to die (granted a samurai death by the Shogun with their honour restored). So they die, but Keanu Reeves character gets some vague line about searching for the girl across all worlds for ever until he finds her. Hmm, OK, that's fine then.
Wednesday 8 October 2014
Too Old
So now I've been writing this blog for just over a year. Why is blog underlined as a spelling mistake in this editor? Shouldn't the editor for a blogging site understand the word blog? (and blogging).
I guess that is a better summary of how I'm feeling about technology than the other examples I had. We get told how brilliant technology is every day, and yet it is also frustratingly awful at so many simple things.
For example: I had to replace my PVR because it died, completely. The new one is a Humax, which is OK, apart from a few really annoying details. Firstly, it doesn't call recordings recordings, it calls them reservations. Why? It makes recordings. They are recordings. Everyone has called them recordings for ever, why change, other than to be different for the sake of it. Secondly, it stores recordings in folders, like a computer. The folders have labels which tell you how many recordings they contain:
1 File(s)
2 File(s)
Surely it isn't beyond the skill of the modern computer expert to make that:
1 File
2 Files
Come on people. Details matter. These machines have all this power and you can't even be bothered to make the labels neat.
Someone told me that I should try using Google Keep for my TODO list. But when I tried to get the app for my phone it didn't show up in the store. It turns out that my phone has too old a version of Android to run it. An app that is a TODO list wont run on my phone because it is too old! And how old is that? About 2 years, I think.
My iPod touch was too old to get iOS 7... let alone iOS 8.
It feels like everything has to be replaced every year, and given a new name, to be relevant. It doesn't matter if things don't work properly today because there will probably be a fix in the update tomorrow... or the day after... and if there isn't then it doesn't matter either because it really wont be a problem the day after that because you'll have bought a new gadget by then and moved onto new problems (sorry, I mean issues).
And don't even get me started on how awful most modern websites are! What is going on? In the race the attract attention, no-one is thinking about the poor souls who are just trying to use things to get something done.
Social media? What a waste of time. Literally.
Connect with your friends and family online? No, an excuse to not visit people in person.
Bah. I can't be bothered to go on. No-one is reading this anyway.
I guess that is a better summary of how I'm feeling about technology than the other examples I had. We get told how brilliant technology is every day, and yet it is also frustratingly awful at so many simple things.
For example: I had to replace my PVR because it died, completely. The new one is a Humax, which is OK, apart from a few really annoying details. Firstly, it doesn't call recordings recordings, it calls them reservations. Why? It makes recordings. They are recordings. Everyone has called them recordings for ever, why change, other than to be different for the sake of it. Secondly, it stores recordings in folders, like a computer. The folders have labels which tell you how many recordings they contain:
1 File(s)
2 File(s)
Surely it isn't beyond the skill of the modern computer expert to make that:
1 File
2 Files
Come on people. Details matter. These machines have all this power and you can't even be bothered to make the labels neat.
Someone told me that I should try using Google Keep for my TODO list. But when I tried to get the app for my phone it didn't show up in the store. It turns out that my phone has too old a version of Android to run it. An app that is a TODO list wont run on my phone because it is too old! And how old is that? About 2 years, I think.
My iPod touch was too old to get iOS 7... let alone iOS 8.
It feels like everything has to be replaced every year, and given a new name, to be relevant. It doesn't matter if things don't work properly today because there will probably be a fix in the update tomorrow... or the day after... and if there isn't then it doesn't matter either because it really wont be a problem the day after that because you'll have bought a new gadget by then and moved onto new problems (sorry, I mean issues).
And don't even get me started on how awful most modern websites are! What is going on? In the race the attract attention, no-one is thinking about the poor souls who are just trying to use things to get something done.
Social media? What a waste of time. Literally.
Connect with your friends and family online? No, an excuse to not visit people in person.
Bah. I can't be bothered to go on. No-one is reading this anyway.
Saturday 4 October 2014
The Machine
I love it when a film comes along which shows that you don't need to spend a fortune to make a great film. Even a sci-fi film. The budget for The Machine was less than £1,000,000 and I enjoyed it immensely.
Don't think that means there are no special effects, or bad effects. Because The Machine does have some great sci-fi moments, they are just used very sparingly, which adds to their impact. The sets are also very minimalist, but that fits well with the story too.
It is the cleverness of the story that is the key to the success of the film. The pacing is also excellent, with calm sciency sequences often surprisingly punctured by moments of violence.
Toby Stephens plays the brooding troubled genius superbly and is nicely complemented by Caity Lotz as his less cynical, wilder, unconventional colleague. Again the story is clever here: their relationship doesn't quite develop in the way that you might expect.
If I have a small complaint it is that the bad guy played by Denis Lawson doesn't always cut it. That may be a bit harsh, because this is a difficult character. He's not really a bad guy, for a start, since everyone involved knows what the objectives of the Machine programme are and he's just the one in charge.
Those quibbles are more than balanced out by the mysterious implant people who I really didn't know what to make of right up until the end. Given the previous surprises I also didn't know how it was going to finish...
So, great film despite the low budget. I highly recommend this.
Don't think that means there are no special effects, or bad effects. Because The Machine does have some great sci-fi moments, they are just used very sparingly, which adds to their impact. The sets are also very minimalist, but that fits well with the story too.
It is the cleverness of the story that is the key to the success of the film. The pacing is also excellent, with calm sciency sequences often surprisingly punctured by moments of violence.
Toby Stephens plays the brooding troubled genius superbly and is nicely complemented by Caity Lotz as his less cynical, wilder, unconventional colleague. Again the story is clever here: their relationship doesn't quite develop in the way that you might expect.
If I have a small complaint it is that the bad guy played by Denis Lawson doesn't always cut it. That may be a bit harsh, because this is a difficult character. He's not really a bad guy, for a start, since everyone involved knows what the objectives of the Machine programme are and he's just the one in charge.
Those quibbles are more than balanced out by the mysterious implant people who I really didn't know what to make of right up until the end. Given the previous surprises I also didn't know how it was going to finish...
So, great film despite the low budget. I highly recommend this.
Thursday 2 October 2014
5150 Elm's Way
When you take a tried and tested genre for the basis of your film you really have to the standard stuff really well, or do something a bit different, if you want people to take notice.
For 5150 Elm's Way I want to be kind and assume that the makers were going for different.
The genre in question is innocent person imprisoned by maniac. So, pretty done to death (excuse the pun) you might think. But 5150 Elm's Way does have some good ideas and they are original, I think.
Unfortunately I didn't think the execution of the idea was very good. From the moment the main character Yannick falls off his bike at 10 mph, somehow rendering it completely unusable, you worry that the plot is going to be a bit clunky. And my worst fears were realised as he walked blindly into a mess and then failed on numerous occasions to escape. Even worse, he does eventually escape and then gets recaptured by basically being a moron.
Not having any sympathy for the victim is a major flaw in a film where that is all that is happening.
Some of the scenes where he is trapped are interesting, and the overall premise is promising, but mostly everything bounces off the walls with very little finesse. Which is a problem because this isn't a horror film, it's a thriller... just not very thrilling.
And then there's a vaguely open ending which leaves room for a sequel. Really? I don't think so.
For 5150 Elm's Way I want to be kind and assume that the makers were going for different.
The genre in question is innocent person imprisoned by maniac. So, pretty done to death (excuse the pun) you might think. But 5150 Elm's Way does have some good ideas and they are original, I think.
Unfortunately I didn't think the execution of the idea was very good. From the moment the main character Yannick falls off his bike at 10 mph, somehow rendering it completely unusable, you worry that the plot is going to be a bit clunky. And my worst fears were realised as he walked blindly into a mess and then failed on numerous occasions to escape. Even worse, he does eventually escape and then gets recaptured by basically being a moron.
Not having any sympathy for the victim is a major flaw in a film where that is all that is happening.
Some of the scenes where he is trapped are interesting, and the overall premise is promising, but mostly everything bounces off the walls with very little finesse. Which is a problem because this isn't a horror film, it's a thriller... just not very thrilling.
And then there's a vaguely open ending which leaves room for a sequel. Really? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)