I only write on this blog when my life is too miserable to do anything else.
No doubt I will be back. But for now I'm done.
Wednesday 16 November 2016
Social media is not news
I wish the BBC and newspapers here would stop reporting what people have said on social media. That is not news.
You wouldn't say in a report "X was overheard saying Y in a pub about Z" so why dignify the digital equivalent with a higher status than it deserves.
Saturday 12 November 2016
What The Fuck 2016?
Sorry for the strong language, but it kinda seems appropriate. What is wrong with 2016? It seems like it's not enough for one of my heroes to be dying every 5 minutes... no, the democratic world seems to have gone insane.
It's not that I think people are making the wrong choices. It's that they are being presented with terrible options and then picking one in completely irrational ways.
Is this the best we can do? Come on. This is everyone's problem. Blaming other people for voting the other way wont help. And blaming people for being unhappy with the results wont help either.
We need better options. We need more options. A binary choice might seem easy, but we need people to have to think more than that. And we need leaders who can work together not fight over who is telling the bigger lies.
World, get a fucking grip, please!
It's not that I think people are making the wrong choices. It's that they are being presented with terrible options and then picking one in completely irrational ways.
Is this the best we can do? Come on. This is everyone's problem. Blaming other people for voting the other way wont help. And blaming people for being unhappy with the results wont help either.
We need better options. We need more options. A binary choice might seem easy, but we need people to have to think more than that. And we need leaders who can work together not fight over who is telling the bigger lies.
World, get a fucking grip, please!
Thursday 27 October 2016
Spy apps
I installed the Instagram app on my phone, just to try it out. But it wouldn't work unless I allowed it to access the microphone as well as the camera.
Why does a photo app need to have access to the mic?
Alarm bells rang.
I uninstalled the app.
Fuck you, Instagram!
Saturday 22 October 2016
Fakers
They used to say "on the internet, no-one knows you are a dog". Which kind of meant anyone could be anything, even themselves, if they really wanted to without being shot down immediately.
Things were kind of fun then.
There were a few trolls, but you could mostly ignore them. There were a few correctivists, but you could mostly ignore them.
Social media doesn't seem very sociable to me. People aren't themselves, or even a more interesting version of themselves. Everyone is scared of saying the wrong thing and being humiliated by the next shaming fad.
The other day I was notified that I had a new follower on Twitter. People don't often follow me so I took a look. It was a woman that I had met the previous week, so I assumed she was interested in my film club and had actually looked me up... which she said she would, but people often say that and then don't.
So I sent her a message with details of that week's film.
And got a puzzled response (what?)
It turns out that it wasn't her. It was a student in the Ukraine. Odd, I thought. She seemed quite chatty and I wasn't busy so we exchanged a few messages.
All seemed fairly normal until she mentioned that she was a big gamer and wanted to meet me inside one of her games. He next message had a link in to download the game.
Which sounded a bit suspicious.
I didn't click the link. I googled the game instead. It didn't sound like the sort of thing she would be into... given the little information she had told me about herself.
Then, of course, I realised that this wasn't a free game. She was just trying to get me to buy the game. It was marketing.
When I mentioned this to a friend (a little smug that I hadn't fallen for it) he said that she probably wasn't even a real person. It was probably a "chat bot" that just tricks you into thinking you are talking to a person.
Smugness evaporated. I was fooled by a bot.
For a few minutes I thought I had found a friendly voice out there in the big world. That's what the internet is good at, right? But it was a trick. To try and get some money out of me. Which made me really sad.
The next time someone follows me on Twitter, I probably wont even take a look. I've already stopped looking at Facebook because I don't understand why it shows me the posts that it does... and there seem to be a lot of ads on it now.
Which is probably a good thing. Talk to your friends in person... and their dogs.
Things were kind of fun then.
There were a few trolls, but you could mostly ignore them. There were a few correctivists, but you could mostly ignore them.
Social media doesn't seem very sociable to me. People aren't themselves, or even a more interesting version of themselves. Everyone is scared of saying the wrong thing and being humiliated by the next shaming fad.
The other day I was notified that I had a new follower on Twitter. People don't often follow me so I took a look. It was a woman that I had met the previous week, so I assumed she was interested in my film club and had actually looked me up... which she said she would, but people often say that and then don't.
So I sent her a message with details of that week's film.
And got a puzzled response (what?)
It turns out that it wasn't her. It was a student in the Ukraine. Odd, I thought. She seemed quite chatty and I wasn't busy so we exchanged a few messages.
All seemed fairly normal until she mentioned that she was a big gamer and wanted to meet me inside one of her games. He next message had a link in to download the game.
Which sounded a bit suspicious.
I didn't click the link. I googled the game instead. It didn't sound like the sort of thing she would be into... given the little information she had told me about herself.
Then, of course, I realised that this wasn't a free game. She was just trying to get me to buy the game. It was marketing.
When I mentioned this to a friend (a little smug that I hadn't fallen for it) he said that she probably wasn't even a real person. It was probably a "chat bot" that just tricks you into thinking you are talking to a person.
Smugness evaporated. I was fooled by a bot.
For a few minutes I thought I had found a friendly voice out there in the big world. That's what the internet is good at, right? But it was a trick. To try and get some money out of me. Which made me really sad.
The next time someone follows me on Twitter, I probably wont even take a look. I've already stopped looking at Facebook because I don't understand why it shows me the posts that it does... and there seem to be a lot of ads on it now.
Which is probably a good thing. Talk to your friends in person... and their dogs.
Saturday 10 September 2016
Punctured
This has been a strange couple of weeks for me. It was my birthday on the 29th which should be a happy thing, but never seems that great since I lost my wife.
Thanks to the people who have helped me over the last few years I am coping with it better each year. Maybe by the time I am 50 I will be able to enjoy the day properly.
It didn't help that the day before I had a puncture on my bike. The second in as many weeks. And both caused by hitting holes in the road, rather than sharp objects or wear and tear. Which is annoying because that is just down to rubbish road maintenance by Surrey County Council.
Not surprising since even after a fatal accident on Bridge Street in Guildford, last February, which lead to a petition of 11,000 people calling for immediate change to protect pedestrians nothing has happened.
Only last week I was a passenger in a car being driven over Bridge Street at 20 mph and we had an impatient 4x4 driver angrily tailgating us. That road is so dangerous the way many people chase along it.
Anyway. To add insult to injury I had a spare tube with me but after replacing it by the side of the road, I found that my pump was broken so I couldn't inflate it. Had to walk home :(
But a few days after my birthday Guildford was totally gridlocked (again) so I got a reminder of why cycling is sometimes the best way to travel.
Thanks to the people who have helped me over the last few years I am coping with it better each year. Maybe by the time I am 50 I will be able to enjoy the day properly.
It didn't help that the day before I had a puncture on my bike. The second in as many weeks. And both caused by hitting holes in the road, rather than sharp objects or wear and tear. Which is annoying because that is just down to rubbish road maintenance by Surrey County Council.
Not surprising since even after a fatal accident on Bridge Street in Guildford, last February, which lead to a petition of 11,000 people calling for immediate change to protect pedestrians nothing has happened.
Only last week I was a passenger in a car being driven over Bridge Street at 20 mph and we had an impatient 4x4 driver angrily tailgating us. That road is so dangerous the way many people chase along it.
Anyway. To add insult to injury I had a spare tube with me but after replacing it by the side of the road, I found that my pump was broken so I couldn't inflate it. Had to walk home :(
But a few days after my birthday Guildford was totally gridlocked (again) so I got a reminder of why cycling is sometimes the best way to travel.
Monday 22 August 2016
Olympics 2016
The Olympics are over for another 4 years.
Didn't we (GB) do well. Apparently, yes, according to the medal table. Well, one of the medal tables... I'm not sure that any of them really mean much. But we certainly won a lot of medals.
I say "we", as if I had anything to do with it. I don't even play the Lottery. I did cheer from the side of the road in the 2012 road race, which might have inspired Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins a bit. No. Probably didn't help much.
This was a weird games for me.
I watched some of it on TV. But because of the time difference I didn't stay up late to watch any of the "main" events. So lots of it was second-hand viewing.
The BBC did a decent job, apart from the mad channel switching. I mean, Olympics all night on BBC1 apart from Eastenders... please switch over to BBC2 for half an hour because we have to game the ratings.
Amazingly they did delay the 10pm news for Jason Kenny in the keirin. Which then over-ran massively with those 2 restarts. Go Kenny!!! And Laura!!!
Watched a bit of the Tae-kwon-do ... mixed feelings about that ... should probably call it Tae-do now that punches almost never score?
Even watched some horse things?!? And swimming.
What the hell is BMX about? Top riders got run off the course on lap 1... and out. Madness.
Hazel Irvine presenting. Slightly less annoying than when she ruins the snooker.
Lots of excitement about Usain Bolt (only saw the replays).
Distance runner Brendan Foster declaring distance runner Mo Farah the best British sportsman of all time. Yeah, not at all biased.
But overall a very fragmented experience. Didn't feel like one event at all this time.
Wonder what Tokyo will be like? Would love to go!!!
Didn't we (GB) do well. Apparently, yes, according to the medal table. Well, one of the medal tables... I'm not sure that any of them really mean much. But we certainly won a lot of medals.
I say "we", as if I had anything to do with it. I don't even play the Lottery. I did cheer from the side of the road in the 2012 road race, which might have inspired Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins a bit. No. Probably didn't help much.
This was a weird games for me.
I watched some of it on TV. But because of the time difference I didn't stay up late to watch any of the "main" events. So lots of it was second-hand viewing.
The BBC did a decent job, apart from the mad channel switching. I mean, Olympics all night on BBC1 apart from Eastenders... please switch over to BBC2 for half an hour because we have to game the ratings.
Amazingly they did delay the 10pm news for Jason Kenny in the keirin. Which then over-ran massively with those 2 restarts. Go Kenny!!! And Laura!!!
Watched a bit of the Tae-kwon-do ... mixed feelings about that ... should probably call it Tae-do now that punches almost never score?
Even watched some horse things?!? And swimming.
What the hell is BMX about? Top riders got run off the course on lap 1... and out. Madness.
Hazel Irvine presenting. Slightly less annoying than when she ruins the snooker.
Lots of excitement about Usain Bolt (only saw the replays).
Distance runner Brendan Foster declaring distance runner Mo Farah the best British sportsman of all time. Yeah, not at all biased.
But overall a very fragmented experience. Didn't feel like one event at all this time.
Wonder what Tokyo will be like? Would love to go!!!
Sunday 7 August 2016
BBC Sport for everyone and no-one
Last week's BBC coverage of the Ride 100 Classic was pretty poor. Especially when they lost picture for the crucial last 5km with Geraint Thomas trying to cling on to his lead.
But at least they had David Millar on his motorbike giving us some insight.
Yesterday's coverage of the Olympic road race was awful.
For a start, it was bounced between BBC 1 and the "Red Button" channels that I can't get... so I watched a lot of it on the PS4 app... with no commentary initially, plenty of buffering and mediocre picture quality.
When we did get commentary it was Chris Boardman and some stato who kept talking over him to tell us that the guy on the front was 4th in the Tour of Nowhere 2 years ago !?!
It may have been the sound quality, but several times it sounded to me like Chris and Stato were eating something and trying to talk with their mouths full.
And clearly they had very little information about what was going on. Probably not their fault, but in that situation you need someone like David Millar who can fill in the gaps with educated guesses.
I have massive respect for Boardman, who has done a huge amount of work for cycling in the UK, but he is best as a pre-race and post-race analyst, not as an in-race commentator. Have the BBC never seen the excellent ITV4 coverage of the Tour de France?
So the live coverage was a bit dodgy. But what really made me angry was the potted summary which was shown later.
In the summary Steve Cummings was shown pulling over and Chris Boardman said "That's disappointing". Which gave the impression that Steve had done a poor ride. He did a brilliant job. The full quote was "That's disappointing he had to do a team job early on rather than having a chance to go for it himself".
Very poor editing.
There was also very little respect for Geraint Thomas who was shown in the gutter after his crash, without any mention of the fact that he had done an excellent ride and was in contention for a long time.
All the talk was about Chris Froome finishing 12th. As if he was ever a serious contender for gold. He's never won a major one-day race. He's a Grand Tour rider. Don't the BBC understand that? Or do they think the audience are too stupid to understand? He won the TdF, and this is only 200km, so he should win easy... right?
Even worse, I heard one piece that said "Just like Mark Cavendish's failure to win 4 years ago, Team GB favourite Chris Froome was disapointed to be out of the medals."
Really?
Cavendish is a bunch sprinter. There wasn't a bunch sprint in London 2012, so he didn't win. Froome was heavily marked yesterday, he never had a chance.
The ignorance of the BBC is astounding. Come on. You can do better than this. The BBC coverage of some sports is excellent. Surely you can find some decent journalists to write up a fair summary for all the events?
But at least they had David Millar on his motorbike giving us some insight.
Yesterday's coverage of the Olympic road race was awful.
For a start, it was bounced between BBC 1 and the "Red Button" channels that I can't get... so I watched a lot of it on the PS4 app... with no commentary initially, plenty of buffering and mediocre picture quality.
When we did get commentary it was Chris Boardman and some stato who kept talking over him to tell us that the guy on the front was 4th in the Tour of Nowhere 2 years ago !?!
It may have been the sound quality, but several times it sounded to me like Chris and Stato were eating something and trying to talk with their mouths full.
And clearly they had very little information about what was going on. Probably not their fault, but in that situation you need someone like David Millar who can fill in the gaps with educated guesses.
I have massive respect for Boardman, who has done a huge amount of work for cycling in the UK, but he is best as a pre-race and post-race analyst, not as an in-race commentator. Have the BBC never seen the excellent ITV4 coverage of the Tour de France?
So the live coverage was a bit dodgy. But what really made me angry was the potted summary which was shown later.
In the summary Steve Cummings was shown pulling over and Chris Boardman said "That's disappointing". Which gave the impression that Steve had done a poor ride. He did a brilliant job. The full quote was "That's disappointing he had to do a team job early on rather than having a chance to go for it himself".
Very poor editing.
There was also very little respect for Geraint Thomas who was shown in the gutter after his crash, without any mention of the fact that he had done an excellent ride and was in contention for a long time.
All the talk was about Chris Froome finishing 12th. As if he was ever a serious contender for gold. He's never won a major one-day race. He's a Grand Tour rider. Don't the BBC understand that? Or do they think the audience are too stupid to understand? He won the TdF, and this is only 200km, so he should win easy... right?
Even worse, I heard one piece that said "Just like Mark Cavendish's failure to win 4 years ago, Team GB favourite Chris Froome was disapointed to be out of the medals."
Really?
Cavendish is a bunch sprinter. There wasn't a bunch sprint in London 2012, so he didn't win. Froome was heavily marked yesterday, he never had a chance.
The ignorance of the BBC is astounding. Come on. You can do better than this. The BBC coverage of some sports is excellent. Surely you can find some decent journalists to write up a fair summary for all the events?
Friday 22 July 2016
An Englishman In Prague
I was in Prague last week for the European Rubik's Cube Championship. It's the first time I have been to Eastern Europe and there were a few things I noticed.
0) Interesting
Don't take any of this as critical. I really enjoyed my visit. These are just my observations of differences between Prague and more western cities that I have visited.
1) Lack of vowels
Czech words are really hard to pronounce, because it looks like someone has stolen lots of the vowels. There are several types of accent too, which are used above both consonants and vowels. I tried to look up a few words before I travelled... but was worried that even the word for thank-you might trip me up.
2) Patchy English
Being a capital city popular with tourists, I thought there might be some signs in English. But I didn't see any. All the signs (even the ones to tourist attractions) are in Czech. Some cafes and restaurants have menus in foreign languages, but many do not.
Lots of people do speak quite good English though. One waiter got a nice tip from us after translating the whole menu for the restaurant!
3) Cash only
We almost got caught out a few times by cafes that did not accept card payments. I'm so used to places taking cards for anything over £10 so it was a bit of a surprise that cards weren't accepted at all sometimes. So make sure you have enough cash to pay your bill.
4) Clearing tables
It seems to be standard that waiters come and clear plates and glasses as soon as they are empty. Which feels odd if you are used to them waiting until everyone has finished. We had a large range of eating speeds; so there was often someone who had an empty setting and then later one person who was the only one with a plate left.
5) Transport
The trams and metro are brilliant. But where do you buy tickets? We were told that 3-day passes were the best value... but we couldn't find out where to buy them. The stations only seemed to sell 1-day tickets. Eventually a fellow tourist pointed us at a small shop that did sell them... even though there was no visible indication anywhere inside or out that they did.
Mainline trains were a bit trickier. We ended up getting out to Radotin on a coach and then trying to get back on the train. But the ticket office was closed. We got on the train hoping to buy a ticket from the guard... and didn't see one. Later someone said there was a 400 Kc fine for being on the train with no ticket... so it could have been bad... but what are you supposed to do???
6) Tour groups
The castle was swamped with big groups of tourists. We went into a cafe that looked half empty but all the tables were reserved for tour groups. To get a decent look at anything you had to track the groups and try to fit in between them.
I find it vaguely amusing to watch people in tour groups. They all shuffle along taking photos of everything without actually looking at anything. I pity the poor families back home who have to look at the pictures... "What's that?" ... "Another church in Prague."
7) Reasonably priced
Even the inflated tourist areas weren't very expensive. And the normal priced bars and restaurants were very reasonable. Makes a nice change from other capital cities where everyone just tries to rip off as much of your money as they possibly can.
0) Interesting
Don't take any of this as critical. I really enjoyed my visit. These are just my observations of differences between Prague and more western cities that I have visited.
1) Lack of vowels
Czech words are really hard to pronounce, because it looks like someone has stolen lots of the vowels. There are several types of accent too, which are used above both consonants and vowels. I tried to look up a few words before I travelled... but was worried that even the word for thank-you might trip me up.
2) Patchy English
Being a capital city popular with tourists, I thought there might be some signs in English. But I didn't see any. All the signs (even the ones to tourist attractions) are in Czech. Some cafes and restaurants have menus in foreign languages, but many do not.
Lots of people do speak quite good English though. One waiter got a nice tip from us after translating the whole menu for the restaurant!
3) Cash only
We almost got caught out a few times by cafes that did not accept card payments. I'm so used to places taking cards for anything over £10 so it was a bit of a surprise that cards weren't accepted at all sometimes. So make sure you have enough cash to pay your bill.
4) Clearing tables
It seems to be standard that waiters come and clear plates and glasses as soon as they are empty. Which feels odd if you are used to them waiting until everyone has finished. We had a large range of eating speeds; so there was often someone who had an empty setting and then later one person who was the only one with a plate left.
5) Transport
The trams and metro are brilliant. But where do you buy tickets? We were told that 3-day passes were the best value... but we couldn't find out where to buy them. The stations only seemed to sell 1-day tickets. Eventually a fellow tourist pointed us at a small shop that did sell them... even though there was no visible indication anywhere inside or out that they did.
Mainline trains were a bit trickier. We ended up getting out to Radotin on a coach and then trying to get back on the train. But the ticket office was closed. We got on the train hoping to buy a ticket from the guard... and didn't see one. Later someone said there was a 400 Kc fine for being on the train with no ticket... so it could have been bad... but what are you supposed to do???
6) Tour groups
The castle was swamped with big groups of tourists. We went into a cafe that looked half empty but all the tables were reserved for tour groups. To get a decent look at anything you had to track the groups and try to fit in between them.
I find it vaguely amusing to watch people in tour groups. They all shuffle along taking photos of everything without actually looking at anything. I pity the poor families back home who have to look at the pictures... "What's that?" ... "Another church in Prague."
7) Reasonably priced
Even the inflated tourist areas weren't very expensive. And the normal priced bars and restaurants were very reasonable. Makes a nice change from other capital cities where everyone just tries to rip off as much of your money as they possibly can.
Friday 1 July 2016
True Colours
It has been a long week. In fact I can hardly believe it has only been one week since the UK voted to leave the EU.
A lot has happened and not much of it makes me proud to be British.
The worst of us have shown their true colours.
Firstly the racists didn't delay in telling as many migrants as they could to "go home". I even heard of someone who actually thought voting Leave was a vote for all the migrants to leave the UK. Morons.
Then the EU bureaucrats showed us why many reasonable people voted with the racists to leave. Jean-Claude Junker basically said "OK, piss off then, we never liked you anyway". Cheers. As a remain voter, you actually made me wonder why I ever bothered defending the EU to my leave friends.
Remainers lost their minds in despair and started crying for a second referendum because... er... they lost and didn't expect to. Millions signed a petition asking for the rules of the referendum to be changed. Sorry guys, 6 months too late.
People said "But what about the youth? It affects them so much more than the old people who voted out". And yet the turnout for under-25s was estimated at 30% compared to an overall 70%. Since this was about their future, why did so few of them bloody vote?!?
With the country in turmoil I thought we might be able to rely on our sportsmen to lift the mood. But no. Once again the mightily over-hyped millionaire footballers of England choked at a major footballing tournament and lost to the valiant amateurs from Iceland. All our hopes rest on Wales now... although I know England fans who actually want Wales to lose so they don't make England look too much like the mighty losers than we all really know they are!
Do the English want the UK broken up? I wonder sometimes. I certainly think London wants to break away from the rest of the UK next. And I've heard people say that they wish Scotland had already gone. Jesus Christ. What is going on?
With Cameron resigned but not gone what did Labour do? Their MPs suddenly decided that this was a good time to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. The leader they never wanted. A vote of no confidence. And what happens if the party members re-elect him by a big majority again? Will all the MPs have to resign from the party? What a mess. And how depressing. Opportunism at its worst.
The other smaller parties might have been saying things, but the media didn't report anything other than Nigel Farage going to the EU to say "Na na na na na".
Then finally the Tories had to stand up to replace Cameron. In a fit of irony Michael Gove decided to knife Boris in the back, just as he had done to Cameron. Instead of standing anyway Boris just quit! So now we will probably get Theresa "snoopers charter" May as the next PM.
Bollocks. Was Orwell wrong on one thing; might Big Brother be a woman?
And it has rained a lot.
A lot has happened and not much of it makes me proud to be British.
The worst of us have shown their true colours.
Firstly the racists didn't delay in telling as many migrants as they could to "go home". I even heard of someone who actually thought voting Leave was a vote for all the migrants to leave the UK. Morons.
Then the EU bureaucrats showed us why many reasonable people voted with the racists to leave. Jean-Claude Junker basically said "OK, piss off then, we never liked you anyway". Cheers. As a remain voter, you actually made me wonder why I ever bothered defending the EU to my leave friends.
Remainers lost their minds in despair and started crying for a second referendum because... er... they lost and didn't expect to. Millions signed a petition asking for the rules of the referendum to be changed. Sorry guys, 6 months too late.
People said "But what about the youth? It affects them so much more than the old people who voted out". And yet the turnout for under-25s was estimated at 30% compared to an overall 70%. Since this was about their future, why did so few of them bloody vote?!?
With the country in turmoil I thought we might be able to rely on our sportsmen to lift the mood. But no. Once again the mightily over-hyped millionaire footballers of England choked at a major footballing tournament and lost to the valiant amateurs from Iceland. All our hopes rest on Wales now... although I know England fans who actually want Wales to lose so they don't make England look too much like the mighty losers than we all really know they are!
Do the English want the UK broken up? I wonder sometimes. I certainly think London wants to break away from the rest of the UK next. And I've heard people say that they wish Scotland had already gone. Jesus Christ. What is going on?
With Cameron resigned but not gone what did Labour do? Their MPs suddenly decided that this was a good time to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. The leader they never wanted. A vote of no confidence. And what happens if the party members re-elect him by a big majority again? Will all the MPs have to resign from the party? What a mess. And how depressing. Opportunism at its worst.
The other smaller parties might have been saying things, but the media didn't report anything other than Nigel Farage going to the EU to say "Na na na na na".
Then finally the Tories had to stand up to replace Cameron. In a fit of irony Michael Gove decided to knife Boris in the back, just as he had done to Cameron. Instead of standing anyway Boris just quit! So now we will probably get Theresa "snoopers charter" May as the next PM.
Bollocks. Was Orwell wrong on one thing; might Big Brother be a woman?
And it has rained a lot.
Friday 27 May 2016
Advice for undecideds in the EU Referendum
I've been thinking about the EU Referendum and can't decide how to vote. But a few things have become very clear, so here are some of my conclusions :-
1) Don't beat yourself up over it.
There's nothing wrong with being undecided. It shows that you are thinking about the issues and trying to decide rationally. That's a lot more effort than the people who blindly follow a leader, or don't even vote, will be putting in. There's no right or wrong answer... and you only have one vote... so whatever you decide as an individual wont change the result in itself.
Life will go on whatever the decision. And we'll probably be OK either way!
2) There are no facts.
Whatever one side says, the other side has "facts" to say the opposite. It is pointless looking for impartial facts because everyone is biased in some way. The promise of an honest debate based on good information lasted about 5 minutes until each side found something dodgy that looked very convincing.
All the "information" about what might happen in the future is based on assumptions about what might happen if we stay or go. And all projections are subject to errors on top of that. You are better off looking at the past, not trying to guess who has the best crystal ball.
At the end of the day you are going to have to make a judgement based mostly on gut instinct. Sorry, that's how it is.
3) The turnout may be disappointing.
I wish voting were compulsory on things like this. If the turnout is such that the winning side gets less than 50% of the people who could have voted, then I think that leaves the door open for bad feeling on the losing side that can continue to fester for years.
A result like 30% for, 30% against, 40% don't know, tells you a lot more than 50% for, 50% against with a 60% turnout. Because you never know if people don't vote because they can't decide, or because they can't be bothered, or because they want to protest against the vote for some reason.
4) It will be close.
Which is bad. Because the arguments haven't been made convincingly by either side. So after the vote about half the country will probably be really pissed off that their choice was not the winner.
1) Don't beat yourself up over it.
There's nothing wrong with being undecided. It shows that you are thinking about the issues and trying to decide rationally. That's a lot more effort than the people who blindly follow a leader, or don't even vote, will be putting in. There's no right or wrong answer... and you only have one vote... so whatever you decide as an individual wont change the result in itself.
Life will go on whatever the decision. And we'll probably be OK either way!
2) There are no facts.
Whatever one side says, the other side has "facts" to say the opposite. It is pointless looking for impartial facts because everyone is biased in some way. The promise of an honest debate based on good information lasted about 5 minutes until each side found something dodgy that looked very convincing.
All the "information" about what might happen in the future is based on assumptions about what might happen if we stay or go. And all projections are subject to errors on top of that. You are better off looking at the past, not trying to guess who has the best crystal ball.
At the end of the day you are going to have to make a judgement based mostly on gut instinct. Sorry, that's how it is.
3) The turnout may be disappointing.
I wish voting were compulsory on things like this. If the turnout is such that the winning side gets less than 50% of the people who could have voted, then I think that leaves the door open for bad feeling on the losing side that can continue to fester for years.
A result like 30% for, 30% against, 40% don't know, tells you a lot more than 50% for, 50% against with a 60% turnout. Because you never know if people don't vote because they can't decide, or because they can't be bothered, or because they want to protest against the vote for some reason.
4) It will be close.
Which is bad. Because the arguments haven't been made convincingly by either side. So after the vote about half the country will probably be really pissed off that their choice was not the winner.
TV is dead
For the pedants I should probably qualify the title as broadcast TV is dead. But when I was young that was the only TV there was, so to me they are synonymous.
In the last year I have probably watched more video content than ever before... and yet hardly any of it has been broadcast TV. So much so that I am now seriously considering getting rid of my tuner. In the UK that means I wont have to pay the TV license any more, which is currently £145.50 per year.
How things change. A year or two ago I was a big fan of the BBC and wouldn't have dreamed of not having a TV. That's mostly down to a few BBC programmes that I really used to love like Dr Who and Sherlock. I can't remember the last thing I watched on a commercial channel... because I hate in-programme adverts with such a passion. It was probably Endeavour, recorded so that I could skip the ads.
Until recently a few great programmes a year were enough to keep me going, because of all the other bits and pieces I used to watch on TV too... like news, sport and documentaries.
But I don't watch TV news any more. There's a whole blog post there in itself. But in summary, I don't watch it because it is rubbish and gives you a distorted view of the world. Rolling news? Jeez.
Sport? There's hardly any on free-to-air TV now. And what there is is on at dumb times. I switched on my TV at 3pm for the FA Cup final last Saturday because I wasn't doing anything else. And found that the kick off is now at 5.30pm. When did that happen? It has always been at 3pm. Anyway, I was going out for dinner so there was no point in watching the beginning.
I like snooker, but when it is on the BBC they show a frame or two live and then switch to the red button or online... usually in the middle of a frame. So you might as well watch the whole thing online.
Documentaries? There are so many online that the few decent ones on TV really are no loss to miss.
So you get to a point where you think "I'm not watching much TV now, so why pay £150 a year for it?"
Which should be frightening for the traditional broadcasters, because if 45 year old male telly addicts like me are abandoning them then they are going to be in trouble sooner than they think. I know young people aren't getting into TV but I bet the current BBC and ITV execs think they are set for at least their lifetimes and might be in for a shock.
How has this happened? The internet.
I can watch lots of great TV shows (without ad breaks) on Netflix. When I want, not when some scheduler thinks I should watch it. If I want to watch 3 episodes in a night then I can... I don't have to watch one a week over a month or so!
I can watch films (without ad breaks) on many platforms. I can rent blu-ray disks on Cinema Paradiso to get great quality if I want it.
I can watch documentaries on YouTube on just about any subject. There are TED talks. There are recordings of lectures and seminars from universities all over the world.
Broadcast TV is now a tiny window on a much, much bigger world. It just isn't relevant to me any more. I don't need a TV. I have an internet.
Saturday 7 May 2016
Royal Mail stuck in 20th century
Like many people in the 21st century, I shop online a lot. But I groan when I see an online retailer is going to send me my items by Royal Mail. Because of all the delivery companies they are by far the worst at actually getting a parcel into my hands.
Firstly there is delivery time. Most days I am out in the morning. Royal Mail do not care about this because they always deliver parcels to my house at about 11am. Every time. The last 5 parcels delivered by Royal Mail have all arrived at between 11am and 11:10am. I can't remember a parcel ever arriving before 11am or after 1pm.
In fact the only time I ever get a parcel first time from Royal Mail is on the odd occasion when they deliver on a Saturday.
So, redelivery maybe. Well why would I ask them to try to redeliver it when I know they are probably just going to come at 11am again when I am out? Duh.
So, collection it is then.
I live quite close to the Post Office in Guildford, so this should be easy. But this is Royal Mail not the Post Office (as I was told rather curtly by a Royal Mail employee once). And the Royal Mail collection office is right out on the other edge of town... well away from public transport.
Most people drive there, on a Saturday morning. There are about 6 customer car parking spaces. But these are usually occupied by Royal Mail staff. I know this because once I walked there (I don't have a car) and all the spaces were full despite me being the only customer there... I asked the man at the desk why the customer parking was full when I was the only customer there... and he muttered something about it not really being customer parking any more.
Usually I go in the afternoon when it is quiet. But if you do have to go on a Saturday morning then I pity you, because there is often a long queue.
So you hand over your red card and if you remembered to bring ID then they go off to find your parcel. Sometimes this takes them a while... so you have time to look around. There are big notices up that say "NO MOBILE PHONES TO BE USED IN THIS AREA PLEASE!!!!!". Yes, that is 5 exclamation marks.
What happens if someone uses a mobile phone in that area? Does the whole postal system crash? I don't understand why they are so worried about this. Not so much that they have to SHOUT IT AT YOU while you wait.
There are also signs asking you to respect the employees. Which I guess means they have a lot of people in who are cross and take it out on the employees. I'm not going to condone bad behaviour... but I can certainly understand why some people rocking up there, not being able to park, then waiting a long time for a parcel that they would rather have received at their home (as they paid for), might not be feeling at their best by the time they get served.
Once I had to wait more than 10 minutes for them to find my parcel. You would think they had a decent system for this by now...
What would help?
This is the 21st century. Many households are empty during the day. Delivering everything 9-5 is stupid. Delivering everything at the same time to a household when no-one is in is even more stupid.
Why can't I specify a preferred time? Why can't you even try delivering in the afternoon? That doesn't seem so hard.
Why do you return parcels to an out-of-town delivery office, when I live near the Post Office? Why can't I specify a preferred collection point?
At some point I am going to stop shopping with online companies that use Royal Mail and only use the ones that use other couriers. Because I have given you every chance to get into the 21st century... and you have failed!
Firstly there is delivery time. Most days I am out in the morning. Royal Mail do not care about this because they always deliver parcels to my house at about 11am. Every time. The last 5 parcels delivered by Royal Mail have all arrived at between 11am and 11:10am. I can't remember a parcel ever arriving before 11am or after 1pm.
In fact the only time I ever get a parcel first time from Royal Mail is on the odd occasion when they deliver on a Saturday.
So, redelivery maybe. Well why would I ask them to try to redeliver it when I know they are probably just going to come at 11am again when I am out? Duh.
So, collection it is then.
I live quite close to the Post Office in Guildford, so this should be easy. But this is Royal Mail not the Post Office (as I was told rather curtly by a Royal Mail employee once). And the Royal Mail collection office is right out on the other edge of town... well away from public transport.
Most people drive there, on a Saturday morning. There are about 6 customer car parking spaces. But these are usually occupied by Royal Mail staff. I know this because once I walked there (I don't have a car) and all the spaces were full despite me being the only customer there... I asked the man at the desk why the customer parking was full when I was the only customer there... and he muttered something about it not really being customer parking any more.
Usually I go in the afternoon when it is quiet. But if you do have to go on a Saturday morning then I pity you, because there is often a long queue.
So you hand over your red card and if you remembered to bring ID then they go off to find your parcel. Sometimes this takes them a while... so you have time to look around. There are big notices up that say "NO MOBILE PHONES TO BE USED IN THIS AREA PLEASE!!!!!". Yes, that is 5 exclamation marks.
What happens if someone uses a mobile phone in that area? Does the whole postal system crash? I don't understand why they are so worried about this. Not so much that they have to SHOUT IT AT YOU while you wait.
There are also signs asking you to respect the employees. Which I guess means they have a lot of people in who are cross and take it out on the employees. I'm not going to condone bad behaviour... but I can certainly understand why some people rocking up there, not being able to park, then waiting a long time for a parcel that they would rather have received at their home (as they paid for), might not be feeling at their best by the time they get served.
Once I had to wait more than 10 minutes for them to find my parcel. You would think they had a decent system for this by now...
What would help?
This is the 21st century. Many households are empty during the day. Delivering everything 9-5 is stupid. Delivering everything at the same time to a household when no-one is in is even more stupid.
Why can't I specify a preferred time? Why can't you even try delivering in the afternoon? That doesn't seem so hard.
Why do you return parcels to an out-of-town delivery office, when I live near the Post Office? Why can't I specify a preferred collection point?
At some point I am going to stop shopping with online companies that use Royal Mail and only use the ones that use other couriers. Because I have given you every chance to get into the 21st century... and you have failed!
Tuesday 19 April 2016
I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK (2006)
I really wanted to like this. It's quirky and amusing, but quite a serious subject too. At the beginning. But it doesn't really develop. It gets weirder, yes. But does it actually go anywhere? It seems like it is just trying to get weirder for the sake of it.
Maybe I just missed the point. But I got bored with it about 3/4 of the way in. So I just didn't care what happened at the end.
Maybe I just missed the point. But I got bored with it about 3/4 of the way in. So I just didn't care what happened at the end.
Saturday 16 April 2016
Daredevil (series 2)
After signing up with Netflix last year to see the first series of Daredevil, I was obviously looking forward to series 2.
And I wasn't disappointed.
Like the first series, it takes its time to build up the characters and the main storyline. There are a few surprises and things move along for all the characters from the first series...
...as well as introducing Elektra and The Punisher. (and The Hand)
The few times there was a lull and I started to doubt the writing, there was a twist that made me sit right up and start taking notice again.
With a lull now until the next Marvel Netflix series I might well watch both DD series again back to back... to make sure I didn't miss anything.
(although I am into a couple of other series like Continuum now and have plenty of disks to watch from Cinema Paradiso)
And I wasn't disappointed.
Like the first series, it takes its time to build up the characters and the main storyline. There are a few surprises and things move along for all the characters from the first series...
...as well as introducing Elektra and The Punisher. (and The Hand)
The few times there was a lull and I started to doubt the writing, there was a twist that made me sit right up and start taking notice again.
With a lull now until the next Marvel Netflix series I might well watch both DD series again back to back... to make sure I didn't miss anything.
(although I am into a couple of other series like Continuum now and have plenty of disks to watch from Cinema Paradiso)
Monday 28 March 2016
Hannah Woods
There was a young lady last week in the bank who seemed strangely familiar. So much so that, as much as I tried not to, I couldn't help looking up at her to try and remember where I had seen her before.
And of course, after a minute or so, she happened to look my way as I was looking at her and like an idiot I immediately looked away as if I had something to hide. Then I couldn't look again. And I felt embarrassed. And I thought she was probably feeling uncomfortable because she'd seen an older guy looking at her. And I felt more embarrassed.
All made worse by a story I heard on the radio about unwanted sexual attention. Which was actually about men groping women (and girls) in public places. But it had made me slightly annoyed because it also implied that men shouldn't even look at women if it made them uncomfortable...
...that's the women being uncomfortable. But have you considered how men might feel walking down a street with teenage girls wearing next to nothing? Do you not think that makes me feel uncomfortable? Because it does.
Of course everyone has the right to wear what they like. But the best articulation of how I feel was expressed by someone else like this: "You have the right to leave a diamond necklace on the back seat of your car, and not expect anyone to steal it. But you don't do that."
You can't have it both ways. You either dress eye-catchingly and expect people to look at you. Or you dress more modestly.
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to listen to me. But back to the origin of this post... I was fairly sure that I hadn't seen the girl in the bank, and that she simply reminded me of someone else.
I couldn't think who though. It had to have been someone in film or TV. I couldn't place her. Then I got a memory of a distinctive voice. So it had to be an actress didn't it?
Blind alley. I spent ages wondering which film or TV show she was from. Yes, you are right, I didn't have much else to do over the long weekend.
Have you ever tried to remember something, decided it wasn't worth the bother and then tried not to bother remembering it? The more I tried to put it out of my mind, the more it came coming back. Who was she? I don't care! Yes, but who is she?
And so it went on, all weekend.
Then, suddenly, I thought "If I can't remember her from film and TV series, and I don't know her, then maybe she was just a distinctive character on a game show or something?"
Bingo. I don't watch much TV that isn't drama, but I always watch University Challenge (go figure) ... and that was it. Suddenly I could picture her as clear as day. She was one of the captains on the current series. She'd been on several shows. I'd recorded most of them on my DVR. So I just had to flick through the last few.
Hannah Woods, captain of Peterhouse, Cambridge.
She stood out because she was a very good captain, as well as being quite pretty, having a funny eyebrow that seemed permanently raised, and speaking with a quite distinctive voice.
I looked her up on the internet. But was quite shocked to see articles about how women who appear on programmes like UC often get stalked on social media.
So I stopped looking. It feels like you can't take any interest in women now without being a nuisance.
This is a sad product of the 21 century, isn't it? In the old days you could only attract the attention of the people you actually met, or who were obsessed enough to write you a letter. Now you can be inundated with electronic messages that take no thought and no effort to send.
Anyway, good luck to Hannah and all the other contestants in the semi-finals of University Challenge. I'll be watching... if that's all right with you?
And of course, after a minute or so, she happened to look my way as I was looking at her and like an idiot I immediately looked away as if I had something to hide. Then I couldn't look again. And I felt embarrassed. And I thought she was probably feeling uncomfortable because she'd seen an older guy looking at her. And I felt more embarrassed.
All made worse by a story I heard on the radio about unwanted sexual attention. Which was actually about men groping women (and girls) in public places. But it had made me slightly annoyed because it also implied that men shouldn't even look at women if it made them uncomfortable...
...that's the women being uncomfortable. But have you considered how men might feel walking down a street with teenage girls wearing next to nothing? Do you not think that makes me feel uncomfortable? Because it does.
Of course everyone has the right to wear what they like. But the best articulation of how I feel was expressed by someone else like this: "You have the right to leave a diamond necklace on the back seat of your car, and not expect anyone to steal it. But you don't do that."
You can't have it both ways. You either dress eye-catchingly and expect people to look at you. Or you dress more modestly.
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to listen to me. But back to the origin of this post... I was fairly sure that I hadn't seen the girl in the bank, and that she simply reminded me of someone else.
I couldn't think who though. It had to have been someone in film or TV. I couldn't place her. Then I got a memory of a distinctive voice. So it had to be an actress didn't it?
Blind alley. I spent ages wondering which film or TV show she was from. Yes, you are right, I didn't have much else to do over the long weekend.
Have you ever tried to remember something, decided it wasn't worth the bother and then tried not to bother remembering it? The more I tried to put it out of my mind, the more it came coming back. Who was she? I don't care! Yes, but who is she?
And so it went on, all weekend.
Then, suddenly, I thought "If I can't remember her from film and TV series, and I don't know her, then maybe she was just a distinctive character on a game show or something?"
Bingo. I don't watch much TV that isn't drama, but I always watch University Challenge (go figure) ... and that was it. Suddenly I could picture her as clear as day. She was one of the captains on the current series. She'd been on several shows. I'd recorded most of them on my DVR. So I just had to flick through the last few.
Hannah Woods, captain of Peterhouse, Cambridge.
She stood out because she was a very good captain, as well as being quite pretty, having a funny eyebrow that seemed permanently raised, and speaking with a quite distinctive voice.
I looked her up on the internet. But was quite shocked to see articles about how women who appear on programmes like UC often get stalked on social media.
So I stopped looking. It feels like you can't take any interest in women now without being a nuisance.
This is a sad product of the 21 century, isn't it? In the old days you could only attract the attention of the people you actually met, or who were obsessed enough to write you a letter. Now you can be inundated with electronic messages that take no thought and no effort to send.
Anyway, good luck to Hannah and all the other contestants in the semi-finals of University Challenge. I'll be watching... if that's all right with you?
Guns and Talks (2001)
Korean action is one of my favourite genres. Which takes some saying because I hate the pigeon-holing of films (and anything else) into narrow bins with names. It is lazy, often debatable, and sometimes just wrong.
So it is with Guns and Talks. I wouldn't call this an action film. But it is Korean ;)
It has some of the elements of an action film, but no-one who had actually watched the film all the way through would call it an action film. Unless they were told to promote it as an action film...
Anyway, I digress. Despite my initial disappointment at the lack of action (I thought I was in the mood for blood) I did enjoy this film. It is sort of quirky and somewhat thought provoking.
At first the 4 anti-heroes are so matter-of-fact about being hired assassins that you wonder how they can be likeable characters. But over the film you do grow to like them in a way... because even killers are people? This is helped by the police being nasty pieces of work too. If not more so than the 4 friends.
There is some humour too. At one point one of the killers is talking about his feelings and he thinks the others have been moved to tears... when in fact they have covered their faces because they are cracking up laughing. Nicely done in the context of the story.
A decent film, not much action, but plenty of entertainment.
So it is with Guns and Talks. I wouldn't call this an action film. But it is Korean ;)
It has some of the elements of an action film, but no-one who had actually watched the film all the way through would call it an action film. Unless they were told to promote it as an action film...
Anyway, I digress. Despite my initial disappointment at the lack of action (I thought I was in the mood for blood) I did enjoy this film. It is sort of quirky and somewhat thought provoking.
At first the 4 anti-heroes are so matter-of-fact about being hired assassins that you wonder how they can be likeable characters. But over the film you do grow to like them in a way... because even killers are people? This is helped by the police being nasty pieces of work too. If not more so than the 4 friends.
There is some humour too. At one point one of the killers is talking about his feelings and he thinks the others have been moved to tears... when in fact they have covered their faces because they are cracking up laughing. Nicely done in the context of the story.
A decent film, not much action, but plenty of entertainment.
Wednesday 16 March 2016
Spoilerman
A friend of mine, who knows I am a Marvel fan, asked me last night why I'm not more excited about Spiderman being in the new Civil War trailer.
Because I haven't seen it and don't want to see it.
The trailer, I mean, not the movie ;)
Why are people so keen to see half of a movie's best bits cut together out of context? How is this going to enhance your enjoyment? Wouldn't it have been a great surprise to see Spiderman springing into action? Even if you knew he was going to be in the movie, at least you wouldn't have already seen him.
Civil War is such a well know story that surprises are already going to be pretty thin on the ground. So why go out of your way to dilute the visual surprise elements as well?
I know who the main protagonists are going to be. I know what the likely shock points are going to be. I know who wins the civil war!
So, since I probably already know more about this movie than any previous Marvel flick, the last thing I want to do is see the characters in advance.
The trailer, I mean, not the movie ;)
Why are people so keen to see half of a movie's best bits cut together out of context? How is this going to enhance your enjoyment? Wouldn't it have been a great surprise to see Spiderman springing into action? Even if you knew he was going to be in the movie, at least you wouldn't have already seen him.
Civil War is such a well know story that surprises are already going to be pretty thin on the ground. So why go out of your way to dilute the visual surprise elements as well?
I know who the main protagonists are going to be. I know what the likely shock points are going to be. I know who wins the civil war!
So, since I probably already know more about this movie than any previous Marvel flick, the last thing I want to do is see the characters in advance.
Tuesday 15 March 2016
Frank (2014)
I remember the comedian Frank Sidebottom. This film is supposedly inspired by him, but doesn't claim to be factual to any significant degree. Which probably means that only the funny dummy head and the weird music are Sidebottom.
Also, sadly, there is no appearance by Little Frank :(
Your mileage may vary, but I didn't find it particularly funny. Amusing, yes. Quirky, certainly. But actually funny? Not really.
The story is quite interesting. For a change instead of a wannabe musician finding his way to deserved success... the wannabe musician goes on a long journey toward the realisation that his music really isn't very good.
And instead of the maverick musical guru turning out to be a true genius... the maverick turns out to be a tormented soul with mental problems and some small talents.
The thing I liked best was the contrast between the ambitious wannabe and the band of misfits. He thought he was joining a potentially popular band that could gain him success. And he tried to push them in a direction that they didn't want... and couldn't actually cope with.
Interesting.
Also, sadly, there is no appearance by Little Frank :(
Your mileage may vary, but I didn't find it particularly funny. Amusing, yes. Quirky, certainly. But actually funny? Not really.
The story is quite interesting. For a change instead of a wannabe musician finding his way to deserved success... the wannabe musician goes on a long journey toward the realisation that his music really isn't very good.
And instead of the maverick musical guru turning out to be a true genius... the maverick turns out to be a tormented soul with mental problems and some small talents.
The thing I liked best was the contrast between the ambitious wannabe and the band of misfits. He thought he was joining a potentially popular band that could gain him success. And he tried to push them in a direction that they didn't want... and couldn't actually cope with.
Interesting.
Monday 14 March 2016
House of Cards (series 4)
I almost gave up on HoC4 after one episode. Because it resumes exactly where the third series ends and doesn't feel like an opener at all. In fact, it doesn't really seem to offer much more than a bitter husband vs wife feud.
Since I enjoyed seeing Frank + Claire versus the rest of the world, that's not something I wanted to see.
So I actually went a week or so before I decided to give it a couple more episodes.
I'm glad that I did, because the middle part of the series is great, but ultimately I have to say that the ending left me flat.
The main problem with this US "remake" is that it is drawing out the whole thing way too far. In the original UK version there were 3 series. It is rise and fall. Done.
Now I assume there will be a series 5 to wrap up. And I hope they do wrap up properly because it would be a shame to leave things hanging in the hope of a series 6 that fails to appear.
It's the reluctance to draw things to a conclusion that is making HoC much weaker than it could have been. Series 1 & 2 were great. Series 3 was weak and half of series 4 is weak too. But I guess there is just enough there to keep it compelling.
If only the makers had had the confidence to write a solid 3 series and then stop. This would have been a truly great piece of work. As it is, it is just fairly good.
Since I enjoyed seeing Frank + Claire versus the rest of the world, that's not something I wanted to see.
So I actually went a week or so before I decided to give it a couple more episodes.
I'm glad that I did, because the middle part of the series is great, but ultimately I have to say that the ending left me flat.
The main problem with this US "remake" is that it is drawing out the whole thing way too far. In the original UK version there were 3 series. It is rise and fall. Done.
Now I assume there will be a series 5 to wrap up. And I hope they do wrap up properly because it would be a shame to leave things hanging in the hope of a series 6 that fails to appear.
It's the reluctance to draw things to a conclusion that is making HoC much weaker than it could have been. Series 1 & 2 were great. Series 3 was weak and half of series 4 is weak too. But I guess there is just enough there to keep it compelling.
If only the makers had had the confidence to write a solid 3 series and then stop. This would have been a truly great piece of work. As it is, it is just fairly good.
Saturday 5 March 2016
Mystic River (2003) review
Story. Story. Story...
... that's the only thing that I can think is wrong with this film. Because despite some great performances from the 3 leads Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon, I just didn't enjoy it.
I enjoyed plenty of the scenes. But I didn't enjoy the film. Is that down to director Clint Eastwood? I don't know. I'm struggling to put my finger on it. But I think that ultimately the story doesn't work.
Perhaps it is a little bit too contrived? There are an awful lot of coincidences that are each OK, but as a whole a bit too much to swallow. That's probably what is nagging at me. Poor old Dave being a clear suspect for the murder just seems too unlikely. It would have been better if he had been clearly innocent, but implicated anyway just because of people's prejudices... that is more realistic.
Sorry guys. I know a lot of people like this film and it has won awards, which I can see are well deserved, but it didn't work for me.
... that's the only thing that I can think is wrong with this film. Because despite some great performances from the 3 leads Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon, I just didn't enjoy it.
I enjoyed plenty of the scenes. But I didn't enjoy the film. Is that down to director Clint Eastwood? I don't know. I'm struggling to put my finger on it. But I think that ultimately the story doesn't work.
Perhaps it is a little bit too contrived? There are an awful lot of coincidences that are each OK, but as a whole a bit too much to swallow. That's probably what is nagging at me. Poor old Dave being a clear suspect for the murder just seems too unlikely. It would have been better if he had been clearly innocent, but implicated anyway just because of people's prejudices... that is more realistic.
Sorry guys. I know a lot of people like this film and it has won awards, which I can see are well deserved, but it didn't work for me.
Tuesday 1 March 2016
John Wick (2014) review
This is a very cool action film. There's not a lot of story - bad thing happens to man who turns out to be more than capable of exacting revenge. That's about it.
But there are so many clever details. The hotel which all assassins treat as a neutral zone. The specialist cleaning company that takes care of dead bodies. The payments in gold coins.
All these things have been seen before, but here they are so smoothly slotted together that it creates a wonderfully believable community of killers.
The only thing I didn't like was the "tie up anti-hero on a chair and talk at him for long enough for help to arrive" scene. Yuk. That one scene stands out like a sore thumb! The boss character that has been built to that point would have just shot John Wick in the head at the first opportunity... because he knew how dangerous he was.
One sloppy scene I can forgive, though.
Excellent. So good I watched it twice... on the same night.
But there are so many clever details. The hotel which all assassins treat as a neutral zone. The specialist cleaning company that takes care of dead bodies. The payments in gold coins.
All these things have been seen before, but here they are so smoothly slotted together that it creates a wonderfully believable community of killers.
The only thing I didn't like was the "tie up anti-hero on a chair and talk at him for long enough for help to arrive" scene. Yuk. That one scene stands out like a sore thumb! The boss character that has been built to that point would have just shot John Wick in the head at the first opportunity... because he knew how dangerous he was.
One sloppy scene I can forgive, though.
Excellent. So good I watched it twice... on the same night.
Monday 15 February 2016
Cat Flap Technology
I like my cat. Which is quite something, since I'm not a cat person... at all. My wife wasn't really a cat person either. We were both dog people. But we didn't have a lifestyle that could fit in a dog, without having to leave it alone all day, which we didn't want to do.
So we got a kitten. Sooty. Jo soon grew to love her; I slowly grew to tolerate her; then eventually to quite like her... sometimes.
This is her when she was little... she's 10 years old now. And a few months ago we started getting unwanted visitors coming in through the cat flap at our house.
I remember it happening once before, a few years ago. We solved it then by getting one of those cat flaps that only triggers for cats wearing a special collar with a magnet on. The problem was that Sooty kept losing the collar. I think the magnet probably caused it to snag on fences or something. Which is a problem because (a) you have to keep replacing the collar, and (b) the cat is locked out if she loses the collar. Anyway, as soon as I switched back to a normal collar she didn't lose any more... and the foreign cats had stopped coming in by then so I just switched back to the old flap.
But recently a persistent invader has been coming in. I've scared it off a few times when I've found it in the kitchen. And Sooty has scared it off a few times too... but I think it has been stressful for her to do that, now that she's older. It probably leaves it's scent in the house too, which isn't nice for her.
I didn't want to go back to the magnetic flap again, but thought I probably should. So I was moaning about it to a friend. I said something along the lines of "wouldn't it be great if a cat flap could read the microchip in the cat's neck and let her in without any need for a special collar!" ... and my friend said "mate, you can buy those!"
Oh. Technology leaps way ahead of me.
So I bought one. They aren't cheap, at about £60, but it is brilliant. No more invaders and no more worrying about her losing her collar and getting locked out.
Isn't it great when technology actually delivers just what you need?!?
So we got a kitten. Sooty. Jo soon grew to love her; I slowly grew to tolerate her; then eventually to quite like her... sometimes.
This is her when she was little... she's 10 years old now. And a few months ago we started getting unwanted visitors coming in through the cat flap at our house.
I remember it happening once before, a few years ago. We solved it then by getting one of those cat flaps that only triggers for cats wearing a special collar with a magnet on. The problem was that Sooty kept losing the collar. I think the magnet probably caused it to snag on fences or something. Which is a problem because (a) you have to keep replacing the collar, and (b) the cat is locked out if she loses the collar. Anyway, as soon as I switched back to a normal collar she didn't lose any more... and the foreign cats had stopped coming in by then so I just switched back to the old flap.
But recently a persistent invader has been coming in. I've scared it off a few times when I've found it in the kitchen. And Sooty has scared it off a few times too... but I think it has been stressful for her to do that, now that she's older. It probably leaves it's scent in the house too, which isn't nice for her.
I didn't want to go back to the magnetic flap again, but thought I probably should. So I was moaning about it to a friend. I said something along the lines of "wouldn't it be great if a cat flap could read the microchip in the cat's neck and let her in without any need for a special collar!" ... and my friend said "mate, you can buy those!"
Oh. Technology leaps way ahead of me.
So I bought one. They aren't cheap, at about £60, but it is brilliant. No more invaders and no more worrying about her losing her collar and getting locked out.
Isn't it great when technology actually delivers just what you need?!?
Saturday 13 February 2016
The Homesman (2014) review
This is a bit of an odd film. It has a stellar cast, which can either mean potential classic or sad vanity project...
And somehow I think it is actually a bit of both.
I was really enjoying it, but then something happened which completely threw me. I understand that the film is based on a book - so it is hard to say where the fault lies in my disappointment... the original author, the film adaptation or myself for not understanding.
SPOILERS
The character of Mary Bee Cuddy seemed to me to be a strong woman. Surely she must have been made of stern stuff to take on the journey and to cleverly manage Briggs into helping her.
So why did she kill herself when the job was nearly done? It seemed completely out of character and came as a huge surprise. Until then I was enjoying the film. After that I thought "have I completely missed the point of this?"
The film does seem to go off the rails at that point. Briggs just seems very inconsistent. I didn't understand the dynamic between him and the people of Iowa. And why would someone kick a gravestone into the river?
So I enjoyed the first 3/4 of the film and then just didn't get the last 1/4.
And somehow I think it is actually a bit of both.
I was really enjoying it, but then something happened which completely threw me. I understand that the film is based on a book - so it is hard to say where the fault lies in my disappointment... the original author, the film adaptation or myself for not understanding.
SPOILERS
The character of Mary Bee Cuddy seemed to me to be a strong woman. Surely she must have been made of stern stuff to take on the journey and to cleverly manage Briggs into helping her.
So why did she kill herself when the job was nearly done? It seemed completely out of character and came as a huge surprise. Until then I was enjoying the film. After that I thought "have I completely missed the point of this?"
The film does seem to go off the rails at that point. Briggs just seems very inconsistent. I didn't understand the dynamic between him and the people of Iowa. And why would someone kick a gravestone into the river?
So I enjoyed the first 3/4 of the film and then just didn't get the last 1/4.
Deadpool (2016) review
When I saw the teaser trailer for Deadpool I thought "wow!" but wondered if the actual movie might not be able to sustain the wow-factor for its whole run time.
Fear not. Deadpool is brilliantly funny from start to finish.
And funny is what it is about. Many action films have humour thrown in to lighten the mood. But Deadpool is the opposite of that - a comedy with action thrown in to darken the mood.
The action is still great though. Much darker than you would be able to pull off if it weren't embedded in the comedy.
The comedy isn't something my mother would approve of... very sexual and what she would call "crude". But certainly adult humour. There was plenty of laughter in the cinema I visited - even during the opening credits - read them!
Deadpool is famous for breaking the fourth wall, and that does happen in the movie. The writing is very clever. Deadpool even talks to other characters as if they are part of the audience... "anyone would think the studio couldn't afford any more X-men".
I tried to keep my expectations low for this film, because Fox have screwed up Marvel characters a few times. But they have really nailed this one. Ace!
Fear not. Deadpool is brilliantly funny from start to finish.
And funny is what it is about. Many action films have humour thrown in to lighten the mood. But Deadpool is the opposite of that - a comedy with action thrown in to darken the mood.
The action is still great though. Much darker than you would be able to pull off if it weren't embedded in the comedy.
The comedy isn't something my mother would approve of... very sexual and what she would call "crude". But certainly adult humour. There was plenty of laughter in the cinema I visited - even during the opening credits - read them!
Deadpool is famous for breaking the fourth wall, and that does happen in the movie. The writing is very clever. Deadpool even talks to other characters as if they are part of the audience... "anyone would think the studio couldn't afford any more X-men".
I tried to keep my expectations low for this film, because Fox have screwed up Marvel characters a few times. But they have really nailed this one. Ace!
Monday 8 February 2016
The Originals
The biggest advantage that Netflix has over TV channels and disk rental outfits is the phenomenon of binge-watching.
It's both a blessing and a curse, in some ways. When you are off sick with a cold like I was today, then it is brilliant being able to watch 8 episodes back-to-back. On the other hand, when you have to get up for work the next day, watching one more episode at 2am probably isn't as great an idea as it seems at the time...
In the few months I've been 'flixed so far, I have watched Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Gotham, House of Cards (3 seasons), Sense8, Orphan Black (2 seasons) and now The Originals (2 seasons).
I've even started calling them seasons now, in the American style, rather than series. Which is somewhat ironic given that I am watching them in my own time and not on an annual broadcast schedule.
So what is so special about The Originals that has made me want to write about it? Maybe just the timing, because I was going to write something about Netflix TV series sooner or later. But there is something else.
There are several great characters in The Orginals who all play off against each other. Ultimately though everything revolves around one character... or actually a pair of characters... Klaus and his daughter Hope.
Initially Klaus is annoyingly unreasonable. Other characters seem cleverer, more noble, and less inclined to screw things up at every turn...
But as the episodes went by I came to realise something almost uniquely noble about Klaus. He is totally driven to do anything to protect his child. Anything. He will sacrifice his short term interests, alliances and those things most beloved by those closest to him to achieve his long term goal ... to protect Hope.
He is such a tragic character. As much as I hate the things he does; his love for Hope and his unswerving devotion to her are surprisingly admirable.
It's both a blessing and a curse, in some ways. When you are off sick with a cold like I was today, then it is brilliant being able to watch 8 episodes back-to-back. On the other hand, when you have to get up for work the next day, watching one more episode at 2am probably isn't as great an idea as it seems at the time...
In the few months I've been 'flixed so far, I have watched Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Gotham, House of Cards (3 seasons), Sense8, Orphan Black (2 seasons) and now The Originals (2 seasons).
I've even started calling them seasons now, in the American style, rather than series. Which is somewhat ironic given that I am watching them in my own time and not on an annual broadcast schedule.
So what is so special about The Originals that has made me want to write about it? Maybe just the timing, because I was going to write something about Netflix TV series sooner or later. But there is something else.
There are several great characters in The Orginals who all play off against each other. Ultimately though everything revolves around one character... or actually a pair of characters... Klaus and his daughter Hope.
Initially Klaus is annoyingly unreasonable. Other characters seem cleverer, more noble, and less inclined to screw things up at every turn...
But as the episodes went by I came to realise something almost uniquely noble about Klaus. He is totally driven to do anything to protect his child. Anything. He will sacrifice his short term interests, alliances and those things most beloved by those closest to him to achieve his long term goal ... to protect Hope.
He is such a tragic character. As much as I hate the things he does; his love for Hope and his unswerving devotion to her are surprisingly admirable.
Legend (2015) review
The only thing I didn't really like about Legend was the title. Why Legend, I wonder? Is it trying to hint that the film is more myth than history?
It is a very different film from The Krays (1990) which focussed on the twins growing up and their relationship with their mother. In Legend we are looking at the grown up twins, already gangsters, their relationship and the relationship between Reggie and his wife Frances.
Another difference is that we have identical twins here... since Tom Hardy plays both men. The Kemps are similar but not identical... and neither can act in the same league as Hardy.
The story is well known. And this film doesn't add much to what I already knew. Instead it tries to add to our understanding of what it might have been like to be involved in the crime scene of London in the 1950s and 1960s.
For me it worked. I found the twins very convincing. Often forgetting for a while that it was one man playing both. And Emily Browning does a great job too as Frances.
The interesting thing about the Kray twins is that they have two sides. On the one hand they are well-dressed club owners who mingled with aristocrats and celebrities. On the other hand they were brutally violent gangsters who intimidated, beat, tortured and killed people to get what they wanted.
Legend gets that across really well.
It is a very different film from The Krays (1990) which focussed on the twins growing up and their relationship with their mother. In Legend we are looking at the grown up twins, already gangsters, their relationship and the relationship between Reggie and his wife Frances.
Another difference is that we have identical twins here... since Tom Hardy plays both men. The Kemps are similar but not identical... and neither can act in the same league as Hardy.
The story is well known. And this film doesn't add much to what I already knew. Instead it tries to add to our understanding of what it might have been like to be involved in the crime scene of London in the 1950s and 1960s.
For me it worked. I found the twins very convincing. Often forgetting for a while that it was one man playing both. And Emily Browning does a great job too as Frances.
The interesting thing about the Kray twins is that they have two sides. On the one hand they are well-dressed club owners who mingled with aristocrats and celebrities. On the other hand they were brutally violent gangsters who intimidated, beat, tortured and killed people to get what they wanted.
Legend gets that across really well.
Sunday 7 February 2016
Tuesday 2 February 2016
King's Game (2004) review
Danish reporter tries to scupper baddie politician and his spin doctor.
I think the film falls a bit flat because we've seen all this before in the back story of The Killing and on Borgen. It's not that I didn't enjoy it. I did. But it felt like it should be one episode of something else... rather than a story on its own.
I think the film falls a bit flat because we've seen all this before in the back story of The Killing and on Borgen. It's not that I didn't enjoy it. I did. But it felt like it should be one episode of something else... rather than a story on its own.
Gentlemen of Science
I always wanted to be a scientist. Not the white-coated genius who just manages to come up with a world-saving miracle cure for the hero to deploy at the end of the movie. No. More of a gentleman scientist like Charles Darwin... plodding away patiently for years to gather evidence supporting a theory.
How many people with great ideas have never had the time to explore them?
Darwin had money. He didn't have to get a job to support his family. Instead he spent his time working on his scientific ideas. The ideas he wanted to work on.
I know a couple of people who you might describe as scientists. One works in a University - she complains that she spends most of her time trying to get grants to fund work, rather than doing any work; and can only work on what will be funded. The other works for a commercial company - he complains that he can only work on things that can be patented and make a good return on the investment.
Neither of them are working on the ideas that they really want to.
What are we missing out on by forcing them to work on other things?
If I was a billionaire I would give out grants to smart people to allow them to work on whatever they wanted. Maybe there are such billionaires out there... as well as the ones who buy football clubs, stupidly fast cars and yachts?
If I was in charge of Universities I would set aside funds for sabbaticals so that individuals could follow their hunches and work on ideas that might only play out after a few years.
Most people aren't good at explaining why they think something is a good idea. And most people aren't good at choosing between risky options. Leaving the management of ideas to the market is a terrible idea.
How many people with great ideas have never had the time to explore them?
Darwin had money. He didn't have to get a job to support his family. Instead he spent his time working on his scientific ideas. The ideas he wanted to work on.
I know a couple of people who you might describe as scientists. One works in a University - she complains that she spends most of her time trying to get grants to fund work, rather than doing any work; and can only work on what will be funded. The other works for a commercial company - he complains that he can only work on things that can be patented and make a good return on the investment.
Neither of them are working on the ideas that they really want to.
What are we missing out on by forcing them to work on other things?
If I was a billionaire I would give out grants to smart people to allow them to work on whatever they wanted. Maybe there are such billionaires out there... as well as the ones who buy football clubs, stupidly fast cars and yachts?
If I was in charge of Universities I would set aside funds for sabbaticals so that individuals could follow their hunches and work on ideas that might only play out after a few years.
Most people aren't good at explaining why they think something is a good idea. And most people aren't good at choosing between risky options. Leaving the management of ideas to the market is a terrible idea.
Circle (2015) review
When indie films hit the spot they can really be something special; and Circle is one of those that deserves to become a cult classic.
The premise is simple - fifty people wake up standing in a circle around a high-tech looking device and have to figure out what the hell is going on.
There are very few special effects. It's all in the script and the performances.
At first I was quite interested but thought it might become too much like The Cube or Fermat's Room. It doesn't. Instead it manages to draw you further and further in by creating a constantly changing dynamic between the participants. Just when you think you understand who is who, something changes (either subtly or dramatically) and you have to re-think again.
I loved the way it played out. It had me gripped right to the end.
Give it a go. It's only about 90 minutes long. Intriguing and surprising.
The premise is simple - fifty people wake up standing in a circle around a high-tech looking device and have to figure out what the hell is going on.
There are very few special effects. It's all in the script and the performances.
At first I was quite interested but thought it might become too much like The Cube or Fermat's Room. It doesn't. Instead it manages to draw you further and further in by creating a constantly changing dynamic between the participants. Just when you think you understand who is who, something changes (either subtly or dramatically) and you have to re-think again.
I loved the way it played out. It had me gripped right to the end.
Give it a go. It's only about 90 minutes long. Intriguing and surprising.
Monday 25 January 2016
Dakota Blue Richards
While I was watching Endeavour a few weeks ago (series 3 episode 2) I started to get that funny feeling that I had seen one of the characters somewhere before.
WPC Trewlove was a pretty girl who just reminded me of someone. At first I thought it was my late wife (if you swap blonde for dark hair) but it wasn't. After a while I realised that it was more to do with how she spoke than how she looked. She did look familiar, but she sounded more familiar... only occasionally though, as if it were some characteristic of her own accent that just managed to slip through the character's accent from time to time.
As the programme went on I was tempted to go get my laptop and look up the cast during one of the ad breaks. But I didn't. In the spirit of Morse I wanted to work it out myself.
And I did!
It suddenly came to me that if her voice was more familiar than her face then maybe she had been a child actor. As soon as I thought that the next time she appeared on screen it was obvious - Lyra from The Golden Compass. Which I happened to watch over Christmas, so I should have spotted it earlier.
I thought she was rather good in Endeavour. And she is in episodes 3 and 4 too, so I hope she is going to be a regular character in the next series as well.
Here is a photo I found of her,
.jpg)
Which does look quite a bit like Jo, but she had straighter hair.
I am tempted to track down some more of her work. But she doesn't seem to have done many films, mostly teenage TV stuff that I probably wouldn't like.
It's a real shame that the second and third films of His Dark Materials were never made with the same cast from The Golden Compass. I really enjoyed the books and the first movie... which was successful worldwide so why did the sequels fall by the wayside?
Anyway, I hope to see Miss Richards again in the next series of Endeavour and maybe more.
WPC Trewlove was a pretty girl who just reminded me of someone. At first I thought it was my late wife (if you swap blonde for dark hair) but it wasn't. After a while I realised that it was more to do with how she spoke than how she looked. She did look familiar, but she sounded more familiar... only occasionally though, as if it were some characteristic of her own accent that just managed to slip through the character's accent from time to time.
As the programme went on I was tempted to go get my laptop and look up the cast during one of the ad breaks. But I didn't. In the spirit of Morse I wanted to work it out myself.
And I did!
It suddenly came to me that if her voice was more familiar than her face then maybe she had been a child actor. As soon as I thought that the next time she appeared on screen it was obvious - Lyra from The Golden Compass. Which I happened to watch over Christmas, so I should have spotted it earlier.
I thought she was rather good in Endeavour. And she is in episodes 3 and 4 too, so I hope she is going to be a regular character in the next series as well.
Here is a photo I found of her,
Which does look quite a bit like Jo, but she had straighter hair.
I am tempted to track down some more of her work. But she doesn't seem to have done many films, mostly teenage TV stuff that I probably wouldn't like.
It's a real shame that the second and third films of His Dark Materials were never made with the same cast from The Golden Compass. I really enjoyed the books and the first movie... which was successful worldwide so why did the sequels fall by the wayside?
Anyway, I hope to see Miss Richards again in the next series of Endeavour and maybe more.
Child 44 (2015) review
Tom Hardy again. Except this time he has plenty of acting to do.
I'd heard bad things about Tom's Russian accent... but I thought it was OK, and I know some Russians!
One thing that soon becomes apparent, if you didn't know it, is that life under Stalin was one big heap of no fun. There are diktats like "there is no murder in paradise" which is a problem for the people who have to investigate when people die "in terrible accidents". And when people are "named" their only way to survive is to confess to whatever they are accused of and to "name" some other people who are involved.
The film does a good job of conveying the relentless grimness of life in Russia at this time. The distrust. The betrayals.
As a result, it isn't exactly entertaining. Educational, maybe.
So when the ending is a bit less grim than the preceding events, I guess we should be happy that the characters we have come to care for a bit do make it out mostly in one piece.
It's definitely a film that you need to be in the right frame of mind to watch. It's certainly not one to see if you need cheering up. But it will certainly make you appreciate the freedoms we have in the West.
I'd heard bad things about Tom's Russian accent... but I thought it was OK, and I know some Russians!
One thing that soon becomes apparent, if you didn't know it, is that life under Stalin was one big heap of no fun. There are diktats like "there is no murder in paradise" which is a problem for the people who have to investigate when people die "in terrible accidents". And when people are "named" their only way to survive is to confess to whatever they are accused of and to "name" some other people who are involved.
The film does a good job of conveying the relentless grimness of life in Russia at this time. The distrust. The betrayals.
As a result, it isn't exactly entertaining. Educational, maybe.
So when the ending is a bit less grim than the preceding events, I guess we should be happy that the characters we have come to care for a bit do make it out mostly in one piece.
It's definitely a film that you need to be in the right frame of mind to watch. It's certainly not one to see if you need cheering up. But it will certainly make you appreciate the freedoms we have in the West.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) review
I really like Tom Hardy as an actor, but he's completely wasted in Mad Max: Fury Road. He has hardly any lines... because no-one has many lines. He doesn't do much... because no-one does much.
It's one long car / truck chase.
Quite an enjoyable car / truck chase. But that's all there is to it.
Oh, and Charlize Theron is in it too. And Nick (Boy Beast) Holt.
It's one long car / truck chase.
Quite an enjoyable car / truck chase. But that's all there is to it.
Oh, and Charlize Theron is in it too. And Nick (Boy Beast) Holt.
Saturday 23 January 2016
Fighting Demons (2015) review
This film doesn't seem to know what its title is. Here in the UK it was released as "Fighting Demons", in the US it was released in some places as "Any Day" and in others as "Resentment". I think Fighting Demons is a good title since it is about someone fighting their demons... duh... but maybe that expression doesn't translate in other counties?
I like Sean Bean but don't remember seeing him in a lead role before. Which is odd because he is a good actor. He also does a pretty decent American accent... although I should probably defer to the opinion of any actual Americans on that point.
His "100% Blade" tattoo is clearly visible several times in the movie. I doubt there are many Americans who follow Sheffield United, so I guess people will assume that means something else.
Anyway, to the film. I really liked the pace of it. Vian kills a man in a pointless drunken fight and we pick him up 12 years later as he is released from prison.
He has problems. But doesn't give up trying to get his life back on track. In that sense this is quite an inspirational film. For the most part it is quite believable and heartening. Then there is a tragedy which does knock Vian back and everything gets dark and very emotional... I was in tears.
There is a further twist at the end which I thought was a bit weak, but I don't mind because it lead to a good ending... maybe there was a better way to do it... I don't know.
The best part for me was that it didn't go for the obvious happy ending where everything works out for Vian. It is all about hope and trying. He is heading in the right direction and he are left hoping that he will keep on the right path.
I like Sean Bean but don't remember seeing him in a lead role before. Which is odd because he is a good actor. He also does a pretty decent American accent... although I should probably defer to the opinion of any actual Americans on that point.
His "100% Blade" tattoo is clearly visible several times in the movie. I doubt there are many Americans who follow Sheffield United, so I guess people will assume that means something else.
Anyway, to the film. I really liked the pace of it. Vian kills a man in a pointless drunken fight and we pick him up 12 years later as he is released from prison.
He has problems. But doesn't give up trying to get his life back on track. In that sense this is quite an inspirational film. For the most part it is quite believable and heartening. Then there is a tragedy which does knock Vian back and everything gets dark and very emotional... I was in tears.
There is a further twist at the end which I thought was a bit weak, but I don't mind because it lead to a good ending... maybe there was a better way to do it... I don't know.
The best part for me was that it didn't go for the obvious happy ending where everything works out for Vian. It is all about hope and trying. He is heading in the right direction and he are left hoping that he will keep on the right path.
Memories of Murder (2003) review
I didn't know this film was based on real events until after I had seen it. And once again, not knowing what it is about really adds to the drama of the film.
So if you haven't seen the film, I think it is good, but don't read the rest of this review... especially the end... since you will enjoy it more if you don't know the story in advance.
SPOILERS
This film is based on a real series of 10 murders that happened in South Korea between 1986 and 1991. It is almost comical how inept the local police are at the outset - trying to pin the murders on a local boy who they beat a confession out of.
Only later when the city cop is called in does the investigation start looking hard at the evidence. But the killer is clever and keeps striking without leaving useful evidence.
Remember that this is before DNA testing was common. In fact the cops do send some material to the USA for testing, but it only serves to rule out the prime suspect.
There's not a lot of action here and the movie squashes the time frame to make the pressure on the police seem more acute. But it really paints an interesting picture of the police teams desperately trying to solve the murders before the killer can strike again.
And as the film progresses, suspects come and go, with the locals beating a confession out of anyone they can get their hands on, but you start to get the impression that they just aren't going to catch the guy...
...and they don't. The murders are still unsolved to this day. It's quite nice how the film handles this. It is not an anti-climax at all. You are left feeling that maybe one day justice will be done... even though it hasn't been yet.
(from the extras I learned that one of the murders, the 8th, was solved as it turned out to be a copy-cat murder and not the work of the original killer)
So if you haven't seen the film, I think it is good, but don't read the rest of this review... especially the end... since you will enjoy it more if you don't know the story in advance.
SPOILERS
This film is based on a real series of 10 murders that happened in South Korea between 1986 and 1991. It is almost comical how inept the local police are at the outset - trying to pin the murders on a local boy who they beat a confession out of.
Only later when the city cop is called in does the investigation start looking hard at the evidence. But the killer is clever and keeps striking without leaving useful evidence.
Remember that this is before DNA testing was common. In fact the cops do send some material to the USA for testing, but it only serves to rule out the prime suspect.
There's not a lot of action here and the movie squashes the time frame to make the pressure on the police seem more acute. But it really paints an interesting picture of the police teams desperately trying to solve the murders before the killer can strike again.
And as the film progresses, suspects come and go, with the locals beating a confession out of anyone they can get their hands on, but you start to get the impression that they just aren't going to catch the guy...
...and they don't. The murders are still unsolved to this day. It's quite nice how the film handles this. It is not an anti-climax at all. You are left feeling that maybe one day justice will be done... even though it hasn't been yet.
(from the extras I learned that one of the murders, the 8th, was solved as it turned out to be a copy-cat murder and not the work of the original killer)
Tuesday 19 January 2016
It Follows (2014) review
SPOILERS
There is something that chases people and kills them. The people being chased can see the chaser, but no-one else can. Oh. And the chasers walk, they don't run...
And one more thing. If you are being chased then having sex with someone will make them get chased instead of you... until they die... then you are the chased again.
All very simple. Except that there are quite a few layers to the plot. For a start, when our friend first gets tagged there's the fact that none of her friends believe her. Why would they? They can't see it.
Then she thinks she can outrun it. Then she realises she can't. Then her friends do believe her...
At which point a couple of nice boys are very keen to sleep with her, even at risk of death. Kind huh?
So, it is a slow burning build up of tension with the odd jump thrown in. I quite enjoyed it. Not really a horror film, more suspense... except you know what is going to happen, pretty much.
I really couldn't see how it was going to end. And that was the one real disappointment. There isn't really an ending. It just stops.
Monday 18 January 2016
Jurassic World (2015) review
Dinosaurs escape and chase people.
Fun if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Fun if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Saturday 16 January 2016
Shiri (1999) review
Generally I like Korean action films and this one comes highly recommended by various ratings.
But it didn't do anything for me. I think it probably makes more sense to Koreans who understand the details of the divisions between North and South. There may also be things lost in translation.
SPOILERS
One big problem for me was the emphasis placed on the relationship between the Southern secret agent and his fish-expert girlfriend. It was obvious from very early on that she was going to turn out to be the assassin from the North. Because otherwise she had no role in the plot.
That left no suspense factor. It was just a series of not very interesting chases and shoot-outs.
If this film inspired the great Korean action films that followed it then good for it. But by itself it isn't a great film for those of us outside the Korean peninsula.
But it didn't do anything for me. I think it probably makes more sense to Koreans who understand the details of the divisions between North and South. There may also be things lost in translation.
SPOILERS
One big problem for me was the emphasis placed on the relationship between the Southern secret agent and his fish-expert girlfriend. It was obvious from very early on that she was going to turn out to be the assassin from the North. Because otherwise she had no role in the plot.
That left no suspense factor. It was just a series of not very interesting chases and shoot-outs.
If this film inspired the great Korean action films that followed it then good for it. But by itself it isn't a great film for those of us outside the Korean peninsula.
You, The Living (2007) review
Comedies are such a broad church that risking a foreign-language one might seem foolhardy. Often the humour of another country just doesn't translate (sometimes literally). And for me that includes many American films (I can't stand the works of Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler for example).
But sometimes it pays off. And this Swedish film is one of those examples... I think.
It's not hilarious, roll on the floor laughing, stuff. It's weird. It's odd.
For long periods I was wondering what the hell was going on. But it keeps throwing in the odd chuckle and connecting events back to previous scenes. In that way it is a bit like a good comedian with a set that builds jokes on top of previous threads.
So each scene that I found funny was because of what had come before, rather than just for the scene itself... which applies also to the ending.
Subtle or weird? Clever or silly?
Hard to say. Very much down to personal preference. So I would think twice before recommending this film to a general audience. I can think of people I know who might love it; and also people who I'd bet would hate it.
Also quite hard to describe. Phrases that sprang to mind whilst watching it were "slow motion slap-stick" and "Tarantino without the violence" ... but neither is very accurate :)
But sometimes it pays off. And this Swedish film is one of those examples... I think.
It's not hilarious, roll on the floor laughing, stuff. It's weird. It's odd.
For long periods I was wondering what the hell was going on. But it keeps throwing in the odd chuckle and connecting events back to previous scenes. In that way it is a bit like a good comedian with a set that builds jokes on top of previous threads.
So each scene that I found funny was because of what had come before, rather than just for the scene itself... which applies also to the ending.
Subtle or weird? Clever or silly?
Hard to say. Very much down to personal preference. So I would think twice before recommending this film to a general audience. I can think of people I know who might love it; and also people who I'd bet would hate it.
Also quite hard to describe. Phrases that sprang to mind whilst watching it were "slow motion slap-stick" and "Tarantino without the violence" ... but neither is very accurate :)
Friday 15 January 2016
After the explosion
While I was waiting to see Star Wars on the IMAX at the National Media Museum in Bradford over Christmas, I popped into the gallery to see the current exhibition - Revelations: Experiments In Photography.
There was some great ultra-high-speed photography featuring the familiar bullet going through apple sort of thing. And there were some more unusual things too.
One that caught my eye was a vase of flowers exploding. The artist had dipped the flowers in liquid nitrogen to make them brittle, then put a small explosive charge in the centre.
The display was an ultra-slow-motion video of the explosion. It lasted about 5 minutes...
And it was utterly captivating. For me I think that was because there was one stem in the middle that seemed to remain intact. Everything else was flying apart into a million pieces. But in the middle of the carnage there was one stem standing. And it had a single small white flower.
One white flower at the centre of the storm. When everything else had gone, it was still there.
I don't know if that was planned by the artist, or just the way it worked out, but I sat there for the whole 5 minutes watching that flower. Wondering if it would crumble, finally. But it didn't.
At some point, I'm not ashamed to say, I started to cry.
I remembered the part in Little Man Tate where the teacher asks Fred why he thinks Van Gogh painted a single white iris in a bed of blue ones. He replies "because he was lonely".
In those few minutes, watching that exploding vase of flowers, with one still standing, I felt the loneliest I have ever felt in my whole life. Ever.
And yet. Once the video finished. I returned to the world and felt fine again.
There was some great ultra-high-speed photography featuring the familiar bullet going through apple sort of thing. And there were some more unusual things too.
One that caught my eye was a vase of flowers exploding. The artist had dipped the flowers in liquid nitrogen to make them brittle, then put a small explosive charge in the centre.
The display was an ultra-slow-motion video of the explosion. It lasted about 5 minutes...
And it was utterly captivating. For me I think that was because there was one stem in the middle that seemed to remain intact. Everything else was flying apart into a million pieces. But in the middle of the carnage there was one stem standing. And it had a single small white flower.
One white flower at the centre of the storm. When everything else had gone, it was still there.
I don't know if that was planned by the artist, or just the way it worked out, but I sat there for the whole 5 minutes watching that flower. Wondering if it would crumble, finally. But it didn't.
At some point, I'm not ashamed to say, I started to cry.
I remembered the part in Little Man Tate where the teacher asks Fred why he thinks Van Gogh painted a single white iris in a bed of blue ones. He replies "because he was lonely".
In those few minutes, watching that exploding vase of flowers, with one still standing, I felt the loneliest I have ever felt in my whole life. Ever.
And yet. Once the video finished. I returned to the world and felt fine again.
Tuesday 12 January 2016
Whiplash (2014) review
Both compelling and frightening at the same time. Whiplash tells the story of a young jazz drummer at a top music school.
SPOILERS
Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons play out the story of student and bullying teacher so convincingly that I was totally drawn in. I could hardly look away as Andrew tried harder and harder to impress only for Fletcher to get harder and harder on him.
The bullying scenes were very disturbing for me to watch.
At the end I felt exhausted.
Then, looking back, I was a bit confused and even disappointed about the message the film was presenting.
Put aside some of the contrived situations like Andrew losing the music folder and getting a break in the band as a result. And the silly notion of walking away from an overturned car wreck to then run on stage and try to play drums with a gaping head wound.
No. The key message of the film is that Fletcher believes it is OK to treat students really badly if that pushes them to greatness. Even worse. He believes he has a duty to push them.
But when Andrew does produce a great performance at the end of the film. He shares a smile with Fletcher. So is the film saying that the ends do justify the means?
After a few minutes thought, my enjoyment of the film had turned to dismay. The film justifies bullying. Bullying which we are told has lead to the suicide of at least one student.
So I applaud the performances and the general concept of the film. It was really well done. But I can't accept the conclusion. Bullying is never OK.
Tuesday 5 January 2016
Birdman (2014) review
Another Oscar winning film that doesn't live up to the mega-hype.
Famous movie actor wants to be taken seriously by theatre audiences and critics. Boo hoo. Too busy to be a good father. My heart bleeds.
Why should I care about any of these characters? Because I don't. At all.
Is he insane? Don't know, don't care.
And what is the one long camera shot supposed to achieve? For me it made parts of the film unwatchable and I just had to look away to insert cuts manually.
As usual people will pretend they like this because it is supposed to be good...
Save yourself 2 hours and give this a miss. Pretentious navel gazing by Hollywood insiders. Rubbish.
Monday 4 January 2016
Dryathlon
In the spirit of friendship I agreed to do a Dryathlon in January along with my friend Mike. By which I mean Mike wanted to do it and thought it would be easier if I did it too... since we often drink together.
As far as I can tell, it is supposed to be good for you; so why not?
Anyway, we were out celebrating New Year's Eve with some other friends and told them all about it. As you do. High horse. Moral high-ground and all that.
So just after midnight there is about an inch left in one of the bottles of wine. "Pass that bottle over, Ian" I said. "No. No. No. You said you weren't drinking in January. And it's January now." he replied.
Ouch. Got me. No arguing with that.
4 days on and still going strong!
As far as I can tell, it is supposed to be good for you; so why not?
Anyway, we were out celebrating New Year's Eve with some other friends and told them all about it. As you do. High horse. Moral high-ground and all that.
So just after midnight there is about an inch left in one of the bottles of wine. "Pass that bottle over, Ian" I said. "No. No. No. You said you weren't drinking in January. And it's January now." he replied.
Ouch. Got me. No arguing with that.
4 days on and still going strong!
Saturday 2 January 2016
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) review
OK, it's been out for a while now so anyone who's bothered about SPOILERS shouldn't be reading blogs with Star Wars in the title.
But just in case; this post contains SPOILERS.
Are we safe now? Yes; good; I'll carry on.
Firstly, I am still excited about this film. A few people I know have seen it and said "Yeah, it was OK" but most of my friends thought it was great. Even people who don't really like Star Wars that much have said they really enjoyed it.
So that's probably point 1 in it's favour. As a film on it's own it is a good watch.
And point 2 is clearly that it is a hit with fans because it has recaptured the qualities that made the original trilogy great; and were so badly missing from the pr*quel trilogy. Yes, you are right, I am being childish and refusing to even type prequ*l trilogy any more... maybe if we all just pretend it never happened it can finally be forgotten?
The new stars are great. Rey and Finn carry us along with an enthusiasm and vitality that makes us care about them almost instantly. The bad guys Kylo Ren and General Hux have a youthful zeal about them that makes you slightly sympathetic and at the same time fearful for what you know they will become.
I really loved Kylo Ren's temper tantrums. And even though I saw the conclusion of his chat with Han Solo coming a mile off, it was still shocking when it happened - even the second time I saw it.
I was wondering how quickly this new trilogy would hand over from the old to the new. The pace is just right for me, but I can see that it may be a little slow for others. Bringing back old characters and then killing them off one by one might wear thin, and "not another Death Star" is a charge that needs addressing in episodes VIII and IX.
Are we in for some double bluffs, I wonder? The new "emperor" character who projects himself as a giant must surely turn out to be Yoda-sized, no? And there were so many hints that Rey might be a sibling of Kylo Ren that we surely need that to be a red herring?
I still remember my shock on hearing Darth Vader's "I am your father" speech. So I hope that we are in for a few surprises in the future.
There are plenty of things for us to find out. There's no rush...
A couple of things occurred to me on the second viewing. The little orange woman says that the light-sabre she has was Luke's and his father's. So that's the one that Obi-Wan gave to Luke. Which he later dropped down the huge hole in the middle of the cloud city when Vader cut his hand off. So presumably it was found by someone on the planet... which is believable. Originally I was wondering why Luke would throw his light-sabre away... so it's good to know he probably didn't.
Also, I didn't hear it clearly the first time, but Han Solo calls his son "Ben" on the bridge. Presumably named after "Ben Kenobi" but then he changed his name when he turned dark, like the Darths. I guess we have a lot to learn about the new Jedi order that Luke was training and how Stokes came into the picture.
There are some very cool things in this film like the temporary freezing of the blaster bolt in mid-air by Kylo Ren. But also some very dumb things, like the whole fire-breathing planet weapon. The more I think about that the dumber it seems. So it is testament to how good the rest of the film was that it didn't spoil the atmosphere too much. I do wonder what alternatives there are to planet-destroying space mega-machines... bigger certainly isn't better in terms of story.
Obviously, as a long-term fan of Star Wars, I've been thinking about it a lot lately. And particularly why I like it. I think I've come to something of a realisation. It's something that's true of a lot of action films; but particularly of Star Wars.
When I watch Star Wars I feel like I am there with them taking on a terrible foe. We are small and weak at first, but we get stronger, and with right on our side we win. There are hurdles on the way, sacrifices, losses, but we win in the end. The bad guys can never be completely defeated, but when they come back we win again... eventually.
After the film I feel like a better person. Like I could go out and do something positive myself. Make a difference. Get involved. But I don't. Slowly I start to feel weak again. Like I can't possibly make a difference. Shouldn't get involved. I do nothing.
Then I go watch another film. Or read a book. Or watch TV.
I do nothing.
I feel like I could do something if I was pushed into a situation where I had to. But I never have been. I've never had to do anything significant to survive. So I've never done anything significant.
Film's like Star Wars keep a small pilot light inside me burning... so that maybe I could still step up to the plate if I really had to... even though I know I probably never will.
But just in case; this post contains SPOILERS.
Are we safe now? Yes; good; I'll carry on.
Firstly, I am still excited about this film. A few people I know have seen it and said "Yeah, it was OK" but most of my friends thought it was great. Even people who don't really like Star Wars that much have said they really enjoyed it.
So that's probably point 1 in it's favour. As a film on it's own it is a good watch.
And point 2 is clearly that it is a hit with fans because it has recaptured the qualities that made the original trilogy great; and were so badly missing from the pr*quel trilogy. Yes, you are right, I am being childish and refusing to even type prequ*l trilogy any more... maybe if we all just pretend it never happened it can finally be forgotten?
The new stars are great. Rey and Finn carry us along with an enthusiasm and vitality that makes us care about them almost instantly. The bad guys Kylo Ren and General Hux have a youthful zeal about them that makes you slightly sympathetic and at the same time fearful for what you know they will become.
I really loved Kylo Ren's temper tantrums. And even though I saw the conclusion of his chat with Han Solo coming a mile off, it was still shocking when it happened - even the second time I saw it.
I was wondering how quickly this new trilogy would hand over from the old to the new. The pace is just right for me, but I can see that it may be a little slow for others. Bringing back old characters and then killing them off one by one might wear thin, and "not another Death Star" is a charge that needs addressing in episodes VIII and IX.
Are we in for some double bluffs, I wonder? The new "emperor" character who projects himself as a giant must surely turn out to be Yoda-sized, no? And there were so many hints that Rey might be a sibling of Kylo Ren that we surely need that to be a red herring?
I still remember my shock on hearing Darth Vader's "I am your father" speech. So I hope that we are in for a few surprises in the future.
There are plenty of things for us to find out. There's no rush...
A couple of things occurred to me on the second viewing. The little orange woman says that the light-sabre she has was Luke's and his father's. So that's the one that Obi-Wan gave to Luke. Which he later dropped down the huge hole in the middle of the cloud city when Vader cut his hand off. So presumably it was found by someone on the planet... which is believable. Originally I was wondering why Luke would throw his light-sabre away... so it's good to know he probably didn't.
Also, I didn't hear it clearly the first time, but Han Solo calls his son "Ben" on the bridge. Presumably named after "Ben Kenobi" but then he changed his name when he turned dark, like the Darths. I guess we have a lot to learn about the new Jedi order that Luke was training and how Stokes came into the picture.
There are some very cool things in this film like the temporary freezing of the blaster bolt in mid-air by Kylo Ren. But also some very dumb things, like the whole fire-breathing planet weapon. The more I think about that the dumber it seems. So it is testament to how good the rest of the film was that it didn't spoil the atmosphere too much. I do wonder what alternatives there are to planet-destroying space mega-machines... bigger certainly isn't better in terms of story.
Obviously, as a long-term fan of Star Wars, I've been thinking about it a lot lately. And particularly why I like it. I think I've come to something of a realisation. It's something that's true of a lot of action films; but particularly of Star Wars.
When I watch Star Wars I feel like I am there with them taking on a terrible foe. We are small and weak at first, but we get stronger, and with right on our side we win. There are hurdles on the way, sacrifices, losses, but we win in the end. The bad guys can never be completely defeated, but when they come back we win again... eventually.
After the film I feel like a better person. Like I could go out and do something positive myself. Make a difference. Get involved. But I don't. Slowly I start to feel weak again. Like I can't possibly make a difference. Shouldn't get involved. I do nothing.
Then I go watch another film. Or read a book. Or watch TV.
I do nothing.
I feel like I could do something if I was pushed into a situation where I had to. But I never have been. I've never had to do anything significant to survive. So I've never done anything significant.
Film's like Star Wars keep a small pilot light inside me burning... so that maybe I could still step up to the plate if I really had to... even though I know I probably never will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)