Why do you bore me so, Mrs. Dalloway?

I tried reading Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf. I really tried. I mean, I got two thirds of the way through before I gave up on it. And I rarely give up on stuff, be they films or books (TV series are a different story). I know it's a classic of English literature and all, but I found it to be mind numbingly boring. The last time I forced myself to pick up the book before calling it quits, I realized that I was not enjoying the experience one bit. It may have been foolish of me to not have finished it after reading so much, but the truth is doing so would have been perfunctory. I wouldn't have got much out of it, and what little I did take away would have seeped out of my brain moments after closing the book for the final time. Life's just too short. At least now, I'll remember it as one of those books I couldn't bring myself to finish. And next time, I won't read so much of a book that I find so painful to read.

Catch-22

Catch-22 (Joseph Heller, 1961)
I'd heard about the classic satire by Joseph Heller years ago, and my first brush with it was when an English teacher in school had the class read an excerpt from the book. The excerpt was hilarious (as I recall, it was the first conversation between Yossarian and Doc Daneeka regarding the Catch-22), and I was intrigued. Strangely, I never got around to actually reading the book till now - and this despite the fact that I've owned a copy of the book for over two years!

Did it live up to expectations years later? In a word, yes. I don't usually find so-called 'funny' books to be funny, but Catch-22 is genuinely hilarious and it often had me in fits of laughter. It's a satire set towards the end of the Second World War, and revolves around events and characters in a bomber squadron based on an island off the coast of Italy. The protagonist is Captain Yossarian, a man who wants to get away from the war and all the people who are trying to kill him - this includes all the Germans soldiers (whom he's never met) as well as the bureaucracy on his own side. Unfortunately, whenever he comes close to meeting the required number of missions to be sent home, the required number is increased.

The book is an indictment of the absurdity of bureaucracy, blind capitalism, and the ability of people to selfishly rationalize their way out of what ought to be moral quandaries.

There is only a loosely held together narrative, with the book jumping back and forth in time and filling in the details of various key events that are often linked together. It features a range of idiosyncratic characters, many of whom have a quirky backstory. It's at times absurdly funny, and at other times bleak and gut wrenching. The ending, which presents a glimmer of hope, is uplifting and I found it to be a satisfying and fitting conclusion.

The book introduced the phrase 'catch-22' to the English language, and as such I think the meaning of said phrase should be mentioned here as it is defined in the book (quoting the quote from Wikipedia):

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.

The book is fairly long and what with me being a slow reader it took me a while to get through it. The writing style is one littered with long sentences that together form paragraphs full of absurdity that are punctuated by terse sentences (which are often the lines uttered by characters). I have to confess that I was compelled to consult the dictionary on many an occasion, due to the fact that Heller has a penchant for indulging in sampling from an extensive, erudite vocabulary that overwhelms my bad word skills (sadly, I was unable to think of any appropriate words whose meanings I don't know to use in that last sentence).

All (bad) jokes aside, Catch-22 is brilliant and a must read.

Dichotomy of Skills

Forgive the pretentious post name... but it seems apt.

I've heard it said that doctors aren't any good at treating themselves. Actually, I don't know if I've ever really heard it said, but somewhere along the line that idea got into my head and it stuck. I don't know if it's true of doctors, but it's true of me.

No, I don't mean I'm no good at treating myself - I think that goes without saying. What I mean is, I'm not very capable of applying my professional skills (such as they are) to my personal life.

My job sometimes involves mucking about with computers and resolving problems. Now, at work, I'll approach a problem logically and methodically with a placid temperament. I'll do whatever research needs to be done, come up with possible explanations and solutions, and determine a suitable course of action. If the problem can't be fixed the first time round, I go back and rethink things. Sometimes, the problem can't be resolved at all for some reason or another. Ultimately, I'll have to have a solution or an explanation.

Now, in my personal life, things are quite different. When I have a computer problem, I fall apart. It's hilarious thinking about it in retrospect, but it's anything but funny at the time. Somehow, I take any computer problem at home as a personal attack on me by fate and the Universe itself. It's a conspiracy designed to keep me down. Instead of approaching things methodically, I try things randomly and without thinking them through. And when things can't be resolved easily, I lose my cool in a big way. Yep, I swear at my computer (I'm not the only one, dammit!). Fortunately, I haven't smashed it yet, but I suspect that one day I will! I should really record myself so that I can look back and laugh about it, but after what happened to the Star Wars kid, it's too big a risk.

So the question is, why the hell do I suck at doing at home what I'm fairly good at doing at work? I've got a few theories:

• Time commitment - at work, I'm being paid to do whatever it is I have to do, and the time available is meant to be spent doing it. There is no opportunity cost. At home, when I have to resolve something, it's eating away from my time, which I'd much rather spend doing something else.


• No personal impact - if some computer's screwed up at work, it's really someone else's problem that I'm resolving. The problem itself doesn't really affect me, except in the sense that I have to attempt to resolve it. At home, the problem kicks me in the shin, punches me in the gut, and head-butts me into submission.


• Shared responsibility - at work, I may be trying to fix something, but I won't be the only one involved. Invariably, there will be other people hovering around who can provide support, and the ultimate responsibility will fall on the whole team. At home, it's just me, myself, and my pet cockroaches (who aren't that big on helping, and will most certainly flee if and when the shit hits the fan).


• The problem needs to be resolved - I can't just write off my personal computer problem in some report giving explanations and possible fixes and further things to look into - I HAVE to get the damn thing back, because I need it!

I'm left wondering, am I the only one? Or are there plenty of competent accountants who can't manage their own wallets, plenty of decent managers who can't manage their own day to day affairs, plenty of lawyers who... I can't think of something to say about lawyers actually.

I know from personal experience that there are at least a few people out there who suffer from the same problem. Perhaps there are many. Whatever the case me be, I can say one thing for sure. It sucks!

Movie Roundup (8th - 10th December)

Four Brothers (2005)
Another revenge movie this week, but one that's very different from Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. This one's a more conventional revenge film which is constructed in such a way that you'll root for the good guys to dish out pain to the sneering villains! The plot concerns four 'brothers' (of different races) who were adopted as children by a sweet old lady named Evelyn Mercer because no one else was willing to have them - they were just too much trouble. Ms. Mercer is gunned down at the beginning of the film, and the Mercer brothers come back to their hometown to seek vengeance. Despite the influence of Ms. Mercer, these brothers still turned out to be seriously violent individuals; they engage in a succession of chases and shootouts resulting in a hefty body count by the end.

This isn't a brilliant movie, but it knows what it is, which is a no holds barred action film. Sometimes it's enjoyable to just sit back and be entertained while watching the clear-cut bad guys get their comeuppance. It's well made, with exciting action scenes, a sufficient plot, and solid characterization (for this type of film). The brothers make for an interesting and lively team. The cast that was assembled is one of the movie's strengths, with Mark Whalberg's belligerent Bobby being the standout alongside Chiwetel Ejiofor, who seems to be really good at playing menacing, despicable villains. Four Brothers may play to people's baser instincts, but that doesn't change the fact that I found it to be bloody entertaining (pun intended). Worth your while if you're looking for an action film to watch while scarfing down pizza and guzzling beer.

The Baxter (2005)
I seem to state quite often that I'm not the biggest fan of romantic comedies, yet I keep watching them. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there - perhaps I AM a fan! Anyway, this isn't your typical romantic comedy - it's a romantic comedy about the guy in romantic comedies who always gets abandoned at the eleventh hour by the leading lady when the leading man declares his undying love for her and they run off into the sunset. The movie labels such men 'Baxters' - the nice guys who are boring but safe choices that women settle for. Elliot Sherman is a Baxter - he's been losing his significant others to more dashing men all his life. When Elliot gets engaged to the proverbial hot blond, things seem to be going OK - until her ex shows up. There's also this other woman, Cecil, (whom Elliot has much in common with) that Elliot turns to for solace.

If you can't see how this movie ends, then you haven't watched many romantic comedies. It's not the destination though, it's the journey that counts. And in this case, the journey is charming and funny - it also plays out genre conventions from a different perspective. It's a small scale, low budget film that doesn't have bellyache inducing laughs but is certainly chuckle worthy throughout. The cast is what really makes the film work - Michael Showalter plays Elliot (he's also the writer and director) as the straight man, and everyone else essentially plays off him. The supporting players are excellent - Elizabeth Banks, Justin Theroux, Peter Dinklage, and Paul Rudd all make very memorable impressions. Most memorable for me was Michelle Williams as the impossibly adorable Cecil. Essential viewing for all the Baxters out there (and perhaps romantic comedy fans as well), and worth a rental for everyone else. Viewers are advised to watch the end credits.

The Dead Zone - Season 4

The Dead Zone is one of those shows that exists under the radar - it's hardly ever talked about, yet seems to have enough of an audience (a niche audience, perhaps?) to survive for five seasons and counting. Perhaps part of the reason is that it isn't flashy or edgy and features a near middle-aged cast. I've heard the term 'comfort TV' used to describe it, and it's somewhat apt; you typically know what you're going to get because the episodes have a consistent structure. However, The Dead Zone isn't nearly that run of the mill, and it does feature darker elements and a compelling story arc that plays a major part in many episodes.

A quick recap - it's based on a Stephen King novel, and is about a man named Johnny Smith who recovers from a coma with psychic powers. In the tradition of similar television heroes like Kwai Chang Caine and Michael Knight, Johnny typically comes across people who need help and... endeavors to help them. His powers allow him to see the future or the past in 'visions' (within which he either acts as an invisible observer or takes the place of one of the participants). In season four Johnny helps solve an old murder, prevents several others, tracks down a serial killer and a rock star, and helps save a bunch of illegal immigrants, among others. He's usually aided by his buddy Bruce, Sheriff Walt Bannerman, and the Sheriff's wife Sarah. There's also the recurring story arc in which Johnny must stop a Congressman, Greg Stillson, from causing a future apocalypse.

It sounds kind of lame on paper, but it works well. The tone is always earnest, but not overly so - the characters bring an element of humour and levity to most situations. The stories, while never blowing you away, never insult your intelligence either, and are consistently well written - having only 12 episodes for the season means there's no cheap 'filler' material. The Stillson arc continues to develop in interesting ways, although I felt it took too much of a back seat this season. The strongest element of the show is the cast, who now seem to have that sense of camaraderie that you often see in TV shows when they've been running for a while. Anthony Michael Hall and recurring guest star Sean Patrick Flannery (who plays Stillson) are the standouts. The one major downside this season was the absence of character growth, which featured strongly in previous seasons. The only characterization of substance was Stillson, and that was only in a handful of episodes.

Minor caveats aside, I enjoyed season four and look forward to season five on DVD. It's well made and consistently entertaining, and while it doesn't have much storytelling ambition it does what it sets out to do very well. One other annoyance that comes to mind though - the horrible new theme music. What was wrong with the old theme?

As a brief aside, The Dead Zone was an interesting counterpoint to Tru Calling (which I'm watching right now), a similarly themed show that has a different tone and a more frenetic pace to go with its much younger cast.

So, could the Enterprise really take on a Super Star Destroyer?

I was reminded of this site by Wired. Every sci-fi geek under the sun has probably seen it before, but it's always nice to be reacquainted with it. A site that compares the sizes of different sci-fi space vessels!

It's always amusing to be reminded that the evil Empire could wipe out the Federation's puny star ships and be back at base in time for breakfast. Although, admittedly, they couldn't even catch the tiny little Millennium Falcon...

Sadly, there's no Blake's 7 or the new Battlestar Galactica. Perhaps they'll be future additions, and I'll be pleasantly surprised the next time I find my way to this site.

Movie Roundup (1st - 4th December)

Ultraviolet
I love writer / director Kurt Wimmer's Equilibrium - it wasn't an original masterpiece or anything, but it was fairly well written and directed, had some unique action sequences, a strong cast (Christian Bale, Sean Bean, Emily Watson), and atmospheric locales in which its dystopia took place (filmed mostly in Berlin). Ultraviolet has none of this. Yeah, Equilibrium had absurd elements, but Ultraviolet stretches suspension of disbelief and audience goodwill way too far. The story - dystopian future society where a repressed (diseased) minority are persecuted and fight back against the oppressive regime. Violet (Milla Jovovich) is a seemingly invincible freedom fighter who steals the 'ultimate weapon' from the bad guys, only to discover that it isn't quite what she was expecting. Which leads to a lot of poor special effects and action scenes (seriously, what kind of idiots attack with their braided hair?). It may have been low budget and it may have been edited by the studio, but the film is poor at a very fundamental level. Give it a miss...

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
The first part of Park Chan-wook's 'Revenge' trilogy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is an unflinchingly brutal and tragic tale of revenge spiraling out of control. Ryu, a young deaf mute, attempts to take care of his extremely ill sister - she needs a new kidney. Unfortunately, a deal with black market organ dealers goes pear shaped, and Ryu (together with his girlfriend) is forced to kidnap a little girl and hold her for ransom in order to get money for a kidney via legitimate channels. To say any more would be to spoil the sequence of events that leads up to the films devastating climax; characters whom we can actually sympathize with are driven by their misery and despair into committing horrific acts of retribution.

While not as memorable or as propulsive as Oldboy, Mr. Vengeance is stylishly directed and superbly acted, and is populated with both beautiful and gruesome imagery. There are lots of everyday 'real' moments, and the story flows in an unpredictable manner even though certain events have a feeling of inevitability. Which brings me to the violence - yes, there's lots of it, much more so than Oldboy. Is it gratuitous? I think it walks a fine line; I accept that is has to be brutal at some level, because these are brutal acts, and it prevents the acts of revenge being carried out from being something the audience can really get behind (which is how a typical action movie would be constructed). But... toning it down a little probably would not have hurt the film.

Worth watching, if you can stomach the violence...

Packaging of Death

I found this slashdot article to be particularly noteworthy. It's about the plastic packaging that is regularly used to encase products - the clamshell or bubble type - that is impossible to open without the help of a sharp object.

Having had many painful encounters with these bastardly packages, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. Colbert hits the nail on the head.

The importance of being earnest

A little rant.

While attending a technology conference recently, I was annoyed to see people walking out in the middle of presentations. No, it wasn't because the presentations sucked, or that they were walking out as an act of protest against what was being said, or anything dramatic like that. They were walking out because they were bored and wanted to leave early.

Here's the thing - I know with some certainty that these folks were sponsored by their employers to attend. The conference took place during working hours. In effect, they were walking out of work early. Now, I don't have too much of a problem with people walking out of work, hell I think about doing it all the time. I just wanted to highlight the fact that they were technically breaking the rules, which is just one reason why they shouldn't have walked out. But there's a more important reason.

They were at a conference - a conference where a whole bunch of folk, many from academia, were presenting their research work. Much of it was quite interesting, truth be told. Some of these people may go on to do things that affect the future of the industry, and perhaps even society. Here they are, presenting their work, and what do they see? People walking out during their presentations. One person starts it, and the rest follow in droves like some kind of domino effect, all eager to get home a little early (remember, they are still technically at work, and had they been at their offices there's no way they could have got home early).

Leaving during the break would have been bad enough, but leaving in the middle of a presentation? What kind of message does it send these people, how dispiriting must it be, when they witness people just walking out? The last presenters were talking to mostly empty seats! The fact that people gave enough of a damn to hear them out could make all the difference to them.

So, two things. These people were not entitled to leave, and even if they had been, they should have had the basic human decency to stay through to the end, no matter how bored they were. These same people would no doubt have lined up for hours to catch a glimpse of some vacuous celebrity - and that's their right. But is it too much to ask to show a modicum of respect for the intellectuals of society, to show that you attended in earnest? I think not.

Movie Roundup (17th - 20th Nov)

Working Girl (1988)
Charming but mostly forgettable romantic comedy. Melanie Griffith plays Tess, a lowly secretary with grand plans above her station. Sigourney Weaver plays her manipulative bitch of a boss, and Harrison Ford is the man caught in between them. When her boss breaks a leg while skiing, Tess seizes the opportunity to further her career. It's lighthearted and entertaining, and occasionally a little maudlin, but it's good fun with a game cast. Sigourney Weaver is the standout, and this being the late 80s, Harrison Ford still had some charm.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)
Clint Eastwood is the epitome of cool in Sergio Leone's much lauded classic western. Laconic, steely eyed, and unflappable even at the brink of death. Eli Wallach's rambunctious Tuco (the Ugly) is the perfect foil to Eastwood's Blondie (the Good). The third protagonist, Lee Van Cleef's Angel Eyes (the Bad), sits somewhere between the two in terms of personality, with one difference - he's bad to the bone (and now that song's stuck in my head). The story is, in many ways, a western road trip as the three characters travel through various places while attempting to find a loot of hidden gold.

There's precious little dialogue in the film given its runtime; it doesn't need it, as Leone tells the story so well with just visuals alone. There is tremendous imagery on display here - a true feast for the eyes. I enjoy westerns though I'm not an avid fan, but good film-making is good film-making regardless of genre. It may be slow paced for todays audiences, but I like a film that takes its time and builds up to key moments. It's all capped off with Ennio Morricone's iconic, unforgettable music (trust me, you've heard it before).

Life of Brian (1979)
While not quite as inspired as Monty Python's Holy Grail, Life of Brian is still hilarious. Lampooning organized religion, politics and political parties, and human stupidity in general, Life of Brian is, as you can imagine, about a chap called Brian. He was born in a stable next door to that famous guy who was born in a stable. Brian ends up involved with a revolutionary group that wants to send the Romans packing - the Romans who've done nothing for them except build sewers, educate them, provide security, improve health care, etc... And at some point he gets mistaken for a Messiah. Naturally. If you know and love Monty Python's brand of humour (and you should), you'll love this. But then again, if you're a fan, you've already seen it.

Coraline, Geisha, Extras, and a Big Fish

Coraline (Neil Gaiman)
Neil Gaiman's Coraline is a dark fantasy tale about a girl who, together with her inattentive and self-absorbed parents, moves into a new home. She discovers a secret portal of sorts that transports her to a twisted alternate reality where there are 'other' versions of all the people that she knows (who have buttons in place of eyes!), and where cats can talk. Naturally, it's not all fun and games and she soon realizes that she's in trouble. It's essentially a children's book and is a fairly quick read (like one sitting quick). Bizarre and creepy, just the way I like it.

The Old Man and the Sea (Ernest Hemingway)
Another short book (or novella, as they like to call em). I remember reading this as a kid and not getting it. Having now read it as an adult, I'm not sure I get it any better! Alright, so it's basically about an old fisherman who's had an incredible run of bad luck but never gives up hope. He finally hooks a big one and ends up being dragged along by it for a couple of days; it becomes a case of his will overcoming the obstacles nature hurls at him (a metaphor for life itself, perhaps). Alright I liked it, but I have to confess it's not one of those books I can see myself dying to re-read a few years down the line.

Memoirs of a Geisha (2005, film)
I thought Arthur Golden's book was terrific - vibrant, full of detail, evocative of a particular time and place, and featuring a personable and compelling main character for a narrator. The film, directed by Rob Marshall of Chicago (I hated it!) fame, captures most of the events of the book and the atmosphere accurately enough, but loses something in translation. The story, which begins in the 1930s or thereabouts, is about a girl who's taken from her home and brought up to live the life of a geisha. Much drama ensues as she aspires to become a successful geisha. The film is certainly lush, well acted, and well made overall, but it just lacks something. Perhaps it's because it can't achieve the same level of detail concerning geisha lifestyle, and because it lacks the distinctive narrator element of the book. It's an enjoyable film that doesn't deserve the apathy it's received from the critics, but it isn't great either.

Useless fact: This movie features a strange, awkward looking kiss between two of the protagonists - maybe one of the actors had too much garlic bread for lunch or something.

Extras (TV Series)
From the minds of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, creators of The Office, comes Extras. It's about a man named Andy (Gervais, brilliant as ever) and his friend Maggy, both of whom work as extras - Andy believes himself to be a real actor, and each episode essentially involves him trying to get himself a line in whatever production he's in while interacting with various real-life actors like Ben Stiller, Patrick Stewart, and Kate Winslet. While it doesn't quite reach the greatness of The Office (it lacks the range of quirky characters), it is very funny and features the same awkward brand of humour.

Federer's Magic Numbers

Everyone knows Federer's brilliant, but the numbers are still awe inspiring. Assuming no major injuries, the guy will easily surpass Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slams, and probably a boatload of other records along the way. But will he be able to win the French Open, or will it remain as elusive for him as it was for Sampras?

Babylon 5 - Season 3

Point of No Return

I've finished Season 3 of Babylon 5, and it continues to impress mightily. This entire season was written by J Michael Straczynski, apparently because it was so arc-heavy. And for the most part, the quality is impeccable - there are admittedly a few standalone episodes that don't quite match the standard of the arc episodes.

The first episode is a sedate recap / resolution episode that sort of ties up a few loose ends before the season begins in earnest with a few standalone episodes. The Shadow War and Earth Government arcs always play along in the background though, and the latter arc comes to a conclusion (at least for the season) in three brilliant episodes - "Messages From Earth", "Point of No Return", and "Severed Dreams". Afterwards, things settle down a bit and start focusing more directly on the Shadow War before the amazing, jaw dropping two parter "War Without End", which sees the return of Commander Jeffrey Sinclair (I truly like this character but will be the first to admit Michael O'Hare can't act) and completes the story of Babylon 4 that was introduced way back in Season 1. A few quiet episodes go by before the excellent concluding episodes of the season.

A note on standalone vs arc episodes - they're all good, but the arc episodes really do rise above the standalone ones, some of which are relatively weak. What's most impressive about the writing is how layered it is - the storylines work on both an epic scale and at a more personal level, juggling multiple themes and characters and plot elements and bringing them together seamlessly.

Character development is consistently strong this season, with the only slow movers being Ivonova and Garibaldi, who are relegated to supporting roles. The introduction of the hilarious Marcus Cole brought some fantastic dry humor to the show; hopefully there'll be more of him. G'Kar undergoes a transformation in this season, while Londo continues to struggle with his dark destiny. The Doc goes through some hard times and has to do some soul searching, Vir gets a short lived career boost where he tries to do a little good, and Zack Allen is forced to decide where his loyalties lie. My favourite characters this season were Sheridan and Delenn, who not only (surprise!) end up together after a protracted courtship, but are forced to bear the responsibility of marshaling a shaky alliance against the Shadows. And finally of course, there's that bloody Vorlon...

The strongest performers are, predictably, Andreas Katsulas, Peter Jurasik, and Mira Furlan, but Bruce Boxleitner and Jason Carter are right up there with them. Another standout in a minor role was Jeff Conaway, who played the conflicted Zack Allen. The rest of the cast are reliable as always - there's honestly no real weak link (although it's hard to be objective about it when you're so invested in the characters). Walter Koening and Brad Dourif make for memorable guest stars, as does Michael York as 'King Arthur' in a somewhat hokey episode.

The production values continue to improve in my eyes, especially the effects which truly shine in some of the space battle sequences (of which I'm certain there's much more to come).

All in all, a fantastic season... I look forward to "No Surrender, No Retreat" with great anticipation.

Row, row, row your boat, gently down the rapids...

I went whitewater rafting recently. It's not exactly one of those things I have on my "things to do before I drop dead" list, mostly because I don't have such a list. But I should. Because I realize that I've been missing out on a lot of the really fun stuff. Sitting indoors in front of a computer is nice and all, but it pales in comparison to riding a few rapids.

Seriously, whitewater rafting is an absolute blast. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, and I can't even swim! It's exhilarating... and a little scary - especially if you tumble out! Admittedly I was on a beginner level stretch of river, but I found it to be thrilling nonetheless - and I imagine this level will be sufficient for the foreseeable future.

It all starts off innocuously enough - you push off from the shore and drift along a quiet stretch, admiring the scenery. And then you notice the frothing white water up ahead, and the roaring of the river, and you watch as the raft gets dragged inexorably towards the rapids. The next thing you know you're in the thick of it, the raft is getting chucked about and tilting at crazy angles, icy water's hitting you in giant waves and for several heart stopping moments you see everything through a watery haze. You stick your paddle out and try to row, but you might as well use a twig for all the effect it has. And just as quickly as it started, it's over, and you find yourself in calmer waters, awaiting the next set of rapids with a mixture of anticipation and dread.

There's something strangely relaxing about the whole thing - the burdens of your everyday mundane existence (well, mine is at any rate) are lifted for a while. Your only problems are the rapids, and making sure you stay on the boat. Pretty simple, eh? Yeah, I'm definitely doing it again.

And why stop there? I used to suffer from a complete lack of curiosity and desire to have new experiences... Now, I'm dying to do it all. OK, not ALL... I mean, I don't want to try things like skydiving - I figure flying in airplanes is enough of an act of defiance against gravity; to plummet towards the earth like that is a blatant affront and just asking for trouble. No, definitely not that... but simpler stuff, like trekking through the wilderness, exploring caves, climbing (very small) mountains, and making friends with undomesticated wild animals. Time to live a little...

Movies to look forward to...

I hate hyping myself up for movies too much, but there's nothing wrong with a little anticipation is there? This article by Devin Faraci at Chud has certainly got me psyched to see the three films he calls "stunning achievements, absolute masterworks". And those films are Guillermo del Toro's dark fantasy Pan's Labyrinth, Alfonso Cuaron's dystopian sci-fi tale Children of Men, and Darren Aronofsky's millenia spanning love story The Fountain.

I've been hearing about The Fountain for years - it's had quite a troubled production. Pan's Labyrinth has been on my radar for some time as well - at least a year, if not more. Children of Men caught me by surprise though - I knew nothing of it till I saw the trailer, and while my curiosity was piqued then, I didn't get too excited by it till the reviews started popping up.

I have no idea if I'll wind up loving these films or not (or even hating them - The Fountain has had its share of extreme negative reactions), but given the people involved and the positive reactions from credible sources, I'm certain that they are exceptional films that will be worth watching.

Besides those three, I'm also keenly anticipating Zack Snyder and Frank Miller's ultra stylized Battle of Thermopylae film 300, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3, and Hot Fuzz from Shaun of the Dead duo Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

Batman Forever Bad

I haven't seen Batman Forever in around 10 years. I remember not liking it much, but after seeing Batman and Robin my memory somehow reassessed it as being 'alright'. My memory is totally and utterly wrong. To call it a poor movie is to be too kind, but I'm feeling generous. It's a poor movie. It's only marginally better than Batman and Robin, but then again I haven't seen that cinematic abomination in some time either. Perhaps Batman and Robin is so much worse that Forever actually seems decent in comparison. Whatever the case may be, I'm certain that I'm not masochistic enough to inflict Batman and Robin upon myself to find out. Val Kilmer, Nicole Kidman, Tommy Lee Jones, all actors capable of so much better. Joel Schumacher and Akiva Goldsman really drove this franchise into the ground - watching this film just reminds me of how miraculous Christopher Nolan's resuscitation of the franchise was. To bring Batman back from such an embarrassing low to the high of Batman Begins was a bravura achievement.

One other false memory I vanquished while watching this relates to Jim Carrey. His "crazy zany" shtick was appalling. I remember being amused by his other movies at the time, but my taste has become discerning enough that I suspect I won't be revisiting them any time soon.

To finish this post, I present to you with what I found to be the most memorable ludicrous image from the film. Picking this was not easy, believe me... this was but a grain of sand from the unending sandy beach of ludicrous images that is Batman Forever!

Various things from the last few weeks...

Good god I want to delete that last post! Even a little alcohol can create moments of madness it seems... Anyway, back to normal from. . . . NOW!

FILMS

Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
This one surprised me, I have to confess... I expected to like it even less than I expected to like Corpse Bride, but it made a convert out of me. Aardman Animation's 'claymation' feature film marks the debut of the characters of Wallace and Gromit on the big screen - they've been in a bunch of short films before. Wallace is an inventor who runs a pest control business in a small English town that is obsessed with growing vegetables. Gromit is his dog and business partner / butler, and the more pragmatic half of the duo (Gromit doesn't speak, but communicates through expressions and body language). The plot revolves around a giant 'were-rabbit' that threatens the precious vegetables of the townspeople just days before a major vegetable growing contest. It's ostensibly a children's film but it features beautiful animation, boundless amounts of charm, many cinematic references and nods to Hollywood cliches, and a fair bit of innuendo, all of which should appeal to adults. It's great stuff, and you'd have to be downright curmudgeonly to not enjoy it.

Tristram Shandy - A Cock and Bull Story (2005)
This is a strange film to say the least. It's an adaptation of a book - "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman" - well, sort of. It's actually an adaptation of a book that is apparently unfilmable, so the film itself is actually a fictional account of the making of an adaptation of the book. Got it? It's a film about the making of a film, but it also presents chunks of that film as parts of itself. It's a British comedy. Hopefully that mangled explanation provides some context. Most of the film is about the behind the scenes goings on as seen from the perspective of the star, Steve Coogan (played by Steve Coogan) - the filmmakers struggle to get funding for an 'action scene', discuss the script and it's lack of fidelity to the novel, and contend with historical accuracy (it's a period piece). Coogan himself must contend with not flirting with his attractive assistant while his girlfriend and child are on location with him, while also trying to ensure that his part isn't dwarfed by his 'co-star' Rob Brydon (played by Rob Brydon). The film's very dry humour is always chuckle worthy and on occasion laugh out loud funny - Coogan and Brydon work really well together. Worth a watch - although I can't honestly say that I'm fond of it or a fan, I did enjoy it and it is quite memorable.


TV

Arrested Development (Season 2)
Arrested Development is surely one of the funniest sitcoms ever made - no surprise then that it was canceled after the third season. I don't know how any explanation I give can do it justice - I recommend reading the introduction to the show from the Wikipedia article. Or from my own thoughts on the first season, which I just remembered I'd written! Freakily, I seem to have repeated myself with this entry- perhaps I'm merely parroting what I wrote the last time, or perhaps my sentiments on the show haven't changed. It is one of the funniest shows ever, it was unjustly cancelled, and my words cannot do it justice. Suffice it to say, the second season is at least as good as the first - hilarious and brilliant. Watch it. That is all.


BOOKS

Life of Pi (Yann Martel, 2001)
This book won the Booker Prize in 2002 and was very well received, so you expect something special when you read it. Colour me unimpressed though. It's a good book, and certainly well written, but I can't see what all the fuss was about. Yep, this probably confirms that I am indeed a philistine. Divided into three parts, the main part recounts the story of 'Pi' Patel, an Indian boy who survives a shipwreck and winds up stranded in the ocean on board a lifeboat with only a Bengal tiger for company. Interesting premise, and much of this part of the book is fascinating - Pi recounts in detail his experiences and what extremes measures he has to take to survive. The thing that drags the book down for me was the character of Pi himself, who comes across as smug far too often for my liking, particularly in the first part of the book. His mopiness doesn't help matters either - while I realize that he endures a hell of a lot, it gets a bit tiresome to keep reading about how much he suffers. The ruminations on religion, animal behaviour, and life in general are both interesting and heavy handed in equal measure. I guess at the end of the day the book rubbed me up the wrong way and I just don't much care for it. I can't honestly, objectively say whether I'd recommend it or not.

And there you have it. The end of the post. I know, I know - the post is too long. Sue me!

Fading Away

I'm fading away from the people around me... Or rather, I already have. I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened, but it did. And it's partly, perhaps mostly, my fault. I withdrew into myself, and being naturally introverted, it didn't seem like much of a change. The reasons - a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo, which only ever seemed to change for the worse; and a primal, irrational hatred which lives on even now.

As I said, it didn't seem like much of a change, but it does now. Recent events have made me realize this. To pull away from normal interaction meant I minimized all of the negative interaction... but the cost of this was the loss of positive interactions as well. I now watch these from the sidelines, as an outsider. I could probably join in, but it would feel like I didn't really belong anymore.

It's strange how you can feel alone even while living amid several people in a relatively confined space. I don't mind being alone, truth be told; I daresay I relish it. I can survive with little company, and have done so in the past. But to feel alone while being among other people, that can be difficult. Which is why, I suppose, I hate hanging around with people I don't much care for and becoming an outsider. It's a painful experience, and I refuse to be accommodating - forced cheerfulness requires a lot of effort, and even the consumption of large volumes of alcohol fails to make it any easier. Ooh, a digression... better get things back on track.

I try to think of how I could change things, make them better, but I'm at a loss really. My reasons for being this way are the same, and I don't think I can change myself to overcome them. Yeah, I can't better myself Picard, though I dearly want to! The old canard about starting things over and doing things right someplace else is always tempting, but even if it were possible, I suspect things would deteriorate eventually. But at least there would be a slim chance, and for a while, hope... and if it were not for hopes, the heart would break, as the old quote says.

I can't believe I've written an entry like this... I've succumbed to the temptations of anonymity at last. I'm tempted to delete this and close the browser. Maybe I should. Or maybe I should post it as a testament to my frazzled state of mind on this day. Yeah. I think I'll go with that. I know I'm going to regret it later though. heh heh...

If you're looking back on this post from the future, I hope you've got your act together, you wanker! May the Force be with you! How's the weather?

Movie Roundup! AGAIN!

No one can accuse me of not being prolific. Except maybe those who really are prolific.

Aeon Flux (2005)
Contrary to the general consensus, Aeon Flux's only redeeming feature is not the fact that it features a slinky, catsuit clad Charlize Theron (although it is a plus). Ok, it's not a masterpiece; in fact, it's not even great. I'd rate it as ok to good. It probably won't hold up to repeat viewings. Based on the bizarre MTV cartoon of the same name, the story takes place in a future where a deadly disease has wiped out almost everybody, and only a handful of people have survived thanks to the efforts of a scientist who now rules over them. They live in a seemingly utopian city, but something is amiss and a rebel organization is fighting to overthrow the totalatarian regime. The eponymous heroine of the story is one of these rebels, who begins to question if their cause is just. The story is fairly derivative, the acting is adequate, as is the action. What I liked about it was the production design of the film, which was sumptuous and sometimes unique... So, fairly entertaining and nice to look at.

Das Boot (Director's Cut) (1981)
Amazing film. Wolfgang Peterson's breakout effort is about a German submarine on a tour of duty towards the end of World War II. The tide is starting to turn against the Germans, whose crews are steadily growing younger as new recruits are continually drafted in. Jurgen Prochnow plays the stoic and battle hardened veteran who captains the sub and bemoans his overly patriotic and inexperienced crew. There's not much in the way of actual plot in the film. Much like another excellent ocean based film - Master and Commander - this film is mostly concerned with the details of life aboard a cramped and claustrophobic submarine, and how the crew copes with their mundane lifestyle which is interrupted every so often by moments of nail biting tension and horror. The attention to detail and authenticity make this an incredibly immersive experience that spans the gamut of emotion. Terrific performances makes one quickly forget the fact that the protagonists are people almost always depicted as "the bad guys" whom audiences are used to siding against. I can't finish without mentioning the memorable theme music which is reinterpreted quite effectively throughout the film.

Carlito's Way (1993)
Al Pacino has delivered some terrific performances in his time, and this one should definitely be listed among them. Brian de Palma's excellent crime flick is about a drug dealer named Carlito Brigante (Pacino) who gets out of prison five years into his sentence thanks to his crafty lawyer (Sean Penn). Prison has changed him, and he wants out of the business - he just needs a little money to make his getaway. He gets a legit job running a nightclub, and tries to stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, despite his fading reputation on the street, the world he's trying to get away from keeps pulling him back in. A further complication is the woman he had to leave behind when he was incarcerated - she's given up on her dreams, so Carlito endeavours to share his future with her. The film is thoroughly entertaining and has some excellent set pieces. It's also poignant and full of terrific and distinctive performances. Definitely worth wathcing.

Corpse Bride (2005)
First up I should admit that I'm not a big fan of the spiritual precursor to this film, A Nightmare Before Christmas, which, while unquestionably a beautiful visual accomplishment, left me cold (I was trying to break my personal comma record with that sentence). So I was pleasantly surprised to find Corpse Bride to be much more engaging. Like 'Nightmare', 'Bride' is a stop motion animation film featuring a liberal dose of the macabre. It's about a shy young man who's being married off to a shy young woman, but instead winds up getting married to a corpse and shanghaied into moving to the land of the dead (not Romero's, unfortunately). While visually engaging, it isn't as creative as Nightmare - the designs don't seem as memorable to me. Being a musical animated film, it features a handful of decent songs. What really worked for me was the fact that the characters were likable - granted this is purely subjective, but there you go. It's good (and surprisingly short) and, unless you happen to abhor this sort of film, worth a watch.

Well, I've really managed to ramble on today. Limiting these to one paragraph each is only an effective discipline when the paragraphs aren't obscenely long. At least I'm not as verbose as I used to be though...

Revenge is Sour - George Orwell

Recent violent events and people's reactions to them reminded me of this insightful article by George Orwell.

Snow Crash (by Neal Stephenson)

I really ought to be quicker than this. I finished Snow Crash (by Neal Stephenson, 1992) a couple of weeks ago and meant to write about it, but being the procrastinator that I am, I saved a draft and spent the next two weeks not finishing it off. Which is not to say that I couldn't be bothered because I didn't like the book, which I did. Quite a bit actually.

Snow Crash was Neal Stephenson's breakout novel - it's a cyberpunk sci-fi story set in the near future. In this future, America has changed drastically - both economically and politically. Corporations are omnipresent and powerful and are substitutes for the government, providing privatized policing and defence. There are several sovereign states throughout the country that are 'franchised' in various physical locations, in much the same way fast food outlets are franchised. The equivalent of the Internet is the 'Metaverse', which is a universe that is experienced via VR technology, and in which people interact using graphical avatars and can lead a whole other virtual life.

The heroes of our story are Hiro Protagonist, a 30-something sword wielding hacker and ex pizza delivery guy, and Y.T., a teenage girl who is a 'Kourier' - a type of professional courier that uses a skateboard as their mode of transport. The book follows these two characters as they become embroiled in separate (but possibly connected) adventures. The plot revolves around a mysterious new Metaverse virus called Snow Crash that can somehow afflict people in the real world. At the same time, a real world virus is being distributed by some shady religious franchises that cause people to 'babble' in a strange language. A shady figure named Raven and a powerful communications magnate may be involved.

Snow Crash is a mystery / thriller filled with technology and littered with pop culture references. It delves into hacking, religion, the workings of both a virtual world and a futuristic 'anarcho-capitalist' (who says you don't learn anything from sci-fi?) society, and quite deeply into Sumerian mythology. I felt that the world building and thematic explorations were the book's strong point - the characterization and plotting, while far from bad, don't quite achieve the same standard. Stephenson's writing style is dry and descriptive, which I figure is appropriate for a cyberpunk novel. It is also laced with very effective black humour througout, and the situations the hapless Hiro gets himself into and improbably gets himself out of are hilarious (this is in stark contrast to Y.T, who always seems to have some control over a given situation).

To conclude, I will say that I had a great time reading this, and even though I'm familiar with most of the concepts presented in the book in some form or another, I still found it to be interesting. It might not be the type of book that non geeks will enjoy, but for those whose neural pathways have been forged in geek foundries (whatever the hell that means), it's like manna from heaven.

Moonlighting Season 2

Ah Moonlighting... Watching this show is like hanging out with old friends. How can you not enjoy the merry misadventures of David Addison and Maddie Hayes, the lovable, unqualified detectives who run the Blue Moon Detective Agency and manage to accidentally solve most of their cases? David and Maddie are the dynamic duo who revel in witty barbs, door slamming, and outrageous chase scenes. And let's not forget all that repressed attraction poorly covered up by their outward 'battle of the sexes'.

Season 2 is as irreverent and funny as the first. The plots are self-conciously outrageous, the comic timing and interplay between the two leads is perfect, and the writing has to be among the sharpest to have been transmitted over the airwaves.

Do ducks duck? Do bees bee? Does Spock beam up? I don't know... What I do know is that Moonlighting is one of the best and most unique TV shows I've ever seen, and is a shoo in for the best show of the 80s (despite the weaker later seasons). Explanations can't really do it justice though - it has to be experienced. Needless to say, I'm a fan...

Space: Above and Beyond

I watched Space: Above and Beyond over the last few months. It's a sci-fi / military TV show set in the year 2063, and it revolves around a Marine Corps squadron called the "Wildcards" during an interplanetary war with a hostile alien species. Only one season was made before the show was cancelled, which is a shame. While not a tragic cancellation, it wasn't half bad and showed signs of improving.

The show goes for a dark and gritty feel for the most part, and begins with the protagonists joining the military, each for their own reasons. A hostile alien species is encountered at the site of a new earth colony and war breaks out, causing our heroes to be drafted in sooner than anticipated. Throughout the 24 episodes, they become an elite unit called in for critical missions. The episodes consist of arc based and stand alone episodes that touch on various themes and range from large scale stories to more personal ones.

The characters are well rounded - both flawed and heroic and you really get to know them over the course of the show's run, but at some level it's hard to buy them as hardened marines, and their speedy transition into veterans rings false. The universe created has some depth and believability, and mixes elements of politics, military trappings, and corporate scheming together with sci-fi elements like (socially stigmatized) artificially gestated humans, robotic AI beings, and planetary colonization.

Unfortunately, there's a clear lack of focus on what type of show this was intended to be (that, or the suits tried to mix things up because of poor ratings), with the focus shifting jarringly from one aspect to another or one character to another without a strong sense of cohesion. This lack of consistency also results in many things being unclear and lacking context - we are never presented with a broad enough picture of how the war is playing out, for instance, and the political and corporate shenanigans aren't interwoven into the show. Contrast this with the likes of Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica (the new one), which do such a brilliant job of bringing disparate elements together and making the viewer believe that elements introduced into the storylines are always in existence, even when they are not the focus of a given story.

Another annoyance is that while sci-fi elements are incorporated into the show, they are presented in ill conceived ways. Newtonian physics is seemingly ignored, and the sheer vastness of space and the difficulties of space travel are facts that are never addressed and often blatantly contradicted. The AI beings are another example of dubious logic, of which there are several more that I shall not waste time going into.

The acting is a strong point of the show; while the 'tough guy' attitude is occasionally overblown (maybe that's how it really is in the military, but I doubt it), the protagonists come across as real people. There are several wonderfully written and acted character moments, especially in the latter half of the series. The production values are excellent (apparently this was one expensive show), but the old school CGI effects are mostly bland and the space action sequences uninteresting. I have to confess one thing though - the pompous theme music really grew on me!

If it had lasted longer, Space: Above and Beyond may have found its footing, as the last batch of episodes seemed to be more consistent and played to the shows strengths - a war drama in space, with less emphasis on poorly implemented sci-fi elements. As it stands, it's an interesting show that is entertaining and engaging while being frustrating at the same time. Worth watching for dedicated sci-fi fans. I found it to be interesting as a precursor to Battestar Galactica, which has all of its strengths and none of its weaknesses.

Movie roundup - from the last couple of weeks...

Jurassic Park (1993)
I loved this movie to death when it first came out, and all these years later... I still do! It's gained a few detractors over the years, but they're wrong. Jurassic Park is a classic adventure film - spectacular, tense, littered with bursts of excitement. All these years later the special effects still more than hold their own against the current state of the art, and in many respects are less rough around the edges than todays mass produced CGI. The dinos are the star attraction, but a strong cast makes the humans memorable as well. I still can't figure out where that mysterious cliff in the T-Rex paddock materializes from though...

American Graffiti (1973)
Once upon a time, George Lucas made films with characters, and this is one of them. Taking place during one night in a small town in the 60s, it follows a group of teenagers at crossroads in their lives. Doesn't sound like anything special, but it's got some fine performances and is heartfelt and funny. And there's no trace of bad bluescreen or cheesy CGI cartoon characters anywhere!

The Deer Hunter (1978)
A war film that opts to focus less on battle and more on a small group of men who go off to war and the community they hail from. It examines various relationships and how they change as a result of the participation of three men in the Vietnam War. It's layered and deliberately paced, and builds up to a tragic finale... Fantastic performances from everyone involved - the Russian roulette scenes are unforgettable. I'm not a big fan of war / drama films in general, but there's no arguing the quality of this one...

A History of Violence (2005)
After Sauron's defeat, Aragorn moves to a small American town and starts a family. Jokes aside, Viggo Mortensen is fantastic in this excellent Cronenberg film. After killing (defensively) a couple of sociopathic crooks who try to make trouble in his smalltown diner, Tom Stall becomes a hero. This attracts the attention of a bunch of mafia men who claim that Tom is actually a gangster like them. A lot of violence does indeed take place, some of it quite brutal, but the film is really a character piece about the viral nature of violence and the inherently violent nature of people. Well worth watching...

King of New York (1990)
Christopher Walken is brilliant in the aforementioned "The Deer Hunter", and he's pretty good in this as well... but I'd be hard pressed to recommend it. Walken plays a drug lord who, upon his release from prison, tries to do some good in the city by funding community projects with his drug business, while concurrently eliminating his gangster opponents. A bunch of cops try to bring him down. Featuring a lot of violence and gratuitous nudity and no characters to root for, the film continually stretches plausability and is ultimately underwhelming.

Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Despite all the hype, this didn't turn out to be the hit some people were expecting. The title really does say it all - the film is all about snakes. On a plane. And Samuel L. Jackson is the man who has to deal with them at 30,000 feet. It's ridiculous to be sure, and occasionally seems to take itself more seriously than it should, but it's still a load of fun (especially with a crowd). Not one I'll deliberately watch again, but I can easily see myself catching this playing on TV while channel surfing and watching it through to the end. I'm not sure if that's a recommendation or not - you probably get the idea.

V for Vendetta (2005)
And finally, the one I'd recommend the most out of this bunch. I went in expecting good things, and it didn't disappoint. The trailers made it look like an action film, which is far from the truth - what little action there is actually constitutes the weakest parts of the film. In truth it's very dialogue heavy, and I'd describe it more as a thriller / drama. Set in a dystopian future England where freedoms have been traded away to a fascist government in the name of security, the story revolves around an enigmatic, masked terrorist named V who plans to incite a revolution. A young woman named Evey gets caught up in his activities and is forced to decide if she should get involved in his plot. Some have said the dystopian world is too extreme, and this may be true, but so what? The same could be said of 1984, which is widely hailed as a classic. Regardless of its ideology, the film is exceptionally well made, thought provoking, funny, and entertaining - a rare combination.

Catchup

My follow up post to this and this, which would have been written some time ago were it not for my hiatus.

First up, Superman Returns, which I was looking forward to way back in June, just before it came out. Well, it was good but failed to live up to what I expected from a Superman movie. It just wasn't mythic... the whole thing felt too dour, and this tone was at odds with Luthor's campy scheme. The action was spectacular but front loaded, and the ending dragged on for too long after a climax that failed to live up to the airplane rescue from the beginning of the film. Brandon Routh was good as Superman but unconvincing as Clark Kent - on both counts, he didn't surpass Christopher Reeve's iconic portrayal (although that's admittedly an unfair expectation). Lois Lane lacked the tenacity of her 70s/80s incarnation and was mostly bland. Kevin Spacey was perfectly OTT as Lex. Production values, as expected from a $200 million plus film, were of the highest calibre. All in all, good but not great. The best part of the movie? The opening sequence with John William's famous theme, which is without question my favourite movie theme.

Next, His Dark Materials, the first part of which is currently being turned into a movie due for release next year. I already wrote about the first one, and my opinion on the sequels is similar. The worlds Pullman creates and the multi layered story he weaves is always compelling, with a unique mix of subject matter - quantum mechanics and religion wrapped up in multiple parallel universes!

There are some things that irked me though - the writing style is often plain and descriptive, and sometimes too simplistic. I was hoping for a bit more depth as the series progressed, given the relatively serious tone of the book. It's also a bit leaden, and you wish there were more moments of levity (which was the case in the first book, come to think of it). By which I mean, in a really great adventure story, you wish you were there with the characters even when they're going through hell - I can't honestly say that I felt that while reading these books.

Which is not to say I don't recommend them... they're worth reading. They won't take too long to get through (considering that there're three books) and are well paced. Ultimately, the "His Dark Materials" trilogy is good, but I think it would've been better had the same story and characters been wrapped up in a slightly different package (if that makes any sense).

Wired - The Warmth of Human Contact

There's an interesting article on Wired about communication in the tech age. The author makes some valid points.

"...our actual communication skills are eroding. Instant communication encourages superficiality in the way we talk to each other."

I'm not sure if our communication skills are actually getting worse, or if it's simply that we're communicating a lot more with a lot of people, which exposes us to more bad communicators whom we might not have interacted with before the ubiquity of the Internet. I think people who would have communicated well in those days do so even now - they just seem much rarer. The ease with which communication is now possible allows poor or lazy communicators to make themselves heard with little effort, and the end result is a volume of commentary that ranges from the glib to the downright stupid.

On the other hand, ease of communication does encourage everyone to shoot off emails and messages without giving them much thought. This can be a good thing when used appropriately (especially when working on a project of some sort, where I find email 'conversations' to be common and useful), but an over-indulgence in this manner of communication is annoying. One thing that really bugs me personally is the use of shorthand, primarily used for SMS messages but more and more frequently in message board postings and email. If you want to say something, take the time to say it properly dammit!

"it's still the quality of the communication that counts."

And it always will be, one hopes.

"Perversely, a lot of younger people are growing more comfortable with texting than actually speaking to a living person."

I agree with his sentiment that speaking to people face to face is probably the best and most candid form of communication in most cases, especially when it comes to personal exchanges. On the other hand, some people are simply not as comfortable as others when it comes to face to face contact, or are less adept at getting their thoughts across verbally. I think his point about the quality of communication applies in this case as well - if you're going to get something across better by writing it down, then you should write it down. The type of communication being attempted is also relevant - talking shop via email is fine, but apologizing via a text message is coldly impersonal.

I think most would agree that limiting yourself wholly to only one form of communication is probably a bad thing, especially if that form is something as limited as text messaging!

"our increasing dependence upon technology has trivialized the art of living"

The communication issue is just a subset of all the other issues related to the so called 'digital' lifestyle, one that is steeped in multi-tasking. Does having too much on our plates result in a lack of depth in our lives? Even beginning to talk about that is too much for this post! I will say this, however - I now frequently find myself guilty of jumping from one thing to the next without fully committing my attention to any one of them. And I don't like it...

Blogicide

Or the habit of terminating blogs. I've seen this happen on several occasions. Someone maintains a blog for a reasonably lengthy period of time... and then the entries start to become less frequent... and then, one day, *poof*, the blog is gone. I've done it myself, and I'm beginning to suspect that it's a fairly common occurrence.

I'm not sure why it happens. Hell, I can't even satisfactorily explain why I killed my own blog. Sure, I grew disinterested in blogging, but that doesn't explain why I terminated the blog. I could have just left it there to gather dust, an archive of my mindless ruminations on the web. I deleted a helluva lot of posts. Perhaps it's because I hate reading over stuff I've written, especially when I look back on it years later. Perhaps I didn't like the idea of having stuff that could be associated with the "real me" left lying around on the web. Not that I was saying anything controversial mind you - just that I'm paranoid and worry about things coming back to bite me in the ass.

As to why other people do it, one can only speculate. Their reasons may be the same as mine. Or they may be reasons that I can't even imagine. Either way, I find it interesting and just a little amusing. It also makes me wonder whether they set up shop someplace else, like I did. Maybe to re-invent themselves, or to break free of the shackles associated with their old blogs.

I decided to go the anonymous route this time around. My first blog was known to people that I knew in real life, and while this seemed like a good idea at first, I grew to dislike it. Somehow, knowing the people who might read (although, admittedly most of them hardly ever checked it out) affected what I wrote, and the way I wrote it. I'm insanely private and keep even my banal thoughts close to my chest, and the whole 'open to the world' thing made me uncomfortable. Ironically, even though I write more freely now than I did before (i.e. without overthinking it), the stuff that ends up written is pretty similar!

There were some readers of my previous blog for whom the above does not apply... I didn't really worry about their perspective on my perspective (or something). I didn't bring them along for the ride though - I thought a nice, clean, anonymous reboot would be better. I regret that decision, and I miss the interaction... but it's too late to go back on it now... it's been too long. To them, I no longer blog. If they have (or ever do) tracked me down somehow and end up reading this, I'd like to let them know that I'm sorry for slinking off in the way I did. If you know me at all, you'll probably understand.

As for this blog, why do I update it? Why do I bother writing? I guess it's because I enjoy doing it and I regret deleting all the stuff I wrote before, no matter how bad it might have been. I write for myself now. I'm no longer concerned about who checks it out, or if people bother to check it out at all, be they friends, strangers, or ewoks. I used to be too caught up in the idea of blogging; I was too self-concious. I was obsessive enough to keep track of people's visits and so on. But not anymore. Now, the blog just is. And I'm much happier about it. The next time I get bored, I'll go into hibernation and pick things up again where I left off, instead of committing blogicide again.

This has been a rambling, unstructured, and somewhat more candid post than usual. I didn't intend to write all this when I started, but I went freeform for a while there. It was kinda fun! I should do it again sometime...

The Mythical 40-Hour Gamer

Wired has an interesting article about modern games and their longevity. The writer, Clive Thompson, points out that there is a large divide between two types of gamers. The first type are the hardcore players who have the time to commit themselves to a game for prolonged periods and run through even the longest games in no time at all. The second type are those with other commitments and interests - the casual gamers for whom gaming sessions can be expected to last an hour or so at best. For the first group, these games are just not long enough, and for the second, they're just too long.

Years ago, I belonged to the first group, and at the time I naively believed that I always would. If you enjoy something, you can make time for it, right? WRONG!(/Luthor) Gone are the days of gaming morning, noon, and night. Heck, I can't even call myself a gamer anymore really... the last time I played a game with any conviction was over two months ago! Sadly, the commitment of full time employment and the mundane responsibilities of adult life (many of which I admittedly eschew even now) reduces the time one has for such entertainments. Couple this with the fact that my limited free time is split up between an eclectic plethora of books, films, and tv shows, keeping up with the news, and the occasional health-concious physical activity, and you can see why the odds of me attaining gamer leetness are slim indeed.

The fact is, the burden of more responsibilites in the future will continue to eat away at my allotment of free time. I only hope that by the time I enter retirement I'll still have enough use of my senses and wits left to unwind a bit and catch up on the backlog.

I shall now return to attempting to play through Half-Life... and maybe this time I'll play the expansion packs as well. I'll blog about it when I finish, so the entry should appear on this site in another six months or so.

Boll-ocks

German 'filmmaker' Uwe Boll has apparently taken to hitting his critics. I've never seen a Boll film, but most reputable (and disreputable) sources claim that he is easily amongst the worst filmmakers working today, if not THE worst. This is the man responsible for House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all of which are in the hallowed halls of the IMDB bottom 100.

As the BBC article states, Boll got the better of his critics in the ring after he challenged them to a boxing match. Apparently, his pugilistic skills are a tad better than his auteurist skills. Yeah, I know I shouldn't judge him before watching his films and that it's easier to hate things than to like them bla bla bla, but come on, films like Dungeons and Dragons, Wing Commander, and Battlefield Earth really are as bad as people describe, so there's no reason to expect any better from Boll's universally derided efforts.

I have to admit though, some of his interviews are a riot, quite possibly more entertaining than his movies!

Carter Beats the Devil

Carter Beats the Devil, the first novel by author Glen David Gold, is a fictional story about real-life magician Charles Carter that takes place across the first few decades of the twentieth century. I'd heard about the book someplace (Ain't It Cool, I think), and when I saw the 560 page hardback volume sitting on the library shelf I couldn't resist.

The book is essentially a period character piece that is steeped in magic - and by magic I don't mean fantasy magic, but the magic of illusions and misdirection. In many ways the book itself is composed of illusions and misdirection. It recounts key episodes in Carter's childhood, his years spent as a struggling magician, and his rivalry with the villainous magician Mysterioso. All this mixed up with a fair share of romance and tragedy.

The plot that comprises the bulk of the novel focuses on the aftermath of the death of President Harding shortly after he attends Carter's magic show. Carter comes under the scrutiny of the Secret Service, who believe him to be in possession of a secret divulged to him by the President, and possibly guilty of having had a hand in his death. Another key figure in the book is the tenacious but down on his luck Agent Jack Griffin, who is the centrepiece in a subplot that acts as a sort of counterpoint to the story of the rich and privileged Carter.

I expected to really enjoy this book, and while it is very good it didn't really grab me in the way I had anticipated. Thinking back on it, I can't really find much wrong with it. It's dense and detailed and atmospheric. Carter is a complex and compelling character - tortured and struggling to move forward. All of the surrounding characters are interesting, well defined, and often quirky. There are showdowns, edge-of-your-seat escapes, and fantastical (and apparently mostly real if somewhat embellished) magic performances. The book is written with a straightforward, fast paced style and is often funny and sometimes horrifying (the knife in the hand bit sticks out in particular).

I'm not sure why I didn't enjoy it as much as I expected to - I would probably recommend it, with the caveat that I myself was quite unmoved by it. Maybe it's because I was in a bad mood because of my computer woes, which pummeled my spirit into submission repeatedly over the last few weeks... Or maybe it just didn't connect with me. In any case, it's a good book and worth a read for those who find the concept of the book interesting.

The Return of Tolkien and the Space Tourist

Tolkien Lives!

It seems that the late Professor Tolkien deems us worthy enough to come back from the grave for - he's written a new book posthumously! Ok, not exactly... his son Christopher has edited together his late father's unfinished work 'The Children of Hurin' and will release it next year. I'm not sure if I've got my facts right, but I think most of the Tolkien books out there were published after he gave up the ghost. Death is no longer the obstacle it used to be. As for me, I still haven't touched The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, which have been languishing in my 'To Read' pile for at least half a decade. I may wind up taking a leaf out of Tolkien's book by reading them posthumously...

Space Tourist

As I'm sure everyone is aware, the Soyuz spaceship is now in orbit, and will be docking with the ISS tomorrow. The big news about this mission is, of course, the inclusion of Anousheh Ansari, who is first female space tourist, the first Iranian, and the fourth space tourist overall. You may have heard the name before - she was involved in funding the X-Prize a couple of years back, and is a huge proponent of the space program.

Apparently it's been her dream to go to space, and she has parted with a large amount of money to purchase her ticket from the Russian Space Program. She hopes to inspire others and to draw attention to the importance of space exploration for the future of mankind. I agree with her sentiments, and hope all goes well during her trip. She and a few others are maintaining a blog, which she will be updating from space after Soyuz docks with the ISS! She may well be the first space blogger! In the entries thus far (made while still on Terra, of course), Ms. Ansari explains in a personable manner a bit about herself, her motivations and ideals, and the training programme. It makes for an interesting read for those who are interested.

I myself cannot wait to be a space tourist, but I suspect it'll never become affordable in my lifetime, assuming space tourism takes off at all. At the very least, I hope to live to see a colony on Mars. Space Elevator, you can't come soon enough!

As a brief aside, I find it a bit depressing that the story about a man marrying a goat endured longer than the Ansari story on the BBC website's 'most read' and 'most emailed' sections.

Babylon 5 - Season 2

Another draft entry that has been gathering dust since June.

Babylon 5

Let me quickly complete it by saying... Season 2 was excellent, better than Season 1, and despite my initial reservations I grew to prefer Sheridan to Sinclair. Londo continues to be a lovable bastard (although mostly a bastard), G'kar is now a tragic figure, Garibaldi and Ivanova are... still themselves, which is a good thing. Revelations are made and the stakes continue to be raised, and I can't wait to see Season 3.

Weekend Movie Roundup (June 16-18)

I created a 'marker' draft of this post way back on the 20th of June, and the following three lines are all it contained.

Dragonslayer (1981)
The Untouchables (1987)
The Descent (2005)

And then I stopped blogging for a while - I was a little busy and didn't have time to update, and when I finally found the time I was no longer in the mood for blogging. Fast forward nearly three (!) months to earlier this morning. There I was, twiddling my thumbs when my idle brain suddenly conjured up a thought - 'what about the blog?'. I sign in to Blogger and what do I find? A couple of old drafts sitting around, begging to be completed. Unfortunately, the passage of time has lessened the relevance of the topic that was to be discussed in this post, so I'll be ultra-brief.

Dragonslayer - Surprisingly watchable fantasy flick from the early 80s... probably one of the best of the era, especially when put alongside other dubious 'classics' like The Beastmaster and Red Sonja. The production values hold up well, the acting ain't bad, and the dragon effect looks good even today (for the most part). Look out for Emperor Palpatine in a small role.

De Palma's The Untouchablesis a classic. Costner, Connery, Deniro, and everyone else is top-notch. It may be a bit whimsical and stray from the facts at times, but is still thrilling, funny, and moving. As you may have guessed, I loved it...

And then there's The Descent, a film that's been getting so many rave reviews and which has been called "the scaries movie since Alien" or some such nonsense. It's nowhere near as good as that. It is brutal and scary (mostly by resorting to the 'sudden loud noise' syndrome), but poorly acted and written. Underwhelming.

Weekend Movie Roundup (June 09-11)

This post is late, but better late than never. It's also leaner than usual by virtue of the fact that I don't have time to ramble on!

Ice Pirates (1984)
This is a cheesy sci fi flick starring Robert Urich (as Jason), he of Spenser for Hire fame. In the distant future, water is a scarce commodity controlled by an opressive group called the Templar Knights (at least I think that's what they were called). Jason and his pirates raid and steal water from transport vessels. During a raid, they encounter Princess Karina, and become embroiled in a quest to find a mysterious water filled planet. Chases, battles, and time warps ensue. It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it knows it's bad, which makes it kinda fun.

Lord of War (2005)
Andrew Niccol wrote and directed the excellent Gattaca, so my hopes were high going into this one. While not as great as Gattaca, Lord of War is pretty darned good. It's a drama / black comedy about an arms dealer, Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage), about how he quickly rises up the ranks and establishes himself as THE arms dealer to turn to for any self-respecting warlord. The film is essentially split up into Yuir's personal life, the means by which he carries out his sordid work, and the politics that come into play in his line of work. It's not played out in an entirely realistic way and many things are glossed over, but it is darned entertaining and has an undeniable ring of truth to it. A unique film, definitely worth a look.

Princess Mononoke (1997)
Brilliant. Classic. If you haven't heard of Hayao Miyazaki, he's the modern day equivalent to Walt Disney, and this is one of many fantastic anime films he's directed. A prince from an ancient tribe, Prince Ashitaka, is cursed after battling a demonic beast, and is banished from his village. He sets out West to find the source of the demon and becomes embroiled in a conflict between a mining town and the forest spirits that are fighting to protect their land from destruction. Among the forest spirits is a human girl, Princess Mononoke (Princess of the Spirits), who's deeply entwined in the conflict. Ashitaka hopes to be cured by the forest spirit / deer god, and to also help settle the conflict in a reasonable manner for both sides. My summary doesn't do it justice - there's a lot more than that going on here. The story is fairly complex and thematically rich, and there's strong, even-handed characterization. It's all brought to life with beautiful animation and music. A must see...

Superman Returns... Positive Buzz

Well whaddaya know? Despite the generally negative outlook this film has had since director Bryan Singer jumped ship from the X-Men franchise to spearhead its development, the early reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. See Rotten Tomatoes for an aggregation of reviews, where it's currently at 94% positive. Glowing reviews include those from Time, Newsweek, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Ain't it Cool.

I haven't been blown away by any of the previews, but I'm more than a little excited to see this now... All of Singer's previous films have been very good, and there's little reason to expect otherwise from this one. Fingers crossed.

Philip Pullman - Northern Lights

Northern Lights (1995) by Phillip Pullman is the first in the His Dark Materials trilogy. I finished this over a week ago but didn't get a chance to write about it till now. I'm going to have to keep this post short because I just don't have time to be my usual bloated self (yay! all of you non-existent readers cry out in unison).

Northern Lights is a fantasy novel that takes place in a parallel universe that's somewhat similar to ours - technologically it's like a cross between our time and the mid 19th century. Some countries and peoples are the same, and others aren't. Slightly different words are used to describe things, such as 'anbaric' instead of 'electric'. Other major differences from our world are the presence of talking warrior polar bears, witches, and daemons. The latter are talking animal companions that every person has; the animal is an extension of a person's soul.

Within this alternate universe, the story revolves around a girl called Lyra and her daemon Pantalaimon. Lyra is an orphan who has lived at a college in Oxford virtually her whole life. Being tenacious and too curious for her own good, she stumbles upon something that ultimately sends her on a dangerous journey away from the relative comfort of her home. A journey that sees her teaming up with a group of Gyptians to look for a friend captured by the sinister 'Gobblers'. Lyra also learns about the mysterious 'Dust' that has the omnipotent Church worried, and acquires a strange 'truth telling' device called an alethiometer.

Northern Lights is ostensibly a children's / young adult's book, but that shouldn't put you off. Unless you're a completely cynical adult, you should be able to enjoy it. It's definitely more adult oriented than, say, the Hobbit or The Chronicles of Narnia. It's compulsive and I was immersed by Pullman's fantastical world. The story is fairly original and has a healthy mixture of outright fantasy, science, pseudoscience, theology, and politics layered around the genre staple concept of having a young orphan protagonist with a destiny to fulfill. Well worth a read for fantasy fans, and even if you're not, it's good enough to be worth a look-see.

I've already started on the second part of the trilogy (which takes place partly in our universe), and I can't wait to see how the story pans out.

Hard Drive Woes + Willow

I lost my second hard drive in the space of less than six months. Fortunately I always have two on my machine and backup important data from one to the other. The last one that failed was just two years old. This one was slightly over three years old. Not too impressive I have to say, but maybe it had something to do with the fact that they were IBM Desk(Death)Stars.

Since my OS drive was gone, I had a fun weekend reinstalling everything from scratch. FUN! I'm still in the process of restoring everything, and it probably won't be back to 'normal' for a few weeks yet, as I come across applications I've forgotten. AAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! As you can imagine, I didn't exactly have much time for watching movies, but I still managed to sneak one in on Sunday evening.

Willow (1988) - Or Lord of the Rings Lite. Directed by Ron Howard and written by George Lucas, the fantasy flick owes more than a small debt to Tolkien's opus.

The story goes something like this. The evil queen Bavmorda (Jean Marsh) rules over the land, but there is a prophecy that a child will be born who will one day bring about her downfall. To prevent this from happening, Bavmorda rounds up all the pregnant women in the land (no, really) and when their babies are born she checks them for a birthmark that this child is meant to have on her arm. When the child is born, someone manages to sneak her out of the castle and she winds up floating along a river and into the hands of the unlikeliest person imaginable. No, not Bilbo Baggins, but Willow Ufgood (Warwick Davis), one of a race of 'little people' who live in their idyllic pastoral little village.

The village wizard tells Willow that he must take the baby out of the village and give it to one of the 'big folk'. So Willow sets out with a small band of his buddies, and they wind up dodging black riders and meeting Galadriel. Willow finally ends up alone with the baby (the others return to the village), and is forced to team up with Madmartigan (Val Kilmer), an impish rogue who's also the greatest swordsman alive. They adventure from one place to the next, meet up with a cursed sorceress, a medieval hottie, and a few nasty creatures before the climactic showdown with the evil Bavmorda (hope I didn't spoil that for you).

On technical merits Willow holds up well - it was probably a marvel when it came out. The production values are top notch, and the effects are good for their day. I found the story to be fairly engaging (if derivative), but lots of the events seemed to be contrived and not driven by character or logic. The whole thing lacks the 'epic' feel that it obviously strives for, with people running from one land (and landscape) to the next in seemingly a matter of hours. The action sequences aren't all that impressive or exciting. The thing that really drags the film down is the tone, which consistently resorts to childish buffoonery. This should have been an early warning for Star Wars fans - childish buffoonery is something Lucas carried over to the Star Wars prequels (although he tried to phase it out by the third film, and replaced it with childish melodrama and inane characterization).

Warwick Davis and Val Kilmer are well cast and play off each other nicely, and their banter makes for some of the more memorable character moments. Fortunately these two are the central characters to the story, because most of the other characters are forgettable. The exception is the evil Bavmorda, played with over-the-top hamminess by Jean Marsh. The scenes with the Nelwyns (the little people) is actually fairly strong and feels more real than the rest of the film.

As with most Ron Howard films, Willow is directed clinically but with a nondescript style. The writing, as with so many fantasy films, features anachronistic dialog - medieval people saying things like 'jackass' is just plain incongruous. Thankfully, this doesn't happen too much anymore. The music is nice, but James Horner's trademark self-plagiarism is readily apparent. Overall, Willow is a fun film to watch, and I loved it as a kid, but through my now jaded eyes its flaws are obvious. This was once one of the better fantasy films around; today, it's not even close. Good but not great, with a few too many groan inducing moments.

Dead Like Me

I finished watching the first season of Dead Like Me a week ago. Created by Bryan Fuller, the guy who co-created the fantastic Wonderfalls, Dead Like Me tells the story of Georgia "George" Lass, an 18 year old girl who is killed when a toilet seat from the Mir space station falls on her. Unfortunately for George she doesn't get to move on to heaven (or whatever it's meant to be), because she's forced to join the ranks of the Grim Reapers, who's job it is to take the souls of the dead and guide them to the afterlife. Kind of like a first day orientation guide at a workplace, only more morbid. It seems that reapers aren't guys in black hoods with scythes, but ordinary (ish) Joes who's reaping jobs are as soul destroying (no pun intended) as your 9 to 5 desk job, complete with insufferable co-workers and bureaucratic upper management.

So basically, it's a black comedy / drama that centres on George and her little band of reapers, and George's family (her parents and little sister) as they cope with life without her. George was basically a smart-ass kid who didn't know what to do with her life, and the show spends a lot of time on her dwelling on her (wasted) life and coming to terms with her 'after-life' life. Her family, which didn't exactly have it all together when she was alive, continues to fall apart after she's gone, as the un-dead George discovers (although she's forbidden from directly interfering with their lives). The reapers are an insane bunch - led by Rube (Mandy Patinkin, Inigo Montoya himself!), and including the druggie brit Mason, the (wannabe) Hollywood starlet Daisy, and the sassy meter maid Roxy.

There's copious amounts of swearing in this (presumably because it was made for cable), which is a refreshing touch, although they do go overboard with it on occasion. The show has humour and has angsty drama, and both aspects are done well. Ellen Muth, who plays George, has strange mannerisms and a quirkiness that you'll either like or dislike. I grew to like the character, although her tendency to never NOT be cynical or depressed can get a little annoying. The man who steals the show is Mandy Patinkin (Rube) though, with his no nonsense attitude, his sardonic grin, and his tendency to pontificate with a wry sense of humour. And the food Rube eats (not to mention the way he talks about it)! I don't think you can go through an episode of Dead Like Me without feeling like munching on something from "Der Waffle Haus".

Overall, I'd say the show's very good, but admittedly I never got into it as much as I did Wonderfalls. It just doesn't seem to have as much charm. It's still much better than most things out there though. I'll definitely be checking out Season two - the last season, since there were only two seasons made.

Weekend Movie Roundup (May 26-28)

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Based on the true story of a 1972 New York bank robbery that went horribly wrong. Al Pacino stars as Sonny, a blue collar guy who turns to bank robbery for somewhat unusual reasons. Unfortunately, despite his planning, the cops arrive during the robbery and soon put together a veritable army outside. Sonny and his accomplice Sal become trapped inside with their hostages, the bank staff. Sonny attempts to negotiate with the cops to secure their escape.

Although it sounds uninspiring, this film was made when (in all likelihood) these sorts of stories hadn't become stale. Even today, this remains an excellent film because it doesn't play out in a cliched manner. The characters feel real, and the events play out with believable tension. Even the minor characters have dialogue and character traits that feel natural. Good writing and directing, and Pacino is fantastic as the charismatic robber who becomes increasingly desperate and optimistic in equal parts as the film progresses.

King Kong (2005)
I'm not sure I need to summarize what Peter Jackson's ambitious remake of the 1933 classic is all about. A film crew led by director Carl Denham (Jack Black) heads off to an uncharted island (uncharted in the 1930s - we know where it is now). There, starlet Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is captured by the natives and sacrificed to Kong, a giant ape. Kong and Ann cross the human-ape divide and forge a strange friendship, but Denham has plans to make a fortune by capturing Kong and exhibiting him for all the world to see. A lot of jungle and city based mayhem and destruction takes place.

Kong was definitely flawed, but I loved the damn thing for its old school adventure mixed with dramatic gravitas. It was spectacular and over the top, but also has quiet, reflective moments. Technically, almost everything was fantastic - Kong, New York, Skull Island, most of the dinosaurs and creatures, the biplanes, the costumes and sets. The cast is stellar, especially Watts and Serkis, who acted out Kong's movements and expressions. Jackson manages to again mix the fantastic with the serious in an engaging manner. The flaws? It runs too long for the amount of story it has to tell - some judicious editing would probably have helped. The ridiculous sub-plot involving Jimmy and Hayes adds nothing to the film, and neither does the appalling brontosaur sequence that has some of the worst effects seen in a mainstream movie in some time. There are several sub-par effects like this - the raptors and the brontos, and several of the blue screen shots.

Despite these flaws, it's still very good. Perhaps not a classic, although I have a feeling it'll be looked back on fondly.

Ed Wood (1994)
Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have teamed up several times - some argue that this is their finest effort to date. It tells the story of Ed Wood, considered by many to be one of the worst filmmakers of all time, and how he went about making a string of terrible low budget films during the 1950s. The film centres not only on Wood but also the group of filmmakers he surrounded himself with; a substantial portion of the story is devoted to the friendhsip between him and Bela Lugosi, the out of demand actor who was once famous for portraying Dracula. Wood and his pals struggle to get funding and resort to all manner of desperate methods to get their films made. Throughout it all, Wood is seemingly oblivious to how bad his films are, and continues to maintain belief in himself and finds the enthusiasm to marshall his troops to get the job done.

Ed Wood is a wonderful film, plain and simple. I find it hard to imagine that people could actively dislike the film. It's very funny, but doesn't sacrifice dramatic depth for comedy - there are poignant moments of bleakness and despair throughout. The film mows past them in the same way Wood did - with boundless energy and enthusiasm. Depp is fantastic as Wood, but incredibly he's eclipsed by Martin Landau's Bela Lugosi, who's simply brilliant. The acting is great all around, and Burton's touch keeps the film in a whimsical pseudo-reality populated by misfits. Shot in black and white, the film draws you into Ed Wood's world and you can't help but root for him as he endeavours to churn out (crappy) films in a hopeless quest for recognition and greatness.