Silent Hill (2006)
The film adaptation of Konami's successful 'survival horror' videogame franchise continues the long running tradition of videogame based films sucking.
The story goes something like this - a woman (Rose) takes her adopted daughter (Sharon) to a creepy town called Silent Hill, because the girl has been walking in her sleep and uttering the words 'Silent Hill'. When they get there, they enter some sort of alternate reality and Sharon promptly disappears - why, we'll never know. Rose ends up teaming up with a policewoman (Cybil) who followed them into town. The town turns out to be some kind of messed up nightmare full of bizarre, grotesque creatures. At certain points, a siren goes off and the place turns even more hellish, with... even more grotesque creatures! Meanwhile, in the 'real world' Silent Hill (which is a ghost town), Rose's husband Christopher (Sean Bean, sporting a hilarious accent) takes part in a superfluous subplot as he searches for his wife and daughter.
The thing about the Silent Hill film is that it's not really a film. It's a loose collection of scenes that are tied together by a cheap plot device. Rose glimpses her daughter running away, runs after her, and encounters something new and horrible. Wash, rinse, repeat. There's a story about the town's dark past and a bunch of religious fanatics, but it's handled in as stupid a manner as you can imagine, and only really comes into play towards the film's conclusion. The script is... perfunctory at best. The acting... forgettable. There's a truly ridiculous scene towards the end where Rose tries to appeal to the fanatical mob; this is followed by (hilarious) cries of "she's a witch! burn her!". These scenes are so over the top that they're pretty much parody-proof!
The only things this film has going for it are its atmosphere and production design. The town of Silent Hill is creepy, the monsters look truly revolting, from the weird 'nurses' with scalpels to the pyramid head man / thing with the giant sword. But these elements are all lifted straight from the game, so the only credit the filmmakers deserve is in implementing them cinematically. Given how cinematic the games themselves are, it couldn't have been that tough. Kudos for not over-relying on CGI however. The whole film feels like bits of the game cobbled together. The only thing is, when you play the game, you're playing the game. Watching a bunch of cutscenes isn't that much fun. Plus, from what I've seen of them, the games appear to have better narratives.
The only other 'memorable' thing from this movie is stuff you'll want to forget. And that's the truly gratuitous violence towards the end, which is both absurd and disgusting. It's there for shock value alone, plain and simple, and it brings nothing new to the table; if anything, it manages betray the more restrained creepiness that was established during most of the film. These scenes of Grand Guignol will make you laugh and feel queasy at the same time.
It's a shame the film's so poor. I expected more from Christophe Gans, whose stylish and entertaining Brotherhood of the Wolf was orders of magnitude better than this. And word is, he's planning on making a sequel. That, like this, will probably be one to avoid.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean (2003, 2006)
The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
I first watched this after all of the hoopla surrounding the film had come and gone. I'd already heard that Johnny Depp's Cap'n Jack Sparrow was a character for the ages. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that the praise wasn't misguided. I think Depp's Sparrow makes the film - the misuse of the character is one of the reasons I think the sequel doesn't work quite as well, but more on that later.
Jack Sparrow aside, The Curse of the Black Pearl is a rousing, swashbuckling adventure that is loads of fun and doesn't take itself too seriously. Gore Verbinski's dabbled in a bunch of genres successfully, and he finds the perfect balance between comedy and action for an adventure movie. It has an old school vibe to it, with the only incongruous element coming in the form of the CGI 'living dead' creatures which I found to be cartoony, sometimes to the point of distraction. Visually, the film is great to look at, with some nice real world locations and great sets, costumes etc... throughout. There are some exciting and well choreographed swordfights and action sequences without a CGI stunt double in sight.
The story is surprisingly good, with a fair number of twists and turns, and the script does well in setting up some a sense of history for the world it creates. I did feel that it was a tad too long, however. The plot revolves around a mysterious 'ghost' pirate ship, the Black Pearl, whose crew are trying to lift a curse that was set upon them years ago. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), pirate extraordinaire, has a connection with the Black Pearl and her crew, as does William Turner (Orlando Bloom), a young blacksmith. Sparrow and Turner are forced to work together to track down the Black Pearl and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), a young woman who is kidnapped by the crew of the Black Pearl. Hot on their heals are the forces of the British Navy, who are trying to capture Sparrow and rescue Elizabeth.
There are loads of characters who are distinctive and memorable as written (although that has a lot to do with the performances as well), including the comic relief pawns who manage to not only avoid being annoying, but make for entertaining digressions. Again, for an adventure movie there was a near perfect balance of characterization versus action / humour. The humour is well integrated into the situations and the characters such that it rarely feels forced or contrived.
The standouts performances are, without a doubt, Jack Sparrow and the villainous Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), both of whom are effortlessly charismatic and funny. It's Sparrow's film though, and Depp infuses the character with bizarre idiosyncrasies and a sense of foolhardy bravado and amorality that when combined together make for one of the most memorable on screen characters in ages. Orlando Bloom does alright as the do-gooder / straight man Will Turner. Keira Knightley is vivacious as Elizabeth Swann, and she holds her own when engaging in verbal sparring with both Rush and Depp. Oh, and it was nice to see Gareth from 'The Office' getting some work - I'm guessing he put his Territorial Army training to good use.
I wouldn't call it an instant classic, but it's certainly one of the best adventure films in recent times, and it holds up well to repeated viewings. As I've already stated, there are a few missteps that drag it down a notch, but these flaws seem less severe each time I watch the film. All in all, a great piece of cinematic entertainment. Which brings us to the sequel...
Dead Man's Chest (2006)
I'll start off by saying that I don't think it's as good as the first one. With that out of the way, my thoughts on the film. What's good in this film is, essentially, much of what was good in the first one. Once again, Verbinski does a great job with the action / adventure and comedy elements, and the film is visually fantastic - I'd say the effects are considerably better this time round. Davy Jones and his oceanic crew of crustaceans are incredible in terms of design and execution, as is the monstrous Kraken - there are some amazing shots of this mythical beast towards the end of the film. There is also one simply brilliant sequence involving a swordfight on, in, and around a giant mill wheel that has to be seen to be believed.
The story is probably the biggest problem - there's just too much stuff going on, and it's overwhelming at times. There's loads of characters, and a lot of things are going on at once. Character relationships and history are not really reintroduced, the film basically hits the ground running. Familiarity with the first film is, I think, essential. I watched this with someone who needed the occasional explanation as to what was going on, because he hadn't seen the first film in some time; the references to it's predecessor are many.
The plot revolves around a chest belonging to Davy Jones, a squid faced sea monster. Jack Sparrow, the East India Trading Company, Davy Jones, Will Turner, and former Commodore James Norrington are all vying to get their grubby hands on it. Oh yeah, there's also a weird Voodoo priestess and Will Turner's dad who are also in the thick of things. Not forgetting the mostly unnecessary sequence featuring cannibals early on in the film. Oh, and Jack's magic compass, Will's relationship with his father, Elizabeth's relationship with Jack all feature as subplots. I suspect that repeat viewings will be more rewarding as a lot of stuff happens, and it all comes at you at such a relentless pace that it's hard to take in at times. As for the ending, yeah it's a cliffhanger that was somewhat anticlimactic, and I guess the final analysis of this story will have to take the next film into account. I wasn't fully satisfied with the conclusion to this in terms of it feeling like a complete cinematic experience. The Two Towers and The Empire Strikes Back did it better.
The characters are all once again distinctive, though this time out there are just so many of them all jumbled together it's hard for anyone to really stand out. The cast is excellent once more, and I thought that Depp matched his previous performance. The major problem is the fact that Jack's role in this film is smaller than in the first, and his behaviour (as written) is less commanding and fearless. He comes across as a bit of a wuss at times. I suppose you could call it 'characterization' (who wants to see the exact same character again, right? Wrong!), but it reminds me of how Han Solo became a watered down character in Return of the Jedi - it detracts from the film.
The loss of Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa character is felt as well, because there is no strong central villain figure in this film - Davy Jones is menacing but isn't in the film quite enough. Lord Beckett of the East India Trading Company is a shadowy figure in the background who doesn't have much direct impact on events as they unfold. Keira Knightley, fortunately, is even better this time out and brings some much needed energy to the film when Sparrow's character goes off key. Orlando Bloom again doesn't leave that big an impression as Will Turner (nothing against the guy, his Legolas was excellent, and I thought he held his own in Kingdom of Heaven). Turner's dad (Stellan Skarsgard) and the weird Voodoo woman Tia Dalma (Naomi Harris) have only a few scenes but leave a good impression. I'm guessing they'll have more to do in the sequel.
So, it's a good film that has many of the strengths of the first one, but goes a bit overboard and also weakens the main asset of these stories - Jack Sparrow. The plot leaves the audience hanging; as the middle part of a trilogy, it mostly works but doesn't stand on its own legs firmly enough. Viewed together, the films should make a cohesive whole, but for now the jury's still out on how good Dead Man's Chest truly is. Hopefully Jack will be back to his best in At World's End, and the story will be wrapped up in a satisfying manner while tying up all the loose ends. I was satisfied, but not as enthused as the first time round.
I first watched this after all of the hoopla surrounding the film had come and gone. I'd already heard that Johnny Depp's Cap'n Jack Sparrow was a character for the ages. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that the praise wasn't misguided. I think Depp's Sparrow makes the film - the misuse of the character is one of the reasons I think the sequel doesn't work quite as well, but more on that later.
Jack Sparrow aside, The Curse of the Black Pearl is a rousing, swashbuckling adventure that is loads of fun and doesn't take itself too seriously. Gore Verbinski's dabbled in a bunch of genres successfully, and he finds the perfect balance between comedy and action for an adventure movie. It has an old school vibe to it, with the only incongruous element coming in the form of the CGI 'living dead' creatures which I found to be cartoony, sometimes to the point of distraction. Visually, the film is great to look at, with some nice real world locations and great sets, costumes etc... throughout. There are some exciting and well choreographed swordfights and action sequences without a CGI stunt double in sight.
The story is surprisingly good, with a fair number of twists and turns, and the script does well in setting up some a sense of history for the world it creates. I did feel that it was a tad too long, however. The plot revolves around a mysterious 'ghost' pirate ship, the Black Pearl, whose crew are trying to lift a curse that was set upon them years ago. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), pirate extraordinaire, has a connection with the Black Pearl and her crew, as does William Turner (Orlando Bloom), a young blacksmith. Sparrow and Turner are forced to work together to track down the Black Pearl and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), a young woman who is kidnapped by the crew of the Black Pearl. Hot on their heals are the forces of the British Navy, who are trying to capture Sparrow and rescue Elizabeth.
There are loads of characters who are distinctive and memorable as written (although that has a lot to do with the performances as well), including the comic relief pawns who manage to not only avoid being annoying, but make for entertaining digressions. Again, for an adventure movie there was a near perfect balance of characterization versus action / humour. The humour is well integrated into the situations and the characters such that it rarely feels forced or contrived.
The standouts performances are, without a doubt, Jack Sparrow and the villainous Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), both of whom are effortlessly charismatic and funny. It's Sparrow's film though, and Depp infuses the character with bizarre idiosyncrasies and a sense of foolhardy bravado and amorality that when combined together make for one of the most memorable on screen characters in ages. Orlando Bloom does alright as the do-gooder / straight man Will Turner. Keira Knightley is vivacious as Elizabeth Swann, and she holds her own when engaging in verbal sparring with both Rush and Depp. Oh, and it was nice to see Gareth from 'The Office' getting some work - I'm guessing he put his Territorial Army training to good use.
I wouldn't call it an instant classic, but it's certainly one of the best adventure films in recent times, and it holds up well to repeated viewings. As I've already stated, there are a few missteps that drag it down a notch, but these flaws seem less severe each time I watch the film. All in all, a great piece of cinematic entertainment. Which brings us to the sequel...
Dead Man's Chest (2006)
I'll start off by saying that I don't think it's as good as the first one. With that out of the way, my thoughts on the film. What's good in this film is, essentially, much of what was good in the first one. Once again, Verbinski does a great job with the action / adventure and comedy elements, and the film is visually fantastic - I'd say the effects are considerably better this time round. Davy Jones and his oceanic crew of crustaceans are incredible in terms of design and execution, as is the monstrous Kraken - there are some amazing shots of this mythical beast towards the end of the film. There is also one simply brilliant sequence involving a swordfight on, in, and around a giant mill wheel that has to be seen to be believed.
The story is probably the biggest problem - there's just too much stuff going on, and it's overwhelming at times. There's loads of characters, and a lot of things are going on at once. Character relationships and history are not really reintroduced, the film basically hits the ground running. Familiarity with the first film is, I think, essential. I watched this with someone who needed the occasional explanation as to what was going on, because he hadn't seen the first film in some time; the references to it's predecessor are many.
The plot revolves around a chest belonging to Davy Jones, a squid faced sea monster. Jack Sparrow, the East India Trading Company, Davy Jones, Will Turner, and former Commodore James Norrington are all vying to get their grubby hands on it. Oh yeah, there's also a weird Voodoo priestess and Will Turner's dad who are also in the thick of things. Not forgetting the mostly unnecessary sequence featuring cannibals early on in the film. Oh, and Jack's magic compass, Will's relationship with his father, Elizabeth's relationship with Jack all feature as subplots. I suspect that repeat viewings will be more rewarding as a lot of stuff happens, and it all comes at you at such a relentless pace that it's hard to take in at times. As for the ending, yeah it's a cliffhanger that was somewhat anticlimactic, and I guess the final analysis of this story will have to take the next film into account. I wasn't fully satisfied with the conclusion to this in terms of it feeling like a complete cinematic experience. The Two Towers and The Empire Strikes Back did it better.
The characters are all once again distinctive, though this time out there are just so many of them all jumbled together it's hard for anyone to really stand out. The cast is excellent once more, and I thought that Depp matched his previous performance. The major problem is the fact that Jack's role in this film is smaller than in the first, and his behaviour (as written) is less commanding and fearless. He comes across as a bit of a wuss at times. I suppose you could call it 'characterization' (who wants to see the exact same character again, right? Wrong!), but it reminds me of how Han Solo became a watered down character in Return of the Jedi - it detracts from the film.
The loss of Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa character is felt as well, because there is no strong central villain figure in this film - Davy Jones is menacing but isn't in the film quite enough. Lord Beckett of the East India Trading Company is a shadowy figure in the background who doesn't have much direct impact on events as they unfold. Keira Knightley, fortunately, is even better this time out and brings some much needed energy to the film when Sparrow's character goes off key. Orlando Bloom again doesn't leave that big an impression as Will Turner (nothing against the guy, his Legolas was excellent, and I thought he held his own in Kingdom of Heaven). Turner's dad (Stellan Skarsgard) and the weird Voodoo woman Tia Dalma (Naomi Harris) have only a few scenes but leave a good impression. I'm guessing they'll have more to do in the sequel.
So, it's a good film that has many of the strengths of the first one, but goes a bit overboard and also weakens the main asset of these stories - Jack Sparrow. The plot leaves the audience hanging; as the middle part of a trilogy, it mostly works but doesn't stand on its own legs firmly enough. Viewed together, the films should make a cohesive whole, but for now the jury's still out on how good Dead Man's Chest truly is. Hopefully Jack will be back to his best in At World's End, and the story will be wrapped up in a satisfying manner while tying up all the loose ends. I was satisfied, but not as enthused as the first time round.
Monday, December 18, 2006
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.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
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):
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
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:
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!
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!
Monday, December 11, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Friday, December 08, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
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...
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...
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)