This much mocked super epic attempt from Ridley Scott is one of those films I wanted to see, but not pay for - thank goodness for the advent of the PVR, so I got to see this and judge for myself its turkey credentials.
I'm a little surprised, actually, since despite being a by the numbers mentor-dies-and-inspires-rebirth tale its actually not total turkey land (unlike my other hope for lameness, Alexander, is supposed to be). Contrary to the usual sayiong though, I do want to damn it with faint praise. It's just not clever or exciting.
The moment we are introduced to Orlando Blooms character, we find out he is widowed due to a baby lost in pregnancy leading to his wife's suicide, and even more than that he is taunted by a horrid priest played by Michael Sheen. This is not the last of the attempts to show the evils of the horrid christians, especially Catholics, that pervades the film. It seems, in Ridley Scott's world, there were lots of noble crusaders who saw beyond the differences in colour race and religion and just wanted to get along (yeah right).
From the very second we are introduced to Liam Neeson playing essentially Qui Gon Jinn again we KNOW he is going to cop it, and conveniently does so almost immediately, and this is another problem - characters come and go frequently and with little reason, old Kevin McKidd, playing the same character he did in Rome turns up for a few scenes and then promptly vanishes and several new characters turn up unannounced every now and again; probably due to the butchers editing job done (there have been, to my knowledge, three cuts available of this, one less than of Alexander) and its just plain silly.
Despite its pretences to being serious and downbeat, the film proceeds to introduce the Templars, who in this film are played by a frankly laughable Brendan Gleeson in a ginger wig, and Marton Csokas playing, apparently, Alan Rickman's sherriff of Nottingham, so hammy his performance is. Every little dig at our bastard hero should be accompanied by a cackle and a flash of lightning - that's how silly this character is.
And another thing... I can't quite decide about Eva Green. I'd never seen her before Casino Royale and thought she was OK, but I've seen her a couple of times since, and the performances seem eerily similar - and luckily we are spared a taste of Orlando's attempts at love scenes, at least in the cut I saw, but her instant attraction is just not credible, despite the fact she is conveniently married to Mr Cackle the Templar.
The film is really well made from a production values respect and all the "look" of the film is done very well, though a couple of ill advised forays into slow-mo which make the whole thing seem cheapened as a result.
Major flaw time: I don't know who convinced Hollywood that Orlando Bloom should be a historic epics star (Troy, Kingdom, LOTR) but really, come on, he just doesn't sell it to me. I didn't mind Troy principally because Pitt and Bana looked like they could rip your head off without thinking, but Orlando is a little bit of a stretch, though he looks fine in the politicking and to a slightly lesser extent in a supposedly rousing speech to his men where he trots out his daddy's old motto (cos kids can;t think of anything themselves, dads!) but rushing into the middle of battle and coming out alive? Not so sure I'm afraid. Also, the guys supposed to be a blacksmith, but is considerably less muscular than a boy half his age (one of the featured supporting cast, introduced to add presumably a little bit of investment in the "ordinary troops").
Ah well, maybe I am prejudiced against the whiny little turd, but never mind.
The films saving grace is a largely unsung performance from Ed Norton (for it is really him) behind the mask and leprosy of King Baldwin - who manages to act everyone else off the screen (except perhaps the guys playing the Saracens) despite wearing an unmoving metal mask and being hidden by several layers of cheesecloth.
Reading back I think I have been fairly harsh on this film, but I think its greatest crime is that it contains little motional involvement, few surprises and some laughable telegraphing of plot developments particularly in the duel in the desert between Orly and the unrecognisable, supporting artiste "master" of instantly recognisable noted film and television actor Alexander Siddig - an attempt to draw comparisons with Lawrence of Arabia, perhaps - for example. Perhaps the famous actor is playing a more important part than it initially appears? DUH!
All these faults led me to a total lack of any positive feeling come the films supposedly heroic climax, which is a little sad.
Not a bad film, but I can't say the running time is worth it.
(Note: I'm not sure which cut this is, I suspect it is the original theatrical cut given that some bits I have read since watching it were not there, I'll have to leave it to others to judge whether the other cuts add or subtract anything)
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
I want a Delorean!
I am a convert. Thanks in part to the fantastic album Stainless Style by Neon Neon and a burgeoning love of 80s over the topness I have decided it is now my ambition to one day drive and maybe own a Delorean. Not neccessarily one of the gold plated ones (!) but one of the lovely stainless steel jobbies.
Just look at them! What's not to love about that horrific square headlight look, or the fact that the doors make it look less like a car and more like a hi tech pair of nutcrackers.
I hear that in the real world they are underpowered, horrifically hard work to maintain and generally a very silly waste of time.
Pretty much the ideal car for me then!
As for the Stainless Style Album, it's a fantastically authentic album featuring one of my favourite singers in the whole world, Gruff Rhys from the Super Furry Animals. It's staggeringly beautiful electro pop marred only slightly by the occasional forays into rap music that keep it in my eyes from being a true classic.
Follow this link for a taster.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, July 28, 2008
Right And Wrong
So then.. it's been a while since I was serious, so thought it was time for another mental exercise post. Sorry to all those folks who were grateful I had stopped.
One of the common arguments in defence of allowing a religious overtone to political or moral debating and teaching is that religious belief is necessary to provide a firm basis and sense of right and wrong.
But what this argument misses is that right and wrong are not universal concepts, so Christian teaching is necessary to teach Christian views on right and wrong, Islamic teaching would teach the Islamic side of right and wrong and the two would differ in some areas, in some it would differ very little if at all.
This led me to the conclusion at a fairly ealy stage that there are in fact, NO rights and wrongs on a universal scale, that is to say a scale above that of social imposition. This is pretty clear to anyone not of religious faith, since according to most atheists there is no higher consciousness than that of the collective society consciousness.
Lets talk first about what right and wrong are not:
Lets take into account this example:
The law is being reappraised in regard to pleas available in murder cases, specifically those where one spouse has been murdered by the other. Please, if you are interested read the story and this commentary for more information. i am only looking at it from the point of view of this entry, not trying to judge it on its own merits.
It has been suggested and put forward that a defence should be available for those in fear of serious harm or physical danger from their partners should reduce what was previously a finding of murder to a finding of manslaughter.
Of course, this is a very big change in the interpretation of these laws (and is rumoured to be only for use in very rare cases) but is it "right" or "wrong" to make these changes?
I am not going to try and thrash out the whole murder/manslaughter debate here, since I only want to make a point so will try and be brief.
Right and wrong are not univfersal truths, just ask an atheist lady whether she thinks being forced to hide your face and walk behind your husband is "right" or "wrong" yet in many countries this is absolutely right.
So where do rights and wrongs come from, without God or religion?
Simple - the same places God and religions came from - SOCIETY.
Society is more than a group of people living together, it is a vast amalgam of people and families agreeing specifically on what is acceptable and what is not. Your laws are not fixed, nor are they unappeallable. They are falsehoods created to control, willingly I should add, those citizens who make up the society. A criminal is simply someone who for one reason or many has decided to violate the societies agreement on right and wrong and set out on their own.
A good example of this sort of thing is afforded by what are called sociopaths. They represent, because of mental illness, expose exactly what society's imposed law and "acceptable behviour" really are, voluntary arrangements between a government and its people - a sociopath is simply not able to buy into that voluntary arrangement and seeks only what is best for him/herself.
BUT! Are these people to be pitied for their crimes? I would say so, but I also feel, rightly or wrongly (see what I did there) a certain amount of envy that this behaviour (though not the folk who display it) is TRULY free while I remain bound by decades of conformist behaviour.
It follows from my logic here that a TRULY free society (practically impossible and horrifically awful it would be) is one where a permanent state of ANARCHY exists. Noone produces, noone owns anything and there is no law. YUCK!
So is freedom itself "right" or "wrong"?
Or when we talk of freedom are we really talking of freedom of choice between many types of captivity?
There's a question to mull over for you.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
One of the common arguments in defence of allowing a religious overtone to political or moral debating and teaching is that religious belief is necessary to provide a firm basis and sense of right and wrong.
But what this argument misses is that right and wrong are not universal concepts, so Christian teaching is necessary to teach Christian views on right and wrong, Islamic teaching would teach the Islamic side of right and wrong and the two would differ in some areas, in some it would differ very little if at all.
This led me to the conclusion at a fairly ealy stage that there are in fact, NO rights and wrongs on a universal scale, that is to say a scale above that of social imposition. This is pretty clear to anyone not of religious faith, since according to most atheists there is no higher consciousness than that of the collective society consciousness.
Lets talk first about what right and wrong are not:
- "Right" and "wrong" in this case are not synonymous with "correct" and "incorrect", though many make try to force that leap onto them. There are no correct moral choices, merely conforming ones and unconforming ones.
- "Right" and Wrong" are not synonymous with "Good" and "bad" and more than correct and incorrect (or for that matter "correct"/"good" or "incorrect"/"bad") this implies a value judgement which has its bases in society also, and are linked but not directly to these concepts.
- "Right" and "wrong" are not fixed points. This is to say that what was wrong yesterday may not be tomorrow.
- "Right" and wrong" do not exist in a vacuum. All of these judgements link to and affect others.
- "Right" and "wrong" are not FACTS. They are not measurable except by how many people state one preference or the other.
- "Right and wrong" are not synonymous with "lawful and unlawful" though there will be a large amount of cross pollination.
- "Right" and "wrong" are not binary answers. This is the great dumbing down method of the human brain. Most right or wrong feelings relate to the grey areas inbetween the two and the two words merely represent the ends of a single scale.
Lets take into account this example:
The law is being reappraised in regard to pleas available in murder cases, specifically those where one spouse has been murdered by the other. Please, if you are interested read the story and this commentary for more information. i am only looking at it from the point of view of this entry, not trying to judge it on its own merits.
It has been suggested and put forward that a defence should be available for those in fear of serious harm or physical danger from their partners should reduce what was previously a finding of murder to a finding of manslaughter.
Of course, this is a very big change in the interpretation of these laws (and is rumoured to be only for use in very rare cases) but is it "right" or "wrong" to make these changes?
- Most folks believe that killing someone else is wrong. But how wrong?
- "mitigating circumstances" frequently change people's perceptions of just how wrong killing is.
- Note I have used "killing" very deliberately instead of Murder or manslaughter.
I am not going to try and thrash out the whole murder/manslaughter debate here, since I only want to make a point so will try and be brief.
- This is a change of LAW, not of right and wrong. The change in the law does not alter the fundamental issues.
- This propsed change divides people, therefore whether you feel it is right or wrong will affect, but not define, whether you feel it is the "correct" move to make.
- Your views on this will be affected by your views on domestic violence, specifically the commensurate response to instances of violence. Is killing your partner excusable? You will access more than two or three right and wrong questions when working that out!
Right and wrong are not univfersal truths, just ask an atheist lady whether she thinks being forced to hide your face and walk behind your husband is "right" or "wrong" yet in many countries this is absolutely right.
So where do rights and wrongs come from, without God or religion?
Simple - the same places God and religions came from - SOCIETY.
Society is more than a group of people living together, it is a vast amalgam of people and families agreeing specifically on what is acceptable and what is not. Your laws are not fixed, nor are they unappeallable. They are falsehoods created to control, willingly I should add, those citizens who make up the society. A criminal is simply someone who for one reason or many has decided to violate the societies agreement on right and wrong and set out on their own.
A good example of this sort of thing is afforded by what are called sociopaths. They represent, because of mental illness, expose exactly what society's imposed law and "acceptable behviour" really are, voluntary arrangements between a government and its people - a sociopath is simply not able to buy into that voluntary arrangement and seeks only what is best for him/herself.
BUT! Are these people to be pitied for their crimes? I would say so, but I also feel, rightly or wrongly (see what I did there) a certain amount of envy that this behaviour (though not the folk who display it) is TRULY free while I remain bound by decades of conformist behaviour.
It follows from my logic here that a TRULY free society (practically impossible and horrifically awful it would be) is one where a permanent state of ANARCHY exists. Noone produces, noone owns anything and there is no law. YUCK!
So is freedom itself "right" or "wrong"?
Or when we talk of freedom are we really talking of freedom of choice between many types of captivity?
There's a question to mull over for you.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The most accurate headline ever
Thanks to Mrs Algo for sourcing the below article, relating to my earlier posts regarding the purveyor of ultimate shite. Please read, enjoy, and sign that bloody petition! Please!!!!
Look on my works, and despair
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, July 25, 2008
Movie Review: The Dark Knight
This is a good opportunity to practice reviewing without too many spoilers!
Your first question about films may well be "Is it worth spending money to go the cinema" and in this case...
YEEEEESSSS!!!!
Lets get the Heath Ledger question out of the way first.
Yes, he is great. Yes his performance is creepy and easily the equal of the great Jack Nicholson's performance - his Joker has no back story, is infinitely creepier and immeasurably scarier than old Jacky's performance. It's the perfect Joker for this new set of Batman films and it is the performance that would have shot young Ledger into the Hollywood stratosphere if not for his untimely death.
Now the obvious is out of the way, is there anything else to this film or is it just the Joker Show?
There is so much going on in this film, and the makers should be applauded for limiting the Jokers screentime (however much you may regret with hindsight the loss of more of this performance) and concentrating equally on the characters of Harvey Dent and even of Batman, a trick which Tim Burton just didn't bother with. We are in moral ambiguity territyory here, to put it mildly, and the issues facing the masked vigilante are described really well, without getting all awkward and preachy with the dialogue.
Christian Bale is superb again and again in almost everything he does, and here, where his Batman could be extinguished against the crazed enemies he faces (like Val Kilmer was) the quality of this actor means that he has kept himself at the centre of proceedings. He also gets some new gadgets, though these are never allowed to overshadow the real story.
Aaron Eckhart (The Core, anyone?) redeems himsef by also being genius. It is testament to the stroy's popularity that I can refer to his fate without being accused of being a spoiler. Oh, and by the way, I read that Billy Dee Williams only agreed to play Harvey Dent in the Tim Burton Batman on the understanding he would get to return as Two-Face. Only problem was that Joel Schumacher didn;t want him, so paid the penalty clause in his contract so he could cast Tommy Lee Jones instead. So Billy Dee Williams was about the only person who benefitted from Batman Forever!
And we lose Katie Holmes, the squeaky voiced chump, in favour of favourite of the indie scene Maggie Gyllenhall who promptly makes you wish she'd been in the first film as well. This is crucial since a massive part of the films plot requires you to like this character, so good job on recasting, Chris Nolan!
Despite the fact that the film is filmed in less sepia a tone than Batman Begins, and that theres a lot more daytime stuff going on, this is a much darker film than its predecessor and this is where the very small problem I have with it arises. It's a 12A film, but is really a 15 with some early edits on scenes to avoid this rating. This means that the tone is srt of undermined by a lack of extreme violence, not a huge problem (since I give this film 10/10) but a little sour note amongst the great fun I had. Plus, I don't work for the BBFC but surely the appearance of Two Face is too nasty for a 12A?
In short - go and see this film. It is bloody brilliant, despite the sterilisation of some of its action scenes. There's not a crap part, and since Heath Ledger is lost to us now, it represents the penultimate chance to see him in action (the other being his last film, The Imaginarium Of Dr Parnassus) and judge for yourselves how close he came to being a really premier league Hollywood star.
I have plenty of commentary on the plot itself, but I think I've done a really good job of avoiding spoilers so far, so won't go that far. Cheers!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Your first question about films may well be "Is it worth spending money to go the cinema" and in this case...
YEEEEESSSS!!!!
Lets get the Heath Ledger question out of the way first.
Yes, he is great. Yes his performance is creepy and easily the equal of the great Jack Nicholson's performance - his Joker has no back story, is infinitely creepier and immeasurably scarier than old Jacky's performance. It's the perfect Joker for this new set of Batman films and it is the performance that would have shot young Ledger into the Hollywood stratosphere if not for his untimely death.
Now the obvious is out of the way, is there anything else to this film or is it just the Joker Show?
There is so much going on in this film, and the makers should be applauded for limiting the Jokers screentime (however much you may regret with hindsight the loss of more of this performance) and concentrating equally on the characters of Harvey Dent and even of Batman, a trick which Tim Burton just didn't bother with. We are in moral ambiguity territyory here, to put it mildly, and the issues facing the masked vigilante are described really well, without getting all awkward and preachy with the dialogue.
Christian Bale is superb again and again in almost everything he does, and here, where his Batman could be extinguished against the crazed enemies he faces (like Val Kilmer was) the quality of this actor means that he has kept himself at the centre of proceedings. He also gets some new gadgets, though these are never allowed to overshadow the real story.
Aaron Eckhart (The Core, anyone?) redeems himsef by also being genius. It is testament to the stroy's popularity that I can refer to his fate without being accused of being a spoiler. Oh, and by the way, I read that Billy Dee Williams only agreed to play Harvey Dent in the Tim Burton Batman on the understanding he would get to return as Two-Face. Only problem was that Joel Schumacher didn;t want him, so paid the penalty clause in his contract so he could cast Tommy Lee Jones instead. So Billy Dee Williams was about the only person who benefitted from Batman Forever!
And we lose Katie Holmes, the squeaky voiced chump, in favour of favourite of the indie scene Maggie Gyllenhall who promptly makes you wish she'd been in the first film as well. This is crucial since a massive part of the films plot requires you to like this character, so good job on recasting, Chris Nolan!
Despite the fact that the film is filmed in less sepia a tone than Batman Begins, and that theres a lot more daytime stuff going on, this is a much darker film than its predecessor and this is where the very small problem I have with it arises. It's a 12A film, but is really a 15 with some early edits on scenes to avoid this rating. This means that the tone is srt of undermined by a lack of extreme violence, not a huge problem (since I give this film 10/10) but a little sour note amongst the great fun I had. Plus, I don't work for the BBFC but surely the appearance of Two Face is too nasty for a 12A?
In short - go and see this film. It is bloody brilliant, despite the sterilisation of some of its action scenes. There's not a crap part, and since Heath Ledger is lost to us now, it represents the penultimate chance to see him in action (the other being his last film, The Imaginarium Of Dr Parnassus) and judge for yourselves how close he came to being a really premier league Hollywood star.
I have plenty of commentary on the plot itself, but I think I've done a really good job of avoiding spoilers so far, so won't go that far. Cheers!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Buy tickets to this right now
The songs of Scott Walker are coming to the Barbican centre in November
Click here for more details
In true Scott style, he won't be performing himself since he is famously reclusive and spotlight shy but this promises to be a great evening of entertainment.
See here for my summation of this great man.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Click here for more details
In true Scott style, he won't be performing himself since he is famously reclusive and spotlight shy but this promises to be a great evening of entertainment.
See here for my summation of this great man.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Crawley Town 6-1 Spurs XI
Oh dear.. looks like the boys got their asses handed to them this week.
This caught my eye since I lived in Crawley for a while and if were going to get a thrashing it may as well be by them.
Bear in mind though that this was a less than first team side so don't laugh that much. Oh Alright... laugh a bit.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
This caught my eye since I lived in Crawley for a while and if were going to get a thrashing it may as well be by them.
Bear in mind though that this was a less than first team side so don't laugh that much. Oh Alright... laugh a bit.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Kermode is funny - Movie Mash-Ups
This is a little game to pass the time for everyone, think of mashed up movie names and try and imagine the plot for them. The simpler they are the funnier. I've made it clear (I hope) which bits are from which titles and where they overlap.
If anyone would like to knock up a poster of any of these please feel free if you have the time - I'd love to see them (especially the third from bottom).
Like so:
A
See the full post by clicking here...
If anyone would like to knock up a poster of any of these please feel free if you have the time - I'd love to see them (especially the third from bottom).
Like so:
- Desperately seeking Superman (Madonna and Superman in the same film)
- Toy Story Of "O" (Not suitable for kids)
- Kingdom Of Heaven's Gate (the directors cut - snigger)
- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Caspian (Ultimate Summer Blockbuster crossover)
- The Good, The Bad and the band played on... (Gunfights on the Titanic!)
- The Third M (a classic mashup! A Man goes to Vienna to work for his friend but is suspicious when his friend turn up dead and is subsequently accused of being a child murderer.)
- Eternal Sunshine of the Sierra Madre (Bit less funny, but could be a sequel to the treasure of the Sierra Madre with Micel Gondry directing Jim Carrey, who is a treausre hunter who has wiped the location of the treasure from his mind)
- The Wizard Of Oldboy (Yes its tenuous, but imagine Dorothy is locked away for fifteen years seemingly for no reason by the wicked witch of the west, then finds out a horrible truth about the Scarecrow later on and you'll see what I was thinking)
- The Grapes Of Wrath Of Kahn (I don't know Steinbeck, but this would be good, I reckon)
- Once upon a time in the North By Northwest (Cary Grant vs. Henry Fonda over the nascent township run by Claudia Cardinale and James Mason)
- It's A Wonderful Life Of Brian - (Monty Python sends up Christmas with an angel sent to help a suicidal saviour)
- There will be Bloodrayne (Inadvisable Uwe Boll tale of Oil crazy Vampires. Unwatchable)
- Die Donnie Darkman! Die! (Speaks for itself)
- Duck Superman (Only works out loud - long lost Marx Brothers take on superheroes, with a harp solo and the tall unfunny one as Superman)
- The sixth scent of a woman (Indescribable)
- All Quiet On The Westworld Front (Classic anti-war-between-androids film)
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A Gift for everyone
Enjoy this little preview of the movie I am most looking forward to.
It looks obscenely good.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
It looks obscenely good.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Movie Review: Cat People
This is a classic movie from 1942, supposedly one of the most risque of movies from that period about a woman who believes she will turn into a cat if she gets kissed by a man.
Let me be frank and upfront, it's not very good. The best thing about this film is, in fact, the screenwriters name, which is DEWITT BODEEN. Isn't that great? Sounds like a film noir character.
Basically, the moral of this stroy is that foreigners are weird - the supposed "hero" of this story runs into a woman from Serbia at a zoo where she is drawing the Panther again and again (as a chat up line he tells her off for littering. smooth!) she and he fall in love and five minutes later are married. They can't consumate their marriage though and this is where the script does some wonderfully prudish dancing around of the issue - her psychiatrist tells her how she describes that her transformation into a vicious cat will occur if her husband "kisses her and takes her into his arms", meaning I guess, tries to get it on with her.
Hayes code is in full effect here and it makes for some laughably unromantic romance.
I must admit I was expecting two different possibilities for this film and was surprised when it took the middle way and ended up being neither a silly horror movie or a thriller about a crazy woman. The main lady in it, played by Simone Simon (honestly! another great name) is very good actually and I was rooting for her all the way through, simply because the film is so obviously racist.
We have a token black character playing a waitress who offers her customers "Gumbo" and wonders why noone wants it and has apple pie instead (draw your own conclusions) and the beliefs of the Serbians are frequently described as ridiculous and stupid, while the christians line up to explain how they can help her.
All this would make for some decent tension and nostalgic fun at the expense of dated attitudes, but in fact its all a little bit dull, dragging despite its hour and ten minutes running time. The best sequence is one in a swimming pool where the nice, american girl is terrorised by the horrible foreigner. The rest is so far, so meh.
The whole "foreigners are weird" angle reminded me strongly of the "prejudice is good" moral in Will Smith's "I, Robot" - especially since by the three quarters of an hour mark, our down home apple pie eating American hero has decided he loves the nice down home apple pie eating American woman instead of his wife. It's all nice and cosily sewn up at the end thanls to the psychiatrist, so our "hero" by the end has done precisely nothing but get married then regret it.
The only word I can use for this film is "PANTS". Looking at my recent ratings I'd better see a good film soon or I'll go mad!
excuse for a cute picture:
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Let me be frank and upfront, it's not very good. The best thing about this film is, in fact, the screenwriters name, which is DEWITT BODEEN. Isn't that great? Sounds like a film noir character.
Basically, the moral of this stroy is that foreigners are weird - the supposed "hero" of this story runs into a woman from Serbia at a zoo where she is drawing the Panther again and again (as a chat up line he tells her off for littering. smooth!) she and he fall in love and five minutes later are married. They can't consumate their marriage though and this is where the script does some wonderfully prudish dancing around of the issue - her psychiatrist tells her how she describes that her transformation into a vicious cat will occur if her husband "kisses her and takes her into his arms", meaning I guess, tries to get it on with her.
Hayes code is in full effect here and it makes for some laughably unromantic romance.
I must admit I was expecting two different possibilities for this film and was surprised when it took the middle way and ended up being neither a silly horror movie or a thriller about a crazy woman. The main lady in it, played by Simone Simon (honestly! another great name) is very good actually and I was rooting for her all the way through, simply because the film is so obviously racist.
We have a token black character playing a waitress who offers her customers "Gumbo" and wonders why noone wants it and has apple pie instead (draw your own conclusions) and the beliefs of the Serbians are frequently described as ridiculous and stupid, while the christians line up to explain how they can help her.
All this would make for some decent tension and nostalgic fun at the expense of dated attitudes, but in fact its all a little bit dull, dragging despite its hour and ten minutes running time. The best sequence is one in a swimming pool where the nice, american girl is terrorised by the horrible foreigner. The rest is so far, so meh.
The whole "foreigners are weird" angle reminded me strongly of the "prejudice is good" moral in Will Smith's "I, Robot" - especially since by the three quarters of an hour mark, our down home apple pie eating American hero has decided he loves the nice down home apple pie eating American woman instead of his wife. It's all nice and cosily sewn up at the end thanls to the psychiatrist, so our "hero" by the end has done precisely nothing but get married then regret it.
The only word I can use for this film is "PANTS". Looking at my recent ratings I'd better see a good film soon or I'll go mad!
excuse for a cute picture:
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sexism in Box Art
In true me style I have been causing trouble over on www.boardgamegeek.com
I took issue with one podcasters objection to this box image from the game DUST:
He exhorted on how the depiction of a "Voluptuous Russian Woman" on the front is unnecessary and a little pathetic method of sex-based marketing.
It may be because the particular podcaster is involved with a Christian mission out in Korea that he is so prudish, but is this box art really that dodgy and/or sexist?
I've seen covers of cosmopolitan that are more degrading to women, and many many many male magazines that are so much worse it's hard to describe.
What he stated was that the game should sell itself. My retort is that NOTHING sells itself. That these methods of marketing are ingrained in the western psyche and, most importantly of all, WORK!
I can kind of see his point. It is sad that sexy imagery (though I still don't see this image as particularly sexy or sexist) is used to sell everything from cereal to razor blades from a boredom point of view, but these adverts often elicit evolutionary responses, in the case of special K or Gillette its the evolutionary drive to be attractive to the opposite sex - what purpose does this box serve? ONLY ONE purpose, and that is to make you pick up the box and look at the game. The main market for board games is straight males and what better way to get their attention than a picture of an attractive woman?
All seems fairly simple to me.
What really got my goat was another person who indirectly described anyone who didn't find the image pointless bordering on offensive was a beer chugging, football loving emotional retard and a sexist. Welcome to the wide and depressing world of binary thinking.
All opinions and viewpoints cannot be summed up in either/or terms. It's just not possible - sexists and their opposites for which I can't think of a word... the ASEXISTS if you will, are but two ends of a spectrum that includes everyone inbetween - to paraphrase Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit sexist".
I don't think, however, that the artist who drew this fine example of a box cover is a sexist, I just think he is more realistic than those having a go at the art. The purpose of packaging is to assist the sale and I believe this is a great example of how to catch the eye.
Plus, COME ON! You'd have to be a horny 13 year old to be aroused by this picture. I mean.. what the hell do you think she's thinking? "Where's my Bra?", maybe...
Sigh... I just don't get it.
As an aside, note that not a single woman is involved in this conversation - not one. I put this down to poor marketing on Boardgamegeek's part - its not the sort of website name that will inspire confidence is it?
What do you think? Is this Box art in any way titillating, and does it matter even if it is?
Do check out www.boardgamegeek.com though, it's a great site.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I took issue with one podcasters objection to this box image from the game DUST:
He exhorted on how the depiction of a "Voluptuous Russian Woman" on the front is unnecessary and a little pathetic method of sex-based marketing.
It may be because the particular podcaster is involved with a Christian mission out in Korea that he is so prudish, but is this box art really that dodgy and/or sexist?
I've seen covers of cosmopolitan that are more degrading to women, and many many many male magazines that are so much worse it's hard to describe.
What he stated was that the game should sell itself. My retort is that NOTHING sells itself. That these methods of marketing are ingrained in the western psyche and, most importantly of all, WORK!
I can kind of see his point. It is sad that sexy imagery (though I still don't see this image as particularly sexy or sexist) is used to sell everything from cereal to razor blades from a boredom point of view, but these adverts often elicit evolutionary responses, in the case of special K or Gillette its the evolutionary drive to be attractive to the opposite sex - what purpose does this box serve? ONLY ONE purpose, and that is to make you pick up the box and look at the game. The main market for board games is straight males and what better way to get their attention than a picture of an attractive woman?
All seems fairly simple to me.
What really got my goat was another person who indirectly described anyone who didn't find the image pointless bordering on offensive was a beer chugging, football loving emotional retard and a sexist. Welcome to the wide and depressing world of binary thinking.
All opinions and viewpoints cannot be summed up in either/or terms. It's just not possible - sexists and their opposites for which I can't think of a word... the ASEXISTS if you will, are but two ends of a spectrum that includes everyone inbetween - to paraphrase Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit sexist".
I don't think, however, that the artist who drew this fine example of a box cover is a sexist, I just think he is more realistic than those having a go at the art. The purpose of packaging is to assist the sale and I believe this is a great example of how to catch the eye.
Plus, COME ON! You'd have to be a horny 13 year old to be aroused by this picture. I mean.. what the hell do you think she's thinking? "Where's my Bra?", maybe...
Sigh... I just don't get it.
As an aside, note that not a single woman is involved in this conversation - not one. I put this down to poor marketing on Boardgamegeek's part - its not the sort of website name that will inspire confidence is it?
What do you think? Is this Box art in any way titillating, and does it matter even if it is?
Do check out www.boardgamegeek.com though, it's a great site.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A call for help! Movie buffs apply here!
I have been driving myself up the wall trying to remember the name of a film I saw once that has stuck with me, ooh, for fifteen years. It was a private eye film and was shot entirely from first person perspective, a technique which meant we suffered from all the information shortages and experiences of the lead actor.
I remember it as not being great, but would love to see it again for the nostalgia and novelty values.
Answers on a postcard please.
In other news, our Recycling bin is back. I had a quiet word with the guy downstairs and asked if he'd seen it. He said he "thought he knew" where it was and within ten minutes we had it back. My personal feeling is that he gave it away without asking if we wanted it. He's a nice chap but a little odd sometimes. This means that we were able to concentrate on final touches to the house ahead of our inspection tomorrow without worrying about taking four loads up to Sainsburys.
Also, in even more dull news weare having milk delivered. In bottles! Its like I'm a real adult now. I had a really good feeling when I opened my first foiltopped bottle of milk in fifteen years odd. Sad huh?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I remember it as not being great, but would love to see it again for the nostalgia and novelty values.
Answers on a postcard please.
In other news, our Recycling bin is back. I had a quiet word with the guy downstairs and asked if he'd seen it. He said he "thought he knew" where it was and within ten minutes we had it back. My personal feeling is that he gave it away without asking if we wanted it. He's a nice chap but a little odd sometimes. This means that we were able to concentrate on final touches to the house ahead of our inspection tomorrow without worrying about taking four loads up to Sainsburys.
Also, in even more dull news weare having milk delivered. In bottles! Its like I'm a real adult now. I had a really good feeling when I opened my first foiltopped bottle of milk in fifteen years odd. Sad huh?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Forget the stabbings.... (not really)
But I would like the police to come down and kick the arse off one of our neigbours, who clearly saw our recycling bin delivered and effing nicked it.
I realise that this isn't the worst crime in the world, but we have an inspection on Tuesday and a flat filled with recycling for which we expected to have a bin delivered and it would cease to be a problem. Instead we get the fun of public transport to the local Sainsbury's to recycle like ordinary people.
The really annoying part out of this is that all our neighbour (its not clear which one, about four new bins have appeared recently) had to do was call the council up and they would have given them one. As it is, we have to wait ANOTHER 6 weeks to get ours.
Grrrr!!!!
In other news I have introduced Mrs Algo to The Five Doctors special from 1983... a truly cool episode of Dr Who with a strangely unalike William Hartnell impersonator. He's cool. And gets shedloads of screentime considering he's a big fake!
Probably got all Tom Bakers lines since he didn't turn up (Children In Need not good enough apparently) to be in it. Loser. He was crap anyway. There. I said it. I think Tom Baker was a crap Dr Who. For the most part anyway - he got really tiresome when he started mugging at the screen!
Peace
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I realise that this isn't the worst crime in the world, but we have an inspection on Tuesday and a flat filled with recycling for which we expected to have a bin delivered and it would cease to be a problem. Instead we get the fun of public transport to the local Sainsbury's to recycle like ordinary people.
The really annoying part out of this is that all our neighbour (its not clear which one, about four new bins have appeared recently) had to do was call the council up and they would have given them one. As it is, we have to wait ANOTHER 6 weeks to get ours.
Grrrr!!!!
In other news I have introduced Mrs Algo to The Five Doctors special from 1983... a truly cool episode of Dr Who with a strangely unalike William Hartnell impersonator. He's cool. And gets shedloads of screentime considering he's a big fake!
Probably got all Tom Bakers lines since he didn't turn up (Children In Need not good enough apparently) to be in it. Loser. He was crap anyway. There. I said it. I think Tom Baker was a crap Dr Who. For the most part anyway - he got really tiresome when he started mugging at the screen!
Peace
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Doubt anyone reads this Blog...
I may be pissing in the wind writing one of these every day - there may be no-one out there prepared to read such long posts, but I don't really want to dumb down to keep your attention, just dip in occasionally.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, July 18, 2008
Movie Review: Control
Meh.
I am a massive Joy Division fan and know this story already and have read the book on which this is read, so it seems a little strange that my reaction to this film is one of a massive YAWN.
Its well shot, superbly acted and a moving portrayal of the frontman... but...
I hate the fact its all shot in Black and White like a photograph by its director Anton Corbijn. I hate the fact that it's based on such a biased account of events (from the biography by the wife he cheated on? hmm...) and also I hated the fact it was so morbidly miserable. All the other members of the band have described Ian Curtis as a good fun guy to be around and not at all the stereotype of the tortured miserable writer, so why Corbijn has chosen to ignore all this (and weirdly since he knew Curtis himself) and make a ridiculously miserable document with almost no fun to be had.
Your only points of comic relief are the depiction of Rob Gretton and for about a second, Martin Hannett. It also contains what is probably the ONLY understated performance of Tony Wilson you could ever have got. More restrained in fact than Wilson in real life, who a dandy little prick if ever there was one.
Instead of a balanced portrayal of a human being we are presented with Richard Burton's Ian Curtis... all hyperbole and VO narration of poetry and lyrics shot against a miserable background.
You're franly, much better served by the first half of Twenty Four Hour Party People. You'll laugh, which is more than can be said here.
Not recommended.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I am a massive Joy Division fan and know this story already and have read the book on which this is read, so it seems a little strange that my reaction to this film is one of a massive YAWN.
Its well shot, superbly acted and a moving portrayal of the frontman... but...
I hate the fact its all shot in Black and White like a photograph by its director Anton Corbijn. I hate the fact that it's based on such a biased account of events (from the biography by the wife he cheated on? hmm...) and also I hated the fact it was so morbidly miserable. All the other members of the band have described Ian Curtis as a good fun guy to be around and not at all the stereotype of the tortured miserable writer, so why Corbijn has chosen to ignore all this (and weirdly since he knew Curtis himself) and make a ridiculously miserable document with almost no fun to be had.
Your only points of comic relief are the depiction of Rob Gretton and for about a second, Martin Hannett. It also contains what is probably the ONLY understated performance of Tony Wilson you could ever have got. More restrained in fact than Wilson in real life, who a dandy little prick if ever there was one.
Instead of a balanced portrayal of a human being we are presented with Richard Burton's Ian Curtis... all hyperbole and VO narration of poetry and lyrics shot against a miserable background.
You're franly, much better served by the first half of Twenty Four Hour Party People. You'll laugh, which is more than can be said here.
Not recommended.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Algo's Game Collection
See, it can be a little painful reviewing your ridiculous expenditure on certain fun-ish things when you make a little cash total appear in your head. Ouch. Here's my game collection. Lovely isn't it?
This is further to my original post on EUROGAMES
So, starting from the top left:
- The black box with the red spine is my travel edition of the wonderful and very ancient game of "Go" which was invented thousands of years ago in China (or Japan, I forget) and entails the claiming of territory using a simple "place one stone" system and yet contains so much strategy it has been described as like playing five interconnected games of chess at once. It is simply wonderful. This set is fairly crappy though, with plastic pieces and a very dodgy board.
- To the right of Go is an old CD folder. It has PC games in it. Nothing more interesting than that.
- Underneath Go is a jigsaw puzzle Mrs Algo and I picked up in Barcelona on a rainy evening when we decided we'd stay in. In the end we spent so long choosing a jigsaw the poor dear fell straight asleep when we got in. Ah well. It is of the big Heironymous Bosch Triptych, I forget its name. We eventually completed it at the in-laws last Christmas as a team effort, which is pretty much the point of Jigsaws, if you ask me.
- Next to the Jigsaw is Abalone, a fairly good Marble pushing game that has long since been overtaken by Go as my "abstract" game of choice
- The Purply box is for Descent: Journeys (sic) in the dark which is a new take on Heroquest. Not shown are the three expansions I have for it. It is quality, though a little tough on the heroes for half the quest, and then on the "dungeonmaster" for the second half when they get good kit.
- Under Descent you find Twilight Imperium, a wonderful game (see top ten list) that is only slightly marred by its Six to Seven hour (!) play time. It is an epic game in all repects, containign a ridiculous number of pieces, options and an expansion too. It can be played by up to eight people. Though how you find eight willing people I am not so sure. I LOVE THIS GAME! PLEASE OFFER TO PLAY IT WITH ME!
- From one end of the gaming spectrum to the other, with Taboo (to the right of the big boxes) - Its a reasonably amusing party game where you have to get your team to guess words without using certain words to do so - caused a laughably serious argument at Christmas, party games and too much booze do not generally mix well.
- Now , to finish off the top shelf we have a Jenga set - a replacement for the one I used as a drinking game in India (that one is, to my knowledge, still behind the bar in Roxy at the Park Hotel, Calcutta) and as such has none of the tequila stained, suspicious marked goodness, but is still genius.
- On top of Jenga is Citadels - a card game where you choose a character (king, assassin etc) for the round and use them to help you build the best city. Really quite good fun except for the steep learning curve. It is more or less essential to know all the characters up front to get the best out of it.
- Onto the second shelf and we have Cranium, a game I love since it has variety - your team has challenges to perform in the realms of spelling, acting, artistry and knowledge - so everyones strengths can come to the fore. Don't get it play it enough since too many of my friends are too self conscious.
- Next to that is the light wargame Memoir '44 which shares mechanics with two other games on this list (known as the "commands and colours system"), where you have a set of cards you can play as orders to your troops and then you move and attack with those forces you ordered. A great introduction to wargames for those who want it to be, but I like it just for its simplicity. This particular version is the simplest example of that system.
- Next to that is Ticket To Ride:Marklin, a game of claiming train routes that is about a billion times more fun than that sounds. You gain points not only for claiming connections between cities, but also for both forming full routes between distant locations and for sending passengers along, picking up bonuses at every station. It really is good fun and almost pitifully easy to learn.
- The next two boxes are for Mrs Algo's favourite game, Arkham Horror, a cross between Board Game and RPG. It stands out in my collection as one of the only "cooperative" games in there. I mean that in contrast to "team" games since in Arkham Horror all players are on the same side against the viciously evil Cthulu and his horrible mates. you have to close gates to other dimensions and deal with the monsters coming out of them, and quickly, or the big evil demon that is running the show will make mincemeat of you in a final encounter. Lots of dice rolling is involved, but it remains great fun. Plus, we have a whale of a time creating our own characters and putting them up against the game.
- Next to Arkham and its expansion, we have "Death Zone" which is actually a box housing parts for Blood Bowl, so I'll talk about that later.
- Next is The Lord Of The Rings game, another cooperative game and probably the game that turned me back onto this form of games, again a horribly challenging game that can give you some nasty surprises, but doesn't have the story element of the events in Arkham Horror, so this one has been left by the wayside a bit. It would probably be worth getting out again, come to think of it.
- Another game from the commands and colours system next: Battlelore! This is similar to Memoir 44 but is considerably more complicated and has magic and fantasy elements to it, like giant spiders and stuff. I also have the bits to play it double sized, or "epic" scale making the most enormous battles. Truly great stuff.
- Next to that and finishing off the second shelf are two versions of the highly successful game Carcassonne, the original version and the Hunters And Gatherers version. If you're thinking of checking out the "Eurogame" style, this is probably the best place to start in my opinion. The game is one where you lay out tiles on a table which have pictures on them of fields, roads, cities etc and claim those features with your "meeples" (little wooden men, from "my people" - yes I am a geek) you score points depending on the size of each road, city etc and get your man back when it is scored, so you are having to balance high points scoring areas with having less men to place. It is true genius.
- Third shelf time! And we find ourselves with The Princes Of Florence, an auctioning game where you become a patron of the arts and try and oversee the creation of the greatest works by building theatres, laboratories and also lakes and parks for those silly artists to get inspired by. Thing is, only one player can take each action every turn, so you may have to adjust your plan!
- Next to that is the current king of games, the plantation based, Puerto Rico - each turn you select one role, and use the benefits associated with that role. Problem is, everyone else gets to take that action as well - so make sure you are not helping them more than you help yourself. Also notable for best euphemism in my games collection (it describes the workers delivered to you as "colonists" when you know full well they're slaves). It deserves its reputation and has seen many plays from me.
- Next to that is Thurn and Taxis, worst themed game ever. You are trying to set up postal routes. Its a little too similar to Ticket To Ride, but is a decent game in its own right. Maybe a little TOO german for many peoples tastes though!
- Golly! Next is a vintage (read, 20 year old or more) copy of Fury Of Dracula. This game recently got a makeover and rerelease but I have kept this one for old times sake. Dracula moves in secret and its up to the three investigators to work together to trap him. Sort of like a more evil version of Scotland Yard. It is a decent game but really suffers from a lousy fighting system that goes on forever.
- Another modern classic is Tigris and Euphrates, a game where you place one of four different coloured tiles or a monument every turn and score points for each. You have four leader matching those colours and you only gain points if a route can be traced to those leaders. If two leaders of the same colour fight it out players can add tile from their hadn to assist the fight. Only one can gain control of a set of tiles. Its quite hard to explain here, and equally hard to teach, but again - your patience is well rewarded by this game.
- Final Command and Colours game in the collection next in the Red and Cream boxes, a more grown up edition called Command and colours: Ancients, and its expansion, spanning from Rome Vs. Carthage and Alexander the Greats campaigns. This one is more absract looking and has a different publisher, meaning that the plastic models are replaced by wooden blocks and the board is thin and nasty. It is still a wonderful game.
- Aha! Next we have a game that is causing quite a stir in gaming circles, a truly magnificent piece of work called Agricola. In this players have their own boards on which they build their farms and try and diversify and gain points for having the best farm at the end. The picture is of my completed farm from today.
This game has it all, meaningful decision/reward balance, a good competition system (each action can only be taken once a turn so the one you want may be stolen by someone else) and the ability to grown your family and house. Thing is, you family has to fed every harvest, so planning is required. This is really really excellent and I have no hesitiation in demanding you buy a copy right now. - Ick... the next game is Pirateology, a game so rancid it makes the room stink. NEVER BUY A GAME FROM THE ...OLOGY SERIES. Its awful awful awful!
- Lastly on this shelf we have the Carcassonne Tower, which I use to store all the tiles from Carcassonne, since it is legendary for having too many expansions - I keep the tiles here and the bits in the main box.
- Crikey, onto the fourth shelf and we have Zombies! lurking in the far left, a silly little game of screwing over your mates in as many ways possible as you fight off the Zombie hordes. It is great fun, not particularly one you will dream about afterwards but has led to some extremely great moments. One that comes to mind is me moving the escape route (a helicopter) away from the lead player and over to the other side of the board. Not a friendly tactic.
- After three Memoir 44 expansions (did I mention I like expansions?) we find, in the yellow box, a classic two player card game, lost cities. The concept of searching for lost cities is totally irrelevant however, since this is really an abstract suit building game of scoring high against a high initial risk. Again, it is waaaay better than it sounds, and has a great mechanic whereby if you discard a card you don't need. your opponent can nick it - meaning you have to be careful what you get rid of as well as what you put down.
- Next to that we have Alhambra in the orange box. This is a game of buying tiles to make up your palace, and you are rewarded for having the most of each type of tile at three stages. The catch? There are four different in game currencies, and workers will only take pay from their currency and build only one type of tile a round. A cool variation on the tile laying theme.
- In front of the two white boxes (dumb impulse purchases I won't bore you with) there's an Uno set. I used to like it a lot, I sort of got bored with it. You can get it on Xbox live.
- Now, next to that is a true gaming legend. Race for the galaxy is probably as good as card games get. You choose an action per turn and this can be to draw cards or lay cards in front of you, or even produce goods on your planet cards and sell them for victory points or other cards. Its a really hard game to learn since it is all about card combinations but if you see a copy get it for yourself and put some time into learning this superb game. You won't be disappointed.
- Next to that is Trivial Pursuit (shudder) 20th Anniversary edition.
- Next to trivial pursuit is a great civilisation building card game, Through The Ages, made by a very small, Czech based company. It is a great game of managing resources to build wonders like the pyramids, get leader such as Michelangelo or Shakespeare and improve your scientific knowledge, all while keeping your people happy and fed. Great stuff.
- Next to that is Cutthroat Caverns, another card based game (they're easy to carry around) where you and your friends have discovered the artifact of untold power, thing is, you all want it for yourselves. Cue a trip out of the dungeon fighting monsters along the way and trying to get the most prestige from defeating them. The USP here is that you are all fighting the same monsters (all of which have different attacks and different characteristics) - but only the character who lands the final, killing blow, gains the experience. This means a lot of backstabbing, potion stealing and general mayhem - thing is though, if you let your buddies die, the monsters stay as strong as they were, so you may be in deep trouble!
- Running out of breath now but lets keep it going! The big black box on the fifth shelf down is my nice copy of Go. Nice thick double sided board and glass stones. The game is good enough that you'll have a good time with the less nice sets, but there's nothing lice the tactile feel of these glass stones.
- Right... Orange box is a game called Shogun, not the one from my childhood (which is now called Samurai Swords) but a newer game based on a game called Wallenstein. It is a stand out because of its combat system whereby small wooden cubes of yours and your opponents colours are dropped into a treacherous "cube tower" and the victor is the one who has the most cubes come out of the bottom. This adds a great sense of newness to this game and can cause some major upsets since any cube that does not come out of the tower will stay there for next time, and may be knocked out to assist that players later battles. It also has a nest planning mechanic where you assign each of the turn actions to one of your provinces, meaning you do this blind at the beginning of the turn, not knowing whether other players will block your moves, or maybe take that province, making your order useless!
- Next to that is a collection of simpler games ina wooden box, things like Draughts, Pick Up Sticks etc.
- That sits beside Balderdash, a funny party game where all players submit potential answers to really obscure questions and score points for how many people believed their answer was the real one (if by crazy chance they turn out to have been right, they get even more points).
- Then we get to Settlers of Catan in the red box. Recognised by many as the game that has given new life to board gaming, this game is easy to learn, forgiving in its options, has trading between players and a limited amount of negative interference, while it is not the best game in my collection it remains a fond friend for the occasional play.
- Next is Zooloretto - a game where you populate your zoo with animals of diffrent types to score points, almost like a quicker and simpler Agricola in many ways, it has a certain amount of kiddie appeal too, for teaching our neice in a couple of years.
- Super Scrabble next, and its Scrabble on a bigger board feturing (gulp) QUADRUPLE word and letter scores, otherwise its the same old Scrabble.
- Thats next to Scattergories, a game at which Mrs Algo is the undisputed champion. You have to answer in many categories with words that start with the letter rolled on an unfeasibly large die with 20 odd sides. You have about a minute. I suck.
- Two copies of monopoly (which I hate) for some reason along with regular scrabble. Had these for years.
- Finally on this shelf is the Mystery at Hogwarts game, which can best be described as Harry Potter Cluedo. Nothing more to it than that. I was hoping I could sell this at a nice profit since it was a tie in with the first movie, but nothing is doing at the moment. Think I'll wait five years or so.
- Last Shelf now (phew, my fingers hurt from all this typing) and another of Algo's top ten first. It's Power Grid, and you get to set up connections between cities while bidding at auctions for more and more efficient power stations to power those cities with. Thing is, it also has a brilliant Supply/Demand=Price mechanism that means competition can make things expensive for you when buying resources to power your stations. It is really, really, really great.
- Then we have Tannhauser, which I got as part of an exchange for Battlelore (for the more expensive World Of Warcraft game if you must know) and I haven't really decided if I like it or not, it's similar to a first person shooter video game in deathmatch mode, and I don't really know why I'd play this instead of Timesplitters, but maybe it'll grow on me.
- Now its Age of Empires III and this game bears almost no relation to the computer game the licence is from. It is, however, an excellent game of colonisation and risk taking.
- Subbuteo. It used to be cool with plastic men. Now it has cardboard men on plastic bases. Rubbish. plus my table is STILL too small to play it properly.
- Advanced Heroquest! A true classic - not really much competition for Descent these days, but great to own for old times sake if nothing else, plus it'll hold its value for future sale.
- Necromunda. I have really gone off most of Games Workshops stuff since my teens. This used to be my favourite example of their games. It represents small gang warfare as opposed to massive army battles and is a lot better for it.
- Talisman - I remember many very long games of this in our old house in Canterbury. A bit dated now, since its really a case of everyone playing their own game and other people waiting for their turn, which can be a drag if there's five or six of you!
- The great Blood Bowl, which is the only Games Workshop game that has retained its fun value for me - I have a lovely fully painted team too! It works because it has a great sense of humour to go with its relatively simple playing rules. It has been constantly updated and they are now publishing a "living rulebook" through their website and you can download it for free if you wish and make your own board and pieces up. A free game? Sure!
- Finally we have a copy of Pirates Of The Spanish Main - the boardgame version of the collectible constructible pirate ship game. The game is actually fairly toss. The ships are very very cool. I have loads of them. They are in a box in a cupboard.
- (Not Shown) Escape From Colditz. A thirty year old charity shop purchase. Complete and in good nick. Hurrah!
- (Not Shown) The Battle for Hill 218. A very cool simple card game usign supply, support and artillery rules but in a really easy to understand way. Sadly there are 5 cards missing from my copy but I have contacted the makers so we'll see if I get replacements.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
A Movie Interview with Algo
Credit where credit is due, to the lovely r_scribbles and her friend ladybracknell for the questions
1. What movie have you seen the most time in the theater? How many times?
The only film I can remember going to see twice was the first Lord Of The Rings film, since I saw it on my own the first time. Oh.. and Mars Attacks with two groups of friends. The sublime AND the ridiculous.
2. What was the last movie you walked out of in the theater?
I have never ever walked out of a movie.
3. What is the first movie you remember seeing in a theater?
YAY! Transformers the Movie! Awesome film and I was taken by my dear daddy! Hurrah!
4. What is your favorite movie soundtrack?
Grosse Point Blank - hurrah!
5. Have you ever dressed up as a movie character for Halloween? If so, who?
Obi-Wan Kenobi
6. What was the first R-rated movie you ever saw? Were you allowed or did you sneak?
It was First Blood and I was about 8. It was round a friends house, so I guess sneak is the answer.
7. Star Wars (orig. trilogy) or Lord of the Rings?
Lord Of The Rings every time. Everything about it is better, the acting, the story, the direction, the sets/props/costumes. Just about as perfect as adaptations get.
8. Pacino or DeNiro?
Its got to be Bobby D, since he has made far less shit films than Pacino (Gigli, anyone?)
9. Titanic...did it suck or was it great?
It sucks harder than a kings cross prossy after a twenty quid tip.
10. What's your take on Cassavetes?
He's no Lynch.
11. Favorite John Hughes character?
Gotta be ol' Bender.
12. What movie gives you a boner (or makes you tingle)?
Er... no movie below R18...
13. What movie always makes you cry like the big puss you are?
Me big man, only cry with pain... so Uwe Bolls Alone In The Dark.
14. What's the furthest you've ever gotten in a movie theater? (i.e, second base...)
I don't pay 13 pounds for a ticket to spend the film Necking! Thats what buses are for!
15. Speaking of sports metaphors, what's your favorite sports movie?
Tough one, since they are mostly utter shite. Er... Dodgeball.
16. (a) Favorite... teen movie?
Napoleon Dynamite? Does that count?
(b)...Quentin Tarantino movie?
Pulp Fiction.
(c)...Bill Murray movie?
Ghostbusters.
(d)...romantic comedy?
Some Like It Hot
(e)...gangster movie?
Godfather 2
(f)...horror movie?
The best horror movie? Lets break it down into subcategories:
(g)...made for TV movie?
Ghostwatch, without a doubt
(h)...director?
The big fat New Zealander who lost all that weight, Peter Jackson
(i)...drug movie?
What a strange category... I will have to go with Trainspotting
17. What movie have you seen already but will never, ever, ever watch again?
I take it this question doesn't mean simply bad movies, I think Frenzy the Hitchcock film, since it has a horribly realistic rape scene in it.
18. What movie are you embarrassed to really like?
For me, it has to be the ultimate embarrassment, Sleepless in Seattle. Be gentle!
19. What movie should be remade asap?
I am not a fan of remakes, but I would like the whole new trilogy of Star Wars to be wiped from history and started again by Spielberg, Jackson, or Burton.
20. What the F happened to (insert answer)? He used to be so damn funny!
Martin Short. He was my GOD growing up.
21. For the love of everything that's sacred, please someone stop (insert answer) from making another movie!
Too easy. Mr Uwe Boll.
22. What movie do all your friends love but you think is whatevs?
E.T. Its lame and you know it.
23. What movie do you love but all your friends think is whatevs?
Tron.
24. If you could hump/date/marry any movie character, who would it be?
Hump or Date the glorious Madeline Kahn's character in high Anxiety and probably marry someone else.
25. Best...movie....ever?
Impossible to answer in less than 1000 words.
26. Book you wish would be made into a movie, and who would direct it?
Pratchett. All of them, with Stephen Fry Narrating. Awesome. Director would be Terry Gilliam.
See the full post by clicking here...
1. What movie have you seen the most time in the theater? How many times?
The only film I can remember going to see twice was the first Lord Of The Rings film, since I saw it on my own the first time. Oh.. and Mars Attacks with two groups of friends. The sublime AND the ridiculous.
2. What was the last movie you walked out of in the theater?
I have never ever walked out of a movie.
3. What is the first movie you remember seeing in a theater?
YAY! Transformers the Movie! Awesome film and I was taken by my dear daddy! Hurrah!
4. What is your favorite movie soundtrack?
Grosse Point Blank - hurrah!
5. Have you ever dressed up as a movie character for Halloween? If so, who?
Obi-Wan Kenobi
6. What was the first R-rated movie you ever saw? Were you allowed or did you sneak?
It was First Blood and I was about 8. It was round a friends house, so I guess sneak is the answer.
7. Star Wars (orig. trilogy) or Lord of the Rings?
Lord Of The Rings every time. Everything about it is better, the acting, the story, the direction, the sets/props/costumes. Just about as perfect as adaptations get.
8. Pacino or DeNiro?
Its got to be Bobby D, since he has made far less shit films than Pacino (Gigli, anyone?)
9. Titanic...did it suck or was it great?
It sucks harder than a kings cross prossy after a twenty quid tip.
10. What's your take on Cassavetes?
He's no Lynch.
11. Favorite John Hughes character?
Gotta be ol' Bender.
12. What movie gives you a boner (or makes you tingle)?
Er... no movie below R18...
13. What movie always makes you cry like the big puss you are?
Me big man, only cry with pain... so Uwe Bolls Alone In The Dark.
14. What's the furthest you've ever gotten in a movie theater? (i.e, second base...)
I don't pay 13 pounds for a ticket to spend the film Necking! Thats what buses are for!
15. Speaking of sports metaphors, what's your favorite sports movie?
Tough one, since they are mostly utter shite. Er... Dodgeball.
16. (a) Favorite... teen movie?
Napoleon Dynamite? Does that count?
(b)...Quentin Tarantino movie?
Pulp Fiction.
(c)...Bill Murray movie?
Ghostbusters.
(d)...romantic comedy?
Some Like It Hot
(e)...gangster movie?
Godfather 2
(f)...horror movie?
The best horror movie? Lets break it down into subcategories:
- Slasher Movies: Halloween
- Zombie/Gory Movies: Evil Dead
- J-Horror: Ring
- B-Movies: The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires
- Comedy Horror: Braindead (P. Jackson)
(g)...made for TV movie?
Ghostwatch, without a doubt
(h)...director?
The big fat New Zealander who lost all that weight, Peter Jackson
(i)...drug movie?
What a strange category... I will have to go with Trainspotting
17. What movie have you seen already but will never, ever, ever watch again?
I take it this question doesn't mean simply bad movies, I think Frenzy the Hitchcock film, since it has a horribly realistic rape scene in it.
18. What movie are you embarrassed to really like?
For me, it has to be the ultimate embarrassment, Sleepless in Seattle. Be gentle!
19. What movie should be remade asap?
I am not a fan of remakes, but I would like the whole new trilogy of Star Wars to be wiped from history and started again by Spielberg, Jackson, or Burton.
20. What the F happened to (insert answer)? He used to be so damn funny!
Martin Short. He was my GOD growing up.
21. For the love of everything that's sacred, please someone stop (insert answer) from making another movie!
Too easy. Mr Uwe Boll.
22. What movie do all your friends love but you think is whatevs?
E.T. Its lame and you know it.
23. What movie do you love but all your friends think is whatevs?
Tron.
24. If you could hump/date/marry any movie character, who would it be?
Hump or Date the glorious Madeline Kahn's character in high Anxiety and probably marry someone else.
25. Best...movie....ever?
Impossible to answer in less than 1000 words.
26. Book you wish would be made into a movie, and who would direct it?
Pratchett. All of them, with Stephen Fry Narrating. Awesome. Director would be Terry Gilliam.
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
eurogames
Many people have conceptions and expectations of boardgames based on childhood experience with such games as monopoly and risk etc. there's nothing particularly wrong with that, but recent years have seen a major increase in games from europe that are very different from these and also from party games, such as balderdash, pictionary etc. The name for these games is Eurogames though many popular examples are by american authors.
So what is a eurogame? And how is it different to those long dull games of monopoly you remember from childhood?
The blanket nature of the word eurogame is slightly nisleading in that al sorts of settings, or 'themes' are present and the games very wildly, but there are some factors common to most if not all.
Firstly, the worst part about those long games of monopoly for me were when you were the first to be eliminated, meaning you were ecluded from the next two hours of fun. Most eurogames get rid of elimination altogether, favouring a points scoring system of victory rather then a last man standing approach. This means that noone will be sitting on the sidelines during a game while their friends continue playing.
Secondly, the Victory Points system leads designers to create several different ways of achieving victory, creating points through different methods so that when you play multiple times you can do different things each time and keep the fresh feeling of your first game.
Thirdly, they tend to take less than an hour and since everyone is involved all the way through noone should be bored by the end. This is a crucial improvement on the games from my youth. A four hour game when you get eliminated four hours before the end? No thanks!
So you may want to look at the new generation of games before dismissing this as a hobby.
On the right you will find a list of my favourite games, some of those are Eurogames, chiefly Race For The Galaxy, Princes Of Florence, Power Grid, and Puerto Rico and Carcassonne are considered classics in this genre. As always, I'm always up for a game so heres to social fun!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
So what is a eurogame? And how is it different to those long dull games of monopoly you remember from childhood?
The blanket nature of the word eurogame is slightly nisleading in that al sorts of settings, or 'themes' are present and the games very wildly, but there are some factors common to most if not all.
Firstly, the worst part about those long games of monopoly for me were when you were the first to be eliminated, meaning you were ecluded from the next two hours of fun. Most eurogames get rid of elimination altogether, favouring a points scoring system of victory rather then a last man standing approach. This means that noone will be sitting on the sidelines during a game while their friends continue playing.
Secondly, the Victory Points system leads designers to create several different ways of achieving victory, creating points through different methods so that when you play multiple times you can do different things each time and keep the fresh feeling of your first game.
Thirdly, they tend to take less than an hour and since everyone is involved all the way through noone should be bored by the end. This is a crucial improvement on the games from my youth. A four hour game when you get eliminated four hours before the end? No thanks!
So you may want to look at the new generation of games before dismissing this as a hobby.
On the right you will find a list of my favourite games, some of those are Eurogames, chiefly Race For The Galaxy, Princes Of Florence, Power Grid, and Puerto Rico and Carcassonne are considered classics in this genre. As always, I'm always up for a game so heres to social fun!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, July 13, 2008
How Not to end a gig...
So you've had a fairly bad gig... the band were good, but you felt shit and useless and hot and bothered, making stupid errors and you can't wait for it to be over.
You decide to go for a wander on wireless and turn to the band and jump up and down to show the tempo change, only to jump back and trip on a stone fountain and smash into it, scraping up your guitar and soaking yourself.
At least noone turned up to the gig, but I did get some bloke pissing himself at my expense with his 5 year old son.
Feel sorry for me!
Or laugh, which is more likely.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
You decide to go for a wander on wireless and turn to the band and jump up and down to show the tempo change, only to jump back and trip on a stone fountain and smash into it, scraping up your guitar and soaking yourself.
At least noone turned up to the gig, but I did get some bloke pissing himself at my expense with his 5 year old son.
Feel sorry for me!
Or laugh, which is more likely.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Movie Review: For Your Consideration
For your consideration is from the crew who did Spinal Tap, Waiting For Guffman, Best In Show and A Mighty Wind amongst others, and is about the cast of a crappy film becoming convinced that they are going to be nominated for an oscar.
There's lots to like here. Christopher guest (who directs) plays the director of "Home For Purim" a film so ridiculuously bad, the jewish family in it are depicted with deep south accents and the plot involves the return of a family including a war scarred son and lesbian daughter to the family fold when their mother is taken sick. This is of course, a blatant oscar baiting plot if ever I heard one.
It's also considerably more vicious and dark than the other ones by this little troupe of improvisational comedians, since almost no character has any sympathetic qualities to speak of and, unlike the idiots in Spinal Tap, actually understand what's going on instead of being totally oblivious to the reality of the situation.
Even the usually silly performance from comedy genius Fred Willard is one of snide points scoring evil poisonm tounged jackass entertainment TV presenter.
And this is the films main problem and for me downfall, while it is certainly fun, it just isn't as much fun as Break Like The Wind or Best In Show, let alone Spinal Tap, and despite the welcome turn from Ricky Gervais (yes, he plays himself again) it is still not enough to be worth watching as frequently as those oldies.
I don't you to think I didn't enjoy it, because I did and you will to, just don't exoect to want to watch it repeatedly like you may do with Spinal Tap.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
There's lots to like here. Christopher guest (who directs) plays the director of "Home For Purim" a film so ridiculuously bad, the jewish family in it are depicted with deep south accents and the plot involves the return of a family including a war scarred son and lesbian daughter to the family fold when their mother is taken sick. This is of course, a blatant oscar baiting plot if ever I heard one.
It's also considerably more vicious and dark than the other ones by this little troupe of improvisational comedians, since almost no character has any sympathetic qualities to speak of and, unlike the idiots in Spinal Tap, actually understand what's going on instead of being totally oblivious to the reality of the situation.
Even the usually silly performance from comedy genius Fred Willard is one of snide points scoring evil poisonm tounged jackass entertainment TV presenter.
And this is the films main problem and for me downfall, while it is certainly fun, it just isn't as much fun as Break Like The Wind or Best In Show, let alone Spinal Tap, and despite the welcome turn from Ricky Gervais (yes, he plays himself again) it is still not enough to be worth watching as frequently as those oldies.
I don't you to think I didn't enjoy it, because I did and you will to, just don't exoect to want to watch it repeatedly like you may do with Spinal Tap.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, July 11, 2008
Movie review: The Player
Robert altman again today. This film is a very good example of hollywood satire at its finest! Tim robbins plays griffin mill, a man devoid of a sympathetic edge, a 'green light' guy who is receiving threatening letters from a writer he never got back to.
This serves as a framing method for a searing indictment of hollywood life and fakeness. All the other characters offer images of classic stereotypes and the only truly sympathetic and identifiably human characters are either cheated on or in one case brutally killed in the sudden explosion of violence that kicks the plot into gear after half an hour or so.
The only real problrm i have with this film is that while it is supposedly critical of hollywood's incestuous nature (four successive writers suggest julia roberts as the ideal star of their film) Altman uses his chache to have all his celebrity mates turn up as themselves and this leaves us confused when a new character turns up as to whether it is a character or the actor being themselves. This may well be the point but it seems to undermine the satire when all your celebrity mates help you out!
It is a truly great film with an absolutely perfect ending and i found myself laughing out loud as the movie world and real world get harder to tell apart and eventually merge. A d a superb central performance from Robbins and you have quite an experience. Highly recommended!
See the full post by clicking here...
This serves as a framing method for a searing indictment of hollywood life and fakeness. All the other characters offer images of classic stereotypes and the only truly sympathetic and identifiably human characters are either cheated on or in one case brutally killed in the sudden explosion of violence that kicks the plot into gear after half an hour or so.
The only real problrm i have with this film is that while it is supposedly critical of hollywood's incestuous nature (four successive writers suggest julia roberts as the ideal star of their film) Altman uses his chache to have all his celebrity mates turn up as themselves and this leaves us confused when a new character turns up as to whether it is a character or the actor being themselves. This may well be the point but it seems to undermine the satire when all your celebrity mates help you out!
It is a truly great film with an absolutely perfect ending and i found myself laughing out loud as the movie world and real world get harder to tell apart and eventually merge. A d a superb central performance from Robbins and you have quite an experience. Highly recommended!
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, July 10, 2008
ANother Weekend Another Gig
Its at our old friends from Alpha Garden centres new digs.. near enfield I think...
This is an outdoor gig and in my experience in this field (golly.. five years odd in various cover bands) I have found there to be a certain amount of "suckitude" sometimes in these shows that basically can act as an irritant to people who just wanted to come and buy some plants. Little audience response leads to low band energy and "whoops" it's all over the place. A pitfall a certain amount of banter can avoid if you're in a good social place with the others in the group.
On the other hand, it is possible sometimes to get great things out of these situations and amongst them are new leads, gigs and even (shhh!) fans of the band. A large selection of CDs and promos will come in handy always at this sort of thing, as will a willing frontman who'll plug us to his hearts content. Guess that'll be me this time. Again...
Heh, I love the attention, really.
Rock on, Algolians!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
This is an outdoor gig and in my experience in this field (golly.. five years odd in various cover bands) I have found there to be a certain amount of "suckitude" sometimes in these shows that basically can act as an irritant to people who just wanted to come and buy some plants. Little audience response leads to low band energy and "whoops" it's all over the place. A pitfall a certain amount of banter can avoid if you're in a good social place with the others in the group.
On the other hand, it is possible sometimes to get great things out of these situations and amongst them are new leads, gigs and even (shhh!) fans of the band. A large selection of CDs and promos will come in handy always at this sort of thing, as will a willing frontman who'll plug us to his hearts content. Guess that'll be me this time. Again...
Heh, I love the attention, really.
Rock on, Algolians!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Movie Review: Cars (Pixar)
Pixar are a fantastic bunch of people... not content with making toys and monsters and such lovable they have tried it with the humble motorcar too!
Thing is, motor cars aren't particularly lovable things in themselves - big hunks of metal... and so its down to Owen Wilson to play the part of the "hero" and no friends rogue who learns the error of his ways and learns also to value friendship.
So far so meh and I agree... its pretty lame story is one of its big let downs - borrowed from, it appears, Doc Hollywood, amongst others.
THis is far from Pixars best work on characters and story and when you see how far the animation has come even just from Monsters Inc, for example, its easy to believe that they just got dazzled by how clever they are. At one point I was momentarily convinced they had superimposed their cars onto a lovely forest and waterfall setting from real life... it took me several seconds to realise they are just THAT good now.
This films major problem is not its animation but its emotion. Its harder to empathise with a hunk of (presumably polluting) metal, and its lack of tailpipe emissions is a little hmm... strange, but the good ideas kind of get it through (A hippy VW Combi Van! Arnie is a HumVee!) and it didn;t do me any harm, but it says a lot about Pixar when a merely "good" movie is a little disappointing.
I am unable to take Mrs Algo to see WALL: E since she is convinced she will cry all the way through... look at the little guy! He's the cutest thing ever! This means I will be seeing it on my own and that sucks. It is being hailed as a true classic, and I can't see Cars getting the same treatment.
Solid, but no champion.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thing is, motor cars aren't particularly lovable things in themselves - big hunks of metal... and so its down to Owen Wilson to play the part of the "hero" and no friends rogue who learns the error of his ways and learns also to value friendship.
So far so meh and I agree... its pretty lame story is one of its big let downs - borrowed from, it appears, Doc Hollywood, amongst others.
THis is far from Pixars best work on characters and story and when you see how far the animation has come even just from Monsters Inc, for example, its easy to believe that they just got dazzled by how clever they are. At one point I was momentarily convinced they had superimposed their cars onto a lovely forest and waterfall setting from real life... it took me several seconds to realise they are just THAT good now.
This films major problem is not its animation but its emotion. Its harder to empathise with a hunk of (presumably polluting) metal, and its lack of tailpipe emissions is a little hmm... strange, but the good ideas kind of get it through (A hippy VW Combi Van! Arnie is a HumVee!) and it didn;t do me any harm, but it says a lot about Pixar when a merely "good" movie is a little disappointing.
I am unable to take Mrs Algo to see WALL: E since she is convinced she will cry all the way through... look at the little guy! He's the cutest thing ever! This means I will be seeing it on my own and that sucks. It is being hailed as a true classic, and I can't see Cars getting the same treatment.
Solid, but no champion.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
The motive for development
What is it that pushed mankind up to the point where it is capable and in some extreme cases willing to destroy the planet on which it lives and the rest of its species?
I have a little theory of my own and it can be described as a rabid desire for control. Control in this case is as much if not more defined as a feeling of, rather than demonstrable, power over our environment and , more crucially our fates.
Mankind is a quite mind bogglingly self important creature. We saw ourselves for millenia as the single most important species in all of the universe, only to find that as a result of getting better amd better at seeing things as they really are instead of some way we want them to look, we have totally redefined our importance from the very zenith of the pyramid, to rooting around in the dust with all the other animals!
Many people were humbled by the realisation that we are just a tiny part of a reality far more wondrous and varied than we'd ever imagined.
Some others respond by ignoring this and concentrate instead on reducing the universe in both scale and age to something more easily acceptable (read creationists or other intelligent design supporters). There is a very good reason why they did this. Its very scary to admit how random and unfocussed the universe is as well as the realisation that nothing we do really affects much on such a stupendous scale.
There is the third response, even more scary than those in denial who, in response to the vastness of existence decide they will be validated in their own self importance by the exercising of control over both people, and nature itself.
We all display some of this tendency - its there every time you make an assumption or form a first impression. In many people the desire for control leads to obsession and in some cases serious danger. What sort of person would ever fire off a nuclear first strike or commits genocide? Not someone who has accepted their insignificance, for sure. These are the people who cannot accept that they are the same as everyone else except for one genetic differention among millions. They are the people who believe that any one man can be considered 'better' than any other.
However, this clearly is a double edged sword, because this need for control is the same need that drives the desire for understanding and learning. A universe following an understood set of laws is less scary than one where all is random and unfocussed.
This relates to my earlier point in 'a mental exercise' regarding human forebrain development Why did we create languages and science with this new biological tool? Why aren't we still in Africa eating carrion or scavenging fruit? Because we found we could control our environment - through tools and communications and this satisfied a need in the species that drives us even now.
Survival is itself an act of control over our environment. We control our climate, our food availability, our learning to the point where randomness is the least likely outcome and the sign of things going wrong.
But we should always remember the desire for control is a double edged sword and be watchful for signs of arrogance. The universe won't miss us if we mess up.
A
p.s. I realise i used the word randomness a lot without making it clear what i mean. In a purely scientific universe there is little that is random on a non atomic scale at least, but much of what happens is caused by so many and so detailed factors it is little use to think of them as other than random. See? I just exercised control over language. Hurrah!
See the full post by clicking here...
I have a little theory of my own and it can be described as a rabid desire for control. Control in this case is as much if not more defined as a feeling of, rather than demonstrable, power over our environment and , more crucially our fates.
Mankind is a quite mind bogglingly self important creature. We saw ourselves for millenia as the single most important species in all of the universe, only to find that as a result of getting better amd better at seeing things as they really are instead of some way we want them to look, we have totally redefined our importance from the very zenith of the pyramid, to rooting around in the dust with all the other animals!
Many people were humbled by the realisation that we are just a tiny part of a reality far more wondrous and varied than we'd ever imagined.
Some others respond by ignoring this and concentrate instead on reducing the universe in both scale and age to something more easily acceptable (read creationists or other intelligent design supporters). There is a very good reason why they did this. Its very scary to admit how random and unfocussed the universe is as well as the realisation that nothing we do really affects much on such a stupendous scale.
There is the third response, even more scary than those in denial who, in response to the vastness of existence decide they will be validated in their own self importance by the exercising of control over both people, and nature itself.
We all display some of this tendency - its there every time you make an assumption or form a first impression. In many people the desire for control leads to obsession and in some cases serious danger. What sort of person would ever fire off a nuclear first strike or commits genocide? Not someone who has accepted their insignificance, for sure. These are the people who cannot accept that they are the same as everyone else except for one genetic differention among millions. They are the people who believe that any one man can be considered 'better' than any other.
However, this clearly is a double edged sword, because this need for control is the same need that drives the desire for understanding and learning. A universe following an understood set of laws is less scary than one where all is random and unfocussed.
This relates to my earlier point in 'a mental exercise' regarding human forebrain development Why did we create languages and science with this new biological tool? Why aren't we still in Africa eating carrion or scavenging fruit? Because we found we could control our environment - through tools and communications and this satisfied a need in the species that drives us even now.
Survival is itself an act of control over our environment. We control our climate, our food availability, our learning to the point where randomness is the least likely outcome and the sign of things going wrong.
But we should always remember the desire for control is a double edged sword and be watchful for signs of arrogance. The universe won't miss us if we mess up.
A
p.s. I realise i used the word randomness a lot without making it clear what i mean. In a purely scientific universe there is little that is random on a non atomic scale at least, but much of what happens is caused by so many and so detailed factors it is little use to think of them as other than random. See? I just exercised control over language. Hurrah!
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Uwe Boll: A warning from history
Rarely has a man caused so much pain in so little time as "Dr" Uwe Boll. A man so conceited he is a self described genius, yet is incapable of doing anything to defend his abysmal record except challenge people who hate his films (read: anyone who has seen one) to a boxing match. Nice.
I thought I would provide a public service by listing his films so you can avoid them like the plague.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I thought I would provide a public service by listing his films so you can avoid them like the plague.
- In The Name Of The King (LOTR ripoff) with Leelee Sobierski and Jason Statham!
- Alone IN the Dark (COmputer Game Adaptation) with Christian Slater
- Postal (Computer Game Adaptation)
- House Of The Dead (Computer Game Adaptation) with Jurgen Prochnow!
- Bloodrayne/Bloodrayne II/Bloodrayne III (Computer Game Adaptations)
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Why can't we all just get along?
it's another G8 meeting this week and a good time to recall live8.
I was lucky enough to be there for that event and it was really quite a wonderful and encouraging day, only marred slightly by the ban on your own drinking water (er, what was up with that?) and the bloody golden circle - a horrific corporate invasion of what was supposed to be a very anti corporate occasion. i'd never have made it to the front anyhow! We are also fortunate to be on the dvd if only our backs for one second, but hey waddya gonna do?
Of the bands its pink floyd who really stand out in the memory, especially given my fondness for Roger Waters in particular for whom this must have been a huge psychological step.
The saddest thing for me is that the promises made by the G8 at that time are no nearer being lived up to three years later. Lets just hope they get their acts together on third world debt soon or we can hand at least the victory of attention to those responsible for the july bombings of that fateful week.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
I was lucky enough to be there for that event and it was really quite a wonderful and encouraging day, only marred slightly by the ban on your own drinking water (er, what was up with that?) and the bloody golden circle - a horrific corporate invasion of what was supposed to be a very anti corporate occasion. i'd never have made it to the front anyhow! We are also fortunate to be on the dvd if only our backs for one second, but hey waddya gonna do?
Of the bands its pink floyd who really stand out in the memory, especially given my fondness for Roger Waters in particular for whom this must have been a huge psychological step.
The saddest thing for me is that the promises made by the G8 at that time are no nearer being lived up to three years later. Lets just hope they get their acts together on third world debt soon or we can hand at least the victory of attention to those responsible for the july bombings of that fateful week.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Watching bad movies + Mates = Fun
This is a formula to remember. NEVER EVER watch bad movies alone.
Take this example... Uwe Boll (purveyor of ultimate shite) wants to make a movie of computer game "Alone In The Dark" a survival horror game.
He casts, and this is classic, the great Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff.
Oh dear lord that is a cast to avoid. I like Slater, I really do, but here he is hampered by just about the worst script I have ever experienced. One that not only is incapable of building tension, creating emotion or shocks but also lumbers the lead character with a VOICEOVER narration and gumshoe style exposition.
The script reminds me of really bad fan fiction that someone has dredged up and chucked, faeces like at a camera. It really stinks.
This film is also notable for having just about the most irrelevant scenes ever. One is a sex scene, place in the film for no reason at all other than cynical manipulation of the under 13s. It comes from nowhere, lasts 30 seconds and is then gone. Insert joke here.
This film does lead me to believe that some of the scripting is deliberately awful.. no studio exec would allow a film to be made with as lame a line as "Easy... she's the head curator of the occult exhibit" to explain who a character is. Or two seconds later "At least it helps you forget about your boyfriend, huh?"
This movie even contains as schoolboy an error as editing a scene for slightly too long so a recently offed character (who we didn;t care about by the way) actually starts to get up! I thought maybe they've gone with a zombie thing, but NO! She's shown again as dead in the next shot. Just pitiful.
What the hell.. haven;t we petitioned the end of this guy's career yet? If you haven't signed it yet.. please please please sign the petition at THIS ADDRESS.
You'll be doing us all a big favour in the long run. This guy makes McG look like David Lean. Brett Ratner looks like Kubrick next to this idiot.
You'll see on my "last five films" list (unless I've seen more than four since now) I gave this outrageous piece of crap 0/10. Its really impossible to express how truly appalling this sorry excuse for filmmaking.
That being said it's perfect for watching with a drink and some mates and adding your commentary to. Just make sure you DON'T pay any money for it. That'll just encourage him to make more.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Take this example... Uwe Boll (purveyor of ultimate shite) wants to make a movie of computer game "Alone In The Dark" a survival horror game.
He casts, and this is classic, the great Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff.
Oh dear lord that is a cast to avoid. I like Slater, I really do, but here he is hampered by just about the worst script I have ever experienced. One that not only is incapable of building tension, creating emotion or shocks but also lumbers the lead character with a VOICEOVER narration and gumshoe style exposition.
The script reminds me of really bad fan fiction that someone has dredged up and chucked, faeces like at a camera. It really stinks.
This film is also notable for having just about the most irrelevant scenes ever. One is a sex scene, place in the film for no reason at all other than cynical manipulation of the under 13s. It comes from nowhere, lasts 30 seconds and is then gone. Insert joke here.
This film does lead me to believe that some of the scripting is deliberately awful.. no studio exec would allow a film to be made with as lame a line as "Easy... she's the head curator of the occult exhibit" to explain who a character is. Or two seconds later "At least it helps you forget about your boyfriend, huh?"
This movie even contains as schoolboy an error as editing a scene for slightly too long so a recently offed character (who we didn;t care about by the way) actually starts to get up! I thought maybe they've gone with a zombie thing, but NO! She's shown again as dead in the next shot. Just pitiful.
What the hell.. haven;t we petitioned the end of this guy's career yet? If you haven't signed it yet.. please please please sign the petition at THIS ADDRESS.
You'll be doing us all a big favour in the long run. This guy makes McG look like David Lean. Brett Ratner looks like Kubrick next to this idiot.
You'll see on my "last five films" list (unless I've seen more than four since now) I gave this outrageous piece of crap 0/10. Its really impossible to express how truly appalling this sorry excuse for filmmaking.
That being said it's perfect for watching with a drink and some mates and adding your commentary to. Just make sure you DON'T pay any money for it. That'll just encourage him to make more.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Saturday, July 5, 2008
So... Dr Who Then...
SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!
If you highlight the text you can see it. If not, I am protecting you if you can't bear the spoilers!
To all of the folks who watched this, lets assess the major disappointments I had first:
Plots I want Stephen Moffat to write:
See the full post by clicking here...
If you highlight the text you can see it. If not, I am protecting you if you can't bear the spoilers!
To all of the folks who watched this, lets assess the major disappointments I had first:
- "Three Fold Man" to me this said a multiple Doctor episode and I was really looking forward to this aspect, being a huge fan of The Five Doctors and was all ready for Chris Ecclestone and Paul McGann to pop out of the woodwork to help things along. I was not happy with the outcome here, though Ms Tate does do a passable David Tennant impression.
- There were so many Deus Ex Machina moments I stopped counting, not even bearing in mind the show suffers from the Magic Wand effect very very often (what else is the Sonic Screwdriver), but here are some examples; K9 appearing from nowhere, people shooting over from the last series every two minutes, the half hour reset, the sudden reappearance of Mickey's gun despite him leaving it on Earth, and the appearance of the perfect character to solve Rose's love problems. In fact, so many out of the air solutions present themselves even Davros gets one, suddenly transporting everyone relevant to the Crucible... er... how?
- I thought it was impossible to overact Davros. I was wrong.
- Great... we get Cybermen at Christmas. YAWN! Are there NO other monsters?
- Will we get Sally Sparrow at last or not? Come on!
- I like being proved right, and I read many interviews with Tennant from last year when he made it very clear he would be doing the specials next year, so no suspense there then.
- Davros died AGAIN! He's getting to make a bad habit of this... he gets splatted every time. I doubt we've seen the end of him just yet.
- The plot they were hatching was cool. I mean - the wiping out of all existence! Awesome.
- The little character study of the Doctor was cool too - he doesn't use weapons, just turns people into his weapons instead. Very thought provoking.
- The care with making his clone a little human and evil ish (IE wiping out all the Daleks - something our Doctor would never do without giving them a chance to surrender) was very cool. He was half human after all and genocide is something we do well!
- I thought the Daleks speaking German in Germany was a nice touch too.
- And the Osterhagen Key? A cool thingy and something I never anticipated. Good idea.
- And good job with ensuring Tate can NEVER EVER come back. Awesome. No more shouty shouty. Whoop!
Plots I want Stephen Moffat to write:
- VAMPIRES
- ICE WARRIORS
- MORE SHADOW PROCLAMATION
See the full post by clicking here...
testing
Trying to post from my snazzy new phone. Watching from russia with love again and it really remains my favourite bond movie and is really close to the original book as well especially the objectifying of the russian girl at the centre of things. It really is a believable character flaw in our amoral hero.
Anyway i hope this posts correctly because it gives me a bit more flexibility with future posts. See you later!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Anyway i hope this posts correctly because it gives me a bit more flexibility with future posts. See you later!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Gawd Bless QI
Stephen Fry on QI tonight pointed out that in the tale of Genesis seven of each kind of "clean" animal was taken on the ark (under kosher law) and two of the "unclean".
Try pointing this out to the next Christian you meet and see what they say. Bet they didn't know it. Some may say its homosexual propaganda... so just tell them to look it up.
Oh, and I doubt this was three couples and an extra one... I would bet in the world of reproductive economies it was one male and six females to better propagate the species quickly.
I bet they won't admit it calls into question their entire belief structure, as does say, Dawkins pointing out that "virgin" in the sense of the virgin Mary should have been translated as "VirginAL".
Oh, and also that in the Bible it is Mary who is immaculately conceived rather than Jesus.
Now, seeing as how the entire belief system is based on a book that may well have been seriously mistranslated and has not been read by half the people who follow it... how does that make you feel?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Try pointing this out to the next Christian you meet and see what they say. Bet they didn't know it. Some may say its homosexual propaganda... so just tell them to look it up.
Oh, and I doubt this was three couples and an extra one... I would bet in the world of reproductive economies it was one male and six females to better propagate the species quickly.
I bet they won't admit it calls into question their entire belief structure, as does say, Dawkins pointing out that "virgin" in the sense of the virgin Mary should have been translated as "VirginAL".
Oh, and also that in the Bible it is Mary who is immaculately conceived rather than Jesus.
Now, seeing as how the entire belief system is based on a book that may well have been seriously mistranslated and has not been read by half the people who follow it... how does that make you feel?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Friday, July 4, 2008
Truthiness
Yup.. its Stephen Colberts word off the TV, truthiness.
For those of you who are uninitiated in this word - its the instances where things are treated as real because they "feel true" in your gut as opposed to just knowing they're true due to cold facts.
His use of it is as a satirical joke obviously but it is a very pertinent one to American society in particular where opinions are very affected by such gut feelings.
Take for example the studies by Stephen Levitt, the american economist and thinker, into the causes of the drop in crime of the 90s. Conventional wisdom (truthiness!) seemed to suggest that it was because of increased police expenditure or improved education.
Levitt posited a very different theory, but one based on the numbers nevertheless, and described how the drop in crime could be traced back to a certain court case; Roe vs. Wade.
How could one court case do all this for crime?
Bear with me, because this may appear a strange tangent - Roe vs. Wade was the seminal case in the fight to legalise abortion across the US, and led to legal and safe abortions being available and more importantly for the crime argument - affordable to more people.
This meant that the poorer communities could now legally and cheaply get an abortion and avoid an unwanted pregnancy. It is a statistical truism that unwanted children of poor families are far more likely to turn to crime than the desired children of more affluent ones. This meant that 12-17 years later, when all of these unwanted children would have been starting on the all too frequent road to crime, they simply weren't there.
Roe vs. Wade had reduced crime by reducing criminals.
Now.. I won;t go into the economic theory because i doubt I could put it better than Levitt and Dubner do in FREAKONOMICS, so just get the book and read the chapter.
As you might imagine, this was a very controversial conclusion to reach in an increasingly polarised social and religious climate and many people came out and found fault with methodologies and mainly with their thought processes. Levitt's response?
He improved the mathematical formulae and proved the conclusion again, and better.
The upshot of this is that economists are faced with something that is mathematically true but lacks that gut feeling of "truthiness". One economist in particular (and I may slightly misquote but this is the gist) stated that he could not fault the numbers or the methodology but found himself unable to agree with the conclusion.
How was that econmist looking at the conclusion? As an economist, or as a human being who is concerned at the overtones of Social Darwinism this evokes?
This in turn raises the point that Levitt himself makes.
I would say the same of Darwinist thinking. If you believe in evolution it does not immediately follow that you believe that survivial of the fittest is the way societies should be run. Here is the Algo quote of the day;
Peace.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
For those of you who are uninitiated in this word - its the instances where things are treated as real because they "feel true" in your gut as opposed to just knowing they're true due to cold facts.
His use of it is as a satirical joke obviously but it is a very pertinent one to American society in particular where opinions are very affected by such gut feelings.
Take for example the studies by Stephen Levitt, the american economist and thinker, into the causes of the drop in crime of the 90s. Conventional wisdom (truthiness!) seemed to suggest that it was because of increased police expenditure or improved education.
Levitt posited a very different theory, but one based on the numbers nevertheless, and described how the drop in crime could be traced back to a certain court case; Roe vs. Wade.
How could one court case do all this for crime?
Bear with me, because this may appear a strange tangent - Roe vs. Wade was the seminal case in the fight to legalise abortion across the US, and led to legal and safe abortions being available and more importantly for the crime argument - affordable to more people.
This meant that the poorer communities could now legally and cheaply get an abortion and avoid an unwanted pregnancy. It is a statistical truism that unwanted children of poor families are far more likely to turn to crime than the desired children of more affluent ones. This meant that 12-17 years later, when all of these unwanted children would have been starting on the all too frequent road to crime, they simply weren't there.
Roe vs. Wade had reduced crime by reducing criminals.
Now.. I won;t go into the economic theory because i doubt I could put it better than Levitt and Dubner do in FREAKONOMICS, so just get the book and read the chapter.
As you might imagine, this was a very controversial conclusion to reach in an increasingly polarised social and religious climate and many people came out and found fault with methodologies and mainly with their thought processes. Levitt's response?
He improved the mathematical formulae and proved the conclusion again, and better.
The upshot of this is that economists are faced with something that is mathematically true but lacks that gut feeling of "truthiness". One economist in particular (and I may slightly misquote but this is the gist) stated that he could not fault the numbers or the methodology but found himself unable to agree with the conclusion.
How was that econmist looking at the conclusion? As an economist, or as a human being who is concerned at the overtones of Social Darwinism this evokes?
This in turn raises the point that Levitt himself makes.
Economics shows things as they are, not how they should be.
I would say the same of Darwinist thinking. If you believe in evolution it does not immediately follow that you believe that survivial of the fittest is the way societies should be run. Here is the Algo quote of the day;
Sciences of all kinds only show us what the world is. Only you can decide what you want it to be.
Peace.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Thursday, July 3, 2008
loving the underdog
You been watching as the workd gets more and more polarised those under the cosh tend to get the sympathy vote.
Take Andy Murray for example. A total wash out against Nadal, we still him...
But is it a British thing with sport or is it more widespread than that?
Lets look at a couple of examples... as George Bush started o get more and more unpopular in the run up to his second election, it seemed more and more supporters suddenly popped out of the woodwork, presumably in defence against the frequently over the top attacks aimed at this man.
My personal hero, Prof. Richard Dawkins probably results in a sigh at the very mention of his name (I bet you did!) and he is frequently described to me by people I have conversations with (on extras work or elsewhere) as "that man who's always going on about religion" which is a shame since for twenty years he has been the best (imho) writer on evolution I ever read.
I first read his books in my first year of university - his SELFISH GENE is rightly considered a classic in wirting and content. The problem is, biological theory books can never create the interest that a single controversial book on religion did.
His writings sparked a whole pile of criticism and hopefully a bunch of new supporters too. His programmes on TV did much the same job, though they were given the headline baiting title THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by the TV company.
But wth all new critism comes a backlash and poor old Dawkins got pigeonholed into the "shit stirrer" category. Problem is, when people are allowed to shove him into that hole, the actual arguments get lost.
His main points are too many to list, I can merely recommend his book.รณ
In this particular fight he is a major underdog, why not help him out?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Take Andy Murray for example. A total wash out against Nadal, we still him...
But is it a British thing with sport or is it more widespread than that?
Lets look at a couple of examples... as George Bush started o get more and more unpopular in the run up to his second election, it seemed more and more supporters suddenly popped out of the woodwork, presumably in defence against the frequently over the top attacks aimed at this man.
My personal hero, Prof. Richard Dawkins probably results in a sigh at the very mention of his name (I bet you did!) and he is frequently described to me by people I have conversations with (on extras work or elsewhere) as "that man who's always going on about religion" which is a shame since for twenty years he has been the best (imho) writer on evolution I ever read.
I first read his books in my first year of university - his SELFISH GENE is rightly considered a classic in wirting and content. The problem is, biological theory books can never create the interest that a single controversial book on religion did.
His writings sparked a whole pile of criticism and hopefully a bunch of new supporters too. His programmes on TV did much the same job, though they were given the headline baiting title THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? by the TV company.
But wth all new critism comes a backlash and poor old Dawkins got pigeonholed into the "shit stirrer" category. Problem is, when people are allowed to shove him into that hole, the actual arguments get lost.
His main points are too many to list, I can merely recommend his book.รณ
In this particular fight he is a major underdog, why not help him out?
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A short post thanks to Walkers Crisps for an excruciating days extra-ing.
Meh... So Andy Murray gets his ass handed to him on centre court.
So what's new.
Console yourself with the fantastic Tardis Tennis from the BBC
This was a classic case of hope beyond hope that maybe things will be different this time, but jeez... just look at Nadal... the man's clearly a superhero on his days off.
Ah well... at least with Tardis Tennis you're guaranteed a British winner.
Enjoy!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
So what's new.
Console yourself with the fantastic Tardis Tennis from the BBC
This was a classic case of hope beyond hope that maybe things will be different this time, but jeez... just look at Nadal... the man's clearly a superhero on his days off.
Ah well... at least with Tardis Tennis you're guaranteed a British winner.
Enjoy!
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
So TV evangelists are corrupt... DUH!
This little tale
Wow.. the US supreme court are clearly brainy folk to work this out.
They're investigating misappropriation of funds away from "salvation" and towards "private jets"
Woah... headfreeze!
This is a little ray of sunshine in todays increasing fundamental religious societies - the increasing fundamentalism (you can't have it without mentalism) is a defence mechanism to the increasing pressure on groups with better and better science.
If you're into Memetics you'll know this already, but in short the ideas and beliefs which survive are the ones with the best self defence and propagation mechanisms (believe or go to hell and you must spread the word, for example)
A good development was the government of the UK's recent moves against mediums, psychics etc who face restrictions on advertising and their legal protection unless they can prove the effectiveness of their techniques.
That being said read the following quote from the BBC's website regarding this and spot the funny bit!
The funny bit?
That those who truly can communicate with the dead are allowed the protection after all.
I'd love to know the governments test.
Maybe they give a confidential message to someone to remember, then kill them. That'd be the easiest way.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Wow.. the US supreme court are clearly brainy folk to work this out.
They're investigating misappropriation of funds away from "salvation" and towards "private jets"
Woah... headfreeze!
This is a little ray of sunshine in todays increasing fundamental religious societies - the increasing fundamentalism (you can't have it without mentalism) is a defence mechanism to the increasing pressure on groups with better and better science.
If you're into Memetics you'll know this already, but in short the ideas and beliefs which survive are the ones with the best self defence and propagation mechanisms (believe or go to hell and you must spread the word, for example)
A good development was the government of the UK's recent moves against mediums, psychics etc who face restrictions on advertising and their legal protection unless they can prove the effectiveness of their techniques.
That being said read the following quote from the BBC's website regarding this and spot the funny bit!
Fraudulent Mediums
People who falsely claim to communicate with the dead will no longer receive the same protection from the law that they previously possessed.
That those who truly can communicate with the dead are allowed the protection after all.
I'd love to know the governments test.
Maybe they give a confidential message to someone to remember, then kill them. That'd be the easiest way.
A
See the full post by clicking here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
