Well, this will be the last blog post from me until Next Wednesday.
This weekend it's by Dad's Birthday. He's 65 and I'm going down to visit him.
Me and my sister actually both chipped in to buy him a digital camera earlier this year. That actually covers both his Birthday and Christmas, but it means I won't be giving him anything as such, but I though a visit would be a good idea.
I'm not actually going for all the time I'm on holiday, and I should be back on Monday. That then gives me two days to do... well, I'm not entirely sure what I'll do to be honest.
I'm hopping to get a lot of 'stuff' done. For example, when brought the cable for the broadband in they drilled a big whole and there's loads of debris left that I've still not got around to hoovering up (not least of all because it means unplugging all my PC gubbins.
It's also about time I put my aircon back into it's storage location, which is always a giant pain in the arse.
I should also do a load of archiving - fansubs need burning to DVD to make room for the upcoming season, for example.
So yeah, not exactly exciting, but very necessary.
I didn't manage to watch all of NHK, due mainly to some circumstances beyond my control, but I am about a third of the way through it.
I'd say that so far it's a lot better than the manga version, but not to the extent that it's brilliant. I'll talk more about it later, I guess.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
quantum of solace
erm, whut?
The first outing for Daniel Craig's bond was something of a breath of fresh air.
Gone were the likes of Bond coolly dispatching the baddies without breaking a sweat and then delivering a witty one-liner. In came Bond getting nearly as beat up as the bad guy and not saying anything.
The Bond-girls remained, but they were sassy and feisty and Bond even fell in love with one of them. The flash car's also remained, but the weird gadgets were either gone altogether or massively toned down. Indeed, in an age where a phone can provide you with anything from e-mail to a GPS mapping tool, who really needs gadgets?
No, this was gritty, realistic (some may argue Jason Bourne inspired) Bond.
The second out for Craig as Bond is also something completely new - a direct sequel. This one follows on from the first film by perhaps as little as ten minutes.
It also keeps going with the other stuff - beat-up Bond, more realistic, no daft gadgets, feisty Bond girls.
Only that's where it kinda starts to crack. There are two Bond girls. The first is not really a new-mould Bond girl in that she doesn't really kick arse - she's a bit more ditsy and dainty. Bond also beds her in no seconds flat. But he doesn't care for her - she's bumped off and he hardly bats an eyelid.
So back to old-skool Bond then? Well, no. I mean, she doesn't have a double-entendre for a name for example. She also serves very little purpose - he doesn't bed her to get info like he used to bed Bond girls.
The second Bond girl is much more feisty. But she's also kinda incidental again. Plus he doesn't bed her and again, no silly name.
It's a very good example of what's wrong with the film - it's like they've tried to slip in a little flavour of old-skool Bond, but not got it right.
What makes this worse is that they've tried to also keep some of the new stuff that just doesn't mesh well with the old stuff. So, for example, you get new-style realistic fist-fights, but then there's a bit with a plane dog-fight that's right out of old Bond and is very unrealistic.
What compounds all of this is the film is very confusing. I'm still not 100% sure quite what was going on.
The only real plot seems to be that Bond is seeking revenge. The trouble is that he could have had revenge very quickly, but instead waits for no apparent reason. I guess it was because he was trying to uncover... I dunno, something about this big conspiratorial network of bad guys thing.
But they're so ephemeral and without substance it's impossible to get your teeth into. Even at the end you realise that the bad guy who Bond's been after clearly isn't the head of the organisation. So does that mean we're going to get another sequel?
In a way it just felt like an excuse to hang a bunch of cool action sequences off of.
That could have worked, but what made it less satisfying was how it was shot - the camera was all over the place and it tended to get really confusing really quickly.
I dunno - it was like they were tying to have their cake and eat it. Only the cake was half chocolate and half baked Alaska, so it gave a funny sort of texture in the mouth.
The first outing for Daniel Craig's bond was something of a breath of fresh air.
Gone were the likes of Bond coolly dispatching the baddies without breaking a sweat and then delivering a witty one-liner. In came Bond getting nearly as beat up as the bad guy and not saying anything.
The Bond-girls remained, but they were sassy and feisty and Bond even fell in love with one of them. The flash car's also remained, but the weird gadgets were either gone altogether or massively toned down. Indeed, in an age where a phone can provide you with anything from e-mail to a GPS mapping tool, who really needs gadgets?
No, this was gritty, realistic (some may argue Jason Bourne inspired) Bond.
The second out for Craig as Bond is also something completely new - a direct sequel. This one follows on from the first film by perhaps as little as ten minutes.
It also keeps going with the other stuff - beat-up Bond, more realistic, no daft gadgets, feisty Bond girls.
Only that's where it kinda starts to crack. There are two Bond girls. The first is not really a new-mould Bond girl in that she doesn't really kick arse - she's a bit more ditsy and dainty. Bond also beds her in no seconds flat. But he doesn't care for her - she's bumped off and he hardly bats an eyelid.
So back to old-skool Bond then? Well, no. I mean, she doesn't have a double-entendre for a name for example. She also serves very little purpose - he doesn't bed her to get info like he used to bed Bond girls.
The second Bond girl is much more feisty. But she's also kinda incidental again. Plus he doesn't bed her and again, no silly name.
It's a very good example of what's wrong with the film - it's like they've tried to slip in a little flavour of old-skool Bond, but not got it right.
What makes this worse is that they've tried to also keep some of the new stuff that just doesn't mesh well with the old stuff. So, for example, you get new-style realistic fist-fights, but then there's a bit with a plane dog-fight that's right out of old Bond and is very unrealistic.
What compounds all of this is the film is very confusing. I'm still not 100% sure quite what was going on.
The only real plot seems to be that Bond is seeking revenge. The trouble is that he could have had revenge very quickly, but instead waits for no apparent reason. I guess it was because he was trying to uncover... I dunno, something about this big conspiratorial network of bad guys thing.
But they're so ephemeral and without substance it's impossible to get your teeth into. Even at the end you realise that the bad guy who Bond's been after clearly isn't the head of the organisation. So does that mean we're going to get another sequel?
In a way it just felt like an excuse to hang a bunch of cool action sequences off of.
That could have worked, but what made it less satisfying was how it was shot - the camera was all over the place and it tended to get really confusing really quickly.
I dunno - it was like they were tying to have their cake and eat it. Only the cake was half chocolate and half baked Alaska, so it gave a funny sort of texture in the mouth.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
die hard 4.0
I have to say I wasn't expecting much from Die Hard 4.0.
The first Die Hard movie is an absolute classic. Indeed, it's certainly one of the best action films ever.
A big part of what makes it so good is that Willis takes a real pounding. Sure he wins, but he only just wins. He always has to react to situations and improvise solutions, rarely going in with a proper plan.
It also featured a great bad guy and a great supporting cast - most notably in the form of the beat cop on the other end of a walkie-talkie.
The second film was not so good. They ramped up the action, but they also failed to deliver a truly worthwhile villain. And they made a really big mistake, crashing a plane full of innocent victims with Willis unable to stop them.
The third film was a lot better. The villain was good and his plan was pretty clever. There was a also great sidekick again (weirdly, in the form of Samuel L Jackson, but it works). They also ramped the action up again - unfortunately to the extent that some of the stuff was a little odd. I seem to recall something like a huge slide down a metal wire that would have shredded Willis's hands, for example.
But the point is that somehow it still worked - the plot and characters were strong enough.
The same is pretty much true of the fourth one.
There are some things that don't quite hang true action-wise, but still, overall, it hangs together.
The worst offender on the action sequence front is when Bruce is attacked by an F35 Jet Fighter. He's driving a big rig truck and the really implausible bit is that the arsenal carried by the F35 would just obliterate the truck with no survivors. I mean, this is gear designed to take out hardened military targets - a big rig is like a small paper cup by comparison.
Still, if you suspend your disbelief a bit then it's still a fun sequence. I think actually what helps here is how it's been shot - there's a bit of tendency to go hand-held style nowadays and while it helps in certain things, in big action films it often feels more like a hindrance than a help to me.
If shit's blowing up I want to see it blowing up properly, not be confused and distracted by the camera jerking all over the place.
Anyway, the key things that work in Die Hard 4.0 are the characters. With the possible exception of the main bad guy, all the characters are enjoyable. A particular nod of appreciation has to go to Kevin Smith, who seems to be developing into something of a fine actor by all accounts. Certainly he pumped out what was a horrible quantity of expositional dialogue in a way that was both believable and convincing - no easy task.
The side-kick role of a hacker nerd is also well realised, even if they do tend to fall into some of the old nerds on film traps I've often bemoaned. McClane's feisty arse-kicking daughter was also a very nice touch.
The weak-point was the main bad guy. Which isn't to say it was badly acted or anything, it just seemed a bit arch to me. For one thing there was an implication of some sort of moral ambiguity to the character, but this wasn't backed up by how he was written/depicted.
I'm trying to avoid spoilers, so let's just say in the background to the film there's a suggestion he may be doing what he's doing to 'prove a point'. But then his actions, how he behaves, how he deals with his own minions - all that comes across more like he's a typical boo-hiss style bad guy.
Also, when the twist comes it's not actually all that big a twist. Indeed, it's exactly the same twist that they always have, in that it's really all about the money. The problem there is that part of what the bad guy is doing is totally trashing the US economy, so what he steals would surely become worthless wouldn't it?
The first Die Hard movie is an absolute classic. Indeed, it's certainly one of the best action films ever.
A big part of what makes it so good is that Willis takes a real pounding. Sure he wins, but he only just wins. He always has to react to situations and improvise solutions, rarely going in with a proper plan.
It also featured a great bad guy and a great supporting cast - most notably in the form of the beat cop on the other end of a walkie-talkie.
The second film was not so good. They ramped up the action, but they also failed to deliver a truly worthwhile villain. And they made a really big mistake, crashing a plane full of innocent victims with Willis unable to stop them.
The third film was a lot better. The villain was good and his plan was pretty clever. There was a also great sidekick again (weirdly, in the form of Samuel L Jackson, but it works). They also ramped the action up again - unfortunately to the extent that some of the stuff was a little odd. I seem to recall something like a huge slide down a metal wire that would have shredded Willis's hands, for example.
But the point is that somehow it still worked - the plot and characters were strong enough.
The same is pretty much true of the fourth one.
There are some things that don't quite hang true action-wise, but still, overall, it hangs together.
The worst offender on the action sequence front is when Bruce is attacked by an F35 Jet Fighter. He's driving a big rig truck and the really implausible bit is that the arsenal carried by the F35 would just obliterate the truck with no survivors. I mean, this is gear designed to take out hardened military targets - a big rig is like a small paper cup by comparison.
Still, if you suspend your disbelief a bit then it's still a fun sequence. I think actually what helps here is how it's been shot - there's a bit of tendency to go hand-held style nowadays and while it helps in certain things, in big action films it often feels more like a hindrance than a help to me.
If shit's blowing up I want to see it blowing up properly, not be confused and distracted by the camera jerking all over the place.
Anyway, the key things that work in Die Hard 4.0 are the characters. With the possible exception of the main bad guy, all the characters are enjoyable. A particular nod of appreciation has to go to Kevin Smith, who seems to be developing into something of a fine actor by all accounts. Certainly he pumped out what was a horrible quantity of expositional dialogue in a way that was both believable and convincing - no easy task.
The side-kick role of a hacker nerd is also well realised, even if they do tend to fall into some of the old nerds on film traps I've often bemoaned. McClane's feisty arse-kicking daughter was also a very nice touch.
The weak-point was the main bad guy. Which isn't to say it was badly acted or anything, it just seemed a bit arch to me. For one thing there was an implication of some sort of moral ambiguity to the character, but this wasn't backed up by how he was written/depicted.
I'm trying to avoid spoilers, so let's just say in the background to the film there's a suggestion he may be doing what he's doing to 'prove a point'. But then his actions, how he behaves, how he deals with his own minions - all that comes across more like he's a typical boo-hiss style bad guy.
Also, when the twist comes it's not actually all that big a twist. Indeed, it's exactly the same twist that they always have, in that it's really all about the money. The problem there is that part of what the bad guy is doing is totally trashing the US economy, so what he steals would surely become worthless wouldn't it?
Monday, 28 September 2009
goals are good
It's my goal this week to watch Welcome to the NHK through to completion.
For some reason I started it several weeks ago with the full intention of watching it, but then never actually sat down and watched anything past the first episode. Well, I re-watched ep 1 last night and hopefully I'll get a chance to keep going.
Certainly I hit my goal of watching everything telly-wise from last week over the weekend, and this week my scheduled viewing hours drop off quite dramatically since loads of stuff has now ended. I was tempted to fill this blog with some thoughts on what I've been watching, but decided against it in the end.
What I would say is it's weird how things have worked out in this weeks schedule. Basically there are about 12 things my PVR is set to record (I set everything to be recorded, even if I end up watching it live) across the whole week. But on Tuesday and Wednesday there's absolutely nothing and most other days it's one or two things.
The real culprit seems to be Monday - there's loads of stuff on Mondays for some reason, which, given what I was saying the other week about how Monday's are a bit of mare for me time-wise, is actually a bit inconvenient.
One thing that does look interesting is this new show Flash Forward that starts on 5 tonight. I've not heard much about it other than that it's by the same (or some of them?) people who did Lost. Since I'm a big fan of Lost I'm intrigued to check it out.
And mentioning Lost, it seems bloody ages since I last got to watch any - the box-set of the latest 7th season seems to be taking ages to come out. I mean surely the 8th season is about to start in the US?
Yup, new season time rapidly approaches. I'm not doing too badly with my big anime catch-up. It's not been accompanied by quite the same scanning catch-up I was hoping for
Ah well, hopefully I'll get some time this next weekend, as I've got a bit of a holiday, but for now I'm gonna focus on watching NHK. I was distinctly unimpressed with the manga, but even from the first episode it seems quite different to the manga, so maybe I'll like it more.
For some reason I started it several weeks ago with the full intention of watching it, but then never actually sat down and watched anything past the first episode. Well, I re-watched ep 1 last night and hopefully I'll get a chance to keep going.
Certainly I hit my goal of watching everything telly-wise from last week over the weekend, and this week my scheduled viewing hours drop off quite dramatically since loads of stuff has now ended. I was tempted to fill this blog with some thoughts on what I've been watching, but decided against it in the end.
What I would say is it's weird how things have worked out in this weeks schedule. Basically there are about 12 things my PVR is set to record (I set everything to be recorded, even if I end up watching it live) across the whole week. But on Tuesday and Wednesday there's absolutely nothing and most other days it's one or two things.
The real culprit seems to be Monday - there's loads of stuff on Mondays for some reason, which, given what I was saying the other week about how Monday's are a bit of mare for me time-wise, is actually a bit inconvenient.
One thing that does look interesting is this new show Flash Forward that starts on 5 tonight. I've not heard much about it other than that it's by the same (or some of them?) people who did Lost. Since I'm a big fan of Lost I'm intrigued to check it out.
And mentioning Lost, it seems bloody ages since I last got to watch any - the box-set of the latest 7th season seems to be taking ages to come out. I mean surely the 8th season is about to start in the US?
Yup, new season time rapidly approaches. I'm not doing too badly with my big anime catch-up. It's not been accompanied by quite the same scanning catch-up I was hoping for
Ah well, hopefully I'll get some time this next weekend, as I've got a bit of a holiday, but for now I'm gonna focus on watching NHK. I was distinctly unimpressed with the manga, but even from the first episode it seems quite different to the manga, so maybe I'll like it more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)