sinnick

Mozart Piano Concertos: Vol 4 (link)

I bought this on iTunes recently. I have volumes 2 and 3, but for some reason I never bought 4. I'm not sure why. Maybe I didn't have the money at the time. I don't recommend volume 1, as Mozart's early piano concertos aren't too interesting - they are all just variations on other composer's works. He had composed the first four concertos by the time he was ten, so perhaps it's not too surprising that they're nothing special. You can get all four volumes as a box set on Amazon for ~$100 which might be cheaper in the long run, though.

Anyway, this is Alfred Brendel and Neville Marriner playing the 22nd through to the 27th, and though it may seem expensive, it is an amazing recording. I admit I don't have huge experience listening to different pianists - I tend to just find a recording that I like and I don't really bother with listening to other versions - but I've listened to other pianists on YouTube, and Alfred Brendel is always better. He is just so damn good that I seem to always enjoy him. I've read many articles which say that he is still the greatest pianist alive. And I guess because it is The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, the quality of the sound is top notch.

Body of Lies

This was the Leonardo Di Caprio and Russell Crowe anti-terrorism vehicle. And I have to say, this is the film that made me think "I am done with Ridley Scott". The man can craft a beautiful mis-en-scene, but when it comes to narrative he sucks. The last film of his I can truly say I enjoyed was Matchstick Men, and before that it was White Squall. And then Blade Runner. Those films were made a looooong time ago. Perhaps it's just the writers he works with, but I don't think so. This could have been a good film, but he bungled the pacing and suspense.

The film is nothing like what the trailers depict. I was expecting some sort of thriller involving two CIA agents going up against each other. It isn't that. Leo plays some sort of undefined counter-terrorism agent stationed in the middle east, and Russell Crowe is his boss back in the states. Leo is trying to catch an Osama Bin Laden type character, and Crowe basically just barks instructions at him on a cellphone.

My big problem with the movie is that the plot has no momentum to it. It seems like a series of disconnected events, with no well-defined goal. Characters are acted and portrayed as though they have hidden motivations, when they never do. The casting makes it difficult to tell many minor characters apart - which wouldn't be important except that Leo's character bases his decisions on what those minor characters do.

Russell Crowe plays a truly obnoxious american - he obviously sank his teeth into overplaying the character as a stereotypical rah-rah warhawk. I think the role was miscast. It should have been a character actor, not a movie star. Putting Crowe in the role directs too much attention to it, and derails your attention from Leo, who plays the protagonist. Leo, on the other hand, is good as usual, but not given much to do. He was better in The Departed, which admittedly was a much juicier role. But I think the problem is that Ridley Scott is just not very good with actors.

I've been reading a book titled "Downbelow Station" by C.J. Cherryh. It's ... not good. Which is surprising, because it won a Hugo award and was named by Locus Magazine as one of the top 50 science fiction novels of all time. It was that pedigree that made me take a chance on a new author (I did read up on her too, and she is well-respected in SF circles).

But I'm almost 150 pages in, and I feel like I'm missing something because from what I can tell, the book is about a dozen characters doing paperwork in space.

I mean, who doesn't find that thrilling?

Okay, okay. There are intriguing elements - the space station is in a war zone and has been forced to act as a refugee camp for a lot of displaced satellite colonies - but so far not a single character has held my attention. No one has a well defined goal, no one is all that likeable, and there are just too damn many of them! Practically every chapter has been about someone new: yet another space station administrator, trying to figure out how to manage construction of a new lumber mill on the planet below. Come on!

It's not like I need action and adventure on every page, but honestly. It's like reading about Darth Vader's accountant.

So I'm going to quit the book, but I feel guilty. It goes against my completionist tendencies. What if the last three quarters of the book get good?

But life is too short.

I've been reading Lois McMaster Bujold's "Sharing Knife" series, and here's what I have to say about it.

I bought the first two books based on my enjoyment of her other work. I read the first one while I was in Mexico. And if I hadn't been in Mexico, I probably would not have read the rest. The first book is bad. Not horrible, I suppose, but if it had been the first book of hers I had ever read I probably wouldn't have read anything else she's written. It's a romance/fantasy where almost nothing happens. The biggest piece of conflict happens in the first 30 pages, and from that point on it's just people talking, with no real drama or anything. Even the things the characters think will be obstacles turn out not to be. I didn't find much of a spark between the characters - they became comfortable with each other far too quickly for the romance itself to lead to much drama. It was surprisingly boring. Plus, the fact that the romance was between a 53-year-old man and an 18-year-old girl felt not a little creepy.

However, I was in Mexico, and I already had the second book with me, and nothing else to read, so I read it. And it was better than the first book. The romance was toned down in favour of some action and some conflict involving the properties of magic.

So I picked up the third book. And it is also good. I'm half way through so far, but it's similar to the second book, although somewhat transitional (there is a fourth and final book coming, I hear).

I think the first book in this series is misleading. It sets the tone of the series as a romance - and the press for the novel certainly carried it that way - but that's not really what the series is about at all. The first book was necessarily a romance, but I think Bujold envisioned this series as a way to explore how two different societies who are at conflict come to an understanding with each other. Ultimately, it will be the reconciliation of the two societies which will wind up being the key to saving the world from the threatening enemy (which here seems to be a manifestation of the same magic which powers the good people).

For an author whose fantasy work turns away from world-building in the extreme, it's only natural that this "saving the world" element would be through character development. I'm sure that if the protagonists figure out the secret to things, they will just kind of leave it up to others to spread the word. Her protagonists are, naturally, one from each society who form the romantic pair. It's sort of like what if Romeo and Juliet were left alive at the end, and said "okay, what do we do about our fighting families?" The interesting stuff happens after they get together. Maybe more like the story of Pocahontas. But without the smallpox.

So my advice is that if you would like to read this series, at least push to the second book after you've finished the first. It's more of a slow burn than either her Vorkosigan series or her Chalion "series" (which isn't really a series) but it's interesting enough.

You know what's an enjoyable little comedy? Orange County. It might seem like it's a standard teenaged movie with the usual slew of lame dick and fart jokes but it's not. It's formulaic in a good way, and there is at least one terrific scene in this movie and depending on your taste maybe more. The comedy is kind of British in the way it piles escalating embarassment and bad luck onto its main character, but there is something about seeing Jack Black in nothing but tighty-whities that just pierces through all logic straight to your funny bone. Jack Black is best when in a supporting role, I find, as he is here. And it's got some great bit roles...even Chevy Chase. Check it out.

Spoilers!

We saw the new Bond movie on the weekend. A bunch of my co-workers did too. Here's what I overheard one of them saying about the Bond Girl:

"I like how Bond Girls in the new movies aren't just there to be taken care of. I mean in this one, she holds her own."

She does, although I would say that she does it with a face that has been smudged oh-so-prettily with dirt, and though she parachutes out of an exploding plane, she does it while wearing a black cocktail dress:



Hey, I'm just making a point here. Do I look like I'm complaining?

The movie itself is pretty good, although despite having the exact same writing team it's not as good as Casino Royale. It's good in the sense that it doesn't exist outside the chronology; it actively references Casino Royale, which is great because it means that it develops Bond's character. Contrast this with any of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies...which can honestly be watched in any order and it doesn't matter because Bond never grows or changes.

Unfortunately, I don't think Daniel Craig or Marc Forster really understood the character development the writers were going for, because the emotion Bond registers doesn't often match his dialogue. I still appreciated it, but Craig plays it a little too taciturn, if that's possible.

The action sequences are numerous, and range from awesome to fair. There's probably one too many chases (car and boat), but the sequence where Bond is fighting a dude hand-to-hand in an Italian construction site is amazing.

The girl is beautiful. See above. And she can act. There's another girl as well named "Strawberry Fields" who is, you guessed it, a redhead. She can't act.

There is a nice 21st-century homage to Goldfinger as well. You'll know it when you see it.

In all, I would say that though there is some decent intrigue and spycraft (which is interestingly used more by the fine folks at MI-6 than by Bond himself), it felt more like the standard Bond-as-action-movie that we received in the nineties. I mean it didn't have a ridiculous sequence like Bond driving his invisible car across a glacier while trying to escape from cars with hull-mounted-machineguns, jetskis and a giant laser from space ... but I would have appreciated more of the Poker-Game-intrigue of the previous film all the same.

I'm finally playing Assassin's Creed. I just completed my first assassination, and I think I've seen almost all of the gameplay elements they've got, so I'm going to try to give you my opinion now. That opinion may change as I play on, if the unexpected happens and the game surprises me.

My biggest feeling while playing this game is that it could be so much better than it is. Right now, I'm enjoying it purely for how it is stimulating my imagination with unfulfilled potential, and I'm hoping that doesn't turn into frustration.

The best moment in the game so far came about an hour into it. I had been tooling around some little assassin's fortress and riding around the country side trying to avoid guards and getting used to the controls. Then, while following the valley path, I suddenly burst free of the canyon walls, crested the rise of a hill and before me lay the city of Damascus, in all its Islamic glory. Spires of the mosques could be seen in the distance. As I ventured down the hill and into the streets, which are choked with peasants, guards, monks and ruffians (all of whom you can interact with), it quickly became clear that this city was freaking awesome. It's like what you'd get if you crossed Prince of Persia with Grand Theft Auto, because the entire city is a sandbox you can interact with, with realistic crowds, but in addition to walking the streets, you can climb anything, dart along rooftops, or cling to the spires and view the city from above, like an ancient turkish Spider-man.

Awesome.

The bad part is that the game doesn't really give you a reason to explore the sandbox. Unlike grand-theft auto, where you can do anything anytime, in Assassin's Creed you can only do certain things at certain times. For example, you can only pick someone's pocket when it's part of a scripted mission. Same with eavesdropping. What's worse - the game has a permanently-on tutorial which walks you through doing those things every time you need to. In other words, your mini-map shows you the location of a person you need to pick-pocked, you walk there, your HUD tells you to lock onto them and press B. Where's the fun of exploration there?

This always-on tutorial leads me to the worst part of the game - a design choice of staggeringly bad judgement. For some reason, Ubisoft decided to wrap the ancient syria setting in a meta-game which frames the entire story as a flashback. The core game is intercut with scenes in the present day, where you play a man who is being experimented on by scientists with a new technology called "The Animus". The Animus allows one to view the "memories" of their ancient ancestors, ie: the Damascus parts. What it really does is allow Ubisoft to explain away typical gameplay flaws (long load times, invisible barriers, even the options menu) as being "Animus" gameplay rather than "Assassin's Creed" gameplay.

Bad. Really bad. This game design does two things. Firstly, it throws you out of the carefully crafted setting with a frequent computerized voice interrupting you to say things like "Memory has reinitialized". But even worse, they actually interrupt gameplay, jump you out of the setting into the laboratory and force you to control the present-day character as he gets up from the lab table, listens to some inane banter from the scientists, walks over to a bed in another room to "rest", then walks back to the lab table to continue playing as the assassin.

Why. Why?!

I am sure that Ubisoft thought it was really cool idea (even the game manual is written "in-character", as though the scientists are giving you instructions on how to use the Animus). But to me it is totally pointless and highlights an extreme lack of confidence in their core game setting. I would be much happier if I were just an Assassin, all the time. Instead of this lame overstory, they could have spent their precious time and resources on flushing out the interactions in Damascus. But no.

Still, the core gameplay is so awesome that I will stick with the game. Running across rooftops is enough fun in and of itself to justify my playing. At least for now.

I've been meaning to post a review of this movie for weeks now, but I just haven't been able to find the time.

Fortunately in the meantime, I ran across a review of the film which perfectly sums up my thoughts. And this time it's not Roger Ebert or David Edelstein. It's a critic who I rarely agree with, Nick Schager at Slant Magazine, who writes the following:

( Read more... )

That sums it up pretty succinctly, doesn't it? It would be fine if the film were billing itself as a comedy, rather than a documentary. But as he says ... disinenuous. And the lack of any real theologians should show you the film's true colours. It wants to ridicule, not reveal.

Was it funny? Sure. But my problem is that I've seen it all before, and far too frequently. Visit any atheist internet forum for a while, and you'll see it too. But zinging idiots who don't think very hard about their religion doesn't really get you anywhere. It doesn't further the discussion, and it doesn't broaden your mind. It doesn't help. Not me, at least.

I give it a 4/10, for the laughs.

A bunch of movies I've watched recently, both at the theater, and on TV.

Tropic Thunder: 4/10
Robert Downey is good, but if you've seen Alec Baldwin doing the same thing on 30 Rock (the episode guest starring Carrie Fisher), you'll know how small an acheivement it is to act like a black stereotype. The 4 is because there are less than 4 laughs in the movie.

Burn After Reading: 7/10
Sort of a comedy of errors, but not really the Coen's best work. Brad Pitt is a ham, and never really in character. Others are good though, especially John Malkovich. Best line: "I have a drinking problem?. Bob, you're a fucking mormon! We all have drinking problems compared to you!"

Bulworth: 5/10
The first time Warren Beaty "tells is like it is", it's funny. The next twenty times, it's not. When he starts to rap, it's embarassing. It's supposed to be embarassing within the film, but watching it, it's also embarassing on a meta level, Know what I mean?

Wait Until Dark: 7/10
This was probably a fine thriller in it's day, but it's very dated now. Audrey Hepburn is a little too hysterical, and the "scares" aren't really all that scary. But it's clever. I'd like to see an updated version of this. Alan Arkin is great in a rare villain role.

The Producers: 6/10
This was the 1968 version. The Funniest Movie of All time? I don't think so. Again, this has become hopelessly dated. "Springtime For Hitler" no longer has the kind of shock effect that it did back then. You can understand why someone would want to make a musical based on this movie, because every performance is pitched to the back of the room. I appreciated the manic energy (and seeing them succeed with it makes you realize how badly Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick fail), but unfortunately, it's just not that funny anymore.

Maverick: 8/10
This was a re-watch for me, but I love this movie. Apparently it is one of Mel Gibson's biggest flops? I think it's great. It's funny, it's breezy, it's got great cameos and plot twists. When it premiered, Graham Greene was fresh off his academy award nomination for Dances with Wolves, and actually got second-level billing, before Alfred Molina. He has one of the best scenes in the film. And if you think Jodie Foster is a strange choice to play a dainty southern belle, give her a chance; in some ways, this is one of the best performances of her career (for being able to make you forget that it's her).

Mean Girls: 7/10
Nicola hadn't seen this. Believe it or not, it's actually good. What else can I say? Lizzy Caplan has gone on to become a star because of this movie, and it's just...well...funny. My favourite character is "Kevin G", who hands out his business card: "Mathematics Enthusiast / Bad-ass M.C." Tim Meadows is terrific in it also.

Re-watching The Silence of the Lambs, it becomes obvious just how much better it is than any of the other Hannibal Lecter films. Red Dragon is probably the second-best, just by virtue of having the same writer. But "Silence" is in a class of it's own. It's another movie which I would classify as "perfect", along with a small set of others. It does everything it sets out to do. There is not a single wasted scene. The writing, the casting, the staging, the performances are ALL focused in support of the same theme. Perfect.

I could write a whole essay deconstructing this film. I might, one day.

For now, I'll say this. No crime-thriller in history has ever done a better job of portraying a female protagonist, and that's because the film understands what it means to be a woman in a man's world. Next time you watch it, pay attention to the subtext of how Jodie Foster's character is constantly situated as the victim in many scenes, and is forced to be exhaustingly brave and strong in these situations. Even in scenes where her character is, theoretically, "safe" - you are never allowed to feel completely relaxed.

In almost every scene of the film, Foster is surrounded by men who either objectify her, resent her, or threaten her. For example, look at the parallels between the first scene where she visits Dr. Lecter and has to walk down the gauntlet of serial killers before reaching his final cell, and the scene where she is left alone in a little room with a bunch of small-town cops. In both scenes, she feels physically intimidated. Her struggle is to remain psychologically strong in these situations. In fact, I submit to you that one of the reasons why her relationship with Dr. Lecter is so interesting is because he never threatens her physically. Only psychologically. (there are many other ways in which their relationship is interetesting that I won't go into).

Buffalo Bill's character plays into this theme as well. He murders women, yet wishes to become one. There is something so wrong about that - that elevates him above a normal movie murderer, makes him much more dangerous to women in particular. His large, physical presence and deep voice just add to the sense of wrong. In the final scene, where Jodie Foster (a petite woman) is alone in the dark, apparently audiences were so scared for her character that they were shouting out to her on screen. This would not have happened if we did not already have the pent-up tension that had been building for her character throughout the film.

As part of an effort to check out some of David Cronenberg's earlier work, I watched "Dead Ringers" last night.

( Read more... )

Definitely worth seeing.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but you really need to check out this week's Zero Punctuation review.

Hilarious. It rings so true.

And here I thought I was weird because I didn't like playing Super Smash Brothers when it came out for the GameCube.

We watched Apocalypto the other day.

( Spoilers )

Nicola and I saw Juno last night. She loved it; I merely enjoyed it. One sentence review: it's good-hearted, quirky, light entertainment, with characters who grow on you and great acting.

Now. I have several other things to say, and there will be spoilers.

( Juno Review )

So all in all, I do feel that Juno is worth watching, and you should see it. It's similar, though not totally the same, as another movie about disenfranchised teen girls from a few years ago, "Ghost World", which is probably the superior film. But "Juno" has more mass appeal, and you'll probably enjoy it more if you want some decent catharsis :).

I saw a strange movie on TMN today that I had never heard of before. The movie is called Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. It is extremely weird, but also extremely good. It was starring Alan Rickman and Dustin Hoffman, so I was surprised I had never heard of it. I certainly don't remember it hitting the theaters. But I was hooked right from the start by it's incredibly lush, rich visual look. And even after I was hooked, the story kept my interest.

It's about a boy named Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, who lives in 18th-century France. He is born with a peculiar ability: he has the world's greatest sense of smell. He can smell a frog underwater from a mile away. One day, he catches the scent of a young peasant girl walking in the market and he becomes obsessed. He follows her...

I don't want to give anything away, but eventually he becomes an apprentice to a master perfumer. Presumeably to learn how to make perfume. But Grenouille has a secret ambition; he wants to learn how to capture the scent of human beings.

The movie is very dark, very creepy, but also incredibly cool. It follows its setup right through to a surprising and awesome climax. And it's quite amazing the way you watch, fascinated as this young man, who is definitely not a good guy (in fact, the movie definitely plays with his lack of humanity) goes through his plan - you don't want him to continue, but you are also too curious to look away. I definitely wanted to know what would happen if he managed to acheive his goal. I wasn't disappointed.

Definitely recommended, if you like off-beat, dark fantasy stories. mr_hand, I think you'd enjoy it.

I saw "Eragon" yesterday on TV.

It's bad.

Stunningly bad.

And I only watched the first half hour.

Hard to believe that such a terrible movie could be made, after the success of Lord of the Rings (ie: with such a high bar to shoot for). Good for the kid, for writing his book and getting it published, and then getting it made into a film and a video game. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I don't actually know whether the book is bad or not because I haven't read it, but from the first half-hour of film, I can't imagine it being good. The plot is completely recycled from every fantasy cliche you've ever heard. That alone wouldn't bother me if they could at least have made it believable or had good dialog. But no.

One of the first lines of the movie is uttered by the bad guy (John Malkovich, who should NOT play this kind of role) is: "I suffer without my stone. Do not prolong my suffering."

Sigh.

They even had a voice over. A bad one, that added nothing. God, even Star Wars didn't try to squeeze in a voice over.

I don't understand how they were able to get so many big name actors: John Malkovich, Rachel Weisz, Robert Carlyle, Djimon Hounsou. And Jeremy Irons. Yes...Jeremy Irons. He plays Obi Wan Kenobe...er..."Brom".

The movie might have been a lot better if they had had a half-decent actor playing the lead. But the one they got was terrible. A mugging, mincing amateur.

Luc Besson wrote "The Fifth Element" when he was a teenager. It's not what I'd call high culture, but it's fun and original. It at least proves that teenagers are capable of producing works which aren't totally derivative.

But perhaps I should have watched the whole thing. Only then would I know for sure whether it is truly as bad as Dungeons and Dragons was.

I finally finished the seventh Harry Potter book. No spoilers here, but I feel generally the same as hardcormier about it: it suffers from the same problems that have plagued the series all along and which have been multiplying since, roughly, book 5 - but if by now you haven't made your peace with the flaws in J.K. Rowling's writing, you have no one to blame but yourself.

So, I can appreciate that. And let me say that the usual things about the series that are good, are good again here: it's got terrific action sequences, thrilling suspense, likable characters, and an occasional dry wit. Plus it's tinged with the bittersweet satisfaction of a long journey come to an end - simply because it's the last book in the series.

However, I don't know if there are others who feel this way, but I kept hoping that her writing would improve. With books 1 to 4, I don't remember being thrown out of the story by little annoyances quite so often. So, because I'm a churl, and because to some extent it's fun, here are my three big problems with the story. Spoilers here people. Yes, I spoil the end of the book. Be warned.

( Read more... )

"Knocked Up" is good ... but it's not that good. It's not what all of the critics are trying to make it into. It's a perfect example of "overpraise" syndrome: the kind of movie comedy that film critics are so relieved is good, they make it seem more than it is.

When we walked out of it, the first thing Nicola said to me was: "That was written by men, wasn't it?" Yes. "I could tell." How? "Well, everything was from the Man's point of view. All of the jokes, all of the fears. The woman was basically the straight person in a comedy sketch, and her fears weren't really explored too much."

I don't completely agree - I thought the female's POV was explored somewhat. But then, I'm a man. And I must admit, not as much as the male's, and comparatively speaking, she was fairly one-dimensional. Well-performed by Katherine Heigl, but one-dimensional.

Sometimes I think film critics want to love a movie so much that they overanalyze it. I've seen reviews that have lauded this as the best comedy in ten years, that it encourages thoughts of roe-vs.-wade, that it is a "romantic comedy that is unfraid to face human suffering dead on". Whatever signs your check, guys.

For me, things were kind of breezy and entertaining, but ultimately forgettable. The stoner jokes run out of steam pretty fast, though the running gag about a guy's beard was pretty funny. And if you've seen one funny delivery-room scene, you've seen them all. Seth Rogen is a natural though, and it was surprising how different his character is here than it was in The 40-Year-Old Virgin - a lot dimmer and sweeter. Paul Rudd is reliable for the most part (he usually is), but he and Rogen have one absolutely ridiculous scene in Vegas which was just not funny. Just because the character is on drugs doesn't make him funny.

All in all, I wouldn't believe the hype. But it's an okay diversion. This is about as good as comedy gets in film these days, proving just how hard it is to sustain over a 2 hour movie.