Oct 292008
 

Over the last week or so, the news has been swamped with details of a certain radio show that involved Russell Brand (the host), and Jonathan Ross (the guest) phoning up Andrew Sachs and leaving “abusive” messages on his answerphone. I have not heard the show myself, but from the descriptions it goes well beyond what should be acceptable. But the right word is “silly” and not “malicious”.

But does it really deserve all this attention ? From what I can tell, there are plenty of other more serious problems that could be reported in the news. This is after all really just a couple of idiots on one radio show insulting another “showbiz” personality.

Russell has resigned, and the BBC has suspended Jonathan pending the outcome of an enquiry. There are some grounds for complaining about the BBC’s tardiness in dealing with this. Although this feels like a typical corporate tendency to keep quiet until everyone has huddled around and come up with an answer rather than responding immediately with “we’re investigating”.

Some of the criticisms around focus on the fact that the BBC is not a commercial organisation and there are claims that this sort of thing would not happen in a more commercial organisation. This is just classic anti-Beeb propoganda by those who believe that all broadcasters should be commercial. There are those who believe that free-market forces would ensure that such things never happened. I have no belief that the commercial sector is any better at dealing with such incidents, and those same free-market forces will ensure that broadcasters would be much less inclined to take risks.

There also seems to be some jealousy around the level of pay that these two celebreties get. I am not entirely sure why they are worth the amount of money they get, but criticisms of their pay should not be a consideration during this incident.

Oct 262008
 

Format: Blueray

IMDB Link: here

A re-make of Les Liasons Dangereuses with a pathetic Hollywood gloss. The core story could have been quite amusing if they had had the sense to portray the characters as properly dissipated young people. The characters in Cruel Intentions are schoolchildren which makes their actions somewhat unbelievable. This is not the fault of the actors; simply the age of the characters. The original story portrays a level of dissipation far beyond what is revealed here; making the theme of redemption through love considerably less powerful.

Don’t waste your time; try one of the film adaptations closer to the original.

Oct 252008
 

Format: Blueray

IMDB Entry: here

Now this one is a treat I have seen several times. The story itself is somewhat simplistic (although I believe that owes something to the studios wanting to exorcise the anarchist themes of the original comic book) being the old story of an attempt to overthrow a repressive regime. But as we learn more about the history of this regime, we begin to see parallels with what is happening in our current society.

Now being thwacked around the head with a serious political message is not usually considered to be an entertaining experience, which is why films like V need to gloss up the message in a story. And the story whilst simplistic does have enough twists to keep one interested.

The main message is that we need to be wary of sacrificing our civil liberties in the name of security.

Oct 252008
 

Format: avi

IMDB entry: here

Take a coming of age film (the ones in this film are in their 20’s but seem younger), a horror film, a road trip film, and a hack and slash fantasy film, throw into a blender and mix. The result will give you this film. Any interesting aspects in this film are glossed over, and the film concentrates on areas that are not just mindless entertainment, but boring mindless entertainment.

The characters are two-dimensional and exhibit behaviour that a brick would be ashamed to being dumb enough to try.

You’ll feel the time watching this film could have been better spent banging your head against the wall.

Oct 212008
 

So I was trawling the web looking at chairs (one manufacturer in particular – it doesn’t matter who) available at various stockists, when I was suddenly brought up short by a little error message “Your browser does not support Flash files”.

Strangely enough the site I had just visited itself had an annoying Flash-based website … all presentation in full-screen window with non-standard navigation controls. So what was the error about ?

Well obviously my browser does support Flash, but the chances are the developers were checking for a particular version of Flash that does not exist for the operating system I use as yet. So “does not support Flash files”  is not quite appropriate, something more like “Nah! Nah! You aren’t as up to date as we are” would be more accutate.

Not really sensible however as I could have been looking to drop something like £1,000 on a chair (yes they really do cost in that region, and yes they probably are that good). Especially as the Flash site in question probably does not absolutely require all of the features of the latest version.

Ah well, I guess I won’t be buying a chair from that place then.