The Punning Pundit

May 03, 2008

Ironman!

Rocks. Seriously, Ironman rocks. Go see it.

Ok, the gender politics are... off. There isn't a single woman in the movie who isn't a sex object. Updating a comic from the 1960s is going to be fraught with that sort of difficulty, so if they'd at least nodded in the direction of solving that problem, I would have given them a pass. They didn't even try...

More interestingly: I've been finding "realistic" combat sequences in recent movies to be lacking. When I watch them I am constantly pulled out of the scene and think "this is a movie". My guess is that having seen actual combat live on CNN, I know what war looks like-- and it isn't what shows up on the big screen.

Anyway: go see Ironman. If you can shut your brain off, it's good fun. And stick around through the closing credits...

Posted by Andrew at 11:36 PM | Comments (0)

June 21, 2007

Sicko

I was feeling ill today, so I did what everyone should do-- watch a movie about being sick. Duh. Thanks to the miracle of file "sharing", I was able to watch the just-released Micheal Moore file "Sicko" on my very own television...

What was of interest to me was how little new information he presents. If you've been paying any attention at all to the health care debate, you know that America isn't getting what we're paying for. What this movie does is break that down into very simple terms for people who haven't been paying attention. It'll be great for people like my Father who simply don't understand how health care is run...

The strength of the movie lays in its opening half-hour/ 45minutes. Simply: Moore shows how step by step people are denied medical coverage. He points out that it is some people's entire jobs to make sure that as few people as possible are able to use the health care they've paid for. It's an obvious point, yet wildly under appreciated...

Ironically, the the movie is at its weakest when Moore tries to paint another picture of the problem. He indulges in some rather bizarre
conspiracy paranoia, seeming to believe that powerful people conspire to keep Americans from having a stable floor from which to live whatever lives we see fit. Which is upsetting; it is productive to see the very real warfare being waged by the top 1%. It is unproductive to believe that there are any generals on the other side...

Overall, the movie is quite strong, and ought to help shape the presidential debates...

Posted by Andrew at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2005

Reviews: (Television) Firefly

I liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I liked Angel. So why did I never watch Firefly during it’s production run? Blame fox-- I didn't know it was coming until it was over. Thank the gods for the DVD format...

Yeah, I bought it on faith. And sale. I bought it on sale and on faith, and they were both amply justified. But what the hell is it about? Well, it’s a Sci-Fi show, so that means spaces battles and lasers and faster than light people doing things, right? Not at all...

Firefly is more like the Magnificent 7 than any other Sci-Fi experience. Perhaps the best way of thinking of it is as the show that Star Wars would have had it been about Han Solo-- and were Luke insane. Also replace Chewbacca with a black woman and; and now the analogy has gone too far. The basic idea is that Mal (Malcolm) Reynolds is a freighter Captain who doesn’t really care about the law. In the first episode, he picks up some passengers who turn out to be even more illegal than he is. Any more would be spoilers, so I won’t tell it here...

What I can comment on is style. Fans of Buffy's wit won’t be terribly disappointed, though Firefly tends to go in slightly different directions. Firefly humor tends to be more in the way of physical comedy, or even the sort where the characters make fun of each other. One rather amusing scene involved the captain finding himself married to a local girl-- as payment for saving the village...

Firefly is set in a universe where humanity has basically been dumped on hundreds of worlds, most of which have technology and cultures similar to that of our own "old west". Indeed, Firefly is basically a western-- save that the cavalry is mostly there to arrest our intrepid crew...

The real pity of the show is that only 14 episodes were ever made. Though a movie is on the way, it can’t possibly be as epic a full several year television run would have been. The show was only just beginning to raise questions, and never got around to answering many of them. Still, it was a fun romp; one I recommend highly to fans of offbeat adventure stories.

Rating: 3 Sovereign class starships out of 5 Omega class destroyers. The show did what it wanted to exceedingly well. Sadly, it didn’t do more than stand up and stretch its legs before it was shot to death by a silly silly network. Oh well, I suppose there is always Galactica...

Posted by Andrew at 11:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 18, 2005

Reviews: (Books) The Demolished Man

Alfred Bester’s work The Demolished Man won the first Hugo Award. For those of you who don’t follow Sci-Fi, The Hugo is the biggest award that can be won in that genre, with the possible exception of the Nebula. Whichever, Mr. Bester created a masterpiece, one that truly deserves the attention of thoughtful people everywhere...

It isn’t a spoiler to mention that the book is a tragedy, Hamlet is a tragedy, that doesn’t stop people from seeing it. Hell, the new Testament is a tragedy! And Mr. Bester’s title is certainly indicative that this story is not about happy people...

At its most basic level, this story functions as a crime drama: How do you get away with murder when Telepaths are scanning everyone all the time? Hell! How do you get down the street with murder on your mind, without a telepath spotting the murder and reporting it to the police? Ben Reich has a way. His motives aren’t what we might call honorable, but his ability was undeniable...

In my last review, I mentioned that it is a rare author who can show a character being clever. The way Mr. Bester shows his protagonist giving himself the tools is simply astounding (being more specific would constitute a spoiler)...

What is most compelling about Mr. Bester’s work is how much he seems to just like people. He postulates telepaths, people able to peak into the thoughts of another, and also postulates that the vast majority would not use their power for ill purpose. Indeed, Mr. Bester’s Telepaths are not interested in a “normal” Vs. Telepath war (Babylon 5 fans might be amused by that). What they are interested in is improving the society they see around them. And the rest of Human society seems to accept them (and their scary powers) without fear or prejudice. All of this serves to make the sad, lonely existence of Ben Reich even more poignant...

Ultimately, the book is a deeply psychological tale of murder and hope. It stands at the very pinnacle of what Science Fiction is capable of. It ought to be mandatory reading for students everywhere...

Rating:
5 non-demolished men out of 5 Chronicles of Amber. Really, just go read the book already!

Hell!
I couldn’t do a review of this book without quoting this lick:

Eight, sir; Seven, Sir;
Six, Sir; Five, Sir;
Four, Sir; Three, sir;
Two, sir; one!
Tenser, said the Tensor
Tenser, said the Tensor
Tension, apprehension,
And Dissension have begun.

Posted by Andrew at 11:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 19, 2005

Reviews: (Books) To Reign in Hell

(Warning: This post will break the 3rd or 4th [depending on which sect is doing the numbering] Commandment. Also, metaphors will be mixed)

I am a sucker for a good apocalyptic tale. No, no, don't ask me why. But if the world is about to end, I want a front-row seat-- with nachos. I also think that Steven Brust is the cat's meow as far as writers go. I have no idea why it took me so damned long to read To Reign in Hell...

The basic story is the one familiar to us all: Yaweh and Satan duke it out for control of Heaven, Satan looses. And if storytelling didn't matter, that last sentence would be all you need. But storytelling does matter, and Mr. Brust has found a new an interesting way of telling the story. All elements are there from whatever demonology classes you might have taken; Lilith is a major character. And it's important to remember that Jesus was Yaweh's only begotten son. I don't really wish to say more about the plot for fear of spoiling some interesting twists. The ending, of course, is known to everyone...

From a politico-religious standpoint (my major and minor, so again, I love it) we get to witness the transformation of heaven from a State of Nature into a government. Locke would probably disapprove the manner of storytelling, but he could hardly argue with the politics of it all...

One of the reasons I am so fond of Mr. Brust, something which comes through quite clearly in this book, is his nack for showing people do clever things. A lot of fantasists, will simply state that their characters are clever, and show the results of their cleverness. But it takes real skill to show someone performing an intellectual feet in such a way that it is not only interesting, but also believable. The late, lamented Alfred Bester had this talent in spades, George R.R. Martin can show characters both being clever and being overly clever. Robert Jordan has made a fortune out of showing characters thinking they are clever only to fail miserably. Raymond Feist has never shown a hint of cleverness at all...

One other thing: where Tolkien made a career out of scenery, and Jordan introduces us to every blade of grass on every step of every journey that every character has made-- ever-- Mr. Brust tends to be rather sparing of the physical localities. Whereas the other two gentlemen are, say, photo-realistic in their approach to writing, Mr. Brust uses charcoal to give the reader a broad outline; the landscape is left to the reader as an exercise...

Rating:
5 Job: a Comedy of Justices out of 5 Cat's Laughing. Just go buy the book, read it, enjoy the theological impliciations...

Posted by Andrew at 11:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 27, 2004

Reviews (books) Old Man’s War

The best Science fiction writers consistently write about believable human societies springing up from unbelievable roots. In this way, Sci-fi is the tool by which humanity can be examined in a variety of counter-factual conditions. It isn’t just about killing bug-eyed monsters-- it’s about why. I can’t claim John Scalzi is a great Sci-fi writer; he has simply not developed the body of work necessary to prove the point “consistent”. But his book Old Man’s War is certainly good Sci-fi in any meaningful sense...

Let’s ignore the laws of physics-- Mr. Scalzi does. They aren’t important in this book. Of course one inch tall humanoids couldn’t be conscious. But who cares? What is of actual import is how the main character interacts with them. Drill sergeant strait out of central casting? Why not? As long as we can conceive of and believe that drill sergeant. Mr. Scalzi can get away with thrusting cliché’s into his stories because they are not the point of the story, merely backdrops against which the larger themes are allowed to develop...

Those theme develop from page one, damned near word one: the need for family. Time and again, we see the main character pulled away from his family, and pushed into situations where he is left rudderless and alone. And time and again, we see him reach out to those around him, finding love and companionship...

It would do Humanity no irreparable harm if, in 500 years, this book is utterly forgotten. After all, we have only a bare few of the plays of Aeschylus. My own life, however, would be the poorer had I not the opportunity to read this book...

Rating: 4.5 bug eyed aliens out of 5.0 bug eyed aliens. I’ve read better from Heinlein, but I’ve read worse from him as well. Just go buy a copy already!

Posted by Andrew at 02:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 03, 2004

Reviews: (Books) Agyar

Steven Brust is very good at what he does. Fortunately, what he does is tell stories, rather than rob banks. I have to be careful when reading a new one by him: often I do not wish to put them down. This can be dangerous around finals time. Anyway, go read Agyar...

The Jack Agyar character is a vampire, though that word is never used in the book itself. The ennui he suffers is a sensation familiar to those who have read Anne Rice (take that however you wish), but the central struggle in Agyar is the titular character’s struggle to get past his lethargy...

The book is interestingly structured-- as a series of type-written journal entries. Every now and again, Jack will remark on the fact that he hasn’t mentioned certain things, and wonder why he did not see fit to set them out. While I normally am not fond of this device, Brust doesn’t make too much of it, so I let it pass...

Jack himself seems a likeable sort, the Horror of the piece did not become apparent for me until one understated bit of writing, where he tosses a woman down on a couch and-- stops typing. My eyes got wide and I realized oh gods! This is a rape scene. It is to this poor girl that Agyar returns repeatedly, haunting her, killing her slowly and driving her mad. All the while, he is falling in love with the girl’s roommate...

The book itself is under 300 pages, and rife with pathos, ethos, and good writing. It is very different from just about anything else in the Brust Collection, but also very worth reading...

Rating: 5 cloves of Garlic out of 5 wooden stakes. Bravo, Mr. Brust...

Posted by Andrew at 04:14 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 13, 2004

Reviews: (movie) Garden State

The fact that New York and New Jersey are basically rivals (something like N. and S. California), combined with the fact that New York used to set the culture for the entire nation means that for most of us the Garden State will be though of as a vast cultural wasteland. I have no idea if this is true or not, but after seeing Zach Braff masturbatory offering, I have every intention of skipping this state entirely, just to make sure that I’m not contaminated...

The movie opens with a shot of Andrew Largeman (Writer-Director-Star Braff) tucked neatly into bed [(too neatly, in fact. It looked exactly as though someone had tucked him into it after he crawled in). White sheets, white walls, white carpet, white blankets, off white phone. The phone is ringing. Largeman’s father babbling into the phone. Two things are established: the Longmans don’t get along, and The titular character’s mother is dead...

As the movie progresses, we learn of the dysfunction at the heart of the Largeman family, as the movie progresses, I began to care less and less. The movie is filled with all sorts of indy-director tricks (of the sort that I can’t name, but always look like every damned indy movie I’ve ever seen), but it is the script which is truly remarkable...

The script features neither comedy-making wit or drama-making tension. It calls for the lead to stand around and not-emote. It does a competent job telling its story, but manages to tell it without sparking a hint of interest...

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that Braff really only had half a story to tell: the journey of a man from crippling depression. While this is an interesting story to tell, it can’t happen in just 4 days, and anyone who falls in love with you at journey’s beginning is not likely be the sort of person you want to be around at journey’s end. The writer seems to not understand this at all, choosing to take a detour on this journey, and ending with a love-arc...

Ranking: 1 state of Gardens out of 5 states of Bliss. The most satisfying thing about this movie was the credits.

Posted by Andrew at 06:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 28, 2004

Reviews: (books) Disposable People: New slavery in the global economy

Disposable People was assigned reading for a class my sister took, but after my father claimed to have been moved to tears by it, I knew I needed to read it. I did go into it with certain biases (which I’ll share just to let you know where I am coming from): I am of the belief that Slavery and Genocide are just about the only 2 capital offences...

I was a bit worried about this book, though. It would be too easy for a communist to write a book about Modern “slavery” and spend his time talking about how bad the poor have it. To my way of thinking, comparing the situation in America pre-1864 with that of some Brazilian coffee farmer is ludicrous. Not to the communists of course. Which is why they failed...

Fortunately Kevin Bales (the author) doesn’t take that road. While he is maddeningly non-specific in defining slavery, the examples he shows are all consistent with what we historically think of as slavery. He does take a somewhat pornographic view of slavery (“I know it when I see it”), however the underlying theme of violence is present whenever he talks about modern slavery...

Again, here is where a communist (or a libertarian for that mater) might talk about "wage slavery", insisting that someone who walks off the job in America faces starvation and is therefore enslaved. Mr. Bales is not a communist (or a libertarian), and thus limits his discussion to direct violence, or the threat of direct violence. He gives an example of a Pakistani family who try to leave their debt bondage. As a result of this, the family is separated into different camps, the men are beaten, and a non-enslaved relative is captured and arbitrarily declared to be a slave. Even though slavery is illegal in Pakistan this violence is administered by the police...

This book is weakest in its constant unsupported claims that modern slavery is worse than classical slavery. Granted, such a thing would be hard to prove, nonetheless if he makes the claim he should back it up. Since I had just read the autobiography of Fredrick Douglass, I had a good idea of what classical slavery looked like fresh in my head. Both are evil, a claim that one is more evil than the other is just silly...

The other weak point in this book is the claim that Slavery exists in every country-- including our own. While I have no doubt that this is true (Oh gods, please let it not be true), Mr. Bales does not give a single example of it. Assertion isn’t proof, and Mr. Bales has enough horrific things to talk about without casual mentioning others and not demonstrating them...

Ultimately this book is a success. I cannot read it without my blood boiling. Upon reading it, I wish to start up or join an anti-slavery society. Anyone know how to go about doing so?

Rating: 4.5 broken chains out of 5 broken chains. This book is very good, very important, with only minor flaws. I cannot recommend this book highly enough, or stress its import enough. Go out and read it...

Posted by Andrew at 09:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 01, 2004

Review: (books) Great War

This review is actualy of Harry Turtledove’s Great War Trilogy, rather than of any book within that trilogy. I just finished it a few minutes ago, and it’s fresh in my head...

Turtledove is best known for his Alternate History (if you had a PhD in Byzantine history, what would write about?), and this set falls right in line. The central idea is that after a key set of orders failed to end up in Union hands (In real Life, Lee made a bad mistake about orders involving troop movements), the South occupies Washington DC. This brings France and England to recognize the existence of the Confederate States of America. As a result of having lost the Civil War (called the War of Secession in this universe). Abe Lincoln survives, and the Republican Party is discredited for a generation. In the prequel novel How Few Remain, Turtledove shows the war that follows the second Republican President’s decision to dispute the CSA’s right to buy states from the Empire of Mexico. France and England invade the USA to bring that fight to a halt...

The result of all this is that by 1914 the USA feels humiliated, and will stop at nothing to "get some of our own back". Instead of the 4th of July as a major national holiday, Turtledove’s Americans celebrate “Remembrance day”, a national day of mourning and rededication to the patriotic cause of hurting the Confederacy, France and England. To do this, they’ve teamed with Germany.

Domestic politics have changed as well. Lincoln lived long enough to split the Republican party-- only a splinter of it remains, the rest ended up joining Lincoln in the Socialist party.

One of Turtledove’s talents is in making his characters sympathetic. Even when (in other series) he writes of alien cultures, he manages to make them both consistent and credible-- and understandable. In this series, he makes note of the fact that Machine gunners rarely surrender; when they try, the enemies they had been shooting at tend to kill them. He shows us characters committing this cold-blooded murder, and we understand and have empathy for their actions...

We readers are giving many a character to have sympathy with; I can’t think of a single walk of life Turtledove hasn’t represented in this book. Soldiers, yes, those by the score. But also fisherman’s wives’, farmers in both occupied Manitoba and “liberated” Quebec, a South Carolina plantation owner, even a Socialist Congresswoman from New York. These are some of the characters who get point-of-view chapters. There are many other characters whose lives are followed within the narrative...

The story flows well, laying down its mosaic, and only occasionally moralizing. The world with the Confederacy is a colder place. The US is so consumed by the desire for vengeance that the torch of Liberty burns only dimly at best. Indeed, in New York Harbor a sword wielding Statue of Remembrance greets new immigrants...

That image, most of all, brings home for me what World War 1 was about for most of the world: nationalism and nonsense. Europe rushed into war because they could, because they thought it would be easy, because they were so consumed by the idea that the enemy was a demon that they were excited to go off on a grand adventure. And because they felt this way about the war, they imposed the harshest possible terms for peace. In real life, that gave rise to Hitler. In Turtledove’s world, that gives rise to Jake Featherston. Mr. Turtledove was kind enough to Extend this universe into a second trilogy. This Tuesday, (3 August 2004), Mr. Turtledove begins the 3rd trilogy. I’ve got some reading to do...

Rating:
5 golden rings out of 5 turtledoves. Was that reference too obscure? Anyway; the series is _very_ well written, well conceived and well executed. By turning history on its head, Turtledove gives a good account for one of the least-talked about wars in recent American history...

Posted by Andrew at 05:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 28, 2004

Review (movie): Le Divorce.

The first thing to note is that this movie is not a comedy. The second thing is that this is not about a divorce. This movie attempts to be a semi-serious look at the French culture: a sort of Frenchmen in the mist with better food...

We start by watching Isabel Walker (ably played by Kate Hudson) arrive in Paris as a sort of advertisement for all that is American. I’d say that This does a much better job speaking for us than much else I’ve seen. Hudson is not merely an American, though. She is a Californian; a good example of why we all they all could be...

In the very next scene, we have the titular divorce brewing. Roxy, Walker’s older sister, (Naomi Watts) is being left by her husband. Roxy doesn’t realize it at first, she thinks that he is merely packing for a trip. And we’re off...

Roxy is pregnant, of course. And there is a painting involved. And Hudson has an affair with a powerful French “warmonger” (did you know they had those in France?). Eventually the Walker Family comes to further muddle the plot provide further contrast between the French and Californians...

The movie is well structured, though it is over-full. Walker becomes more assimilated into the French culture, until finally she is able to navigate its intricacies with ease-- at least to American eyes. To French provincialists, however, she is never quite able to keep up. As Walker acclimates, the movie looses something of its investigative air. The director seems to realize this, so he brings a Brit into a scene. The Brit gets off one good line that seems to knock the entire perspective back a bit, leaving the audience to think “right, this _is_ an alien culture”...

Ultimately, the complications prove too much for the director and writer to cope with. Did the husband marry Roxy just for the painting? When did Roxy’s lawyer start seeing Roxy, and why did we only find out about it ¾ of the way through the movie? Since no actual divorce takes place-- or is even filed for-- in the movie, why is it called that?

Rating:
2 Eiffel towers out of 5 bottles of French wine. Good acting makes up for some poor direction and scripting, but can’t save this unfunny comedy. I wish I were a powerful French Warmonger, though, so I could sleep with Kate Hudson...

-Update:
Needed to fix some things noted in the comment thread.

Posted by Andrew at 02:56 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 03, 2004

Review: Movies(?): I Claudius

The Republic had fallen. Caesar Augustus Octavius sat on the imperial couch. Livia sat beside him, ensuring that-- contrary to Octavius' wishes-- the Republic would never come back. I Claudius is an epic tragedy of good governance and the folly of unchecked power...

I, Claudius is a 1975 BBC-produced mini-series. It is 669 minutes long, and in the words of an old religion prof "has all the sex, violence, and whatnot you have to buy HBO to get today." In this country, it was first shown on PBS. The fact that the first several minutes of the first episodes involve the Emperor watching nude dancers (dancers who we see naked) doesn't seem to have caused the same level of outcry that Janet's half-second nipple exposure caused today...

When I was in my roll playing days, I always wanted to play a game where my character might just sit in a room and influence events as they unfolded around him. A clever GM might feed me bad information and see if I acted on it. By and large, I, Claudius acts on that principal. While the scenery changes to suit various parts of the imperial palace, with an occasional trip elsewhere, All the drama takes place in what characters say to one another. This requires the best of acting...

Fortunately, the actors deliver. I admit that it took me a couple of episodes to get used to the acting style. It is important to note, acting has changed over the decades. The fact that the film is British (whose TV, movie and Stage industries tend to be more closely related than here) will tend to exaggerate the phenomenon...

And as I said, the Actors Deliver! I am surprised that "evil as Livia" hasn't slunk into our lexicon. How did Patrick Stewart manage not to get typecast? The star is Derek Jacobi as Claudius himself. He manages his roll superbly, torn between Republican sentiment and the desire to save his own neck...

One of the things that really stands out for me is the shear subtlety of characters; a subtlety which the actors bring forth quite well. When Tiberius says to Livia (about the illness of Tiberius' rival) "I hope his mother's prayers are answered", Livia's reply "And mine too" was jaw dropping.

The story itself is well written. I do not know if this is an artifact of the Novelist or the Screenplaywright. I suppose I could grab the novel from my shelf and find out. From the standpoint of the mini-series, however, it hardly matters. The chapters are all given pithy titles that are only really intelligible after the episode-- then make so much sense that it seems odd not to have understood it in the first place...

While watching it, I cannot help but shutter at the slide of a glorious Republic into the ignominy of Empire. The good men were killed off one by one, slaughtered for the crime of being in the way of the ambitious. In the end, all that is left is fools, tyrants, and prostitutes...

And Claudius. Claudius tries to be the savior of Rome, tries to be a just, fair Emperor. In the end, he believes-- not without justification-- that his very justice threatens to render impossible a return to Republic. After a century of being rules, the freedmen of Rome are now servants...

One of the greatest successes of the Series is that the preceding paragraph feels like a spoiler. Anyone with a good encyclopedia or just access to Google can find out anything they want about the Roman Empire. Yet the series keeps one constantly guessing, wondering what will happen next, and who it will happen to. So I can give it the highest praise available to historical fiction: it felt new...

Rating:
15 Julio-Claudian Emperors out of a mere 5 Julio-Claudian Emperors. Wow. Hot Damn. Dynamite. Go watch.

Posted by Andrew at 02:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 12, 2003

Review (book): Book of Dumb

The one phrase that can be absolutely guaranteed to set my teeth on edge is "People are dumb". Not only is it inaccurate (people are, on average, average), but it generally reveals that a misanthropy born from the utterer's own sense of inadequacy. Basically, this phrase means "do not trust me"...

And yet I like John Scalzi's work. Quite a bit. That doesn't mean that I will start the Cult of John and start reading Money online or anything, but it does mean that when I see a book with his name on it, I'll pick it up...

Mr. Scalzi has written a new book the Book of Dumb. He has a tough line to walk: He must show actual human beings being stupid without condemning the entire race. And he manages to succeed...

It's all about tone. Where another writer might take a world weary tone and literarily sigh while asking-between-the-lines "what can you do?" Mr. Scalzi takes a different tone. He seems to like pointing out "Wow, can you believe they did this?" While occasionally laying out what seems to be a plausible though process which may have lead the person in that direction. While the reader is not thinking "that could be me", we are left with quite a bit more sympathy than we might otherwise have been...

Other times Mr. Scalzi will just let things stand without such narrative. One of my favorite entries was (I don't have the book in front of me) "Dumbest diplomatic moves of all time". This would be the famous Zimmerman Telegraph. Mr. Scalzi lets Prussian Pride answer for itself on that one...

Ultimately the book fulfils its criterion as part of the Uncle John line; I can read it on break or in the restroom. Which also makes it a good stocking stuffer, though perhaps not a main present. I've hand sold a couple of these books already, and haven't had one returned yet...

Rating: 4 goldfish swallowed out of 5 goldfish swallowed. This book nicely avoids saying nasty things about humanity while it does pick apart certain things humans have done. Unfortunately, owing to its structure, it is not something that can really kill an afternoon.

Posted by Andrew at 10:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 20, 2003

I-tunes 2

Brian Tiemann comments.

Brian is a nice guy. We met once at a blog bash, I'd like to do so again. Brian is also one of the Mac faithful. As such he seems to have a bit of a blind spot where apple is concerned. The writer in me would like to take a cheep shot at his faith in Job, but I've already used up my quota of friends insulting for this year. So I'll try to keep the snarkyness limited to Apple's product...

One thing before I really begin, Brian says (and this will be the only time I quote him. I really don't want to attack his post—he makes some good points and was generally rather helpful):

UPDATE: Kris reminds me that in the iTunes installation wizard on Windows, there's a screen where it asks you whether you want it to automatically keep your Music folder organized... and it defaults to off.

In retrospect, it sure does. And I was wrong for saying otherwise. I think the big problem is that I didn't know what the question meant. It's a bit like asking someone who has never had sushi how much wasabi they want; with no reference for it; I had no way of knowing if I wanted it...

As I said, thgough, I-tunes is a product I would recommend. It works, and has a layer of functionality, much greater/deeper than most other products on the market. Anyone who is new to digital music would do well to start with I-tunes...

Indeed, that seems to be the assumption Apple is making; users are beginners. It turns out that (something that developed after a confusion conversation with Brian) the CD database Apple has compiled can only be accessed if one is ripping a new CD. My older Mp3s can't take advantage of Apple's database. Music Match has several databases, any of which can be used at any time...

Ultimately, were it not for MusicMatch, I would be using I-Tunes exclusively. That's meant as high praise. I-tunes has a lot to offer. I'll probably even recommend it to my father (who actually feels more strongly about music than I do). This is meant as high praise.

What I-tunes does is manage to blow away just about every other CD out there, on just about every level. Where it fails is in measuring up to MusicMatch.

On a point by point, The two are closely matched. While it is true that MusicMatch doesn't organize your files (a point I would consider in its favor!), just about everything else Apple does, MM (got tired of typing MusicMatch all the time) does. A specific application Brian mentions is 1 click CD ripping. MM takes 1 click to say "call up the CD", and 1 click to say "start ripping". Apple takes the same. Apple calls the process "importing", which does have a kind of nicely European flair to it, but is otherwise a kind of odd convention.

Apple lets one rate music tracks and can create playlists based on that. So does MM. Apple lets users look at their libraries based on a bajillion different qualities, including one that reads "number of olives the artist(s) like in their martinis." So does MusicMatch...

There are Exactly 2 things MM does better than I-Tunes. Probably neither would be a deal breaker, but together they are important. 1) the aforementioned ID Tag lookup. MM simply does a better job of looking up tags. Yes, there is a bit of manual work involved, but with I-Tunes there is simply a lot more work. 2) AutoDJ. There is a button that let me choose criterion on which to create a playlist. For instance; if I want to listen to 5 hours worth of Upbeat Slow music, and have more than 5 hrs of that kind of music, MM will create a playlist for me. I can choose up to 3 criterion (Album, Artist, Genre, Tempo, Mood, Situation, Preference) If have less than that, MM will simply put what I have in random order. Keeping track of this sort of information is exactly the point of ID tags. Frankly I am surprised that Apple doesn't have this feature. If anyone wants to tell me where it is, I'll look at I-tunes again. But I did look for it and didn't find it...

I-Tunes is a wonderfully simple piece of software. If I MusicMatch didn't exist, I'd be using it. Frankly I am surprised more people don't use MusicMatch, but it is clear which is the superior software...

Posted by Andrew at 09:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 17, 2003

Review: (Music Players) I-Tunes.

I have a friend. Every now and then, I'll go over to his house and screw around with his computer. Prankish things like setting his homepage to my blog, or setting his screensaver to read "all your base are belong to us". I do it because every now and again it is fun to annoy one's friends. This may explain why he doesn't return my phone calls...

I found out today that I-Tunes is now available for Windows. I am something of a utilities junky, so I thought it would be neat to find out what Brian Tiemann has been raving about for years. Besides, I wondered how it would stack up against the other players I've been trying...

It took about five minutes to figure things out; the problem is that Mac people just don't think like PC people, so the buttons are labeled different things and are in different places. Nary an "option" tag to be seen, but most of what I wanted was under "edit". "Edit" is used for other things in Windows, and, well you get the idea...

First thing I wanted to do was test Apple's much-touted M4A codec. So I popped in Beggar's Banquette (one of my favorite albums) and proceeded to rip...

Now, both Mp3 and M4A are what are called "lossy", that is, they loose some sound quality when being created. The higher the bit rate, the higher the quality of sound. Of course, the higher the bit rate, the bigger the file. But hell! What else am I going to do with a 40 gig partition? So I rip Mp3s at 320 kbps (kilobits per second). Most Mp3s are ripped at what is called "CD Quality", or 128 kbps. Believe me, the difference is easy to hear. To make it a fair test, I ripped the M4A file at the same 320 kbps...

There was a slight difference in Apple's favor. Not a big one, but a noticeable one. The Apple file was 14 Megs compared to the Mp3's 10 Megs. I'm not sure if the M4A file is worth a 28% file size increase. And definitely not for a codec that no one else's software can read...

The big thing, though, the one thing that turns me off I-Tunes completely is this: Apple re-named all my music files and changed my organizational structure! Remember that friend I mentioned in the earlier paragraph, the one whose files I change as a prank? Well, Apple changed mine as a "convenience". It did have (buried in the bowels of the program) a check-box for "keep the I-Tunes music folder organized", and didn't tell me that the I-Tunes folder would be wherever I store my music. It also doesn't let me set how it is organized. So all the CDs I have by with multiple artists are now scattered all over my music folder, organized by the artist responsible for each track. A sampler CD with 30 artists will now be under 30 different folders. And there is no half way with this thing...

The other big knock against the I-Tunes is the lack of automatic ID Tag look up. I should clarify; there is a manual look-up, but one so dumb it couldn't find the Who's Pinball Wizard. As this is not an obscure song, I can only presume some difficulty on Apple's end...

A more minor knock (but still worth mentioning) is that the player lacks as "pause" button. Seriously. I have to turn the song off if I want to have a moment of silence...

A more minor knock (but still worth mentioning) is that the player's "pause" button is not always present, even when a song is playing. Seriously. If I'm not on the "library" screen while listening to a song, I can't pause it. It's a minor thing, but anything that makes me do more steps is a pain...

Other than that, I-tunes really is a nice piece of software. It is free (a big plus), fast, small, and has a decent (though non windows-friendly) interface. It is way, way better than Microsoft's offering (though that isn't saying much).

Ultimately I'd recommend it for anyone who is unsure of what they want. It's a nice piece of beginner's software that doesn't need much tweaking...

Pros:
Free!
Small
Fast
M4A codec is exclusive to this product, better sound quality.

Cons:
Reorganizes my files by default
No-or-dumb ID tag creator
Lack of pause button

Rating: 3.99 delicious reds out of 5 delicious reds. It would be a 4, but that whole pause button thing is just inexcusable...

Update:
One other minor issue; real minor in that a lot of other programs don't do it either: Autodock.

Some programs (winamp, musicmatch) will sense the edges of your screen and automatically try and "rest" there. It is possible to push it further with a good "shove". This is a nice feature in that it allows a program to be as out of the way as possible and yet still be fully on the screen. I hope that in the next few years, all programs will have this feature...

Posted by Andrew at 04:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 14, 2003

Review: Music players

I really dig music.

More than that, music is essential to my view on who I am and what I believe humanity is. I have never heard a genre that didn't have some redeeming quality. I have, however, heard many players that didn't work at allÂ…

Mp3s (and WAVs and AACs and WMA), however acquired, represent a huge boon to the music consumer. They allow us to take files that are large (CDs run roughly 10 megs/ minute of music) and make them smaller, while keeping most of the original quality. Yes, there is a loss; that loss is usually small enough not to matter. I have a Huge Mp3 collection, most of which is even legal...

An Mp3 is only really part of the equation, however. One needs a player to listen to it on. For years WinampM was my player of choice. It is small, free, and has a high level of customization. The problem with it is that it cannot create Mp3s, leading me to either steal them or use another program to create them...

Windows comes with its own media player, the boringly named Windows Media Player. I am not fond of that one at all. It works well enough for the few video clips I watch, but it is bulky and non-intuitive for anything more than one file at a time. Also, it will only create windows-proprietary formatted files; thus locking me into it forever. No thanks...

realone has all the problems of the windows media player, without the benefit of being freeÂ…

So far I have found only one program that I am willing to pay for, the ubiquitous Musicmatch. MusicMatch only plays audio files, and does cost money. But it organizes very well, creates ID tags like no one's business and rips CDs incredibly fast. There were a few days where I had deleted it from my machine, those days were rather unhappy... I recommend this product wholeheartedly...

What are the rest of you using?

Posted by Andrew at 11:08 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 01, 2003

Review: (book) Lies (and the Lying Liars who Tell Them)

Mr. Franken is a comedian. As such, he makes serious statements and makes them funny. Looking over the list of his books written, one finds a string of parodies, satires, and a pair of humorous looks at non-humorous topics. Lies (and the Lying Liars who Tell Them is a book that falls into the second category...

The tone of the book is set at the outset, right on page xi (that's before the book begins, for those taking notes) "Unlike Senator McCarthy and his intellectual heirs, Ann Coulter and Howard Stern, I do have a sense of decency [italics original]." It should be noted that Ann Coulter's newest book Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism contains a rather lengthy paean to the Late Senator McCarthy...

That seems to be the MO of the book: Taking a look at the right wing and noting when they lie. Not merely are wrong, but out and out lie. Chapters 35 and 36 (which deal with Bush's tax cut) are particularly savage. Using the actual numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, as well as analysis from members of various think tanks (including Brookings), Mr. Franken puts to rest any notion that the "average" person is getting US$1,100 from the government...

It is where he destroys Ann Coulter (and reduces her to a running joke), and in his treatment of Fox News that Mr. Franken is at his best. Mr. Franken tries, and I think succeeds, at explaining Fox News as an arm of the Republican Party, and a lying one at that...

Where Mr. Franken is at his worst is his logic about the media. He "proves" that the media is not Liberal (something I happen to agree with), and then proves (rather successfully) that Fox News is conservative. The problem is quality of evidence. While he uses deft analysis, quotes, and numbers to prove Fox's bias; Mr. Franken does not do his readers the same courtesy for other Media. Indeed, his "proof" of non-liberal media consists more of a German-Philosopher-like thought experiment. It isn't that it is a bad thought experiment, it is just that it relies on a lot of supposition...

Actually, there is one number. A very small statistic that proves more the Media's hatred of Gore than its liking for the Democratic Party. I didn't know that only 24% of all stories (during the 2000 election cycle) about Bush were positive ones. The fact that only 13% were favorable to Gore, however, was sadly evident from Slate's The Road to Chadville (scroll down)...

Mr. Franken's book is both funny and engaging. And Fox News Doesn't want you to read it. Is there any better reason to read?

Rating: This book receives 5 Satirist Satirizing out of 5 Satirist Satirizing.

Posted by Andrew at 03:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 11, 2003

Review: (Movie) Star Wars

Like most every human being on earth, I hate Jar Jar Binks. Unlike most human beings, I am a dedicated fan of the Star Wars Franchise. Perhaps this biases my thinking, perhaps not. Either way, When A New Hope was re-released with (Gasp) extra footage, I was literally 4th in line...

I'm not so dedicated to the movies that I know what fan criticism tends to sound like, nor could I really point to a site where such things run rampant. I grew up on those stories, Luke, Leigha (I knew they would be Brother and Sister after I saw Empire for the first time), Han, Vader, and storm Troopers. Truth be told, I've always detested Yoda, and the new episodes just added more reasons for that. I wonder if he wasn't a tool for the Emperor...

The thing that always got me as a child is how much of a big, epic struggle these movies told. The movies fairly burst free; no single film could tell the whole story. There was much going on in the background, things that we never saw but affected everything around them. The Emperor's decision to suspend the Senate, for instance, radically changed the nature of the whole story. This necessitated the building of the Death Star (or, more likely, its use). In watching the story unfold, there is a definite sense that this offhanded remark is an ending, and now we are seeing the beginning of a new story...

In A New Hope, the Emperor is not seen, or heard from. His actions are carried out by henchmen evil enough to destroy whole planets as a form of torture. If his minions are that bad, we are left to wonder, how bad must he be?

In The Empire Strikes Back, we see the Emperor, and he lives up to our wildest expectations of Badness. With a rasping voice, he micromanages his employees, this time sending thousands of men off to capture one. His Chief henchman this time is Lord Vader himself. Vader is a man so capriciously evil that he will strangle admirals for problems not theirs. The mere fact that the emperor is willing to place this much time and effort in the hands of one so blatantly bad lets us know how much greater the Emperor's evil must be, and therefore we understand why the Hero's work against him...

The Heroes are a motley crew; ragtag and mercenary. There attributes are legendary, so I won't go over them again. Interesting to note, though, that Leigha is who the audience identifies the Alliance with. Indeed, all the way up until the Yavin scenes, she is all the Rebellion we know about. Despite her status as princess and protagonist, she isn't even second in command of this group. Indeed, she is more a courier...

We don't see too many gatherings of the Rebellion in the first two movies. Only at the end of the first, (for the strike at the Death Star), and at the beginning of the Second, (during the Battle of Hoth) do we see such groups. The first movie brings them together, and the second (symbolically) rescatters them...

It isn't until the third movie that the we see all the elements assembled in one place: Jedi, Darth, Fleets, Ground troops, and Emperor. It all builds to a crescendo and explodes in a meaningful array of violence and re-birth. The Emperor is dies, the Second Death Star is destroyed, Vader is redeemed, and the Jedi have Returned. While the books make it clear that they don't all live happily ever after, we are free to imagine this if we wish...

The first movie in the second trilogy is disappointing principally because it is so small. The events are local; given relevance only because of the political system under which they labor. It is the events within that system which make for the interesting story, but Lucas chooses not to tell us about that. He merely tells us that it is there, shows us a glimpse of what might be, and exiles us once more to Naboo...

The fall of one government and its replacement by another is something quite routine in parliamentary democracy, so the only real relevance it has is that which we the audience choose to give it: We know that Senator Palpatine will become Emperor Palpatine, and that he is using these events for his own ends. This could yet be a compelling story; perhaps he hadn't set out to become evil in the first place. Perhaps we get to watch a once good man become corrupted by his own power. No. Lucas Chooses not to tell this story. Palpatine is also Darth Sidious, an evil Jedi. We know that he is twisting this entire story, manufacturing this entire non-crisis so that he may grab power. We the Audience can only sit in unheard horror as we scream: No! Jar Jar! Don't go in that Room! Amidala! Don't call for the vote of no confidence in the old Chancellor! And, since we know that Anakin is Vader we are left dumbstruck by Yoda's decision not to train him, or at least keep a close eye on him. But it is too late. We know things the characters do not. A small story takes on a note of inevitability...

The Second movie in the new Trilogy regains much of its epic scope. Yes, the love story is poorly written, and the political story is either really stupid, or Palpatine is really clever. Did he not think anyone would notice all those clones showing up out of nowhere? Perhaps this is what the 3rd movie is all about. We shall see. But it works because it regains that epic feeling. It does with strokes what the 1st movie could not do with 15 minute segments. It is a bigger movie and, for all its chunkiness, a better one...

None of this makes the movies less than enjoyable. There is, however, a real feeling that Lucas is floundering, unsure of what to say next and how to say it. Perhaps The difference can be summed up by saying that I didn't think about Lucas at all during the 1st trilogy, but do all the time during the prequels...

As it stands there is still a lot of room for the 3rd movie to make the trilogy epic, grand, and worthy. The movies will have my affection almost despite what Lucas has done. He still knows what stories are interesting to tell; he seems to have lost his touch with telling them...

Posted by Andrew at 04:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 02, 2003

Review: (Play) Hamlet

It would be arrogant for me to review Shakespeare, despite what I may have to say about the methods used to teach him. And while I am that arrogant 500 years of performance does the job for me, I should think...

Ah, but what of those performances? Last night I watched a Shakespeare Santa Cruz performance of Hamlet and I must say that I was quite impressed...

Though the play is affiliated with the University of California at Santa Cruz, there were surprisingly few students in either the cast or audience. There were a good many Equity (an actors union) members performing, so the acting was superb...

One of the interesting things about seeing a play like Hamlet is its very familiarity to the audience. Who has not heard at least a line or two from Polonius ("This above all, to thine own self be true"), or perhaps Queen Gertrude ("The Lady doth protest too much, Methinks"). This play in particular is filled with lines that have reverberated through hundreds of years of English-Language history. Perhaps the most famous of which is the To Be or Not to Be speech...

For over five centuries that one speech has thrilled audiences, I am told that in New York in the early 19th century there was a riot over the delivery of that particular monologue. The actor was well aware of his place in history and-- standing in the isle way speaking to the audience-- delivered a rendition to make proud any of the possibly millions who have delivered it before him...

The acting was superb, yes. And truly that may be all that is necessary for a radio drama. The stage is also a visual medium composed of the stage itself, costuming and lighting. In addition to the acting, there are occasionally sound and music effects added. Since the Cast and the Bard delivered, how did the rest hold up?

The Costuming was good, if not inspired. As my girlfriend said "the costuming lady got off light". The play was set in the modern day (no, the lines were not changed to reflect this, thank the gods), and the costumes were spot on for the station of the various people. Expensive, but off the rack...

The lighting seemed fine to me, that is, I didn't notice it. My Girlfriend (a theatre technician by trade) said that it was "overly angular", but "well focused". Nothing inspired, but not insipid...

The audio choices left much to be desired. The electric guitar played between scenes became jangling rather than melodic. At first the director tried to work it into the play itself (the first music cue ends with Hamlet takes off a pair of headphones) but the director only used that device twice. The effect is to first draw us into the play by making all the sounds part of the play itself; when the effect is abandoned we the audience are tossed out of the play, reminded that we are watching something not real. The sound ends up being almost overbearingly movie-like. At the end, when the bodies are on the floor and Horatio says "and the rest is silence", before the last syllable managed to drift off beyond the glen, that damned guitar picked up and started playing. This turned a poignant moment into a satire. The acting cannot be faulted, but the direction must be...

As for the set itself! My goodness, that was a work of art in its own right. Made with real glass and steel (an extravagant expense for a theatre) it was constructed with panels that slide into place giving an incredible amount of flexibility with little movement. To call it stunning would be to overuse that word; the saddest part is that the set will go the way of each of its predecessors, stricken at the close of the run...

The play deserves 4 Polonius' pontificating out of 5 Polonius' pontificating. If left to their own devices, the actors could have made the show perfect. The director wouldn't, or couldn't let such a venerated play stand on its own merits, more fool her. That sin alone looses an entire point...

Posted by Andrew at 01:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 10, 2003

Review: (Movie) Terminator 3

Sadly, I am neither a real reviewer nor a GOP operative and thus had to see the movie after it came out, just like any other prol. The movie had booms in all the rights spots, but something was missing...

No, it wasn't plot; there actually was one of those. The writers actually seemed to go out of their way to provide a good reason why each of the inevitable gun battles had to happen right where it did. This contrasts nicely with Lucas' Phantom Menace, where the locations served as something to make new toys from instead of any actual story function...

What was missing was confidence. Not from the actors (who were all spot on), but rather from the writers. It was like they didn't really know what made a good action movie and decided to just stick with the formula, but bigger. "Arnold says 'I'll be back', right? Well, let's make him say it twice in this movie!" It was when they decided to veer away from that formula that the movie had its best moments...

And great moments this movie had. The look on John Conner's face when he sees Arnold is the perfect blend of relief (he is about to be rescued) and terror (unless the bad guys sent 2 terminators this time). The acting was, as I said, note perfect all the way around. Arnold lamenting that the other terminator is "stronger, faster and smarter than I am" rang true. The new terminator seems to be the ultimate in killing hardware. How do you stop such a thing? The answer, of course, is to wait for a Deus Ex Machina...

That may have been the only major failing of the script itself:

(*spoiler* From here on out, don't read if you don't want to know in advance...)

When Arnold is given the choice of serving the machine or the humans he chooses to serve the humans. We are never told why. Far more compelling would have been to have Arnold embrace his machine heritage, or at least give some reason for denying his biology. Instead we are left to imagine that we are worth it just because, er, because...

More interesting, however, is the post 9/11 sentiments involved with the movie. The first movie fit well into the zeitgeist: Nuclear war was inevitable and we were all going to die. I remember being a child in the 1980s and knowing that if I didn't die in the nuclear exchange, I would have to be a soldier in that war. Those were apocalyptic times, and thank the gods Gorbachev decided not to take us over the edge. As John Conner said in the second movie: "I thought the Russians were our friends now"...

Because by 1993 the apocalypse had been averted, the threat had ended, and with it, history. Right at that moment, when we elected a president who told us not to stop thinking about tomorrow (and we knew that there would be one), the second Terminator came out. Good news! There didn't have to be a war. "there is no fate but what we make"...

But a decade later, 9/11 happened and we know, as the terminator said in the 3rd movie "war is inevitable, the only question is when". Judgment Day is back on; history has restarted itself in a big way. Unstoppable Armageddon is coming soon, to a culture near you...

This movie ranks 4 and a half h-bombs out of 5 h-bombs. Um, H-bombs of happiness, because 1 H-bomb will ruin your whole day, and this move made mine.

Posted by Andrew at 02:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 28, 2003

Review: (movie) Charlie's Angles: Full Throttle

Cooking, as my girlfriend reminded me last night, is more than just adding ingredients to heat. All things considered, this is too bad; burning this is something I really know how to do. A similar rule can be made for movies; hot women and explosions are a good combination, but if the timing isn't there, the whole thing will fall apart. Charlie's Angles: Full Throttle is an excellent example of how not to make a movie...

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the hell out of the second one, and was caught pleasantly off guard by the plot twist at the end. This new one was just a mess, however. The weirdest part was the year: isn't it way too early to be nostalgic for 1995? At least, it seemed to be set in that year, though I could be wrong. All I know for sure is that 8 years before 2003 is not the center of the heavy mettle era, though 8 years before 1995 sure could be. So the first big question is: Why did the director decide to play this horrendous chronological trick? It served no point, and yet did confuse...

Speaking of confusion: Why did the first movie go so far out of its way to ensure that I didn't have to be familiar with the TV series (a good move, by the way), and yet the second one spend loads of time referring to the series? There were references to previous angles scattered throughout the whole movie, references that may or may not have been correct, but I had no clue...

The chief villain was a former angle, something that was supposed to be the movie's big twist ending, but turned out to be something I learned from watching the previews. Demi Moore is still hot at age 50somthing, but I was a bit confused at why she was slinking around in her panties waiting for the various mobsters to show up...

A well-plotted movie will have 1 villain per 1 hero. Inigo Montoya has the 6-fingered man and Wesley has Prince Humperdinck. We learn about why each of these parings through back-story and clever writing. The Princess Bride may be an exceptionally good example of this, but any D & D player can expound on the basic principles. In CA:FT; Lucy Liu ends up with a romantic foil (one of the Friends crew, I can never remember their real names. Anyway, Joey), which is fine as far as it goes; though when they get back together at the end, both me and my GF were wondering why that had happened. John Cleese shows up as Ms. Liu's father with some wonderful back and forth that may make the movie a definite rental...

Drew Barrymore's character ends up an old lover as her primary villain. The twist is that the old lover is the head of the Irish Mob. Um, ok. When did the Irish get a mob? Suffice it to say, this ended up pretty lamely...

Cameron Diaz had the oddest villain take-down assignment: Demi-Moore. The movie never adequately explained why these two should have special enmity, why we should root for Ms. Diaz as the one who has to take down Ms. Moore. Failure to explain that killed the last half of the movie for me...

And speaking of the last half of the movie, the mid point is both too early and too late to add plot twists. Especially when the plot was already incoherent enough as it was. Over and over again, I asked myself why they were doing any given activity. It was like a poorly scripted video game where there are certain tasks that must be performed to get to the next level, but we don't get to know why that is...

Ultimately it was the poorly developed plot that killed the movie for me. If all I wanted was unconnected sets of T and A, I could just run out to Best Buy and pick up Girls Gone Wild. Since I wanted to see a movie with a plot as well as T and A, I can't help but feel a bit cheated...

Rating: 5 stars out of a whole fricking galaxy. One star for each hot babe plus John Cleese and Bernie Mac. The fact that not even those guys can save this movie should say something about how bad it is...

Posted by Andrew at 01:30 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 23, 2003

Review: (book) Guns, Germs, and Steel

As I've said in the Past, I don't get racism. More to the point, perhaps, I don't believe that there are any real biological differences between the "races". Perhaps there would have been if given another 100,000 or million or so years of independent development, but that was never going to happen. Which brings me to Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared DiamondÂ…

The name of the book is the answer to a question: "why did Europe win"? The answer (and the name of the book) could have just as easily, though less alliteratively, been "readin', 'ritin', 'rithmetic". Mr. Diamond pushes this answer backwards, at every step asking the same question so fammiler to parents of three-year-olds "why"?

The answer he comes up with is geography. It's one that I took as an a priori assumption in a previous paper, so I felt right at home. Nonetheless, Mr. Diamond did a masterful job making his case...

The most interesting point is that Mr. Diamond puts Europe and Asia into one continent "Eurasia", which is geologically sound but culturally awkward. He may be overstating the case a bit were this a more social inquiry, but since he is mainly concerned with crops and livestock, his seems to be a worthwhil presumption. One of the basic points he makes is that since Eurasia is "wider" than it is "tall" crops at any given latitude have a much wider range in which to grow. This is a significant help with both crop and chattel diffusionÂ…

Just about everything in the book comes down to that basic point (latitude), and its meanings. For instance: Mr. Diamond makes the case that the Americas were fairly well doomed; they didn't have very good crops (save corn, which was just being domesticated as the Europeans landed), and had no real chattel animals. Thus the fastest anyone could get around was by foot, and societies couldn't grow very large because everyone had to work for food. North America became a breadbasket only after the Europeans brought oxen and "amber waves of grain"...

And so it goes, throughout the book. Mr. Diamond spends time discussing language, social formation, idea diffusion, and other such topics. He doesn't talk often about types of societies, leaving the real meat of that topic for the very end of the book. Fortunately the gaps in Mr. Diamond's book were filled in nicely by Slate contributor Robert Write's excellent book NonZero: the Logic of human destiny. The end of Mr. Diamond's book asks the tantalizing question of "why Europe and not China?" An answer is even offered. For more detail, however, take a look at Write's book...

Ultimately Mr. Diamond's book is well written, full of insight and intellectual stimulation. He makes the assumption that I am not a biology major, but that also I am not an idiot. The book is thus written in layman's terms, but beyond that 10th grade level that is standard newsroom fare. Highly Recommended...

Rating: This book gets 5 guns, don't steal it, and it won't give you germs out of a possible 5.

Posted by Andrew at 01:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 12, 2003

Review: (book) Moneyball

Moneyball

Michael Lewis' The New New thing was assigned to me in an early English class. At that moment, I knew that my Prof was a woman of taste and substance, not to mention a certain amount of wit. The book was about Netscape, we lived on the outskirts of the Silicon Valley. If we didn't care about the book, who would?

I went back and read some of Mr. Lewis' other books, Liar's Poker being my favorite. When I read that he had a new book out, I borrowed it from work...

Moneyball has all the style and gamesmanship that I expect from Mr. Lewis. The man can turn a phrase until it comes full circle. His prose is as analytical as I would expect from a former bond salesman, with a slight hint of the Princeton art history major he used to be. What he misses is the future...

Mr. Lewis often makes this mistake; each thing he writes about tends to stop being a phenomenon almost immediately after publication of his book on the subject. He has even given the reason why. Right in his first book he makes the comment that they made the market for certain bonds behave just like every other bond, and thus the profit would be just like every other bond...

The Oakland A's (the subject of his latest book) are a slightly different matter. Mr. Lewis' thesis is that the A's win because they value stats that no one else values, and that these stats are A) better at predicting success of a team, and B) able to be cheaply purchased because no one else values them. One of the weaknesses of Mr. Lewis' book is that once the Yankees (say) catch on to A, B will no longer be true. Indeed the central irony is that Mr. Lewis' book is hastening the day when the A's will once more be priced out of the talent market...

The Style of the book (a style Mr. Lewis often employs) might be uniquely suited to a more visual medium. He takes a narrow focus on a specific incident and shows how it is a microcosm for thousands of similar incidents that have lead inexorably to the spot he is showing. The end result is rather like a series of flashbacks that arc towards a central motif. He does it quite well and I wonder if he has ever thought about licensing his works to television or movies...

Ultimately I enjoyed this book, and I know that it cannot be Mr. Lewis' fault that my Beloved Oakland A's are 7 games down in the standings...

Rating: 3 and 2 with runners in scoring position out of 3 and 1 with bases loaded. The high drama was there, but Lewis didn't always want to write a drama. The result is fun and interesting, but not usually at the same time...

Posted by Andrew at 03:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 11, 2003

Review: (book) The Da Vinci Code

When the advanced reader copy came into my store, my boss grabbed it and took the day off. She liked it so much she actually managed to (accidentally) insult my religion while furiously recommending it to me...

The book seized my store. Before the plebes got a copy of it, we had an in-store waiting list; that many people just wanted to get their hands on this book. When it finally came out it was an instant best seller. I was intrigued. Is can any book be that good? The answer is yes. Unfortunately, The Da Vinci Code isn't...

It has all the right ingredients, but the author is a bit smug, a bit full of himself. Before the book actually begins, he makes the comment that (quoting from memory, the book isn't in front of me) "all architecture and artwork depicted in this book are accurate". What a breathtakingly arrogant comment! It leaves no room for a difference of opinion, no room for typo or other error, no room for anything except the author's own perfection...

The puzzles are clever, exactly what they should be in a thriller. Mr. Brown, however, continues to beat us over the head with how clever the puzzles are. He constantly comments on how smart one of the characters is for having planned all this out; given that that author is the one who really planned it, MR. Brown is patting himself on the back...

The other thing is the tone. There is a certain tone that "I-can't-believe-I'm-not-an-essay" polemical novels take. Ayn Rand was infamous for it, Christians flock to the Left Behind books for it. I can't really define it, but I can always tell I am reading such a book when the narrative flow is broken up by a paragraph or two on how everyone else is wrong...

For all that, it was an interesting book. It was fairly well paced and plotted, with an interesting take on the Grail stories. The author just needs to realize that he is not the possessor of all wisdom on earth, and I'll be a happier man...

Rating: 2 holy grails out of 5 holy grails. A good yarn, but the author needs to drink from the cup of wisdom first...

Posted by Andrew at 03:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 09, 2003

Review: (Book) A Rough Guide to the Universe

I'll admit it, I am in love with John Scalzi's writing. His short, pithy phrasing and go to hell attitude make me grin. He also once gave me a hand writing an article, so I should probably mention that. John Scalzi is a cool cat; were this review about his blog, he would get an A+...

Of course, this book is not about his blog, it is about his book, A Rough guide to the Universe. The short answer is that this book is good, but not great...

Let me start with the bad: My own expectations. I had expected funny, pithy, and clever. While all those elements are present, they are muted, toned down. This is a book about the stars, constellations, and that sort of thing. This is not a book for fun, but rather a guide to fun things you can do. It's a well written travel book, but ultimately it is just as functional as any other piece of luggage...

Of course, there is a lot of good: It is a well written book. There is at least a degree of pith. The cutout sections are where he really shines, it is almost worth buying the book just for that. Not quite, but almost. Anyone wanting to contribute to Scalzi's daughter's college fund, and is not interested in space, would be better off just buying a cool shirt...

Ultimately I bought it for my girlfriend (her reaction: "you are the best boyfriend _ever_"). We have yet to take it under the stars, but when we do, I know that it will help answer the question "what in god's name is going on up there?"...

Rating: 4 Mars out of 5 Earths. Very useful but not intrinsically pretty.

Posted by Andrew at 01:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Review: (Book) The Eyre Affair

I thought I would try my hand at doing some reviews and whatnot, just because I have a difficult time writing them...

Do you like books? I mean, really like books? Does the phrase "used book store" fill your head with visions of sugar plums? Are you waiting for a Rich Relative to die off just to get her library? If so, I cannot recommend The Eyre Affair in strong enough terms...

This is not an unqualified endorsement; though it may sound like one. It is, instead, a very qualified endorsement: Only read this book if you love to read books...

Recently I tried to explain to a parent that American Gods was a wonderful book, but not one for children. It contains no sex and not a lot of violence, but those aren't reasons in themselves for a book to be non-accessible for children. The _themes_ of the book, the presentation, the situations all scream that this is an adult book. Children will understand the words, but don't yet have the life experience to make the words anything more than a collection of syllables...

The same is true of the Eyre Affair, though in a different direction. I've spent more time in front of books than I care to think about. I learned Morality from Heinlein, and Empathy from Card. My parents never really restricted me from Television, but rather from reading anything other than school books. So the idea that one can literally go into a book and play with the characters is one that I can relate to...

If the idea seems familiar, well it should. Heinlein would have a good case if he sued for intellectual property infringement. Don't get me wrong, though; Mr. Fforde has written his books much better than Heinlein's latter dreck could even approach. Mr. Fforde plays with words, scenes and conventions in ways that the Late Mr. Heinlein would specifically distain. This must be why Mr. Heinlein was interesting and important, while Mr. Fforde is just fun...

Rating: 5 joyful noises out of 5 joyful noises. Just a lot of _fun_

Posted by Andrew at 01:14 AM | Comments (1)

May 26, 2003

Review: (Movie) The Matrix Reloded

Did I like the Matrix? Well, duh. I mean, might as well as me if I enjoy, you know, fun. I was going to post more about it, but John Scalzi sums it up a bit better than I could with:

Also, here's the thing: Most of the (professional) critics who are slamming the film simply haven't taken the red pill. Which is to say they're experiencing Matrix Reloaded as just another flick rather than what it (also) is: A tour inside the Wachowski brothers' fevered little heads. Experiencing the latter is most of the fun here -- the idea that these two guys have built up a world that's so complete that you could theoretically follow any part of it outside the context of the movie and have it keep on going.

Look, any movie can be set in the real world, with a real-historical back-story that conforms to actual events. Wag the dog can refer to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Casablanca (which I saw again last night) could use real life footage of Paris being occupied, film which could have been shot the week before...

Science Fiction, on the other wrist, has to go quite a bit beyond what the standard movie must do. In addition to creating believable characters, story, and dialogue, Sci-fi must create whole cultures we see as both Alien and possible. History has to be brought up from now to then, in a believable manner. In most cases, entire rules of physics have to be created and explained; all of this while telling a good, entertaining story...

What the Wachowski brothers managed with their piece of Zion Fiction was simply astounding. They had a story they wanted to tell, and chose a means of telling that story which had a high degree of difficulty rating. Even if they told a bad story (I don't think they did), since they seemed to so wonderfully fulfill their degree of difficulty requirements, they were going to nail the 10 rating. And tomorrow I get to go see it again...

Rating: 5 Katana wielding, trench coat wearing cool cats out of 5 Katana wielding, trench coat wearing cool cats. The Matrix has me.

Posted by Andrew at 12:41 PM | Comments (5)

March 14, 2003

Reviews: (movie) Casablanca

An old friend recently compared me to the Humphrey Bogart character from Casablanca. I'd never seen it before, but as she said "Well, [Andrew], you play for your own side, don't let people close, cynical". I informed her that it had been a long time since I cut my hair and sold out to the man...

It is fairly flattering to be compared to one of the biggest bad-asses I've seen on the screen. He's not quite in the Chili Palmer league (but who is?), needless to say, though, I'll take it...

Bogart plays an interesting character; mean as a snake with a toothache, but cool as a whole artic shelf. Right there at the end, though, he does something stupid, something with no profit, something that should get him killed...

One thing that rings incredulous to modern ears is how casually Bogart mentions "He'll spend a few years in a concentration camp". Indeed, concentration camps are mentioned frequently, to listen to these American voices from 1943 one might be tempted to think that said camps were no worse than a Texan jail. Knowing what we do today, of course, such blasé is horrifying...

The film itself was very good; loaded with symbolism that matures with age, and language that has become worn and cliché with use. The film is worth seeing in these modern times purely for the one scene which is almost never reported: Never before have I found Marseilles so movingly sung...

Rating: 4.5 Marseilles out of 5 Star Spangled Banners. So many of the lines in this movie are now cliché it is ridiculous...

Posted by Andrew at 09:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 01, 2003

Review: (book) Things by Brust

Reading Steven Brust is like sitting down to a steak dinner, taking a bite and realizing that every other steak you've ever had is really a McDonald's hamburger. Nicely paced (pacing is hard for a 400 page book, harder for a 150 page book and he manages to do both well), with nicely twisted plots, his work always impresses...

The writing itself is, much like that girl back in high school who was both sweet and hot and never wore too much or too little makeup, effortlessly gorgeous. The good news is that you can take Mr. Brust's prose to be every night...

Mr. Brust tends to write fantasy, and tends to keep it in the same universe. The two main exceptions to this are Freedom and Necessity, and The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. Freedom is written in a diary format (much like Shelly's Dracula), which I cannot stand, so I didn't finish it. Sun, moon, etc is a book so good that I pulled myself away from a hot woman and my best friend to read it from start to finish over spring a few years ago. Yeah, Brust is _that_ good...

Currently I am reading his new book Paths of the Dead. Posting will be light until I finish it...

Rating: 5 sorcerer assassins out of 5 sorcerer assassins. Even Rodger Zelazny liked him...

Posted by Andrew at 01:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 26, 2003

Reviews: (music) Battle Hymm of the Republic

Take a look here for the lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Damned good stuff:
"He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on."
Very good stuff. A bit goddy for my tastes, but still, can't fault it for that...

Rating: 5 lords a leaping out of 7 lords a leaping. The next time we stamp out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored, the rating goes up, of course...

Posted by Andrew at 08:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 23, 2003

Review: (book) How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity

I just finished reading the book Stealing Jesus (how fundamentalism betrays Christianity). If I may be allowed to reverse a long-standing convention; I shall start with the negatives first...

That the author plainly hates Christianity is certain from the title alone. Given that the author is a gay man, though, makes this more than a little understandable. One should not, however, have to understand where the author is coming from; the author should mute his rhetoric to a more conversational level. Fundamentalist who read this book may find their views too insulted (though I believe accurately depicted) to wade through...

Having said that... Wheeew! I'm glad someone wrote this book. It discusses Christian history and theology in a way that says, in essence hate is not Christian. People are constantly surprised when I say that I was taught biblical history and scholarship in high school, and that training was rather explicit about the bible being (mostly) metaphorical. What Stealing[...] does is give lie to the believe that every word in the bible is, and must be, taken as literal truth...

What the author calls for is a reestablishment of a "church of love", that is a Christian church based on the principal that Christianity is love in Christ, not Christianity is doctrine about Christ. I am not a Christian (though I respect the faith immensely) so this fight cannot be mine. I can, however, state fairly categorically that the historical Jesus would not want me to feel the fear that I do upon learning someone calls themself a follower of his...

Granted this isn't in America, but it still doesn't help me sleep at night...

Rating: 5 Christ the Saviors out of 5 Christ the Prophets. With a bit more work, this book could have been life changing. As it is, it succeeds in being very interesting...

Posted by Andrew at 01:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 10, 2003

Reviews: (Browser) Mozilla, IE, Opera

I've never really been happy with any browser. Opera is doesn't really do a good job loading non-standard html, though with 7.beta2 they may be closer to solving this problem. Of course, the Beta has other problems, like not being very intuitive. 6.5 was a good browser, though...

Mozilla is what I use currently. It blocks pop-up ads (so does opera, BTW), renders well, does things I like it to. The problem with it is that it is way too proprietary. I use Outlook express as my E-mail client (It can interface with Hotmail, which I like), and Mozilla doesn't seem to understand why it shouldn't be my default everything. When I want it to make me coffee, I'll enable java, thank you. So, there is no way to turn off Mozilla as my Default e-mail client...

Mozilla suffers from the fire and brimstone that seems to plague all open source projects. For the open source community, the project qua project seems to be a holy crusade; if they don't retake Mecca, or Jerusalem, or Salt Lake City, or Market Share, or Whatever they will have failed their gods. Fine. There is just something very amateurish about the whole thing.

My biggest gripe is that while ever other browser I have ever used sets the shift key as the one that lets me open a link in a new window Mozilla uses that to mean "download the contents of this link". There is no way of changing that...

IE sucks. It has none of the standard features that I like (pop-up blockers, for instance), encourages some sort of lame-ass I-can't-believe-its-not-HTML that other browsers can not learn to read, has 2 settings for cookies (on and off) and seems to just beg for security holes to be exploited. On the other wrist: It does file-management. File management is one of the most unsexy things software can do, and it is only a browser function because MS was trying to evade the law, BUT it is just about the most important thing one can do with one's computer. IE does it, nothing else does. And for that reason alone, it stays on my hard drive.

One feature I am surprised not to see in any browser is the ability to set up certain pages where _every_ link is opened in a new window. I wouldn't want to do this for every page, mind. But sites like Instapundit, or Google news would benefit from this, and right now I can't set it myself...

Speaking of Google, I am very pleased to see that all the browsers mentioned above have a Google bar either built in or easily DLable. I am sure that Google is pleased as well...

So, none of these is perfect, and IE is something that can't be banished. Ultimately I use a combination of them depending on what I want to do, but Mozilla is the standard by which the others are judged. I can't wait until something new comes along...

Ratings:
Mozilla: 3.759 lizards out of 5 lizards. It has some rough edges, but works quite nicely...

Opera: 2 singers out of 5 sewing machines. What are you trying at guys? With every iteration it gets worse...

IE: 1 Casey at bat out of 5 Casey at bats. Sure, it's the default, and it never really screws up. But it doesn't succeed very well either...

Posted by Andrew at 02:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 18, 2002

Review: (commics) Non-Sqeuitar

Something I've been meaning to mention for a while: The comic Non Sequitur. The fact is that this comic has a decided political bent; but that is really besides the point. This comic uses space better than any I've ever seen. Take a look at this one, for example. Oh, go on, look first. Back? Good...

Notice how it draws you in. The first place you look is the extreme left hand side. This is because the reader is of a western culture. The big square text box gives you the punch line, but you don't know that yet. The fact that it is in a box creates separation without having to pull your eye apart...

Next the eye is drawn to one of two things: either the van or the guy in the suite. But whatever it is drawn to next will be followed by the other. You are forced to spend time in the middle of the strip, absorbing the information. The use of shading and sharp lines causes the eye to want to stay here; the reader thinking huh, well that isn't very funny, until said reader (by an act of will) pulls their eyes from the middle of the box, drags it all the way over past even more horizontal lines and shading and notices text. Wham! punch line...

The whole thing is funnier because of the effort of reading it. Not that the effort is conscious, but there is some. Because the eye is glided along its path, but forced to work, the whole package comes off amazingly well. Just thought I would mention...

Rating: 5 butterflies out of 3.1415926 pies...

Posted by Andrew at 01:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 02, 2002

Review: (movies) Die Another Day

In her book Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand wrote something that, despite the intellectual falling out I have since had with Objectivism, still strikes me as being inherently true (I'll have to paraphrase here) "You can tell the quality of a man based on his choice of women." After 14 months being tortured at the hands of the North Koreans, the first woman Bond finds himself on top of is... Halle Berry. This may require a bit more background to be though of as truly phenomenal; in a nation whose government is so corrupt that women are turning to prostitution in droves just to keep some hard currency flowing into their families (Cuba, by the way. And Fuck You Very Much Fidel) James Bond manages to find what is quite possibly the one woman on the entire island who may actually equal him. He then wins her with dialog well crafted enough that I (a strait male) was wet. Yeah, this was a good movie...

The gadgets were what you expect, the watch got lost again. The one thing that always kind of bothered me about previous Bond installments is that he always out gadgeted his opponents, but rarely out thought them. In this movie, he not only proves himself a better fence than the chief bad guy, but in a scene of dueling cars, Bond really has no advantages, save his own abilities. Point for point, he is met. "oh, you've got missiles? I've got missiles! You've got a pair of machine guns? I've got one big one!" etc. But Bond is smart, cool under fire, able to outwit anyone who comes his way.

About Halle Berry, what can I say? She is as American as Civil Liberties and the idea that a feast should be tasty (see the movie, then re-read that). While the British are shown to be a secondary power in this film, we Americans, with all our glorious excess are definitely triumphant (Great line said to M by an American agent "Clean up your house or we'll do it for you.") And yet, without Bond, we couldn't do it. Despite the skewed ideology of the bad guys, the West isn't fighting against N. Korea so much as trying to prevent S. Koreans from having to eat grass in "one Korea, ruled by the North". No thank you, sir. We've seen what the North has to offer. It's worth blood to prevent it; fortunately we have Bond, and our good friends the English, to ensure that only gallons will be spilled instead of oceans. Damnit! This paragraph was supposed to be about Berry, well...

Look, I liked XXX. If asked who I identify with, though, who I want to be... no contest. XXX was sharp, probably smarter than I am, truth to tell. He was able. He was, in the words of my sister "HOT". He is not a James Bond replacement. He was not a "James Bond for a new generation." Bond never stopped to explain to us what "conflict Diamonds" are. XXX would have needed someone to tell him what they were. Bond was pissed that he was traded for a monster, nearly demanding to be remade a captive, if only to stop the bad guys. XXX was a slave to the US government (interestingly, it is the only legal form of slavery under the 13th