The Ephemeric

song of the week: "Seven Day Mile" by "the Frames"


thing that makes me happy today: This beautiful microscope photography.

pic of the day:
IN:
Family Guy now
FM2010 Demo
Halloween

OUT:
Family Guy then
FM2009
Lesser holidays

New term, and two weeks in it's time to get down to some serious work, now that certain necessary distractions like the halfway dinner and pub crawl are out of the way.

Good news and bad news. Good news is I'm loving the new term. This more science based course full of lectures and labwork is much more my style and I'm loving the course material, despite the full schedule. In any case it's not half as busy as last year working in the hospital, and I feel so much more full of energy in my free time that I'm damn pleased to be here. Any of you signing up for film soc, book soc and art soc, look forward to seeing me there. In the meantime I'm also trying hard to track down the elusive wine and fine drinks society that appears to be more secretive than the skull n bones society, if it no longer exists rest assured i'll get it started back up.

Bad news is I'm loving this new term. It's no secret to most of you that I seriously disliked last year working in the hospital, and it definitely has me considering my options after this year. Stay tuned.

On a side note I'm having a good time at my temporary digs, despite how small they are, while I'm looking for a bigger, more permanent place. Those of you who have visited know how conveniently located it is as well, which is pretty damn awesome.

Ghostbusters is on tv now, and as a side note, I fucking HATE movies on tv with the commercials and everything.

Damn it
-James

song of the week: "Long Time Coming" by "Delays"


thing that makes me happy today: Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

pic of the day:
IN:
Winning the Nobel Prize
Modern Warfare 2
MSc

OUT:
Winning the Olympics
Call of Duty 5
MRes

Developed by EA Sports
Genre Sports
Platform Xbox360, PS3, Wii, PC
Release date(s) Out Now

The latest instalment to the number one football video game series. This year's is probably the most hyped up game of the series, with absurd reviews giving near perfect scores and hailing 'the greatest football game of all time'. But can it possibly live up to all that hype? Or is this just another journalist hack circle jerk as seen with the good but not nearly as stellar as was hyped GTA4. Bear in mind that I test this game on legendary difficulty, so many of my comments on gameplay may not be applicable for easier difficulties.



Things didn't get off to a great start with the unnecessary and unskippable intro video that plays every damn time you start up the game (one of gaming's cardinal sins). Then you get the traditional 'select your favorite team' option, which in the old days would lead you into a nice friendly game against a 'classic xi' featuring some of the all time great players. Of course this being one of the few good ideas EA have had in decades, it was scrapped a few years ago.

These small grievances are unfortunately indicative of my biggest gripe with EA and their games. They don't really care. They don't care about the football, or the fans, they just want to make a good product and dominate the market. And as you'll see, while they may produce a very decent product, this telltale trait of theirs shines through all too often.

So let's begin with the new features in this game. In terms of the gameplay, we are supposed to have a brand new physics engine, and 360º dribbling, combined to make the most fluid and realistic looking football game of all time. In this regard it is mostly successful and the football certainly feels more complete than any other football game I have ever played, however it still suffers from excessively rigid animations, which often supersedes the 360º dribbling, making it barely noticeable.

Similarly it is STILL far too often the case that once you get locked into an animation you can't get out, the infamous 'on rails' moments which result in players picking up a loose midair ball near the touchline and dribbling it several feet over without you having any control, and in some cases players will run after balls, or wait for passes to reach them without you having the ability to control this movement, resulting in a lot of very stupid and unnecessary mistakes.

Elsewhere in the gameplay you'll notice that your team mate AI is actually a little bit improved, though they'll still frequently roam out of position, refuse to collect loose balls and refuse to make runs or push up unless you're specifically controlling them, and this is especially a problem with fullbacks, who carry very little attacking threat unless you really really try to force them up the pitch. Still far too often your own players will run into you while you have the ball, triggering a 'stunned' animation that will knock both players out of the game for several seconds and the man marking system is still useless.

Worse still is the new goalkeeper AI. Supposed to be 'smarter' and more dynamic, this, more than any other part of the game, is a complete mess. Goalkeepers don't come out for crosses, they don't collect loose balls, they punch and parry slow moving balls they can easily pick up, they simply don't move or react realistically to being lobbed and won't bother chasing the ball and they concede some really bizarre goals like crosses or clearances from the other side of the pitch. It's bad, really.

Further more they have seriously overdone the whole 'referee getting in the way' thing where your ball ricochets off the ref annoyingly, some might argue this is a little bit of realism that simply wasn't necessary, and it seems to happen every game. Another piece of really unnecessary realism is the added capability for the ref to make incorrect decisions, which again is extremely unbalanced and really wrecks the game in the long run. Clearly EA hasn't learned that a computer that is programmed to intentionally do things wrong and has absolutely no concept of subtlety just doesn't look right.

But it's not all bad. Set pieces have been perfected, finally. Free kicks and corners are now actually useful for a change. Similarly you can actually score from crosses, and in fact goal scoring in general is far more fluid and you will find yourself scoring all kinds of different goals. The passing system has also been fine tuned, meaning that when you're on the attack you can play some really fantastic football that just looks and feels right, just a shame that there are so many issues with the defensive side of the game. Ultimately, despite the flaws, there is no doubt that this is the best football gameplay yet, and light years ahead of the competition.

As is always the case with EA, for every good thing they do, they find some ridiculous way to undermine it. In this case they've gone and designed probably the best game engine for playing attacking football of all time, and then designed the most appallingly negative opposition AI you will ever see. Literally, it doesn't matter if you're playing against Bolton or Barcelona, all teams will 'park the bus' as it were and it is indeed a strange sight to be on an attack against the Barca defence with all 11 of their players packed into the penalty area. Rarely do they bother coming out of their shell.

Elsewhere, another big addition is the virtual pro mode, essentially an expansion of the previous be a pro mode. You can now design your player and train his skills up and play him across every game mode. It even has the "incredible" gameface which allows you to upload a picture of yourself to the EA website and put him on your player so it looks like you!

Just a few problems with that, you can only do it if you have a Windows computer, and only in the most recent version of internet explorer or Firefox, and you have to do it on the EA website rather than ingame, and using the god awful EA website is one of the most mind numbingly painful and exhausting experiences I have ever seen. I would rather claw out my own eyeballs and stick red hot chili peppers in their place than waste another hour trying to log into that buggy, slow, temperamental piece of unholy horse shit.

The be a pro mode itself meanwhile is the same as it was before, fairly good fun and a brilliant idea, marred by a stupidly designed player ratings system that hasn't the foggiest clue what makes a decent performance, and atrocious AI.

You will, as always, be spending most of your time in the manager mode, which has supposedly been revamped and made to be more realistic. Well it's been revamped anyway, not sure how realistic it is. The transfers seem a little better now, you will no longer see Wayne Rooney signing for FC Twente like in the old games, but beyond that it's the same shoddy half assed 'realism' that you always find. In my first season my top 5 was my team, Portsmouth, Everton, Fulham and Arsenal. Liverpool finished just above relegation and Man U finished in mid table. I'm used to this after several years of playing Fifa, but I can't for the life of me understand why this is so hard for them to correct, or do they want the game to be 'more open' than in reality? Who knows.

Along these lines, you will note that the game difficulty is still very schizophrenic, meaning that it is not at all unusual to go beat Arsenal 5-1 at the Emirates and then lose the next game at home to Birminham 4-0. The issue here is that so much of the game is automated, pass targeting, tackling, teammate AI, marking, player reactions, much of the shooting mechanism, and on the harder difficulties these variables seem to jump about like a frightened bunny. Ultimately though, the biggest problem with manager mode is that you can still only play a finite number of seasons, a limit which has never made sense to me and is still baffling.

There is also a new 'assistant manager' who will automatically rotate your team based on fatigue and form. Sadly he is completely inept and will frequently play centrebacks at fullback and wingers as your holding midfielders, turn him off.

Player growth has been revamped and a new 'form' system has been implemented which is extremely confusing at first but actually works well once you get used to it. It's just a shame that they seem to use the same awful player rating system that they have in the be a pro mode, which means that you can make a skillful run across the pitch, past 6 players and then mishit your shot, and you'll lose form points, and other similarly harsh judgements.

This is definitely the most rewarding mode then, just remember to edit the database beforehand to recall any loan players in real life, because as far as the game is concerned they are permanent players of their loan clubs unless loaned out ingame.

There are however just a lot of little things that really grate. Pre-season friendlies, for example, only allow you to make 3 subs, which essentially completely misses the point of friendlies. Similarly competitions are frequently programmed in with the wrong format, such as a Community Shield with extra time. Commentary is frequently out of place, again in the Community Shield, talking about the game as if it were a cup final after a long knockout round. Occasionally the commentary simply gets things wrong, talking about looking for an equaliser when the game is drawn, claiming that players have scored or been carded when they haven't, and it's just really amateur.

While we're on the subject of commentary, it's fucking awful. Seriously it's always been pretty cheesy and bad but this year it's just painful. It's becoming something of a tradition with Fifa games for EA to include a special commentary 'theme' that they harp on about incessantly in some horribly misguided attempt by EA to educate us about 'interesting' facts.

For example two years ago the commentators would inform us that it's really the referee who decides how much stoppage time there is, rather than the assistant ref, and remind us of this fact like 5 times during a game. Last year they would bang on and on about 'the sideways tackle' to explain why a ridiculously filthy looking foul wasn't given as it was from the side rather than behind.

This year it's especially annoying as they've included a bunch of commentary referring to the form system, and now every two minutes the commentators will make some absurdly forced and unprofessional comment about how terrible a player is playing or how he's angering his team mates. These lines of dialogue are just terrible, firstly for sounding completely out of place and unlike anything a commentator would actually say, and also because they don't refer to players by name, so you will have no clue who they're talking about. On top of this they seem to judge any player with a 6/10 or lower to be 'having a torrid time', and on hard difficulties there will always be a number of players with ratings around there. It's an unmitigated disaster and I wish they would stop trying to be so clever with their commentary as they always fail miserably.

Ultimately, despite the many flaws and really dumb design choices that one typically associates with EA sports, it simply can not be denied that the football engine in this game is the best that has ever been designed, and (mostly) fantastic fun to play. Conversely, one shouldn't disregard the areas where much improvement is still needed, something which most journalist hacks would do well to realise before they get themselves blindly worked up into a hysteria (honestly it just shows how absurdly inflated game review scores are these days). This is a fantastically finessed football simulator, marred by a number of stupid little design flaws and dodgy AI.


Loves:
Awesome physics
Silky passing
Much more organic goal scoring

Hates:
Commentary
Poor AI
EA trying to be clever and fucking up

song of the week: "Happy As Can Be" by "Cut Off Your Hands"


thing that makes me happy today: Awesome half way dinner at Grace.

pic of the day:
IN:
Fifa 10
Halo ODST
Anish Kapoor

OUT:
PES 2010
Halo 3
Jeff Koons

I was fortunate enough to see the big new show at London's Royal Academy of Arts last week before it opened to the public, Anish Kapoor.



Artist and Royal Academician Anish Kapoor has always been known for his unconventional work. His new exhibition explores fragility and altered perception, performance art and tactile pleasure. It's lighthearted and in places just plain silly.

Highlights include a yellow wall that looks flat at first glance, but upon getting closer you see that it in fact has a deep void sinking into the wall. It's a wonderful optical illusion that leads quite handsomely into his room of mirrors, which include some very imaginative designs, for example, one round mirror on the wall actually makes you look like you're moving further away as you walk closer, others show enlarged crystal clear images of you, whilst distorting your surroundings in a clever way of shifting focus.

But without a doubt the weirdest installations, and the ones that will be the main talking points among art patrons are his wax playthings. The entirety of one room is dedicated to a large (and phallic) catapult that shoots giant pellets of wax into the wall, building up over time on the wall and floor.

As if that was not enough, an entire three rooms has been set aside and fitted with a train track, on which a massive 40 ton red wax train moves slowly up and down, sloughing off layers of wax every time it passes through the archways that divide each room. The piles of rough wax strewn across the floor has a certain physicality to it that's almost irresistible not to touch.

But ultimately, it's not just enough to look at pretty, shiny objects and oddball constructions of wax, one has to wonder what the actual meaning behind any of this is. And at times, one gets the impression that here is an artist obsessed with pretentious spectacles, with only the flimsiest of subtext.

song of the week: "Into the Clouds" by "The Sound of Arrows"


thing that makes me happy today: This artist's GLORIOUS depiction of the "City of the Future".

pic of the day:
IN:
Dinosaur Shaped Buildings
Shawcross
Anish Kapoor

OUT:
Boat Shaped Buildings
Hangeland
Jeff Koons

Written by Brannon Braga, David Goyer, Robert Sawyer (Novel)
Starring Joseph Fiennes, John Cho
Broadcast date 24th September 2009
Running time 44 minutes



For anyone even vaguely tuned in to the latest happenings in entertainment, there's been one new television show above all others that people are talking about. FlashForward is that show. Brought to you by David Goyer, the guy who co-wrote the Nolan Batman films and Brannon Braga, who gave us Star Trek Voyager (and some of the Next Generation), this new show adapts Robert Sawyer's novel of the same name.

The plot follows a group of seemingly unconnected individuals as they attempt to unravel the mystery behind a cataclysmic event that sees everyone around the entire world suddenly fall unconscious and experience visions of 6 months in the future for 2 minutes and 17 seconds. It's a fairly awesome premise, but arguably one that will be a little bit difficult to keep going past one season.

As I mentioned, there is a HUGE buzz about this show. With Lost entering it's final season this year, ABC, and indeed the WORLD, needs a successor worthy of stepping into its footsteps, and many are now hoping that FlashForward will be the answer. If only this blatant "piggy backing on Lost's success" wasn't so obvious.

In the years since Lost began, we have seen numerous copycats, most of which have failed miserably after one season or so. Making a show like Lost, clearly, is not as easy as it seems. Most writers seem to make the mistake that the compelling part of Lost is the endless stream of mystery and intrigue, cue a string of similar shows that just present seemingly incomprehensible mysteries without really telling you very much. But this is why most of these shows fail, the real meat and potatoes of Lost is the character, the wonderful, nuanced, deep characters, and most shows miss that.

FlashForward, clearly, doesn't reach that level just yet, but being that it's only one episode in I think we can give it time to expand. Remember that Fringe took a while to really get into the swing of things as well.

But the problem with this pilot is not simply that the characters have no depth, I'm sure they do, it's just that the writers have tried to cram far too much plot into one episode. Think back to season 1 of Lost and how slowly the show eased itself into our lives, working on the characters above the actual mythology of the show. This pilot episode is so worried about being able to fit all the important exposition into the first two hours that it largely sidesteps the characters. By the end of the first two hours, all the characters essentially know what happened, and yet we know only superficial details about the characters. It's all a bit of a clumsy jumble, which is a shame because the content is so good.

But despite this, this was still an excellent 2 hours of television. The plot shows serious promise and the characters are all well thought out and well acted. It is good to see Joseph Fiennes back, and kicking ass, and I'm looking forward to seeing Dominic Monaghan (Charlie on Lost) make his appearance in the coming episodes.

This one has earned a place in my regular television rotation, and i'm excited to see where it heads.

Developed by Harmonix
Genre Rhythm
Platform Xbox360, PS3, Wii
Release date(s) Out Now

The greatest band of all time get their own dedicated guitar game.



Beatlemania has officially returned. This year, not only do the fab four get their own video game, but a remake of Yellow Submarine the movie has recently been announced.

Apple Corps has finally begun to relinquish it's vice like grip on all things Beatles and allow the people to enjoy their brilliance across all forms of media. As soon as this possibility was announced, there ensued a heated bidding war for the licensing rights between the waning Guitar Hero and Rockband. Rockband won, and in retrospect it looks like it may be a match made in heaven.

At it's core, this game is a love letter to the fans. The entire career of the Beatles is painstakingly recreated from their early days in Liverpool to Shea Stadium, Ed Sullivan, and eventually the roof of Apple Corps studio. Each band member's likeness is recreated and lovingly animated, and even their instruments are authentic.

Story mode sees you play through their career, including a massive stretch of songs inside the Apple Corps studio. Now clearly half the story mode being played in the same setting would be boring, so in a stroke of genius, Harmonix came up with the idea of 'dreamscapes'. Now when you start playing a song in the studio, the set starts to melt away into one of these 'dreamscapes', wonderful fantasies that are custom designed for each song and feature really stunning and imaginative imagery unlike anything you've ever seen in a music game, or games from most other genres for that matter. Examples include a beautiful sunny hill top in 'Here comes the Sun', an under the sea dreamland in 'Octopus Garden' and the band in their Magical Mystery Tour animal forms (one of the trippiest things I've ever seen).

Each set begins with an introductory cutscene featuring real audio from the actual event, and each song begins with real audio recordings of the Beatles members warming up and chatting beforehand. It's all incredibly authentic and thoroughly detailed. On top of this, gamers can unlock photos and videos of the fab four back in their heyday. It's all pretty awesome if you're a Beatles fan.

There is also a challenge mode, which involves playing through a set list, getting 5 stars on every song without a break between songs, which adds extra depth to the game. Beating this on a lower difficulty is pretty easy and unlocks more photos for you, but try it on expert and weep.

That being said, the game never gets as difficult as Guitar Hero on the hardest difficulties, or even much of Rockband 2. Staying true to form, Harmonix don't try to 'manufacture' difficulty by making songs more difficult than they actually are, something Guitar Hero might like to try some day. As a result, the songs will be easier, but far more accurate.

A second now to talk about the instruments. The Paul McCartney Bass that comes with full bundle is by far the sweetest plastic guitar ever made. Sadly it plays mostly like crap, as do the rest of the instruments. Rockband may be a better game than Guitar Hero, but when it comes to instruments, Harmonix are sadly lacking.

Lastly, the DLC. Right now one can download All you Need is Love from the online store, with more albums on the way. Supposedly we will be able to play most of the Beatles catalogue in this game eventually, presumably aside from certain songs with very little guitar, like Hey Jude.

At the end of the day your decision is simple. If you don't like the Beatles then don't bother with this. If you do, then brilliant you're going to love this. Ultimately this is the most complete Beatles experience there is, and what you get is a package that is simply oozing with 60s style Beatlemania and love.


Loves:
The Music
Loving attention to detail
Tons of extra Beatles goodies

Hates:
Waiting for more DLC
Annoying instruments
The first unlockables seem to be the best ones

Until now, the heated health care reform debate has been a bit of a non starter. The House Tri-Committee have proposed a bill, which has already been 'passed' in principle, but unfortunately the Republicans, and conservative Democrats in the senate, refuse to endorse it, and yet have not submitted any proposal of their own so far, and thus very few developments have been made.

But now the Senate Finance Committee has finalised the details of their own bill, described as a 'more centrist' and moderate bill with more conservative backing. But how good is this bill actually? And how does it compare to the House bill?



Public Option vs. Nonprofit Cooperatives

The new bill, submitted by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) costs around $850 Billion, and drops the much discussed public option. Instead, it calls for the creation of nonprofit health cooperatives, which are basically organisations that go about providing cheap health insurance, or in some cases, private plans at cheaper prices.

On the surface, the difference between this and the Public Option, which will essentially be a government funded insurance company, is little, but there are key differences.

The Public Option is essentially a government funded health insurance firm, which will offer cheap health insurance to Americans. The difference is that with the Public Option, the government can set mandates, for example forcing prices to stay at a low, fixed rate.

Now, for many this seems to be a positive thing. Keeping Public Option prices low will create competition against the private insurance firms and force them to keep their prices low and competitive. So while the Cooperatives are useful tools for providing insurance for the uninsured, the Public Option will do the same job, but with the added bonus of keeping private insurance prices low, reducing premiums for the rest of us and potentially saving billions of dollars.

This sounds like a good thing, but there are a lot of people who worry that this might amount to a government takeover of healthcare. While there is nothing in the bill itself that forces people to switch to the Public plan, as long as they are already insured, a lot of people wonder if this might just be the first step towards an entirely public healthcare system.

These concerns would appear to be groundless, however. Just look at education, where public and private institutions seem to coexist happily, and indeed the most successful universities are privately owned. Similarly look at the delivery companies, where the Postal Service coexists with the likes of DHL and UPS. Heck, just look at the healthcare systems of every other developed nation in the world, where public healthcare has not led to the downfall of the private sector. And remember these are countries with actual public healthcare, not just public insurance, a much lesser intrusion on the private sector.

No, the real concern here is that this inevitably means that less money will be flowing into the healthcare industry. The Insurance companies will have smaller profits, and doctors will be earning less, so it is no surprise to see many people connected to these industries opposing any Public Option.

But in the end, cooperatives will do at least half the job that is required, giving insurance to the uninsured. What it won't do, then, is reign in the absurdly escalating insurance costs that are bankrupting the nation.


Preventing Escalation of Insurance Premiums

As mentioned, the Public Option can do this simply by mandate, and by introducing competition into the industry. The new Senate bill will attempt to make up for this loss by introducing billions of new fees on insurance companies.

On top of this, the bill will impose restrictions on what insurance companies can consider a 'pre existing condition' and prevent caps and limits on coverage. Again these are things that would indirectly be enforced by the creation of a government controlled Public Option which can set its own rules.

Ultimately It feels as though this bill is finding different way to phrase essentially the same reform package. Instead of a big scary government plan that will do everything that is required, they're going to bring in lots of different reforms to try to accomplish the same trick, but with less government control, because clearly this economic crisis has shown us that we can trust money hungry corporations much more than nonprofit government initiatives.

The natural instinct for most people is to go with the option with less government, but that's because they haven't looked at the finer detail of the Baucus bill.


Financing

The House Tri-Committee bill with the Public Option has been shown to be deficit neutral by the Congressional Budget Office, costing about a trillion dollars, paying for the majority of the package through spending reductions in things like Medicare and by ways and means.

The Baucus bill costs a bit less, $850 billion, but will pay for the majority through tax increases. You see, the key differences with this bill is that Baucus wants to win over conservative voters by removing words like 'government' and by paying for the reform out of the pocket of everyday Americans, and less from the pockets of insurance companies.

But in the end, both of these are budget neutral, since the Public Option will lead to increased revenue.


Other

Other than this, these bills have pretty much the exact same idea on reducing malpractice costs, on restricting coverage only to people with proof of citizenship, thereby preventing illegals from signing up (though this guy clearly missed that bit) and both are leaving abortion laws untouched, acquiescing to local state laws on the matter.


Conclusion

There's really nothing at all that you gain from this Baucus bill. Both are budget neutral, both will give similar levels of coverage, and both will lead to a short term reduction in healthcare costs. The only (theoretical) benefit is that conservatives will get on board, being that it involves smaller government.

The problem is that cooperatives don't have as much power as a public option will have to keep the industry under control, and the increased volume of legislation involved in the Baucus bill presents greater opportunity for loop holes and wastage. The end result of this is that while short term improvements are assured, in ten years time we will likely just find ourselves right back where we are now. All things being considered, it can not be denied that the Public Option is the best long term bet, especially in terms of cost.

The problem with this house bill, and why it has taken so long to pass is all politics, and pretty much nothing to do with economics or healthcare. You have to remember that this Public Option is already a watered down compromise from what progressives really want, a truly universal, single payer healthcare system.

But Republicans simply will not vote on any reform bill. It will be to their advantage if they can point back and say that nothing useful got done during the Democrat's time in charge, no one will remember that it was their fault, they'll just look at the results (yes as usual the Republican strategy is to bank on the stupidity of Americans, you should be used to that by now).

Similarly conservative Democrats are shying away from the bill now because of all the hubbub that is being generated in their states. It's not because they actually believe any of the bullshit the Republicans are saying, it's because they want to get reelected next year above all else and are being careful not to alienate their constituents.

In retrospect, it probably would have been better for the Democrats to initially come out with the most liberal plan imaginable, so that they could a few months later 'compromise' to what we have on the table now. This way the conservatives could vote in favor and not lose face, which is exactly what Baucus is hoping for now with this new Senate bill.

But even this new Baucus bill has not got one single vote of support from Republicans. I think by now it must surely be abundantly clear to all Democrats that what I said earlier is true, that no Republican will ever vote for any reform, no matter how good it is or how much it falls in line with their ideology.

So instead, they must be hoping that the new Baucus bill will entice enough blue dog Democrats to vote for it. But frankly, without any Republican votes, without Kennedy's vote, without the votes of certain "Democrats" like Lieberman, I don't think there's much chance of even this bill passing the Senate, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that Obama should just do what Democrats have been urging for weeks, push the House bill through with a slim majority and to hell with the conservatives.

At the end of the day, they can bitch and moan all they like but they did the exact same thing for 8 years, and when it comes time for the election, it will look better for the Democrats if a good bill gets passed with no Republican support than if a bad one gets passed with it.

Signs are already showing economic improvement, despite the Republican opposition to the stimulus. Now let's pull the same trick with healthcare and frankly they won't have a leg to stand on in the future.

song of the week: "After Hours" by "We Are Scientists"


thing that makes me happy today: As if we needed any more reason to love our President.

pic of the day:
IN:
World of Illusion
Napket
Pie

OUT:
Castle of Illusion
Pret a Manger
Had a budgie but it died

Directed by Neill Blomkamp
Written by Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell
Produced by Peter Jackson
Starring Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, Robert Hobbs
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 112 minutes

Peter Jackson produces this picture from debut writer director Neill Blomkamp, based on a film he made in college Alive in Joburg, and the cast doesn't have one recognisable name among it, with the star Sharlto Copley also making his feature film debut. Doesn't sound like blockbuster stuff no? Wrong. Warning, there will be spoilers.



In what has surely got to be one of the best marketing campaigns of all time, the minds behind District 9 have managed to pull off the difficult task of building a large amount of hype, whilst telling us next to nothing about the actual film's plot. No doubt you've seen these signs all over the place recently, all part of a genius viral campaign.

So what I did know going into the film was that this was based off, as I mentioned before, Blomkamp's short film which told the story of an oppressed group of alien survivors (dubbed 'prawns' by the meanie humans) who are ostracised and crammed into apartheid style concentration camps. Clear parallels are to be drawn with real life humanitarian disasters that inspired some of Blomkamp's earlier works, being a South African native.

How Blomkamp and this project came to be in the first place makes for an interesting story. Peter Jackson, who at the time was working on his film adaption to mega hit video game Halo, was so impressed with the short films Blomkamp had done that he picked him to direct Halo. Naturally the studio was not so thrilled with such a big project being handed to a first time director with no experience, and the project was pretty much killed. So instead, Jackson produced Blomkamp's big screen debut District 9, and let's just say nobody's doubting him now.

A derelict alien spaceship comes to a stand still in the skies above Johannesburg, South Africa, and after weeks of silence the military goes in to find the remnants of a dying alien race. Being the kind people that we are we bring them down onto our planet and build a special settlement for them to live and recover in. But of course real people aren't like this. Real people are xenophobic and greedy and exploitative, and the real genius of this film is acknowledging that.

This District 9 that we stick them in is little more than a ghetto. Shady Government organisations oppress the aliens to gain access to their technology, crime lords set up shop within District 9 to trade with the 'simple' aliens and accomplish the exact same thing. It all has a depressingly frank and brutal grit and realism to it that frankly you don't see in other examples of the genre.

The result is a science fiction movie unlike one you've ever seen before. Unnervingly real, in both the writing and the aesthetics. Indeed particular note must go to the amazing CGI work that's been done here, blending seamlessly with the world around and the human actors. Compare this to the majority of other sci-fi films that boast budgets three times as much as this and look like crap by comparison.

It's truly remarkable, and in a summer where the likes of Terminator: Salvation and Transformers 2 grossed hundreds of millions, this film serves as an important reminder of why you can and should demand more from your summer movies.

However, what I didn't expect was the second half of the film, where inspector Wikus, played very ably with an unlikable panache by Sharlto Copley, teams up with one of the aliens, and the film almost takes a buddy movie turn, complete with some spectacular set pieces.

Nonetheless, the spotlight rests squarely on Blomkamp, who had made a dream debut in cinema, and I think it's safe to say, can pretty much walk his way into any job he pleases now.

The annual coming of a new edition of the iconic Fifa series of video games is about as inevitable as flu season and Mike Dean fucking up. I approached this year's demo build warily after last year, where long term readers of mine will recall that I was blown away by the Fifa 09 demo, but then underwhelmed by the final product which, in many ways, seemed to take a step back somehow. Nonetheless, here are my impressions.



From the off, there's not a whole lot that stands out as different. Indeed this is the entire 'theme' for this year, "refinement" rathe than "revolution". This of course is usually just something lazy developers say when they can't come up with anything to do, and it's no different this time.

Much has been said about the new 360 degree player movement, but frankly it's barely noticeable. Players still fall into the same clunky 'on rails' animations when on the ball, which makes the whole concept somewhat redundant. Speaking of which, this was a major problem with both of the last two Fifa games which now still hasn't been fixed, so you can look forward to another year of the 'first touch' button, about as useful as a dancing monkey, knocking balls hopelessly out for a throw in when you really just want to move in a straight line.

This is my major gripe with the whole demo in fact, that many of the issues with past games have not been remedied. The teammate AI is still atrocious as well, with defenders moving into absolutely absurd positions and attackers perpetually in unnecessary offside positions.

Another concern is that the opponent AI (on the hardest difficulty anyway) seem unusually negative. Even when I'm playing against Barcelona they basically just pack their penalty area full of players and pass it around the back. In this respect PES remains lightyears ahead of Fifa.

So what is good? The physics seems to be handled a bit better this year, which allows for a much better passing game, as well as the scoring of more unique and interesting goals.

And of course the game really looks the business, with full licenses and likenesses as usual. Player ratings and team tactics seemed a little more up to date than is customary for Fifa games.

The game also seems to actually make use of player stats more than in previous games. Quick and strong players can actually run through defences now if timed right. Similarly I can actually feel a difference in playing against Barcelona as opposed to Chicago Fire, whereas last year playing against Man United or Wigan seemed pretty much the same.

Among the things I have not been able to try out yet, the new manager mode looks good, as do the adjustments they've made to be a pro. Hopefully they've ironed out a few of the absurdities of last year's be a pro mode. Why we're still limited to 5 seasons, however, is still a complete mystery.

One more thing I've noticed. Occasionally the computer will get a throw in, and you'll mark the guy he's probably going to aim for, and then computer will literally just wait and not throw it in until you've moved your marker away from his player. Seriously, i've left it there for minutes and he does nothing. It's bizarre and stupid, let's hope that gets fixed.

Absurd referee decisions occasionally (ie frequently) the ref seems to get flummoxed by complex rules like offside and advantage. For example picture this: I pass the ball, just afterwards I get fouled, but the ref plays advantage, the player I've passed to is offside as it turns out, but instead of pulling back play to give me the free kick, the free kick is awarded against me for the offside. Sigh.

song of the week: "After Hours" by "We Are Scientists"


thing that makes me happy today: Republican congressman Joe Wilson's (aka the douchebag who interrupted Obama like a petty child) opponent Rob Miller raising over three quarters of a million dollars in 1 day following Wilson's major gaffe.

pic of the day:
IN:
District 9
New iPod Nano
Reddit

OUT:
Avatar
Old iPod Nano
Digg

Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Written by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 153 minutes

Tarantino's latest sees a band of Jewish American soldiers during World War 2 with a mission to hunt down and kill as many Nazi's as possible.



Quentin Tarantino is a bit like marmite, you either love him or hate him. With his unique film making style which draws upon everything from martial arts films to spaghetti westerns, one can't deny the technical prowess and unrivalled attention to detail of this self appointed King of the film geeks. And yet, he has always had his critics.

Now he releases Inglourious Basterds, a film that Tarantino has spent more than a decade working on. This is the film that he describes as his masterpiece, the best film he has ever made, the ultimate Tarantino movie, and it is ultimately fitting that the film ends on the line "you know this might just be my masterpiece".

But this clearly self referential conceit describes a notion that is made all too evident throughout the film, and one comes away with the distinct feeling that this is a film that means a lot more to its writer than it does to its audience. Make no mistake, with excessive gore, dark humor, and reams of dialogue that borders on self indulgent, this is Tarantino in his element. But this is not his greatest film, and if you didn't like Tarantino before, you won't like him now.

First of all I feel it's necessary to clear things up for anyone who goes to this film expecting a 'world war 2' film. I don't think it would be adequate simply to say that Inglourious Basterds is 'historically inaccurate', as I'm sure you've read in other reviews. This gives the impression that this movie is 'inaccurate' in the sense of manipulating small details as pretty much all action films do, but this is just not the case. No, this film is 'inaccurate' in the sense that it takes the history books and sets them on fire. Not giving too much away, but it completely rewrites the ending of the war in such an unexpectedly bold and audacious fashion. It's sort of a 'what if' movie, more than an actual world war 2 film. This is absolutely fine though, I didn't go to Watchmen expecting historical accuracy and I didn't with this film either, and neither should you.

It is also important to clear up the nature of this film. Most of you will, as I did, go see this film expecting a 'dirty dozen' type of movie, with a 'rough around the edges' group of badass men on a mission. You'll be expecting this because it's exactly what most critics and previews of the movie have been telling us. But as you should have noticed by now, most film writers are a bunch of miserable cretins who couldn't conjure up an original thought between them if their careers depended on it (which quite clearly it does not).

In reality the aforementioned 'basterds' only get a small amount of screen time, and Brad Pitt himself is only on screen in three out of the film's five chapters. Instead, much of the time is spent following the story of Shosanna Dreyfus, played with a sufficient mix of sensitivity and menace by Mélanie Laurent, as she is presented with the opportunity of a lifetime to avenge the murder of her Jewish family at the hands of the Nazis.

Indeed, the film seems somewhat unfocused and as rough around the edges as the Basterds troupe it depicts.

On the one hand you will have gargantuan twenty minute long scenes featuring nothing but dialogue as in the first chapter "Once Upon a Time... in Nazi Occupied France" and the third chapter "German Night in Paris". Now these are actually some of my favorite scenes in the movie, allowing Tarantino to build the kind of suspense that he is known for through long rafts of verbose, but witty dialogue. As with much of Tarantino's work, the extent of the dialogue occasionally borders on 'too much', on being self indulgent rather than actually relevant.

But more than this, the problem is that it contrasts so starkly with much of the rest of the film, featuring a quickfire series of relatively short scenes, which afford little time to actually get to know the characters and learn to care about them. So while the dialogue heavy scenes might be fantastic pieces of cinema in their own right, they're relatively meaningless without a stronger foundation. The strange thing is, that while its clear that the film should have spent more time with the Basterds in the early stages of the film, it's impossible to look at the whole and pick out any scenes that should have been cut in order to make time for this.

The problem then, seems to be that this 'magnum opus' that Tarantino has been working on for his entire career, is simply to ambitious, too mammoth a body of work to fit into a single film. Watching this film, one gets the strong impression that what we are looking at is a severely cut rendition of what Tarantino must have originally wrote, and this comes across pretty clearly on screen. And it is to the detriment of the final product that we aren't given enough build up of the character and plot to really enjoy some of the finely written scenes later in the movie. Perhaps it might have worked better split into two 'volumes' like the Kill Bill saga.

That being said, one still can't help but enjoy the film for what it is; a highly enjoyable, if brainless, affair. A lack of 'completeness' to the film only slightly undercuts some scenes of expert poise and class that are bound to leave a smile on everyone's faces.

More to the point, the performances are generally excellent. Brad Pitt is typically excellent, playing gruff badass Aldo Raine with a fantastically thick Tennessee accent. Pitt shows once again how versatile an actor he can be, and it's amazing now to think that anyone could ever have seen him as 'just another pretty boy' actor.

But it is Christoph Waltz who steals the show here. Waltz plays Nazi Commander Hans Landa and gives one of those career defining performances that will almost certainly earn himself an Oscar nomination next year. Waltz plays the roll in ways that no Nazi, or any other character for that matter, has ever been played, ironic, mannered, intelligent and abundantly evil. It is charming and chilling, unique and unforgettable performance, and certainly the most impressive of the year so far. Waltz simply steals the scene whenever he appears.

Ultimately this is an extremely enjoyable film and one that deserves at least one viewing. It may not convert those who have already dismissed Tarantino, but for any true cinephiles there will be much to love here.