The Ephemeric

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.

Directed by Judd Apatow
Written by Judd Apatow
Starring Seth Rogen, Adam Sandler, Leslie Mann, Jonah Hill
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 136 minutes

Seth Rogen plays a struggling young comedian who meets his idol, a well known comedian played who has been diagnosed with a terminal case of leukemia, played by Adam Sandler.



In recent years, Judd Apatow has become the hottest thing in comedy. Hit movies such as Knocked Up and the underrated Superbad have made him the go to guy for the biggest and best comedy stars.

Now he's back with his new movie Funny People, which continues his proud tradition of coming up with really bad titles for decent films. And that's exactly what this film is, decent, without fulfilling its potential. Allow me to elaborate.

Now at first I was very hesitant going to see this movie. First of all the trailer looks awful, it makes the film out to be some crappy formulaic comedy. This is not a new phenomenon in Hollywood. The sad thing is that there are more idiots in the world than smart people, a lot more, and there are numerous films and tv shows that have trailers that have clearly been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, despite the film actually being half decent. Sad, but true.

The fact that this stars Adam Sandler of all people doesn't do much to allay my fears. He's the type of actor I loved back when I was 13 or so and Happy Gilmore was comedy gold to me (actually it's still kinda funny), but frankly he is just not good, and not especially funny for someone who's past his teen years.

But man was I in for a surprise. Not only is Sandler good, he is very good. He plays a famous comedian who is diagnosed with Leukemia, and serves as a parable of how lonely it can be at the top. It's all very well written stuff and seems to be a perfect fit for Sandler.

He is ably joined by co-star Seth Rogen, now firmly right at the top of the comedy A-list. Seth Rogen plays a struggling comedian who meets his idol and is offered a job. Rogen plays the same type of relatable nice guy that he has done in pretty much all his films, and though it is a part that he plays well, one can't help but think it would be nice to see him do something a bit different for a change. I guess an overweight Jewish guy with curly hair can't really do much more. And I should know, I used to be one!

In the end though, people go to a comedy to be entertained. And while this movie is funny, it's not the same kind of brainless humor one has come to expect from Apatow's films. This is much smarter, and for the first half of the film you're sure that you're in for something a bit special, a bit different. One suspects that maybe this is Apatow reaching maturity.

Unfortunately he sort of loses the plot towards the end of the film where the story devolves into far more clichéd stuff; the traditional chasing of a loved one at the airport, the brawl outside the party, suddenly we're in very familiar territory. That's not to say that it's bad, it's just that a film that looked for a while like it was on its way towards being a classic ends up being a more typical crowd pleasing comedy, and it's a shame.

Nevertheless, make no mistake that this is a cut above most films of the genre. It is regrettable that most people who might actually be looking for a more cerebral laugh will be put off by the shamelessly dumbed down marketing put forward by the studio, and as such this film is likely to remain underrated for the most part. But for those of you who do go to see it, you will find one of the better comedies of the year so far, and just a half hour short of being one of the better comedies in a longer while.

For anyone going to this film expecting a Superbad or 40 Year Old Virgin laugh out loud, but fairly broad comedy, you will go home disappointed. This is, for the most part, much smarter stuff from Apatow with a very toned down Sandler giving the acting performance of his life.

Throughout history, mankind has prophecized their own destruction. From the Holy Bible, to Nostradamus on an LSD trip to Y2K, disaster (the kind featuring death, destruction, and hardcore graphic nudity) always seems to be just around the corner.

Yet so far none of these doomsayers' theories have come to pass. And indeed that poor record seems set to continue as 2012 approaches, despite our best efforts to misinterpret the Mayan calendar... or is it Aztec? Who really cares anyway right?

But this time, we have a really good feeling that our doom is RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER(!) The signs are all around us and we would all be foolish to ignore them. So today we present our top 5 list of signs that our species is doomed to extinction in the near future.

As apocalyptic theories change, so do our depictions of the horsemen.

5. More Money is Spent on Toothpaste Research than Cancer Research

We live in a world where big corporations like Colgate and Aquafresh spend millions and millions on research and development every year, because quite frankly our smiles aren't white enough yet and rather than that being attributed to lazy slobs who can't be bothered to brush it's quite clearly the fault of poor tooth cleaning technology.

Your Government's research funding at work.

In the meantime you may have noticed those cancer research adverts on the tv asking for mere pennies a week. Because clearly treating something that kills a couple thousand people every day is less worthy of spending money on than a new toothpaste formula where the awful taste stays in your mouth for a few minutes less.

Scenario for destruction: The annual incidence of cancer increases exponentially, especially after it is discovered that the new "flavorless, ultra-white, makes your breath smell like lavender and sunshine" toothpaste formula contains about 95% carcinogens.

We all die slowly, but with one heck of a smile.

Doom-o-meter Rating: Low


4. Douchebags

More and more, ours is a world ravaged by the putrid plague of douchebaggery. We've all seen them, grease dripping hulks with spiky dyed hair, fake tan and enough piercings to melt an airport security scanner.

Homo Scrotius in its natural habitat.

Clubs all over the world are over run with this blight like barnacles on a ship hull. Harrowing tales of thrusting choads and violence fueled by roidrage abound, the pandemic appears to be spreading at a rate that would put swine flu to shame.

Scenario for destruction: The human race slowly dwindles in numbers as innocent women are in the thrall of closet homosexual bags whose reproductive capabilities have long since been devastated by steroid abuse.

The rest of us slowly die off as a result of TAG body shot and $3 cologne induced asphyxiation.

Doom-o-meter Rating: High


3. the Hadron Collider

The Big Bang was pretty fucking cool when you think about it. Picture a 14 billion year old explosion so big our planet is still spinning from the shock, as well as everything else in the known universe. Doesn't that sound like something you want to do a couple of miles under Switzerland? Seriously what's the worst that could happen?

Oh... yeah.

Scientists reckon that they can build a bigger bang by firing protons at each other really really fast, about a million of them in fact. Apparently it will teach us a lot of new things about particles... and stuff. Unfortunately it will only be observable in 15 billion years by the people that evolve in the new universe we create... and then they'll try to recreate the bang using a super collider, and you see where this is going.

But then again, they can't even get the damn thing to turn on!

Scenario for destruction: Particles collide, a chain reaction occurs that the eggheads can't contain, and the planet explodes in a cloud of sparkly dust.

We all die, quickly this time.

Doom-o-meter Rating: Mild


2. /b/

It's the American dream, hell it's the dream of people from any country, complete freedom. 4chan's /b/ messageboard offers a forum for completely unfettered freedom of expression. Surely the result can only be a utopian realization of this dream?

Abandon all hope, ye who tread.

Instead, 4chan has become a melting pot for all of the most depraved minds of humanity. It is here that most of the internet memes find their root, and anything else you find here will likely be 'shock images', ie cartoon porn, racist jokes, pictures featuring excrement, nudity and all of the above rolled into one. In short, it is a dark place that may destroy the mind of any sane individual, be warned.

Scenario for destruction: Depending on who you talk to, 4chan is either a 'dangerous terrorist organization (according to Fox news, but then they think everyone's a terrorist) or an invading alien armada (according to Scientology). At the very least it's a soul sucking weapon of mass destruction that will scramble all our brains.

Either way, we all die horribly.

Doom-o-meter Rating: Very High


1. Sarah Palin

The single biggest sign that mankind is doomed to destruction can only ever be the one and only Caribou Barbie. She's a maverick, she's a moron, she can see Russia from her house... come on, you all know her!

Our 45th President?

Good Lord, what more can be said about Sarah Palin than has been already? She doesn't read any newspapers, which might explain why she's so clueless, she practically invented the death panel rumor, and she writes such embarrassingly cheesy tweets that Conan had to bring in the Shat to 'sing' them. She is a complete unmitigated disaster and probably less qualified than about 90% of the population to be President.

But what is truly scary is that there are people out there who actually support her! Polls show that she is actually the preferred candidate for President amongst Republicans, with around 25% supporting her. Sure, 25% of what little remains of the Republican party is probably like 10 people but even that is fucking scary and simply unbelievable.

Scenario for destruction: Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Go watch it and all shall become clear.

We may not die horribly, but we'll probably commit hari kari.

Doom-o-meter Rating: HOLY SHIT RUN!!!

song of the week: "Los Feeling (Monsieur Adi Remix)" by "Visitor"


thing that makes me sad today: The loss of one of the greatest US senators of all time, who fought tooth and nail for our civil rights for 50 years. Right before his dream of health care reform finally comes to fruition as well. RIP Teddy.

pic of the day:
IN:
District 9
Autumn
Mixx

OUT:
Avatar
Summer
Digg

Written by Mike Henry, Seth MacFarlane
Starring Mike Henry, Sanaa Lanthan, Kevin Michael Richardson
Broadcast date 27th September 2009
Running time 23 minutes



Oh boy. Well we weren't sure it was ever going to happen or if it was all some elaborate joke, but it has finally arrived. We have seen the pilot for the new Family Guy spin off, The Cleveland Show.

Yeah, that's right. Family Guy's most unfunny, most boring character has been given his own show. It's the sort of awful, so bad it's amusing for about 30 seconds kind of idea that you would have expected to see as one of those random cutaway jokes on Family Guy, like when Peter imagined he had his own 80s sitcom, My Black Son, or on Scrubs the bit imagining if Ted and Janitor had their own show called Legal Custodians.

Unfortunately whereas these so bad it's kinda funny ideas had the good decency to exist only as parody on a much better tv show, the Cleveland Show appears to be entirely oblivious to the joke. The show even opens with its own awful 80s style sitcom theme song that frankly can't possibly be doing anything other than taking the piss out of itself.

Now make no mistake. Even though the writing credits have Seth MacFarlane's name on it, this is firmly Mike Henry's baby. Henry, who voices Cleveland, has basically just ripped off the Family Guy formula here, complete with random cutaway jokes, wacky neighbours (more on them in a minute) and a talking baby who's far more intelligent and worldly than he should be. The problem is, Henry just isn't anywhere near as funny as he thinks he is.

The basic plotline sees Cleveland leaving Quahog with his son Cleveland Jr (who has inexplicably evolved from a small hyperactive kid into a fat, slow talking, hypoactive kid) and head to start up a new life in Cleveland's hometown.

The episode opens with a scene that could be straight out of Family Guy, with Cleveland sitting around at the bar with Peter, Quagmire and Joe explaining his predicament, and early on it's clear why this show just won't work.

After the announcement of this spin off show well over a year ago, it seems the writers on Family Guy attempted to 'spice up' the character of Cleveland, making him 'funnier' (read: more of a stereotypical loud black guy). Remember the episode from last season (or was it the season before?) of Family Guy where Cleveland sleeps with Brian's girlfriend? A mediocre episode featuring a revitalized Cleveland who was suddenly making jokes and using hip slang in stark contrast to the previously dull nature of his character? Well this is basically an entire show based around that premise that was already completely worn out after just that 20 minute episode.

Either that or I'm just missing why Mike Henry shouting "You're a dog!" and "I guess they did!" over and over in his most stereotypical black guy voice is meant to be funny. Really I'm not skipping over anything, those lines are meant to be the jokes, there's nothing more to those lines. At times it's almost embarrassingly unfunny.

Even some of the few mildly amusing segments, such as early on Lois and Bonnie making out, are ruined by Cleveland bursting into laughter and shouting 'DAMN!" in that ethnic stereotypical way, which clearly Mike Henry feels is the perfect punchline to any joke. In fact this is a great example of one of the things I hate most about this show. It thinks it's much funnier than it is and pretty much every joke Cleveland is involved with involves him bursting out laughing at his own joke. Yeah that's right, the characters laugh at their own jokes. Seriously, if I hear that Cleveland laugh one more time I'm going to hit someone.

Cleveland runs into his old flame Donna and spends the rest of the episode trying to get with her. She lets him stay at her place and we meet her kids, the sexually precocious baby Rallo, and her jailbait daughter Roberta. Roberta has one of the only funny moments of the show, describing how she had to fight off "six Al Qaedas" but otherwise seems a boring and thin character. Rallo on the other hand seems the only mildly interesting character on the show, but again seems like a character best suited to a 5 minute cameo on Family Guy rather than his own show.

And then there's the neighbors. There's the racist redneck Lester, the ultra extreme wannabe hipster Holt who lives with his mom, and the anthropomorphic bear Tim who, yep, is a fucking talking bear. Not only that, he's Italian or something with a full on accent, and if your sides aren't already splitting he's a religious christian who keeps going on about Jesus! Also he's dimwitted and sounds like a mix between Barney Gumble and Peter from Family Guy's co-worker Fouad who doesn't get sarcasm. Comedy gold as you can see.

So Cleveland starts to pass his wisdom onto the kids, and ends up the episode marrying Donna and forming a nice happy family. The end. Did I mention that all the random cutaway jokes seem like terrible imitations of Family Guy? Kind of like some random fan decided to write his own fan script complete with his own jokes that he thinks are 'just as funny' as the real thing, but aren't.

The episode ends with an actually quite sweet musical montage of years gone by to the tune of 'How Deep is Your Love', but even that is undermined by really unfunny visuals.

It's not at all funny, that much is clear. One has to wonder then, whether this show is just 'bad' or if it's intentionally so bad it's funny. Frankly even if it's the latter, that just isn't a good concept for a full tv series. If Mike Henry wants to come out now and tell us that it was all a joke and they were never really going to make it into a show then i'll play ball and accept it, I'll even find it a pretty funny gag.

Otherwise save yourself the effort and avoid a frankly terrible 25 minutes of television. That FOX have already ordered two seasons of this makes a damning statement about what they think of the average tv viewer. This is basically Family Guy for thick people. Oh and if Seth MacFarlane reads this, take your name off the show, it's going to kill your reputation.

Stories reverberate around the internet about Apple's fascism with regards to app developers, or eBay's appalling customer service. But every so often a story comes along that really makes you sit back and go "wtf?".

Today we have one such story, and from right here in our own Imperial College London.



It seems that an entire college dorm has found a way to piss off social media website Digg.com. We received this story from an anonymous engineering student living in the Beit student halls in South Kensington who was shocked to log into the public computer in the common room only to find that his Digg access had been disabled, with absolutely no explanation, warning, or contact of any kind from the kind people at Digg.

Shortly after this, around twenty more people contacted us to tell us that they too had found their accounts deleted under similarly mysterious circumstances. All these people had only one thing in common, that they had used this public computer to access their Digg accounts. Indeed it seems to be the case that everyone who had ever accessed Digg on that one computer now had their accounts suspended without any warning or explanation.

One student had this to say: "I rarely even use this site so it's not my problem, but I can't for the life of me figure out what happened."

Another added this: "I can't understand how they can just do this without even telling us, and then not even respond to our emails. It's pretty laughable really."

At the time of writing this article the Digg support team have so far declined to respond to any of the students' emails, nor had they replied to our request for information. It seems they may want to quietly sweep this under the rug and move on.


UPDATE: Thanks Alex for contacting us with this information. It seems that this article found its way briefly onto Digg itself, but has since been deleted. It now seems like all articles from this website will be removed, guess they don't want people reading about this.