World in the Satin Bag

World in the Satin Bag

Star Trek 2009: On My List!

The new trailer for Star Trek 2009 is up at the Apple site (yes, I know, they’re evil, but they always have the good trailers, so I can give them some props). It’s official: As much as I hate J. J. Abrams I have to admit that this film looks like it may very well be the best Star Trek film to date and the likely candidate for “best film of 2009.” Yes, I’m going that far. The visuals are stunning (i.e. they look real, not fake and obviously CGed). I can’t wait for this one. Seriously. What do you think? Go on, argue amongst yourselves… (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)

World in the Satin Bag

Movie Review: Quantum of Solace

James Bond has returned! Wait, no, I’m sorry that’s not Bond. It seems that director Marc Forster believes the best direction to take the Bond series is down the Jason Bourne route, (I know you all are probably tired of all the Bourne Bond comparisons, but they’re there for a reason so you’ll have to suffer through another one), which I don’t think is the best way for the series to go, and I know I’m not alone here. Quantum of Solace is the sequel to the incredible franchise reboot Casino Royale (Which I liked better than superhero reboot Batman Begins), which I see as one of the best in the series, and brings back Daniel Craig as the suave, clean cut, drinking spy we all know and love… Wait, go back, what I meant to say was brings back Daniel Craig as the sometimes suave, beaten, drinking action star that emerged in the last film. QoS also brings forth a new bond girl in the form of Olga Kurylenko, and favorite returning character M played by Judi Dench. The movie starts off almost immediately where Royale left off with Bond racing down a mountainside with a criminal in his trunk ready to be interrogated. This starts off the first action sequence as cars go flying off cliffs and running into very large trucks. When he finally sits down alongside M to interrogate Mr. White, as he is known, he finds out that White is a part of a secret organization and finds it incredible that MI6 knows nothing about them. He laughs telling them that they have people EVERYWHERE, at which point a traitor emerges and sets Mr. White free to run away which starts off another chase scene.The whole movie is pretty much one big long chase with Bond going after… something. In the beginning he is looking for Vesper’s (The bond girl from Royale who drowned, after betraying Bond) boyfriend to get some answers, but he gets sidetracked to a plot concerning a girl called Camille (Kurylenko) trying to kill him, and then a man called Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric) trying to kill her by sending her onto a boat where there is a General who killed Camille’s family, who she is now intending to avenge. Now that’s a long way to say that pretty much everyone wants to kill everyone, but wait, there’s more. It turns out that Dominic Greene has a secret plan to possibly control oil in South America, and he’s even getting help from those damn American CIA agents.You can tell from that small plot summary that this movie is going to have it’s themes spread throughout revenge and trust, and while that’s true it’s not exactly a point Forster focuses on too much. Sure you get Bond sulking for a couple of scenes, and trying to do anything to get what he wants, but it never truly feels real. This is not a movie trying to explain what revenge does to the human soul, or how trust can sometimes be manipulated. No, this is a movie about visually active action scenes put down on a mat with a thin plot wire holding them together. It is seen as a thin wire because by the end of the movie you don’t really care about Greene’s evil plan (which is much smaller in scale than what is first assumed). The whole movie you’re just waiting for the next action scene to start. There are a couple of sentimental moments, and even a few true Bond moments spread throughout the scene, but overall this is just your standard Hollywood explosion film with a just an extra small hint of style and dignity. Now there are some things that Quantum of Solace gets right, one of which is Daniel Craig. Craig is by far one of the best Bonds (beaten only by Connery) and this performance is great, even though he doesn’t have much to work with. When he’s given the chance he shines, and that’s all we can ask for from him. The movie is also fast paced for the most part so you never really feel bored, but honestly there just feels like there’s too much missing from this film. To start off they bring in way too many characters. At the end you don’t care about any of the new ones introduced, or the ones brought back. They bring in so many characters that the new “Bond Girl” only gets around fifteen to twenty minutes of screen time. (That is of course a guess, but I can tell you that she wasn’t there long.) My biggest gripe though, is of course what I mentioned in the beginning. People need to realize that this is not an action film, Bond is a spy. He kills when he has too, but he does not enjoy doing it. Violence is an itch that James Bond hates to scratch. He sneaks, he listens, he saves the girl, he has one liners for everything, and he wears suits 99% of the time. He also uses gadgets Forster! Bond has watch lasers, and cell phone grappling hooks, he started that trend, and in over two hours of watching Solace I never caught a glimpse of the slightest bit of technology being used by Bond.Overall the movie itself isn’t bad. The acting is as good as you can accept it to be with Craig giving his all and everyone else doing the best they can with what they have, especially Judi Dench, but that’s practically a given. The direction is going to get points off from me, possibly unfairly, but the blame for this new Bond will fall on Forster and his screenwriters from me. I do not like where they are taking this new Bond and hopefully they will remedy this and bring us a third movie that’s on par with Royale. The screenwriting is just like above, but they get even more points taken off for the

World in the Satin Bag

Violent Video Games = Violent Kids = B.S.

All you annoying anti-fun harpies who are clambering with joy about the supposed “victory” against violent video games need to sit down and shut your traps long enough to actually consider the reality of the situation.MSN recently reported on a study by U.S. and Japanese researchers who say they have figured out whether or not violent video games actually create violent children. The study resulted in the following: In general, Anderson’s team found that kids who habitually played violent video games were more likely than their peers to become increasingly involved in physical fights — even when their behavior in the months leading up to the study was taken into account. Now, hold on. I know what you’re thinking. It’s proven once and for all, right? Actually, not really. Here’s the problem with what is being reported:First, the article mentions nothing whatsoever about percentages. Were all the kids who habitually played more aggressive? How many of their nearly 2,000-subject study turned out to be more violent? Were there six, or sixty, or half of one?Second, it “proves” that only habitual players of violent video games between the ages of nine and eighteen become more violent. What exactly constitutes habitual game playing for a nine-year-old, or a twelve-year-old, or an eighteen-year-old? Six hours a day? Four hours? Nine? Thirteen? What? These kids are in school, so they’re not playing all day, obviously. What about all the kids who didn’t fit into that group? Were they completely the opposite? A kid who played an hour a night was perfectly fine, but a kid who played seven hours a night had a higher tendency for violence?Third, nothing is mentioned about their home environments. How many of these kids were in abusive environments? How many were in good homes? How many had parents who do this little thing called parenting and didn’t let them play games all night? How many had parents who were active in their lives and made it a habit to be involved and explanatory? There’s nothing mentioned about this. Is there a connection between violent video games and bad/abusive parenting? That’s something that I think is really important to studies like this, because those are factors that must be accounted for.Fourth, and lastly, the article says: The Japanese teens reported on their own violent behavior using questionnaires,while teachers’ and peers’ reports were used to estimate the U.S. group’saggressive behavior. Okay, so there were no standardized methods in how the data was collected in this test. That’s important to pay attention to. Instead of having one method that was universal for the whole study, they used two, which will produce different results and have different variations within the data that must be accounted for. Teachers and peers may skew data differently than a questionnaire given to a teen will, and that means you have to account for different variables and statistical anomalies.If you think about this real hard you’ll realize that nothing has been proven at all. This is the same as people telling you that literacy is dying. It’s not dying; in fact, far from it (and this has a lot to do with asking the wrong questions, because asking whether someone read a book doesn’t prove that someone who says “no” doesn’t read). The problem, however, is that people won’t think about it. They’ll see what is being said, ignore the language, and automatically think the worst. That’s what people do and unfortunately it will mean ruining the whole thing for everyone. Think about this in terms of dog-banning laws. One or two dogs act up that happen to be of a particular breed and all of a sudden an entire city puts a ban on that breed. Well, a couple moron teenagers with screwed up parents went off and shot some other teenagers or teachers or their parents or whatever and happened to play violent video games and all of a sudden the country is making laws that ban such games.So calm down, video games don’t make your kids psychotic killers.

World in the Satin Bag

And Another Thing . . .

Thus is the title of the sixth book in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy ‘trilogy’. It will be written by Eoin Colfer, who wrote the Artemis Fowl series, and has the backing of Adams’ widow. I must say, I’m very worried. The H2G2 movie was dreadful and I’m not sure Colfer can pull off the Hitchiker humour. Even Terry Pratchett would have been a better choice. I’m also a little jealous, because I’d always dreamed of writing the sixth book. Obviously I knew it would never happen, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept it. I’m curious to see how he’s going to save the heroes from the Vogon Constructor Fleet at the end of Mostly Harmless. Of course, they could just hope the Vogons still have Dentrassi onboard and hitch a ride. Or Colfer could go the route of the fifth radio series, where the babel fish shift their hosts into an alternate dimension. However, I never bought that excuse either. Only time will tell, I guess. But here’s advance warning that I’ll hate it. And complain. A lot.

World in the Satin Bag

Rejection: Artemis

Well, I didn’t get anywhere this round in the Writers of the Future. So be it. It’s off to somewhere else. Yay! Anywho! (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)

World in the Satin Bag

Movie Review: Eagle Eye

After Disturbia became a surprise hit last year, Hollywood wasted no time in reuniting director D.J. Caruso and Shia Labeouf for another sure to be hit. They had the director, and they had the main lead, all that was left was the female, the action, and the story. To solve the first problem Michelle Monaghan was cast, an action which I applauded. The second problem was solved by deciding to turn the whole film into a chase movie with a side of government phone tapping just for kicks. Once they had their money making template set up Eagle Eye needed a story and for that they began to pick their favorite scenes from similar plotted films and just changed the characters and location. Eagle Eye starts off with a confusing attack on a middle eastern could be terrorist that doesn’t make much sense. A flying jet, or camera on a jet, sees a man and deduces that it has a 51% of being the man that they are looking for. The soldiers watching debate as to whether or not fire upon this person and in the end the president deems the chance to big to pass up and they fire. I don’t recall this ever being important in the movie ever again. Then we cut to Shia Labeouf’s character Jerry who works at a copy story. One day he gets a call telling him that his twin brother has just died and when he returns from the funeral he finds mountains of weapons, bombs, and equipment manuals stashed in his house. A woman calls him on his phone and tells him to run because he’s been “activated” and when he refuses the FBI reach his room and arrest him. At the same time Monaghan’s character Rachel drops her son off to go play at some form of symphony orchestra in Washington D.C. (I feel it is important to note here that this child can’t be more than eight, and this is obviously a small class of modern Beethovens) While she is drinking at a bar with some friends the same woman that called Jerry calls her and tells her that she has been “activated” and must follow her directions if she ever wants to see her son again. This woman sets in motion a huge escape in which Jerry leaps from FBI holdings onto a train track and eventually meets up with Rachel. The two are closely followed by FBI officer Thomas Morgan (Billy Bob Thornton) and Air Force officer Zoe Perez (Rosario Dawson). Soon the voice is giving Jerry and Rachel directions and altering traffic signals, listening in on cell phones, and even controlling cranes to attack following police cars. The whole movie takes place with Jerry and Rachel running away from the FBI while the voice (who is played by Julianne Moore by the way) makes everything easy for them and most of the time kills all followers or obstacles which pretty much takes the suspense away. The acting is acceptable. Labeouf has one cringe worthy scene but for the most part passes through the film, as does Monaghan even though they have little material to work with. Thornton actually gave the best performance but that’s not saying much. While he had some good one liners, most of other lines were attempts at humor that came off as annoying after a while. The voice also does a great job at reminding video game players of Portal, so at least that feeling could make people happier during this film. Overall the acting isn’t great, and it isn’t bad. It isn’t in acting where the movie fails. No, it’s everywhere else. You can complain about the horrible story or the countless rip off from movies like I, Robot, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Live Free or Die Hard to a certain extent. As a whole though the movie just doesn’t work in any way. The suspense is gone completely seeing how everything is perfectly set up for the characters so it doesn’t work in that department. The story is completely predictable so there’s no “Aaaaaaah” moment when characters suddenly realize something that you’ve just assumed has been true for the last half hour, and the movie is just too boring to really thrill you. You laugh at some scenes when you shouldn’t, at other times you roll your eyes at the events unfolding on screen, and at other times you grunt in anger at the fact that you feel like you really are watching something you’ve already seen before. Eagle Eye worked on nearly no level for me which is a shame since I enjoyed Disturbia and had high expectations for this one. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t deliver at all and I would have given it at least a generous 2.5 if they hadn’t copped out at the end. The movie could have at least ended great but they went cheesy and stupid and so I find nothing redeeming in this film and give it 1.5/5.

Scroll to Top