Solitude

It was a bit of a quiet month for me at the cinema, despite a lot of films that looked like they might be good being released. I only saw two films…

Youth in Revolt is a Michael Cera film, which should set up a number of expectations for it. You expect it to be a cute, indie-comedy about a geeky kid who has to find confidence to get the girl, or some other variation on the theme. The first act plays straight into this and is fairly weak for it. The middle, however, is substantially better as the lead character defers to his maniac alter-ego. Sadly, even this pretty funny section is ruined somewhat by the fact that 90% of it is in the trailer. While the ending isn’t as strong, it’s a fine finish to a watchable, but not great, movie. (Read my Youth in Revolt Twitter review).

A Single Man is a fairly straight-forward and somewhat predictable story of living with grief, through the eyes of someone who cannot allow themselves to express their feelings. The direction here is solid, bringing memories of Kubrick’s shorter shots; dressing tables, desks, and lived-in spaces giving the feel of the characters in a few short seconds. Colin Firth puts in a fantastic performance as the lead, wavering between having a breakdown at any moment and keeping a stiff upper-lip. A very good film overall. (Read my A Single Man Twitter review).

While there wasn’t much in the way of competition, A Single Man is a well-deservied winner.

Another year, and another fresh film fight. As always, January was a tough month, with lots of pretty strong competition (usually the Oscar wannabes are released around this time of year). To get us started, there are 6 films this month.

First up is Robert Downey Jr. in a role that he really wasn’t born to play: Sherlock Holmes. Guy Ritchie gives us an interesting take on the classic detective. His typically non-linear storytelling is used to great effect to explain how the master detective has reached his conclusions, and is particularly good when he’s sizing up opponents in fights, slowly and methodically showing how he’s going to break down their defences. Why this particular story mechanic is dropped relatively early in the film is beyond me, because it’s one of the strongest. Less good is the script: a fairly poor mishmash of ideas, ranging from secret societies, magic, steampunk and master villians. It doesn’t particularly fit into the Sherlock Holmes mythos, and doesn’t readily establish itself as a new take. It’s a pretty mediocre action film, that’s also trying to be a comedy. It fails to do anything particularly well. Not recommended.  (Read my Sherlock Holmes Twitter review).

Daybreakers is a surprisingly watchable, but not great, film. It deftly manages to build up its world, quickly, quietly and effectively, and moves on with the story it has to tell. This is a world where an infection has caused the vampires to take over and hunt down the humans. The vampires, however, have over-extended and food is becoming scarce. Queue a story about diminishing food supplies, the folly of rapid and mindless expansion, and a lot of gore. That’s what saves this film: the tongue-in-cheek bloodbath we’re treated with visually, paired with some slightly cheesy lines. The film would’ve been better had it been more over-the-top. As it stands, Daybreakers is a decent action movie, but not a great one. (Read my Daybreaks Twitter review).

The Road is the almost resolutely bleak, yet absolutely compelling. The primary narrative follows a father and son travelling through a post-apocalyptic world (what happened is never explained), as they encounter endless difficulties and enemies. What starts as trying to protect his son soon becomes a desperate paranoia, as the father becomes wary of everyone they met, and slowly loses his way. Several scenes are horrifyingly blunt about the lengths the father will go to to ensure they don’t become food for the more cannibalistic elements, and Viggo Mortensen does a fantastic job of showing the slow decay that takes a grip of him. While the ending ties things up a little too neatly, the rest of the film is very well done. A must see. (Read my The Road Twitter review).

Not many people would make a comedy about firing people, but Jason Reitman has done just that with Up in the Air. The core conceit gives way to an inspection of the main character’s choices in life at just the right time, showing him up to be a willing outcast and seeing if those choices are right. While it does veer dangerously close to schmaltzy in places, it always manages to pull away by being brutally honest elsewhere. It’s not the funniest comedy, nor the best character piece, but both halves combine to make a good, solid movie. (Read my Up in the Air Twitter review).

A Prophet is a very interesting French film, a fairly gritty take on a prison drama. Malik begins as a young, somewhat naive hoodlum who goes to jail and, over the course of the film, becomes warped by his environment and the things he needs to do to survive. It doesn’t pull many punches as he schemes his way further up the criminal ladder. It’s well-structured and well-paced, being lent real weight by the very natural performances. While the scene in the middle where they both use the title and throw around a dead deer are puzzlingly unnecessary (and in poor taste), the rest of the film is very well done. (Read my A Prophet Twitter review).

Finally, Precious is a fairly harrowing story of bullying, abusive upbringings and never thinking you can make something of yourself. While, at times, it turns things around a little too neatly, the main plot-line is equally engaging and chilling. Mo’Nique puts in an Oscar worthy performance as the abusive mother, handling a fairly dicey subject with a great believability. It’s not easy to watch, but it is worthwhile. A powerful film. (Read my Precious Twitter review).

And the winner? It was a close-run thing between Precious, The Road and A Prophet, but I think The Road takes it in the end. Another great January for film.

As always my caveat from previous years still apply: Film Fight is a knock-out tournament and, as such, will only select my favourite film. It makes no guarantees about any other place.

First, the non-finalists that deserve a nod:

• Slumdog Millionaire
• Milk
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Anvil: The Story of Anvil
• Monsters Vs. Aliens
• Star Trek
• Antichrist
• Mesrine: Killer Instinct
• Zombieland
• Up
• Where The Wild Things Are

And then the monthly finalists:

• January: The Wrestler
• February: Revolutionary Road
• March: Bronson
• April: In The Loop
• May: Synecdoche, New York
• June: The Hangover
• July: Moon
• August: Inglourious Basterds
• September: District 9
• October: Fantastic Mr. Fox
• November: A Serious Man
• December: Nowhere Boy

Last year, it was very easy to give the title to There Will Be Blood (despite a good effort from No Country For Old Men), but this year the finalists are almost all fantastic films; The Hangover being the only one that slid through in a weak month.

I don’t know if I could pick a bronze medallist this year, the pack is so tight, but the silver (almost gold) goes to Darren Aronofsky’s fantastic movie, The Wrestler. It’s dark, and gritty, and will leave you a little sadder, but only because it’s such an excellent movie. An absolute must-see.

The winner, however, is Synecdoche, New York. Charlie Kaufmann’s film is so rich with imagery, imagination and an incredible spectrum of emotions that it can’t help but be an amazing film, in the truest sense of that word. It’s an instant classic, in my book.

The last month of the year, and the final five films…

First up, The Men Who Stare At Goats tries to be an oddball tale about the forming of an army unit who are training in psychic warfare. Despite a fairly big name cast (George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey, and Ewan Macgregor), it never really manages to capitalise on what it has. It’s funny in places, but largely inconsistent. It’s merely an okay film. (See my Men Who Stare At Goats Twitter review).

Spike Jonze is well-known for his vivid imagination, so there’s probably no-one better placed to turn Where The Wild Things Are into a movie. Rather than do a direct adaptation, which would be incredibly short, Jonze has focussed on telling a story about the problems people often face in childhood. It’s very cute and sweet in many places, with a tiny hint of menace streaked through a large portion. He expertly moves the protagonist, Max, through his journey, showing us a wide-range of beautiful moments and difficult challenges. The lead, Max Records, does an excellent job. Good entertainment.  (See my Where The Wild Things Are Twitter review).

Doing a biopic of John Lennon’s life you might focus on his success and admiration as a fascinating musician. Nowhere Boy instead focusses on his formative teenage years to great effect. Seeing the legendary figure as a troubled teen was a good choice for a screen play, and it’s handled very well. Given his abandonment as a child, and his subsequent reconnection with his mother a decade or so later, we get to see a fairly turbulent time in his life that seems to have shaped him. The film has several very powerful scenes, and manages to draw a fairly detailed picture of Lennon’s early years. Very good.   (See my Nowhere Boy Twitter review).

Avatar is the film that has been in the making for a dozen years according to director, James Cameron. Sadly, very few of those years have been spent on the story, which is somewhat flimsy and you have seen before. The character development is relatively meek, and most of the film lacks any real depth. It does have a message which, while delivered a little heavy-handedly, is worthwhile: both that we should be conserving the world’s culture and the environment in which we live. Avatar is, however, a good, mindless, action film. The effects (in 3D) are well-done, and some of the battle sequences are suitably epic and fun. If you want something fun that you don’t have to think about, this is your movie. It’s entertaining, but ultimately nothing special. (See my Avatar Twitter review).

Finally, Humpday is about two friends, an artist and an apparently average Joe, who decide to make an art film of themselves having sex, for various reasons. It’s shot in a natural, almost documentary style; managing to be simultaneously amusing and uncomfortable as they get closer to the filming. The tension throughout is well-pitched, particularly between the “average” guy and his wife. Some great performances make this film, even if the ending is a little abrupt. (See my Humpday Twitter review).

The winner this month is Nowhere Boy for an emotional and affecting biopic that perfectly captures an important time in a young man’s life.

Frequent readers will have noticed a fairly large upturn in the number of posts I’ve been making recently. For the last year or so, I’ve averaged around 1-2 posts a month, which is a fairly low amount.

Separately, for a few years now, I’ve wanted to participate in NaNoWriMo, where, in the month of November, you’re expected to write an entire novel. Now, I’m realistic enough to know that I wouldn’t make enough time to do that this year. So I wanted to do something else instead, much smaller scale.

I opted to try and write a post each day for the month of November. Obviously, that’s a lot less than writing a novel, but I felt that it was do-able.

As I’m writing this, the last post for November, I have no idea whether or not I managed it (this is being written at least a week early, and then scheduled to publish last thing on the 30th). Whether I did or not, I’ve enjoyed it so far. There have been a number of items sitting waiting to get written for a while, without any pressure to actually do so.

While I am absolutely not aiming to keep this rate up, I do have something of a plan to publish a number of other items over the coming weeks. Hopefully, that’ll pan out okay and we won’t get back to that abysmal rate before this month.

Anyway, apologies for some of the lower quality items you’ve seen (I should not write early in the morning), I’ll be aiming to make everything from here a lot higher quality.

UPDATE: Turns out I did manage it. Nice.

The flip-side to my post about Dopplr being a stand-alone network, and how that is probably a bad thing is exactly where are all the serious or worthwhile Facebook applications? I can’t recall ever having seen anything with that isn’t a novelty of some sort.

Sure, games, quizzes, toys etc can be fun and people are most definitely using them, but are there any applications out there outside of the entertainment/trivia category that are good enough for consumption? I’m fairly interested by this and what, if anything, it says about preferred usage patterns on social networks.

Is the lack of visibility on non-entertainment apps because they don’t exist or because people simply don’t use them? If the former, then is that because the serious app developers don’t want to cropshare or because they see it as futile? If the latter, is it something inherent in being in front of your friends that causes the lack of interest?

I honestly have no answers here, but I’m hoping I’ll see some suggestions made here about what’s happening, or even showing some good “serious” apps.

There is a fairly tangible link between the language used to describe a software system and how easy it is to understand, maintain, and expand that system, for both technical and non-technical people. To be clear, when I say language I don’t mean the programming language of choice (Java, C, Python etc): I mean the terms used to describe it.

If all participants in the design process (again, technical and non-technical) can agree on a set of terms for each component and always talk about those components and their interactions in the same way, it can greatly ease understanding. There’s a lot more to it than that, but this is basically Domain-Driven Design.

I’d been thinking about the general principles of this a number of years ago, when I read a great article about the Guardian redesign. It took me a while to dig out the link but it’s worth a read: Domain-Driven Design in an Evolving Architecture. It’s definitely worth reading to get a feel for the issues around and power of the DDD.

It occurred to me recently that the reason that many vendor tools take a significant amount of effort before either making sense or before you realise that they’re awful is that they’re written in someone else’s domain, one in which you were not privy to the design of and which is usually only documented in terms of the things that it has already been used to do. That’s a mistake.

The empowering part of good documentation for a system is in first describing exactly what it is and how it is structured, before describing what it can do; by focusing on the domain, rather than the outcome.

With this information in hand, it should become clearer much sooner whether the domain of the tool is compatible with the domain of your problem-space. This is probably why Spring has been such a successful framework in the Java world: it goes to great lengths to explain exactly what each part is, and helping you understand how it fits under your own domain.

Quite a short month and one for horror. Three films:

Jennifer’s Body is a fairly poor attempt at horror. It’s also a fairly poor attempt at comedy. Trying to mix the two is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and very few films have managed it successfully. The comedy kills the horror, and the horror kills the comedy. Beyond that, we’re treated to some pretty terrible acting, fairly affected dialogue, teen cliches and bad editing. Lack of consistency kills this film: it could’ve aimed for being cheesey and been better for it, rather than trying to be serious some of the time. Not worth seeing. (See my Jennifer’s Body Twitter review).

Paranormal Activity is another horror movie, in the style of The Blair Witch Project. The premise is fairly straight-forward: a couple believe they’re experiencing some odd, possibly occult, activity in their home so decide to film during the night. This starts to yield results. The scares themselves are pretty predictable if you’re a horror film fan, but the style of the movie brings out a little more believability. It’s a decent enough film, but probably won’t frighten those who’ve seen enough scary films. That said, the showing I was at was full of screaming teenagers so it’s certainly doing its job. (See my Twitter review of Paranormal Activity).

Finally, the Coen brothers yet again manage to create a world of ambiguity, disquiet and intrigue with their latest offering, A Serious Man. It follows a physics professor whose life is falling apart (the details of which I’ll leave to the film itself). In amongst this, he starts a struggle to become a better man, to understand the meaning of all the bad things in his life and try to become better. We see this through some typically brilliant cinematography, where so many stills from the film tell a story by themselves, and great uneasy characters moving through awkward situations; amusing, but never farcical. The point of it all? As with many other Coen plots, that’s for you to decide. Very good. (See my A Serious Man Twitter review).

While it didn’t have much competition, it would have done well in most months: the winner is A Serious Man.

For a long time now, various game developers have been complaining about the secondary market, arguing that it should either be abolished or that they should get a slice of secondary sales. I don’t think either of those ideas is particularly good. If the secondary market (for any type of good) is removed then you have the situation where, upon buying something, goods effectively become worthless beyond their immediate utility to you. This doesn’t reflect the real world where items often become less valuable to you but much more valuable to someone else. It’s also pretty damaging to free markets when items no longer have resale value.

Consider buying a car. Would you be as willing to spend as much on one if you couldn’t trade it in or sell it on? The industry only manages the pricing structure it has because there is segmentation. Those who both want and can afford a new car have access to that option, and those who want to spend less have a second-hand option available.

Whether developers deserve to get paid from secondary markets as well as primary markets is for you to decide. Personally, I see no reason to differ from other goods where this overhead doesn’t usually exist.

In recent years, though, a third trend has appeared that is somewhat more interesting: the game itself comes with a code to unlock additional content, over and above the core game. These codes are one-time use only. If you bought the game at retail, then you get the additional content. If you buy the game second-hand, then you get the original game but not the additional content. It’s an interesting take on market segmentation and, I think, relatively gentle at the moment.

The danger is that once we start to accept this kind of segmentation that developers and publishers start to become more aggressive and punitive. While all the codes we’ve seen so far unlock content that is very much in the extras category, it’s not too hard to imagine a situation where something is omitted from the main game for this purpose; an epilogue or prologue maybe, something that could be argued to be extraneous but is actually fairly core.

Perhaps a way of avoiding this situation is having the additional content available to buy as well. If you bought the game second-hand, then you can buy the extra stuff for a small fee. That way the developers get something out of it, and people in the lower segment of the market still have the option to access all of the content, without being required to use that option.

We should keep our eyes open going down this path. If this practice is seen as handing out rewards it’s fine, but as soon as publishers realise that it can also be a stick, someone will use it. That could hurt the industry as a whole.

The thing that impresses me most about the current generation of games, the thing that differentiates it from the previous generations, is the level of spectacle on offer. While I’m sure that in a few years time I’ll look back on this and cringe, I can’t help but think that there really has been a huge step-up in recent years in delivering some eye-opening experiences.

To be clear, I’m not talking about any sort of deeper engagement or interaction (better advances in that arena will surely come later), I mean a purely surface-level increase in wow-moments. Some highlights:

• Burnout Paradise brought us a massive streaming city, with over the top speed, insane collisions and the potential for a lot of carnage.
• Left 4 Dead took the zombie apocalypse movies that people love so much, and turned them into a game. The sheer amount of action and messiness, coupled with the great 4-player co-op, really makes a difference. The finales are great.
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is exactly like playing through an action movie. While the general shooting mechanics are okay, the level of spectacle on offer is almost unparalleled. The cliff-climbing, the dodging helicopters falling out of the sky, the massive pitched-battles in a fast-food car park; every section brings another eye-popping moment.

There are many other examples, I’m sure. It seems like a great time for gaming, and finally one where we seem to be getting some pay-off for all the time developers have been putting into mimicking films, even if they are mostly dumb action-movie clones.