Tag: review

So I went to Cineworld at Rochester to see a film. It was actual daylight when the film started and the weather wasn’t that bland grey that we tend to have all the time, there was sun. It wasn’t a warm day but it was a pleasant day. So, to help with the records I took a picture of the river and mud banks so I can say that the tide was low. There are other pictures I think and I might even, one day, walk further along the bank to take a picture of the mud banks that I look for. I wouldn’t be surprised if a photograph like that already exists on this site, there’s a lot of stuff on this site that I’ve forgotten exists!

In the photograph you can see the mud banks on the opposite side of the river, clearly showing that the tide is low. Also, if you look at the bridge supports you can see the green slime where the river covers and then exposes the concrete. Hence, the tide was low. Looking at the shadows and area of light on the far bank it is clear the sun is directly to the right of the bridge. The shadows are long. Both of these facts indicate winter – low sun – and time of image – early afternoon – due to the direction of the bridge – a little bit below east.

I went to see the film The 355. I didn’t really know anything about it before going except that it was an action film with women in the main roles. After the film I thought for quite a while about how to rate this film, there’s a guide to the ratings in this communication. I settled on scoring this film an eight out of ten.

I think I might watch this film again one day. Mostly I will be watching it to figure out what the fuck the plot was and what was happening. There was a general consensus of which city each section of the film took place. There was some aim for each scene to achieve and I think the film got there. What I didn’t really understand was who owned the MacGuffin at various points through the film. I’d quite like to see a diagram of what the film makers thought was happening at each stage.

There’s also been some criticism of this film because the lead actors are women. Well, those so called critics can go fuck themselves. What a stupid world we live in at the moment where people can’t accept the breakdown of traditional gender roles. All the people who think like that can fuck off and die. Well, I guess they will die eventually and with luck those thoughts will die out at the same time. We should be progressing as a society not constantly striving to go backwards.

My suggestion to make the film a little better would be to say that the MacGuffin is a quantum computer. The little USB box that turns any device into a super cracking computer able to shut down aircraft or power stations is just a silly looking USB device. It’s explained at various times that it’s a collection of algorithms or ransomware etc. That isn’t how any of those things work. An easier, and more correct, explanation would be that it’s a quantum computer. Once those babies are made and work all current security protocols are screwed. Everything we think about internet security won’t work. It would have been a more realistic explanation of what the device is.

I found it curious that the film thinks you have to have an actual auction to cover the fact that you are also running an auction on the dark web. Nope. You can just run an auction on the dark web. You don’t even need the product to be nearby. It certainly doesn’t need to be linked to a physical object in a real auction. The people bidding on your MacGuffin clearly don’t need to be anywhere near the real auction. The two events can be divorced entirely. This part of the plot made zero sense. It was worse than terrible.

Now, here’s a little more of a justification for giving this film an eight out of ten. The last few Bond films I have watched I have spent quite a while trying to figure out “why is he going there”, “what is going on”, and more generally “why?”. Plenty of Bond films are just as terrible as this film is with respect to plot devices, MacGuffins, characters, killing random people, shooting up cities in far away places, having coffee in Paris. I couldn’t really see any difference between this film and a Bond film except that I don’t really like Bond anymore. I think I grew up.

This is communication number 2007 and so here are some things that happened in that year:

• The first iPhone is released. It wasn’t actually that good in terms of technical specs.
• Live Earth concerts are held to raise awareness of environmental issues. How’d that work out?
• Start of the financial crisis 2007-2008. The effects are still being felt.
• A cyclone in Bangladesh kills 17,000 people.

There wasn’t much choice at the cinema when I looked to book a ticket. Eternals was on along with some films I had already seen but I am not going to bother with Eternals. I don’t like superhero films and if I want to watch them I’ll do it on a streaming service. Ghostbusters: Afterlife was all that was left, but that doesn’t mean it was a poor choice, I wanted to see this. It was dark and stormy so I couldn’t see where the river water was for a tide report, but there were some reflections of lights high up the mud bank and, more telling, there were sea birds just resting all over the place, floating around, and I think they were taking shelter from the storm.

After seeing this film I rated it on the IMBD website and there is a guide to the rating system within this communication. I flip-flopped between a six and an eight because as much as I enjoyed this film and it gave me the “feels” I wasn’t sure I was going to see it again. But, let’s face it, for a film to make me happy and smile thirty five years since I watched the first version, it deserves a decent score. I then tweeted my score.

I really enjoyed this film. It felt like it was paced quite slow to start with but I think that’s because modern films are paced too fast in case the audience decide they hate the film. Making people wait for the “action” is perfectly good. There doesn’t have to be loads and loads of action all the way through the film. We don’t need films to keep racing to the lowest denominator of the public. There should be room for improving society and not just destroying it all the time.

I smiled at many points in this film and laughed [inwardly – I’m not a freak] in the right places and sometimes in this wrong places. The person three seats along my row seemed to laugh too loud and too much, but you know what? Each to their own. It’s better than the narcolepsy person I was near for one of the Matrix fims. I’m going to try and give little away about the film but that also means I can’t really talk about the ending. I will say that I loved the effects of the big-baddie, I thought they looked really good. The voice was interesting and in the credits it mentioned that Shohreh Aghdashloo had been the voice and that didn’t surprise me. She has such a unique voice and accent it really works in this situation.

The touches of music that plinked away in the background were perfect and hinted at the original film enough that I’m considering getting the soundtrack in digital form. The Ghostbusters OST was the first album I ever bought with my own money. I can remember my mum asking me to make sure I wanted it as it was quite a bit of money. Clearly I wanted it. If I want something then I always want it. I think.

I enjoyed this film a lot. It is nostalgic. It is lovely. It is worth seeing.

Comms#1992 and we get closer to the millennium each week. I wonder what number 2000 will contain? I’m not going to plan this, I’m just going to let it happen. Now, I’m one of those who can count correctly and so in terms of years I recognise 2001 as the start of the third millennium because that is very clearly when it starts. Here are some things from the year 1992 C.E.

• The Maastricht Treaty is signed.
• 263 die in a coal mine disaster in Turkey.
• The LA riots following white cops being acquitted of beating a black man when a video clearly showed them doing so.
• The Balkans are going to shit.
• The first text message was sent.
• The Fulham Five first lived together.