I’m writing while the film is fresh in my head. I’ve got home, made a cuppa and am thinking about messing around on my new project DBL-MF. That can wait a short while as I give you my verdict on the latest Luc Besson film: Lucy.

It was shit.

It started well and I was quite excited at the prospect of a good film. The first twenty minutes or so were pretty good. They set the scene. Taipei looked pretty good and the baddies were Chinese, or rather Taiwanese, and I’m happy to let the island self-govern. There were some very odd cut-scenes and I’m pretty sure they were just there to make the film a little longer, they must have run out of film that was any useable. I was going to say “good” instead of useable but there wasn’t anything good and this film had Scarlett Johansson in it.

Girl gets duped. Girl gets super powers but a short while to live. Girl kicks ass.

This, on the face of it is a pretty good synopsis and could be made into a much better film. There was a ton of science mumbo jumbo throughout the film it made it almost unwatchable. I very nearly walked out, but it had Scarlett in it. Anyone else and this film would have made a distinct 2/10 on IMDB instead of the 4/10 I gave it.

Why, oh why, does the myth that we only use 10% of our brains keep reappearing in the popular media? Isn’t enough that we exist without belittling our capabilities! Fuck you wankers. This film could have been made without all that shit in it. Girl gets drugged, gains super powers, no explanation needed. See, it works. If this myth had been mentioned once I could have coped but the whole premise was what would happen when Lucy reaches 100%. Morgan Freeman quite clearly makes the point that we are just supposing about what might happen. just as well as this was a crock of shit.

Cut to more pre-made low definition scenes of animals mating.

Then we have the same issue I had with Transcendence. Why, when we make our brains really powerful (in films) does this allow us to manipulate everything around us? Why is telekinesis suddenly OK? I’m happy that we might become very intelligent, and we might even be able to feel more using our existing senses but control electromagnetism and material objects, more wankish writing. If we had ignored any brain stuff and just had girl gets drugged and then has super-powers this film would have still worked. In fact, it would have worked a whole lot better.

Finally, I’d thought I’d summarise:

I didn’t like it

Also, just in case you think I’ve been drinking, I haven’t. I’m just writing this within an hour of leaving the cinema and normally I write these the next day. This is the teacher equivalent of having a crap lesson and then writing reports on the kids you’ve just taught. It’s all deserved.

Parking Signals

This communication is to give some advice on how to give signals when someone else is parking their car. To me this seems an obvious thing to do, but so many people don’t do it so it needs explaining. This is partly made irrelevant by “parking sensors” but then I don’t really agree with them in the same way I don’t agree with automatic headlights. If you can’t park your car you shouldn’t be driving. I know technology is there to make life easier but let’s face facts: some people aren’t good enough to warrant owning a driving licence.

The Situation

You want to park in a tight spot and need someone to give you hand signals so you know where your car is in relation to other (fixed) objects, another car or fence post.

Bad picture of car parking

The Wrong Hand Signal Method

The person guiding you into your parking spot waves their hand backwards and forwards. This gives you, as the driver, absolutely no information and all the power and control is in the hands of a potential moron who is helping you park.

Bad Parking Signals

The Correct Hand Signal Method

This method relies on the helper being able to indicate distance by just looking at the gap but it gives you are driver information and the ability to control the situation. The hands are held apart roughly the same distance that is between your car and the obstruction. As a driver you now know distance and rate of closure. You, as the driver, can decide when you are close enough and also have overall control of the situation. This method should be taught to everyone.

Good Parking Signals

So, there you have it. How to give parking signals. I don’t even want to begin to explain what bumpers are for!

Prometheus aaarrrgghh

I have some serious issues with Prometheus! About two months ago I saw a trailer and knew nothing else about it. Wow, space stuff with Ridley Scott! That’ll be a really interesting film then. Put head into “protect” mode and don’t look at anything connected to ensure the pure film experience. Persuade wife that it’ll be a great film to see on one of the three times a year we get out to the cinema. Booked the tickets online and as far in advance as I could, even coughed up for gallery seats at Bluewater cinema. Now I could say I’m not grumbling but about GBP45 for two cinema tickets is a bit steep, even for a double leather sofa and as much coffee as you can drink. I even booked a 3D viewing and I think that is mostly a con.

The actual day came along and I was still persuading WW that it’ll be ok and not that scary or gory as it’s only a 15. Little did I know how horrified I was going to be.

Glasses – got
Free nachos – got
Free celebrations – got
Free coffee – got

Adverts and trailers – over.

Film start. So excited.
Big white man, ok. Ancient drawings point to a star system, yeah, bullshit but ok. Man, that looks good. The whole thing just looks so bloody sexy. Oh, he’s a robot, others sleeping, seen it before but it still looks good. Everyone wakes up and ok. Still looking good.
Let’s go and land, and just drop the ship down without circling around and scanning for a little while – now I’m starting to hurt a bit. I’m not sure it would happen like that.
Hold on. You wouldn’t do that. Film looks gorgeous. Oh dear, I think they are losing it a bit. Why don’t you map the building before going in. Why take your helmet off? Why try to pet an alien worm creature? Oh shit. I think this is causing cognitive dissonance. Wait until end of film, try to cope and tally the expectation with the experience.

I have spent the last two weeks reading reviews of this film. I have tried to find out why it was causing me so much pain and I think it comes down to the fact that it was shit. Ridley Scott has made a gorgeous looking film but the script and story line we probably just ideas on post-its that were thrown in the air and those that landed upwards were kept. It was shit.

So, so very disappointing. For a film that looks so lovely it stank. I would recommend you go and watch – Moon. It’s far better and greater in terms of everything.

I want to thank George Hrab for his thirty one minutes of PrometheusBoo on his podcast. He managed to say everything I couldn’t because I’m still in shock. I would also like to point out that this review here is a crock of shit. Man, I could link any film you care to mention to Jesus and the message of Christianity.

Oh, it still hurts. I still can’t juxtapose the gorgeousnous of the film with just how much it stank.

Children – Post hoc fallacy delirium

I have two children. One is currently two and the other is two months. I love them both to bits and think it is the best thing I have ever done (bloody hard work too). I think that the best I can ask for is that they both end up with happy and fulfilled lives.
Anyway, the way we learn how to deal with children contains the biggest logical fallacy. We expect children to react to what we do and tell them. We hope and expect that when we ask something of that child they do it because of what we have done in the past. We expect that when I child is upset or being difficult whatever we try and works that particular time should work every time. Now that is a big no-no. I have become more and more convinced that children are complete random action generators.
They do not follow the rules of what we expect. They follow rules written in the edges of clouds and butterfly wings. We try something and it works, therefore it should work every time. Wrong. The reasons behind the action are different every time and so the reaction needs to change too. We are just very good at changing our reaction depending on what we see. We like to kid ourselves that we have it sorted and understand the children so well. We don’t. Humans just love the patterns in life and where we spend most energy and time gives us the biggest case for patternicity.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!

Constant speed or constant throttle?

So, which of these types of driver are you? Now, I’m not claiming to be a good driver, I’m too human to think I’m any good, I wouldn’t even claim I’m a good Gran Turismo driver! But I do know that these two types exist and I’m definitely one of them. This is probably a continuum so I’m not claiming a complete dichotomy.
Type A – Constant Speed
This type of driver maintains a constant speed along a motorway by varying the throttle as gradients increase or decrease. For instance, earlier today while travelling along the M20 I maintained a healthy and legal 70mph. I did this by increasing the throttle uphill and decreasing it downhill. Simple really.
Type B – Constant Throttle
This type of annoying driver maintains the same pressure on the throttle independent of the gradient of the road. This means that as the vehicle goes uphill it slows and then speeds up again as the gradient levels or goes downhill. Many times I have overtaken a car uphill only to be overtaken again going downhill. This is clearly wrong. How do I know this is wrong? Because cars have speed cruise control and not a throttle control.
This type of driving being wrong does not apply to big trucks but definitely to vans who like to go as fast as possible but slowing uphill because they are heavy, thereby blocking the outside lane.
Learn how to adjust your right foot, morons!