Sorting DVDs

So there are plenty of ways to arrange your DVDs, if indeed you chose to arrange them at all. The most popular one would probably be alphabetically. Alternatives may include arranging by release date, by director, actor, genre..

At one point there was some logic to the arrangement of my own DVD. But as I got more DVDs and less space, it mostly devolved into piles, arranged roughly based on the order they were bought in, and which were watched most recently.

If I ever get time, I will re-sort them.


I accept that alphabetical may be considered 'best'. In particular, if you have a significantly large collection, it can be the most efficient approach, and makes locating any given film much easier.

Now, ordering things alphabetically is usually considered quintessentially 'OCD'/fastidious behaviour. Though there is dispute over whether liking your DVDs (and things in general) to be in order really is, or should be, considered 'abnormal'.

My point is, I could do much worse.


First of all, I think, in general, films by the same director should be kept together; particularly when it's a notable director, say, Tarantino, Kubrick, Burton.. So you could group and sort groups alphabetically by director.

I would say that films of similar genre/theme/styles should be kept close as well - noting that films by a given director will generally stay close together when this criterion is applied.

And while you're at it, why not take into consideration: actors, writers, based on works by, producers, scored by.. Basically, there are a lot of potential connections which may be considered.


So I'd like to put forward two approaches:-



1) Salesman Sort

For this approach we take into consideration 'most meaningful connections' between films, and based on that, attempt to determine which films most belong together.

So, for a given set of films, we build a network graph where pairs of films are connected if they share a common director, actors, theme, etc.

Doing this for Tim Burton films, based on actors only, will give something like this

[NB/ There may be connections missing.]

Or like this without the actor nodes

The connections between films are then weighted based on how 'meaningful' they are.

For example, Moon and American Beauty both star Kevin Spacey. Fight Club and Choke, on the other hand, have no actors in common, but were both based on books by Chuck Palahniuk. I would argue that the connection in the latter case is more meaningful - and so should get a higher weighting - than that of the former.


Now, the trick is to find a way of translating this graph into an arrangement of films. It turns out, this is as 'simple' as running a Traveling Salesman algorithm on the graph.

The traveling salesman works like this - find a path around a graph which visits every node exactly once, while minimising the distance traveled.

In our case, we actually want to find a path which (effectively) maximises 'distance', since that will lead to the more significant connections being chosen by preference.

In the above graph, the connections haven't been weighted, so we can pick any path - for example

But ideally, the connections would be weighted first so that the path (and by extension, arrangement) chosen is more meaningful.

Once a path is found, this is turned into an arrangement by simply looking at the order in which the nodes (films) are visited.


The biggest problem with this approach is forming the graph in the first place. One possible solution is to write a program which can pull details from, say, imdb to build connection. Then you'd also need to come up with some system for weighting - which may vary from person to person, depending on their particular preferences.. So it's tricky.

By comparison, the Traveling Salesman part is relatively straight forward, given that it already has well establish (if potentially slow) algorithms for solution.

This approach can also throw up some eccentricities. For example, films by a common director may be split up by a film which has few other connection elsewhere in the graph. This is why I would advise 'fine tuning' by hand.

Similarly, it's possible that the addition of new DVDs to the collection may lead to a major re-shuffle being required. Obviously, how major or minor the re-arrangement depends on how well the film fits in with your pre-existing collection.



2) Hierarchical Grouping and Associative Sorting

This is actually the approach I started out with, before it went to shit.

You might start by grouping by director. Then you might group directors by genre/theme/style. And within the bigger director groups, you might sub-group by actor. And so on..

In particular, the 'hierarchy' is constructed so that some groupings get priority over others. For example, films with the same actor might be split up when those by the same director need to be kept together. (This will depend on how you chose to structure your hierarchy).

Then, within and amongst, DVDs and groups can be arranged according to alphabet, release date, genre, .., even by colour of cover. This is where the 'associative' part comes in. Ultimately, it can come down to how your own demented logic associates and puts things together.

When I was sorting mine, I did end up with some fairly esoteric, and sometimes laboured groupings and connections in places. But you can see some overall logic in it - e.g.

Nightmare Before Christmas / ... / Sweeney Todd / From Hell / ... / V for Vendetta / ... / X-Men..

In this case - Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Alan Moore, Graphic Novels, and so on. Note that there is overlapping between adjacent groups. They were then sub-sorted so as to be grouped by theme, and so that they formed a natural thematic progression from one group to the next (as much as possible).



Or if you prefer, you could just arrange them alphabetically. Your call..



Oatzy.


[To be honest, I wouldn't recommend either.]

Follow Up: Rotten Bias

One of the things that stuck in my mind from the last blog's analysis was 2007

The top two films for RT Score and Audience Score were Juno and No Country for Old Men. No Country got the Oscar and the highest RT score, but Juno got the highest Audience Score - this was one of the instances where the hypothesis of the last blog failed.

Now there was something I thought about in passing when I was writing the last blog, but I didn't bother mentioning it. But I thought I'd revisit and look in to it.

So that 'thing' is sample bias - that is, the people voting on films on RT (and creating the audience score) may not be representative of the general population.

I was originally concerned that the users of RT may be predominantly younger people; so then, their opinion and taste would be over-represented in the score. But I dismissed that idea as being a stereotyped view of internet users.

But realistically, it's best not to make assumptions either way if you can get actual details.


Rotten Audience

The are two sites I look at for site demographics. The first is Alexa, which you may have heard of. It has some benefits, but unfortunately for more detailed analysis, they want your money.

The other is Quantcast, which is a lot better, but sometimes their numbers are only estimates (not the case for RT). This is the one I'm using here. Here's what the demographics look like

NB/ this is US only demographics, which make up ~60% of the total visitors to RT. But the results are very similar for other countries.

Percentages to the left of the graphs are the actual distributions of the users. The 'index' numbers to the right show how those distributions compare to the internet as a whole.


Misrepresented Judges

So the 'hypothesis', or at least one the the hypotheses, of the last blog was that the Audience score could in some way be used as a predictor of Oscar winners, in so much as it reflects the 'wide appeal' of the films.

Of course, this only works if the taste of the voting comity for the Best Picture matches well the tastes of the people visiting Rotten Tomatoes and contributing to the Audience Score.

The membership of the Oscar comity is fairly secret, or at least, undisclosed. But we do know it's made up of ~6,000 industry professionals, so it seems safe to assume they're likely predominantly in the 35-60 age group, with maybe an even male/female split. And this could be a source of the weak correlation, since RT users are predominantly in the 18-49 age group - skewed slightly towards younger ages.

But do the different demographics have different tastes in film?

I suppose not necessarily. There are certainly some overlaps between these two groups. But on the other hand, maybe the difference between which films RT users vote highest, and which films gets Oscars is a reflection of these differences in tastes.

As it is, there's no way to manipulate RT Audience scores to better reflect the different demographic make up, and no way to improve on their predictive power.

So just some thoughts.


Oatzy.

The Oscars Vs. Rotten Tomatoes

What Do Critics Know

This is something I looked at briefly last year. I wondered if there was any correlation between Rotten Tomatoes score - a score based on an aggregate of critic' reviews - and winning an Academy Award for Best Picture. That is, is the highest rated of the nominees for a given year most likely to win?

The short answer is no.


Data Mining

For those interested, the data was collected like this.

First, the list of nominees and winners is copied from Wikipedia. The data is then imported into Google Refine to be tidied up and sorted. Then, still in Refine, the list is reconciled - that is, each film on the list is linked to the appropriate page on FreeBase.

Having been reconciled, extra data can then be pulled from FreeBase; and with a bit of extra coding, the Rotten Tomatoes scores can also be mined.

NB/ some scores had to be input by hand, some scores are unavailable, and there may (but not necessarily) be errors.

You can look at the data here.


Analysis

First of all, I looked at the distribution of scores for winners vs. Nominees

If there were some correlation, you'd expect the winners to be, generally, further to the left than the other noms. But looking at the graph, there's hardly any significant difference. In fact, the proportion of nominees with a score of 100 is greater than that of the winners.

NB/ the numbers were scaled to matching sizes.

I also looked at the number of winners that were the highest rated in their year - this works out at 22%. Which isn't amazing (a little over one fifth). And on top of that, the number of winners that were the lowest rated in their year works out at 18.3% (a little under one fifth).

So as I said in the short answer, there's not much of a correlation.

I also tried working with only the films since 1970, since most of the unavailable scores were for films prior to then. But the results were effectively the same.


Audience Knows Best

I created a few year-wise graphs, such as below (2009-2002)

and looking at them only confirmed the weak correlation between score and winning.

But one in particular stood out - 2005. In 2005, Crash won the award despite being the lowest rated of the nominees. But I'll come back to that.

The other one that got me thinking was 2008 - both Slumdog Millionaire and Milk got a rating of 94.

But it occurred to me that, maybe the reason Slumdog won was because it was more appealing to a wider audience. Think about it; Slumdog is a love story, whose protagonist overcoming adversity and against all odds, gets a happy ending. Milk is a biopic about a politician and gay rights activist who is assassinated. Both are top quality films, but Slumdog has wider appeal. And maybe that's important.

Granted, I'm exaggerating, a little, the weight of the effect of wider appeal for the sake of making my point. But you get the idea.

You have to bear in mind that the Academy Award for Best Picture isn't voted for by a handful of people with a potentially homogeneous taste - it's voted for by a comity of over 5,000 people. So having that wider apeal is going to help.

This would also explain why genre films tend to struggle.

Luckily, Rotten Tomatoes also has an "Audience" rating - a score out of 100, based on audience interest. And sure enough, Slumdog gets a score of 90, versus Milk with 88. Granted, it's a small difference, but it gives some credence to the theory.

So going back to 2005, I checked the Audience scores,

and indeed Crash was the highest audience rated.


Caveats

Firstly, Audience scores fall into two variations - "want to see/not interested", or "liked/disliked". Generally, the older films are in the former category, while the newer are in the latter.

And each of these have their own potential problems.

For the first, the problem is causality - did a film get the Oscar because a because of the wider interest, or are people interested in seeing it because it won an Oscar?

There are also psychological consideration. People are weird; when a film gets a generally strong (or poor) response from critics, this can influence people's opinions - some people like to hate things because everyone loves them. Some people are just influenced by their peers' opinions.

But these aren't really things we can test or adjust for.

The Audience score is also going to be loosely related to the critic score, in as much as they both relate, to some extent, to the films 'quality'.


Statistically Wiser

So as before, we have the score distribution

And, this is more what you'd want to see - the winners having a stronger tendency towards higher scores than the nominees.

Similarly, you can work out how many of the winners were highest rated in their year - in this case 36.6%; double the number for critic score. Similarly, the number ranked lowest in their year drops to 7.3%

And together, this supports the idea that there's a stronger skew towards higher scores, and thus that audience opinion is a better indicator of Oscar winners than critical opinion.

Of course, the better predictive power from the audience score could just be an example of wisdom of the crowd.

Obviously, this still isn't 100% predictive power, or even 50%. So it's far from perfect. I also tried various ways of combining both scores, but wasn't able to significantly improve on the results for audience scores alone.


Prediction 2011

Based on all this, I'd say the smart money for this year would be The King's Speech.

While it's only joint-third highest rated of the year according to the critics, it has the highest audience score of the nominees.

But then, everyone's expecting it to win anyway.

We shall have to wait and see...


Oatzy.

Tron: Legacy Review

The Evil That Computers Do

In the original Tron, the villain in the virtual world is MCP - Master Control Program - created by a money-hungry business-man, Ed Dillinger. Originally written as a chess playing AI, it transpires that the program develops further intelligence on and of it's own by kidnapping other programs and absorbing their functions. The program, in essence, develops megalomania - taking control of American and Russian government systems at a time during the Cold War - and there's very little doubt as to whether or not this 'intelligent' program is evil.

But in the case of CLU, the villain of Tron: Legacy, this seems not to be the case. He's not so much explicitly evil, but rather he's doing what he was programmed to do - to help Flynn create a perfect world. It just so happens that his idea of a perfect world, contrary to Flynn's, involves genocide.

Okay, so CLU' plans and motives seem like a fairly obvious allegory for Hitler and the Nazis, especially in his desire to rid his world of all 'ISO's, which he considers to be imperfections.

Further to this, he plans to enter the real world with an army, figuring that if a user can be inside the Grid, a program can exist in the real world. And his plan then, is to correct all the imperfections of the world, presumably by exterminating all humans in a move that would make the daleks proud.

In a flashback, we see CLU start to diverge from Flynn in ideology, but more importantly, we see the point where CLU expresses a feeling of betray towards Flynn. Asking "am I to create the perfect world", when Flynn affirms this instruction, CLU then goes ahead and tries to remove Flynn, seeing him as an imperfection and an obstacle to his instruction and his vision. And it's Flynn's resistance and opposition that is, in CLU' eyes, what makes Flynn the bad guy.

Towards the end, this idea is reiterated in CLU' lines "You promised we would change the world together. You broke your promise. I brought the system to its maximum potential - I created the perfect system."

Flynn tries to explain that he didn't fully understand what he wanted (philosophically) when he created CLU and the plan for a perfect world. But ultimately, CLU is just a piece of programming. And unlike the ISOs, he can't operate outside of the instructions programmed into him, unless he's manually reprogrammed. Or else deleted. Which is partly why Flynn and his son need to escape back to the real-world.


Besides this, you have the theme of self-sacrifice - the idea of "removing yourself from the equation". And in fact, Jeff Bridges apparently brought in Zen Buddhist, Bernie Glassman, to help with writing the spiritual subtext of the film.

You also have the ISOs - Isomorphic Algorithms, which are programs that emerged spontaneously from the architecture of the Grid, and that theoretically have a sentience of their own. That is, since they weren't (explicitly) programmed, they aren't bound by predefined instructions, so can act of their own 'free will'. This supposedly gives them the potential to "unlock mysteries in science, religion, and medicine".

This is contrary to the other programs (basics) on the Grid, though this distinction isn't made outwardly obvious, or really explored, in the film.


Script Shortcomings?

A lot, if not most, of the reviews I've seen compliment the films visuals and it's soundtrack, but single out the script as the films weakest part. But if anything, it's fault was that it had several promising ideas that got pushed into the background, which might have made for a richer story had they been expanded on.

And perhaps the other problem is that all of the 28 years that go between the two films (and bearing in mind that time effectively moves slower on the Grid), everything that happens in that time has to be summarised.

The full story of the intervening years is actually expanded in other medias:

Tron: Betrayal, a graphic novel, covers the first half of the story - Flynn returning to the Grid, setting out to create his perfect world. It goes through the creation of CLU2, through "The Miracle" and the appearance of the ISOs, and ends on the eve of "The Purge". (As well as the concurrent real world events).

The video game, Tron: Evolution, then covers "The Purge" - the genocide of the ISOs - how Flynn came to be trapped on the Grid,  and everything else leading up to the events of Tron: Legacy.

I'm inclined to believe that the deeper detail that's 'missing' from the film, will in fact be found in these other medias. It's just unfortunate that most people who see Legacy won't come across them, so may be left feeling like big chunks of the story, and the back-story in particular, are just missing or too vague.

And bear in mind that, if we're honest, the script of the original Tron was hardly a masterpiece. But it's not the plot that people remember about it - it's the visuals, the fact that it was ahead of its time, and the fact that it became so influential as a whole.


Holy hell, this movie's slick!

It really is quite a stunning film to look at.

At least one review described it as part sequel, part remake/re-imagining. And that is basically it. If you rewatch Tron having seen Legacy (or vice versa), you see all the little nods to the original, some scenes taken almost verbatim ("big door"). But this is not a bad thing. Given how dramatic the change in the graphic appearance of everything, you'd feel almost let down if you didn't get to see, say, an updated light-cycle.

And the dramatic upgrade in the appearances and visual effects really is a good reflection of how much technology has advanced since 1982.

You also have Jeff Bridges made young again by CGI, for the role of CLU. Now while I was watching I kept thinking how it looked so obviously CGI. But one commenter I saw suggested that this may in fact have been intentional - that since CLU is supposed to be a computer simulation of Flynn, it makes sense for his appearance to reflect that. And in retrospect, I'm inclined to agree.


If you're familiar with Daft Punk's singles, the soundtrack is really not like any of that. In a word, the soundtrack is gorgeous. Reminiscent in places of the likes of Hans Zimmer's Inception and Batman soundtracks in it's rich, powerful architecture, it takes these amazing orchestral pieces and mixes in strong, modernized-retro-syth sounds. And all combined, it just sounds spectacular, and fits the film perfectly.

Honestly, I've been listening to it on repeat almost non-stop. Somehow, they've managed to do for the soundtrack what was done for the visuals - that is take what was in the original film, and update it to make it richer, cleaner, more modern; and yet still maintain the essence and the feel of the original.


A Note on 3D

3D, when done right, can be spectacular. And I certainly appreciate it's "Wizard of Oz"-style implementation in Legacy. But it still has it's drawbacks. The glasses for one, that sit uncomfortably when worn over regular glasses. And besides that, two sets of frames obstruct the view in a slightly irritating way.

But also, the film's faster action scenes were made somehow harder to follow. You have characters in almost identical outfits throwing disks at each other and performing all manner of acrobatics, and it's hard to tell who's in peril or who's winning until they land and pause to catch their own bearings.

And for the love of God, please stop doing the thing where things suddenly fly out of the screen and straight at your head. It freaks me out, and I don't like it.


Conclusion

Tron: Legacy is still running at cinemas, and should be released on DVD around April. The game and GN are available now. The original Tron is suspiciously hard to come by. Which seems to me like a poor move, and the sort of move that encourages piracy. But no doubt it'll be released along with Legacy (probably as a boxset), if not before then.

And as far as sequels, one is currently being written, and while it's still waiting to be greenlit, it seems inevitable.

There's certainly plenty to lead on from; what happened to Jeff Bridges and the Grid, how is Quorra going to cope with being a program in the real world, and how is Ed Dillinger Jr., son of the original film's (real world) villain, going to react to Sam taking over control of Encom..

Overall, I'd give it Legacy maybe 4/5 - as has been said over and over again, it's a pleasure to the senses, but there's certainly room for improvements in the script, which might have been able to elevate it to near perfection.


Oatzy.

The Good Departed Pilgrim Flew Over The Unbreakable Island Road

Shutter Island

You know you've seen a good film when you're left with a lingering feeling of unease once the film's over. It happened after Inception, and it happened after this.

Based on a book by Dennis Lehane, it's the story of a state trooper investigating a missing patient from from an isolated island-based institute for the criminally insane. Or so it would seem.

It's a twist ending movie. And your experience with the twist may vary. I can't say how obvious it is, but I worked it out before seeing the film, but that didn't remove any from it. Though I'm sure the viewing experience would've been quite different if I hadn't. Still, like Fight Club, knowing what's coming doesn't ruin the film at all.

In fact, while I guessed the major twist, that wasn't all there was to it. And the reveal-all flashback scene to what happened in Leo's past is genuinely unsettling.

It's visually appealing, and in terms of the acting, Leo was fantastic. As was Ben Kingsley. If I ever go batshit, I hope I have a psychotherapist like him.

Overall, I reckon it's made it onto my favourites list, so as you'd probably expect, it comes highly recommended from me. Watch it!


The Road

First of all, as far as I can recall, I've never cried at a movie. And I mean actually cried. Sure, I've been close to tears a few times. But The Road... I don't know why, but that ending really got me*.

It's based on a book by Cormac McCarthy, who also wrote No Country for Old Men, another great film. The most basic description I can come up with is that it's the story of a father and son trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. But unlike other post-apocalyptic films, the dangers are simply from other survivor, who chose to survive by cannibalism, theft, whatever it takes - not some supernatural horror.

It's a slow burner, unusual in a world of more fast-paced, action-filled films. But when the action does come, it's all the more tense. Unlike a lot of horror film, you're not desensitised to the violence and horror, which makes it all the more distressing. And the film as a whole has a general uncomfortable feel to it. But in a good way.

It seems like one of those films that will likely be on so many lists of films to see before you die.. Not quite a cult classic, but certainly not mainstream, despite its critical acclaim.

Nonetheless, it comes with my recommendation.

[*I'm not claiming to be a really macho manly man who doesn't cry for anyone or anything. I just generally.. don't. Maybe I'm just dead inside :p]


The Departed

I seem to have been seeing a lot of Mr DiCaprio recently. You judge for yourself whether that's a good or bad thing. Also staring Matt Damon and an aging Jack Nicholson, it's a modern mafia film (directed my Martin Scorsese), and a decent one at that.

It's also a little mind fuck-y - you have the cops and the gangsters, each with a rat on the other side and each looking for the other's rat, and it's not entirely clear who is actually on who's side.

Okay, so when I said mind fuck-y, what I meant was confusing. The unfortunate thing is, due to my revising at the time, I didn't entirely pay attention to it. So instead, I'm going to bring up The Simpsons.

As per the memeic refrain - Simpsons did it! In an episode when Skinner introduces a new student into the school - Donny - meant to befriend Bart and rat on all his planned pranks. They even go so far as to include the main musical theme from The Departed and parody (among other scenes) the final cut-scene - an actual rat walking across the background. And in The Simpsons, Ralph popping up to say "The rat symbolises obviousness".

There's also an episode of South Park that seems to parody the end, where the cops are randomly executing each other for some, not entirely clear reason.

Well, I say not entirely clear - it may have been more clear if I'd been paying attention.
It's not what I'd call a must see film. But I wouldn't discourage you from seeing it either. I'll leave it up to your judgement.


Unbreakable

It was sold to me as how a superhero origin story should be done. And it was certainly impressive. M. Night Shyamalan has been getting a lot of abuse lately, but we have to remember, there was a time when he was a respected director. And this is one of his better movies.

As I said above, it is a superhero (and nemesis) origin story. And a very good one at that, not least because it convincingly suggests that heroes could exist in the real world. Possibly. And you have little emotional sub-plots in there as well. But what really wins it is Samuel L. Jackson - the Glass Man - brittle-bone sufferer. The Antithesis of Bruce Willis's hero.

But really, Samuel L. is just consistently awesome in everything. And this is certainly no exception. You should see it - especially if you're a comicbook/superheroes fan; but even if you're not.

And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there will be a sequel, and that Shyamalan hasn't completely lost his awesome-movie making abilities. Because the ending really does leave the potential for something great to follow.


Good Will Hunting

So this kid, this delinquent working as a janitor at a university - turns out he's a secret genius. Also, he's Matt Damon. Okay, so if it were that simple, the film would be at risk of being trite. But as you probably already know, this film is critically acclaimed. (And possibly won an Oscar?).

I seem to remember that that part was parodied in an episode of Jimmy Neutron. At least, I think it was Jimmy Neutron. Either way. It's always weird seeing a film, having seen various references and parodies before hand. The Godfather is a good example of that (for me, at least).

But no, the actual bulk of the movie is in Will's relationship with his psychologist - played by Robin Williams. I have to say, Williams is actually a really good actor when he's not playing a buffoon [See also: One Hour Photo].

Okay, so this was another film I only half watch (revising for a maths exam at the time), but what I saw of it was impressive. I might even consider buying it. Possibly. It's probably only about £3 in HMV. We'll see how impulsive I'm feeling.

Yeah, I'd recommend it. One of those you might want to see on TV before buying it. But it is worth a look.


One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Here's another parodied one, in particular in The Simpsons. And having seen it, all of a sudden a handful of jokes make a lot more sense. Like Bart kidnapping the old people and taking them for a boat trip, and 'the Chief' that throwing a water fountain through a window to 'escape' the old people's home. Also, a big chunk of the Michael Jackson episode.

One Flew centres on criminal Jack Nicholson being sent to a mental hospital and on the people he meets and befriends there. And these patients are at the mercy of Nurse Ratchet - an evil bitch of a woman, who, at one point, guilts one of the patients so much he slits his throat. This leads Jack to try and choke her to death - and as a result, gets lobotomised. Then there's the surprisingly touching/disturbing scene where the lobotomised Nicholson is smothered to death by 'the Chief' - as a mercy killing.

It's a damn good film. I suggest you watch it.

Also worth mentioning: the first two episode of series 6 of House (wherein House has been committed) bear some resemblance to One Flew, and in and of itself they're a fantastic pair of episodes. The rest of the series is a bit hit and miss, but you should definitely watch those two.


Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

I don't know what some of the other reviewers are talking about - misogynistic?! I honestly don't see it. Or maybe I'm just to misogynistic myself to notice? Either way. The point is, it's a good film. And there's a few pretentious, youth/gamer-hating bastards who could use a good slap.

Based on a graphic novel by Brian Lee O'Malley - Scott Pilgrim, at it's most basic level, is a 'boy meets girl' love story. Albeit one that's been smashed together with a video-game to form this stunning, visually pleasing fusion of a film. Of course, this will not be to everyone's taste. But it was to mine, and ultimately, that's all that really matters.

Oh, and also, Scott has to defeat the girl - Romona Flowers -'s seven evil exes, which he does in true video-game style - compete with the defeated becoming a pile of coins.

The film as a whole.. well, I loved it. I've heard other people speak highly of it. But it's kind of a niche film. Odds are, the people who'll like it the most are those around student-aged. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's funny, it's romantic (but not sickeningly so) it's just generally good fun, and it has 'Vegan Police'. Oh, and did I mention it's visually stunning?

Yeah. If you're around student age or are just a big nerd (or both), I'd recommend it. If you're not, maybe read up on it first..?

[Only downside - not nearly enough prancing :p]


Oatzy.

A Handful of Film Reviews

Thanks to LoveFilm, my recently seen movie quota is significantly up at the moment. And you lucky people get to enjoy my so called reviews.

Beginning with..!


Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel



What Shaun of the Dead is to zombies, FAQ about Time Travel is to, well, time travel. And the comparison is obvious and no doubt one that's been used numerous times before (including in the trailer). But, it does capture the general style and feel of the film quite well. It's that quirky, off-beat, British humor we've all grown to know and love (unless you haven't).

Staring Roy out of the IT Crowd, Shakespeare out of that episode of Doctor Who and this other guy, the misadventures of these unlikely heroes centre around the men's bathroom of their local pub where there's some sort of time leak - Weirdness ensues!

And to be honest, I thought it was fantastic. I mean, it's the sort of convoluted time travel madness that Steven Moffat would be proud of, and frankly I welcome it with open arms. And like all infuriating time travel stories, it ends with the major events of the film not actually having happened. Technically.

If you like Doctor Who, if you like time travel, if you like British comedy.., you should like this film.

I'd definitely recommend it.


Catch Me If You can

Great fun. The life of Frank Abagnale Jr. - renowned fraudster. The man who could charm the pants off of anyone. Then slip out the window with all your money. But you'd be too damn impressed to care.

I wouldn't buy it on DVD (unless I were feeling particularly impulsive). But odds are, if you wait til Christmas it'll be on then, if not before. And it is worth watching.


The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus



Heath Ledger's last film. Which is a shame, because he was damn good in it! Johnny Depp was similarly on form; Jude Law and Collin Farrell, nothing special. And Lily Cole was surprisingly not crap!

The story itself surrounds Dr Parnassus and his on-going deals with The Devil - the latest of which is first to five souls, the prize being Parnassus' daughter. And thank God Heath Ledger showed up (hanging from a bridge) or Parnassus would have failed miserably. I mean he did still failed, but it's a lot more intricate than that.

It's quaint and magical and charming; But surprisingly underwhelming. I mean it was 4 out of 5 stars good, but I was expecting something a little more.. epic. If you were planning on buying it, I'd give it a couple of months til the price drops again, but it is worth watching nonetheless.


The Mist

For the love of God, why didn't they kill that nut-case sooner?! The Mist, for those who don't know, features the most infuriating religious psychopath you will ever see, and it'll have you wanting to round up all the God-fearing and have them shot. You know, just in case.

Based on a book by Stephen King, it's fantastic, end of the world, horror that's more about how people can turn against each other in dire situations, than about the actual threat. Though the monsters are suitably formidable.

The Dream Lord himself (Toby Jones)co-stars as friendly shop assistant and surprise bad-ass, and he was just plain amazing. So how dare they let him get eaten when he was so close to freedom and safety.

The other amazing thing about The Mist is its ending. So bittersweet, you'll hate Stephen King for daring to think up something so sinister. But I'm not going to give it away.

Just watch the God damn film! About £10 in HMV, but if you can find it in ASDA (Living) it's £3, and for that price you might as well. Online, you'll have to look it up yourself.


A Scanner Darkly

The rotoscoped marvel - it's basically a cartoon traced from live action film. And it works to good effect. Especially in the more bizarre scenes.

Based on the book of the same title, this is a semi-autobiography of a period of Philip K Dick's life, and as such, it's one of those stories that doesn't really seem to be going anywhere until the big reveal at the end. And what you have at the end is that reveal that a drug rehab clinic uses its most messed up patients to (secretly) grow the drugs that put them in rehab. Keanu was purposefully made addicted to the drugs (unbeknownst to be) by the government so he could get them their evidence.

Robert Downey Jr is great in it. Keanu Reeves is Keanu Reeves. Overall, it's decent. I wouldn't pay for it. I probably wouldn't be bothered about watching it again. But it was worth watching the once. So if it's ever on TV..



Total Recall

"I just had a terrible thought - what if this is a dream?"

Inception, eat your heart out! Based on the story "We Can Remember It For You Whole-sale" by professional mind-fucker, Philip K. Dick.

Staring Governor Schwarzenegger, for the most part it's Sci-fi action thriller, and a decent one at that, if a little flamboyant.

But it gets bonus points in my book thanks to how it's framed. It starts with Arnie going to 'Rekall', a company which offers 'holidays' in the form of implanted memories (claiming that it's just as good as actually going on the holiday). But they offer Arnie something special - an adventure holiday, where he plays the part of a secret agent, who has to save Mars.

But when the machine's started up, it triggers some erased memories that, in fact, he was already a secret agent. Then shit gets real as he's hunted down by his ex-employer, eventually venturing to Mars and so on.

Or does he? Okay, my description was biased because I reckon it was all just implanted memories, but if you watch it yourself you may disagree. And it is just a massive mind-fuck.

The ending may not be as subtle as Inception's. But it doesn't really need to be. It suffices. Again, it's not something I'd pay for, but if you can see it for free, you definitely should.

Apparently they're remaking it as well, so should be interesting to see what they do with it.


And finally


Mr Nobody



My new favourite film. Why, oh why aren't you available outside of France yet? Over a year ago I saw a trailer for it on the Empire website and I've been waiting ever since. Anyway, I did finally get to watch it. And wow!

It stars Jared Leto (the 'pretty boy' from Fight Club and lead singer of 30 Seconds to Mars), as the dubiously named "Nemo Nobody"* - but I'm willing to forgive that, because it's just so damn good. It's Sci-fi with a heavy dose of quantum physics and it's three love stories for the price of one. In fact, Jared essentially plays 12 different possible outcomes of the same life - any and all of which could be real. And the big reveal is just magnificent.

The cinematography is just plain gorgeous; the music is perfect, visually it's stunning, and the DVD need to be released over here right now!

As I may have mentioned, you can't buy it outside of France yet. But when you can, you should. And if you can't wait til then, well, there are other places you can find it...

[*- nemo is Latin for nobody]


Oatzy.