Look out! He's got a knife!

No comment on this one

Link

Review: Battlestar Galactica (2003 miniseries)

I was recommended this "Mormons in space" series from several sound sources, who claimed that it was a science fiction show with characters, acting and scripting on a level with the highest rank of non-sf tv.

Don't believe the hype.

Maybe things get better when we go into the series proper, but this seems to offer the same level of one-note acting, cliché characterizations and "the audience is stupid so we need to tell them everything three times" storytelling ("She's going to open the coffin!"/"She's opening the coffin now!"/"Good lord, she opened the coffin!") that I expect from your typical mediocre tv show.

This is not surprising to me, as everyone else seems a lot more impressed by "new and improved" American tv than I am. What is surprising is that the action scenes are so flat and uninvolving. The human interaction scenes were quite watchable in a mindless sort of way, but every time they scrambled fighters I was in serious danger of snoozing.

Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos have done excellent work elsewhere, but are clearly slumming it here. The "change a guy character to a hot chick" element is obviously going to work with the geekboy fanbase that this sort of show requires, but changing the lead cylon to a hot chick was probably some sort of genius. Shame they cast a stereotypical magazine cover blonde who can't act.

The twist at the end was kind of obvious (who else was it going to be?) and the miniseries's biggest flaw is that it doesn't seem to notice that it's a dumb sci-fi programme and takes itself Seriously.

I've got borrowed copies of seasons one & two at home, and there's been so much positive buzz about this show that I am going to continue for a little while, just in case.

Marcel Marceau died

How fucking shit is that?

Hairspray for $15

I don't usually pimp for this sort of thing, but the original version of Hairspray is $15 at Whitcoulls right now.

My previous copy of this was thieved by some farkin' kids who broke into my flat, so I'm pleased to replace it for cheap.

You should replace your copy now, especially if you've never had one.

What was meant in he atheism post

I feel like Pearce's post got too bogged down with the definition of labels, so I'm having a crack. I'm smarter than he is, you see.

OK, my dictionary defines an atheist as "someone who believes there is no god." So that's what an atheist is, for the purposes of this discussion. I am only talking about that particular kind of atheist - one who believes that there is no god. If you somehow, mysteriously, define yourself as an atheist but do not believe that there is no god, this doesn't apply to you.

In my experience, most people who I have talked to about religion who define themselves as atheists believe that there is no god. That is why I am defining the term this way.

So my point was this (and it's an obvious one I'm afraid):

Someone who believes that there is no god is taking it on faith, because there is no more evidence that there is no god, then there is evidence that there is god.

So an atheist (by my definition) is, I think, as dogmatic as a fundamentalist.

So my question is specifically posed to people who believe that there is no god:

Why do you believe this?

I still think my original post was crystal clear.

Incidentally, here's my response to Andrew's comment.

"The title of this post [The Practice of Not Collecting Stamps] is an aside to the regular line about atheism being another belief system. This is something my brother quoted to me over the phone (i.e. if you recognise the actual quote or spot inaccuracies in my version of it, don't bother to point it out): "Atheism is a belief system in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby" - if you didn't collect stamps, would you join a club for people who don't collect stamps? I suppose you could say there are belief systems that entail atheism, but atheism isn't the system itself."

I can think of several problems with this hypothesis, which I have encountered elsewhere.

First of all, I reckon it's not a valid comparison, comparing "collecting stamps/not collecting stamps" to "believing something exists/believing something does not exist". Which is why I made the crack about "not believing in stamp collections." It was a joke.

Second of all, most people don't collect stamps, and stamp collections are irrelevant to their lives. They are not pointedly not collecting stamps; they did not decide "I am going to be a collector of no stamps"; they are merely not collecting stamps.

People who believe in some kind of god are in the majority. According to every statistic I have seen, there are more religious people than areligious people. It seems to me that religion is not an non-issue to most atheists, as stamp collections are a non-issue to most non-stamp collectors. (Could I put any more negatiuves in that sentence?) A non-stamp collector who is opposed to stamp collections doesn't seem very likely, but I have met a lot of atheists who say things like "The world would be a better place without religion."

Given the state of religion, the attitudes, wars, arguments, repressions, violence bombings in the name of all religions (and sometimes even in the name of atheism), it seems to me that being totally "meh" about religion is unlikely.

This has become totally incoherent, so I'm just going to hit "post" and wait for someone to punch me in the back of the head.

Goddess bless Neko Case

I still want to add "Arrr" to everything today, but I swear to god that every lyrics site I've found has the words to I Wish I Was the Moon wrong.

Here's what I think they are.

I Wish I Was The Moon
by Neko Case, from the album Blacklisted

Chimney falls and lovers blaze
I thought that I was young
Now I've freezing hands and bloodless veins
As numb as I've become
I'm so tired
I wish I was the moon tonight

Last night I dreamt I had forgotten my name
'Cause I sold my soul but I walk just the same
I'm so lonely
I wish I was the moon tonight

God bless me, I'm a free man
With no place free to go
I'm paralyzed and collared-tight
No pills for what I feel
This is crazy
I wish I was the moon tonight

Chimney falls and lovers blaze
I thought that I was young
Now I've freezing hands and bloodless veins
As numb as I've become
I'm so tired,
I wish I was the moon tonight

How will you know if you found me at least
'Cause I'll be the one, be the one, be the one
With my heart in my lap
I'm so tired, I'm so tired
I wish I was the moon tonight

We are all going to die

And maybe sooner than we think! A meteor in Peru may have brought a space plague.

Could this be the beginning of the zombie apocalypse? Is Goijira coming?

BBC Report

Guardian report

Is this the future?

International Talk Like A Pirate Day

Arrrr, me hates ya!

Review: Tightrope (1984)

Arrr, I be catchin' up on old Clint Eastwood movies lately, and I finally be gettin' around to Tightrope. This one be written & directed by Richard Tuggle, who had been scriptin' Escape From Alcatraz, Eastwood's last collaboration with director Don Siegel. It be combinin' elements of '40s film noir and '80s horror movies, with some success.

This be one of the movies that be billin' Eastwood as "a cop on the edge" in the trailer, and yet it's bein' of his most daring movies. Clint be playin' Wes Block, a New Orleans cop who be a solo dad of two daughters, a land-lubber who be threatened by women (sexually and otherwise) and so be frequentin' kinky Bourbon Street lusty ladies and payin' to be handcuffin' 'em to the bed. It probably be his most vulnerable performance on film; he actually be usin' his real voice for once, instead of the patented Eastwood whisperin'.

Block be headin' a homicide unit that be investigatin' a serial killer who (he be not disclosin' to the other cops) be killin' the same lusty ladies Block be frequenting, and in the same order that he be visitin' 'em. (The movie's single biggest blunder be that it be showin' the face of the killer in the opening scene; the story be structured so that we should be suspecin' Block throughout, but the audience is bein' let off the hook-for-a-hand on that from the start, arrrr.)

Block be befriendin' a rape counsellor played by Geneviève Bujold, a woman who's bein' too strong for him to be attracted to but who he finds he can confide in. Bujold's typically strong performance be an anchor (arrrr) for the movie; she ain't leapin' into his arms, but she ain't be recoilin' from him in horror either, and her trust in him be helpin' to keep the audience identification with Block even when his behaviour is bein' rather questionable.

Cinematographer Bruce Surtees be known as "the prince of darkness" and this be one of his darkest movies. It be rare to see Block's face in full light, as he usually be shown half in deep shadow. This bes clearly symbolic of the dichotomy between Block's home life, where he be devoted to his two young daughters, and his sexin' life, where he be uncomfortably close to the sensibility of the killer. It also be extremely visually appealing, and be continuin; the movie's links to the film noir period.

Apart from the stumble I mentioned earlier, the movie also be falterin' when it be emulatin' the slasher movies of the period. The frequent close-ups of the killer's shoes (complete with a cheesy sting on the soundtrack, arrrr) be reminiscent of Friday the 13th Part 2, and one scene in a hot tub be lifted from Halloween 2. The masks the killer be wearin (motivated by the movie being set during mardi gras, arrrr) be damned creepy though.

The climax is bein' a bit cliché, but overall this is bein' a fascinating movie that be of a piece with Clint's early '70s films like The Beguiled, Play Misty For Me and High Plains Drifter (arrr). I can forgive a few flaws for a movie with this much guts, me hearties!

I have nothing of interest to say, but I'm saying it anyway

I generally find that when I meet a woman for the first time, I might not know if I'm going to be interested in her but I definitely know if I'm not going to be interested in her within 10-15 seconds. If that makes any sense at all.

I have, from time to time, been on blind dates. Nothing makes me quite as guilty as having to mask my disappointment with a fake smile. I'm dead certain girls do this even more often, just to make the guy feel better. And then they end up being called a tease... It's a frickin' mess.

I have tried this internet dating thing. It's damned annoying. You try to initiate conversations with one woman who looks especially cool, and suddenly you're getting messages from all these women in their mid '30s who have tagged themselves as "I'm ready to have kids soon with the right person" and everyone drowns in a sea of mediocrity.

I have tried picking up women on the street. This has been a surprisingly successful venture, although nothing lasting has come of it.

I have not really tried picking up women in bars. My hearing is fucked from too many metal concerts when I was a tyke, and so my end of the conversation tends to combine "BEG PARDON?" with "UH HUH..."

I once picked up a woman in a video store. She is now in a lesbian relationship in Australia.

I have never made successful romantic first-contact with women in bookshops, libraries, supermarkets or dairies. I have recently considered trying to pick up a woman who works at a Star Mart I frequent, but I'm completely stumped as to how.

I shot a man in Brooklyn, just to watch him die.

My secret crush is vindicated

Almost three years ago, I admitted to a secret crush.

Well, now she's vindicated and her client is a free man. (If you don't count that he's agreed to be spied on by the SIS for the rest of his life.)

So yay, my not-so-secret crush: Deborah Manning.

Meme

From Jamie, via Morgue. Even though it wasn't passed to me, I just wanted to. :-P

1. You’re stuck inside Fahrenheit 451. Which book do you want to be?

Throat Sprockets by Tim Lucas.

2. Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

Yes.

3. The last book you bought is:

Spook Country by William Gibson.

4. The last book you finished is:

Creepers by David Morrell.

5. What are you currently reading?

Spook Country by William Gibson (at work), and Red Carpets and other banana skins by Rupert Everett (at home).

6. Five books you would take to a desert island.

Throat Sprockets by Tim Lucas,
Ulysses by James Joyce,
The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas,
The Essential Ellison by Harlan Ellison,
The Odyssey by Homer (Robert Fagles translation).

Review: Hairspray (2007 remake)

As a life-long fan of John Waters & his movies, I have been looking forward to this movie with some trepidation. The original Hairspray was Waters's first PG-rated movie back in 1988 (most of his earlier movies were rated X for sheer depravity) and was a comedy of considerable charm about the attempted integration of a rock & roll dance show in Baltimore. It was later turned into a smash Broadway musical, and the new movie is the filmed version of that.

The original starred Ricki Lake as a fat girl with great dance moves who wants to get onto the show. Her mother was played by the great Divine (in his last screen role), Waters's main star, a 300lb man who was very convincing playing a woman. (I'll correct a common misconception here: Divine was gay, but he wasn't actually a transvestite off-screen.) Both stars were superb - it make Ricki a star, and it would surely have made Divine a star if he hadn't died a few days after the premiere.

The remake is not as good as the original, but it is highly entertaining and distinct enough that it is worth seeing in its own right. The filmmakers are smart enough not to try and mimic the original's style; the first was pure Waters, while the remake is pure Broadway.

It was interesting to compare John Travolta's performance to Divine's original; Divine played Edna Turnblad as a sassy chick who's embarrassed by her weight, while Travolta plays her as a shy wallflower coming out of her shell. In balance I preferred Divine, but at least he was in his own skin while Travolta had a fat suit to contend with.

Christopher Walken is smashing as Wilbur Turnblad, maybe even better than Jerry Stiller in the original. (Stiller gets another great role here, as the manager of a fat chick clothing shop.) He has genuine chemistry with Travolta, and their big romantic fantasy song & dance number was probably my favourite scene in the movie.

Michelle Pfeiffer (obviously having the time of her life) is also great as Velma van Tussle. Drawn, thin, bitchy, and blatantly racist, she makes a great villain. Her character is actually a conflation of Deborah Harry & Sonny Bono's roles in the original (they apparently decided that no one could possibly replace Sonny).

Newcomer Nikki Blonsky carries the lead role of Tracy Turnblad with aplomb. She's got charm and style and a great singing voice, though I have to say that Ricki Lake was a better dancer.

Sadly, most of the supporting cast is less memorable than their counterparts in the original. It's a lot harder to see why Tracy is so bowled over by Link this time, Amber van Tussle is nowhere near evil enough, and Queen Latifah just does not have the oomph of Ruth Brown as Motormouth Maybelle.

I was totally in love with Lesley Ann Powers as Penny Pingleton in the original (sadly it was her only screen role), but her replacement made no impression on me. Her mother, while fun, was not as vicious or as stupid this time around.

That's really my biggest problem with the movie: apart from Pfeiffer: the villains aren't as nasty or as openly racist as in the original, and the movie suffers from it.

The story is noticeably simplified and toned down from Waters's original, which sadly means that most of my favourite scenes are either not as good (the race riot) or completely absent (e.g. the Beatniks, the hypnotist, the concert, Penny's mother's racist freak-out).

I was also a bit disappointed in the staging of the dance sequences. Some of them were fantastic, but too often the camera did not film the dancers to their greatest effect, and some of the dance sequences should have been better rehearsed (or maybe had better dancers). Director/choreographer Adam Shankman is clearly to blame here - he previously choreographed the Buffy musical episode, which was fun but not exactly Gene Kelly. This is a common complaint of mine in recent times (see also the vastly over-rated Chicago) - I think great Hollywood musicals are a lost art, which saddens me.

Unsurprisingly, the black kids were much better dancers than the white kids. The guy who played Seaweed was particularly amazing.

No blame on Marc Shaiman & Scott Wittman's songs, which are great fun. Shaiman, of course, had previously worked on the unstoppably catchy songs for the South Park movie, and he maybe even tops that here. As with almost all musical music I doubt I'd like it out of context, but in the movie it's awesome.

Kudos also for keeping the grotty, rat-infested look of Baltimore that's so familiar from Waters's movies (and also from Berry Levinson's movies).

I note with amusement that the original cost $2 million and the remake cost $75 million. I'm not entirely sure where all that money went, but this is a fun movie that deserved to be a hit, and quite frankly the world cannot have enough light & fluffy musicals about racism.

Changed my mind

I changed my mind about my last post and unpublished it. Just in case anyone read it and then noticed it was gone.

I'm going to get back to the important business of reviewing trashy movies and stupid music. I figure Hanzo the Razor: Sword of Justice and Fur & Gold by Bats For Lashes will be next. Unless they're not. Who the fuck knows?

Quotes on writing

These are some of my favourites.

"How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live."
Henry David Thoreau

"Writers use everything. If it doesn't kill you, you probably wind up using it in your writing."
- Octavia Butler

"You can't wait for inspiration, you have to go after it with a club."
Jack London

"If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn’t brood. I’d type a little faster."
- Isaac Asimov

"I believe more in the scissors than I do in the pencil."
Truman Capote

"The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in shock-proof shit-detector."
Ernest Hemingway

"Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very;" your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be."
Mark Twain

"As to the adjective, when in doubt, strike it out."
Mark Twain

"The wastebasket is a writer's best friend."
Isaac Bashevis Singer

"I try to leave out the parts that people skip."
Elmore Leonard

"Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."
Anton Chekhov

"You can take for granted that people know more or less what a street, a shop, a beach, a sky, an oak tree look like. Tell them what makes this one different."
Neil Gaiman

"No matter how worthy the message of something, if it's dull, you're just not communicating."
Poul Anderson

"There is no idea so brilliant or original that a sufficiently-untalented writer can't screw it up."
Raymond Feist

"A critic can only review the book he has read, not the one which the writer wrote."
Mignon McLaughlin

"They're fancy talkers about themselves, writers. If I had to give young writers advice, I would say don't listen to writers talk about writing or themselves."
Lillian Hellman

More on atheism

Dammit I know this is unfair, but I still am not able to comment on my own blog. (This is my own fault, not that of the site or my webmaster.)

Andrew commented:
I could agree more, and less. But, as I can't be bothered making a case, I'll quote myself the last time I tried (http://just-another-f--kin-wellingtonian.blogspot.com/2007/05/practice-of-not-collecting-stamps.html):

"The title of this post [The Practice of Not Collecting Stamps] is an aside to the regular line about atheism being another belief system. This is something my brother quoted to me over the phone (i.e. if you recognise the actual quote or spot inaccuracies in my version of it, don't bother to point it out): "Atheism is a belief system in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby" - if you didn't collect stamps, would you join a club for people who don't collect stamps? I suppose you could say there are belief systems that entail atheism, but atheism isn't the system itself."

I totally disagree. I do not think that this is a valid analogy. It seems like sophistry to me.

Atheism is not merely the absence of belief. I do not believe in gods. I also do not believe that there are no gods. Hence, despite not believing in gods, I am not actually an atheist.

An atheist believes that there are no gods. I'm sorry if you don't like being in a belief system, but there's a little saying about having cakes and eating them.

If stamp collecting is theism, then in this particular model there is no atheism. Unless it's someone who does not believe in stamp collectors.

This should be a comment, not an entry, but I felt the need to address this particular point.

Taking it on faith

So... Does anyone else reckon that atheism is based as much on faith as any religion?

To clarify:

I take atheism to be the categorical denial of any kind of higher intelligence/supreme beings that we might call god. Not a doubt in the existence of a god, but a belief that there is no god.

Doubt in the existence of god is agnosticism. Belief that there is no god is atheism.

So to be an atheism is to subscribe to a belief system. Rather than believing in something (as with most religions), atheists believe in the absence of something.

Last time I checked, no one had managed to prove the existence of god, but at the same time no one had managed to prove the non-existence of god either. In fact, it seemed to be generally accepted that proof of the non-existence of god was basically impossible.

So atheists are taking it on faith that god does not exist.

This is one of the biggest reasons why I describe myself as a firmly committed agnostic. Sometimes people laugh when they hear this, as some people seem to think that an agnostic is merely someone who has not made up their mind whether god exists or not. A fence-sitter.*

But the truth is that I have made up my mind. I have decided that I can never really know if there is any kind of god or not, much less which particular belief system this potentially existing god may or may not be closest to.

I have made up my mind not to believe one way or the other.

So... Have you made up your mind? Why did you choose the decision you have settled on?

* Side-note: the idea of "sitting on the fence" in this instance strikes me as absurd, because it assumes that there are only two options that an agnostic refuses to choose between, each on a different side of the fence. But you can't really group, say, buddhists and muslims on the same side because their belief systems are about as different from each other as those of christians and atheists. (And yes, I'm using lower caps on purpose, same as I refuse to capitalise god or tv.)

If you're a christian, it's likely that you are on the same side of the fence as other christians and all atheists are on the same side as muslims, buddhists etc. In many cases, a lot of other christians are also on the other side of the fence. I could move around "christian" and "muslim" and "buddhist" and add or subtract any other possible religion and I think this would still stand.

I submit that there are many fences dividing people with faith. As Dead Prez said:

Religion is like prison
Keep the people locked up in different divisions
Some of them promise you heaven
But I see a whole lot of bullshit ism-scism