Z/Web

I was curious about this interesting take on a zombie movie (in this case a zombie falls in love with a human), but I missed it in theaters. It’s actually really good.

I’m not crazy about the way the zombies talk in the film — it sounds way too sophisticated and they use contractions and full sentences — but other than that they do a good job of making the love story plausible.

The direction is clever and interesting, and the plot is simple but effective, as a cure is sought for the zombies’ situation. The ending is Hollywood but I liked it.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Usually this type of crime drama isn’t my cup of tea. This one is predictable (a corrupt Mayor and the ex-cop-now-PI trying to bring him down) and dreary, and the main guy (played by Mark Wahlberg) has zero personality (perfect casting).

Yet despite all that, I actually watched this. Maybe the predictability helps, as you want to see if what you thought really comes to pass. It’s got a hint of something that makes it slightly above average and it’s not terrible. It’s not great as there’s little remarkable here, but it’s mildly entertaining if you’re in the right mood.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Author: Hope Solo (and Ann Killan)

I’m not usually much into biographies, so I was surprised at how much this one captivated me. I read it within a 24-hour period. I couldn’t put it down.

I’m a huge soccer fan and I love Hope Solo, the goalkeeper for the U.S. Women’s National Team. I’ve followed her career but didn’t know much about her past. This book is an incredibly intimate look at her trouble life.

Hope’s always been outspoken and frank, and this book is no different. She unflinchingly talks about her father’s criminal life and bizarre behavior, her dysfunctional family life, her own sometimes inappropriate lifestyle, the 2007 World Cup controversy where she was suddenly benched before the big semi-final with Brazil — a game the USA lost horribly — and where her critical post-match comments ostracized her from her teammates who felt betrayed, as well as the tremendous triumphs of winning Gold medals in the Olympics and World Cup.

The story of Hope’s childhood and family I found very moving. The love-hate relationship she had with her father is heart-breaking. On the one hand, he could be a great dad at times, but other times he betrayed Hope’s mother, was incredibly unreliable, and committed crimes. One of my favorite scenes is a tiny one: Hope writing about how ashamed she was when she saw her father stealing coins from Hope’s friend’s car when given a ride (he was homeless at the time). So sad and tragic.

Yet despite everything, Hope managed to keep her family somewhat together, and she and her father eventually had a good relationship — right before he suddenly died. I’d heard bits and pieces of that story in the media but hadn’t realized what a profound story it was: Hope had sought a relationship with her missing dad her whole life and just as she finally got it and he was getting his own life together, he’s taken away. Worse, that happened just before a major tournament where Hope needed to be focused.

Another part I really liked about this book was learning about all the behind-the-scenes of the women’s soccer team. I had known there was some bad blood, but hadn’t realized just how bad it was (or who was on which side). While Hope clearly presents her own views of the situations, she does so in a way that doesn’t feel phony as though she’s attempting to rewrite history to paint herself in a more favorable light. She seems willing to admit when she’s wrong and when she makes mistakes (goalkeepers have to be good at that) and her perspective feels genuine. That’s impressive.

It was also fun reliving the highs and lows of various tournaments. I had not realized just how badly Hope was injured prior to the 2011 World Cup and the amount of physical therapy and medical treatments she had to undergo just to play.

There are some negative things you learn about her in the book: it’s easy to put our athletes up on a pedestal (especially clean-cut female athletes) and think of them as angels, so it can be troubling having that view shattered. For example, most of the sounds bites we hear are censored (or at least carefully selected), so it can be a shock to see that Hope — and others - use a lot more profanity than is necessary.

Still, that’s a core theme of the book: Hope is basically giving a big middle finger to whoever wants to judge her. While she seems to accept the burden of being an idol, she doesn’t want the pressure of living up to that impossible standard to break or change her.

Ultimately, this is a fantastic book. It’s incredibly well-written and almost disturbingly honest. It’s definitely worth the read if you’re into soccer or the women’s national team. I came away with a much deeper understanding and a deeper appreciation of Solo as an athlete, and as a person.

Topic: [/book]

Link

Usually for movies based on books I prefer to read the book first. With the first movie I did that and I was glad I did as the book was far superior. With this movie, I ran out of time to read the book and I decided to do it in the reverse order. That can be dangerous, because first impressions count and if the film changed something I might feel that’s canonical and dislike the book’s version of events.

In the case of Catching Fire, it’s too early to tell if that will be a problem (I still haven’t read the book yet), but I’m hopeful that it won’t be an issue. That’s because I really liked the movie and it felt quite complete to me. I’m sure the book gets into more detail, but the basics that were there in the film felt very good (unlike the first film, where events felt rushed and abbreviated).

This film has some pacing issues — it’s very hard to know the actual timeline of the events. The film begins with our heroes going on a victory tour right after winning the Hunger Games, but suddenly it’s time for the next games — which I thought were held just once a year.

In the first film, a lot had to be done to establish the setting; here we know the main characters and the back story and can just right down to business. I suppose someone who hasn’t seen the first film will be puzzled — there’s not much of explanation of what previously happened (though the reminders are sufficient for those who saw it) — but I doubt too many will be seeing this that haven’t seen the first film.

The acting, sets, and drama in this one is excellent. My favorite way is how the author is pacing the plot and making it extremely believable: we know Catniss is a hero for a revolution, but she can’t just jump there overnight. In the first book it’s just about her survival. In this one she learns that others are in the fight as well. I assume that in the final book we’ll actually have war, with her being a leader. That’s exactly right. We’re seeing Catniss grow up and that’s awesome. (The Harry Potter books also do that very well.)

I really liked this film. It’s much better than the first one, it part because it has a simpler mission, but it’s also a more powerful emotional story. Here we see more of what life is like in this terrible regime, and the emotional stories of the victims aren’t rushed through like in the first film. It’s possible I’ll revise my opinion a little after I read the novel, but seeing the film without reading the book I’m surprised at how much I liked it. It’s also motivating me to read the book, which I shall do soon.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

What a beautiful novel.

It’s been a long time since I read it and I loved it even more this time around. It’s a novel that speaks to me as though it was written specifically to me. It’s a bit scary in that sense. I feel like I understand the character of Ender better than a brother — better than myself.

I was a lot like Ender as a kid. Older than my years, understanding things adults didn’t know I did, and that knowledge complicating my relationships with others and alienating me from my peers. Like Ender, I didn’t really fit in with anyone.

Of course, that’s only a fraction of what the novel is about. It’s also about war and xenocide, the nature of humanity, fate, religion, and much, much more. What I love is that despite such complex topics at its core, the novel approaches them via a simple story (in terms of plot). Ender’s just a little boy, bred to be a strategic genius, with the humble mission of saving all of humanity.

It’s brilliant. If he was an adult, our perspective of everything he does would be completely different, but since he’s so young, we’re forced to ask ourselves a million questions about his motivations — and ours. Is he evil? Is he innocent? Are his actions justified or is there blood on his hands?

Let’s cut to the chase: the book’s a must-read. Not just for those into science fiction, but everyone. If you’re a human being, you need to read the book. It’s that simple. It will change you, make you realize what being human means, and the world will be a better place with you in it after that.

(And if you’re not a human, then you still need to read it to help you understand us.)

Topic: [/book]

Link

I liked the premise of this movie — a teenage girl is abducted and calls 911 from the trunk of a moving car and the operator has to try and locate her so she can be rescued — but I wasn’t sure where it was going.

Sure enough, the first half of the movie, the part about the girl in the trunk, is really excellent. It’s dramatic, different, and interesting. After that, however, it descends into a typical crazy serial killer film, and it gets really absurd when the 911 operator actually goes detective and sets off on her own to search for clues. That second half doesn’t ruin the film, but it does weaken it, and the ending is a bit strange and left a weird taste in my mouth.

Still, overall I liked the movie. It moves at a fast pace and has some good performances and scenes. It’s unfortunately not as great as it could be, mostly because the end becomes stereotypical and predictable, but it’s still better than most films of this type. A good cast, decent direction, and some cool scenes make this recommended.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

This is a fascinating little Australian film along the lines of Red Dawn. Some teens are out camping in the wilderness and when they return home, they discover that an invasion has taken place. All their homes are empty, their families either killed or taken to a prison camp inside the town. The teens finally take action to repel the invaders, and fight back even though it might mean their lives.

What I liked about this is the pacing: the teens don’t even start fighting back until past the halfway point in the film. The fighting’s realistic, too, unlike similar movies where untrained kids are somehow able to beat adult commandos with real weapons. This feels far more realistic and therefore scary and thought-provoking.

I also liked that the main character is a girl; that brings a different feel to the experience.

The film emphasizes the relationships between the teenage characters more than the plot; unfortunately, the characters aren’t all that interesting, so the film drags at times and meanders at others. (There isn’t much action until the final third, so this is definitely not an action movie or even a war movie. There’s a lot more of people running and hiding and talking about what should be done than shooting. I actually think that’s a good thing.)

But it’s still an interesting film and I liked it overall. The cast is remarkable, the visuals and direction are excellent, and the ending is definitely non-Hollywood. It’s worth seeing if the subject matter interests you.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

I wanted to wait to see this until I’d finished re-reading the book, but didn’t quite make it. As usual, the book is definitely different — and better — but the movie is good. If you haven’t read the book, you’ll probably think the movie’s excellent.

If you aren’t familiar with the story, it’s brilliantly simple: it’s set in the future about 100 years after mankind was devastated by an alien invasion and we only just survived. Since then, earth has been preparing for a return of the invaders, seeking a new brilliant battle commander who would be capable of defeating the aliens once and for all. Ender is a little boy genius who’s shipped off to military school to play wargames and learn strategy while high-minded adults basically manipulate everything around him to toughen him and turn his brilliance into a ruthless military leader. It’s an amazing story of psychology.

Some of that ends up in the film, but sadly not all. The acting is decent, though not as dramatic as it should be, and the visuals and special effects are excellent. The ending is particularly moving and makes the whole movie.

But frustrating for those who love the novel, the film essentially misses out on two of biggest features of the book. Both of these are puzzling omissions.

The first is that the book really gets inside Ender’s head: we see what he sees and feel what he feels. That’s completely gone in the movie and is a horrible miss. Ender isn’t the same character; we don’t really know or understand him. He’s not really drawn any more deeply than any other character, and the rest are just sketches. Ender’s the most fascinating thing about the book: a character of contradictions and confusion, a boy pretending to be a man, a boy asked to make adult decisions, a ruthless killer who doesn’t want to hurt anyone. We lose all that in the film, reducing Ender to a mere child prodigy.

The second thing is a change that I can understand why Hollywood did it, but I disagree vehemently with the decision. If I’d been involved, I wouldn’t have made the movie with this change since it is such a fundamental part of the story. In the novel, Ender is just six years old at the beginning. That’s a huge detail. Not only does it make all of his accomplishments and genius all the more impressive, but it makes the dangerous things he’s encouraged to do more dangerous. It’s one thing seeing a petite teen beating a bully to a pulp, but it’s quite another seeing a six-year-old do it.

Sadly, Hollywood chose to use the same actor as Ender for the entire movie, meaning that we almost completely lose out on the shock of his youth. This also has a side effect of compressing the timeframe of the entire story: instead of it taking place over half a decade of training, everything seems to happen within a few months. This is a small detail, but it has ramifications throughout and it diminishes one of the novel’s most powerful aspects. Seeing six-year-old Ender utterly humiliate 12-year-olds in simulated battle is just amazing, and it helps explain his isolation and loneliness. We don’t get that at all in the film.

There are other flaws in the film, but they are more scene-specific. Some are understandable — combining multiple characters into a single one in order to save time — but others are strange. For instance, while the bullying character of Bonzo looks great and fits the role perfectly, he’s a full head shorter than Ender, which is just absurd. Sure, the lead actor is slight of build, but when he’s looking down at a sneering Bonzo it feels like their roles are reversed and Ender’s the bully.

Another scene that annoyed me is the first fight scene. The way it’s done in the film is so rushed we never get any sense that Ender was actually threatened, we never feel Ender’s pain at having to hurt someone else just to protect himself, and we totally miss out on the ruthlessness and devastation he causes when he finally defends himself. It’s a baffling scene that I bet most people would barely understand (and if they did understand, they’d probably have gotten the point of it wrong since it was so mismanaged).

Yet somehow despite all these flaws, the film is still fairly decent. It’s different from the novel, but hints at the basic story’s greatness. The ending is powerful and moving, asking a lot of profound questions about the nature of war, and that helps make up for a lot of the shallowness of the earlier parts of film. Overall it’s definitely worth seeing, though I’d recommend that everyone read the novel, which is a classic and must-read.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

I skipped this in the theaters as it didn’t seem my cup of tea, but it turned out to be pretty good. In the glimpses I’d gotten I’d thought it was a Western, but it’s about hillbilly bootleggers during Prohibition. There’s a lot of horrific violence, but everything’s stylized and dramatic, and the action is pretty entertaining.

There’s a lot I didn’t like: the overdone accents are almost intelligible (I had to frequently rewind and read the closed captions to figure out what characters were saying), and the music is absolutely atrocious. (I guess it’s supposed to be topical somehow, but I just found it annoying and off-putting, though I did like the one song during the closing credits that seemed to be a real hillbilly singing.) Some of the performances are just too over-the-top and weird (Guy Pearce as the bad lawman is just bizarre).

The story itself was more interesting than I expected, about a shy younger brother who is too frightened to kill and his deadly older brother whom everyone fears, and how the younger boy ends up taking the reins of the family business and prospers.

In short, I didn’t expect to like this much but I did. I found myself caring for the brothers despite their criminal enterprise, and I liked the ending. Worth seeing, though be warned it is pretty brutal.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

I finally got around to seeing this. I’m glad I did; it’s interesting, and well-made, but there are few surprises. Even though I knew little of the real story, the story is basic: a female CIA operative spends her whole career trying to track down Osama Bin Laden, overcoming countless obstacles, and finally succeeds. There’s much in the specifics of how they track the terrorist, but it still feels too-by-the-numbers for me. Still, it’s worth seeing just for the historical aspects.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

This is a fantastic film with a minimal story about a female scientist on the space shuttle who’s the only survivor of a terrible accident. She’s trapped, alone in space, with no way to get back to earth, and she’s not a professional astronaut.

That may sound depressing, but it’s utterly inspiring. What makes it work is the fantastic direction and acting. Sandra Bullock is outstanding in a pivotal role in which she’s in every single scene, most of the time alone, in cramped quarters or inside a space suit. She’s alternatively frail and incredibly strong, and makes both believable. Many actresses would have overdone the dramatic moments but hers are spot on. Definitely my vote for deserving an Oscar.

Equally key is Alfonso’s direction, which gives us astonishing realism. His choice to make much of the film without sound — just like space in real life — is amazing, as watching spaceship crashes in utter silence is creepy and disconcerting. It also magnifies every other sound in the film, making the tiniest things more important. Visually the film is stunning, with glorious views of earth from space.

I watched the 3D version because I heard that the director insisting on filming this in real 3D (not awful post-conversion) and it’s worth the extra fee. Floating objects drift toward you, and you get the feeling you’re in space yourself. My favorite effect was a scene where Sandra cries and a few tears trickle off her face and float toward the camera. Really, really cool, and yet subtly done so it doesn’t distract from a key emotional moment.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable and tension-filled film. It’s non-stop stress from the almost the first scene, and it makes the perfect 90-minute runtime just fly by. What impresses me the most is that so many things could have gone wrong: with such a simple story, the slightest flaws have nowhere to hide. Instead we’re treated with a survival story that’s surprisingly easy to understand (all the tech jargon is extremely well-explained), perfect moments of tension-relieving humor, and incredible realism. Two thumbs up and top recommendations.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Cool film. Not exactly what I expected, and not really a Hitch bio as it was more just about the making of Psycho. Nothing revelatory here, for Hitch fans who know his story, but still fun and interesting.

It was a little too “on the nose” in terms of mimicking Hitch and his contemporaries. In some ways, that made it feel more like a parody than an actual story. The performances were good — especially Anthony Hopkins as Hitch — but many seemed to be acting.

The film also drummed up conflict between Hitch and his wife, Alma, which, though it might have had some historical accuracy, felt exaggerated and tedious. It’s just annoying watching a married couple bicker. I vastly would have preferred more insight into Hitch’s creative side, how and why he made the decisions he did in the movie. There was some of that, but I wanted much, much more. In the end we get a glimpse of what made Hitch tick, but not enough.

I suppose non-Hitchcock fans (or those who don’t know his story) might find the plot light and not that compelling, as most of the film’s conflicts simply evaporate by the end, but as someone who finds Hitch awesome (he’s my all-time favorite director by a huge margin), I enjoyed it. Definitely worth watching.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Though a dreaded sequel, I thought this might be fun, as I’d enjoyed some of the previous ones. It turned out to be excellent.

It starts off with Riddick fighting for his life against a hostile environment on a desert planet (sort of a sci-fi 127 Hours). He fights various creatures as he tries to survive. This seemingly could be boring and most directors would rush through it, but here the pacing is deliberate and thoroughly enjoyable.

Some of the best scenes of the entire movie are when Riddick rescues a wild dog-like pup and raises him to be his companion. Though the creature’s CGI, their interaction is excellent, and surprisingly emotional. The dog’s even good for a laugh or two.

When Riddick realizes it’s time to get off the planet, he pushes an emergency beacon at an empty mercenary station, bringing forth two competing groups of bounty hunters who want him caught and killed. His plan is to kill them and steal a ship. What follows is terrific cat-and-mouse action, with tons of wonderful performances. Not everything happens the way you’d expect, either, though we are treated to classic Riddick one-liners and ultra-violence.

It’s simple, elegant, and pure Riddick. Excellent.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

We’ve all heard the story of the Golden Goose, how the owners cut it open to find its source of gold and thereby destroyed its daily output. Apple, with its iPhone, has a veritable Golden Goose: its profit margins (around 50%) are unprecedented in the tech industry (where many products make their makers a mere 10%, if that).

Initially such a remarkable feat was explainable because Apple had tech that no one else had: an innovative new touchscreen device that was unique. As long as the iPhone is special, Apple is able to command high subsidies from carriers.

These days everyone has copied Apple, so the logic is that the iPhone is no longer unique and Apple’s subsidy Golden Goose must end.

But here’s the thing: the copies are selling, but Apple’s iPhone is also selling. In fact, Apple can barely keep up with demand! Thus Apple’s margins have remained high. Carriers are willing to pay a premium to carry the iPhone because the iPhone brings in customers that otherwise would flee to other networks.

So why would Apple kill the Golden Goose by releasing a cheaper iPhone of their own volition?

Making It Up in Volume

Analysts claim a cheaper phone is the thing to do because it will drive market share. Apple might make less profit on each phone, but they’ll lock millions more customers into the Apple ecosystem and over the long haul will make more money.

This is dubious, at best. How many extra phones would Apple sell for each ten percent price cut? If an iPhone sold for $500 instead of $600, would that mere $100 price difference really sell that many more phones? In order to sell enough phones for ecosystem sales (where Apple makes as much as 30% of each sale) to make a difference — let’s say double the number of phones — the price would have to be significantly lower. That means 50% less, or $300 instead of $600. If Apple were to do that, the phones would have to be of lesser quality and margins would be razor thin. Pretty much what everyone in the industry except for Apple is doing!

So go look at Android and see how that’s working out for them. Most of the manufacturers are losing money on the hardware (Samsung is only profitable because they also make many cell phone components), and Google makes very little post-sale. Basically, people who buy cheap phones don’t buy anything later!

Most Androids are used as a feature phones (dumbphones). Their owners never buy apps, barely use the web, and don’t buy media (they either don’t consume it or pirate). They don’t even tap on mobile ads (Google makes far more selling ads on iPhones than it does on Androids, even though there are more Androids out there).

Apple, therefore, has chosen to compete in the higher-end of the market. It will not make cheap phones. By owning the best customers, Apple makes money at both ends: at the initial sale and long afterward, when the customer buys apps, movies, books, and more. Apple is intentionally ceding the lower market, the cheap customers. Is that a mistake?

The argument against that strategy is that Apple is losing market share to a competitor. The idea is that Android will become the dominant platform and developers will stop making apps for Apple’s device and concentrate on the bigger market.

But this forgets two key points. One, that larger market isn’t making developers money. Developers want to make apps for iOS because that’s where they can actually profit.

Two, the smartphone market is not like the PC market of old. In PCs, Microsoft established an ecosystem — Windows — and locked customers into that platform. That lock-in is a key advantage of ecosystems. But where’s the lock-in when customers aren’t actually using apps or buying anything on that platform?

Even if customers do buy a few mobile apps, mobile apps don’t cost as much as traditional desktop apps. It’s quite a different thing to move from a Windows PC with possibly thousands of dollars of applications to a Mac where you have to buy all those programs again, versus mobile where you might have $50 of games and apps to buy on the new platform.

In other words, what makes a mobile platform “sticky” isn’t the same as on the desktop: it’s the user experience that keeps people on iPhone. That’s why vastly more people move from Android to iPhone than the other way around.

Another key difference with the PC market — where Microsoft ruled for two decades with an OS-based monopoly — is that desktops are long-term purchases. People don’t buy a new computer every few years any more. But in mobile, that’s not true. Mobile tech is changing so rapidly that everyone wants a new phone every year or two. That’s a huge opportunity for Apple, especially if customers aren’t happy with their cheap Androids.

In other words, Apple’s fine allowing Android to gain a little ground now. It’s temporary. In a couple of years, those frustrated and unhappy customers will be delighted to switch to Apple.

When Will the Golden Goose Die?

Clearly, no Golden Goose lasts forever. At some point, Apple will have to reduce their margins.

Or will they?

Look at what Apple did with iPods: over time, they introduced a variety of models with different capabilities and price points. They still made a nice profit on each one.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Apple’s strategy with iPhone will be the same. However, until yesterday’s announcement of two new phones, the 5C and 5S, Apple had never produced multiple models of an iPhone. (In the past, Apple has just kept around older models to sell at discounted prices.) This is the beginning of Apple’s strategy, but many are impatient. They forget that Apple didn’t release all those iPods instantly: they evolved over time.

The iPhone is far trickier than an iPod. An iPod is relatively simple: it just plays music. It needs a way to sync music to it, to charge it, an interface to control song selection and playback, and perhaps a few other bells and whistles (such as Nike fitness tracking, a camera, or a radio). Within those requirements, Apple was able to produce a range from high-end iPods that featured large amounts of storage and bigger screens to the diminutive iPod Shuffle with no screen at all.

How in the world do you produce an iPhone without a screen? It is feasible: Apple already has voice control, so I can imagine a tiny device that you control with a voice interface. But the tech to do that in a way that meets Apple’s standards of quality isn’t here yet and probably won’t be for a few years.

Apple is in a precarious position regarding its Golden Goose: if it produces something cheaper that’s “good enough,” most people won’t buy the higher-end product. Finding just the right mix of features while still being an “iPhone” is extremely difficult. If Apple trims out too much for a cheaper product, it risks damaging its brand. With a pocket computer like an iPhone, removing hardware features can ruin the whole purpose of why someone would buy it in the first place.

That’s why Apple must move carefully in how it adds new products to the iPhone lineup. Too cheap hurts the brand and cannibalizes higher-profit sales. Too low-functioning and the product is no longer an “iPhone.”

What Apple has done with the 5C and 5S is fascinating. The 5C is not much different from the iPhone 5 in terms of internal hardware. It’s year-old tech in a new plastic case. But the colored phones are plenty functional and fun and slightly cheaper. That means big margins for Apple, but still plenty of appeal to buyers. I predict the 5C will be a huge seller.

The 5S is definitely aspirational. The fingerprint sensor is awesome: everyone will want it, but it’s not critical. The new camera features are desirable, but not critical. The unique M7 chip that tracks your motion without battery drain is cool, but not critical. If someone is pinching pennies, they’ll drool over the 5S and buy the 5C. Some will sell a kidney and buy the 5S just because it’s aspirational.

Apple has successfully separated the two models. The two are close enough it’s like deciding between a smaller, slightly cheaper iPod nano with less storage and a bigger iPod with room for all your songs. It’s genius.

Apple’s Sleight of Hand

Many are critical the 5C isn’t cheap enough, but they’re missing the point: the second model wasn’t about price. It’s about differentiation.

This is just the beginning of Apple’s long-term plans for having multiple iPhone models. I believe that eventually Apple will have a whole slew of different models at different price points, just like they did with iPods. It just will take more time with iPhones, both because of the nature of the device — it’s more complicated and mobile tech was progressing far too rapidly (that pace of change is slowing) — and because Apple has to be extremely careful it doesn’t kill the Golden Goose. Its products need to be perceived as high-end for it to command a high price. It would ruin the brand to suddenly introduce something cheap.

In fact, I believe that Apple has fooled everyone with the 5C. People are seeing it as the cheap phone and the 5S as the “real” iPhone. That’s the opposite of what Apple has done.

In reality, the 5C is the “real” iPhone. That’s the iPhone for the masses. The 5S is the red herring. Apple has made it to move the high-end upward. In effect, Apple has actually lowered the price of its main product. Yet it did this in a way that has fooled everyone. By making the case plastic and the manufacturing process simpler, and using year-old parts, Apple’s profits are the same even with the lower price. Yet now an iPhone costs $100 less!

This trick is brilliant because it keeps the perception that Apple is expensive. It doesn’t hurt the brand at all. Apple is still aspirational, and even the “low-end” 5C is so well-made and designed that people will desire it. Teens, especially, will love the 5C, while the 5S will appeal to well-heeled adults and security conscious IT people.

This trick also sets Apple up for the future: who doesn’t believe that next year’s iPhone 5C-equivalent won’t have a fingerprint sensor or other features that are standard today on the “high-end” 5S?

Apple has set the standard for the top, and it can, as needed, ease those features down the line, producing a slew of different iPhone models. Each would have the basic capability of being an “iPhone” — running apps, making calls, taking pictures — but some models will have more features for a little bit more money.

By doing this, Apple is preserving its Golden Goose. It may eventually even have a cheap phone — perhaps a $200 cellphone watch without a screen — but because the Apple brand will still be so coveted, carriers will essentially be forced into carrying Apple’s products and paying Apple a hefty premium.

At that point, Apple will have products all over the price spectrum, yet still be generating margins in the 50% range!

Topic: [/technology]

Link

What a fascinating and incredible film! I knew next to nothing about this and started watching, figuring I’d quit if I didn’t like it. In the first few seconds I was annoyed by giant text taking over the enter screen reading “Based on true events.” That seemed overly emphasized. But then the story got going and I was mesmerized.

Now I just preface this by saying that I now see why the director made that “true event” thing so prominent. It really is important. Basically, you’re watching people being manipulated into doing outrageous stuff — so ridiculous that it could be unbelievable. But this stuff really happened. Not just once, either, but over 70 times in 30 states.

I will also add that I just recently watched a couple of episodes of an interesting TV show called “Would You Fall For That?” where the hosts use psychological tricks to fool people. It’s fascinating stuff and a lot of it is the same stuff I saw in this film, which helps me understand why this works.

The movie is about a busy Friday night at a fast food joint. The stressed female manager receives a phone call from a cop telling her that one of her employees — a pretty blond girl — has stolen money from a customer. The cop says he’s in the middle of a larger investigation and can’t come there right this minute, but hopes the manager can help him out by questioning the girl.

The manager, in a brilliant performance by Ann Dowd, thinks she’s helping. The cop tells her he has her boss on the other line and names the man, comforting her as she thinks corporate is involved. She goes along with what the cop says, taking the girl to a back room. The cop explains they need to find the money — time is pressing, and he doesn’t want the girl getting rid of the evidence — and the next thing you know he’s insisting the manager strip search the girl.

I won’t spoil the whole plot, but the psychology this is based upon is real. When someone is authority tells us to do something, most of us will comply, especially if the request is minor. Once we’ve agreed to the first tiny thing, each subsequent request — even if more extreme — is easier to obey. So it really is understandable that the manager (and others) would go too far. It’s easy to watch this film and think, “That’s crazy! I’d never do that. These people are idiots!” But the truth is that any of us could be susceptible to this kind of manipulation.

You’ve probably figured out that the cop isn’t a cop: just a practical joker (of sorts), but the consequences of this guy’s actions are grave, and the movie’s a sobering reminder of the power of mindless obedience to authority. (It reminds me of a fantastic book called The Wave, about a high school experiment that recreates a Nazi-like environment with disastrous consequences, as students put in positions of power follow the orders of their superiors without question and do terrible things to their classmates.)

Compliance is not an easy or comfortable film. Outrageous things happen and it’s frightening to think that the movie is based on this “prank” happening over 70 times in real life. I do like the way it’s carefully written and directed and acted, as with this kind of psychological manipulation the tiniest misstep can throw off the whole thing. A single false note and the whole performance is ruined. This does really well, with the “cop” always coming up with an excuse for any errors in his story, and using intimidation to help encourage compliance. It’s pretty damned cool.

I am a bit annoyed with the “delicate” nature of the direction. One of my pet peeves is direction that works too hard to be coy. For instance, you know how on TV they show you the bare feet of a person in the shower and then cut to the person’s head and bare shoulders? You’re supposed to assume the person is naked, but they can’t actually show nudity so they do all these elaborate camera angles and stuff to make it seem like they’re showing something though they’re not. That annoys the heck out of me. It’s just so artificial. I’d rather they cut the shower scene entirely (it’s usually not necessary anyway) than tease me with stuff that’s not real.

Unfortunately, this film does that a little too often, and it does it in ways that makes it confusing. In a few scenes I wasn’t even sure what happened, or what was supposed to have happened, because the filmmaker didn’t actually show anything. That’s bad storytelling. It’s one thing to be careful about a sensitive subject matter, but it’s another to be so subtle that the viewer isn’t sure what happened.

It’s also sad because a more direct approach to the topic would have been even more shocking. It’s like the director was afraid of controversy and shied away from showing anything real. (A good analogy would be a comic telling a dirty joke and cleaning it up so much that it loses its humor.) The result is a slightly watered down film.

That doesn’t ruin the film — it’s still a great movie and worth seeing — but it could have been even better. On the whole, though, the film is full of terrific performances, writing, and directing, and the story is chilling. See it.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Author: David Baldacci

This is a strange book. I can’t say I really liked it. There are two problems with it. First, it’s basically split into two plots that have no relation at all. In the main plot, which is the interesting one, the First Lady’s niece has been kidnapped. In the second plot, our two heros, former Secret Service agents turned private detectives, Sean King and Michelle Maxwell, return to Michelle’s hometime because her mother has died and, of course, it turns out to be murder. I really didn’t care about the second storyline at all — it was too convenient having her mother murdered and she being a private eye, and the resolution of that story with all the family drama was terribly tedious and uninteresting and melodramatic.

The second big problem is that the reason for the kidnapping is saved as the big reveal until the very end of the book. Now that reason is actually interesting and quite dramatic, but it takes us 500 pages of boredom to get there. Instead, we must wallow through pages of inept mystery, tedium where shady people are doing mysterious things and every conversation is obtuse with all the key details carefully omitted so that the author can save the secret until the very end.

What’s really weird is that I didn’t realize this book was part of a series, nor that the new TV series King and Maxwell is based on these books, until I started in on this book and thought I was losing my mind! I’d just started watching the TV show and was freaking out a little at the similarities until I realized what was going on. The sad part is that I like the TV series much better: the characters have a repartee and distinct personalities. In this book, these two could have been anybody.

Worse, much of the “drama” of the detectives is based on their vague history and personal stories, which I didn’t know and didn’t really care about. To give you one example, the book opens with a dramatic burglary as Michelle breaks into her psychiatrist’s office and steals all her files. Then she throws them away without looking at them. As the reader, we’re left baffled. I don’t even realize that this woman is our main private detective hero, so I don’t know what’s going on. There’s mystery there, but it’s not interesting: just the author withholding information. And he does it badly: the files aren’t mentioned again until almost the last page of the novel!

The bottom line is that the whole novel is a mess of vague happenings, like watching people doing stuff from a mile away in the dark. You know something is going on, and it might be significant and interesting, but you can’t even see enough to know that. Sure, there are a few cool scenes, and I liked some aspects of the search for the kidnapped niece, and our head bad guy was also an unusual character, but because so much info is withheld we really can’t know anybody in the story: everyone is a mystery. The result is we don’t care about anyone or anything, and when you finally get to the end, the feeling is one of “Oh well, so that’s it.” A superior way to write this is to make the reader think they have all the info, and only reveal more at the end. Doing it this way is just cruel and unusual punishment.

Topic: [/book]

Link

Being a huge fan and follower of Steve Jobs since the mid-80s, this is a difficult film for me judge objectively. I went in with the apprehension of a book-fan going to see the travesty of a movie made of a beloved novel, anticipating all sorts of factual and tonal errors and hating the performances of various actors, but I came away stunned at how much I enjoyed it. The question is: is it really that good or did I just like the subject matter?

Is it the best bio-movie ever made? Not by a long shot.

It’s clearly not a big-budget movie (though I was surprised at how many actors I recognized; there are few unknowns), and that shows in some awkwardness in pacing, acting, and directing. It feels more like an above average TV movie than a major motion picture. Everything is competent, but little is extraordinary. There’s not much imagination or vision.

For instance, the scene early on when Steve and his friends get high at Reed College is mostly shots of looking up at trees and the sky from ground view, and it’s very repetitive and goes on for much too long. (We get it. Steve did drugs, it inspired some of his thinking, move on.) This could have been handled in a much more interesting way.

Only occasionally is the writing striking, and that’s usually when they’re quoting the real Steve Jobs.

But all that doesn’t matter. What’s here is done well enough that I enjoyed it very much. Sure, there’s definitely stuff I would change and improve, but there’s a lot that’s very well-done. The casting is quite good. Ashton Kutcher gets the most controversy as the lead, but he was surprisingly good for most of the film. Only in a few places did he give off some sour notes (he especially overdid it in the anger scenes, where he went from zero to 60 in a split second and it wasn’t believable), and at other times he’s more of a caricature than a character, but most of the time he fades away and you just enjoy the movie. It is quite possible that in repeated viewings I’d find a lot more fault with his performance, but I’m not a Kutcher hater, so I found him to be okay in this.

The sets and period setting were also pretty good. I loved all the old Apple posters, old tech, and old cars. The only real oddity I noticed was Steve Jobs parking in a handicapped parking spot in 1980 — did they have those back then? It looked way too modern in design.

In terms of story, I wasn’t sure what this would cover — Steve’s initial Apple success or the triumph of his iPhone glory — but this focuses mostly on his early Apple days and getting kicked out of his own company. A fine choice, as the whole world knows about his eventual victory and this ends with him rebooting Apple and the future looking bright.

There’s lots of stuff left out — NeXT and Pixar, for instance — but there was a surprisingly amount of intricate detail included. I’m pretty familiar with the story and I don’t think I learned anything new, but fortunately nothing gravely inaccurate screamed out at me either, though I’m sure there are minor liberties.

Probably the weakest aspects of the movie are the pacing — it’s slow at times — and the whole board movement to fire Jobs was confusing and too abstract. It was hard to tell from this why Jobs was so bad for the company. The film needed more scenes of him doing crazy stuff. Also, the role of Arthur Rock as a clear villain was over-the-top, as though the writer thought he needed to tick the “antagonist” checkbox.

Along the same lines, while Steve was correctly portrayed as a visionary who could be a real jerk at times, there was little in the film that showed his actual genius. In particular, I wanted more of him forcing the best out of others, revealing his taste. There were scenes that set that up — such as the one to get an “impossible” design for a power supply in the Apple II built — but the film never followed up and showed us the success of that (it was just assumed, I guess).

In the end we have a decent film. It’s quite competent and not the disaster I feared. It may be a little dull for people who don’t know the story or who aren’t really interested in technology or history (or those who aren’t into boardroom fights), but I think it’s worth seeing if you’re an Apple fan or curious about Steve Jobs. I’m still more excited about the upcoming Aaron Sorkin version of the story (though wary of that as well), but this one is surprisingly entertaining. It’s also inspiring, as there are some great lectures by Jobs on the nature of being great, not letting anyone or anything stand in your way, and the importance of being honest to yourself. Jobs was a great man and this film gives us a glimpse of that.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Director: Neil Blomkamp

This is Neil Blomkamp’s big follow-up to District 9, and I was really looking forward to it. Sadly, it’s greatly flawed, and I’m sure much of my comments will make it sound like I didn’t like it, but I actually liked it very much.

Visually the film is awesome, and conceptually the story is good, but in execution it fails on several levels. The idea of an Earth where the poor live in squalor here while a handful of rich live in orbit is intriguing, but the film never actually explores this idea. None of the characters embody the idea either, which is strange. You’d think we’d have two polar opposite characters to show both classes, but that doesn’t really happen.

Matt Damon’s character, Max, hints at it a little, when a cop beats him up for no reason and his robot patrol officer degrades him, a brief glimpse of the life of the downtrodden on Earth, but it’s too little and not deep enough. We’re given no real look at the lives of the rich other than a few brief shots of them relaxing by the pool with robotic servants to do all their bidding. There’s one quick line where the rich owner of the company where Max works rebukes another for breathing on him, and we get a hint of the arrogance of the wealthy, but it’s really not enough to establish characters beyond loose stereotypes.

Even the President, who’s one of the Elysium rich, is confusing: in one scene he seems to be defending the earth-bound, while in others he’s dismissive of them. Without any character embodying the values of their class, it’s hard to know what they represent.

Thus, characterwise, everything we’re given in the film is generic and unremarkable. Even Max, who we’re told is “special,” never reveals why or what makes him unusual. He’s an orphan, he’s a bit of a smart-ass, and while he’s supposedly a resourceful criminal with a shady past, he’s been in prison several times so he can’t be that good if he keeps getting caught.

The awesome character actor Sharlto Copley gives a brilliant performance of a wild man named Kruger, a sort of mercenary for the rich people, but his accent is almost unintelligible and his babbling, while amusing, doesn’t explain anything about his character. We don’t even hate him, which says a lot about the emotions he doesn’t generate.

Another similar character is the very strange Delacourt, played by Jodie Foster. While her French is impressive, her English is in an odd accent I couldn’t place, and there seemed no reason for it. She’s runs the security of Elysium, and is seemingly ruthless, but we have no idea why. Is she simply interested in power? Or is she a true believer in the Elysium ideal? It’s hard to tell, and her storyline is never explored or explained.

That’s really the problem with the whole film: it feels like a first draft. The characters are interesting, but incomplete, and there’s very little that changes in the people. Characters die seemingly randomly, but it all feels empty and meaningless, as we care little about anyone since none seem real. Max and his childhood love, Frey, are the two we care most about, but even they are held at arms distance and we don’t really know who they are. Their backstory is shown in repetitive and overly sentimental flashbacks, and their modern day relationship is never completed. Frey’s daughter is supposedly sympathetic simply because she’s a sick little girl — that’s all we’re given.

There are also countless weird little flaws in plot throughout the film. For instance, why would Elysium, a space station, not have their own defensive system? Instead Delacourt resorts to having Kruger shoot missiles from a handheld rocket launcher on earth to knock out approaching ships in space. Huh? And in several scenes, illegal immigrants who arrive on Elysium, break into rich homes by smashing windows. Why would the rich bother to lock their homes in a paradise like Elysium? Surely such a place has no crime. There’d be no reason to lock doors. One gets the feeling that it simply looked more dramatic to break windows so that’s what happened.

The film just struggles with a very basic story, moving almost too quickly, and the ending has a “That’s it?” feeling. There was more action than I expected, and while that helped move things along, it also seemed superfluous and distracting, as though the action was inserted by studio demands instead of being a real part of the story.

Still, visually, the film is amazing, and it’s worth seeing for the visuals alone. The stark contrast between horrible earth and the paradise of Elysium is wonderful, and I loved the science fiction elements of the sets and costumes. There’s much to love here.

The film reminds me a lot of Oblivion, not in terms of looks, but in how the story itself is flawed and poorly executed. Similarly, Oblivion was visually interesting and entertaining, but just not great. In the same way Elysium was enjoyable to watch, but it’s not a great film. It’s worth seeing for certain aspects, but just be aware that they don’t add up to comprehensive whole. I still liked it, probably more than I should, but it’s also a shame because with some tweaks it could have been a really awesome film.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

I couldn’t believe how feeble this movie is, a vapid collection of weak ideas and stereotypes, congealed into a muddled mess of little story. Even the animation was poor, with a videogame quality to it that turned me off.

This is about trying to invent new legends of Jack Frost, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, but it feels forced and awkward. There are bizarre ideas idiotically implemented, such as the concept that the Tooth Fairy takes children’s teeth because they contain the precious memories of the child. That’s a major point of the film, because they use it to motivate Jack Frost’s character, who doesn’t remember his past, to help recover all the teeth the bad guy steals as Jack needs to find his own teeth and get his memories back. Of course, when he finally finds his own tooth he uses it to remember how he died. How would a tooth know that story? Wouldn’t he have lost the tooth prior to dying? How else would the Tooth Fairy have gotten it? Idiotic!

Ultimately, the film’s got a good heart and it’s relatively harmless, but it’s got an artificial feel. It is geared at extremely young kids (ones that still believe in Santa Claus, I suppose), yet the themes and violence seem more suited to older ones. Very strange and awkward film. I really hated it.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Infinitely better than the previous film. While this has moments of pretentiousness and the plot is somewhat predictable (I saw the twist in the ending coming from miles away), it’s full of fascinating characters.

The story takes place mostly in Japan, where Wolverine has gone to say goodbye to a dying friend, led by a red-haired Japanese fortuneteller who is a fascinating puzzle. While there he meets the old man’s granddaughter, and when her life is threatened, he seeks to protect her. She, too, is intriguing. Then there are the bad guys, particular the snake woman. All the characters are fighters, with their own styles and weapons, which makes for interesting match ups.

A key part of what makes this movie interesting is that Wolverine loses his healing powers and becomes mortal. Unfortunately, he’s still so stupid/pigheaded/reckless that he doesn’t change his fighting style, repeatedly getting shot point blank as though he’s still immortal. I’m not sure what to make of that, but I did like that he’s forced to confront his inner demons and decide if he really wants to die.

There are a few confusing scenes (flashbacks aren’t ideal), some questions weren’t answered, and I kept mixing up a few of the characters, but the film’s vastly clearer than the previous nonsensical mud pit. The action here is subdued and less outrageous, but excellent, and far more interesting with Wolverine being vulnerable. The ending was a little anticlimactic and predictable, but overall this is a fun ride. If you’re a fan of the series or the characters, you’ll enjoy this. It’s a little different with it being almost entirely set in Japan, but I found that refreshing. Two thumbs up.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

Director: Guillermo del Toro

I’m a big del Toro fan and I love robots and monster movies, so I was looking forward to this. It really is a fun flick. Absolutely outrageous special effects.

Plot-wise, there’s not much here: giant dinosaur-like monsters 300-feet tall come out of a rift in the earth under the Pacific ocean, apparently from another dimension via a wormhole, and attack our cities. So the countries of the world unite to build 300-foot tall robots controlled by human pilots that basically beat up the beasts. It’s never explained why giant robots are more effective than say, fighter jets with missiles, but you suspend disbelief and go with the flow.

But over time the monsters keep getting bigger and eventually they start to win out over the robots. Eventually there are only a handful left as mankind makes one last desperate attempt to stop the threat of the creatures for good.

The cast of characters isn’t particularly creative — we have our tough military leader, our wounded hero and his love interest, a few top gun jocks, and some geeky scientists — but there are little details that keep things interesting and moments of depth that we don’t usually get in an action movie like this. That’s mostly because of the amazing cast that includes awesome actors like Idris Elba and Rinko Kikuchi.

Overall it’s just a fun, well-done smorgasbord of visuals and action. The opening’s a little soft, being mostly narration over flashbacks, but once the story gets going it’s a blast. The robots and mosters are mind-boggling. It’s Godzilla times 10,000. I can imagine imaging this; I cannot imagine actually thinking that this could ever be filmed. Going in I was worried that we wouldn’t really see that much of the robots and monsters — I figured they’d just be in a few key scenes — but probably 50% of the screen time is robot-monster action.

In the end this is little more than a robot-versus-monster movie, but that’s not a bad thing. This is just sugary fun all the way through. It’s a guilty pleasure that takes you back to childhood midnight monster movies, but without the cheesy special effects.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

The promos for this looked hideous so I wasn’t going to bother, but a friend loved it, and I was in the right mood, so I went. It was definitely far better than I expected, but it is a little weird. It’s more of a comedy, with Depp playing Tonto over-the-top the way he did his pirate character in those pirate movies. (And I just realized they’re by the same director, so that explains that.)

On the one hand, I liked the way they came up with a new origin story for the Lone Ranger and fresh explanations for all the classic Lone Ranger details (like the meaning of Kemo Sabe, which was very clever).

But it also sort of ruined a lot of the good stuff about the Lone Ranger. It’s like Spiderman getting his spider powers via an ancient Mayan curse instead of being bitten by a radioactive spider: it could still work, but it’s not the same.

For example, in this movie Tonto and the Lone Ranger are not friends. They bicker and fight almost the entire movie, and when they do cooperate and help each other, it’s reluctantly. While there’s nothing really wrong with that, and it was well-done, I found it depressing and annoying, and not fun to watch.

Ultimately, while this had a lot of humor (mostly via Tonto), and it was overall a decent film, it didn’t feel very Lone Rangerish. It was something different. Maybe that’s to appeal to a new generation, but frankly, I’d have preferred to watch an episode from the TV show.

Production-wise, this is very impressive: the Old West setting is very authentic, the acting all over is excellent, and the special effects surprisingly subtle and effective (though a few of the fight scenes were clearly done with a green screen).

The plot is also decent: it’s about greedy white men and the construction of the transcontinental railroad and a silver mine. It’s not very complicated and that’s good, though I’d have preferred more depth in the Lone Ranger’s character (i.e. why he becomes the Long Ranger).

In the end, I’d give this one a B-. It’s well-done, interesting, and more fun than I expected, but it sadly isn’t enough “Lone Ranger” for me.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

I liked the concept of this: a troubled sleepwalker worries he murdered someone while he was asleep (he wakes up covered in blood), but also wonders if someone isn’t trying to set him up by making him think that. The film does a good job of establishing several possibilities (he’s got a stalker, he was having an affair with his best friend’s wife, etc.) and at times is extremely well-done.

Ultimately the film struggles with pace. It’s slow to start, gets the mystery going well in the middle, and then goes down a strange path of investigating the man’s childhood. While that supposedly helped explain his sleepwalking and personality problems, I found it more of a distraction, and it was too convenient and predictable and not believable. I think the filmmaker worked too hard trying to make this a slightly unconventional mystery and it comes across as forced. The best parts are the scenes were the mystery just naturally unfolds.

In the end, though, this isn’t a bad movie at all. I liked many parts of it. The acting is surprisingly excellent, there are many quite impressive scenes, and the mystery (such as it is), is intriguing. Don’t expect too much — keep in mind it’s a small independent film — and you’ll find it enjoyable.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

The promos for this emphasized the whole “Dolly Parton versus Queen Latifah” motif, which, while it clearly was the cause for this film being greenlighted, didn’t appeal to me.

But it turns out to be a fairly mature film, sweet and surprisingly religious, but with a modern emphasis that’s not too cloying. The music’s quite good (Keke Palmer is amazing). The plot’s simple enough — conflict over which style of music a church choir should sing as they compete in a national competition. This is complicated with a romance and a few other side stories, not all of which work very well, but the whole isn’t too bad.

There are some surprisingly deep moments, particularly Keke’s character as she rebels against her conservative mother (Latifah). Unfortunately, there’s a lot of fluff, too, as overall the movie’s light-hearted and more comedy than drama.

It was definitely better than I expected. It’s not a classic or anything, but it’s fun, and if you like gospel music you’ll find it worth viewing.

Topic: [/movie]

Link

I knew next to nothing about this film except that it was in the horror genre and I incorrectly assumed it was just another psycho killer slasher flick. It turns out to be quite different.

It’s a fascinating tale about growing up. Two outcast sisters, who are morbidly fascinated by death and ostracized by their teen peers, are attacked by a strange creature in the night. The eldest is bitten, but survives. Then she slowly begins to transform into a werewolf.

Yeah, we’ve heard the werewolf tale many times, but this one is definitely above average. The combination the girl’s transformation with her struggles to be accepted into her high school society create a wonderful parallel, and is ripe for fascinating social commentary. (It’s similar to the way Romero’s classic Dawn of the Dead creates a link between mindless zombies and mall shoppers. I’d also liken it to Stephen King’s Carrie.)

Ultimately the movie doesn’t quite live up to its lofty expectations: it’s limited by its genre and devolves into a traditionally violent conclusion, but it’s still a worthwhile journey.

Topic: [/movie]

Link