Opinion: The Kindle, and other e-readers didn’t kill Borders, Independent Book stores can still survive in a ‘digital world’, and why the e-book debate, is focusing on the wrong issues…

The recent [late April / early May] news that Amazon are now selling 105 ebooks for every 100 Physical books has, to put it mildly, irritated a fair few people.

Computer files outselling, real, physical books?

Fuck You Amazon!

they screamed, as they rocked, backwards and forwards, clutching their battered, dog-eared physical books, like they contained the secrets of the universe.

Fuck you for killing Borders. For destroying small, independent bookstores – for depriving our future children of the joy of reading, from stealing from the world, the smell of new books, the pleasure of cracking the spine of a book for the first time, the pleasure of feeling a books’ textured pages, as you journey into a new world…

Suffice to say I have a few things to say as well…

First things first – for any new ‘followers’, or anyone who has found this via one of the Tags – I’m a Kindle owner. I wrote a short(!) piece about the device back in December of 2010, after owning one for a little over a week. You can find said ‘review’ ::here::

So yes - obligatory disclaimer - I’m a Kindle user. However, I’ve been reading books since I was 11 [It’s a long story]- I was 26 when I picked up my Kindle, so I think it’s fair to say in the 15 years since I learnt to read, that I’ve read substantially more ‘physical’ books, than I have ‘e-books’ – I don’t have detailed records of all the books I’ve ever read, but I can tell you that since December, I’ve read 32 books on the device.

Which is a reasonable amount, but probably around 5% of the total number of books I’ve read in my book reading ‘life’. So hopefully, that should demonstrate that I’ve spent considerably more time reading ‘physical’ books, then e-books.

Are we in agreement? Then I’ll carry on to the point I wanna make…

Amazons’ Kindle didn’t kill Borders. While I’d be willing to agree that Amazon as a company most definitely helped contribute to the downfall of the company – it’s not like they didn’t have any help in the matter – From Borders themselves. It’s something I touched on back in March [interestingly - at least to me, in the form of a queued post], but basically my position is that Borders went into administration through poor management decisions, and attempting to diversify into too many different areas, as opposed to as a consequence of the Kindle.

I’m not saying the popularity of Kindles helped matters, but it definitely wasn’t the main problem. At push, I suppose you could argue it was the ‘straw that broke the camels back’.

If you’re reading this anytime after [I’m gonna be generous] 2014 - Amazons Kindle didn’t kill Waterstones, either. Actually – let’s expand this away from one company [I’ve noticed that the ‘Anti ereader brigade’ seem to focus on the Kindle, in much the same way that a lot of people think Apple are the only people in the world who make Multimedia players] to encompass the whole e-reader marketplace – be it Kindles, Nooks, Kobos, or some as yet unveiled uber-ereader.

I’ve also noticed almost all of the ‘Anti e-reader’ brigade seem to fall victim to the same problems. Firstly, they seem to fetichise [sp?] physical books to the extent that I’m sure some of them are actually suffering from a paraphillia of some sort.

Secondly, they also seem to suffer from what I call the ‘Apple Syndrome’. Basically there are a lot of people in the world, who think Apple are the only people who make handheld multimedia players [was tempted to put ‘mp3 players’ there - showing my age]. It seems that the majority of people who’re against e-readers, seem to suffer from this – they all seem to think the Kindle is the only e-reader on the market. I suppose, from Amazons’ perspective this is a good thing, but spare a thought for the other e-readers on the market.

Thirdly - they, to a person, seem to not be able to look up spec. sheets on the internet. If we go with the evidence from Point two – that these people all think the Kindle is the ONLY e-reader on the market – well, shouldn’t they have taken 30 seconds to look up the specifications. Seems they cant’. Oh well – I guess I’ll just have to say this again:

KINDLES DO NOT HAVE BRIGHT, SHINY DISPLAYS.
KINDLES DO NOT HAVE BRIGHT, SHINY DISPLAYS.
KINDLES DO NOT HAVE BRIGHT, SHINY DISPLAYS.

Clear enough?

They use Pearl E-Ink displays, produced for them, by a company called E-Ink Holdings. These displays aren’t backlit. As a consequence, it’s nothing like looking at a computer screen. Ask anyone who has ever read a book on a Kindle, and I’d be willing to bet a lung [which for me, is saying something] that most people will say they’re, at a minimum, ‘comfortable’ to read on. It’s not as good as high quality books – but compared to most books, it’s at a minimum, on par [in some cases, better].

Now of course, this doesn’t apply to all e-readers. The cheaper models / the tablet models DO use LCD panels. But the Kindle [which, as stated above, seems to be the source of peoples’ irk], uses an E-Ink display.

Oh, and while we’re at it – you can also add in bookmarks.

And Finally – And this seems to be the one everyone overlooks - Who the fuck said you have to be ‘exclusive’ to one format or the other? I use a Kindle [3] – and if the Kobo comes out over here, at a decent price, I might test drive one of those. I’ll also most likely buy a Kindle 4, in 2012.

But I still read ‘physical’ books. Yes, since buying my Kindle, and ‘acquiring’ a metric fuck-tonne of books, I’ve donated a lot of physical books to charity. But I still own at least two hundred physical books.

Anyways – I seem to have wondered off the rails a wee-bit [I never really plan any of these ‘articles’ - I just sit down and start writing. So they usually do tend to jump all over the place, as I think of different things, however, even I’ll concede that this one got side tracked a little bit early]. So back on track…

I wanna focus this onto three specific points, that seem to crop up again, and again:

1. E-Readers are responsible for the closing down of Borders / the financial trouble Waterstones finds itself in.
2. E-Readers are responsible for the demise of independent bookstores.
3. The physical books vs E-Books debate is drawing attention away from the real discussion that needs to take place, with regards e-books..

So with that in mind…

E-Readers are responsible for the demise of Borders / the trouble Waterstones finds itself in.

To an extent, I’ve already addressed this, back in November 2009. On November 26th 2009, Borders (UK) went into administration. Two days later, I wrote a short [<1300 words] article that basically explored why, in my opinion, the company went into Administration [You can read it 

There’s also a fullsize bookcase [80% full of DVDs] on one wall, with a few other books, a utility room that contains a few shelves full of books, and a fullsize bookcase in my bedroom, that also holds books.

The other point, I wanted to make, before moving on. It’s perfectly fine to have a preference, one way or the other. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever, with people who’ve tried an e-reader [as long as it’s a decent, e-ink sporting one] and decide it’s not for them. I’ve also got no problem with people who don’t think the device suits their lifestyle – If you’d have told me in 2009 I’d be sitting here typing up a rambling, rambling, diatribe defending e-books – hell I’d have thought you were all kinds of crazy. My objection, as indicited a few thousand words ago, are the people who criticise, without taking the time to look into the device they’re so quick to condemn.

And now – the most important part.

#3 - The physical books vs E-Books debate is drawing attention away from the real discussion that needs to take place, with regards e-books.

Having spent almost 3300 words extolling the virtues of e-readers – now it’s time to address the concerns I’ve got. The way I see it, the following problems / issues, need to be addressed:

• Amazon need to embrace .epub
• Publishers need to figure out an appropriate business model, for ebooks that are being sold to libraries.
• [UK] The Government needs to drop the VAT on Digital Books.

Amazon need to embrace the .epub format.

First things first – huge, huge thanks to everyones favourite Apple loving Legal Superstar, Mr Chris D. Woo, for pointing me in the direction of this article, which saved me [and any poor souls still reading this tripe] a few hundred words. Basically e-books come in different file formats [though they typically contain the same html inside, from what I can gather].

The EPub Standard, is an attempt to create a ‘universal’ format, that’s readable on all e-readers / e-book applications. It’s not without its flaws – it doesn’t support different page layouts, and it can’t render equations – what should be rendered in MathML is actually linked as series of .bmp images, which aside from leading to an increase in filesize, can mean that certain parts of books aren’t displayed properly.

However, the standard [as well as the whole e-book industry] is still somewhat in its infancy, and the recently announced EPUB 3.0 Standard, attempts to address some of these concerns.

Of the numerous e-readers that are available Amazon are the only major company whose devices don’t recognise .epub files [the exception being one of the older Sony readers]. The format that seems to work best with the Kindle are .mobi files.

Now on the one hand – you could argue there’s nothing wrong with this. It’s no different to Apple – they manufacture their devices, and then [somewhat] force you to use iTunes to sync the device, as well as access to their iTunes store.

The difference, however, is that with Apple products, you can at least import mp3s / video into iTunes, and it’ll convert it. The same isn’t true with Amazon.

But why is this a problem? Well, seeing as how .epub is designed as the ‘universal format’, it’s the format that’s being embraced by public libraries. So whilst the vast majority of the e-reader devices will work with library e-books, as of the time of writing, the Kindle won’t.

Which is why the rumors that Amazon will eventually allow their devices to read .epub files, is all kinds of good.

Kinda.

First things first – having looked around a few Kindle boards, a lot of people think this means that you’ll be able to buy books from any bookstores, and read them on any device, assuming they’re in .epub format.

This won’t be happening. Amazon [I assume] will push out a firmware update that allows the devices to read unprotected [i.e. non-DRM] files. While I’ve never personally used the Barnes & Noble website [being from the UK], or any other sites that sell books in that format [due to the lack of support on the Kindle], I’m fairly confident that the files from said e-stores are DRMd, which means, of course, that if Amazon only allows unprotected files to work – That these purchases won’t work.

So that’s one thing that needs addressing – and will hopefully Amazon are currently working on it. However, there are a few other concerns – time to move onto the second one:

Publishers need to figure out an appropriate business model, for ebooks that are being sold to libraries.

For those who don’t know, HarperCollins recently incurred the wrath of a hell of a lot of libraries [and the public] when they set a ‘limit’ on the number of times that their ebooks can be ‘checked out’. According to HarperCollins, physical books have to be replaced, after a certain period of time, and so, according to them, it’s only reasonable to create an ‘artificial’ cap, on the number of times each book can be borrowed.

So that’s exactly what they’ve done. They’re limiting their books to 26 Loans, before they ‘self-destruct’.

I can’t even begin to describe how ill thought out this decision is. Yes, it’s true that physical books can deteriorate over the course of their ‘circulation’ in the library systems, however – most libraries sell off old stock, twice a year, to clear shelf / storage space, and to recuperate money.

The other thing, that immediately springs to mind – one of the ‘selling points’ of e-books, is that you can’t damage them. You can admittedly damage the device, but the file(s) itself, are backed up.

So yeah – suffice to say, this is a stupid decision. In the same vein as charging more for the Kindle editions, than their subsequent physical versions.

And now – the final part [and you’ll be happy to note, this one’s a quick point]

[UK] The Government needs to drop VAT on Digital Books.

Print books in the United Kingdom, aren’t subject to VAT. Which is awesome. The problem, however, is that Digital Books ARE subject to VAT, due to a loophole that our arsehole Government aren’t too eager to close. So one of my perpetual arguments about Kindle books – that they’re becoming more expensive than their print cousins, is partly due to the 20% Tax-levy imposed by the Government.

Suffice to say, I’d appreciate it if the Government corrects this. And by corrects it – I mean they reduce the VAT on Digital Books, NOT that they decide to inflict VAT on Physical books.

Welll basically, I thought it might be nice to have some of my articles / reviews / rants backed up to a different location, should anything happen to my tumblr account.

So hopefully, over the course of the next few months, you can look forward to various articles on a whole cacophony of different subjects.

(500) Days of Summer (September 7th, Odeon, Broad Street, Birmingham), is the first feature film from prolific music video director Marc Webb (Seriously – check out the guys videopgraphy over on Wikipedia – the guy wasn’t short of work ). It had been on my “hotly anticipated” list, pretty much since I first watched the trailer, due in no small part to the two main stars – Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Zooey Deschanel. The story, which is presented in the form of a non-linear narrative, revolves around Gordon-Levitts’ “failed” architect Tom Hansen, and Zooey Deschanels’ Summer Fin, the PA to Hansens’ boss, who almost immediately perks Toms interest. The film follows the 500 Days between their first encounter, on January 8th, taking in various significant points in their relationship, through to the films’ conclusion, on May 23rd the following year…

I’m not a huge fan of “traditional” Romantic Comedies – I tend to prefer my “Rom-Coms” a lil more on the thoughtful, or unexpected side, and there’s no doubt that (500) Days of Summer doesn’t disapoint. Aside from the non-linear presentation (a device that I have to admit, I’m a fan of, when it’s used properly, as is the case here), the film also scores points by managing to make the central characters both believable and likeable, while at the same time, presenting them as far from perfect. To be fair, I’ll watch anything with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the same can almost be said for Zooey Deschanel, so I was always going to be interested in the film, and I’m happy to say, given that I went into the cinema with high hopes, (500) Days… doesn’t disapoint – It’s a wonderful “little film” (despite it’s soon to be “A-List” leading duo), and it’s currently amongst the 8 films fighting for a place on my end of year “Top 5 list”.

(500) Days of Summer also stars Chloë Moretz (soon to be seen kicking all kinds of ass, in Kick-Ass), as Toms sister, Rachel, Geoffrey Arend and Matthew Gray Gubler, as friends of Tom, and Clark Gregg as his boss. The film is scheduled to be released on Blu-Ray and DVD on December 22nd, in the United States, with a UK release somepoint in 2010 (the earlier the better, imo ).

Blade Runner – The Final Cut, 2007, Directed by Ridley Scott.

Contains Spoilers - For all versions of the film, and the Philip K. Dick novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep“

Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution into the NEXUS phase – a being virtually identical to a human – known as a replicant.

The NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them.

Replicants were used Off-world as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets.

After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-world colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth – under penalty of death.Special police squads – BLADE RUNNER UNITS – had orders to shoot to kill, upon detection, any trespassing Replicant.

This was not called execution.

It was called retirement.

Bounty Hunter, 1992 A.D.

World War Terminus had left the Earth devastated. Through its ruins Rick Decard, bounty hunter, stalked in search of his renegade android prey. When he wasn’t ‘retiring’ then with his laster gun, he dreamed of owning a live animal – the ultimate status symbol in a world all but bereft of non-human life. Then, one bleak January day, Rick got his chance. He was assigned to kill six Nexus-6 androids, representing a total bounty of six thousand dollars.

But in Rick’s world, things were never that simple. His assignment quickly turned into a nightmare kaleidoscope of subterfuge, deceit – and the treat of death for the hunter rather than the hunted.

Blade Runner, like most Philip K. Dick adaptations, shares similar themes to the source material, however, scratch the surface and they’re really two different stories. Of course, Blade Runner wasn’t the first film to deviate from the source material – a recent example that springs to mind (mostly because I liked them both, and I’ve started working on my best of 2009 list) is the film adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvists’ 2004 novel Låt den rätte komma in (Let The Right One In).

In that instance the film choses to embrace most of the same themes as the original book, however a number of sub-plots involving supporting characters, are removed completely, so as to focus solely on the friendship between Oskar and Eli. And, to be honest, it works. You’re left (imo, obviously) with a wonderfully written book, and an equally as good, though different, film. It’s not the perfect adaptation, but it’s a good recent example of a book -> film adaptation, where despite the changes to the plot, the central theme of the book remains.

In the case of Blade Runner, the writers, Hampton Fancher & David Peoples, choose to maintain one of the central plot points of the book – Deckards being tasked with the ‘retirement’ of the Nexus 6 Replicants, and virtually change everything else. As a result, Blade Runner is a quite appalling adaptation of Dicks’ original book. Which, consequentially, pissed off a lot of Dick Fans (there’s a self-deprecating joke in that last part, It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t quite put my finger on it )

But, consequentially, is it a bad film? Of course not Blade Runner isn’t held up as one of the premier works of Sci-Fi due to a lack of alternate choices – it’s held in such regard, because it’s a brilliant, thought provoking, hugely influencial (not just on newer directors, such as the Wachowski Brothers, but directors from Scotts’ era, such as Spielberg – check out A.I. again, and imagine a slightly darker looking Rouge City) film that, even now, 27 years after it’s release, in it’s initial form (and you’d better believe there’s more on that later ) still continues to raise questions.

However, as someone who owns (runs off to bookcase) 47 Philip K. Dick books, I can’t really get intot the review of the film, without first discussing some of the differences between the film, and the book – especially as there are some very, very significant changes, not only to the background and the plot, but perhaps more importantly, the central character.

A brief overview of Blade Runner

Title: Blade Runner (words that never appeared in the novel)

Takes place in Los Angeles in 2019

The artificial humans are called replicants, who are much more resistant to being killed and retaliatory when confronted; in the film, the replicants’ full life span was deliberately curtailed by a four-year limit

The film’s theme is on the nature of humanity (what does it mean to be human?) and how to distinguish replicants from humans

Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is divorced, and a retired replicant hunter called ‘blade runner’ who is brought back into action to kill the returning replicants.

Rachael (Sean Young) is a replicant who is unaware she’s not human; she and Deckard fall in love

Zhora (Joanna Cassidy) is an exotic dancer, and Deckard shoots her in the back, and regrets it

Pris (Daryl Hannah) is an acrobatic replicant, completely different from Rachael; Pris and Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) (a major heroic figure in the film) are lovers

J.R. Sebastian is a mad-scientist genius (a top-level genetic engineer) who cannot leave Earth due to the Methuselah Syndrome

Deckard never takes the V-K test.

The head honcho over at Tyrell is Eldon Tyrell

A Brief overview of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Title: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? – was an obscure reference to the fact that inhabitants lived in a society of the future where animals were virtually extinct and all but the rich had to substitute android replicas (such as an “electric sheep”) for real animals.

Takes place in San Francisco in 1992 (Reprints that were released following the films ‘success’ change the date to 2021).

The artificial humans are called androids (“andies”), who live roughly four years because their cells cannot be replaced when they deteriorate.

The novel’s emphasis is on ecological themes, and the situation in which a nuclear world war caused life to be the way it is; key elements including the Penfield Mood Organ, the Empathy box, Buster Friendly, and Mercerism are not found in the film, as is the ever-present radioactive dust .

Rick Deckard is married to a wife named Iran, and he is an active android (also termed “andy’s”) or Sam Spade-style “bounty hunter” (the term ‘blade runner’ never appears in the novel); he also keeps an electric sheep (of the novel’s title) on the roof, wishing desperately he had the money to own a ‘real’ animal.

Rachael is known as Rachael Rosen – she is a schizophrenic human who cannot pass the V-K test. She is an android.

Luba Luft is an opera singer, and Deckard doesn’t kill her out of pity – another hunter does.

Pris is an android version of Rachael; Roy’s last name is spelled “Baty”.

JR is known as J.R. Isidore – he is a “chickenhead” idiot (radiation-brain damaged) not allowed to leave Earth due to his low IQ.

Deckard is proven by V-K test to be human.

Because the Tyrell Corporation is called the Rosen Corporation, the Character is known as Eldon Rosen.

So clearly, there are a few differences – the big stand out one I guess, being that in the novel, Deckard is proven to be a human (which allowed a further series of books to be produced after Dicks death, that continue Deckards story). One of the questions that’s raised, again and again, is that of Deckards humanity, or his lack of it – Is he human, or is he a replicant? It’s a question that’s been asked for years, and which wasn’t helped by the seemingly endless different cuts of the film. The list is near enough endless

Indeed, I suppose it’s fair to say that aside from being a renowned (now at least) Sci-Fi film, Blade Runner is just as famous for its rocky journey to the bigscreen – the initial reluctance of Philip K. Dick to sell the film rights, his initial rejection of the script, the lack of funding, the films initial reception, subsequent “editing”, and it’s revival over the years.

By the time the cameras started rolling on Blade Runner, back on March 9th 1981, it must have looked like an absolute box office cert. Although the adaptation of Dicks’ book had been down a rocky path upto that point – Scorcese had expressed an initial interest not long after the books release in ’78 (according to Dick himself, though I’d take that with a pinch metric shite tonne of salt) before the film adaptation rights were eventually secured by Herb Jaffe in, If I’m remembering correctly (I’ll try and jump online before posting this to clarify some of the dates), 1972. According to reports and recolections, Dick hated the initial adaptation – I believe he wanted to know if the writer had sustained a head injury before starting, however, after that initial rocky start, the screenplay passed between different writers, before eventually arriving on the desk of Hampton Fancher, who wrote the draft that, in 1977 was finally given the greenlight.

By this point the producers had begun shopping the script around to potential directors, and through Michael Deeley, the script eventually entered Ridley Scotts radar. Initially, I believe, Scott declined the project, however, following his departure from the Dune adaptation, he eventually signed on the dotted line, and joined the project on February 21st 1980.

However, even then the film wasn’t ready to roll, despite pre-prodction costs continuing to rise. Philip K. Dick again raised concerns about the script, and the producers were having difficulty locking down a leading man, for the role of Deckard. The script had been developed with Robert Mitchum in mind, and producers had spent months wooing Dustin Hoffman, who eventually dropped out. In the end, after various other actors had been considered, such as Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman and Tommy Lee Jones, the producers eventually settled on Harrison Ford.

So flash forward to March 9th 1981, the day the cameras finally started rolling. As detailed above, the film had been on a bit of a rocky journey, but what could go wrong? At that point Ridley Scott had already made Alien, which speaks for itself. As for Harrison Ford? Well he was well on the road to worldwide super stardom, due to the success of Star Wars. The producers were no doubt further rubbing their hands, following worldwide reaction to Fords next film – Raiders of The Lost Ark. By the time the film started test screening, the producers must have been quietly expecting a near Star Wars-esque level of return…

However, the first test screening, in Denver & Dallas, was a near disaster. As a result the studio panicked, and ordred extensive changes, including the now infamous voice over, and the happy ending, in time for the films scheduled release, on June 25th 1982.

I guess it goes without saying, that the rest is history. Released on 1290 screens across the country, Blade Runner made $6.15m during it’s first weekend, compared to the $15m it had cost to get the film made. Audiences, who had perhaps been expecting a film more like Star Wars (due to Harriso Ford staring) were left dissapointed. The films box office was further damaged, by being released during the same period as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Thing, and perhaps worst of all, the film that would go on to become the highest grossing film of all time – E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

However, despite the films poor box office return, the film did start to develop around it, a dedicated small fanbase., By the early 1990s, bootleg versions of the original, Denver / Dallas workprint began to surface, which further fulled the cult of Blade Runner. Although these bootlegs weren’t endorsed by Ridley Scott, the reaction to them lead to Scott screening his own 70mm projections of the “original cut”, which met with an enthusiastic response, and led, ultimately, to the development of a Directors Cut, which was eventualy released on VHS / Laserdisc, and then eventually, DVD (in a woefully bad Vanilla edition).

The 1992, 116 minute long Directors cut, saw the removal of Deckard’s voice-over, the re-insertion of the unicorn sequence, and the removal of the studio-imposed happy ending, and was developed with extensive input from Scott himself.

This version was classed as “the definitive version”, until around the middle of 2000, when Ridley Scott started working with Charles de Lauzirika on a true, final, directors cut of the film – the final cut. Scott and de Lauzirika worked on the project off their own initiative, and were forced to stop toward the end of 2001, due to legal issues surrounding the ownership of the film (due to the complexity behind the financing of the film, the actual rights were owned by different people and companies, and had subsequentially been sold, and re-sold, in the years since the films original release.).

Scott and de Lauzirika had wanted to release the film in 2002, to mark the 20th anniversary of the films release, however it wasn’t until 2006 that Warner Bros finally secured all the rights to the project, and announced a release date of December 2007, 25 years after the films original release.

So, what exactly are the differences between all the different versions? Below are various different reasons, copied from Wikipedia. I’ve put them inside an “InvisiText” tag, so that if you don’t wanna read it, you don’t have to

There are Seven different versions of Blade Runner have been shown, but the most well-known are the International Cut (1982), the Director’s Cut (1992)[1] and the Final Cut:

1. Original workprint version (1982, 113 minutes) shown to audience test previews in Denver and Dallas in March 1982. It was also seen in 1990 and 1991 in Los Angeles and San Francisco as a Director’s Cut without the approval of director Ridley Scott. Negative responses to the test previews led to the modifications resulting in the U.S. theatrical version, while positive response to the showings in 1990 and 1991 pushed the studio to approve work on an official director’s cut. It was re-released with 5-disc Ultimate Edition in 2007.

2. A San Diego Sneak Preview shown only once in May 1982, which was almost identical to the Domestic Cut with three extra scenes.

3. The U.S. theatrical version (1982, 116 minutes), known as the original version or Domestic Cut, released on VHS in 1983 and laserdisc in 1987.

4. The International Cut (1982, 117 minutes) also known as the “Criterion Edition” or uncut version, included more violent action scenes than the U.S. theatrical version. Although initially unavailable in the U.S. and distributed in Europe and Asia via theatrical and local Warner Home Video laserdisc releases, it was later released on VHS and Criterion Collection laserdisc in North America, and re-released in 1992 as a “10th Anniversary Edition”.

5. The U.S. broadcast version (1986, 114 minutes), the U.S. theatrical version edited for violence, profanity and nudity by CBS to meet broadcast restrictions.

6. The Ridley Scott-approved (1992, 116 minutes) Director’s Cut; prompted by the unauthorized 1990–1991 workprint theatrical release and made available on VHS and laserdisc in 1993, and on DVD in 1997. Significant changes from the theatrical version include: removal of Deckard’s voice-over, re-insertion of a unicorn sequence and removal of the studio-imposed happy ending. Ridley did provide extensive notes and consultation to Warner Bros. through film preservationist Michael Arick who was put in charge of creating the Director’s Cut.

7. Ridley Scott’s Final Cut (2007, 117 minutes), or the “25th Anniversary Edition,” released by Warner Bros. theatrically on October 5, 2007 and subsequently released on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray in December 2007 (U.K. December 3; U.S. December 18.) This is the only version over which Ridley Scott had complete artistic control as the Director’s Cut was rushed and he was not directly in charge. In conjunction with the Final Cut, extensive documentary and other materials were produced for the home video releases culminating in a five-disc “Ultimate Collector’s Edition” release by Charles de Lauzirika.

Workprint version (1982)

The full workprint version of the movie was released to the public on DVD as part of the five-disc boxed set containing the Final Cut, in 2007. It has the following differences:

* There is no voice-over, no “unicorn vision”, and no “happy ending”. However, Deckard does have a brief narration directly after Batty’s death.
* There is no opening crawl: a static screen of text, showing a dictionary definition of the word “Replicant”, replaces it.
* The scene in which Holden is shot by Leon (while giving the Voight-Kampff test) lasts slightly longer, and shows more of Holden after he is shot and comes to rest on the desk before it cuts to the next scene.
* In the scene at the Asian restaurant at the beginning, there is an insert shot of the dish Deckard orders. Also, we see Deckard eating his noodles (with great difficulty) while the waiter says “He say you Blade Runner”. In the Theatrical Release, we just see a cut to Deckard with his mouth extremely full of noodles.
* From Deckard’s arrival at the Bradbury building to the end of the film, the Vangelis music score is missing, presumably not yet composed at the time this version was made. It is replaced by placeholder music.
* Deckard is seen taking a few moments struggling to remove the tie that Zhora choked him with, before beginning to chase her.
* Batty addresses Tyrell as “father” (not “fucker”) when asking for more life, as in the Final Cut.
* When Batty kills Tyrell, the scene is a combination of the “violent” footage from the International Edition and the “non-violent” footage from the theatrical original. Batty still pokes out Tyrell’s eyes with his thumbs, but Tyrell is seen falling to the floor as in the original.
* When Pris attacks Deckard, the scene is again a combination of the International Edition and the original. Pris hits Deckard three times, and also holds him up by his nostrils. However, Deckard still shoots her only twice.
* The scene in which Batty pushes a nail through his hand is identical to the “non-violent” version in the Theatrical Release.
* There are no ending credits.

American Theatrical Release (1982)

The 1982 American theatrical version released by the studio included a “happy ending” (using leftover aerial footage from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining) and voiceovers added. Although several different versions of the script had included a narration of some sort, Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott decided to add scenes to provide the information; but financiers rewrote and reinserted narration during post-production after test audience members indicated difficulty understanding the film. It has been suggested that Ford intentionally performed the voice-over poorly, in the hope it would not be used, but in a 2002 interview with Playboy magazine, Ford clarified: “I delivered it to the best of my ability, given that I had no input. I never thought they’d use it. But I didn’t try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration.”

Ford also stated in 1999: “I contested it mightily at the time. It was not an organic part of the film.”

International Theatrical Release (1982)

The International Cut, or “Criterion Edition,” is similar to the U.S. theatrical release but has more violence in three scenes:

* When Batty confronts Tyrell in his bedroom, in addition to crushing Tyrell’s face with his hands, Batty pokes out Tyrell’s eyes with his thumbs, releasing a huge amount of blood.
* When Pris has somersaulted onto Deckard’s back, rather than hitting him three times and then dropping him (as she does in all other versions), she hits him twice, then inserts her fingers into his nostrils and releases her legs, holding him up by his nostrils for a few seconds before he falls to the floor. The shot of him falling to the floor is identical in all versions. Deckard also shoots Pris an extra time, and the scenes of her thrashing spasmodically on the floor after having been shot are slightly extended.
* At the end of the film, Deckard hunts Batty, who pushes a nail through his own hand, which again bleeds profusely.

The violent scenes in the International cut were later inserted into the Final Cut.

The Directors Cut (1992)

n 1990, Warner Bros. briefly allowed theatrical screenings of a 70 mm copy of the workprint version of the film, advertising it as a “Director’s Cut.” These sell-out screenings ran for two weeks at the NuArt Theater in Los Angeles, and the Castro Theatre in San Francisco. Ridley Scott publicly disowned this workprint version of the film as a Director’s Cut, citing that it was roughly edited, and lacked the score composed for the film by Vangelis. In response to Scott’s dissatisfaction (and in part because of the film’s resurgent cult popularity in the early ’90s), Warner Bros. decided to assemble a definitive Director’s Cut of the film, with direction from Scott, to be released for the 10-year anniversary in 1992.

They hired film-restorer Michael Arick, who had rediscovered the workprint of Blade Runner, and who was already doing consultation work for them, to head the project with Scott. He started by spending several months in London with Les Healey, who had been the assistant editor on Blade Runner, attempting to compile a list of the changes that Scott wanted made to the film. He also received a number of suggestions/directions directly from the director himself. Three major changes were made to the film, which most people agree significantly changed the feel of the picture:

* The removal of Deckard’s explanatory voice-over
* The re-insertion of a dream sequence of a unicorn running through a forest
* The removal of the studio-imposed “happy ending,” including some associated visuals which had originally run under the film’s end-credits. This made the film end ambiguously when the elevator doors closed.

The original sequence of Deckard’s unicorn dream was not found in a print of sufficient quality; the original scene shows Deckard intercut with the running unicorn. Arick was thus forced to use a different print that shows only the unicorn running, without any intercutting to Deckard. This footage was inserted into what had previously been a continuous tracking shot. As mentioned above, the restoration of the unicorn scene suggested a completely different ending to the film: Gaff’s origami unicorn means that Deckard’s dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard’s memories are artificial, and therefore he would be a replicant of the same generation as Rachael.

The cut did not include much of the “extra violence” included in the “International” version of the film.

Scott has since complained that time and money constraints, along with his obligation to Thelma & Louise, kept him from retooling the film in a completely satisfactory manner. While he is happier with the 1992 release of the film than with the original theatrical version, he has never felt entirely comfortable with it as his definitive Director’s Cut.

In 2000, Harrison Ford gave his view on the Director’s Cut of the film saying, although he thought it “spectacular,” it didn’t “move him at all.” He gave a brief reason: “They haven’t put anything in, so it’s still an exercise in design.”

Originally released as a single-disc DVD in March 1997, with both pan-and-scan and widescreen versions on different sides, the Director’s Cut was one of the first DVDs on the market. However, it is of low quality compared to DVDs of later standards, due to it being produced in the early days of the format. Warner Home Video re-released it with a new transfer in 2006 as a “Digitally Remastered Version.” The 1997 stereo (2.0) audio track remained unchanged, however.

The All Important, Final Cut (2007)

Scott found time in mid-2000 to help put together a final and definitive version of the film with restoration producer Charles de Lauzirika, which was only partially completed in mid-2001 before legal issues forced a halt to the work. Although the Special Edition DVD was originally rumored to be released in 2002 to coincide with the film’s 20th Anniversary as a three-disc set, Warner Bros. delayed the “Special Edition” release after legal disputes began with the film’s original completion bond guarantors (specifically Jerry Perenchio and Bud Yorkin), who were ceded the copyright to the film when the shooting ran over budget from $21.5 to $28 million.

After years of legal disputes, Warner Bros. announced in 2006 that it had finally secured full distribution rights to the film, and that there would be a three-stage release of the film. First, a digitally remastered single-disc re-release of the 1992 Director’s Cut was released on September 5, 2006 in the United States, on October 9, 2006 in Ireland and the UK, and in the following months in continental Europe. Second, Ridley Scott’s “Final Cut” of the film began a limited theatrical release in New York and Los Angeles on October 5, 2007, in Washington, DC at the Uptown Theatre on October 26, 2007, as well as Chicago on November 2, 2007, in Toronto on November 9, 2007 at Theatre D Digital’s Regent Theatre, Melbourne, Australia on November 15, 2007 at The Astor Theatre, Boston at the Coolidge Corner Theater on November 16, 2007, and Austin, Texas on November 18, 2007. The third and final phase — a multi-disc box set — was released on the DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray disc formats. The set includes the workprint, the two 1982 original theatrical versions (U.S. domestic and uncensored International cuts), the 2006-remastered Director’s Cut, the 2007 Final Cut, and bonus features; which was released in Europe on December 3, 2007 and in the U.S. on December 18, 2007. Two-disc and four-disc sets were also released, containing some of the features of the five-disc set. On November 10, 2008, The Final Cut premiered on national television, broadcast on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Differences between The Final Cut, and The Previous ‘Directors Cut’

The Final Cut contains the following differences (in order of appearance) from the 1992 Director’s Cut:

1. The fireballs in the opening refinery shot are correctly synchronized with the associated light play on the smokestacks. Some of these had been off-sync in earlier versions.
2. The iconic close-up of an eye overlooking the Hades landscape is no longer the static image seen in previous versions. The eye’s pupil now reacts to the fireball and the eyelids move realistically. Also, the reflection of the cityscape below appears to move ever so slightly.
3. The shot of Deckard waiting to eat at the White Dragon has been shortened, its editing reminiscent of the workprint version of the shot. This was done due to the removal of the voiceover.
4. The cables lifting Gaff’s police spinner are no longer plainly visible. Cables were also removed from another shot of a spinner late in the film, just before Deckard enters Sebastian’s apartment building.
5. In addition to English the voices on police radio during Gaff’s and Deckard’s flight to the police headquarters can be heard speaking German, Japanese and Swedish.
6. A repeated visual effects shot showing the city outside Gaff’s Spinner has been adjusted very slightly: The once-obvious radar dish has been removed in the second use of the shot.
7. As Deckard enters Bryant’s office, Bryant’s statement “I’ve got four skinjobs walking the streets” is no longer obviously a spliced-in re-recording.
8. Bryant’s line “One of them got fried running through an electrical field” is changed to “Two of them…” to remove the numerical inconsistency later on.
9. Bryant adds a new line about Leon being able to “lift 400 pound atomic loads all day and night”. This is from the workprint.
10. A new cityscape horizon has been added to the shot of Gaff’s Spinner coming in for a landing at the Tyrell Corporation.
11. Additional Spinner air traffic has been added in the distance outside the large window of Tyrell’s conference room.
12. When Gaff and Deckard first appear at Leon’s apartment, the landlord now says “Kowalski”, another small bit originally from the workprint.
13. A background behind Batty when he is first introduced speaking to Leon has been changed. As the shot was taken from a later scene, this has now been corrected to appear as if Batty is actually in the phone booth as Leon finds him.
14. The matte painting establishing the cityscape down the street from the Bradbury Building has been adjusted for improved realism, including fixing the perspective of the Pan-Am logo on one animated billboard.
15. The original full-length version of the unicorn dream has been restored. This is a much different version than the one that appeared in the Director’s Cut, and has never been in any version seen by the public prior to this one. Deckard is shown to be awake; previously he was asleep or nearly asleep.
16. The Unicorn’s horn has been digitally stabilized to minimize the unrealistic wobble of the horn appliance seen previously.
17. The sequence at the fish booth now shows Deckard leaving.
18. Deckard’s conversation with the snake merchant Abdul Ben Hassan has been altered so that the dialogue is no longer out of sync; Ford’s son, Ben, lip-synched the spoken dialog and his mouth was digitally placed over his father’s.
19. A shot of the busy crowds in the streets was restored. Immediately after that, a shot of two strippers wearing hockey goalie masks was restored. Finally, there’s a shot of Deckard talking to another police officer just prior to Deckard entering the Snake Pit. These three shots had previously appeared in slightly different form in the workprint version.
20. During Deckard’s pursuit of Zhora, Joanna Cassidy’s face has been digitally superimposed over that of the stunt double, Lee Pulford. This scene was re-filmed specifically for the Final Cut. Although great effort had been undertaken to replace the stunt double face with Cassidy’s, the tan-colored protective suit Pulford wore to protect against glass cuts is still visible.
21. A scar on Deckard’s face after his “retirement” of Zhora has been removed. Originally, the scene in which Deckard meets Bryant after retiring Zhora was to take place after his encounter with Leon, explaining the scar. This was done prior to the removal of the “sixth replicant,” creating a continuity error. Due to the re-ordering, the scar was always present before Deckard had actually received it.
22. When Batty confronts Tyrell, he says, “I want more life, father” from the workprint version, an alternate take intended for but never used in television broadcasts of the film, as opposed to the original line “I want more life, fucker.” The line also has a noticeably deeper tonal quality than the previous versions.
23. After killing Tyrell, Batty says “I’m sorry Sebastian. Come. Come,” when in the original he merely approached the frightened Sebastian. This is also from the workprint.
24. As Deckard moves through Sebastian’s apartment, the once-obvious shadows of the camera crew have been digitally removed from the back wall.
25. As Deckard flees Batty, the matte painting with a TDK neon sign has been cleaned-up a bit to look more realistic and the TDK sign itself added to a subsequent shot for better continuity.
26. All the violent scenes in the International Cut that were deleted in the U.S. theatrical release and Director’s Cut including Tyrell’s death, the confrontation between Deckard and Pris and the nail through Batty’s bleeding hand are restored to the Final Cut.
27. After Batty releases the dove, it now flies up into a dark rainy sky instead of a clear blue sky. Also, the original building (the undressed side of a soundstage) has been completely replaced with a more appropriate retrofit apartment building. The background has also been enhanced with a cluster of circa-2019 buildings more in keeping with the film’s dark futuristic setting.

So those are the differences, however, as we all now know (’cause Ridley Scott told us),

The Final Cut, is exactly that – THE. FINAL. CUT.

I don’t really think there’s much more I can say really. As I’m typing this up, I’ve got no idea of what’s been discussed on the podcast, nor what anyone else thought, but I am aware, that I may have gone on quite a bit, even by my own usual level of waffle. However, I guess you can’t talk about Blade Runner, without making reference to the impact the film has made.

Whilst I personally think there’s an argument to be made that the film owes a debt of gratitude to the original novel (despite the changes), to me, there’s no doubt that Blade Runner has been an extremely influencial film – both in terms of future films, but also in the form of books – Some people, for instance, will tell you that Blade Runner was the main influence for William Gibson, as he was developing Neuromancer, and that as a consequence, the very development of Cyberpunk, as a genre, comes as a result of Blade Runner.

Now, whilst that’s inaccurate, there is an undeniable similarity, as Gibson is the first to admit:

“…About ten minutes into Blade Runner, I reeled out of the theater in complete despair over its visual brilliance and its similarity to the “look” of Neuromancer, my [then] largely unwritten first novel. Not only had I been beaten to the semiotic punch, but this damned movie looked better than the images in my head! With time, as I got over that, I started to take a certain delight in the way the film began to affect the way the world looked. Club fashions, at first, then rock videos, finally even architecture. Amazing! A science fiction movie affecting reality!”

“…Years later, I was having lunch with Ridley, and when the conversation turned to inspiration, we were both very clear about our debt to the Metal Hurlant [the original Heavy Metal magazine] school of the ’70s–Moebius and the others. But it was also obvious that Scott understood the importance of information density to perceptual overload. When Blade Runner works best, it induces a lyrical sort of information sickness, that quintessentially postmodern cocktail of ecstasy and dread. It was what cyberpunk was supposed to be all about.”

So it’s clear from Gibsons’ quote, that there are undeniable similarities between his seminal Cyberpunk work, and Scotts work. In fact, up until about 10 years ago, Blade Runner was considered to be one of the seminal Cyberpunk-esque movies, until films like Dark City, Ghost in the Shell, Akira, and of course, The Matrix were released, all of which, whilst being thematically similar to Blade Runner, also borrow a lot of “style” – In preperation for this I re-watched The Final Cut of Blade Runner on Blu-Ray, and then once it had finished popped in the blu-ray for The Matrix, and stylistically, there are a huge number of similarities. In fact, for a fascinating article that explains some of the similarities between Blade Runner, Neuromancer, and The Matrix, feel free to check out this link.

So then, in summary. As a book adaptation Blade Runner fails, in my opinion, as although the basic plot remains the same, I personally think they changed to much, for it to be considered a faithful adaptation. As a film, however, and specifically, with regards to it’s impact and influence, whilst I don’t quite think it’s up there with Star Wars (I might not be a fan, but I can understand the impact, both culturally and on the film industry), it’s not all that far behind.

It’s also a fascinating study in how a few seemingly small changes, can make a vast, vast change to the source – the original theatrical release, and the Final Cut may, on paper, only be different by a few minutes, however, thematically, they’re miles apart.

Word Cloud generated from my review of Dan Browns' The Lost Symbol.

Dan Brown – The Lost Symbol. Released September 15th, 2009.

Spoiler Free.

EXT. Washington National Cathedral.
Two characters approach via the shadows. They know they’re being tracked, but they have to reach their target. The fate of the world hangs on them successfully reaching their target, and finding that which must remain hidden…

New National Treasure Film? A rejected line from James Cameron’s Spider-Man screenplay? Or something potentially far, far worse…

By now you’re probably left in no doubt that there’s a new Dan Brown book out. For the last few months, stores have been enticing you to “Pre Order Your Copy” for weeks now, online retailers have been competing to undercut each other, and offer readers the chance to get our hands on the book for as cheap as possible, and Guardian newspaper readers (of which I’m one) have been busy practicing their sneers, ready to pounce on any poor sap who dared reveal they were considering buying a copy of the book.

Well now the wait is over – The Lost Symbol was finally unleashed just as summer vacations are finishing (which seems a little bit strange, given Browns previous books, especially The Da Vinci Code, were popular “Beach Books”), and now curious readers are finally able to read the book, a full 2-3 years before Tom Hanks, and more worryingly, Tom Hanks’ hair, show up in the inevitable film adaptation.

The Lost Symbol is Dan Browns follow-up to the 2003 Monster hit, The Da Vinci Code, which followed Harvard University Professor, Robert Langdon (originally described as “Harrison Ford in Tweed” – as opposed to Tom Hanks with a weird hair style.) as he’s caught up in a centuries old quest to protect The Holy Grail. This time round, the Harvard Symbologist is caught up in yet another battle between the forces of good and evil, and, yet again, he’s ideally suited to uncover secrets that have been hidden since the time of Newton. This time round, however, he’s not up against The Illuminati through the streets of Rome, or battling Opus Dei around parts of far-flung Europe – this time it’s the streets of Americas Capital, against, seemingly, a group of people who were heavily involved in the actual founding of America – The Free Masons. The usual mix of cutting edge science (this time around it’s a branch of Science called Noetic Science) remains, as does the sense that, for a University Professor, Robert Langdon seems to handle himself pretty well in these situations.

The Da Vinci code was a huge commercial success, going on to sell over 80 million copies around the world. Fans of the book, eager for to read further adventures of the Harvard Symbologist, turned to one of Browns’ previous books, Angels and Demons, which follows the character, as he attempts to uncover the secrets of the Illuminati, and stop the potential destruction of Vatican City. As a result Browns older books enjoyed a sales bump, and eventually Angels & Demons itself received a film adaptation, though Ron Howard & co. changed the events of the books, so that it takes place after the events of The Da Vinci Code, as opposed to prior.

Not long after The Da Vinci codes’ release, Dan Brown announced that he already researching the background for his next book, which would also feature the character, and that an announcement would be made shortly. Fans waited, and waited, and waited.

Eventually, the name of Browns book was announced – The Solomon Key, and more importantly, it’s release date – 2006. I guess it goes without saying Mr. Brown was more than a little bit late – but was it worth the wait?

To save time – here’s three statements. Click the statement that’s closest to your opinion of Dan Brown & or his previous books, and you’ll magically jump to the review that’s right for you.

* The idea of reading a Dan Brown book makes my eyes bleed.
* The Da Vinci Code? – Yeah, I remember reading that – I’ll check this book out.
* Are you kidding – The Freemasons, a holy quest, in Washington DC – I’ve lived this book.

Or, of course, you could just read it all

It’s a straight forward question, but it’s not exactly a straight forward answer. Firstly, there’s the economy to consider (stay with me, it’ll make sense). Back in 2003, when The Da Vinci Code was first released, times weren’t quite so tough as they are now. The world wasn’t in the grip of a recession, running a car didn’t require you to sell body parts every few months, and more importantly, comic books didn’t cost $3.99 an issue – so the question is, comic books or The Lost Symbol? Luckily, I’m here to attempt to supply you with the answer – comic books, of course! – less pages, more pictures, and quicker to read

Joking aside, although the discounts offered by retailers mean that you can pick up the book for virtually free, the question remains – is it worth picking up – after all, it’s over 500 pages long, so that’s a commitment of at least 10 hours to read through it – time’s valuable after all.

Are you kidding – The Freemasons, a holy quest, in Washington DC – I’ve lived this book.

In short, if you’re a fan of Browns previous books, and just as importantly, if you’re a fan of the 100s of similar books that publishers quickly rushed to publish following the success of The Da Vinci Code, then the answer’s Yes. Stop reading this review, and when you think about it, order a copy of the book, safe in the knowledge that you’ll like it – Spidey gives it two thumbs up

he Da Vinci Code? – Yeah, I remember reading that – I’ll check this book out.

Dear reader – A Question. Is it safe to assume that you liked Browns previous books, but weren’t to impressed with the seemingly endless supply of similar books, complete with “better than The Da Vinci Code / Shows Brown how to write a true thriller / Look, there’s a symbol on the cover, you gotta buy this” tag lines? If that’s the case, then read on…

In short, I’d recommend the book, however, from my own personal point of view, it doesn’t “flow” as smoothly as either his previous Robert Langdon books, or indeed his other books (Digital Fortress & Deception Point). Part of that, in my opinion, comes down to the sheer amount of information that Brown tries to cram into the book – information that doesn’t usually come from his central protagonist.

Perhaps the biggest reason why The Da Vinci Code captured peoples imaginations, and went onto to sell the number of copies that it did, is because it managed to balance elements of fact and fiction, in a way that kept people entertained, and more importantly, guessing. Reading the book for the first time, back in 2003, I think it’s safe to say that most people weren’t all that familiar with names and organisations such as Opus Dei, The Priory of Sion, etc, etc. The reason why the book worked, or to put it more specifically, the reason why I liked the book, when I first read it, is that it managed to perfectly mix three of the key ingredients that I personally look for – interesting characters, doing interesting things, in an interesting way. The characters in The Da Vinci Code were, to me, quite interesting, they were involved in an interesting plot, and the fact Brown peppered the book with references to “real-life” historical events, and facts, made it all the more interesting.

The Lost Symbol sees Brown again attempting this, but for me, he veers to far into the “facts” side of the equation, and focuses less on the actual story. Where as in The Da Vinci Code, the historical information that Brown references, either outside of the main story, or through his central characters helped the central story, this time round it stopped the story from progressing. The following comment on Amazon sums this up perfectly:

“…The refreshing mix of fact and fiction left me feeling refreshed and exhilarated for The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but in The Lost Symbol, I feel that the amount of fact in the novel, and therefore the amount of Langdon’s explanations, was too much, and so it blurred the lines between fact and fiction and almost became a sequence of facts, linked together by Langdon’s narrative and the situations created in the plot. One wonders if Dan Brown is a fiction writer or someone who has an excellent researcher whom he has relied upon a little heavily in writing this book. Obviously, following the sheer success of the previous book, there must have been a large amount of pressure to make it bigger, better, more complex. He’s done this, but sadly, the narrative is strained by all the factual explanations to the point where the reader is aware they’re being lectured…”

It might also be true, that Brown, in response to the sheer number of people who complained about the historical accuracy of his previous books, perhaps focused too much of his attention on getting the facts to back up his story, as opposed to focusing on the actual story. It’d explain the 3 year delay in getting the book published.

So, to summarize – Would I recommend picking a copy of The Lost Symbol? Definitely. Although not being as entertaining as the previous books in the Robert Langdon series, it is worth a read – just don’t expect anything that’ll rock your world.

The idea of reading a Dan Brown book makes my eyes bleed.

If the concept of reading another Dan Brown book, or indeed a Dan Brown book, makes your eyes bleed, and the fact the book sold 1m copies during its first day of release, including 300,000 copies in the UK, makes you weep for Humanity, then there’s not really all that much anyone can suggest, least of all me, that’ll change your mind. It’s a fact of life, especially on the internet, that the more popular something is, the more vocal the criticism against it, even if it’s only emanating from a small minority. Harry Potter, Twilight, Jar Jar Binks, etc, etc all elicit a passionate response, both positive and negative, and Dan Browns book, in particular The Da Vinci Code, are no different.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that goes without saying. However, I’d like to end this article review by briefly (because I’m conscious of the fact that I’m already approaching the 1800 word mark) addressing one of the more common complaints that’s made against his books – they’re not “real books”, or they’re not worthy of being classed alongside works by <<Insert Your own Favourite Author here>>.

At the end of the day, it’s the same argument that’s made against J.K. Rowlings’ wonderful (my opinion, obviously) Harry Potter Series – “How dare they put it on the school syllabus, with works by William Shakespeare.”. I don’t think anyone would suggest that the quality of JKs books are anywhere near the level of Shakespeare’s, however, from my own personal point of view, a good book doesn’t have to be a wonderful piece of literature. To my mind the reason why books such as the Harry Potter books, and The Da Vinci Code have sold the number of books they have, obviously isn’t because of the quality of the writing, but the quality of the story. To my mind, JK Rowlings Harry Potter books, when looked at in their entirety, are every bit as good, and worthy of praise, as some of the so-called “Classics” – not because of the quality of the writing, but because of the way the books grab you.

The characters, the storylines, the sense of adventure – being transported to another time, another world, experiencing an event through the eyes of someone we’re not – these are what most people are looking for when they read a book, not the books literary value. That, to me, is why authors such as Dan Brown, Lee Child, James Patterson, and company, sell millions of books each year – because they allow people to experience these very emotions.

As for the question of rotting the soul? I’ve always had a simple way of summing up the question this raises. These so-called “Event Books” (i.e. books by the afore mentioned Dan Brown, Lee Child, etc) are perfectly fine. In short, they’re no different from summer blockbusters, or 800+ calorie desserts – if consumed in limited dosages they’re perfectly fine, and good for you – but if consumed on a regular basis, it’s a different story.

Typing about a different story – I promised the review would be spoiler free, so I won’t go into plot specifics, but what I will say, is that Chapter 44 honestly made me laugh out loud – I’m not quite sure if Dan Brown wrote that chapter deliberately, or if it was “suggested”, but I definitely liked it.

The Thing, 1982, Directed by John Carpenter, written by Bill Lancaster, based on characters created by John W. Campbell, Jr.
Staring: Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David.

Contains Spoilers.

Firstly, a little bit of background info. Over here in the UK, Universal Studios, in association with Cineworld, have been re-releasing, for a limited period, digitally re-mastered versions of five of their classic films – Spartacus, The Blues Brothers, The Thing, Scarface and Animal House – here’s the trailer they’ve been showing before each film:

Unfortunately, I found out about it after it’d been running for a few weeks, so I missed out on seeing Spartacus & The Blues Brothers, up on the big screen, however I did pop along to see Scarface for the first-time (in short, I thought it was overrated – for a slightly longer rant feel free to check out my review), and so, this past Tuesday, it was the turn of a much, much-hyped film (not least of all by this fine bunch of smart peeps over on Geekscape.net) – John Carpenters 1982 Horror classic, The Thing…

Now, I’ve gotta confess, out of the 12 or so people in the screening, I was probably the only person who hadn’t seen the film before, so as soon as the nice shiny Universal trailer finished, I settled down, checked the temperature of my cup of tea (Twinings, Earl Gray, a slight dash of semi-skimmed milk and two sugars – This is England after all) and prepared to see what all the hype has been about, all these years.

For the five other people in the world, who haven’t seen the film before, The Thing, which is a re-make of the 1951 film by Howard Hawks & Christian Nyby, “The Thing From Another World”, which itself was an adaptation of the John W. Campbell Jr. novella, “Who Goes There?” – Confused? Wait until we get to the book adaptations, tie-in comics, and the prequal /sequal talk – let it not be said that Hollywood has only recently run out of ideas.

The film takes place in Antarctic, mostly confined to Outpost #31, a United States research facility. As the film opens we see a spaceship enter the Earths’ atmosphere before appearing to explode – then it’s flash forward an unknown number of years, and suddenly we’re in the 1980s baby! – a time that music, and fashion did its best to forget. It’s definitely the Antarctic – look at all that snow, oh and what’s this – a menacing looking Helicopter, piloted by two guys, one of whom has a gun – surely this can’t be good?

But hey, no need to worry, ’cause a cute lil Doggy has shown up (An Alaskan Malamute, according to Wikipedia) – look at him, running in the show, minding his own business, I bet he’s having a right royal time – But wait, WTF – those menacing looking dudes in the helicopter are shooting at the doggy – and now they’re throwing thermal charges at him! – Where the hell is Kurt Russell when you need him – Losing to a computer at Chess, that’s where he is! – and to think we trusted this guy with rescuing the President – it’s a damn good job Jack Bauer is around these days.

Eventually the crazy helicopter people land, and they’ve definitely got a score to settle with this poor dog – hell they just shot some poor guy to get to him – it’s a good job there’s a Brit amongst the Americans, in the shape of Donald Moffat, to sort everything out, headshot baby, right in the eye!

I wonder why they were so intent on killing that poor dog – who come to think about it is looking through that window with quite a focused look in his eyes – and that music is definitely a wee-bit creepy. I wonder if maybe they were onto something after all…

So going into the film, I didn’t know all that much about it, other than the fact that it was from the Kurt Russell / John Carpenter double-team, and that it’s a horror film, involving Extraterrestrial – though seeing as the film still scored an 18 rating, I was pretty confident this wasn’t gonna be an E.T. of the Spielberg variety…

Of course, it turns out the film is actually less about extraterrestrials, and aliens falling from the sky, and more a study of intense paranoia, and what it is to be human? Essentially, there are three questions running parallel through out the film – firstly, what exactly is “The Thing”, and where did it comes from? Secondly, who amongst the crew of Outpost 31 has been transformed by it, and, perhaps more importantly, what are the other non-infected crew members, gonna do, to ensure that it doesn’t reach the outside world?

Despite being 27 years ago, and being shot for less money than Michael Bay spends on catering, The Thing looks like it could have been shot last week. I’m sure a lot of that is due to the excellent job Universal have done remastering the film (Scarface, for example, looked amazing), and the 70s technology gives it away, but I’m pretty sure if someone walked into the theatre during certain parts of the film, they’d have to do a double take, because it genuinely looks that good. Special effects wise, “The Thing” itself, in it’s various forms, are brilliant, not to mention creepy as fuck, especially Norris’ head when it sprouts legs and tries to get away from MacReady.

However, it’s the human stories that are questionably, more interesting, and more creepy, than the evil Alien / Human / Dog hybrids running around causing mayhem – exactly who out of the crew have been infected by The Thing – do they know, they’ve been infected, will the others find out? The scene where Macready tests everyone’s blood, to determine who has been infected, and who hasn’t, is fraught with tension, mostly because not only do the characters themselves not know, but also we as an audience don’t know.

Another aspect of the film that I really responded to, is that I honestly thought all the main characters, including Kurt Russell, could easily be transformed, and or be killed because the others thought they’d been “turned”.

And then there’s that ending – What happens to MacReady and Childs? Are they rescued?, Do they survive? Has Childs become mutated into a “Thing” (I’m sure he did) – in the end all good films / books leave you wanting more, which is exactly what John Carpenter and Co. did with The Thing. I can’t wait to add the Blu-Ray to my collection, within the next few months.

District 9, 2009, Written by Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell, Directed by: Neill Blomkamp.
Contains Spoilers

1999: Movie fans, especially those of us who are out of the closet about our Geekdom, were building to a frenzy. The Phantom Menace, the much antipated return to Sci-Fi of one of its masters, George Lucas, was rapidly approaching. Promising the next step in the evolution of the Movie Industry, combining previously unseen Special Effects, with an amazing Story, the tension and excitement was unrivalled. People were going to theatres just to see the trailer, then leaving after! Not only that, but there was a little low(ish) budget Sci-Fi film due out a few months prior, called The Matrix that looked like it’d tide us fans over before Episode 1 was released. After all, although it looked interesting, it obviously wouldn’t be better than The Phantom Menace, which would live in our hearts for all of time…

2009: Movie fans, especially those of us who are out of the cloest about our Geekdom, were building to a frenzy. Avatar, the much anticipated return to Sci-Fi of one of its masters, James Cameron, was rapidly approaching. Promising the next step in the evolution of the Movie Industry, combining previously unseen Special Effects, with an amazing story, the tension and excitement was unrivalled. People were going to theatres just to see the trailer, then leaving after! Not only that, but there was a little low budget Sci-Fi film due out a few months prior, called District 9 that looked like it’d tide us fans over until Avatar was released. After all, although it looked interesting, it obviously wouldn’t be better than Avatar, which would would live in our hearts for all of time…

District 9 is set in an alternate reality where, 28 years prior to the start of the film (the events of the film “start” on August 9th, 2010), above the skies of South Africa, one of Humanities biggest questions – “Are We Alone”, is well and truly answered, as a near 1km¹ wide Spaceship comes to rest over the city of Johannesburg. The eyes of the world are turned to the sky, filled with wonder at what this means for us as a species, not to mention wonder at what exactly these “visitors” are doing here on Earth, and why they decided to visit us. Initial attempts at communicating with the visitors all fail, and eventually it’s decided to send a military team upto the spaceship, in order to cut their way in.

Once they gain access to the inside of the ship, instead of riches and knowledge from the stars, they find instead a million leaderless, malnourished, near death Alien refugees, in desperate need of medical attention and shelter. At this point, the South African Government at the behest of the United Nations, is forced to bring the Aliens down from the spaceship, address their medical needs, and attempt to integrate them into Society.

Flash forward to 2010, and it’s clear that these attempts have failed spectacularly. Rather than integrate into society, the Aliens, who by now are referred to by the derogatory term “Prawns” (Which is a reference to the Parktown Prawn, a type of Cricket that’s considered to be a carrier of Plague within South Africa, and who the Aliens look similar to) are kept, isolated from the rest of the Population, in the titular District 9, which is essentially a shanty town where the Aliens are allowed to live, though relations between them and the residents outside of the Camp, are tense to say the least. It’s against this background of squallar and disease, that the South African Government decides to “re-locate” the refugees, who now number approximately 1.8 million, to a new purpose built, and “more appropriate” facility, called District 10, which is located 240 Kilometers outside of Johannesburg. To this end they call in Multinational United (MNU), a Blackwater-esque Private Military Organisation, who are taked with serving eviction notices to the “residents” of District 9, burning it to the ground, and the re-location of the residents into District 10.

The film is presented as a Documentary, showing MNU staff at work, interspersed with archive news footage from 1982, as well as “live” footage of the relocation. The main focus of the Documentary is MNU Worker Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) who is put in charge of the “re-location” of the Aliens, mostly due to his relationship with the daughter of Piet Smit, who appears to be in charge of the local “branch” of MNU. We see Wikus and the other MNU Operatives, including Colonel Koobus Venter. As the MNU Operatives enter District 9 and start the eviction process we see two of the Aliens performing what looks like some kind of science experiment, transferring black liquid from a piece of scrap technology, into a canister, before hiding it. Eventually Wikus serves the eviction notice to the Aliens living in the hut, and when they fail to co-operate he ventures inside, and after spotting the illegal technology, eventually finds the canister, and accidentially opens it, spraying the content onto his face. Later that evening, at a party to mark his promotion, Wikus, who has been progressively getting sicker since the exposure, collapses and is taken to a local hospital, where the doctors make a quite alarming discovery, that will change not only Wikus’ life, but also the lives of those around him, both human and extra-terrestrial.

District 9 is a remarkable film, that puts most of the “big budget” Science Fiction spawned by Hollywood to shame. The special effects aren’t perhaps revolutionary, but their application quite possibly is. At no point, at least in my opinion, did Blomkamp appear to be yelling “look at this – how amazingly cool do these Aliens look” or “how amazing is this technology”. He just films it, and lets everything speak for itself. The decision to present this as a Documentary (well, a 50/50 split between a documentary and a film – more on that later) is a stroke of Genius, that was evident in his original short “Alive in Joburg” (Viewable link). I’ve gotta confess, I hadn’t even seen the original short, until the Halo film fell apart, and the short was referenced, but I really hope it’s added to the DVD / Blu-Ray, so that people can see where the initial spark of genius, for what truly is a remarkable film, originated.

The framing structure used – a documentary that also includes news archive footage, as well as “breaking news” coverage, plus post “event” interviews, worked almost perfectly. That’s not to say the film itself is perfect – The film is a Masterpiece, it’s just a slightly flawed masterpiece. However, although in a different film these flaws (or perceived flaws) would perhaps cause me to fall on the side of dissapointment, District 9 built up soo much good will, that I think people would be willing to forgive these shortcomings.

For example – the much lauded (not least of all amongst this waffle-tastic review ) documentary style. Thinking about it, this is both the films’ biggest strength, and the main problem I had, in terms’ of the films “believability”. The actual events depicted in the film I did buy into without much trouble, however, in terms of the actual events that are recorded as part of the “Documentary” – how is it that people get to see it?

I guess what I mean is, given how damaging the documentary must be, how come it’s actually released? If the documentary film crew film Wikus accidentially becoming infected, then why is there so much difference in peoples’ opinions of what he goes on todo? Does that make any sense? How is it, that the documentary footage, showing what happened during the forced “re-location” of District 9, becomes public knowledge?

There’s also the “White Elephant” in the room, in so much as, although the film is presented as a Documentary (I don’t wanna use the phrase Mockumentary, because that brings to mind something like a Christoper Guest Film, or somethign like the office), at least half of the film isn’t a “documentary”. The parts where Wikus is back in District 9 post infection, as well as the parts where he’s on the run beforehand, aren’t part of the original documentary, and yet they’re presented as such. That was my biggest criticism of the film, and although it seems like I’m making a big deal about it, it still doesn’t make me think a lot less of the film – so far it’s a very, very strong contender for my film of the year. Like I mentioned a few paragraphs prior, in any other film, it would have been a problem, however it wasn’t in District 9 – I thought about it during the film, discarded it, and carried on watching

I was gonna go to the positives, however I’ll stick with the last negative, and it’s no fault of the film maker (at least, I presume not), it’s more of a marketing fault, and that’s the issue of Wikus’ infection and transformation (actually the latter part is a slight quirk I had with the film)

Going into the cinema this morning, I’d seen the original short, the internet teaser trailer, the full length trailer, and a couple of TV Spots over here. My gripe, is that they show Wikus’ being infected in the second trailer and the fact that he’s taken into custody, into some kind of medical research facility. The TV spots, whilst not showing the medical research facility, did show his initial infection. The reason for mentioning it, is that I really, really wish they hadn’t showed it, as it removed the element of suprise. Knowing that he gets sprayed with something that we see being produced by the Aliens, and watching people in the film say how the Alien technology won’t work with humans, is a pretty big flag that someone is gonna go on a transformation, which of course is what happens.

The other slight gripe / quirk that I had, concerns Wikus’ transformation. I’ve gotta say, I was quite suprised that Wikus’ transforms fully into an Alien, because, based on the comments from the doctors and the Miliary staff “post infection” I was under the impression that he’d be transformed into some kind of hybrid. Then again, they do mention harvesting everything from him prior to his transformation, so perhaps the signs were there, and I was too caught up in the film to afford the comments enough significance?

Anyways, those are the bad points out of the way, ’tis back to the good stuff. It says something about the briliance of District 9, in terms of the writing, the direction and perhaps vitally the acting, that, minor quibbles about the jump between Documentary and full-blown Film aside, it’s entirely believable. I had absolutely no problem accepting that,in the Universe in which the film takes place, Aliens arrived in 1982 and have been living in a small part of Johannesburg since. The actual environment of District 9, from the way in which the Aliens live, the Nigerian Gang that effectively run District 9 from the inside, hell even the love of Cat Food (I’m already smiling at the thought of going shopping, and putting Cat food in the shopping trolly ) is completely believable. The film is basically a story about Humanities treatment of those we fear / don’t understand, or want to understand. Even the name, District 9, is a reference to the events that took place in District Six, back in the 1970s (More Info). The main reason the film works, however, is down to the believability of it’s cetral “character” Wikus.

Sharlto Copleys’ performance as Wikus is as believable, and as convincing, as any of the other much applauded performances that we’ve seen this year. Sure, it’s not as chilling perhaps as Christoph Waltzs’ turn as Hans Lander in Inglorious Basterds (though it should be – more on that in a moment), but it’s just as effective and believable. As mentioned at the top, I also watched (500) Days of Summer, and so I got to see three brilliant, if understated performances, back to back, which makes a change.

The physical transformation the character goes through is plain to see, however, it’s the emotional transformation that’s perhaps more remarkable. Wikus’ ends up fighting for the Aliens, putting his life on the line in order to help Christoper retrieve the black fluid in order to fly back to the ship, re-activate it, and leave. This is the same Wikus who, when he enters District 9 to serve the eviction notices, freely on camera, calls the Aliens “Fuckig Prawns”, and lest we forget, is not only complicit in what could be interpreted as an act of Genocide (by moving the characters into District 10, he’s effectively moving them into a Concentration Camp, where we can only imagine what’ll happen to them), but who, it could also be argued, actually commits an act of Genocide on screen, when he finds the hut where baby Aliens are being grown, and not only disconnects the supplies, but also calls in the order for it to be torched. We, as an audience, should be appalled (and I’m assuming most viewers are at that point), however, at the end of the film, we’re rooting for the character. That, to me, is indicative of everything I mentioned – excellent writing, direction and acting.

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth mentioning. The very best works, be they literature, films, art, etc, etc, leave you wanting more, and occasionally at the same time, not wanting the creator to re-visit the works / world they’ve created. District 9 is a perfect example of this, in so much as it leaves you wanting so much more, but at the same time, hoping there won’t be a second film, unless the team behind it, have a desire for another film.

James Cameron had better have something spectacular up his sleeves. Ten years ago a small(ish) budget Sci-Fi flick came along and blew The Phantom Menace into insignificance. Here’s hoping, from both his point of view, and that of a fellow Geek eagerly anticipating Avatar, that the guy who prior to this was Camerons’ lead animator on Dark Angel, hasn’t gone and produced something that’s better.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence, 2009. Written & Directed by Steven Spielberg.

Contains Spoilers…

First things first – Haley Joel Osment was a bloody good actor back in the day – I know he was Oscar Nominated for The Sixth Sense, but to be honest I thought, and indeed still think, he was just as good in Pay it Forward (even though the film is bloody awful) and in terms of A.I. I honestly think it’s his best performance thus far. (Is he still acting? I noticed a broadway performance, but other than that, not all that much in the last few years.)

As for the film itself. I remember in the run up to this coming up, film critics, and die hard Spielberg / Kubrick fans were ultra hyped for this – One thing that’s burnt into my memory is reading an article on Yahoo that quoted a number of different critics, who were all theorising that A.I. might stand a chance of becoming the highest grossing film of all time (Which of course didn’t happen – $235 million isn’t bad, but it certainly aint the $1 billion+ that was being projected by some critics at the time). From my own personal point of view, this was actually the first “event film”, in that I followed the production, and really, really anticipated it’s release.

As for the film itself – Going into watch this the first time was a bit strange to say the least. The film came out, over here in the UK, on Thursday September 13th 2001, two days after the 9/11 Attacks, and there were signs up at the Box Office informing people that the film contained “Scenes of Destruction in New York”, which is kinda putting it mildly, given that the city is under-water, when David, Gigolo Joe and Teddy eventually get there.

OK, so that’s the background – Also, I guess it’s worth pointing out from the get-go, that Spielberg is hands down my favourite director, and I’m a paid up Fanboy – I’m not quite at the Dawson Leery level fo devotion, but there we go.

So then – The Acting. I’m suprised it wasn’t mentioned in the podcast, but Haley Joel Osment is pretty much perfect when it comes to David. Like I said at the start, I thought he was really good in The Sixth Sense, and more than deserving of his Oscar nomination, but when it comes to A.I. I think he’s better than his Sixth Sense performance. Having looked at the list of Nominees for Actor in a Leading Role at the Oscars, I’m not sure who I’d bump from the list, but if it were expanded to include 5 nominees, I’d definitely drop his name onto it.

Similarily with Jude Law. I’m not a massive Jude Law fan, but he’s just as good as Gigolo Joe. The rest of the supporting cast are just as good, though as a fan of Brendan Gleeson, it’d have been nicer if he’d been in the film a bit longer. Re-watching it for the Movie Club, I’d forgotten that Adrian Grenier is in the film, so that was a suprise.

Plot wise, or the elephant in the room-wise, it’s interesting how many people think there are Aliens at the end. Watching the film for the first time I remember thinking “Oh that’s cool, the Mecha look like Aliens now”, but clearly knowing they’re AI. Essentially they’re the latest in a long-long-long line of evolution / enhancements to the original generation of Mecha that pre-dates Davids’ model. It’s interesting that in such a future, the Mecha would want to go to the trouble of looking all over for David, just because he’s the last Mecha left who had direct contact with Humanity – I’m not sure why they’d want todo that, or indeed, if, realistically, they’d do that, but there we go

In terms of the film seeming like an amalgamation of three different flicks, and two different directors I agree, however, not in terms of who directed what parts. I found the following quote from Spielberg that offers his take on the whole “The Good Parts Were Kubrick, the bad Spielberg” argument:

“People pretend to think they know Stanley Kubrick, and think they know me, when most of them don’t know either of us,” Spielberg told film critic Joe Leydon in 2002. “And what’s really funny about that is, all the parts of A.I. that people assume were Stanley’s were mine. And all the parts of A.I. that people accuse me of sweetening and softening and sentimentalizing were all Stanley’s. The teddy bear was Stanley’s. The whole last 20 minutes of the movie was completely Stanley’s. The whole first 35, 40 minutes of the film – all the stuff in the house – was word for word, from Stanley’s screenplay. This was Stanley’s vision.

“Eighty percent of the critics got it all mixed up. But I could see why. Because, obviously, I’ve done a lot of movies where people have cried and have been sentimental. And I’ve been accused of sentimentalizing hard-core material. But in fact it was Stanley who did the sweetest parts of A.I., not me. I’m the guy who did the dark center of the movie, with the Flesh Fair and everything else. That’s why he wanted me to make the movie in the first place. He said, ‘This is much closer to your sensibilities than my own.’”"

I’m with Brent on this one – I think it’s a Masterpiece, albeit a flawed one. There are parts that could be removed (Chris Rock and Robin Williams spring to mind), and I definitely don’t like the “Tacked on for Stanleys’ sake” ending – Although I hadn’t looked at the ending the same way you guys had, and it definitely makes it a lot more fucked up, to be honest, I still think the film should have ended with David and Teddy stuck in the Amphibicopter, and David praying to the Blue Fairy, to make him a real boy.

There are a few other things plot-wise that I still can’t quite wrap my head around:

• Gigolo Joes’ Final line – “I Am, I Was” – I still don’t understand fully the significance of it.
• There’s a line towards the start of the film, about how David “Can never die”. And yet, at the end, he goes “to that place where dreams are born” – Either that’s one final throw-away reference to Pinochio, OR it’s supposed to signify that David has been through the transformation, to an extent, that Pinochio goes through.

I also agree that the film throws up some significant questions regarding Humanitys’ connection with Technology, and what happens when technology is abused (this and Minority Report make an interesting double-take on the issue, as shown through Spielbergs’ lense). It also raises an issue about humanity, and how we sould react to, and live with, such technology.

I have a relationship with my computer, in that it allows me to access a variety of information and resources, and connect with people I otherwise wouldn’t be able to interact with. However, it’s pretty much a one way relationship – at the end of the day it’s a non-sentient machine – If it breaks I’ll try and have it fixed, but if it’s beyond repair, then I’ll salvage the parts that can be put into a new machine, and trash the rest (much like my bleeding exercise bike – I kept the saddle, and pedals, and dumped the rest of it.)

Is David real? At the start, when he’s first interacting with Monica & Henry, then later on Martin, then no, I don’t think he is – As was said in the podcast, he’s pretty much just a very, very advanced computer, with a tonne of Artificial Intelligence built into him, packaged into the form of a child, that reacts to the environment he’s placed into.

However, once the machine is imprinted, to Monica, or whoever else, then something changes. It’s almost as if the process is akin to kick-starting a spark of life within the machine, effectively changing David from an IT to a He.

So yeah, that pretty much sums up my thoughts – In short, I think it’s a Masterpiece, albeit a flawed one, that perhaps raises more questions than it has answers for.

Inglorious Basterds, 2009 – Written & Directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Contains Spoilers…

The latest, much anticipated film from Writer / Director Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds takes us back to the early 1940s – specifically Nazi Occupied France, and tells the tale of a number of different characters, chief amongst them the titular Basterds – a group of American Jewish American special operatives, led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who are tasked with killing as many nazis as possible, Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a young Jewish woman who escapes from the nazis as a young child, and who ends up owning a cinema, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) a famous German film star with more to her than first meets the eye, and the chillingly effective “Jew Hunter” Hans Lander (Christoph Waltz) who is given the task of rounding up the remaining Jews in France.

Aside from multiple characters, Tarantino also juggles multiple stories as part of the films plot, including the Basterds attempts to rid France of as many nazis as possible, the story of Fredrick Zoller, a German war hero who is the subject of a nazi propoganda film being produced by Joseph Goebbels, and who becomes infatuated with Shosanna Dreyfus, and the story of Hans Landa, the so-called “Jew Hunter” – No wonder the film is over 2 and-a-half hours long

So what’s to like? Firstly, this is definitely a return to form for Tarantino. After Death Proof, which was a disappointment both critically, and financially, there was a lot riding on Inglorious Basterds, both in terms of how it was received by critics and fans, but also how the film performed at the box office (So far it’s returned $100m against a budget of $70m, which combined with the DVD / Blu-Ray sales, should have Harvey & Bob Weinstein breathing a bit more easily). The script, which leaked onto the internet seemingly years ago met with a generally positive response, as did the casting of the movie (with the exception, perhaps of Eli Roth and Mike Myers). However, Death Proof looked OK on paper, and it had an awesome cast, and we all remember how that turned out.

Luckily, as intimated at the start of the last paragraph, that isn’t the case here. Whilst Inglorious Basterds isn’t up there with Tarantinos’ earlier films, it’s definitely worth checking out. He’s created a number of really well rounded and developed characters, with their own motivation and “voice”, added to that a number of different plotlines, and produced a story that, for the most part works really quite well. However, there are some faults:

Eli Roth - What a Basterd

We all love a good Bromance, right? Aint nothing wrong with two guys getting all “touchy / feely”, in a non “touchy / Feely” kinda way. And it’s nice when Bros can strenghten their Bromance, by throwing each other a present every now and then. So you’re Quentin Tarantino, and you wanna offer Eli Roth a part in your latest flick. That’s fine, we’re all down with that – let the guy have a quick cameo, or a small part.

Not that of a fucking main character. Eli Roth can’t act. I’m gonna type that again, just in case anyone missed it the first time – Eli Roth, Can. Not. Act.I’m also tempted to say the guy couldn’t direct a decent film to save his life, but that’s a different matter (imo, he can’t – and A Nations Pride doesn’t count ).

Which is quite a significant problem, considering he’s playing the second most important member of the Basterds – Donnie Donowitz, aka “The Jew Bear”. Physically Roth looks the part (you can definitely notice the 30 – 40lbs worth of muscle the guy put on for the role), but unfortunately it doesn’t distract from the fact he can’t act his way out of a paperbag. It’d have been interesting to see Adam Sandler take on the role (as was originally planned), as although he’s known for being more of a comedic character, he can at least act.

The film also overruns by about 30 mins – they could have easily cut the film down, without taking anything away from the story, or indeed the quality, be giving it to a decent editor. In particular the bar scene could have easily been cut down, to speed up the running time (and they could have retained the sense of impending doom).

But back to the good points, to end on – the rest of the Basterds are good enough in their respective roles, though in all honesty, it’s only really Pitt and Roth who have anything to do, as the rest of the Bastards aren’t really anything more than glorified extras. Mélanie Laurent, who I wasn’t familiar with prior to watching the film, plays Dreyfus with just the right amount of cold-detachment, balls of steel, and determinaton.

And then there’s Christoph Waltz, as “The Jew Hunter” Hans Landa. Having reflected on the film, over the last few days, I’m starting to think that Landa might just be the best character Tarantino has written thus far, which speaks volumes, not only to the way Tarantino wrote the character, but just as importantly the way Walz plays him. He’s chillingly effective and determined, and yet at no point did he seem hammy, or his performance, over the top. Scenes that might otherwise have appeared silly in the hands of other actors (such as the interrogation scene between him and Bridget) works perfectly, because of Waltzs’ skill as an actor. I’m guessing that at the moment he’s virtually guaranteed a Best Actor nomination – it’s definitely the best supporting actor performance I’ve seen so far this year, and I think the Academy would be hard pushed to find a high enough number of better performances this year to deny him a nomination.

So yep, that’s about it. It’s a bit over the place, and I might have to watch the film again at a later date, in order to punch-up a “final” review, but in short, I’d definitely recommend this to anyone – just don’t go into it expecting an accurate re-telling of the final days of nazi occupied France